quote:In a related subject, the Feb. issue of TRAINS had a short discussion of a proposed 2-night, stand-alone reinstatement of the Pioneer from Denver to Seattle. The proposal would have the Pioneer use redeployed, single-level equipment, with the possibility of a full-service diner. The 2 night journey could stop in Boulder and Fort Collins, then on to Cheyenne, Salt Lake City, Ogden, and on to Idaho and Seattle. I think the chances of this happening are slim, but the idea of 2-night train with limited stops is kind of intriguing.
In essence, other than a routing via Ogden in place of Montpelier, to bring back the Portland Rose is what the group is proposing. The WB Rose left Denver about 6PM and Cheyenne about 830. It then operated, handling much head-end to every station along the Overland Route to Granger where it diverged on to the Oregon Short Line. This group would have their Rose continue to Roy (just to the East of Ogden) then head South to Salt Lake arriving there 8AM or so. Train then would be wyed and continue on the former route of The Pioneer to Seattle. Boise would be served early afternoon, and the Blue Mountains would be X'd by light of day in both directions. Arrival in Portland would be 7AM and Seattle 12N.
That's two days out, volks. That's the Eagle/Sunset - minus its numerous and growing on-line population centers.
I guess there are a few potential "mini-Corridors" such as Cheyenne-Denver following the traditional "one a day" pattern of "little town to big town in the morning then back to little town in the evening". I guess, it would add an additional frequency SL-Ogden adding to the existing Frontrunner service. But pity someone traveling from, say, Cheyenne to Ogden; guess what; we throw in an excursion to Salt Lake first.
The advocacy group talks of leisurely travel and offering sightseeing tours for passengers connecting with the Zephyr at Denver. That's great if the operator is American Orient Express (whoops, didn't something happen there?); not so great if we are addressing Federally funded service.
So I think two guesses with the first not counting will show what I think of any such proposal, but others likely hold differing views. Let the discussion begin.
amtrak92 Member # 14343
posted
I agree, single level train in the west, that is a nice thought to me. It will probably be superliners I think.
RR4me Member # 6052
posted
Although as important to the planners and funders as "spit in the ocean" is to rising sea levels, I would ride this at least once a year, round trip from SLC to Boise (if I read this right).
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
???
What's this about Denver?
Trains 17-18 ran from Kansas City - Portland, by way of Denver!
I have the PTT and ETT to back that up
I'd have to check and see how 17-18 served the Salt Valley.
Of course, there is the small matter of developing coach yards and a Commissary in Denver. The last time I passed through Denver Union Station on 5/6, there was one Amtrak track, one Ski train track, and one PV parking track. That does not support a holding area for a turning LD.
amtrak92 Member # 14343
posted
Not to mention Denver Union is now a stub terminal
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Walk before you run on this route is in order, I believe. Just split the Pioneer off the CZ in SLC and head for Oregon, as was done at some point in the past.
Aside from that, there certainly is merit in trying to revive Front Range service via the C&S route through the booming towns of Boulder and Ft. Collins. Figuring out how to avoid the street running in the towns and non stop coal trains should be interesting. Life was much simpler in my college days there - one local passenger train and a couple freights.
As to the Portland Rose, would love to see it reborn. It would make it much easier to see my wife's relatives on the K&P in western Kanssa and it was used by my family during WWII to get from the east to Hanford, WA. I last saw it in 1968 in Cheyenne when it still had a Buffet-lounge car and 6-6-4 sleeper Denver to Portland (coaches only east of Denver).
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by amtrak92: Not to mention Denver Union is now a stub terminal
That's not exactly a problem (and has been for quite some time anyway). The CZ backs into the station; the trackwork and signalling from the south means this potential train can do the same thing in the same place. Coming from the north the arrival would be the same as the CZ from the west.
The statement that it only has two tracks can't be a problem for a station that serves a maximum of four trains a day. I know of single track stations at the end of a 20+ mile single track branchlines with no passing facilities that can service half a dozen long haul trains a day - that includes cleaning, restocking, rebranding, etc.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by palmland: ...there certainly is merit in trying to revive Front Range service via the C&S route through the booming towns of Boulder and Ft. Collins. Figuring out how to avoid the street running in the towns and non stop coal trains should be interesting. Life was much simpler in my college days there - one local passenger train and a couple freights.
Off topic, but Mr. Palmland's posting reminds me of a circa 1958 photo in TRAINS of a C&S 2-8-2 operating through Boulder. The photo was captioned "When My Mikado Walks Down the Street".
quote:Originally posted by amtrak92: Not to mention Denver Union is now a stub terminal
Seems like there are still two platforms in place at Denver with three tracks in place.....the one nearest the station having been lifted for a transit bus lane. Passengers access the trains via a tunnel and ramps up to the platform.
HOWEVER - the Amtrak station is about to move to a temporary facility across a road and near the throat of the Denver Union Station lead track area WHILE the area surrounding DUS undergoes a massive urban redevelopment project. I've not been able to find the latest version but we may even see air rights development over the platform area.
Regardless, Amtrak is going be kind of orphaned in Denver for at least a couple of years I'm afraid.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
Off topic, but Mr. Palmland's posting reminds me of a circa 1958 photo in TRAINS of a C&S 2-8-2 operating through Boulder. The photo was captioned "When My Mikado Walks Down the Street".
GBN, they don't make them like they used to, but not likely that we'll see the song on American Idol.
I remember the photo in Trains. Same situation in Ft. Collins. After 'studying' with my new fiancee at 'CB's bar/restaurant we often saw C&S No. 29 from Denver to Billings, MT around 11pm making it's journey down Mason St. Usually it had one of CB&Q's classy, silver E units with a few baggage/mail and one coach. Of course I didn't ride it nor take any pictures as 'it would always be around'. The next year it was gone as was service from Denver south to Dallas. Sigh.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
At the NMRA Convention in Milwaukee this summer, one of the tours I will be on is to Kalmbach. I'll ask them about a good search engine for their archives. My dog eared annual indexes are often illegible and certainly incomplete.
But, sounds like a good rainy (or snowy) day project to sit down and reread those issues.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Bingo - found it.
Page 34 Sep 1958 TRAINS
Mikado 2-8-2 806 at Fort Collins CO
But back on topic, it sure sounds like this "Cascadia" advocacy group has visions of a Federally funded excursion train. I'm sure all here who review my material know what I think of the following quote taken from the group's material:
Under the Amtrak legislation in force since 1970, the nation's passenger railroad has a right to operate on the tracks of private railroads. It needs to exercise that right at its discretion rather than the discretion of private railroads
All told, the provision under PRIIA '08 (Division B RSIA '08) that a study be made has been fulfilled. The consultants have had chow at taxpayer expense. Amtrak has no particular desire to run this service in view of that they have a legislative majority and by and large they get what want out of the Feddytrough without this route. UP sure "don't want 'em around' - the "traditional' UP (Overland Route, OSL, and LA&SL) is passenger train free - and I think it safe to presume that Omaha intends to keep it that way. On-line communities of course support it, but who is about to ask them to pony up beyond getting the High School band down to the depot to welcome the new train to town?
This pretty much seems a "case closed" to me.
wayne72145 Member # 4503
posted
Key to any successful passenger rail operation is on time performance and frequency. Key to on time performance is working with host railroads and making investments in infrastructure at choke points. Why should UP, CSX, BNSF...etc spend Billions$$ on improvements just to make Amtrak run on time? I believe Amtrak would be better served by helping with current infrastructure problems than by opening new routes.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Thanks for checking it out, GBN. Naturally I have August and Oct '58 issues, but not Sept.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: This pretty much seems a "case closed" to me.
Far from it. If you study the report carefully you will see that the capacity improvements it suggests are quite minimal for the Overland route - and those suggestions are eminently reasonable and sensible. The projected cost is under 25% of the entire Denver-Portland (via WY) cost. What railroad, in their right mind, would turn down paid-for improvements which, at the cost of running 1 extra train per day in each direction, enables them to run a half dozen extra in addition - for free?
The biggest portion of costs is actually in the Columbia River Gorge where the terrain both limits the flexibility and raises the costs of capacity enhancements.
In any case, we're looking at least 4 years into the future here. The long lead time is the procurement of train vehicles.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Mayo, IF there was some kind of 'deal maker/breaker' hanging on resumption of this service, such as there was during 1977 when it was inaugurated (Sen. Church "wanted it"), be assured Amtrak would be moving heaven and earth to restore it. But obviously that is not the case.
Difficult as it is within an on-line community in which many have a hobby of riding trains (me too; to some extent) to accept, Amtrak's future growth is Locally funded Corridors, and not expansion of the Federally funded LD system. Maybe some day the rules of the game will change in Wonderland where each appropriation request is measured solely upon its merits, and the Adios drumheads will go up - as they should have on A-Day, if not before.
Finally, I do respect your acknowledgement that new equipment would have to be acquired in order to inaugurate any new LD service. The idea this "Cascadia' group holds of assigning single-level equipment (as if there is some great surplus of that on hand) overlooks that there is no maintenance facility currently handling such in Seattle. Therefore, in order for any periodic maintenance to be done, the equipment would either have to be deadheaded to Chicago or staff would have to be hired and trained at Seattle and additional inventory of spare parts would have to be maintained.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
Mr. Norman, if your opinion of Amtrak was correct, how can Amtrak possibly justify spending on long distance studies? If I were a shareholder or part of a committee approving funding for such surveys for an organisation that has little money to play with, I'd want to be absolutely certain that something would come out of the survey. Simply appropriating $$$ to a survey that has no intention of ever being fulfilled is complete bonkers and heads should be rolling for it.
So, either Amtrak are throwing money away and your guess is correct, or there are some solid plans for expansion of long distance routes - albeit several years in the future due to the equipment shortage.
Regarding maintenance in Seattle, perhaps you aren't aware of the contract that Amtrak intends to place this Spring for such a maintenance facility for LD and regional trains in Seattle?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: Mr. Norman, if your opinion of Amtrak was correct, how can Amtrak possibly justify spending on long distance studies?
Enacted legislation is how, Mr. Mayo.
But that a study has been made hardly represents 1) the concept is feasible, and 2) the parties (UP and Amtrak) that will be charged with executing the proposal are enthusiastic about doing so.
In this instance, I believe both of the parameters set forth are the case.
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: If I were a shareholder or part of a committee approving funding for such surveys for an organisation that has little money to play with, I'd want to be absolutely certain that something would come out of the survey. Simply appropriating $$$ to a survey that has no intention of ever being fulfilled is complete bonkers and heads should be rolling for it.
Wholly agree; but obviously those folk "we over here" send to "Wonderland by the Potomac" (or yours to Wonderland by the Thames?) don't.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Enacted legislation is how, Mr. Mayo.
That still does not give any indication whatsoever of what will actually happen, though I appreciate you accept that "case closed" is your opinion rather than a statement of fact.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
218+51+1.
Right now, this Congress can agree on only the most trivial of enactments. Their attention is far, far from including funds in the US DOT Appropriation for Amtrak to fund the Portland Rose redux.
BTW: Backing down on Union Station Denver, or backing out of same, is something that's been going on for more than a little while. As a 10 year old in 1967, I remember the City of St Louis passing through Denver ... and the lounge attendants cautioned us to stay in our seats; there was a backing move about to happen. Sadly, I cannot remember if that was for arrival or departure.
Given the current political situation, Mr Norman is far closer to the mark on this. I hear no clamoring by the Congressional delegations of CO, WY, UT, ID, and WA for service. I think this is a pipe dream.
jlcks Member # 7282
posted
Portland Rose could be tied to a National Limited in KC going east. That would give an alternate coast to coast that does not go thru Chicago or New Orleans, not that there is anything wrong with either one. Coupled with a North South Twinstar Rocket you would have the ability to connect with all east and west bound LD trains in the west with out going thru Chicago. Although congress is who are the folks that would make Amtrak run the service, the business folks and tourism industries in those states would be the real place to start with getting support. They have better access to congress critters than the average person.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Circa 1962 or when I first had occasion to go to Denver, all UP trains backed into to the station, on the Q, anything interchanged to D&RGW Moffatt Tunnel route , namely the California Zephyr, also backed in, yet trains such as the Denver Zephyr, with interchange cars to Colorado Springs ran head in. Rock Island ran head in; so did Santa Fe arriving from the south.
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)