Empire Builder flood disruptions

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Several posts talk about the "Surrey Cutoff" by-passing the flooded areas in east-central North Dakota. The name "Surrey Cutoff" comes from the town of Surrey, ND just east of Minot. The rails split at Surrey. From an eastbound perspective, one goes east to Devils Lake and to Grand Forks, the other goes southeast to Fargo. Click on the link to see a North Dakota rail map. The green (BNSF) line turning southeast just east of Minot and going almost straight to Fargo, is the "Surrey Cutoff." The Cutoff is obviously shorter and straighter than going through Devils Lake, Grand Forks, and south to Fargo. I got on Google Earth and followed the cutoff; it makes a beeline to Fargo.

http://www.business....es/201/rail.jpg
Just to add a little bit of historical perspective, the original transcontinental rail line built by the Great Northern (known as the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway at the time) is the route through Grand Forks and Devils Lake. As time went on, however, there came to be an increased desire to shorten the transcontinental line and provide a more direct routing between Fargo and Minot. Of undoubtedly just as much concern was that, up until the cutoff was built, the Soo Line had the competitive edge in central North Dakota with their main line running through the region. Given the intense rivarly that existed between the Soo Line and the Hill Lines (the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific) during the first part of the twentieth century, allowing the Soo free range over any portion of the state was seen by the Hill Lines as being completely unacceptable. In other places of the state, the Great Northern literally built a competing line next to Soo tracks just to ensure the Soo could not gain any advantage.

Construction of the new main line from Fargo to Minot began in 1910 and ended in 1912. With the railroad essentially the be all and end all of transportation and economic vitality in North Dakota back then, the construction was widely covered by the region's media. The line was soon nicknamed the "Surrey Cutoff," perhaps recognizing how Surrey, which had been founded in 1900, stood to experience an enormous boom simply by being at the junction of two important main lines.

Ultimately, the Surrey Cutoff was the last major railroad construction project undertaken in North Dakota. Additionally, while many new towns were incorporated along the tracks in the hope that some of them would greatly prosper, none of them really did. They were just too late to the game and unable to significantly compete with the older, more established towns along the Soo's line to the south. Even to this day, there is no highway paralleling the Surrey Cutoff and connecting the towns with one another. Being isolated in this way, nearly all of the them, now more or less a century old, sit quiet, slowly becoming ghost towns. The biggest exception is New Rockford, which, having been reached by a Northern Pacific branch line in 1883 and incorporated as a county seat at the same time, was already an established and vibrant town before the Surrey Cutoff came in.

Another thing to note, when trains today take the Surrey Cutoff, they take a slightly different route than the original one envisioned by the Great Northern. This is due mostly to routing changes brought upon by the merger of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific into the Burlington Northern in 1970. Starting at the Amtrak station in Fargo, the distance to the station in Minot by way of today's Surrey Cutoff is 236 miles, compared to the 278 miles listed in the Amtrak timetable by way of Devils Lake. I have highlighted the contemporary Surrey Cutoff with a thick dark green line on the state rail map below. The line proceeding directly northwest out of Fargo is the traditional route of the Surrey Cutoff and, while Amtrak could easily use this line, they probably would not, as there would be nearly 40 miles of non-signaled track, allowing a speed of no more than 59 mph, to contend with. Furthermore, the traditional Surrey Cutoff is only about 4 miles shorter than today's route. That said, if Amtrak were to completely follow today's Surrey Cutoff, there would be about 2.5 miles of 10 mph track on the west side of Fargo to operate over.

railsurreycutoff.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the history lesson! I've often wondered how that line got there and ended up serving relatively few towns. If I remember correctly from sleepy-eyed stops in Fargo, the Amtrak depot is on the ex-GN while the majority of freights follow the double-track ex-NP. Is there a way to connect back to the ex-NP route west of the depot, or will the re-route require a reverse move for the Fargo stop?

Mark
 
Thanks for the history lesson! I've often wondered how that line got there and ended up serving relatively few towns. If I remember correctly from sleepy-eyed stops in Fargo, the Amtrak depot is on the ex-GN while the majority of freights follow the double-track ex-NP. Is there a way to connect back to the ex-NP route west of the depot, or will the re-route require a reverse move for the Fargo stop?

Mark
Yes, there's been a connecting track in place west of the depots in Fargo ever since the days of the GN and NP. After the Burlington Northern merger, a new one was built, farther to the west than the previous one, and can be seen heading from the northern (ex-GN) line to the southern (ex-NP) line on this map at Google. Ever since this new connector was built, the primary user has been coal trains that come from Montana and head north to Grand Forks in order to reach their final destination in northeastern Minnesota. The one problem is that these are the 2.5 miles of 10 mph track I mentioned in my previous post, though perhaps a higher passenger speed limit could be implemented if the Empire Builder began permanently using the tracks.

You're right about the Amtrak depot in Fargo being of GN origin, but, on a minor note, what Amtrak uses was originally the express freight depot. The larger and much more elegant passenger depot sits next door nicely refurbished, but empty, after having housed several failed dining establishments. I have heard talk in the past of potentially moving Amtrak back into this depot, but there are no concrete plans in place to make that a reality. Just a little bit to the south is the former NP depot, still standing and currently a senior center.
 
Amtrak should have their lawyers draw up some kind of "Trip Termination Waiver of Liability" or something. Basically says that by getting off the train you agree to not hold Amtrak liable for anything that happens to you starting the second your foot hits the ground, and (maybe) you waive any any claim to a refund or voucher of any type (perhaps refund your fare from the next station to your final destination or something). Keep a couple on the train, and if people want to set out on their own, Amtrak can wash their hands of you and send you on your way.
I work in an emergency room and we have a form just like this. Its called AMA, Against Medical Advice. You sign this form and you are free to leave regardless of your condition but by signing you waive any rights you gained by becoming a patient and you release the hospital of all liabilities.

Amtrak could and should make that option available. You may be able to see the station from where you stopped but if you exit and fall, get hit by a train, or get injured in anyway, etc. its your won fault and not Amtrak's once you sign
 
Amtrak should have their lawyers draw up some kind of "Trip Termination Waiver of Liability" or something. Basically says that by getting off the train you agree to not hold Amtrak liable for anything that happens to you starting the second your foot hits the ground, and (maybe) you waive any any claim to a refund or voucher of any type (perhaps refund your fare from the next station to your final destination or something). Keep a couple on the train, and if people want to set out on their own, Amtrak can wash their hands of you and send you on your way.
I work in an emergency room and we have a form just like this. Its called AMA, Against Medical Advice. You sign this form and you are free to leave regardless of your condition but by signing you waive any rights you gained by becoming a patient and you release the hospital of all liabilities.

Amtrak could and should make that option available. You may be able to see the station from where you stopped but if you exit and fall, get hit by a train, or get injured in anyway, etc. its your won fault and not Amtrak's once you sign

The more I look at this idea, the better I like it. I hope to never be in that kind of situation, but if it ever came up, it could (and as stated, should) be a viable option.
 
First, I fail to see why anyone feels entitled to just get off the train when they want. You wouldn't open the door on an airplane to get off during a hold situation at the airport. You contracted with Amtrak to go from point A to point B. Until you reach point B or Amtrak says "events beyond our control prevent us from getting you to point B" you obey the rules.

Second, a waiver wouldn't work. It's not just Amtrak that you have to be thinking about. Yes, a waiver would release Amtrak from liability. But now you're walking down the ROW, tresspassing on some freight RR's property. If you fall and get hurt, or get hit, that waiver doesn't apply to the freight company. Unless you plan to print up waivers for every freight company too. And of course you'd need the freight Co's to sign off on the idea.

Or someone sees a road across some field. Well now they're tresspassing on some farmer's private property. And again, if the passenger falls and gets hurt, they can sue that farmer.

So NO, I'm sorry, you brought a ticket to go A to B, you remain on the train until such time as either you reach B or the crew makes other safe arrangements for all the passengers to leave the train.

There is only one time that anyone should ever be exiting a train on their own and that would be in the case of a life threatening emergency, like the train is on fire.
 
Looking at that map, it would seem to make the most sense to run the Builder straight northwest through Prosper rather than connect back south to the line through Casselton.

40 miles at 59 mph: 41 minutes

2.5 miles at 10 mph + 41.5 miles at 79 mph: 46 minutes

So even with a 59-mph speed restriction it might work out favorably to follow the Prosper line.

Mark

Thanks for the history lesson! I've often wondered how that line got there and ended up serving relatively few towns. If I remember correctly from sleepy-eyed stops in Fargo, the Amtrak depot is on the ex-GN while the majority of freights follow the double-track ex-NP. Is there a way to connect back to the ex-NP route west of the depot, or will the re-route require a reverse move for the Fargo stop?

Mark
Yes, there's been a connecting track in place west of the depots in Fargo ever since the days of the GN and NP. After the Burlington Northern merger, a new one was built, farther to the west than the previous one, and can be seen heading from the northern (ex-GN) line to the southern (ex-NP) line on this map at Google. Ever since this new connector was built, the primary user has been coal trains that come from Montana and head north to Grand Forks in order to reach their final destination in northeastern Minnesota. The one problem is that these are the 2.5 miles of 10 mph track I mentioned in my previous post, though perhaps a higher passenger speed limit could be implemented if the Empire Builder began permanently using the tracks.

You're right about the Amtrak depot in Fargo being of GN origin, but, on a minor note, what Amtrak uses was originally the express freight depot. The larger and much more elegant passenger depot sits next door nicely refurbished, but empty, after having housed several failed dining establishments. I have heard talk in the past of potentially moving Amtrak back into this depot, but there are no concrete plans in place to make that a reality. Just a little bit to the south is the former NP depot, still standing and currently a senior center.
 
First, I fail to see why anyone feels entitled to just get off the train when they want. You wouldn't open the door on an airplane to get off during a hold situation at the airport. You contracted with Amtrak to go from point A to point B.
My, such a vociferous response, considering that I carefully wrote, "That's what I'd want to do." Not, "That's what I'm entitled to do." Not, "That's what I would do." Not, "That's what I'd demand to be allowed to do." Not, "I'd pull the emergency brake and make a run for it." Expressing a desire, however unreasonable, isn't the same as demanding the item desired. Heck, I want to have steak for dinner, but I don't feel entitled to it (and in fact won't get it).

Actually, I was once on an airplane from San Francisco to Newark that ended up sitting on the tarmac at Dulles in a hold situation, because of weather, I think. After several hours, they brought out a bus and I was (with other passengers, I wasn't the instigator) allowed to flee the fetid airplane. I had a heck of a time catching up to my checked luggage, but felt bad for those people who had to stay on board. As it happened, I was going to DC on that trip anyway, and this way I saved the Amtrak fare from Newark.

I think that you are right, though, that a signed waiver wouldn't remove Amtrak's liability, and that's why any sensible Amtrak conductor wouldn't allow me to leave the train, except at a station.
 
Amtrak should have their lawyers draw up some kind of "Trip Termination Waiver of Liability" or something. Basically says that by getting off the train you agree to not hold Amtrak liable for anything that happens to you starting the second your foot hits the ground, and (maybe) you waive any any claim to a refund or voucher of any type (perhaps refund your fare from the next station to your final destination or something). Keep a couple on the train, and if people want to set out on their own, Amtrak can wash their hands of you and send you on your way.
I work in an emergency room and we have a form just like this. Its called AMA, Against Medical Advice. You sign this form and you are free to leave regardless of your condition but by signing you waive any rights you gained by becoming a patient and you release the hospital of all liabilities.

Amtrak could and should make that option available. You may be able to see the station from where you stopped but if you exit and fall, get hit by a train, or get injured in anyway, etc. its your won fault and not Amtrak's once you sign
I think you also need to look at it from a publicity standpoint………Amtrak is not interested in having headlines such as “Four Amtrak passengers killed by oncoming train” or “Man and child drown after leaving stranded Amtrak train”, which is exactly how the headlines are written, regardless if Amtrak had them sign forms waiving liability as the passengers were demanding to leave the train against the Conductor’s advice.

The general public cannot fathom the idea that a train trip could involve death or injury, so why “open the door” (pun intended) to a situation where there could be negative publicity if something happens?

On a weakly-related note, I got into a nice discussion with a crewmember on the Coast Starlight a few years back and mentioned to him that the Parlour Car in our consist was in the Big Bayou Canot wreck in 1993. Even though the employee, who was not a service attendant, started 7 months after it happened, he had no idea what I was talking about. The airlines discuss accidents all of the time in training with their flight crews (at least they used to) as examples of what should and should not be done. It also keeps you mindful of safety. Even though Amtrak wasn’t at fault in Big Bayou Canot, I would think that they would at least discuss it with their crews while in training.
 
Any news on EB running today (4/14)?
It's not running today 4(14). Only the stub-train is running Chi-Msp and only buses Sea/Pdx - Spk - Wfh.
Any idea as to why it's not running? BNSF not keen on running passenger trains on the Surrey line? Amtrak not keen on using the Surrey line lest it become permanent? Performing deferred maintenance on trainsets? In the 2009 flood the EB kept rolling so long as the Surrey cutoff stayed open.

Mark
 
Any idea as to why it's not running? BNSF not keen on running passenger trains on the Surrey line? Amtrak not keen on using the Surrey line lest it become permanent? Performing deferred maintenance on trainsets? In the 2009 flood the EB kept rolling so long as the Surrey cutoff stayed open.

Mark
Because the detour route is also under water.
 
Any idea as to why it's not running? BNSF not keen on running passenger trains on the Surrey line? Amtrak not keen on using the Surrey line lest it become permanent? Performing deferred maintenance on trainsets? In the 2009 flood the EB kept rolling so long as the Surrey cutoff stayed open.

Mark
Because the detour route is also under water.
C'mon, whats a little water between trains?
 
Amtrak is waiting for the EB to get its Red Cross Water Certification... Just Kidding.

This has been a very rough year for the EB.

I fear what this is going to do to the bottom line and to customer retention on that run.

Assuming now that Devils Lake area is a lost cause at this point.
 
Not true:

(From BNSF)

BNSF continues to experience some flooding throughout the Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota regions. There are a few carload industries that we may not be able service due to high waters; reroutes will be established as necessary.

The BNSF Intermodal Network remains in service at all points with only minor delays (4-6 hours) on our KO Subdivision at New Rockford, North Dakota account maintenance activities related to ice damming and high water. The KO Subdivision runs between Dilworth, Minnesota to Surrey, North Dakota.

Any idea as to why it's not running? BNSF not keen on running passenger trains on the Surrey line? Amtrak not keen on using the Surrey line lest it become permanent? Performing deferred maintenance on trainsets? In the 2009 flood the EB kept rolling so long as the Surrey cutoff stayed open.

Mark
Because the detour route is also under water.
 
According to the Billings Gazette:

"Amtrak service held up

The floods across the Hi-Line have disrupted Amtrak service.

Passengers hoping to depart from Havre reported canceled trains on Wednesday. The interruption in service was continuing Thursday and Friday. An Amtrak spokesman in Chicago said the Empire Builder train should be running again through Montana on Saturday.

An eastbound train departing Friday from Seattle and a westbound train from Chicago are scheduled to leave on time Friday and will be passing through Montana on Saturday as planned, Amtrak said.

"
 
First, I fail to see why anyone feels entitled to just get off the train when they want. You wouldn't open the door on an airplane to get off during a hold situation at the airport. You contracted with Amtrak to go from point A to point B.
My, such a vociferous response, considering that I carefully wrote, "That's what I'd want to do." Not, "That's what I'm entitled to do." Not, "That's what I would do." Not, "That's what I'd demand to be allowed to do." Not, "I'd pull the emergency brake and make a run for it." Expressing a desire, however unreasonable, isn't the same as demanding the item desired. Heck, I want to have steak for dinner, but I don't feel entitled to it (and in fact won't get it).
That wasn't directed at you; but rather those who do seem to think that they have some legal right to just get off the train if it stops moving. The type that call 911 in situations like this, which only further delays the train.
 
Trains 7/27 and 8/28 are expected to run Friday 4(15).

Is it possible to upload a file? I have a PDF with a lot of pictures of the area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it possible to upload a file? I have a PDF with a lot of pictures of the area.
I'd love to see it. Until you look at topo maps of North Dakota, you have no idea how many lakes and ponds and potholes there are. It's not accidental that pelicans fly up from Louisiana to No. Dak. to have their chicks, or that North Dakota is the source of most ducks in the Mississippi flyway. Or that there are such problems with spring floods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top