Winter Planning for Empire Builder Trips

[montana mike]

An update from the local BNSF people: Travelers on the Hi-Line taking the Empire Builder both east and west bound should expect to experience up to 2 hour delays primarily in eastern Montana and thru most of North Dakota, due mostly to increased freight traffic and continuing slow orders, both of which are anticipated to remain in place through out the winter season. All of the major construction and maintenance projects have either been completed or have ceased until next spring, however, there may be unexpected maintenance issues which may cause additional delays to freight and passenger traffic from time to time.

So, it would appear that the "status quo" of what we are seeing now should remain in place for most of the time over the coming 5 months or so. I asked when they plan to begin the 2014 construction season and that is all dependent upon the weather, as usual. It would be OK I guess to have the EB arrive in Chicago "only" 1-2 hours late each day, compared to what we have all seen over the past 6+ months. I will be taking the EB at least a couple times this winter and will try to report how things go.

 

[TraneMan]

Why or what is the slow order about??

 

[oregon pioneer]

Well, as long as it's "only" 1-2 hours!

Getting so excited to be on the EB @PDX a week from Monday, headed to CHI (and SPI, hopefully not in a van)... I am ready for a break!

 

[montana mike]

Why or what is the slow order about??

According to the BNSF folks slow orders (speed limitations below a possible 79 mph max) remain in effect in several places in eastern MT and parts of ND for both "operational" reasons (I would read a lot of traffic trying to get thru limited track resources) and for recently upgraded tracks that have mandated speed limitations for specified periods of time-partly due to the fact that the upgrades may not have been fully completed. I guess the tracks are A-OK to use at certain speeds but either BNSF or Govt regs require slower speeds. I asked my local BNSF guy (an engineer) and he said BNSF plans to keep many of the speed restrictions in place throughout this winter and well into next spring.

 

[Ryan]

Sounds like BNSF needs to run fewer trains so that they can live up to their agreement to handle Amtrak on schedule.

I'm pretty sure they can't just say "hey, we're not going to run you on time ever because we've got other trains we'd rather run".

 

[Bob Dylan]

Sounds like BNSF needs to run fewer trains so that they can live up to their agreement to handle Amtrak on schedule.

I'm pretty sure they can't just say "hey, we're not going to run you on time ever because we've got other trains we'd rather run".

The Question is: What can Amtrak Do About This since that Court Overturned the Law Requiring Class I Rail Roads to Facilitate Amtrak Passenger Trains??? This has to be Costing Amtrak Big Bucks and Running off Passengers on the Hi-Line!

Brings to mind that Famous Line from "Network": "Go to the Window and Stick out Your Head and Yell Loud as You Can, I'm Mad as Hell and I'm Not Gonna Take it Anymore!" :excl: :excl: :excl:

 

[Tumbleweed]

Maybe the timetable should be adjusted to compensate for the delays.....kinda like "out of sight, out of mind".....then when performance is able to pick up again, change them back and they could brag about the faster schedule.... h34r: ....

 

[tricia]

Thanks, Montana Mike--and others who've posted updates relating to EB OTP.

A perhaps unquantifiable cost for Amtrak in this: How many would-be EB passengers are deciding not to book tickets because they're uncomfortable with the current odds of NOT making a connection to another long-distance train, and are either incapable of or unwilling to spend all night sitting up in coach if that's all Amtrak can offer them as a replacement for whatever sleeping-car reservation they'd miss with that missed connection?

I'm thinking here of my elderly dad, who'll be taking the EB eastbound (is that EB EB?) with me in February, and whose bad back really can't cope with sitting up overnight in coach if we were to miss our connection with the Cap Ltd that day, and sleepers were sold out the following day. If that's what happens, I'll take care of getting him onto an airplane for the last leg of his journey. But if we didn't REALLY love trains, I'm pretty sure we'd find a more reliable way to get him home than any itinerary that includes the EB at this point.

Best I can tell, this situation is NOT Amtrak's fault, and Amtrak does the best it can to get delayed passengers safely to their destinations. But there's a cost being paid, both by the many delayed EB passengers in recent months, and by Amtrak--perhaps in lost ticket sales currently, certainly in ground lost in the ongoing effort to present trains as a realistic and reliable long-distance travel option.

 

[tim49424]

The newest BNSF issues are not good news for me as I have another trip scheduled for December 22 from TOH to KAL (I just completed one yesterday). The connections in Chicago to any of the Michigan Services are almost impossible to make, without bus involvement and actually, there is no connection to #370 anymore due to the issues out west. Personally, I don't have to worry about travel eastbound on the Empire Builder as often as I've been (5 times per year) as I'm moving to Holland, Michigan in the spring, however I do know this has to be a logistical nightmare for Amtrak. I'm wondering if there ever will be a solution to the ongoing problem.

 

[zephyr17]

Well, the timekeeping didn't push me off the Empire Builder but it did push me off the Hoosier State/Cardinal connection. I'm driving to Indy this time. Hopefully, it will be there by 7 so the Hertz counter is still open (as opposed to 4am last year).

 

[Guest]

Sounds like BNSF needs to run fewer trains so that they can live up to their agreement to handle Amtrak on schedule.

I'm pretty sure they can't just say "hey, we're not going to run you on time ever because we've got other trains we'd rather run".

The Question is: What can Amtrak Do About This since that Court Overturned the Law Requiring Class I Rail Roads to Facilitate Amtrak Passenger Trains??? This has to be Costing Amtrak Big Bucks and Running off Passengers on the Hi-Line!

The law wasn't overturned; only the standards for measuring delay were overturned (by a partisan, extremist Republican court panel). Amtrak *can* simply file a lawsuit. Amtrak tends to hold off for decades before doing that, though.

 

[the_traveler]

Maybe the timetable should be adjusted to compensate for the delays.....kinda like "out of sight, out of mind".....then when performance is able to pick up again, change them back and they could brag about the faster schedule.... h34r: ....

Amtrak did that (added padding and adjusted the schedule) with the SL when it was running hours (and sometimes days) late during the SP/UP merger meltdown. So what happened? :huh:
UP used all that extra padding time to delay the SL! It remained running hours late!

 

[AlanB]

Maybe the timetable should be adjusted to compensate for the delays.....kinda like "out of sight, out of mind".....then when performance is able to pick up again, change them back and they could brag about the faster schedule.... h34r: ....

Or maybe BNSF should just start honoring both the schedule and contract that they have with Amtrak.

I appreciate the fact that they have more freight now than they did before. But that's not Amtrak's problem and it shouldn't be made Amtrak's problem.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Maybe the timetable should be adjusted to compensate for the delays.....kinda like "out of sight, out of mind".....then when performance is able to pick up again, change them back and they could brag about the faster schedule.... h34r: ....

Or maybe BNSF should just start honoring both the schedule and contract that they have with Amtrak.

I appreciate the fact that they have more freight now than they did before. But that's not Amtrak's problem and it shouldn't be made Amtrak's problem.

Maybe Joe Boardman should give Warren Buffet a call,(maybe Conference in Amtrak Joe Biden) then Mr. Buffet could let the BNSF Dis[patchers and Brass know that he wants Amtrak given Priority on the Hi-Line as per the Contract and Schedule as Alan says!

 

[montana mike]

Looking at today's delays (three of the EBs currently around 3 hours behind), I would guess that the issues are fairly balanced between traffic and track issues. Plus it also appears that CPR is causing a good amount of the delay for #8 as it winds thru Wisconsin. Not excusing any party at all-I agree every effort should be made to allow the EBs to stay close to schedule, just the fact that there are two railroads involved here and I would also think some accommodation would need to be made for the major track work that has taken place this year.

The point about people seeing the constant delays may choose another rode of transportation because of likely missed travel connections made earlier is a good one. I know for myself, I often connect with either another train or plane in Chicago and if my chances of making connections are slim I would likely be forced to fly.

:-(

 

[Ryan]

Maybe the timetable should be adjusted to compensate for the delays.....kinda like "out of sight, out of mind".....then when performance is able to pick up again, change them back and they could brag about the faster schedule.... h34r: ....

Or maybe BNSF should just start honoring both the schedule and contract that they have with Amtrak.

I appreciate the fact that they have more freight now than they did before. But that's not Amtrak's problem and it shouldn't be made Amtrak's problem.

Exactly.
I wonder if BNSF's tune would change if they started footing the bill for all of the misconnects that they're causing in Chicago.

 

[anir dendroica]

I don't fault BNSF too much for this. They are building a better railroad to handle the oil business which will benefit Amtrak in the longer term (10+ years) once oil traffic starts to decline a bit.

As it is, the EB needs to get almost all green signals across Montana to stay on schedule. Once traffic volume gets to a certain point on a single-track line, there is no way to do this without essentially gridlocking the line, i.e. having every siding filled with a freight and holding freights in yards until Amtrak passes. In my experience the BNSF dispatchers rate Amtrak one notch above their premium UPS trains, but not quite the equivalent of an ambulance on rails. I think that is fair, and rather than force BNSF to eat the expense of keeping Amtrak on schedule at all costs I think it would be prudent to modify the schedule to reflect the reality of increased freight volumes. From what I know of BNSF dispatching, I don't think they would pull a SL and just create longer delays.

 

[Ryan]

Construction delays that will eventually yield better performance is understandable, even if there are better ways of doing it. Take for example CSX, which wanted to do a bunch of work on the Capitol Limited's route. They approached Amtrak, said "Hey, here's what we're going to do - if you don't get the train through Cleveland by 0330, you're going to have to come up with something else". Amtrak took that into account, published service advisories and made due until the project was complete.

On the other hand "we have too many trains" isn't acceptable. You agreed to a schedule, stick with it. If it means that you can't run as many oil trains as you would like, tough. BNSF obviously could handle this schedule, or else they never would have agreed to it.

If they want to ramp up the number of freight trains, and the only way to do so is to slow Amtrak down by a few hours, the right way to do it is to approach Amtrak and ask for a schedule change. If Amtrak agrees, then publish a new schedule and get on with it. But don't just clog the line with freight trains, deliver Amtrak hours late every. single. day. and say "Eh, that's just the way things are. They'll get better in a few years".

Someone at Amtrak, plus the Congressfolk and Senators from that area need to get on the horn with Mr. Buffet and have a serious heart to heart talk and get this crap fixed.

 

[Nathanael]

Looking at today's delays (three of the EBs currently around 3 hours behind), I would guess that the issues are fairly balanced between traffic and track issues. Plus it also appears that CPR is causing a good amount of the delay for #8 as it winds thru Wisconsin.

Unfortunately CP has had a particularly bad Amtrak-dispatching record in recent years. Hunter Harrison, I presume. Getting a late handoff from BNSF will only exacerbate this.
Regarding BNSF, if the situation is that track work didn't finish when planned and there are slow orders due to track which hasn't been sufficiently tamped and fettled -- well, that's life, nothing to be done until the track is settled down.

But if there's a completely bogus excuse about "too many trains", fergawdsakes hire some more gandy dancers and build some more sidings -- and in the meantime, BNSF should stop breaking its contract with Amtrak and dispatch the train as promised. BNSF's contract with Amtrak predates nearly all of its oil train contracts on this line, and therefore takes priority. Would you do business with a company which deliberately breaks earlier contracts in order to land later contracts? I wouldn't.

The *45 minute stop* in Minneapolis should be long enough to settle any delays due to handoff between BNSF and CP. If it isn't, someone's not dispatching the train right.

I guess I'm agreeing with RyanS.

 

[jebr]

Looking at today's delays (three of the EBs currently around 3 hours behind), I would guess that the issues are fairly balanced between traffic and track issues. Plus it also appears that CPR is causing a good amount of the delay for #8 as it winds thru Wisconsin.

Unfortunately CP has had a particularly bad Amtrak-dispatching record in recent years. Hunter Harrison, I presume. Getting a late handoff from BNSF will only exacerbate this.
Regarding BNSF, if the situation is that track work didn't finish when planned and there are slow orders due to track which hasn't been sufficiently tamped and fettled -- well, that's life, nothing to be done until the track is settled down.

But if there's a completely bogus excuse about "too many trains", fergawdsakes hire some more gandy dancers and build some more sidings -- and in the meantime, BNSF should stop breaking its contract with Amtrak and dispatch the train as promised. BNSF's contract with Amtrak predates nearly all of its oil train contracts on this line, and therefore takes priority. Would you do business with a company which deliberately breaks earlier contracts in order to land later contracts? I wouldn't.

The *45 minute stop* in Minneapolis should be long enough to settle any delays due to handoff between BNSF and CP. If it isn't, someone's not dispatching the train right.

I guess I'm agreeing with RyanS.

Not to excuse BNSF on this one, but one conversation I had with a BNSF official coming home on the Northstar was that there's a 50% increase in traffic (from the high 50s to the low 90s) for trains coming through each day between at least Big Lake or Coon Rapids (can't remember which) to the Fridley yard. That takes a bit more than just a few sidings to fix if most of that traffic is coming from North Dakota's oil fields.

The only real solution is for BNSF to either find a way to put most of those oil trains in the hole to let Amtrak through or just not run the oil trains. I somehow doubt that all this track work will let Amtrak get through faster than the current schedule permits, so these delays likely won't help Amtrak out in the long term other than hopefully helping OTP.

 

[Ryan]

Not to excuse BNSF on this one, but one conversation I had with a BNSF official coming home on the Northstar was that there's a 50% increase in traffic (from the high 50s to the low 90s) for trains coming through each day between at least Big Lake or Coon Rapids (can't remember which) to the Fridley yard.

My point is that those extra 40ish trains just didn't materialize out of nowhere - someone at BNSF made a conscious decision to run them. Obviously, somewhere between 50 and 90, Amtrak OTP goes to hell, and someone made the decision "Eh, who cares?". That's what I have issue with and Amtrak should be raising hell about.

Bad analogy alert:

I'm a contract worker. I agree to work 8 hours a day for my boss, with the expectation that I get a certain amount of work done. After that agreement is in place, I decide that "hey, I'd like more money, and there's this guy offering me a side job that I can take to bring in some more cash!". One of the side effects of taking that side job is that I can only spend 6 hours of my day at my day job, but I keep drawing an 8 hour paycheck, in addition to the paycheck from the side job.

Unless my boss is an idiot, he's quickly going to catch on and realize that he's not getting what he's paying for and fire me.

BNSF has taken on too much work, and Amtrak isn't getting what they paid for. BNSF either needs to take on less work so that they can get Amtrak over the road on the agreed-upon schedule, or they need to reach out to Amtrak and inquire about a schedule change (which IMO Amtrak should say "get bent" unless BNSF comes to the table with some nice concessions).

 

[PRR 60]

Unless the terms of the contract are known, the statement that BNSF has an contractual obligation to move Amtrak on schedule may or may not be accurate. I don't believe any of the Amtrak contracts with the freight railroads include schedule adherence standards. Amtrak's attempt to unilaterally impose on-time standards on all access contracts was what was thrown out by the federal courts. Given that Amtrak tried to impose those standards through law certainly suggests that such standards are not in the contracts. What is included are bonus payments for on-time operation. If the trains run on time, the railroads get extra payments. If not, they don't.

The legal obligation of the freight railroads is to provide priority to Amtrak operations. If Amtrak feels they are not getting priority, that freight is being moved to the detriment of Amtrak operations, Amtrak's recourse by law is through the Surface Transportation Board. The STB has the final say. Amtrak does not have the option to take court action.

 

[Ryan]

I never spoke to what the contract says.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but when you say you you're going to do something, you should follow through with it and do it, regardless of whether there are contracts in place that would penalize you for not following through on your word.

I'm sure Amtrak didn't just hand BNSF a schedule and say "Here is when we're running our train, make sure you're out of the way". At some level, there was agreement by BNSF on the current schedule. They should honor that agreement or seek to change it, whether there are contractual penalties for failing to run the train on time or not.

 

[montana mike]

As a footnote to the Empire Builder's struggles I have asked Amtrak on two occasions about these continuing delays and the downstream problems they create and I have yet to receive other than a "canned" response that they are aware of the issues. Looking at today's EB's things did not improve even during a "holiday" schedule. #8 in MN is about 5 hours late and still not in MSP, #7 in ND is almost 4 hours behind and even #7/27 in WA/OR are running over 2 hours behind, which will mean late arrivals into both PDX and SEA today-this without any bad weather along the entire length of the Hi-Line. Clearly there is just not the capacity available on this mostly single track line to support the Empire Builder's schedule into CHI at this time.

We don't know what discussions, if any, Amtrak has had with BNSF concerning this matter, but at least until now any that may have taken place have not yielded satisfactory results.

We know this train can run on time--It used to be Amtrak's shining star in this regard. I took it dozens of times for several years without any significant delays along the entire route. As my local BNSF guy has stated several times, until all of the track improvement work is completed (2 more years) the schedule "challenges" will likely continue at varying amounts. He did say however, that BNSF has no current plans to double track the hi-line route, just too costly.

 

[tim49424]

As we are discussing all the doom and gloom with the future of the Empire Builder, #8 left MSP on-time this morning. Maybe that gives me a slight glimmer of hope pertaining my December 22 trip after all, however, I have feeling this is just an exception to the daily rule and things will go back to status quo soon. The slight advantage I have with my next trip to Chicago/Kalamazoo is that it's on a Sunday, if weekends make a difference anymore with all the track work done for the winter.