Need to ashcan current EB and have a CHI to MSP route

[PennCentralFan]

The EB as presently run is a failure. Terrible ontime performance. Restructure the EB as a train from MSP to PDX and SEA. If you have to have an every other day eb then so be it.

Have a train that leaves MSP at 7:15 am and another that leaves at about 11:00pm for a night train with a sleeper and no diner car.

Have a train leave Chicago for MSP at 2:15 pm which becomes the 11:00pm return train to Chicago. Have a train which leaves chi at about 9:30pm with a sleeper and no diner car which becomes the return 7:15 am and keep the sleeper in msp and connect it to the 11:00pm night train.

 

[Grandpa D]

The EB as presently run is a failure. Terrible ontime performance. Restructure the EB as a train from MSP to PDX and SEA. If you have to have an every other day eb then so be it.

Have a train that leaves MSP at 7:15 am and another that leaves at about 11:00pm for a night train with a sleeper and no diner car.

Have a train leave Chicago for MSP at 2:15 pm which becomes the 11:00pm return train to Chicago. Have a train which leaves chi at about 9:30pm with a sleeper and no diner car which becomes the return 7:15 am and keep the sleeper in msp and connect it to the 11:00pm night train.

Does MSP have the facilities to service a train for the return trip?

 

[PennCentralFan]

The EB as presently run is a failure. Terrible ontime performance. Restructure the EB as a train from MSP to PDX and SEA. If you have to have an every other day eb then so be it.

Have a train that leaves MSP at 7:15 am and another that leaves at about 11:00pm for a night train with a sleeper and no diner car.

Have a train leave Chicago for MSP at 2:15 pm which becomes the 11:00pm return train to Chicago. Have a train which leaves chi at about 9:30pm with a sleeper and no diner car which becomes the return 7:15 am and keep the sleeper in msp and connect it to the 11:00pm night train.

Does MSP have the facilities to service a train for the return trip?

Right now a superliner coach car connects and deconnects each day on the current EB and the msp station and yard area is big enough to provide the needed services.

 

[AlanB]

There is no long distance train that generates more revenue than the Empire Builder! That hardly makes it a failure.

Now if we want to actually see it fail, changing its eastern end point from Chicago to MSP would be a good way to accomplish that.

Besides, changing the end point to Minneapolis/St. Pete isn't going to help the delays any. No matter where the train originates on the eastern end, the snows and mudslides are still going to affect it and delay it.

 

[PennCentralFan]

There is no long distance train that generates more revenue than the Empire Builder! That hardly makes it a failure.

Now if we want to actually see it fail, changing its eastern end point from Chicago to MSP would be a good way to accomplish that.

Besides, changing the end point to Minneapolis/St. Pete isn't going to help the delays any. No matter where the train originates on the eastern end, the snows and mudslides are still going to affect it and delay it.

You also have to use ontime performance to measure success. You could schedule the EB so that the last train from Chicago allows a connection to the EB and do that in the morning for those going to Chicago coming from the West. The EB comes to MSP early enough in the morning to allow passengers who want to go to Chicago to connect with the 7:15am Chicago bound train that I proposed. I would argue that the amtrak is losing revenue by having only one train coming and going to Chicago in one day from the twin cities. People who want to come and go from MSP to CHI should not be delayed by the delays that pile up on the EB. The number of flight between the two metro areas shows that there is a greater demand for rail service between the two and the EB is fouling that up.

Detroit and Chicago have three going in either direction during the day.

 

[George Harris]

There is no long distance train that generates more revenue than the Empire Builder! That hardly makes it a failure.

Now if we want to actually see it fail, changing its eastern end point from Chicago to MSP would be a good way to accomplish that.

Besides, changing the end point to Minneapolis/St. Pete isn't going to help the delays any. No matter where the train originates on the eastern end, the snows and mudslides are still going to affect it and delay it.

You also have to use ontime performance to measure success. You could schedule the EB so that the last train from Chicago allows a connection to the EB and do that in the morning for those going to Chicago coming from the West. The EB comes to MSP early enough in the morning to allow passengers who want to go to Chicago to connect with the 7:15am Chicago bound train that I proposed. I would argue that the amtrak is losing revenue by having only one train coming and going to Chicago in one day from the twin cities. People who want to come and go from MSP to CHI should not be delayed by the delays that pile up on the EB. The number of flight between the two metro areas shows that there is a greater demand for rail service between the two and the EB is fouling that up.

Detroit and Chicago have three going in either direction during the day.

Alan, This guy's thoughts on the EB are so goofy, I do not see how we could take him seriously. To add an extra train or two to the MSP - Chicago section would be a good idea. Eliminating the through service is obviously not, at least obviously to anyone who has followed what has happened where this has been done.

 

[Ispolkom]

Since I live in St. Paul, I'd be very happy if Amtrak implemented your suggestion. I've often wished there were a night train between St. Paul and Chicago, like there was in the 70s with the North Star, and I have often had to fly to Chicago because #8 is so unreliable in the winter.

Politically, though, this is a nonstarter. As you say there are lots of flights between the Twin Cities and Chicago, as well as frequent bus service from Greyhound and Megabus. The Empire Builder, on the other hand, provides the only public transportation option over much of its route, and powerful politicians like the Senate Budget Committee chairman are not going to countenance service cuts to their state.

 

[PennCentralFan]

Since I live in St. Paul, I'd be very happy if Amtrak implemented your suggestion. I've often wished there were a night train between St. Paul and Chicago, like there was in the 70s with the North Star, and I have often had to fly to Chicago because #8 is so unreliable in the winter.

Politically, though, this is a nonstarter. As you say there are lots of flights between the Twin Cities and Chicago, as well as frequent bus service from Greyhound and Megabus. The Empire Builder, on the other hand, provides the only public transportation option over much of its route, and powerful politicians like the Senate Budget Committee chairman are not going to countenance service cuts to their state.

I live in St. Paul also and we both know that only one train between Chi and MSP is truly inadequate and for the one train leaving from Chi in the morning to be dependent on the on time performance of a transcontinental train is pathetic.

According to my plan you can easily connect passengers who want the long distance route from CHI to PDX and SEA in MSP. Going east you get in MSP at about 6:00am and then tranfer to the 7:15 am train to Chicago that I propose. For those going West from Chicago you get in MSP at about 10:30pm on the 2:15 pm from Chicago to MSP that I propose and then get on the west bound EB which originates in MSP and leaves at about 11:30pm.

The point of Amtrak is to transport people it's not a landcruise for those who want a cabin from Chicago to PDX or SEA. There's no point in having sleepers from MSP to Chi and from CHI to MSP for all trips you only need it for the night trips I propose.

 

[guest_guest_guest_guest]

Don't forget, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker refused the funding for HSR in his state...kinda makes it unlikely he'd approve funding for additional runs of the EB.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

That is a gaggle of guests!!

In any event additional frequencies of a CHI-MSP run would not fall under Walker's purview as it was an existing service when Amtrak was formed in 71. Of course Amtrak will want to seek funding from Wisconsin, but may have alternative means.

 

[RailFanLNK]

I live on the CZ route and of course have total fondness for the CZ. Rode the EB this fall and loved it! Was early or on time, had great service from the staff and know the CZ lacks OTP way worse than the EB. Extra "trains" are a pipe dream, there's no extra equipment.

 

[AlanB]

There is no long distance train that generates more revenue than the Empire Builder! That hardly makes it a failure.

Now if we want to actually see it fail, changing its eastern end point from Chicago to MSP would be a good way to accomplish that.

Besides, changing the end point to Minneapolis/St. Pete isn't going to help the delays any. No matter where the train originates on the eastern end, the snows and mudslides are still going to affect it and delay it.

You also have to use ontime performance to measure success. You could schedule the EB so that the last train from Chicago allows a connection to the EB and do that in the morning for those going to Chicago coming from the West. The EB comes to MSP early enough in the morning to allow passengers who want to go to Chicago to connect with the 7:15am Chicago bound train that I proposed. I would argue that the amtrak is losing revenue by having only one train coming and going to Chicago in one day from the twin cities. People who want to come and go from MSP to CHI should not be delayed by the delays that pile up on the EB. The number of flight between the two metro areas shows that there is a greater demand for rail service between the two and the EB is fouling that up.

Detroit and Chicago have three going in either direction during the day.

I wouldn't argue that more service to MSP that is not dependant upon the EB would be a good thing.

Doesn't change the fact that if you want to badly hurt the Empire Builder, remove Chicago as a destination. Ridership and revenue will go down if passengers have to transfer at MSP.

And you still will not have done anything to improve the EB's on time performance. Changing the last stop doesn't affect snow storms, mud slides, broken rails, or disabled freight trains. They will still happen no matter whether the train runs to Chicago or Minneapolis.

 

[Trogdor]

The Empire Builder has, over the past decade, been the most reliable of Amtrak's long-distance trains. It has really only been in the past month that the route has suffered chronic OTP problems. Why there would suddenly be a call to scrap the route after one month's worth of problems is beyond me.

Extra frequencies would be nice, but aren't going to happen without someone footing the bill.

Truncating the route in MSP and having a different train operate MSP-CHI creates a new host of costs. The size of the yard at MSP doesn't matter. You don't have commissary in MSP. You don't have a large mechanical staff (I actually don't know if you have any mechanical staff). There's no maintenance facility, and no easy way to get equipment to/from a maintenance base (Seattle isn't set up to perform major maintenance either, and Portland even less so).

Assuming folks would want to make a 7:00 am connection (or 11:00 pm connection), there's still the issue of train 8 being late, and having the new connecting train hold for it (eliminating any advantage of splitting them), or spending a ton of money on reaccommodation costs.

The number of flights between MSP and Chicago is an interesting bit of trivia, but not really meaningful if you want to have a serious discussion of what to do with the Empire Builder. The fact is that, outside of the NEC, there are tons of city pairs where you have many flights but poor to non-existent rail service. LA-Las Vegas, Atlanta-Orlando, Denver-Dallas, intra-Texas service, etc.

I think we all pretty well understand that rail should play a larger role in some of these travel corridors. Amtrak understands that as well. The problem is that there has no serious transportation policy in this country, and rail has been neglected for decades. A bunch of money was just allocated to rail, but that will come nowhere close to making up for the decades of disinvestment in intercity passenger rail.

Amtrak, even with available equipment (which doesn't exist), can't just decide tomorrow that there will be another train or two between Chicago and Minneapolis, and suddenly start running it. If you look elsewhere, you'll see that UP is demanding three quarters of a billion dollars just to increase Sunset Limited service from 6 to 14 trips per week.

There is no shortage of "plans" on how to improve rail service in this country. What there is a shortage of is actual money and political will to do so.

In any event additional frequencies of a CHI-MSP run would not fall under Walker's purview as it was an existing service when Amtrak was formed in 71. Of course Amtrak will want to seek funding from Wisconsin, but may have alternative means.

Any service less than 750 miles will have to be state-supported, as that is a mandate of the PRIIA law passed a couple of years ago. Whether or not the route existed in 1971 doesn't matter.

Existing non-subsidized short-distance corridors (except for the NEC spine), including the Empire Service and Wolverines, will need to receive state subsidies by 2013 or will face elimination.

 

[EB_OBS]

It's my understanding that historically, the EB on-time performance has been in the 90% range. Yes the EB has some struggles every winter, but this particular winter's mauling has been mostly the result of the BNSF's inability to crew their trains and keeep them moving. There have been some delays Amtrak's fault due to equipment shortages and failures but I'd say that at least 50% of the last six weeks problems have been BNSF related or compounded.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Which is unusual because BNSF is usually good about crisis management on their lines.

 

[railiner]

About the only possible improvement to time-keeping that I can see is even a remote possibility of this scheme, is that having say a cross-platform transfer at MSP from a SEA train to a CHI train may trim the station time by a few minutes as opposed to servicing the thru train. (That's if the train is currently serviced at MSP anyway, I'm not sure). And at tremendous inconvenience to thru passengers that is certainly not worth the few minutes saved.

And if their are eldrly, handicapped, or a lot of checked baggage, etc., it could result in an even longer delay.

 

[WICT106]

One suggestion I would offer is to keep the existing level of service as-is, and institute a train from Chicago, through WI, MSP, and then to Winnipeg. This would be a one-night run. Dealing with the Governor's attitude in WI (and also the Legislature's collective attitude as well -- the WI legislature is now mahjority Republican) is going to be tough and very challenging, though. Badger State rail advocates will look for all the help they can get.

 

[EB_OBS]

A 6th consist of equipment would go a long way to improving both on-time performance of train #8/28 departures and improve customer service as we'd literally never have to bus from Spokane. The main reason Amtrak turns the train at Spokane, WA is to get a very late train 7/27 back to an on-time departure for train 8/28 from Spokane.

A 6th set of equipment for the EB would improve, cleanliness, maintenance, OTP and customer service.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Which is unusual because BNSF is usually good about crisis management on their lines.

That, Mica, was before Berkshire Hathaway took over, I point out.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Which is unusual because BNSF is usually good about crisis management on their lines.

That, Mica, was before Berkshire Hathaway took over, I point out.

Micah.

And I was under the impression that Hathaway was just a holding company for the shares, meaning that while they control the company at the corporate level at the operations level (especially less than a year after the transfer) they have no control.

 

[anir dendroica]

A 200-mile-wide swath of North Dakota and Minnesota was just hit by the unique combination of two severe blizzards in two days, sufficient to keep all roads closed for three days (freeways are anticipated to open around noon tomorrow). A double-track line might be able to survive this, but with single track as soon as something fails (broken rail, stuck switch, signal outage), and no one can reach the site except by train, and there are several trains on the main between service headquarters and the problem site, then I imagine that gridlock ensues. My only complaint against BNSF is that they could have anticipated this situation yesterday and prevented the unprecedented move of picking up passengers only to reverse the train and drop them back at their station of origin.

 

[Anderson]

I think adding a second MSP-CHI service is a fair suggestion, and I think it's not unreasonable to look at an agreement with the Metra folks that if the EB is running more than X hours behind, they can hire some Metra cars to at least run out and run the MSP-CHI segment. It wouldn't be pretty, but Amtrak does need something in place for catastrophic delays on the EB and CZ lines given the distances covered and the potential for extreme, piled-on delays.

 

[Exiled in Express]

And you still will not have done anything to improve the EB's on time performance. Changing the last stop doesn't affect snow storms, mud slides, broken rails, or disabled freight trains. They will still happen no matter whether the train runs to Chicago or Minneapolis.

That is pretty much all that needs to be said.

MSP-CHI could use an additional train. I would be in favor or running it into North Dakota though. The current EB gives Minot a convenient business schedule into MSP, Fargo could use the same. Plus North Dakota seems rail friendly and does not have budget problems that would prevent offering up some subsidies.

 

[Trogdor]

Which is unusual because BNSF is usually good about crisis management on their lines.

That, Mica, was before Berkshire Hathaway took over, I point out.

Warren Buffet/Berkshire Hathaway bought BNSF because it was a well-run company. They wouldn't buy it and immediately start making operational changes to jeopardize that.

I think adding a second MSP-CHI service is a fair suggestion, and I think it's not unreasonable to look at an agreement with the Metra folks that if the EB is running more than X hours behind, they can hire some Metra cars to at least run out and run the MSP-CHI segment. It wouldn't be pretty, but Amtrak does need something in place for catastrophic delays on the EB and CZ lines given the distances covered and the potential for extreme, piled-on delays.

First, what makes you think Metra just has tons of cars sitting around? They recently had to reacquire cars they had already retired because they were short of equipment to handle capacity needs. Unless the extra train happens to head west on Saturday and return on Sunday (and we're assuming that there's enough advance notice that the train will be late that they can scrounge up the cars and run them), then all of Metra's equipment is already spoken for. Whenever I see Metra's Western Avenue yard during a weekday rush hour, the yard is empty. Everything that can run, is running.

Second, Metra cars are woefully inadequate to handle travel beyond the 1.5 hours or so that their routes currently run. In fact, on some of their longer trips (such as to Kenosha) the comfort leaves much to be desired.

Third, Amtrak already has a plan B for MSP-CHI service, which is to run on-time buses. This already happens whenever the Builder is beyond a certain delay threshold (and, for what it's worth, those buses are far more comfortable than riding a Metra gallery car with flip-over vinyl seats for eight hours).

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Warren Buffet/Berkshire Hathaway bought BNSF because it was a well-run company. They wouldn't buy it and immediately start making operational changes to jeopardize that.

Agreed. GML, you seem to be putting personal feelings into it.