Empire Builder Timekeeping Struggles

[cpotisch]

My feeling is the real reason for delays is not trackwork. It seems the railroads know that people buy that explanation so they throw that out there every summer. Of course your going to have work areas on the railroad for trackwork. Does that usually cause much for speed restrictions or delays? Somewhat but usually for short distances and that is very rarely the cause of hours long delays on a main line railroad.

The real reason is probably the BNSF trying to get by with not hiring enough train crews and then attempting to run more trains than the line can handle. So then you have trains dying and needing to wait for rested crews.

They must be calculating that it is more profitable to suffer long delays than to build enough track and hire enough people to have a fluid line.

Why the Hi-line has any sections of single track besides a bridge or tunnel here and there is beyond me. With the amount of money Berkshire Hathaway has, the BNSF could hire an army of track workers to lay a new track from Chicago to Seattle in one summer and still have money left over if they really wanted to.

Just my opinion of course. But I feel like the BNSF has been claiming "trackwork" for way too many years now to be justified in delaying the Empire Builder so much that it can not be depended upon for any regular rider.

Yeah, I don't think that there's some BNSF conspiracy to destroy the Builder. It's a very busy freight route, and of course repairs will have to be done. While work is being done or in need of being done, explain how it wouldn't make sense to have restricted speed sections. BNSF doesn't want delays any more than Amtrak. IMO, it would just make absolutely no sense for them to lie and claim that track work is the issue when it's actually just cost cutting and not hiring enough crews or something like that. You do recognize that they have a financial stake in getting their freight to its destination quickly and efficiently, right? So while it's not good for Amtrak to have so many delays, the same applies for them.

I honestly just don't get what you're on about.

 

[montana mike]

I have traveled the Hi-Line route enough this year to see the extensive track work being done. A lot more crews out there that what I have seen in most past summers. Unlike many other areas of the country, the Hi-Line portion of the EB route has a relatively short "maintenance season" due to the severe cold and snow in the winter. I have spoken with BNSF people here in MT this summer and they are not happy campers either with the mess that has occurred. The excessive delays have indeed been caused by BOTH the extra track work and a booming freight business as the demand for BNSF's transportation routes has increased. We see this every day in Whitefish, MT. The BNSF yard here has been full of trains constantly all year. Delaying a several mile long freight train 24 hours can be very costly to them.

Sadly, 8(17) is now approaching 9 hours behind as of late Saturday evening. So the saga continues. Westbound 7(17) is doing better, only about 90 minutes behind (but then again they haven't made it thru the Kootenai section yet).

 

[amtrakpass]

Hi guys, I totally understand everyone is trying to do there best as far as the workers go within the means they have been given. I don't blame any of the workers, dispatchers, track workers etc...

However a passenger train being delayed upwards of of 5 to 10 hours everyday is harmful to real human beings, not just freight company profits.

Are you saying it is impossible for the BNSF to plan ahead sufficiently to have enough capacity to run the Hi-line efficiently and still maintain profitably? Would this have been tolerated year in and year out when the GN ran the Empire Builder or the NP ran their trains? If is tolerated now, perhaps the lack of competition from all the mergers is the real issue.

Don't let your interest and respect for the railroad and it's workers make you unable to think critically of a major corporation's upper management decisions.

Is the yard in Whitefish plugged? Are they adding yard tracks or building a new yard then? Are they letting the yard crews work and promoting a culture of efficient and quick railroading or do they mess with the crews? Do they have enough van drivers so no one has to wait for a ride? Do they have all the crews paperwork and bulletin's ready when they come on duty so there are no delays waiting for something simple? Have they hired enough people so the extra boards are full?

The public should be better served than this.

 

[montana mike]

No doubt BNSF should be doing better. Their own people (at least at the operational level in the "trenches") are frustrated, since the freight delays are costing them $$$ as well. BTW: The WFH yard is slammed much of the time this summer. I haven't seen it this crowded in a long time. No room for expansion though, it's completely surrounded by Whitefish and our area is surrounded by USFS land and GNP. BNSF doesn't own any more land in the area. Crewing has normally not been an issue, although the extensive delays would appear to be causing some scheduling challenges from time to time, just as Amtrak has had similar issues.

It also appears that this year's agricultural movements are above forecasts as well, just adding to the congestion.

 

[west point]

Reports here mention that BNSF is not doing much new track work. The forecasters at BNSF did not anticipate the loads for this year and may not have anticipated 2019 - 2021 traffic. After the drop of traffic in the past BNSF may have decided that capacity was sufficient. When it became apparent that traffic was going to be much higher it may have been too late. Grain and petroleum particularly. BNSF may have ordered the equipment for the work now going on with no additional equipment available for last minute purchase ?.. Cross tie builders not notified early enough to ramp up production so BNSF could stockpile them. The same for rail. ballast, switches, and signal equipment. BTW cross tie production is reported to now be up over last year.

The heavier traffic has increased the million gross ton miles ( MGTM ) on present track especially single track sections. There fore more work has to be scheduled to maintain the track class status.

We believe that the 2019 area work can be predicted by what BNSF orders this coming winter.

Also the 800 pound ape present is getting enough workers to accomplish what is needed. The oil industry problems in getting workers on hi line locations in the past is known. Maybe BNSF cannot release track time to Amtrak because not enough workers to finish MOW jobs before winter ? Already BNSF has announced planned work will not be completed on schedule. Pain now or much pain later in winter ?

 

[cpotisch]

However a passenger train being delayed upwards of of 5 to 10 hours everyday is harmful to real human beings, not just freight company profits.

Are you saying it is impossible for the BNSF to plan ahead sufficiently to have enough capacity to run the Hi-line efficiently and still maintain profitably? Would this have been tolerated year in and year out when the GN ran the Empire Builder or the NP ran their trains? If is tolerated now, perhaps the lack of competition from all the mergers is the real issue.

How do you know that BNSF is running the line so much worse than it could? How could "planning ahead" mitigate all of these issues? Who said that it's not bad for the Builder and its passengers to be arriving at their destinations many hours late? BNSF needs to run their freights and Amtrak needs to run the EB. Significant maintenance just has to be done and that's bad for everyone. Once again, if BNSF could run and maintain the line much better, why wouldn't they? As I said, they're business relies on them getting freight to its destination reasonably on time, so they have a financial incentive to run the line as smoothly as possible.

 

[montana mike]

BNSF is a victim of their own success it would appear. All of the points raised by West Point are valid. Especially the workforce issues. BNSF has been aggressively hiring in MT, however, most of the jobs require a good amount of training and then some supervised experience, so the learning curve is a fairly long one. My guess is BNSF did indeed underestimate the growth in the economy and their customers needs (I was told they have actually turned away some new business this summer due to lack of assets themselves), which likely is a significant contributing factor to mess they once again find themselves in. Once decisions on capital improvements and maintenance are made it is hard to change them significantly in the short run.

Frustrating to see 8(17) now over 10 hours late and 7(17) now well over 3 hours behind as it nears SEA. Which likely means another late start for today's 8(19) and a ridiculously late arrival (around 3 AM) for 8(17) in CHI, which is not a great place to wonder around in at that time of the day. The cycle continues. :-((

PS: One of my BNSF folks did mention to me last week that BNSF had suggested that Amtrak set up the additional train set in SEA/PDX a while back earlier this summer as things began to unravel to at least allow for on time departures from those stations, but Amtrak personnel stated that they had no assets to spare for such an effort, so at least people were trying to think of ways to mitigate the delays.

 

[amtrakpass]

Thanks West point and Montana Mike for your educated responses. I learned a lot of good information from your posts.

I do not doubt there are significant challenges and not a lot of easy answers in the short term. I do hope that they will do some better planning in the future to avoid the recurrence of these serious delays.

My long term concern is that since most intermodal and freight is not time sensitive to the hour except for the few hot trains, the delays become accepted as normal and passenger train travel is not reliable to the general public and therefore loses support.

And Amtrak is not innocent for sure.

My main use of this route is between the Twin Cities and Chicago on the CP and I feel if Amtrak really cared, they would be running a substitute stub train to cover that on time, even if it was just a couple coaches.

At the very least if that is not possible, they could ask for funding specifically in the next budget for additional equipment to cover such contingencies on this and other lines.

As far as getting enough people to hire, which I recognize is a challenge, it may be necessary to offer bonuses and payment of lodging and moving expenses for enough people to work. You are going to get people from other parts of the country to work if the money is good enough like when people went up to Alaska years ago to work on the pipeline.

And not just train crews. The amount of time saved and productivity increased by having enough car inspectors, enginehouse people, local track gangs etc...is a lot.

There is reason the railroads used to employ a lot of people. Because it still takes a lot of labor to move trains efficiently, especially when you are trying to climb mountains.

Some of the issue nowadays with corporate America in my opinion is trying to do too much with too few laborers

 

[railiner]

It's not just railroads and other transportation service's that are finding it hard to recruit help these days....just about every line of business is experiencing this boom time for labor...

 

[west point]

As far as getting enough people to hire, which I recognize is a challenge, it may be necessary to offer bonuses and payment of lodging and moving expenses for enough people to work. You are going to get people from other parts of the country to work if the money is good enough like when people went up to Alaska years ago to work on the pipeline.

And not just train crews. The amount of time saved and productivity increased by having enough car inspectors, enginehouse people, local track gangs etc...is a lot.

There is reason the railroads used to employ a lot of people. Because it still takes a lot of labor to move trains efficiently, especially when you are trying to climb mountains.

Many persons including us would not relocate except temporary in the summer no matter how much the bonus. Have no idea what the housing situation is now but it was terrible during the oil boom. Rode past many sub divisions along the Hi Line that were only half built and no work being done toward completion. Some oil workers during the oil boom drove their camper and worked until couldn't stand it any more Quickly sold the camper and left to warmer pastures.

 

[montana mike]

Compounding all of the EB timekeeping troubles this summer may be the new Paola Ridge Fire, in GNP, which is just a few miles from Essex and US 2, which skirts the southern edge of the Park as do the BNSF tracks. Right now the fire is not an immediate threat to the BNSF tracks, BUT, forecasted winds over the next 24 hours may move it in the direction of Essex. Let us all hope and pray that the firefighters are able to keep this new fire from threatening both the town and the BNSF tracks. It is so extremely dry here in NW MT (no measurable rainfall in over 6 weeks), that fires can start very easily and are now most difficult to contain once they get going. A totally miserable summer--second one in a row for us. A good part of the western part of the Park remains closed due to the big Howe Ridge Fire as well. Containment on that much larger fire is not expected until we get our first snow, which usually happens sometime in early November.

:-(

 

[montana mike]

I had a brief, but insightful discussion with a BNSF local today about the Empire Builder woes this summer (which continue, albeit at only 2-3 hour delays now). One thing he shared with me was that even after the current track work schedule is completed in mid to late October, the amount of traffic on the Hi-Line now and their 2019 and beyond forecast is such that he would not be surprised if the EBs were 2-3 hours late on a daily basis arriving in CHI and about 1-2 hours behind arriving in SEA and PDX. His rationale for his comment was two fold, maintenance at the pace that was seen this year is likely to be something that happens for at least several more years and the amount of freight that BNSF is moving through this route has increased by double digits and shows no signs of slowing down. In fact he said the freight traffic would be even higher now, if they had the manpower and equipment to handle it. Evidently more and more long haul TL firms are using BNSF's Intermodal services.

Of course my question back to him was: Has BNSF shared this thought process with Amtrak, and he said there have been discussions about leaving that extra hour "on the books" that was tacked on this Spring as construction got underway, and even the possibility of increasing the total transit time by as much as another 90 minutes. If adopted that would mean the EB would be scheduled to arrive in CHI around 6:30 PM and arrive at its West coast destinations between Noon and 1 PM, perhaps making it difficult for the current departure times to remain in place at both SEA and PDX. The downside of this is, as we have already discussed, this means the Eastbound EB would only be able to connect with the LSL in CHI. Not that #8 has made very many other connections this Summer anyway. I don't think the West bound EBs connect to any LD trains now, so it may not be any big deal there.

 

[Maglev]

I don't think the West bound EBs connect to any LD trains now, so it may not be any big deal there.

The Portland section connects with the southbound Coast Starlight, but 90 minutes later than its current 10:10 am arrival shouldn't affect connection at 2:25 pm (a 1 pm arrival in Portland starts cutting it a little short).

Another consideration is that it takes about four hours to turn the train (at least the Seattle section that I know of), so if there is less than four hours between arrival and departure, additional train sets would be needed.

 

[montana mike]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

 

[JayPea]

On #7 right now and left Rugby about an hour late, heading to Spokane. Selfishly I wouldn't mind getting into Spokane several hours late. I have an hour's drive home after that and would like to have had a good sleep rather than having to be rousted out of bed at 0 dark 30.

 

[jis]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

They could then fall back on the old "three or four times a week" thing if enough resources cannot be found for additional consists, which is actually quite likely unless some other Superliner train is dinged - maybe the Southwest Chief? Who knows? Uncertain times.

The Builder has operated down to three times a week in the past, so it is not unprecedented.

 

[montana mike]

I would be saddened to see this happen, given the importance of the Builders to the folks on the Hi-Line, but completely understandable. No matter what Amtrak decides, or doesn't decide, the "heads up" from the BNSF folks that the current schedule is not realistic is something that anyone taking this train must be aware of.

JayPea: Your #7 today is doing about as good as it gets-bravo! You may get your wish, since the Kootenai Sub maintenance work often delays the EB another hour or so.

 

[cpotisch]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

How would this help the issue that the consists are usually arriving late enough that they can't be turned and sent on their return trip in time? Putting more padding in the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB keeps on arriving at its termini too late to be turned and sent back on schedule.

 

[west point]

The bilder IMHO would not get any equipment from a bustituted SW chief as same number of train sets still would be needed. Now if # of cars reduced ? ?s

 

[montana mike]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

How would this help the issue that the consists are usually arriving late enough that they can't be turned and sent on their return trip in time? Putting more padding in the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB keeps on arriving at its termini too late to be turned and sent back on schedule.

Well, of course the starting times would need to be adjusted accordingly to give the yard a chance to turn around the train set, clean the cars, repression them and make sure the new crew is ready to go. Only Amtrak knows how much additional time they would need on this.

 

[montana mike]

The bilder IMHO would not get any equipment from a bustituted SW chief as same number of train sets still would be needed. Now if # of cars reduced ? ?s

Well, that might be a viable option for the EBs for perhaps 8 months out of the year. I have taken this train many, many times and June thru September appear to be the only months (other than right around the holidays in the winter) when the Builders are full. And they are full in the Summer. The problem might be that with the train splitting in SPK which shorter train set takes the hit? PDX only gets one Sleeper to start with and two coaches I believe. Nothing is easy.......

 

[cpotisch]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

How would this help the issue that the consists are usually arriving late enough that they can't be turned and sent on their return trip in time? Putting more padding in the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB keeps on arriving at its termini too late to be turned and sent back on schedule.

Well, of course the starting times would need to be adjusted accordingly to give the yard a chance to turn around the train set, clean the cars, repression them and make sure the new crew is ready to go. Only Amtrak knows how much additional time they would need on this.

But just changing the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB has been arriving too late to turn around in time. If the EB is consistently late enough into its destination that it can't be turned in time for the return trip, what difference would changing the schedules make? They can't just pull an extra couple hours out of thin air.

 

[montana mike]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

How would this help the issue that the consists are usually arriving late enough that they can't be turned and sent on their return trip in time? Putting more padding in the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB keeps on arriving at its termini too late to be turned and sent back on schedule.

Well, of course the starting times would need to be adjusted accordingly to give the yard a chance to turn around the train set, clean the cars, repression them and make sure the new crew is ready to go. Only Amtrak knows how much additional time they would need on this.

But just changing the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB has been arriving too late to turn around in time. If the EB is consistently late enough into its destination that it can't be turned in time for the return trip, what difference would changing the schedules make? They can't just pull an extra couple hours out of thin air.

For example, if they consistently arrive in PDX and SEA 2 hours late, Amtrak would move the scheduled departure time to 6 PM and 6 :40 PM respectively. This then adds 2 hours on top of the 2-3 hours that they already would need to recognize the delays on the Hi-Line to add to the arrival time in CHI. This new schedule would then put #8 into CHI around 9 PM each night. The next day's Westbound EBs don't depart until 2:15 CDT the following day. That gives the Chicago team 17 hours to prepare the EB for the return to the west. Hopefully that should be sufficient time.

 

[cpotisch]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

How would this help the issue that the consists are usually arriving late enough that they can't be turned and sent on their return trip in time? Putting more padding in the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB keeps on arriving at its termini too late to be turned and sent back on schedule.

Well, of course the starting times would need to be adjusted accordingly to give the yard a chance to turn around the train set, clean the cars, repression them and make sure the new crew is ready to go. Only Amtrak knows how much additional time they would need on this.

But just changing the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB has been arriving too late to turn around in time. If the EB is consistently late enough into its destination that it can't be turned in time for the return trip, what difference would changing the schedules make? They can't just pull an extra couple hours out of thin air.

For example, if they consistently arrive in PDX and SEA 2 hours late, Amtrak would move the scheduled departure time to 6 PM and 6 :40 PM respectively. This then adds 2 hours on top of the 2-3 hours that they already would need to recognize the delays on the Hi-Line to add to the arrival time in CHI. This new schedule would then put #8 into CHI around 9 PM each night. The next day's Westbound EBs don't depart until 2:15 CDT the following day. That gives the Chicago team 17 hours to prepare the EB for the return to the west. Hopefully that should be sufficient time.

Oh, I see. So the EB doesn't have much time to be turned in SEA/PDX, but has plenty of time do so in CHI. Therefore they could shift the eastbound EB's schedule back a couple hours to give it more time to be turned at its western termini, while still having plenty of time in Chicago?

 

[montana mike]

Given Amtrak's likely position that they do not have any additional assets to devote to an additional train set for this route, it would be logical to see the departure times at both SEA and PDX adjusted, and therefore the arrival time in CHI further lengthened as well, if they do make the decision to add time to the trip. Of course Amtrak could just leave the schedule "as is" and just about every train will be several hours late, as they have mostly been this Summer. Tough call for them, but the reality of the situation may dictate that they do this.

How would this help the issue that the consists are usually arriving late enough that they can't be turned and sent on their return trip in time? Putting more padding in the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB keeps on arriving at its termini too late to be turned and sent back on schedule.

Well, of course the starting times would need to be adjusted accordingly to give the yard a chance to turn around the train set, clean the cars, repression them and make sure the new crew is ready to go. Only Amtrak knows how much additional time they would need on this.

But just changing the schedules doesn't change the fact that the EB has been arriving too late to turn around in time. If the EB is consistently late enough into its destination that it can't be turned in time for the return trip, what difference would changing the schedules make? They can't just pull an extra couple hours out of thin air.

For example, if they consistently arrive in PDX and SEA 2 hours late, Amtrak would move the scheduled departure time to 6 PM and 6 :40 PM respectively. This then adds 2 hours on top of the 2-3 hours that they already would need to recognize the delays on the Hi-Line to add to the arrival time in CHI. This new schedule would then put #8 into CHI around 9 PM each night. The next day's Westbound EBs don't depart until 2:15 CDT the following day. That gives the Chicago team 17 hours to prepare the EB for the return to the west. Hopefully that should be sufficient time.

Oh, I see. So the EB doesn't have much time to be turned in SEA/PDX, but has plenty of time do so in CHI. Therefore they could shift the eastbound EB's schedule back a couple hours to give it more time to be turned at its western termini, while still having plenty of time in Chicago?

Yup. One would think 17 hours is sufficient to turn equipment around. That would be the only alternative really if they wanted a schedule that more closely matched what the EB could achieve on that route. The local stationmaster here in WFH thinks that Amtrak will leave the schedule as is and the train will just be chronically late almost every day.