Northern Lights Express

[StandishGuy]

Would it be possible to extend the Northstar service from St. Cloud to Brainerd? It's a relatively large region that continues to grow. In particular, I imagine folks taking the train during the summer and meeting up with family or friends that drove avoiding the weekend traffic congestion. IMO it seems more logical than the route all the way to Winnipeg, which is really far away (450+ miles).

[thespeedmccool]

Would it be possible to extend the Northstar service from St. Cloud to Brainerd? It's a relatively large region that continues to grow. In particular, I imagine folks taking the train during the summer and meeting up with family or friends that drove avoiding the weekend traffic congestion. IMO it seems more logical than the route all the way to Winnipeg, which is really far away (450+ miles).

It's possible, but would be a little awkward. Unless we're willing to spend to rehab an abandoned corridor from Little Falls to Brained, such an extension would require going a little out of the way and passing through Staples. To stop in Staples, such a route would require pulling into and backing out of the existing station.

Let's start with an extension to St. Cloud, then Little Falls, then talk about how to reach the Brainerd Lakes area.

[Silophant]

I would think there would be more trains running daily to Fargo versus Winnipeg

True - I was thinking of the Cascades, which are called that regardless of whether a specific train runs to Vancouver or only Seattle, but it could certainly be a different service name for the Winnipeg route. When and if the new long-distance equipment order makes more long-haul routes possible, it would probably be reasonable to have the Winnipeg route be a National route run from Chicago rather than being just part of an MSP-centered regional network.

[VacantLuxuries]

Would it be possible to extend the Northstar service from St. Cloud to Brainerd? It's a relatively large region that continues to grow. In particular, I imagine folks taking the train during the summer and meeting up with family or friends that drove avoiding the weekend traffic congestion. IMO it seems more logical than the route all the way to Winnipeg, which is really far away (450+ miles).

It's a sample size of one, but I would absolutely visit the Brainerd Lakes area more often if I could go by train.

[Bakken2016]

Northern Lights Express has local funding in both the House and Senate passed transportation bills. It seems the amounts will be reconciled in the conference committee.

[thespeedmccool]

Northern Lights Express has local funding in both the House and Senate passed transportation bills. It seems the amounts will be reconciled in the conference committee.

Any idea what accounts for the difference? Are there competing cost estimates, or is one body looking to pay for some bonus features or something?

[Silophant]

As far as I'm aware, the most recent cost estimate (several years old) is approximately $98M for the state's share. The Senate bill included $50M and the House bill included $194M. It's not clear to me what the House intends the extra money to be used for - certainly construction costs have gone up, but I can't imagine that they've more than doubled. Similarly, I don't know what happens to the project if it only gets half-funded as the Senate bill would do. Maybe it's intentional so that they can brag about a hard-bargained compromise that happens to be exactly what the estimated cost was in the first place?

[Tiller]

It would be nice if they kept the $194M - there are certainly plenty of ways that could be used to improve the service!

[Korh]

Bit of a fantasy question but if you had to choose one option where most of the extra money would improve, would you choose:
A) Faster Trains
B) More frequent service
C) Better stations

[Tom H.]

Bit of a fantasy question but if you had to choose one option where most of the extra money would improve, would you choose:
A) Faster Trains
B) More frequent service
C) Better stations

For the first true city-pair intercity rail in the state, I'd choose A. The most frequent criticism I hear lobbed at it is that "isn't faster than driving", so removing that talking point would probably be the most cost-effective use of extra dollars from a "get new riders riding" perspective.

[daveybabymsp]

Bit of a fantasy question but if you had to choose one option where most of the extra money would improve, would you choose:
A) Faster Trains
B) More frequent service
C) Better stations

If we make the trains faster, more people will take it and the trains will fill up. Then there will be public support to increase service too!

[Silophant]

Yeah, getting at least a portion of the track upgraded to allow 110mph operation would probably be more effective at driving additional ridership than the actual running time reduction would suggest. People are more motivated by the perception of speed than actual travel time.

I'm wondering if some of the extra money would be intended for whatever track upgrades (double-tracking on the last leg of the Minneapolis Junction wye?) would be necessary to extend NLX to SPUD? I saw a rumor on Twitter somewhere that Amtrak is hoping to interline the Great River trip with one of the NLX trips, which makes sense since NLX doesn't include a heavy maintenance facility. Better to use a revenue trip to get equipment to Chicago for maintenance than deadheading it for four hundred miles.

[twincitizen]

So the new Great River route could eventually be Duluth to Chicago, by way of stops at Target Field Station and SPUD? And that would effectively replace one trip of the NLX (in each direction)? Or is it more likely that one trip would skip Target Field Station and head directly to SPUD?

While not ideal from the perspective of simplicity, I don't think it would be that confusing if one daily trip leaving Duluth goes to St. Paul (to Chicago) instead of to Minneapolis like the NLX trips. In the southbound direction, the worst outcome is that you board a train in Duluth thinking it's going to Target Field and you wind up in St. Paul and need to get on the Green Line. Whereas in the northbound direction if you're trying to travel from the TC metro to Duluth...you have to make sure you're in the right city for that one odd trip per day.

EDIT: If they do extend the Great River route to Duluth, the maddening typo on the Ticket to Ride board game becomes at least slightly forgivable. (for those not familiar, the game features "Duluth" as one of the station cities, but the location of the dot on the map is more like St. Paul, if not Hastings)

[DanPatchToget]

Bit of a fantasy question but if you had to choose one option where most of the extra money would improve, would you choose:
A) Faster Trains
B) More frequent service
C) Better stations

My vote goes to more frequent service. While people complain about the travel time being the same as a car, people also complain about not being able to go whenever they want like if they had a car. Obviously the frequency wouldn't be LRT/BRT levels, but extra trips will make it more flexible with people's schedules.

[Tiller]

Faster Trains can also help us get higher frequency service and is definitely important for the PR. But also, how effectively does the current plan utilize the trainsets they're planning to buy?

If the travel time in one direction is like 2.5 hours, then a single trainset could only provide 2 round trips if it was over an 11-12 hour span of service.

[MNdible]

Remember that diesel trains running mostly empty is expensive and bad for the environment. This isn't like increasing bus frequency on a Metro Transit route, where higher frequencies will easily unlock significant increases in ridership.

[Didier]

Remember a 2.5-hour train ride probably requires at least an extra half hour of travel time for most people to get to the station etc. It seems like the real engine to make this work would be commuters going a stop or two, as opposed to tourists going to Grandma’s (no pun intended) on weekends, no?

[Tiller]

The corridor is 152 miles from Minneapolis to Duluth, so if we could only put in enough 110mph or even some 125mph track, it would be closer to 1.5 hours than 2.5 hours.

[Silophant]

So the new Great River route could eventually be Duluth to Chicago, by way of stops at Target Field Station and SPUD? And that would effectively replace one trip of the NLX (in each direction)? Or is it more likely that one trip would skip Target Field Station and head directly to SPUD?

While not ideal from the perspective of simplicity, I don't think it would be that confusing if one daily trip leaving Duluth goes to St. Paul (to Chicago) instead of to Minneapolis like the NLX trips. In the southbound direction, the worst outcome is that you board a train in Duluth thinking it's going to Target Field and you wind up in St. Paul and need to get on the Green Line. Whereas in the northbound direction if you're trying to travel from the TC metro to Duluth...you have to make sure you're in the right city for that one odd trip per day.

EDIT: If they do extend the Great River route to Duluth, the maddening typo on the Ticket to Ride board game becomes at least slightly forgivable. (for those not familiar, the game features "Duluth" as one of the station cities, but the location of the dot on the map is more like St. Paul, if not Hastings)

I'd guess it'd be like the Lincoln Service River Runner, where they glued together one run of the Chicago-St. Louis Lincoln Service and one run of the St. Louis-Kansas City River Runner into one awkwardly named unit. My hope (selfishly, since I live and plan to keep living much closer to Target Field than to SPUD) is that it would hit both SPUD and TFS - both trains are intended to be push-pull capable, so it wouldn't need a turnaround movement, the operator just would need to change ends at TFS. It would require traveling that 1.5 miles between TFS and the Minneapolis wye twice, but that doesn't seem insurmountable?

[DanPatchToget]

So the new Great River route could eventually be Duluth to Chicago, by way of stops at Target Field Station and SPUD? And that would effectively replace one trip of the NLX (in each direction)? Or is it more likely that one trip would skip Target Field Station and head directly to SPUD?

While not ideal from the perspective of simplicity, I don't think it would be that confusing if one daily trip leaving Duluth goes to St. Paul (to Chicago) instead of to Minneapolis like the NLX trips. In the southbound direction, the worst outcome is that you board a train in Duluth thinking it's going to Target Field and you wind up in St. Paul and need to get on the Green Line. Whereas in the northbound direction if you're trying to travel from the TC metro to Duluth...you have to make sure you're in the right city for that one odd trip per day.

EDIT: If they do extend the Great River route to Duluth, the maddening typo on the Ticket to Ride board game becomes at least slightly forgivable. (for those not familiar, the game features "Duluth" as one of the station cities, but the location of the dot on the map is more like St. Paul, if not Hastings)

I'd guess it'd be like the Lincoln Service River Runner, where they glued together one run of the Chicago-St. Louis Lincoln Service and one run of the St. Louis-Kansas City River Runner into one awkwardly named unit. My hope (selfishly, since I live and plan to keep living much closer to Target Field than to SPUD) is that it would hit both SPUD and TFS - both trains are intended to be push-pull capable, so it wouldn't need a turnaround movement, the operator just would need to change ends at TFS. It would require traveling that 1.5 miles between TFS and the Minneapolis wye twice, but that doesn't seem insurmountable?

Anyone know an example or have experience with a regional or intercity route changing ends before reaching its terminus? I believe the Ventura County Line of Los Angeles Metrolink does this at its westernmost point.