3 ms·

I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a re

I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a regular train?

jcranmer 7y ago
Probably. If you look at the sensitivity of passenger traffic to travel time, the graph is roughly a logistic curve with the inflection point around the 3 hour mark. On a 40-hour trip, the number of people you'd add to the train by cutting out 4 hours of stops is probably on the order of 10-100 people per trip. If those stations collectively serve more than that number of people, then you're losing people by cutting those stops.
objectivetruth 7y ago
If nobody is boarding or getting off at a non-staffed station, I think Amtrak skips it. Since Amtrak has to exclusively use private cargo rail lines, none of which support high-speed rail, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation.
rtkwe 7y ago
It's a question of demand really and maybe driven by a chicken and egg problem. Trains are slow and expensive so people prefer to fly leading to a lack of demand to support both a slow every stop train and an express point to point train. Also I imagine prices would increase on an express train compared to current trains because it will be picking up less passengers from those intermediate stations. It's tough to setup a lot of different trains because tracks are afaik one per direction in most locations and lines so you're very harshly limited on the scheduling side of things.
ken 7y ago
I don't know about this route in particular, but Amtrak generally runs on freight lines. It's quite possible that the time lost to stopping to pick up a couple passengers is dwarfed by the time spent sitting on a siding waiting for freight trains to pass (I've spent many hours of my life here).

3 ms·

I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a re

by briffle 7y ago

I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a regular train?

jcranmer 7y ago
Probably. If you look at the sensitivity of passenger traffic to travel time, the graph is roughly a logistic curve with the inflection point around the 3 hour mark. On a 40-hour trip, the number of people you'd add to the train by cutting out 4 hours of stops is probably on the order of 10-100 people per trip. If those stations collectively serve more than that number of people, then you're losing people by cutting those stops.
objectivetruth 7y ago
If nobody is boarding or getting off at a non-staffed station, I think Amtrak skips it. Since Amtrak has to exclusively use private cargo rail lines, none of which support high-speed rail, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation.
rtkwe 7y ago
It's a question of demand really and maybe driven by a chicken and egg problem. Trains are slow and expensive so people prefer to fly leading to a lack of demand to support both a slow every stop train and an express point to point train. Also I imagine prices would increase on an express train compared to current trains because it will be picking up less passengers from those intermediate stations. It's tough to setup a lot of different trains because tracks are afaik one per direction in most locations and lines so you're very harshly limited on the scheduling side of things.
ken 7y ago
I don't know about this route in particular, but Amtrak generally runs on freight lines. It's quite possible that the time lost to stopping to pick up a couple passengers is dwarfed by the time spent sitting on a siding waiting for freight trains to pass (I've spent many hours of my life here).