Empire Builder Summer Blues Started Early this year

[gmushial]

My apologies. When I check the Amtrak website, no EB is not listed as having WiFi... but then again neither is the CZ ??? but I know it was there on the CZ in May - 'cause I used it - even though I had to borrow a tablet to do such (if I'd known it was going to be there I would have brought a laptop or tablet like half the other passengers).

The CZ doesn't have wifi either. What you saw and used was most likely someone's private wifi hotspot.

I have no idea why the forum software is moving my text inside the quote tags....

It's moving your text inside "because you're special" ;-)

W/re WiFi - private hotspots all the way across the route? I guess it's possible, but don't think so. Zac - the person that I kept mooching web access from - had a no-name tablet w/o phone capability, only "802" wifi.. and up until lights out the 2nd day (eastern Colorado) I kept bugging him if he was still connected - seems he kept conversations ongoing with a half dozen people all the way from SAC - and his comment was that other than in the tunnels, yes. So... I'm not sure what was happening or how it was working, but it worked for him explicitly, and when I walked through the lounge and observation cars the number of people "browsing" was significant. The other characteristic, which might identify how/where they were connecting is/was: that there was intervening software that would block the downloads of files/music larger than 5-10mb... which I don't think random hotspots would do that consistently. Bottom line: I thought I "knew" how they were getting connected... I guess all I can say now is that a lot of silicon valley types were able to stay connected for a very large portion of the trip.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

The hotspots were on the train. You can buy a MiFi from your wireless carrier and share it with others. Perhaps someone on the train did not have theirs "locked" and your "friend" was mooching off of it.

 

[gmushial]

Can't one compensate for this by using more shorter pieces of rail and more gaps at the end-connects. With quarter-mile rails I can see this clearly would be a problem and a disaster waiting to happen, but 100' or 200' and end gaps one would think one could compensate for such... or is the expansion over that temp range just too much?

Sure, one can do that. And in fact, that's how rails were originally laid in this country; shorter lengths that is. But that increases maintenance costs as hitting those joints wears down both the rails & the wheels much faster, even as it makes that old familiar clickity-clack sound.

I suspect nowadays since passenger traffic makes up such a small percentage of what the rails carry, any optimization for being on schedule doesn't/wouldn't make any economic sense... freight I suspect doesn't care if it is a couple hours late and likewise if one can reduce rail/wheel wear that's what's of the greatest importance to the rail companies, ie, it's all dollars and cents. I wonder if there isn't some non-cost prohibitive way to have the best of both worlds, ie, run at full speed independent of temperatures, and likewise keep wear to a minimum?? Many thanks for your insights and reply - very much appreciated.

A related question: when a train has to run at 25mph vs 60mph, I suspect the gallons per mile decreases, but not proportionately, ie, over the same trip, the total fuel burned increases - correct? Any idea what those numbers actually look like? eg, any guesses as to what a CZ burns btwn DEN and CHI, ie, out on the flats (either total fuel, or gallons per mile)? Again, many thanks.

First: The standard rail length pre welded rail was 39 feet. About the longest used anywhere with jointed rail was 60 feet. That is pushing the limit of practicality for jointed rail. If you want longer it needs to be restrained. Generally the thought is to lay it on the hot side so that it is in tension in cold weather. However, over time the zero stress temperature tends to creep downward. To stretch it to the point that it is always in tension is regarded as impractical. If not truly so, it sure is close. Good embedment of the ties and good shoulders of ballast are important to high temperature stability. It is there, but it only takes one weak spot to cause the problem. Placing the track on concrete will also help, but that is a really expensive solution to implement on an existing track.

Running at a lower maximum speed reduces fuel consumption for the trip.

Many thanks for the reply. When you say "placing the track on concrete" do you mean ties, or the whole bedding? The reason I ask is that at several points along the route (CZ) where they were doing track maintenance we saw units/pallets (is there a formal term for collections of ties when they are transported in bundles of 8 x 6?) of concrete ties waiting to be used, still in their bundled form; and in one case where the concrete ties were laid out along the rail bed already spaced 1 per foot and a half or whatever the tie spacing is under the rail - where it looked like they were simply going to be substituted in for the existing wooden ties. [our #6 ended up several hours late - mostly because of rail bed maintenance, and where we got to watch a lot of it in real-time]. ... one of the reason this caught my eye was that vaguely I thought I remembered from the 1950s or 60s that concrete ties had been tried, but were found less durable then wood in that they were fragile and the pounding they received from the passing trains caused them to disintegrate (back to dust, sand and aggregate)... so to see them now I came to the (unsupported) conclusion that somebody had found a more elastic/forgiving form of concrete that wasn't as fragile as from a half a century ago. Coming from the sciences I was intrigued by that evolution (and was curious what the change had been).

From your comment about less fuel while slower - then it sounds like the aero drag for a train is greater than rolling friction - interesting... would have thought otherwise.

yet again - many thanks for your post - greg

 

[gmushial]

The hotspots were on the train. You can buy a MiFi from your wireless carrier and share it with others. Perhaps someone on the train did not have theirs "locked" and your "friend" was mooching off of it.

Seems like most of the train was mooching then - I saw probably 30ish laptops or tablets what were browsing when I walked around. W/re buying WiFi from a wireless carrier - why would one want this capability (not trying to be snarky)? Or is the obvious answer exactly what I saw? The limiting of file sizes - does that make sense in terms of mooching? Or possibly was this somebody intentionally making this available to the rest of the train - somebody with an unlimited data plan? Have you seen this before where WiFi "magically" appears where it isn't advertised as being available? Either way: interesting observation/suggestion... I'm old school, a cell phone occasional user - but not an aficionado by any means.

 

[yarrow]

last summer's eb delays thread only ran to 35 pages. since we are starting early this year i think we can easily beat that

 

[NW cannonball]

Can't one compensate for this by using more shorter pieces of rail and more gaps at the end-connects. With quarter-mile rails I can see this clearly would be a problem and a disaster waiting to happen, but 100' or 200' and end gaps one would think one could compensate for such... or is the expansion over that temp range just too much?

Sure, one can do that. And in fact, that's how rails were originally laid in this country; shorter lengths that is. But that increases maintenance costs as hitting those joints wears down both the rails & the wheels much faster, even as it makes that old familiar clickity-clack sound.

I suspect nowadays since passenger traffic makes up such a small percentage of what the rails carry, any optimization for being on schedule doesn't/wouldn't make any economic sense... freight I suspect doesn't care if it is a couple hours late and likewise if one can reduce rail/wheel wear that's what's of the greatest importance to the rail companies, ie, it's all dollars and cents. I wonder if there isn't some non-cost prohibitive way to have the best of both worlds, ie, run at full speed independent of temperatures, and likewise keep wear to a minimum?? Many thanks for your insights and reply - very much appreciated.

A related question: when a train has to run at 25mph vs 60mph, I suspect the gallons per mile decreases, but not proportionately, ie, over the same trip, the total fuel burned increases - correct? Any idea what those numbers actually look like? eg, any guesses as to what a CZ burns btwn DEN and CHI, ie, out on the flats (either total fuel, or gallons per mile)? Again, many thanks.

First: The standard rail length pre welded rail was 39 feet. About the longest used anywhere with jointed rail was 60 feet. That is pushing the limit of practicality for jointed rail. If you want longer it needs to be restrained. Generally the thought is to lay it on the hot side so that it is in tension in cold weather. However, over time the zero stress temperature tends to creep downward. To stretch it to the point that it is always in tension is regarded as impractical. If not truly so, it sure is close. Good embedment of the ties and good shoulders of ballast are important to high temperature stability. It is there, but it only takes one weak spot to cause the problem. Placing the track on concrete will also help, but that is a really expensive solution to implement on an existing track.

Running at a lower maximum speed reduces fuel consumption for the trip.

Many thanks for the reply. When you say "placing the track on concrete" do you mean ties, or the whole bedding? The reason I ask is that at several points along the route (CZ) where they were doing track maintenance we saw units/pallets (is there a formal term for collections of ties when they are transported in bundles of 8 x 6?) of concrete ties waiting to be used, still in their bundled form; and in one case where the concrete ties were laid out along the rail bed already spaced 1 per foot and a half or whatever the tie spacing is under the rail - where it looked like they were simply going to be substituted in for the existing wooden ties. [our #6 ended up several hours late - mostly because of rail bed maintenance, and where we got to watch a lot of it in real-time]. ... one of the reason this caught my eye was that vaguely I thought I remembered from the 1950s or 60s that concrete ties had been tried, but were found less durable then wood in that they were fragile and the pounding they received from the passing trains caused them to disintegrate (back to dust, sand and aggregate)... so to see them now I came to the (unsupported) conclusion that somebody had found a more elastic/forgiving form of concrete that wasn't as fragile as from a half a century ago. Coming from the sciences I was intrigued by that evolution (and was curious what the change had been).

From your comment about less fuel while slower - then it sounds like the aero drag for a train is greater than rolling friction - interesting... would have thought otherwise.

yet again - many thanks for your post - greg

Rolling friction steel wheels on steel rails is very small. (why they have to set handbrakes, why there are derails at the end of parking tracks) Aero friction goes up (roughly) with speed squared (depending on aerodynamic design of the whole trainset) - freight trains don't (and can't, with current designs) worry the aero. Shinkansen and TGV do.

The big cost for slower freight trains is having to hire more crew and buy more engines to get the load to where it's needed. Saw an estimate about 1-2 decades back that if the UP lost 1 mph off their average freight speed (was it about 25 mph? - including time in sidings and yards) , they'd have to buy several hundred engines and hire a few hundred more crews. And so on for each 1 mph loss, or gain. And every time a freight has to get up to speed after being stopped in a siding, that burns mucho fuel.

The economics is not related to speed only.

About continuous welded rail -- it's welded continuous for as many miles as possible - there are breaks at turnout switches, drawbridges - whatever. And every break is a maintenance problem.

George knows much more about that than I do.

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

Regarding tablets, etc browsing on the train -- they may not have been connected to wifi. I have a wifi capable tablet e-reader and use it all the time I am on the train to read books I have already stored on my tablet or even movies. So, I am assuming that most of those you saw browsing could have not been connected to wifi but browsing info or data already stored on their devices. This would also include games, etc. I recently got an Iphone 5 and will use it sparingly as a hot spot when traveling this summer on Amtrak; however, it will be a locked signal and require a password on any device seeking to connect to it. I don't know about the person you observed but I trust most who were actually connected to internet had a phone hot spot or were simply browsing data already stored on their device.

 

[montana mike]

#7 and #27 will likely arrive today in SEA and PDX respectively just under 4 hours late. What are the odds that these two trains will depart on time on their eastbound journey today? Can AMTRAK turn both of these segments around in 2 hours? If their departure is delayed, this train could end up like last week , ridiculously late (6+ hours) by the time they arrived in CHI town.

 

[JayPea]

#7 and #27 will likely arrive today in SEA and PDX respectively just under 4 hours late. What are the odds that these two trains will depart on time on their eastbound journey today? Can AMTRAK turn both of these segments around in 2 hours? If their departure is delayed, this train could end up like last week , ridiculously late (6+ hours) by the time they arrived in CHI town.

It looks as though 28 got off on time, but 8 was delayed. There is padding in the schedule between Seattle and Spokane and the dwell time in Spokane is lengthy so 8 might be all right anyway.

 

[Jacob Goes By Jack]

To change the subject a bit - I wonder why Amtrak doesn't just change the Empire Builder's official timetable this summer to reflect the track work and increased traffic? After all, these aren't surprises that come out of nowhere... wouldn't they rather have, say, a 49 hour trip that usually arrives on time, rather than a 46 hour trip that's always 3 hours late? They can always change the timetable back to the old one in the autumn... so why don't they do it this way?

 

[JayPea]

Looks like 8 out of Seattle started off 1 hr and 24 minutes late. Not a good start.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

7/27 is still going through Montana only 1 hour late tonight.

8/28 is going through North Dakota under an hour late.

That's a good sign, right??????

 

[gmushial]

Regarding tablets, etc browsing on the train -- they may not have been connected to wifi. I have a wifi capable tablet e-reader and use it all the time I am on the train to read books I have already stored on my tablet or even movies. So, I am assuming that most of those you saw browsing could have not been connected to wifi but browsing info or data already stored on their devices. This would also include games, etc. I recently got an Iphone 5 and will use it sparingly as a hot spot when traveling this summer on Amtrak; however, it will be a locked signal and require a password on any device seeking to connect to it. I don't know about the person you observed but I trust most who were actually connected to internet had a phone hot spot or were simply browsing data already stored on their device.

Absolutely have agree: some could have been accessing preloaded material... but the Google screens, the Facebook screens and Yahoo IM screens - pretty sure they were connected. But will bring a tablet next time and see what happens... watch there be no connectivity ;-( ... but given that at least 30% of the people on the train had some type of smart device - either they were going to be disappointed, or they had been there before and had had them work... as they say: we shall see in the fullness of time

 

[AlanB]

To change the subject a bit - I wonder why Amtrak doesn't just change the Empire Builder's official timetable this summer to reflect the track work and increased traffic? After all, these aren't surprises that come out of nowhere... wouldn't they rather have, say, a 49 hour trip that usually arrives on time, rather than a 46 hour trip that's always 3 hours late? They can always change the timetable back to the old one in the autumn... so why don't they do it this way?

Because changing the schedule isn't a simple matter. One must renegotiate a new schedule with 3 different RR's in the EB's case. And it's tough to get a new schedule from the RR's. Even harder to get them to reduce time once they've granted a longer schedule.

Furthermore, changing the schedule breaks the connections with several trains. That means that Amtrak can't even sell through tickets, to say the Cardinal and quite possibly even the Capitol Limited; as well as a few state sponsored trains out of CHI.

 

[gmushial]

To change the subject a bit - I wonder why Amtrak doesn't just change the Empire Builder's official timetable this summer to reflect the track work and increased traffic? After all, these aren't surprises that come out of nowhere... wouldn't they rather have, say, a 49 hour trip that usually arrives on time, rather than a 46 hour trip that's always 3 hours late? They can always change the timetable back to the old one in the autumn... so why don't they do it this way?

Because changing the schedule isn't a simple matter. One must renegotiate a new schedule with 3 different RR's in the EB's case. And it's tough to get a new schedule from the RR's. Even harder to get them to reduce time once they've granted a longer schedule.

Furthermore, changing the schedule breaks the connections with several trains. That means that Amtrak can't even sell through tickets, to say the Cardinal and quite possibly even the Capitol Limited; as well as a few state sponsored trains out of CHI.

Would this really involve negotiating new schedules, or merely accepting reality? The three RRs can't be oblivious to such... or can they? Isn't one of the major stumbling blocks sidings and single track conflicts? Wouldn't it be easier and involve less juggling in real-time to have a schedule that is possible, than having one that doesn't reflect reality and being forced into juggling trains, sidings on a daily basis?

 

[crescent2]

I think changing the TT to show longer times would bind the train to those longer times. The train can't leave most stations before the time stated in the TT even if it has to sit and wait. And as said, it could not (instead of often doesn't) connect to some of the trains that it now can, when it's on time. Why make it permanently take longer to get there even when things are running smoothly? At least now it can arrive as currently scheduled if all goes well. And you couldn't change the times of the connecting trains because that would ripple through the system. Amtrak does a pretty good job of timing the long distance trains to maximize daylight hours for the best scenery now. Plus all the hassle with the track owners and scheduling. I think it would be a huge thing to do.

 

[AlanB]

Would this really involve negotiating new schedules, or merely accepting reality? The three RRs can't be oblivious to such... or can they? Isn't one of the major stumbling blocks sidings and single track conflicts? Wouldn't it be easier and involve less juggling in real-time to have a schedule that is possible, than having one that doesn't reflect reality and being forced into juggling trains, sidings on a daily basis?

Yes, it really does involve negotiating new schedules.

The RR's in some sense don't really care if Amtrak is late or not. Yes some work harder to keep Amtrak on time than others do and all are working harder now with the new rules out of Congress in 2008.

And no, it wouldn't make things any easier. The RR's in some cases cannot change the schedules on their freight trains, so a later running Amtrak train only changes the meeting places, but will still force someone into a siding. It may even force a freight train into the siding, a siding that it might not fit into, instead of Amtrak. It's kind of like widening a highway to get rid of a traffic jam that occurs daily, only to find that all you did was move the traffic jam 5 miles down the road to where the newly widened highway ends.

Finally, in the case of some RR's, adding time does nothing but make the run longer for Amtrak. Back in the early 2000's, pre-Katrina, the Sunset was notoriously late; including a few 24 hour late arrivals. So Amtrak went to UP & CSX and basically said "what can we do to fix this?" The resulting agreement was that 10 - 1/2 hours were added to the schedule; 8 for UP between LAX & NOL, 2 - 1/2 for CSX between NOL & ORL.

And the end result was that the Sunset Limited ran even later than ever before, with more 24 hour delays and even some 48 hour delays on UP. The RR's simply gobbled up that extra time and still couldn't manage to make the train run on time.

Yes there have been a few times in the past where a host has asked Amtrak for a few extra hours and they've delivered when that was granted. But generally that has not been the case, they simply enjoy the increased padding and still run Amtrak late. And one big difference in all of this is that these have been permanent schedule changes; whereas your looking for a seasonal schedule change. That's far less likely to be granted by the hosts.

 

[gmushial]

Would this really involve negotiating new schedules, or merely accepting reality? The three RRs can't be oblivious to such... or can they? Isn't one of the major stumbling blocks sidings and single track conflicts? Wouldn't it be easier and involve less juggling in real-time to have a schedule that is possible, than having one that doesn't reflect reality and being forced into juggling trains, sidings on a daily basis?

Yes, it really does involve negotiating new schedules.

The RR's in some sense don't really care if Amtrak is late or not. Yes some work harder to keep Amtrak on time than others do and all are working harder now with the new rules out of Congress in 2008.

And no, it wouldn't make things any easier. The RR's in some cases cannot change the schedules on their freight trains, so a later running Amtrak train only changes the meeting places, but will still force someone into a siding. It may even force a freight train into the siding, a siding that it might not fit into, instead of Amtrak. It's kind of like widening a highway to get rid of a traffic jam that occurs daily, only to find that all you did was move the traffic jam 5 miles down the road to where the newly widened highway ends.

Finally, in the case of some RR's, adding time does nothing but make the run longer for Amtrak. Back in the early 2000's, pre-Katrina, the Sunset was notoriously late; including a few 24 hour late arrivals. So Amtrak went to UP & CSX and basically said "what can we do to fix this?" The resulting agreement was that 10 - 1/2 hours were added to the schedule; 8 for UP between LAX & NOL, 2 - 1/2 for CSX between NOL & ORL.

And the end result was that the Sunset Limited ran even later than ever before, with more 24 hour delays and even some 48 hour delays on UP. The RR's simply gobbled up that extra time and still couldn't manage to make the train run on time.

Yes there have been a few times in the past where a host has asked Amtrak for a few extra hours and they've delivered when that was granted. But generally that has not been the case, they simply enjoy the increased padding and still run Amtrak late. And one big difference in all of this is that these have been permanent schedule changes; whereas your looking for a seasonal schedule change. That's far less likely to be granted by the hosts.

Alan, sir,

A hugely knowledgeable reply - many thanks.

I guess the problem is that I've been in computing for almost a half-century, and been in positions where huge schedules had to be sorted out / optimized (eg, spaceflight), and have to believe that given realistic characterizations of routes and trains, that one can come up with schedules where everyone wins: where neither train (in the case of two trains in opposing directions) has to stop, especially a freight (thinking about getting a train back up to speed and associated fuel costs), but also a passenger train in terms of schedule.

It seems that there are two types of models that would be useful: 1) a predictive model whereby one can generate "suspected" schedules - like the Amtrak seasonal timetables, and 2) a dynamic model where one can juggle train speeds so that in optimal circumstances no train ever has to wait for another (like that'll ever happen), or at least an outcome where passenger trains are optimized for arrival times, and freights are optimized for cost for freight-ton-mile.

Approach and departure control at major airports do this - a plane doesn't push back form a gate until there is a path for it to taxi out and take off, likewise, approaching planes are asked to reduce speed or forced into a holding pattern until there is a landing slot available.. where the net result is something like 98%+ of the theoretical capacity of the system. Yes, I suspect the number of trains, the conditions of the various lines (maintenance or rail heat concerns, etc), the length of trains are more dynamic than the air flight situation, but given the super cheap computational capacity available today, and the GPS knowledge of exactly where all the players are, one should be able - and it's really in the interest of all the players - to generate orders which produce the best possible results per all the player's priorities.

So, what I'm suggesting is: that given recent historic traffic and conditions, one generates an optimal probable schedule for all players (which is what gets published), and in real-time as loads, trains and conditions change, one dynamically generates new orders to optimize around those, and again, per each player's priorities [even to the level of letting a passenger train know that there is a window of time that it can leave a station during where it'll have clear sailing, but if it misses that window, the next window that it'll have clear sailing, ie, avoiding the situation where a train simply appears on the line and now has to compete for resources].... I could go on quite a bit - but I suspect/hope you get the point.

again, many thanks for the knowledgeable previous reply - greg

 

[CHamilton]

Back on 8. 1:30 late at Red Wing, 1:40 at Winona. Now approaching LaCrosse on the 'slow route' and I suspect we'll be 2 hours late by then. Just heard part of an announcement that seemed to be talking about hotels in Chicago. Glad I chose to stay overnight in Chicago and catch the Cardinal tomorrow.

 

[ChooChoo]

I have seen kind of a pattern in the ontime performance of Train 8 on the weekends into Chicago. It seems that weekend arrivals tend to do better on time. I'll be on Train 8 (2) next month (July) from MT (arrival in CHI July 4th) and was wondering if any of you think that whatever forces at work on the weekends that help Train 8 might also play a role in keeping better time due to the July 4th holiday? It'll put a huge kink in things to miss the Train 50 connection to central WV. Amtraks voucher will be usless to all members of my party since the last I traveled was 4 years ago and the other reservation couple was 5 years ago.

 

[CHamilton]

8 running 2 hours late at Tomah and Wisconsin Dells.

 

[gmushial]

8 running 2 hours late at Tomah and Wisconsin Dells.

Sounds like: further you go, the further behind you get. :-(

 

[CHamilton]

From 8: Announced that all connecting passengers will be bussed from Chicago except 354 will be bussed from MKE, 305 passengers will take 307, and no information on 30 yet. ETA into Chicago 6 pm, as we will get stuck behind Metra.

 

[anir dendroica]

Would this really involve negotiating new schedules, or merely accepting reality? The three RRs can't be oblivious to such... or can they? Isn't one of the major stumbling blocks sidings and single track conflicts? Wouldn't it be easier and involve less juggling in real-time to have a schedule that is possible, than having one that doesn't reflect reality and being forced into juggling trains, sidings on a daily basis?

Yes, it really does involve negotiating new schedules.

The RR's in some sense don't really care if Amtrak is late or not. Yes some work harder to keep Amtrak on time than others do and all are working harder now with the new rules out of Congress in 2008.

And no, it wouldn't make things any easier. The RR's in some cases cannot change the schedules on their freight trains, so a later running Amtrak train only changes the meeting places, but will still force someone into a siding. It may even force a freight train into the siding, a siding that it might not fit into, instead of Amtrak. It's kind of like widening a highway to get rid of a traffic jam that occurs daily, only to find that all you did was move the traffic jam 5 miles down the road to where the newly widened highway ends.

Finally, in the case of some RR's, adding time does nothing but make the run longer for Amtrak. Back in the early 2000's, pre-Katrina, the Sunset was notoriously late; including a few 24 hour late arrivals. So Amtrak went to UP & CSX and basically said "what can we do to fix this?" The resulting agreement was that 10 - 1/2 hours were added to the schedule; 8 for UP between LAX & NOL, 2 - 1/2 for CSX between NOL & ORL.

And the end result was that the Sunset Limited ran even later than ever before, with more 24 hour delays and even some 48 hour delays on UP. The RR's simply gobbled up that extra time and still couldn't manage to make the train run on time.

Yes there have been a few times in the past where a host has asked Amtrak for a few extra hours and they've delivered when that was granted. But generally that has not been the case, they simply enjoy the increased padding and still run Amtrak late. And one big difference in all of this is that these have been permanent schedule changes; whereas your looking for a seasonal schedule change. That's far less likely to be granted by the hosts.

Given that most of the delays, and most of the route-miles, are on BNSF, I think that a temporary schedule change could be negotiated with BNSF only. There is precedent for this in that the Coast Starlight schedule is occasionally moved two hours later to accommodate track construction.

Here's how I would do it:

1. Find a sixth trainset or cancel every sixth train (to allow overnight in SEA/PDX.)

2. Do nothing to #7's schedule. It will arrive late often but will still make the 27-11 connection with some regularity.

3. Move the departure times for #8 and #28 up by four hours. (12:45 from PDX, 12:40 from SEA). Move all times up by four hours to Shelby, MT. Move Minot, Rugby, DL, and GFK times up by three hours. Move Fargo-SCD times up by two hours. Leave MSP-CHI times unchanged (to avoid breaking connections, or needing to negotiate with CP/Metra).

The main headaches caused by these delays seem to be

--missed connections from #8 to eastern LD's, and

--unreliable MSP-CHI corridor service due to #8 delays out west, and

--forced turns in Spokane due to short turnaround times on the west coast.

These would all be fixed by my proposed changes.

Mark

 

[CHamilton]

From 8: Passengers connecting to 30 will apparently make it, by 10 minutes.