Green Maned Lion
Engineer
In PA they have a posted limit of 70, a legal limit of 76, and an unofficial tolerance of 80-85. And sometimes snow, too.
South Dakota Passenger Rail
- Thread starter dlagrua
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
That's just on the Turnpike. All the 2-lane roads have a 55 mph limit max (and a good thing, too, given the curves and hills and cross traffic that you can't see until the last minute.) And I-70 from the Maryland line to Breezewood is 55 mph, for some obscure reason, it doesn't seem to be any different from any other interstate in PA.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
thats not true
Initial points:
1. I'm brand new here.
2. As far as I can tell I'm the only poster on this particular thread who is from South Dakota.
3. I personally haven't ridden on Amtrak in 40 years, the last trip being from Fargo - that's about 4 1/2 hours north of here - to Seattle and back.
4. Why a 40 year hiatus? Passenger service in South Dakota ended some 55 years ago AND Amtrak is 4 1/2 hours north of here.
I appreciate the early posters' suggestions about the positive aspects of bringing passenger rail in South Dakota. It's a long ways to anyplace, from anyplace, out here. Business people spend hours on the road between Mitchell, Rapid City, Pierre, Aberdeen, Huron, Watertown, Brookings, Sioux Falls, Vermillion, and Yankton. Just to name the bigger - relatively speaking - cities in the state. Even at 80 mph interstate speed - and a number of the aforementioned places are not on the interstate - the windshield time is a colossal waste of resources. Air service is darn near non-existent in places other than Sioux Falls and Rapid City.
I have no answer to the initial posters suggestion/question. But I do believe that intercity, if not interstate, passenger rail would be a godsend. Granted, given our sparse population, much of the year there wouldn't be large numbers of people filling a commuter train, but a Budd car would probably fill up without any trouble.
Considering it's snowing again, the wind is coming up, and the temperature is about +10 with a low tonight near 0, intercity travel without worrying about icy roads, oncoming traffic, and the ability to sit and read or work a laptop would be outstanding!
1. I'm brand new here.
2. As far as I can tell I'm the only poster on this particular thread who is from South Dakota.
3. I personally haven't ridden on Amtrak in 40 years, the last trip being from Fargo - that's about 4 1/2 hours north of here - to Seattle and back.
4. Why a 40 year hiatus? Passenger service in South Dakota ended some 55 years ago AND Amtrak is 4 1/2 hours north of here.
I appreciate the early posters' suggestions about the positive aspects of bringing passenger rail in South Dakota. It's a long ways to anyplace, from anyplace, out here. Business people spend hours on the road between Mitchell, Rapid City, Pierre, Aberdeen, Huron, Watertown, Brookings, Sioux Falls, Vermillion, and Yankton. Just to name the bigger - relatively speaking - cities in the state. Even at 80 mph interstate speed - and a number of the aforementioned places are not on the interstate - the windshield time is a colossal waste of resources. Air service is darn near non-existent in places other than Sioux Falls and Rapid City.
I have no answer to the initial posters suggestion/question. But I do believe that intercity, if not interstate, passenger rail would be a godsend. Granted, given our sparse population, much of the year there wouldn't be large numbers of people filling a commuter train, but a Budd car would probably fill up without any trouble.
Considering it's snowing again, the wind is coming up, and the temperature is about +10 with a low tonight near 0, intercity travel without worrying about icy roads, oncoming traffic, and the ability to sit and read or work a laptop would be outstanding!
Welcome to AU!
Always nice to see new member's.....
While it would be nice to have passenger service in South Dakota, and many other places, as well...unfortunately, .the reality is that it is not very likely to happen, in a long time to come, as there just aren't the numbers to justify it, and SD is no longer on a through transcontinental route, since the demise of the Milwaukee Road.....
You can legally do 75 on some rural roads where I live in Texas. Amazing.But those 2 lane roads up in the Hi-line area have 70 mph speed limits!Kind of like Texas with snow. I once rode the EB to havre, rented a car, and then drove to Great Falls and Yellowstone.Drove 70 mph on the 2 lane highway to Great Falls, except when I had some blowing snow.
In West Texas, somewhat like South Dakota in its remoteness( we do have the Sunset Ltd. 3 times a week between San Antonio and LA)you can drive 85mph, and also on a Toll Road here in Austin the Speed limit is 80!!
As for South Dakota, your politicians will have to fund any kind of rail service, which doesn't seem likely based on who you have in office and the small population.
Welcome to AU however and consider a trip on the California Zephyr between Chicago and the Bay Area since you've been on the Builder!
As for South Dakota, your politicians will have to fund any kind of rail service, which doesn't seem likely based on who you have in office and the small population.
Welcome to AU however and consider a trip on the California Zephyr between Chicago and the Bay Area since you've been on the Builder!
As one who has spent time in South Dakota (going there again in May) I saw firsthand the effects of the closing of the Milwaukee Road Mainline that ran from near Sioux Falls across the state to Rapid City. As you may know the route went West parallel to Rt 90 to Kadoka then continued around the badlands through Interior and Scenic to Rapid City. The closing of this line devastated farms, mines and small towns along its route. Farmers and Ranchers lost a way to get their produce to market and towns became ghost towns. Until Rt 90 was built there was little in the way of transportation. The good news is that with the states help, the Dakota Southern RR is working its way West on that old mainline bringing new hope to the grain and seed industries. The track refurbishment is nearly halfway across the state at Presho. They hope to be as far as Murdo this year and eventually to Kadoka where the tracks now end.. I see great hope for another railroad across the southern portion of the state, an agricultural resurgence there, but I believe passenger rail is still far off. IMO, the only cities that could support passenger rail are Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Pierre. We would love to hop on an Amtrak train in Chicago and head West to Rapid City/the Black Hills but until the demand for passenger service returns it will be a long wait. The Milwaukee Road Sioux train stopped service in the 1950's. Many stations along the old main line still remain, and some have been re-purposed; a sad reminder of lost passenger trains in your state.
I believe the last passenger service that the Milwaukee ran across South Dakota was on the former route of their Olympian Hiawatha to the Pacific, which ran across the northern part of the state.
The last passenger service on that line was a stub from Minneapolis to Aberdeen, up until April of 1969.....
The last passenger service on that line was a stub from Minneapolis to Aberdeen, up until April of 1969.....
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Rapid City was the terminal (i.e. the last) station on a MILW and CNW branch line. The ex-CNW Line still exists operated by DME. The MILW line has been abandoned. Beyond Rapid City there was a Fremont Elkton and Missouri Valley (FEMV) line to a mine north of Belle Fourche, This is the line one sees running along I-90 west of Rapid City today. It still operates under the short line DME (Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern) , The other line west was a Rapid City, Black Hills and Western Railway twisty turny line to M&B Junction, where it met a north-south running CBQ branch line. All of that is abandoned. So effectively there is no "main line" that went west of Rapid City. Only local lines.
The only other line from Rapid City is to the South, the ex FEMV currently DME Line to Chardonne, Nebraska.
As railner correctly points out above, the MILW Main Line ran across the North of the state, through Bristol, Aberdeen and Mobridge.
Strongly recommend that all interested take the trouble to crack open the Dakotas and Minnesota volume of the SPV Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America.
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
This sounds about right to me. Unfortunately we can't even get Iowa -- whose governments are much more supportive of passenger rail than South Dakota -- to support passenger service to Iowa City, which is a hop, skip, and jump from the end of the Moline line.
Sioux Falls - Sioux City - Omaha - Kansas City is a plausible line, but the political support appears to be beyond nonexistent and well into total hostility. If we can't even get Cleveland - Columbus due to anti-rail forces (and we can't), there's just no chance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Missouri is supportive of a KC to Omaha train via St Joseph, as it's in their state rail plan. Nebraska isn't against the idea, but there's no leadership on the ground to push the idea. The only weird part is a good chunk of the routing would be in Iowa, who has zero interest in this route (only stop in Iowa would be Sioux City) and definitely wouldn't be willing to fund it. I have no idea what SD thinks about it.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
South Dakota does not connect the two concepts "passenger" and "rail" together in any of their transportation planning. All their rail planning and funding is about freight.
South Dakota has a comprehensive state rail plan in two volumes. The word "passenger" does not appear even once in the two volumes. The word "transit" appears only in the context of transit in cities and towns and seemingly refers to road based transport, basically to provide the context within which their "multi-modal" transport plan operates wherein rail has not much to do with carrying passengers..
South Dakota has a comprehensive state rail plan in two volumes. The word "passenger" does not appear even once in the two volumes. The word "transit" appears only in the context of transit in cities and towns and seemingly refers to road based transport, basically to provide the context within which their "multi-modal" transport plan operates wherein rail has not much to do with carrying passengers..
railgeekteen
Service Attendant
A pipe dream I have is Chicago-Minneapolis-Pierre-Rapid City-Cheyenne-Ogden-Salt Lake City-Emeryville train. Would restore service to both of the 48 contiguous states without Amtrak.
All the Thousands of people in South Dakota and Wyoming definitely deserve to have Passenger Rail IF they Pay for it!
This.
Philly Amtrak Fan
Engineer
This comes back to my old argument. If South Dakota and Wyoming want rail service they are expected to pay for it. But North Dakota and Montana get free service. Is that fair? The real fair thing would be all states would get federally funded rail service but we don't have the equipment for it. Plus there are other areas in the country that also don't have rail service as well.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Historical facts and continuation of things that already existed is relevant in this discussion.
For example the fact that you have US citizenship whereas someone born in Nigeria does not has more to do with the historical accident that you were born in the US than anything to do with fairness, being more deserving or any other such.
The Empire Builder is there because it was part of the original system that has survived, more than anything else. There is nothing in South Dakota because there was nothing there when Amtrak was created. Which makes it one step further removed than those places that lost service at the creation of Amtrak. Nothing to do with fairness or otherwise. All historical accidents.
For example the fact that you have US citizenship whereas someone born in Nigeria does not has more to do with the historical accident that you were born in the US than anything to do with fairness, being more deserving or any other such.
Last edited by a moderator:
ParanoidAndroid
OBS Chief
Life isn't always fair.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2019
- Messages
- 4
First . I want to say I like this idea of bringing passenger rail service to South Dakota. I have seen several plans to bring passenger rail back to South Dakota, and there are some huge benefits. There are some hurdles that need to be addressed before any of this can happen. The big one, being money.
The majority of the rails are in horrible condition, in some cases unsafe. Most of the rail will need to be ripped out and the road bed rebuilt. A conservative estimate would be around $1,000,000 per mile. The rails west of Pierre are the worst. Mainly because the underlying soil is like gumbo. Other places are not as bad, however they still need to be rebuilt before any passenger service can be put in to operation. Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Started the process around Huron area. There is still a long way to go
Once the rails are upgraded, freight companies will be able to move more product, faster, safer and more efficiently. Unless we have a oil boom, the return on their investment doesn’t really just justify the cost of the upgrades. Passenger service really isn’t a great money maker, it is at best a loss leader.
If we can get over the money issue, I can see some great benefits for South Dakota.
1. Several years ago the wheel tax and gas tax was increased to help pay for highway repairs. The road are getting fixed. It make sense for the state to protect the investment that is being made on the roads by moving as much of the traffic as possible off the pavement to the rails. Making the highway last a bit longer.
2. This is South Dakota, and it snows, a lot and the wind blows, a lot. There are seasoned citizens living in rural areas who won’t drive to Denver, Omaha, Sioux Falls or any other city in the winter because the roads can be just down right nasty. Often missing medical appointments. Having rail service would go a long way get these people to the places they need to be.
3. South Dakota has some of the poorest counties in the nation. Not surprising and all these counties are on the Indian reservations One of the things the reservations is missing is access. In some case the only way in or out is a two lane highway, that can easily be blocked by snow and snow drifts. Having access to passenger service and less than a car load freight service could go a long way in helping these reservations.
4. There are number of events in South Dakota that parking is a issue. Like the State Fair Having special train to service to these events would help ease the parking hassle and be safer overall.
There are a number of other benefits that I haven’t listed.
Getting this done isn’t going to be just a single company, It is going to take the cooperative effort of all the companies, State of South Dakota and surrounding states, the Federal government and all the communities. They are going to have to be sold on the idea. It is not going to be easy.
Is the effort worth it?
The majority of the rails are in horrible condition, in some cases unsafe. Most of the rail will need to be ripped out and the road bed rebuilt. A conservative estimate would be around $1,000,000 per mile. The rails west of Pierre are the worst. Mainly because the underlying soil is like gumbo. Other places are not as bad, however they still need to be rebuilt before any passenger service can be put in to operation. Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Started the process around Huron area. There is still a long way to go
Once the rails are upgraded, freight companies will be able to move more product, faster, safer and more efficiently. Unless we have a oil boom, the return on their investment doesn’t really just justify the cost of the upgrades. Passenger service really isn’t a great money maker, it is at best a loss leader.
If we can get over the money issue, I can see some great benefits for South Dakota.
1. Several years ago the wheel tax and gas tax was increased to help pay for highway repairs. The road are getting fixed. It make sense for the state to protect the investment that is being made on the roads by moving as much of the traffic as possible off the pavement to the rails. Making the highway last a bit longer.
2. This is South Dakota, and it snows, a lot and the wind blows, a lot. There are seasoned citizens living in rural areas who won’t drive to Denver, Omaha, Sioux Falls or any other city in the winter because the roads can be just down right nasty. Often missing medical appointments. Having rail service would go a long way get these people to the places they need to be.
3. South Dakota has some of the poorest counties in the nation. Not surprising and all these counties are on the Indian reservations One of the things the reservations is missing is access. In some case the only way in or out is a two lane highway, that can easily be blocked by snow and snow drifts. Having access to passenger service and less than a car load freight service could go a long way in helping these reservations.
4. There are number of events in South Dakota that parking is a issue. Like the State Fair Having special train to service to these events would help ease the parking hassle and be safer overall.
There are a number of other benefits that I haven’t listed.
Getting this done isn’t going to be just a single company, It is going to take the cooperative effort of all the companies, State of South Dakota and surrounding states, the Federal government and all the communities. They are going to have to be sold on the idea. It is not going to be easy.
Is the effort worth it?
You just described every State in the US that currently has Amtrak Service as well as other Rail!
As you said,Money is the Key ingredient, where is it coming from??
As you said,Money is the Key ingredient, where is it coming from??
Anthony V
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 292
I believe South Dakota's best hope for restoring passenger rail service would be a train running from Omaha to Sioux Falls via Sioux City, timed to connect with the California Zephyr. However, I don't see this happening anytime soon because the states of Iowa and South Dakota would have to subsidize it due to PRIIA 2008. South Dakota has never shown an interest in subsidizing passenger rail. Back in the 1990's when federal money to help bring rail service to states lacking Amtrak service at the time was given to those states (the same source of funds used by Oklahoma to set up the Heartland Flyer, and Maine to set up the Downeaster), South Dakota used that money for highway projects instead.
neroden
Engineer
In the spirit of promoting basic economic principles of railroading, I will say that any service to South Dakota should start with service to Sioux Falls, the largest city -- and frankly the only one worthy of service at all. All the other cities in SD are smaller than Ithaca, NY, so give us service first. 
Agreed that Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls would make sense, and it's pretty much the only route which does.
Agreed that Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls would make sense, and it's pretty much the only route which does.
Last edited by a moderator:
dogbert617
OBS Chief
Let's face it.... Road is King in that part of the country. No one gives two hoots about passenger rail.
I fear that likely may be the case, for SD. And since for the western part of the state, the tracks would have to be restored between Kadoka-Rapid City, to even get freight service restarted to this area, let alone a slimmer chance of passenger rail service. At least DME is trying to improve the existing tracks east of Kadoka, so maybe someday freight will return west of there if the tracks are rebuilt west of Kadoka?
Does make me wonder on a side note, if the tracks are still in place east of Aberdeen, SD? Since train service between there and either St. Paul or Minneapolis (probably the former makes more sense, as it'd directly connect to Amtrak, although at least both places have light rail), would help people up there a lot. Maybe it'd also help in say, like Mankato or Willmar? I forget which of those 2 cities(or both?), the old Milwaukee Road train that served Aberdeen went through on the way to Twin Cities.
In the spirit of promoting basic economic principles of railroading, I will say that any service to South Dakota should start with service to Sioux Falls, the largest city -- and frankly the only one worthy of service at all. All the other cities in SD are smaller than Ithaca, NY, so give us service first.
Agreed that Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls would make sense, and it's pretty much the only route which does.
Of course on a side note, it'd be great if other train routes were considered as well. I.e. Quad Cities-Iowa City-Desert Moines-Omaha, with possible stops in the middle on the way (Cedar Falls, Waterloo? forget all the IA cities and towns that'd be in the middle of such a route). And as much as I love the idea of an Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls train, it'd be a long shot to see occur, as all 3 states more than likely would have to unanimously agree on such a train being funded(as I suspect it'd fall under the threshold of 700-750 miles, requiring state support), and entering Amtrak service.
Not sure if that'd ever occur with probably I worry a lot of anti-rail politicians in these states, but you never know.
Likely Willmar, although neither appears to be on the true "direct" route (there's a couple of cutoffs/crossings to get to Benson from Aberdeen.) I think it's all still technically serviceable/in use, but not 100% sure on that. The route would be a pretty weak one overall, though, both from the Minnesota side and the South Dakota side.
It seems very unlikely that a cross-South Dakota train will come to fruition anytime soon, even with a very friendly legislative environment. What's more likely is that some sort of Twin Cities - Sioux Falls - Sioux City - Omaha - etc. train would start up. I could see some sort of Denver - Rapid City train getting traction, though the lack of a good current route makes it pretty unlikely even in the medium-to-long term. Still, I see that as more likely than a cross-state train, simply because there's more population to pull from on either of those routings.
