Empire Builder Summer Blues Started Early this year

[AlanB]

The BNSF folks continue to remind me that even after the construction is suspended this Fall the increased freight traffic (not just the energy trains) should account for about 60-70 minutes in added delays-which considering this summer's track record won't be horrible for sure

Me thinks that it's time for Amtrak to remind the BNSF folks that they have a contract with Amtrak to run it on time, even if it means delaying their freights. Construction is a valid, if unwelcome, excuse to delay Amtrak. Increased freight traffic is NOT a valid excuse!

 

[RRUserious]

I wonder now that Berkshire Hathaway owns the railroad, will it be run more responsibly?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I fly into and out of ORD fairly frequently in addition to taking the train and I have to admit the vast majority of my flights are within 15 minutes of the schedule, most are on time. Yes, there have been an infrequent cancellation or delay, but most are very close to on time and have been for years. It is the "hassle factor" of traveling by air that makes it less fun these days, not the schedule. Note: #8(10) let SEA late and is now 2 1/2 hours behind and still hasn't reach WFH yet.

Same thing with the bus. Greyhound rarely has much delays anymore, unless you get an unreliable G4500, of course. I'm sure most people travelling by train don't care about time since it takes so long anway. But there's still loads of complaints on the Web about Amtrak and VIA Rail delays.

8 (10) has still got the same delay right now, but it's doing OK compared to what could be worse.

Don't get me wrong, the EB is still a great train and my favourite, but westbound is no good because you miss Glacier Park.

The BNSF folks continue to remind me that even after the construction is suspended this Fall the increased freight traffic (not just the energy trains) should account for about 60-70 minutes in added delays-which considering this summer's track record won't be horrible for sure

Me thinks that it's time for Amtrak to remind the BNSF folks that they have a contract with Amtrak to run it on time, even if it means delaying their freights. Construction is a valid, if unwelcome, excuse to delay Amtrak. Increased freight traffic is NOT a valid excuse!

Don't expect much from them. BNSF tracks seem to be clogged up, and there's just not enough sidings to get Amtrak through on-time. Complete double-track may be the only viable solution to these delays, plus a heavy overhaul of the FAR-GFK section.

Everything is congested these days, it's not just highways, but railroads and airports as well! At least the plane can fly over most of it, but we all know the problems of air travel.

 

[montana mike]

The BNSF folks continue to remind me that even after the construction is suspended this Fall the increased freight traffic (not just the energy trains) should account for about 60-70 minutes in added delays-which considering this summer's track record won't be horrible for sure

Me thinks that it's time for Amtrak to remind the BNSF folks that they have a contract with Amtrak to run it on time, even if it means delaying their freights. Construction is a valid, if unwelcome, excuse to delay Amtrak. Increased freight traffic is NOT a valid excuse!

A frequent comment in the military is that you can't put 10 pounds of you know what into a 5 pound bag. I am sure buried in the "fine print" of BNSF's contractual obligations are some "outs" for the RR due to freight traffic increases. BNSF has been owned by BH for several years now and I certainly have not seen any improvements in the on time performance of the EB, in fact just the opposite. As one of the BH senior managers said last year: They own and run a profit center, not a railroad. That should give us some indication of their priorities.

:-(

 

[montana mike]

Quick update on #8 in MN this AM--running just under 6 hours behind--a very slow trek across ND last night.

:-(

 

[Guest]

They own and run a profit center, not a railroad. That should give us some indication of their priorities.

The railroad cannot function as a charity; Amtrak doesn't pay enough to keep the signals lit nor the track in good shape. BNSF's profits feed the employees that work for them, and benefit their suppliers - and in turn, all of us.

Let's keep the priorities straight here: were it not for BNSF's "profit center", there wouldn't be an Empire Builder to run.

 

[montana mike]

I couldn't agree more. No profits no railroad, no Amtrak.........I just wish Amtrak would take a long term look at the schedule for the EB (I fully understand the EB doesn't operate in a vacuum, but is part of an entire system). There are no surprises here. BNSF has tried to keep Amtrak management fully informed of the long term plans for the Hi-Line. What is happening on the Hi-Line, as we all agree, is not a "one off" event that is going to disappear in a matter of weeks like a Spring flood or a snowstorm or a derailment. Perhaps the delays will be lessened to some extent come later this Fall when construction and maintenance efforts pause for the winter, but both BNSF and Amtrak need to come to grips with the cold hard facts that the capacity of the Hi-line track system is being pushed very hard and despite both organizations best efforts to mitigate the delays and missed connections the frustrations will likely increase. The good news is BNSF's business is increasing by a large amount, the bad news is the need for continuous improvements, more maintenance and increased freight traffic must all be factored into a schedule that is reasonable for the EB to follow.

Update at about 1 PM MDT: #8 in WI is now approaching 7 hours behind--not a good start to the week!

:-(

 

[calwatch]

Basically, something will have to give. You can't make both the CS connection on the west and the Capitol Limited on the east, but which connection do you screw then?

I agree with building in some layover time midroute - add some buffer time at each of the smoke breaks. When the train is on time, it's sometimes nice to walk around for half an hour or so to stretch your legs and get some exercise, and maybe even a quick meal at one of the restaurants in a small town. Of course, for people that make the trip regularly, that could be annoying to just sit in, say, Minot for an hour.

 

[yarrow]

could be annoying to just sit in, say, Minot for an hour.

why not minot? (the reason: it's freezin'). sorry couldn't resist, my mom was born in minot

 

[PRR 60]

Amtrak's contract does not require "on time" operation, and it certainly does not require BNSF to turn away business to meet Amtrak's schedule. It requires that Amtrak be given priority over freight traffic. Being given priority does not necessarily relate to meeting Amtrak's schedule when the railroad is clogged with trains and that is compounded by construction.

 

[RRUserious]

Is it my imagination or is there some very bad track in North Dakota. Walking places going through there, it seemed like I was being thrown around. Never had that much trouble walking on a ship,not even a very small one.

 

[montana mike]

I take the EB frequently. There are spots, especially in far eastern MT and around Williston that I would consider worse than normal for sure, but not any worse that segments I have experienced on other LD trains in the past . Interestingly, the EB often chugs along at normal track speed (79 mph) thru most of those "rocky" areas (perhaps that makes things somewhat worse for the ride then). Where the train slows down considerably is around Devil's lake-we all know about the water challenges there and what BNSF is doing to mitigate these issues, and between Fargo and Grand Forks-a combination of lots of traffic and rails that do indeed need upgrading.

 

[RRUserious]

I would guess with the lost time waiting for freight to take its priority, they can't slow down much for passenger comfort. I guess I'll s ay I hope that quality of ride isn't typical of Amtrak as a whole. That would be another reason to drive or fly. The bumpiness of flight depends on air conditions. Those are sometimes very good, sometimes awful, but they do vary. The track doesn't really change much. If it is bumpy one day, it will be bumpy the next. "Mitigating" would make the ontime situation worse for a while. Just like road construction. Again, Amtrak needs passenger quality rail which it will never get.

 

[montana mike]

Good Point--the oil in the tank cars doesn't care if the ride is bumpy!

I do think BNSF is trying to improve their track situation, if for nothing else a well maintained and high quality track bed and rails mean fewer derailments and better on-time performance for THEIR trains as well.

 

[RRUserious]

But their improvements are offset by the huge volume of traffic they want to send over it. It seems like a losing battle.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Basically, something will have to give. You can't make both the CS connection on the west and the Capitol Limited on the east, but which connection do you screw then?
I agree with building in some layover time midroute - add some buffer time at each of the smoke breaks. When the train is on time, it's sometimes nice to walk around for half an hour or so to stretch your legs and get some exercise, and maybe even a quick meal at one of the restaurants in a small town. Of course, for people that make the trip regularly, that could be annoying to just sit in, say, Minot for an hour.

Take out the CS connection, keep the CL. Because the CL is a direct link eastwards, while the CS runs at a right angle. Passengers that really need to get south from PDX can ride a Greyhound bus from the station (GLI-PUT) right besides Amtrak-PDX.

Passengers between PDX and VAN can ride the Cascades.

 

[jebr]

Basically, something will have to give. You can't make both the CS connection on the west and the Capitol Limited on the east, but which connection do you screw then?
I agree with building in some layover time midroute - add some buffer time at each of the smoke breaks. When the train is on time, it's sometimes nice to walk around for half an hour or so to stretch your legs and get some exercise, and maybe even a quick meal at one of the restaurants in a small town. Of course, for people that make the trip regularly, that could be annoying to just sit in, say, Minot for an hour.

Take out the CS connection, keep the CL. Because the CL is a direct link eastwards, while the CS runs at a right angle. Passengers that really need to get south from PDX can ride a Greyhound bus from the station (GLI-PUT) right besides Amtrak-PDX.

Passengers between PDX and VAN can ride the Cascades.

The other argument, though, is that the LSL could serve as at least somewhat of a replacement of the CL connection. There's no train service from PDX EUG south other than the CS. Some people have an aversion to buses, and Amtrak may find it wiser to preserve as many train connections as possible, and the LSL is a more adequate replacement for eastbound connections than the Cascades is for west coast connections.

Edit: I forgot that some of the Cascades run to EUG.

 

[CHamilton]

Take out the CS connection, keep the CL. Because the CL is a direct link eastwards, while the CS runs at a right angle.

There is some logic to this, although anecdotally, I've seen a considerable number of people who are making that connection. What Amtrak needs, though, are options that don't depend on the hub-and-spoke model. Sending all of the cross-country trains through CHI (with the exception of the NOL connection to the Crescent) guarantees connection problems. Returning trains like the Sunset East and the Pioneer to the schedule would lessen Amtrak's dependence on CHI and NOL, although it wouldn't solve the CS/EB connection problem. For that, you'd need some sort of Spokane-Bend-Klamath Falls train, with (let's dream here) connections to Sacramento-Bakersfield-LA.

 

[Ryan]

I'm sure Amtrak has the data on which connection is used more often. Also, recall that the Cap and LSL are supposed to swap at some point. Even with a few hour later arrival time, you can get anywhere on the east coast from WAS after the Cap arrives, so I'd think that preserving the CS connection, breaking the LSL connection (in the early slot) and keeping the Cap connection with a late evening departure) makes the most sense.

 

[Anderson]

The problem with the LSL is that there's no passable, guaranteed connection past WAS (and none period past RVR/NPN-VAB). Unless the Meteor gets a schedule switch, connecting with the LSL and not the CL would kill off a respectable number of plausible connections between the Southeast and the Midwest (i.e. Atlanta now becomes more problematic, Miami is gone., etc.)

 

[Ryan]

That's the beauty of making the Cap the late train. It runs faster and hits the east coast in the middle(ish), not way the hell up in NY.

So, take the current Cap schedule and push it 3 hours to the right, giving you a LSL-esque 9:40 departure. Assuming all things are equal, that gives you a 4:10 arrival into DC. You've got a good connection to the Crescent at 6:30 and a good connection to the Meteor at 7:30. You're right at the beginning of the evening rush, so there's plenty of connectivity northward as well.

 

[amamba]

That's the beauty of making the Cap the late train. It runs faster and hits the east coast in the middle(ish), not way the hell up in NY.
So, take the current Cap schedule and push it 3 hours to the right, giving you a LSL-esque 9:40 departure. Assuming all things are equal, that gives you a 4:10 arrival into DC. You've got a good connection to the Crescent at 6:30 and a good connection to the Meteor at 7:30. You're right at the beginning of the evening rush, so there's plenty of connectivity northward as well.

I have yet to take the cap because there is no way I want to get off a LD train and THEN slog up the corridor on a regional train from WAS. But I would wonder what percentage of folks are continuing on to other points on the NEC from the CL and LSL vs what percentage are connecting to another LD train and trying to go beyond the corridor.

 

[Rail Freak]

That's the beauty of making the Cap the late train. It runs faster and hits the east coast in the middle(ish), not way the hell up in NY.
So, take the current Cap schedule and push it 3 hours to the right, giving you a LSL-esque 9:40 departure. Assuming all things are equal, that gives you a 4:10 arrival into DC. You've got a good connection to the Crescent at 6:30 and a good connection to the Meteor at 7:30. You're right at the beginning of the evening rush, so there's plenty of connectivity northward as well.

Being from Florida, I'd vote for that!!!!

 

[Linda T]

Looks like they held the CDL for the EB today. The #8 came in to CHI at 7:32, and the CDL left at 7:58. Now the #50 is 2 hours and 13 minutes behind from the start.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Basically, something will have to give. You can't make both the CS connection on the west and the Capitol Limited on the east, but which connection do you screw then?
I agree with building in some layover time midroute - add some buffer time at each of the smoke breaks. When the train is on time, it's sometimes nice to walk around for half an hour or so to stretch your legs and get some exercise, and maybe even a quick meal at one of the restaurants in a small town. Of course, for people that make the trip regularly, that could be annoying to just sit in, say, Minot for an hour.

Take out the CS connection, keep the CL. Because the CL is a direct link eastwards, while the CS runs at a right angle. Passengers that really need to get south from PDX can ride a Greyhound bus from the station (GLI-PUT) right besides Amtrak-PDX.

Passengers between PDX and VAN can ride the Cascades.

The other argument, though, is that the LSL could serve as at least somewhat of a replacement of the CL connection. There's no train service from PDX EUG south other than the CS. Some people have an aversion to buses, and Amtrak may find it wiser to preserve as many train connections as possible, and the LSL is a more adequate replacement for eastbound connections than the Cascades is for west coast connections.

Edit: I forgot that some of the Cascades run to EUG.

South of EUG? Just run a Thruway or something, that might work. Not going to be a big surchage to the fare, and get only to Redding because south of that Greyhound 600 duplicates much of the CS.

I am sure passenger are willing to ride a convenient and well-timed Greyhound connection. Bus-hate is greatly exaggerated.

Take out the CS connection, keep the CL. Because the CL is a direct link eastwards, while the CS runs at a right angle.

There is some logic to this, although anecdotally, I've seen a considerable number of people who are making that connection. What Amtrak needs, though, are options that don't depend on the hub-and-spoke model. Sending all of the cross-country trains through CHI (with the exception of the NOL connection to the Crescent) guarantees connection problems. Returning trains like the Sunset East and the Pioneer to the schedule would lessen Amtrak's dependence on CHI and NOL, although it wouldn't solve the CS/EB connection problem. For that, you'd need some sort of Spokane-Bend-Klamath Falls train, with (let's dream here) connections to Sacramento-Bakersfield-LA.

If Amtrak could do that, it would be great. But we all know it won't happen anytime soon. So you have to take advantage of private companies like Greyhound which are not subject to as much governemnt red tape.

If Amtrak dosen't want to cooperate with Greyhound, then it will not be good for either side. Don't view Greyhound as your enemy.

The problem with the LSL is that there's no passable, guaranteed connection past WAS (and none period past RVR/NPN-VAB). Unless the Meteor gets a schedule switch, connecting with the LSL and not the CL would kill off a respectable number of plausible connections between the Southeast and the Midwest (i.e. Atlanta now becomes more problematic, Miami is gone., etc.)

Atlanta dosen't really matter here because only train-joyriders would take the EB to CHI, LSL to NYP, the the Crescent to ATL. Geography is simple yet important here.

Looks like they held the CDL for the EB today. The #8 came in to CHI at 7:32, and the CDL left at 7:58. Now the #50 is 2 hours and 13 minutes behind from the start.

At least passengers made their connections. Amtrak timetables are so long and unreliable that most passengers don't care about time anyway. I sure don't care if my train is late, unless it's over 8 hours late. But I don't like sitting on a stationary train for 2 hours.

Then again, pax could have gone into Chicago or to get some food.