Amtrak Pioneer Route

Such a thing will only be possible once the Pacific Northwest gets hsr and Utah further modernizes FrontRunner.

D.S. Lewith wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:21 pm Such a thing will only be possible once the Pacific Northwest gets hsr and Utah further modernizes FrontRunner.

Further modernize FrontRunner? How? They are using Bombardier BiLevels and Comets for passenger cars, and the newest diesel locomotives available when ordered. Shucks, they are using as modern, if not more modern rolling stock than Amtrak uses in Utah.

The Pioneer died decades ago. It is not coming back with Amtrak's present management dislike of long distance trains. All upgrades for the rail corridor the UP will demand to run this train is going to have to be financed by the states of Oregon, Idaho, and Utah. Utah would rather spend their money on FrontRunner and Salt Lake City's light rail expansion, Oregon would rather spend their money on Portland's light rail expansion, and Idaho doesn't have any money to spend on rail. I'm sorry, any resurrection of the Pioneer will be dead on arrival.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:38 pmFurther modernize FrontRunner? How? They are using Bombardier BiLevels and Comets for passenger cars, and the newest diesel locomotives available when ordered. Shucks, they are using as modern, if not more modern rolling stock than Amtrak uses in Utah.

They have their own tracks so they can one day do stuff like grade-separate it and even electrify it. Plus, Stadler has a factory over there and so they can use the same EMUs that Caltrain will be using if they ever plan on electrifying (plus it'd give them a bit of pride). Right now, the first priority is double-tracking the entire route.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:38 pmUtah would rather spend their money on FrontRunner and Salt Lake City's light rail expansion, Oregon would rather spend their money on Portland's light rail expansion,

Funny since you questioned how Utah would further modernize FrontRunner on that same post.

D.S. Lewith wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:05 pm They have their own tracks so they can one day do stuff like grade-separate it and even electrify it. Plus, Stadler has a factory over there and so they can use the same EMUs that Caltrain will be using if they ever plan on electrifying (plus it'd give them a bit of pride). Right now, the first priority is double-tracking the entire route.

Funny since you questioned how Utah would further modernize FrontRunner on that same post.

What good will grade separating FrontRunner tracks do when the UP tracks 25 feet away aren't?

Utah can spend money on FrontRunner lowering headways, double tracking, or otherwise making the service better without modernizing it. They can also spend more money making the light rail trains better. There is a difference between improving and modernizing, they do not mean the same thing.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:07 pm Wanna connect Idaho with anywhere? Sandpoint-Spokane if you want, but definitely SLC-Pocatello-Idaho Falls with connecting Yellowstone bus. Book it, done.

Problem is , its hard to visit Yellowstone without a car. At least it was when i was there is the 90's. Its the only place in the States I rented a car, albeit a ugly duckling. apart from everything been set up for driving , you were not allowed to camp unless you had a car as a refuge because of the bears.
So it would need to have a lot of local tour / transportation connections to work.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:19 pmWhat good will grade separating FrontRunner tracks do when the UP tracks 25 feet away aren't?

Denver grade-separates their RTD heavy rail lines for the most part.
Anyways, should we also try to grade separate UPRR's tracks with it?

Utah can spend money on FrontRunner lowering headways, double tracking, or otherwise making the service better without modernizing it. They can also spend more money making the light rail trains better. There is a difference between improving and modernizing, they do not mean the same thing.
[/quote]

Some parts that do need double-tracking might also need grade separation and even outright rebuilding due to space constraints (https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/ ... e.html?m=1)

David Benton wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:29 am

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:07 pm Wanna connect Idaho with anywhere? Sandpoint-Spokane if you want, but definitely SLC-Pocatello-Idaho Falls with connecting Yellowstone bus. Book it, done.

Problem is , its hard to visit Yellowstone without a car. At least it was when i was there is the 90's. Its the only place in the States I rented a car, albeit a ugly duckling. apart from everything been set up for driving , you were not allowed to camp unless you had a car as a refuge because of the bears.
So it would need to have a lot of local tour / transportation connections to work.

UPRR did have trains that go to Yellowstone http://wx4.org/to/foam/big_rr/up/victor/victor.html

Also, I would much go with a Spokan-Coeur d'Alene service though that should be done as part of a brand new railway between Spokane and at least Butte.

How about the"Desert Pioneer" a LAUS to Las Vegas,Salt lake City,Ogden,Boise,then Portland or Seattle run with connections
at Salt lake City to the CZ.
While both routes are "branches" of the UP''s Overland Transconn,sweeten the pot with Amtrak running on UTA's ACSES equiped
Frontrunner trackage thru the Salt Lake Metro area.
And possibly add Pocatello ID as a destination/launch point to various National Parks in that area.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:38 am While both routes are "branches" of the UP''s Overland Transconn, sweeten the pot with Amtrak running on UTA's ACSES equiped Frontrunner trackage thru the Salt Lake Metro area.

Something similar was done in DFW area with Amtrak switching over to TRE tracks away from UP tracks. The only problem is that Amtrak demanded TRE get better insurance at TRE's expense.
TexRail provided the funds for the better insurance so UP would grant access rights to UP owned corridors for TexRail and its future expansion near downtown Fort Worth.
Frontrunner does not need more access rights from UP owned rail corridors because they bought what they needed from UP already. Therefore, why pay higher insurance premiums so Amtrak can access their tracks instead of UP's? Amtrak always ask for this, so please do not suggest they will not demand it.

UP has rights to use frontrunner trackage,when UTA is not running service.
There's plenty of congestion on UP trackage in the Salt Lake Metro area,shared with Utah RR(local switching service,with UTA's Traxx
Freight rights south from SLC to Sandy) Trains at Ogden off the "Overland route" are sent south to head west on the old SP,old WP,or old UP
(LA&SL)routes west to the coast.
The old DRGW ROW was land banked,but trackage was pulled up,so freight headed east goes north to Ogden or south via Provo on the old DRGW
to Denver.
UTA Front runner offers a clear shot thru all the freight between Provo-Salt Lake City-Ogden.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:10 pm UP has rights to use frontrunner trackage,when UTA is not running service.
There's plenty of congestion on UP trackage in the Salt Lake Metro area,shared with Utah RR(local switching service,with UTA's Traxx
Freight rights south from SLC to Sandy) Trains at Ogden off the "Overland route" are sent south to head west on the old SP,old WP,or old UP
(LA&SL)routes west to the coast.
The old DRGW ROW was land banked,but trackage was pulled up,so freight headed east goes north to Ogden or south via Provo on the old DRGW
to Denver.
UTA Front runner offers a clear shot thru all the freight between Provo-Salt Lake City-Ogden.

Yes, they do. But you missed my point, UTA is not going to want to pay the higher, more expensive insurance premiums Amtrak will demand the have for Amtrak using any UTA tracks. Existing freight railroads and Amtrak basically have no fault agreements between them as one of the conditions upon starting Amtrak back in the early 1970s, but that agreement is not in play with new Amtrak services on new use track owners. Amtrak always asks for higher insurance coverage from its new track hosts. If you do not believe me, check out the experiences of SunRail, TexRail, and Sounder.

Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:27 pm
If Idaho wants a train, they'd be much better off running a day train Spokane Airport-Cour D'Alene-Sandpoint on the BNSF.

Small problem: No railroad to Coeur d'Alene (and it is Coeur, not Cour.....Coeur is French for "heart", and Coeur d'Alene is "heart of an awl"). No longer any railroad into the downtown area. And, Coeur d'Alene - when it did have a railroad - was always at the end of a branch line, never on a main line, much less the ex-NP/current BNSF line from Spokane to Sandpoint.

vermontanan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:28 amSmall problem: No railroad to Coeur d'Alene (and it is Coeur, not Cour.....Coeur is French for "heart", and Coeur d'Alene is "heart of an awl"). No longer any railroad into the downtown area. And, Coeur d'Alene - when it did have a railroad - was always at the end of a branch line, never on a main line, much less the ex-NP/current BNSF line from Spokane to Sandpoint.

Also, is there demand for a commuter train over that particular route? Spokane doesn’t strike me as a city with a particular lack of cars or a parking problem; if we’re concerned about emissions a hybrid/CNG/electric bus on I-90 and US 2 would be a reasonable solution.

—————

It’s clear that Idaho would be the main beneficiary of a new Pioneer unless it was added as a fully-separate second CHI-SLC train. That’s fine, sometimes a train benefits one state in an outsize way while still benefiting other states and passengers, but it’s something that PRIIA should consider in route planning. It’s not clear to me that there is the political will to run passenger service through the populated belt south of the mountains, and it’s impossible to run north-south service. (Why Idaho isn’t two separate states, I don’t know, because it appears that south and north share little culturally except for mountains and potatoes )

How about USDOT offers a grant for Utah and Idaho to start a pilot bus service with multiple daily turns SLC-Pocatello? See if it becomes popular, see whether it has political and economic legs, then after some years see if there’s enough of a market for train service.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:17 am How about USDOT offers a grant for Utah and Idaho to start a pilot bus service with multiple daily turns SLC-Pocatello? See if it becomes popular, see whether it has political and economic legs, then after some years see if there’s enough of a market for train service.

I did not realize there is a lack of privately ran intercity bus services in the USA. Why should government step in to provide a service private enterprise is already doing? As you state, the cost to provide a bus service is so much lower than a train service. So low, if there are enough passengers it is almost impossible to believe it can not earn a profit. Or in other words, if an intercity bus can not earn a profit there are not enough passengers. Greyhound serves Boise.
The information you wanted to know, if there are enough passengers to support a train, is already known. There is no need for a temporary Amtrak bus to gather that information.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:38 am How about the"Desert Pioneer" a LAUS to Las Vegas,Salt lake City,Ogden,Boise,then Portland or Seattle run with connections
at Salt lake City to the CZ.
While both routes are "branches" of the UP''s Overland Transconn,sweeten the pot with Amtrak running on UTA's ACSES equiped
Frontrunner trackage thru the Salt Lake Metro area.
And possibly add Pocatello ID as a destination/launch point to various National Parks in that area.

That's 1,500 miles across one of the most empty parts of the Continental US. I really don't see a train like that picking up much ridership.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:38 am How about the"Desert Pioneer" a LAUS to Las Vegas,Salt lake City,Ogden,Boise,then Portland or Seattle run with connections at Salt lake City to the CZ.

That was the "West Coast" UP's idea of competing with the SP. As I recall, that one was "Taps" during the '50's.