by superbad
The new train will add Milwaukee Mitchel Airport and Sturdivant both of which are very brief stops.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
electricron wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 2:03 pmWhat does how many rest stops I take have to do with how many station stops the train makes? I'll make two rest stops which will be much longer than the station stops are. It's end to end realistic travel time and train schedule which determines whether I want to put up with the hassles of driving or not, not how many station stops the train makes.WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:07 am Except if I'm driving 6 hours that's two rest stops. (one for a meal) so now I'm at 6 hours 45 minutes if I don't run into any slowdowns due to traffic and construction, not to mention I'm close to 70 and am going to be completely blown out by the time I reach my destination, so yeah, I'd take the train.And the train running between Chicago and St.Paul will make many more stops (8 per its schedule)
Per the Empire Builder schedule - timetable
3:05p Chicago, IL Union Station (CHI) (CT) 0
1) 3:29p Glenview, IL (GLN) (Metra) 17
2) 4:35p | 4:45p Milwaukee, WI Downtown (MKE) 85
3) 5:55p Columbus, WI (CBS) (Madison) 15
4) 6:42p Wisconsin Dells, WI (WDL) 195
5) 7:20p Tomah, WI (TOH) 240
6) 8:04p La Crosse, WI * Amtrak Station (LSE) 281
7) 8:34p | 8:40p Winona, MN (WIN) 308
8) 9:42p Red Wing, MN (RDW) 371
10:56p | 11:13p St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN*Union Depot (MSP) 410
If you are driving on I-94 with no traffic signals along the way between Chicago and St/ Paul, are you going to make as many as 8 stops for rest breaks and/or refueling breaks?
electricron wrote:The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist.Or people travelling into Chicago for a week who don't need a car there and don't want to pay to park, or who don't want to have to drive into a busy city, or who can't sit for three or four hours at a stretch without their hips/legs/whatever hurting, or who were brought up and taught in driver's ed that it was dangerous to drive six hours with just one stop, or who have poor vision, or who would rather take an extra hour or two but be able to work or doze or watch movies or read books or play cards. All those people are on the trains, too.
electricron wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 2:43 pm Amtrak travels 410 miles and takes almost 8 hours to travel Chicago to St. Paul, averaging slightly over 51 mph.I grabbed this quote because it’s true. The passengers I see on Amtrak don’t care about carbon footprints. They care about getting from A—>B safely, they don’t consider a bus safe, and they often don’t have a car.
Those reporting around 6 hours to drive that far are averaging slightly over 68 mph.
Trains need to compete with automobiles if they seek to gain market share, and higher passenger numbers. Going over 15 mph slower on average is a loosing proposition. The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist.
—-
We need trains that "must" get passengers to their destinations faster than driving. Flying is another matter altogether. High speed trains can compete with planes up to around 3 to 4 hours elapse times, not what we have here with an elapse time at 8 hours. We just do not need more too slow trains in the USA.
—-
The era when trains were the fastest surface transportation option for travelers died with multi0lane paved roads. When automobiles started averaging faster than 50 mph between city pairs, trains started loosing market share. If you really want more passengers on inter city trains, we "must" make them faster than driving. Every dollar spent on slow trains is one less dollar available for fast trains.
WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:19 am "The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist." That quote is not not only false but it is insulting, John.That's entirely a misquote. Here is the entire quote, with the cavat proceeding that quote putting it into context.
Now if we want to get into the days of being speedy on the rails, get out your May-October 1961 Q System Timetable, and note the 6hr 50min Chi to Mpls for #21 Morning Zephyr. (oh darn, they allowed the return #24 Afternoon Zephyr 6hr 55min). Now, if THAT isn't enough, #21 made a SAME DAY turn for #24, as well as allowing #24 station time at St Paul to add about five cars from the GN Western Star. I'm sure at times on the tangent segments of the Oregon Aurora line "uh geez, guess we were going a bit over 79, gotta fix that Speedo".Mr. Norman, This morning I pull out my June 1941 Official Guide (a reprint I must say) and at that time your Milwaukee Road made the journey in 8 hours. I also pulled out my April 1967 guide for a quick comparison.