AMTRAK PIONEER ROUTE - Cheyenne

Long story short, a study to consider the reinstatement of the Pioneer was inserted into the Amtrak reauthorization bill of last year. Honestly I don't recall if it passed or not.

Frankly, Oregon's support is wishy-washy. Eastern Oregon cities simply don't have the money. Portland is too busy building streetcar lines for the rich. I'm not sure how enthusiastic Boise is about the Pioneer.

It's been discussed in five other threads here:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... er#p659446
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... er#p587353
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... er#p160732
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... eer#p60905
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... eer#p53647

Thanks for supplying the links for members to peruse!

I do not think that the Pioneer will be reinstated mostly because Union Pacific does not want an Amtrak train on that line, that was the main reason why the Pioneer was discontinued.

A fellow co-worker of mine asked a person recently about this. This person is in "the know". The resonse he was given is that there is a feasability study going on and that the rsults/decision should be out sometime this fall. Porbably around Oct. or so. Keep your ear to the ground. My understanding from a lot of people that I have talked to is that there is "great interest" in bringing this route back and that in all likely hood it may happen. That doesnt mean that it will but it is a good sign that it very well may.

SLCHUB, ask the man! You know, MS. He will know whats going on.

This is true, however, at this time, it is only speculation as to whether the train will run again. We will have to wait and see what the outcome. Until then, it is speculation.

"Great interest", and even an appropriation of funds for a "study', does not equal an inauguration of service.

The "traditional' UP is now passenger train free; the Overland Route (save the periodic 5-6 detours) is free of such Elburn to Wells; I'm sure that is how UP intends for things to stay - and they have resources to "stick' their hired K Street "guns' where necessary "on the Hill".

I have yet to learn of an argument in favor of restoring The Pioneer that has any merit; the main intermediate traffic source of Boise has been bypassed, and the arguments of "it's such a scenic ride and you can look out on our Heritage" have no foundation whatever. Allocation of public funds are for moving people - not for scenic excursions.

GN2276 wrote:I do not think that the Pioneer will be reinstated mostly because Union Pacific does not want an Amtrak train on that line

I believe UP got very upset at Amtrak when Amtrak began their big push for the M&E business - the roadrailers and boxcars and such, and UP felt Amtrak was stepping on their toes.

The connection between the Graham Line and the Steel Bridge would have to be reinstalled...some station platforms would have to be reworked/rebuilt...the speed signs still have passenger speeds listed on them so that isn't a problem. Frankly the biggest impediment is the lack of passenger traffic, and that Oregon just doesn't have excess money to support this train. Running a Pioneer is not much different than extending the Cascades to Klamath Falls...except that the Gorge line has more freight traffic than the Cascade Line does.

First Amtrak was required to study re-enstatement with one of the funding bills. Likely any rumors are based on Amtrak excersizing due diligence in conducting the study. When the study comes out we should have an idea of Amtraks intent (bury the idea, revive it, or let it hang around).

Funding will be an issue. Is the traffic from a renewed Pioneer of sufficent national need to warrent additional federal funding? If it needs state funding, well Oregon is pretty well tapped out right now and should be spending any available monies for additional Portland-Eugene trains (morning Portland departure, and evening Eugene departure after college classes let out). Idaho and eastern Oregon simply dont have the population to support a train by themselves, though the distance makes rail attractive for those who are challenged by driving. I-84 has little congestion (except for Portland and Bosie) and is generally in excellent condition to maintain the speed limits (65 OR, 70 or 75 ID).

From a national traffic pattern a Pioneer/Desert Wind from Portland/Seattle to Los Angles via Salt Lake might be attractive. It could provide an alternative to the CS. The early 1960's Official Guide times suggest it might only take a couple hours more than the CS (about 29 hours from Portland to LAX). Engine milage and costs could be reduced by moving the Portland section of the EB to run via UP Portland-Hinkle-Pasco, running the new Pioneer/Desert Wind from Hinkle to Barstow to connect with the SW Chief. A scheduling nightmare of course!

An Odgen-Denver via Wyoming segment would be faster than the CZ... but who rides western LD because its fast? Start with a northwest to LA Pioneer/Desert Wind and add an Odgen - Dallas TX via Wyoming and Denver segment. That would be a significant additon to rebuilding a national service.

karl1459 wrote:I-84 has little congestion (except for Portland...)

Specifically, I-84 mileposts 0 to 7 (roughly I-5 to I-205) are very congested. MP 7 to MP 17 (I-205 to Troutdale) is somewhat congested but not nearly as bad as west.

MP 17 to MP 378 (Snake River, Idaho Border) is a very, very empty stretch of road. Just driving from MP 16 to MP 19 you can see a huge difference as a huge chunk of traffic takes the Troutdale exit (the last exit before leaving the metro area).

Here it is in data from ODOT:

MP 0.49: 143,200 average vehicles
MP 1.43: 171,700 (this is the highest volume of any highway in Oregon)
MP 5.31: 145,200 (west of 82nd Avenue)
MP 6.75: 47,100 (this is within the I-205 interchange, for vehicles continuing on I-84)
MP 9.78: 110,300 (east of I-205)
MP 13.44: 82,600 (in Gresham)
MP 16.46: 47,000 (in Wood Village, west of Troutdale exit)
MP 17.71: 29,100 (within the Troutdale interchange, for vehicles continuing on I-84)
MP 22.4: 24,900 (Corbett)
MP 43.58: 20,000 (Cascade Locks)
MP 64.24: 28,800 (Hood River)
MP 85.27: 21,600 (The Dalles)
MP 104.86: 11,500 (Biggs, U.S. 97)
MP 146.16: 10,600 (Arlington)
MP 167.18: 16,100 (Irrigon, U.S. 730)
MP 180.05: 13,000 (east of I-82)
MP 203.34: 15,200 (Pendleton)
MP 262.34: 9,100 (La Grande)
MP 303.74: 9,600 (Baker City)
MP 376.98: 16,400 (Snake River/Idaho Border/Ontario)

Add to that, Greyhound has reduced frequencies on this route; Horizon Air has eliminated Pendleton service and no longer serves the Tri-Cities to Portland route (Tri-Cities is served to Sea-Tac) - essentially there is a lot of point-to-point Portland-Boise traffic that would not be effectively served by rail (judging from Horizon and Southwest flying the route) but hardly any significant traffic along the route. Much of the traffic on I-84 is truck traffic - in some places 50% (very high!) and much of the traffic is also "local" (i.e. Arlington to The Dalles).

I believe a two-lane road is considered "at capacity" at around 26,000 vehicles, and I-84 is four-lanes the entire way from Troutdale to Ontario. ODOT could decommission half the freeway and still have excess capacity...

Bottom line: Oregon could spend the money much better on a Portland-Salem commuter rail route and would have 100x the ridership than the Pioneer out to Boise.

As for the Seattle-Portland-Boise-Salt Lake-Las Vegas-Los Angeles route: Again, ridership is very sparse. Few would ride the route end-to-end but presumably this route wouldn't be intended for such but rather a combination of multiple segments attached together (which isn't a bad idea, there are a lot of good segments - the problem is that the distance between the ridership generators is huge - six, seven, eight hours apart - too much for "coach" but too little for "sleeper".) Essentially the only real competition is going to be Greyhound, because those people are already willing to sit in a bus for that long. And for the LD market - is the scenery there to really sell this train? Outside the Columbia Gorge (already served by the Empire Builder/Portland Section) and maybe Durkee Loop/Strawberry Hill...there isn't much to sell.

Can finally be found here:

http://crapo.senate.gov/issues/transpor ... report.pdf

Like the Sunset East report, the problem with the Pioneer restoration seems to be that getting trains to arrive and depart from the most important stations at opportune times is causing all sorts of trade-offs that diminish the overall marketability of the new Pioneer service. Amtrak should also look at what can be done to improve the running of the California Zephyr. I'm sure that the 0430 departure time from SLC eastbound is a killer for a lot of potential customers. What other improvements could be made to the CZ, in conjunction with the Pioneer?

One possible way around the need to buy 23-26 new Superliners (at about $4 mil each) might be to increase the Viewliner II order and shuffle the fleet around until new bi-level equipment is designed and built. Perhaps the Capitol Limited and/or the City of New Orleans could operate with Viewliners until a new generation of bi-level LD rolling stock is available.

If the Cascades route can achieve running times SEA<>PDX of less than 3 hours with 7-8 RTs per day, I don't think the Pioneer would need to continue on to Seattle. I think most passengers would be willing to make a reliable transfer in Portland for a quicker trip to Seattle.

Vincent wrote:
One possible way around the need to buy 23-26 new Superliners (at about $4 mil each) might be to increase the Viewliner II order and shuffle the fleet around until new bi-level equipment is designed and built. Perhaps the Capitol Limited and/or the City of New Orleans could operate with Viewliners until a new generation of bi-level LD rolling stock is available.

Please don't suggest that.

This lack of equipment excuse is getting old. What would Amtrak do if intercity passenger travel by rail were to grow from 0.1% of trips to 0.2%? They have no plan for growth. The plan for growth seem to be not to.

It's time to put in some equipment orders that are for more than just replacement of old equipment. Grow the fleet!

Order 6 new trains per year (2 long distance bilevel, 2 long distance single level and 2 corridor) for the next 4 years and then figure out where best to use them. I'd consider that a starting point to establish a manufacturing base. State initiatives could increase the orders from there.

Amtrak also needs to work to make the new trains lighter. That means more aluminum and composites to keep rail travel more energy efficient than air and auto. Both the plane makers and automakers are looking to improve efficiencies by 35%. Amtrak needs for their new trains also to be 35% more efficient.

Where has all of Amtrak's equipment gone? I thought that the LD's used to run longer trains AND some of those have been cut (ie Pioneer, Desert Wind ...).

hi55us wrote:

Vincent wrote:
One possible way around the need to buy 23-26 new Superliners (at about $4 mil each) might be to increase the Viewliner II order and shuffle the fleet around until new bi-level equipment is designed and built. Perhaps the Capitol Limited and/or the City of New Orleans could operate with Viewliners until a new generation of bi-level LD rolling stock is available.

Please don't suggest that.

Why not?

It would no doubt be less expensive to re-equip the Capitol Limited, City of New Orleans and perhaps even the Autotrain with Viewliner II sleepers and diners than to reopen Superliner production for the sake of a reinstituted Pioneer.

In any case, it's more than a little confusing to operate Superliners on just a few trains East of the Mississippi. For the sake of marketing alone, making all eastern trains single level and all western trains Superliner equipped would be an outstanding move.