"Heritage" Stations Available for Amtrak Use

It appears that the long-delayed redevelopment of the Springfield (Mass.) Union Station is about to get off the ground:http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/ ... _rede.html. Amtrak will ultimately be able to vacate the Amshack at track level, and move into a proper and historic facility.

That leads me to wonder what other "heritage" stations (in locations that already have passenger service, but not currently used by Amtrak) might reasonably be available for carrier to use in place of an Amshack or a platform shelter. Some stations, like the ruined landmarks in Detroit and Buffalo, are almost certainly too far gone to ever host trains again. Likewise, with its passenger service infrastructure almost entirely gone, and the property converted to other uses, St. Louis Union Station cannot be considered reasonably available. Ditto for Tacoma Union Station.

But what about the former B&O station in Wheeling, W. Va.? Or the former IC depot in Carbondale, Ill.? Or the former DRGW station in Grand Jct., Colo.? Might these historic buildings return to active passenger rail use?

In recent years, a number of once-disused stations have been restored to the active roster. Sometimes (thought not always), the stations have served as centerpieces of local redevelopment. They almost always provide a superior entry portal for Amtrak in comparison with an Amshack, and may be a factor in increased ridership on some routes. Where can Amtrak reasonably uprgrade from a polebarn or a bus shelter to a real station?

I posted the same article when it first came out. ANd frankly, at this point, I'll beleive they will move when they actually start work. They have been publishing the same story, with new names every couple of years. Its becoming a local joke. And its very unfortunate.

Station Aficionado wrote:Sometimes (thought not always), the stations have served as centerpieces of local redevelopment. They almost always provide a superior entry portal for Amtrak in comparison with an Amshack, and may be a factor in increased ridership on some routes. Where can Amtrak reasonably uprgrade from a polebarn or a bus shelter to a real station?

You really need multiple daily trains and substantial annual ridership figures of thousands to justify a manned station. If you have a couple thousand passengers per year, it doesn't justify a manned station, with a ticket agent, let alone a baggage handler in addition to a ticket agent. You need ridership in the tens of thousands, ideally in the hundreds of thousand.

As far as old station building and locations, all too often these buildings were in the wrong places with almost no parking.

Personally, I'd rather see a new, modern station with adequate located under an elevated Interstate, than a sad, misguided attempt to resurrect a mausoleum. Compare the new station in St. Louis with the ongoing financial woes in Kansas City - well at least until yesterday, when it was announced that the old Kansas City Union Station might stop hemorrhaging money in 2011 because of new tenants.

Cadet57 wrote:I posted the same article when it first came out. ANd frankly, at this point, I'll beleive they will move when they actually start work. They have been publishing the same story, with new names every couple of years. Its becoming a local joke. And its very unfortunate.

There was a lovely report published in 2008 with some really grandiose plans. It reminds me of similar, unrealized plans in Schenectady, NY.

Granted, Springfield does have significant ridership, and a lot of potential for expanded service, but it looks as if very little was done over the years to stabilize the old station facility, although it does look like the building was secured from vandals at least. That's something.

Still you have to consider the fiscal realities and how modern travelers use a train station. Sure it would be nice to have the old main waiting room open for passengers going to Chicago, but the reality is that there aren't enough to justify it. At best, this station should be dedicated to regional and commuter passengers, who don't require elaborate facilities.

I'm not suggesting that the platforms in Springfield, MA shouldn't be improved. Maybe they should start by actually maintaining the platforms. Maybe they should have funded roof repairs to the old station over the years, spending a few hundred thousand, instead of waiting for the big politically lucrative renovation that never seems to come. You can just bet that the $65.7 million renovation proposed in 2008 will cost well over $100 million if it ever comes to pass.

I think of St. Louis Union Station, the "Grand Central of the Gateway City". The 1978 Amshack that replaced it lasted to 2004, followed by another building and then the new intermodal terminal today. But the new intermodal terminal probably would be the best replacement so far and is the most practical.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

Station Aficionado wrote:As far as old station building and locations, all too often these buildings were in the wrong places with almost no parking.

Personally, I'd rather see a new, modern station with adequate located under an elevated Interstate, than a sad, misguided attempt to resurrect a mausoleum. Compare the new station in St. Louis with the ongoing financial woes in Kansas City - well at least until yesterday, when it was announced that the old Kansas City Union Station might stop hemorrhaging money in 2011 because of new tenants.

"Wrong" place? In what way? Especially given that replacement stations are usually built in essentially the same place (e.g., St. Louis).

As for manned stations, that's a different issue entirely. Many older stations already used by Amtrak don't have agents (I suspect they'd have more business if they did). Quik Trak machines will do in a pinch. The station can house a lot of different tenants--restaurant, libraries, chambers of commerce, etc.--while still providing an inviting place to wait for a train.

And, although I had smaller to medium-sized cities in mind with this post, I'll note that, as an example, the restoration of one-time "mausoleum" Washington Union Station has worked out pretty well (even though naysayers that it was an indulgence in nostalgia).

Springfield, Mass is a tough situation when it comes to location. It more or less has to be close to the diamond in order to
properly serve the routes that either exist now or soon will exist (at least we hope soon). The present location is ideal for
this purpose. I think the old station would warrant the money and work needed as long as they can line up some business
support. It wouldn't be too bad a location for a restaurant and maybe some other small business in addition to a railroad
station.
Any other location would make it difficult to properly serve all of the routes that go through there and connections would not
work as well either. While a fairly short back up move would probably be OK and for many, many years that was the move
with a good number of New Haven and Boston & Maine trains at Springfield, long back up moves would probably not be
tolerated by CSX and would cost a lot of time as well.
We have discussed Buffalo many times and my opinion has not changed, it is simply not a practical facility for Amtrak to
use, way more than they need, poor location, poor neighborhood, lack of parking and cost of operation and maybe more
reasons as well.
I agree that it doesn't make much sense to have a big beautiful station for one train a day in each direction. In cases where
there are other connections (commuter etc) yes, otherwise no.
Noel Weaver

Well, the St. Paul Union Depot is supposed to be reopened in 2012 - it is in an excellent location as compared to many large depots, and far better located than the current Midway depot. Likewise, service to Duluth would go to its Union Depot (as it did with the Arrowhead and the Northstar), and it looks like Des Moines wants to reuse its Rock Island depot downtown. Chicago is already using its heritage depots for Amtrak and other service, Detroit's depot is in terrible condition and in a poor place (though I wish they'd kept Fort Street downtown), and same for Buffalo.

It appears that the long-delayed redevelopment of the Springfield (Mass.) Union Station is about to get off the ground:http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/ ... _rede.html. Amtrak will ultimately be able to vacate the Amshack at track level, and move into a proper and historic facility.

Aw hell. It looks like they plan to tear down the adjacent baggage building which means Tower 96 will bite the dust For a moment I was hoping that it could be turned into a museum like Cincinnati's Tower A. Looks like I am going to have to find some way to get up there to take some more pictures as Tower 96 is as far as I know the only surviving B&A interlocking tower. Hopefully the funding will get cut to fully preserve the station complex instead of just its facade.

Mr Norman and I were just in St Louis for the University of Missouri (GO TIGERS!) and University of Illinois football game.

There are two live stub tracks left. These, along with two tracks that are in "museum" use, are outside the major train shed. They almost look like they were commissary or Post Office tracks. Looking at googlemaps, the turning radius into these tracks looks pretty tight. I cannot tell you if the trainsheds can clear Superliner cars. The space under the trainshed has been redeveloped.

I'd say St Louis Union Station is going to remain a Marriott Hotel for the forseeable future, and not be a part of Amtrak.

Station Aficionado wrote:Some stations, like the ruined landmarks in Detroit and Buffalo, are almost certainly too far gone to ever host trains again.

Don't be too sure of that.

Take a look at Worcester (MA) Union Station "before":

http://www.vistadome.com/wus/old09.jpg

The page with before/after pictures:

http://www.vistadome.com/wus/index.html

Nothing is impossible.

djlong wrote:

Station Aficionado wrote:Some stations, like the ruined landmarks in Detroit and Buffalo, are almost certainly too far gone to ever host trains again.

Don't be too sure of that.

Take a look at Worcester (MA) Union Station "before":

http://www.vistadome.com/wus/old09.jpg

The page with before/after pictures:

http://www.vistadome.com/wus/index.html

Nothing is impossible.

that really was a great job and an example for the rest of the system, however I feel it would have been a waste if the station was only seeing two trains a day(448/449) the fact that the boston commuter rail runs out of it justifies the renovation. This is what I believe it holding back stations such as buffalo and detriot in addition to the poor locations that have been mentioned on this forum.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Here is a site to help stimulate discussion at this topic:

http://www.trainweb.org/rshs/great_rail ... ations.htm

A couple of locations jump out at me from the list at the site you reference, Mr. Norman. The first is the WM station at Cumberland, MD. Amtrak currently uses a small Amshack on the CSX mainline near the site of the former B&O station and hotel. The former WM depot, a few blocks away (to the west, if memory serves) has been nicely restored, and is home to the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad steam trains. I've thought before that moving Amtrak to the WM depot might be a doable proposition (assuming that WM station can accomodate the CL's superliners, something I can't comment on, and that Amtrak's presence would not disrupt operations of the WMSR). Amtrak would then have access to a station that is both larger and more user-friendly and (IIRC) has a lot more parking. And CSX would no longer have to deal with a stopped passenger train on its busy mainline through the city twice a day. I think there is a connection between CSX and the WMSR south (east) of the WM station, and the connecting track would likely need an upgrade. The big obstacle is that, unless I am mistaken, there is not a connection between CSX and WMSR north (west) of the WM station. I wonder how difficult it would be to build a connection?

The other is South Bend Union Station. The CL and LSL already pass Union Station on their way to the wretched little building where Amtrak (but not South Shore) stops near the airport. The Union Station is currently used by some business, but I don't know whether there would still be space for a waiting room. I seem to remember that there was a previous proposal to move Amtrak to Union Station, but NS objected, but reason why escapes me at the moment.