Minneapolis has not had an Amtrak stop since 1978. There is an excellent stop in downtown St Paul (where I live), at marvelous grand old Union Depot (SPUD), but it is located 10 miles east of downtown Minneapolis, which is in Hennepin County (populaton well over 1 million) and is the population center of the greater Twin Cities metro Consolidated Statistical Area of about 4 million. This presents a problem for the western and northwestern metro area. There is no stop after leaving SPUD until you arrive at St Cloud, MN which is 75 miles further northwest. Since it is very difficult to get anything built for passenger rail anymore with goverment money (endless bureaucratic hurdles), I was thinking and talking to my friends at All Aboard Minnesota about the possibility of getting the Empire Builder to stop at one of the Northstar Commutor Train Stations, none of which the EB currently stops at. We so far, have thought that Fridley might be the best current option, since to reach the downtown Mpls Northstar Station, the EB would be required to back up over 2 miles across the Mississippi River, which the BNSF and Amtrak have said absolutely they will not do, even though long back up moves are currently being done by the California Zephyr at Denver and the City of New Orleans, in and CUS to reach the St Charles Air Line in Chicago. So, our next best option might be the station at 61st & Main St in Fridley, MN at Mile Post 16 on the BNSF Staples Sub. inasmuch as the Midway Station in St Paul is too close to SPUD for consideration (7 rail miles). Fridley is about 17 rail miles from SPUD and is ADA compliant with many safety features such a an underground tunnel, elevators, fencing, etc. It also several heated platform waiting rooms and could be a bare bones unmanned station, as it currently exists. It is also within a quarter mile of several Metro Transit bus lines. It is closer to downtown Mpls than SPUD is and would serve the northwest metro area quite well, as it is located in extreme southern Anoka County, near both Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, just a mile from the I-94 & I-694 freeway hub. Both eastbound and westbound Empire Builders could stop here without delay of schedule because there is plenty of padding in the Twin Cities area including 25" for #7 and over an hour for #8 in St Paul. The only necessary change in the schedule would be for #8 because of the weekday morning Northstar rush hour, which would require #8 to wait at St Cloud for 40" until 6:00am. Then departing Fridley at about 7:00am. Still departing SPUD at 8:00am. What do you folks think??
I think that Amtrak thinks Minneapolis-St.Paul is a single city for their purposes and their current arrangement is what they want.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
When I last visited the Twin Cities ~15 years ago, I was astounded at the traffic congestion and today I can only imagine.
Another stop seems like a good idea to encourage new riders, but IMO driving less toward downtown might be better. Are the Riverdale / Coon Rapids or Anoka stations less desirable than Fridley in some ways?
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
MikeF90When I last visited the Twin Cities ~15 years ago, I was astounded at the traffic congestion and today I can only imagine. Another stop seems like a good idea to encourage new riders, but IMO driving less toward downtown might be better. Are the Riverdale / Coon Rapids or Anoka stations less desirable than Fridley in some ways?
It's been the same amount of time since I was last there. As to your question, my uneducated guess is that Coon Rapids and Anoka are probably more desirable areas than Fridley.
The Empire Builder route has always skirted Minneapolis, whereas it has always went right through St. Paul. Now that the lone Twin Cities Amtrak stop has moved from the "middle" to the "east", it would make sense to have a second stop in the "western" half.
While Coon Rapids and Anoka are maybe more desirable areas than Fridley, they are further away from Minneapolis and some of the "southwestern" suburbs.
This is a good idea, in my opinion. The infrastructure is already there.
BaltACD I think that Amtrak thinks Minneapolis-St.Paul is a single city for their purposes and their current arrangement is what they want.
I would agree and I am pretty sure it is based on total population of just 3.6 million for both cities which ain't a lot. Dallas-Ft. Worth is 7.1 million which is almost twice as much. Plus DFW are further apart. To me Amtrak's current strategy of one station for one train makes sense and if folks are not willing to drive in then, they should choose another mode more convienent. Now if there were multiple train frequencies than maybe but there is only one train.
Also in the case of DFW, Amtrak smartly mentions that Amtrak passengers can board the TRE Commutter train to travel from Dallas to Ft. Worth for the Heartland Flyer and some do that. Likewise I have seen folks detrain the Texas Eagle and board TRE for intermediate points between Dallas and Fort Worth that Amtrak does not serve. So I am all for the Empire Builder mentioning the local rail alternatives in the Twin Cities and I would even go so far as support a thruway bus connection but another train stop is just going to lengthen the Empire Builder schedule and I am not sure whatever additional passengers the train gains are worth the delay and hassle.
Please note: This is not yet an official position of All Aboad Minnesota or any other group or agency. But, your right, MikeF90, the congestion keeps getting worse, whis why I live in downtown St Paul now. Unlike the other Northstar sations, Fridley has lots of excess parking space that could accomodate short and long term parking, and is much closer to downtown Minneapolis than other stations.
CMStPnP: There is presently considerable "delay and hassle" trying to get to and from the Empire Builder at SPUD (St Paul) and downtown Minneapolis without a long LRT ride (nearly 1 hour) and then a many hours long wait in Mpls to reach the Northstar trains; or if your're wiling to get up before 5:00am to do the same thing in reverse to in order, hopefully, to reach #8 at SPUD, otherwise, you will sit there many hours waiting for #7. As I said in my original post, downtown Mpls. had an excellant facility (the old GN Station) with Amtrak until 1978, and is the center of the largest metro area on any of the 3 daily Amtrak trains connecting Chicago with the West Coast cities and has a larger population than the entire route, in between, of either the Empire Builder or the Southwest Chief!! As I have said before, there is currently plenty of padding in the schedules of both #7 & 8 in the Twin Cities/St Cloud area to accomodate this extra stop, the infrastructure is already entirely in place, and the demand for this stop is out there, it just needs to be tapped!!
RR JohnsonThe Twin Cities has more population than the combined total route of the Empire Builder in between Chicago and the coast, including Milwaukee. By the way, would the Texas Eagle stop only at Fort Worth and not Dallas??
Philly Amtrak Fan RR Johnson The Twin Cities has more population than the combined total route of the Empire Builder in between Chicago and the coast, including Milwaukee. By the way, would the Texas Eagle stop only at Fort Worth and not Dallas?? Well the Heartland Flyer only stops at Ft. Worth.
RR Johnson The Twin Cities has more population than the combined total route of the Empire Builder in between Chicago and the coast, including Milwaukee. By the way, would the Texas Eagle stop only at Fort Worth and not Dallas??
Johnny
mvsThe Empire Builder route has always skirted Minneapolis, whereas it has always went right through St. Paul. Now that the lone Twin Cities Amtrak stop has moved from the "middle" to the "east", it would make sense to have a second stop in the "western" half.
Pre-Amtrak, pre-BN, the EB stopped in Minneapolis and even changed engines (from GN to CB&Q). There should be a 2nd stop in Minneapolis.
As far as other cities go, why have two stops for MKE? Why multiple Amtrak stops in Chicago area? Why in NYC and Newark? [Rhetorical questions]
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
DeggestyYes, that is where it connects with the Texas Eagle and TRE. It does not need to go to Dallas.
Exactly, same should hold true of the Empire Builder. Not Amtraks fault that intermodalism in the Twin Cities is so disconnected and there is only one choice.
Fort Worth will soon have two seperate rail choices/routes between it and DFW Airport. Dallas is working on it's third. The projected HSR initiative will be future rail connection #4 to DFW Airport from Dallas. Poor planning in the Twin Cities should not impact an Amtrak LD train schedule. Write your local politicians in the Twin Cities and tell them to insert crowbar between seat and butt and heave-ho.
schlimmAs far as other cities go, why have two stops for MKE? Why multiple Amtrak stops in Chicago area? Why in NYC and Newark? [Rhetorical questions]
Both the route and schedule were inherited from the Milwaukee Road which relied on suburban trains South of Glenview. 15-20 miles North of Glenview is farm land. Besides, apple and oranges as Chicago - Milwaukee is a Corridor not a one train LD routing. If the Twin Cities had properly planned the Corridor route of their Commute trains to include Amtrak stations......we would not be having this conversation at all BUT they didn't. You'll note the Empire Builder stops on Chicago-Milwaukee are restricted pretty heavily as they should be. Thats rail planning as it should be. Where are the Twin Cities plans to boost HSR when it arrives as far as LRT or Heavy Rail Commuter.........Oops! Non-existant. Dallas is planning them now and Wisconsins plan is further than Minnesota's.
RR Johnson CMStPnP: There is presently considerable "delay and hassle" trying to get to and from the Empire Builder at SPUD (St Paul) and downtown Minneapolis without a long LRT ride (nearly 1 hour) and then a many hours long wait in Mpls to reach the Northstar trains; or if your're wiling to get up before 5:00am to do the same thing in reverse to in order, hopefully, to reach #8 at SPUD, otherwise, you will sit there many hours waiting for #7. As I said in my original post, downtown Mpls. had an excellant facility (the old GN Station) with Amtrak until 1978, and is the center of the largest metro area on any of the 3 daily Amtrak trains connecting Chicago with the West Coast cities and has a larger population than the entire route, in between, of either the Empire Builder or the Southwest Chief!! As I have said before, there is currently plenty of padding in the schedules of both #7 & 8 in the Twin Cities/St Cloud area to accomodate this extra stop, the infrastructure is already entirely in place, and the demand for this stop is out there, it just needs to be tapped!!
My point is, it is a matter for your local politicians NOT Amtrak's LD train. Minnesota wasted no time in poking it's nose across the border into Wisconsin and lecturing that there should be a Pewaukee Stop if Corridor Service is implemented between Chicago and Twin Cities. As well as telling Wisconsin which route to choose (this part will be ignored). Yet, it really reads like they do NOT have their own house in order yet in the future corridor's terminus. WTH?
Roughly akin to shortsighted Illinois on the Chicago to St. Louis Lincoln service. "Lets have 110 mph operation across the state but lets blow 45-60 min on the approach to the old and passenger train obsolete bridge over the Mississippi River"
"We'll just fix that bridge at some point in the future but we don't know when or how"...............Really?
Minor correction: I had the impression that the last time I was on the Builder it blew through the Milwaukee airport stop at track speed, so I looked at the timetable. It does not stop there.
I believe it would be a positive to add a stop on the west side of the Twin Cities. After all this is a 2200 mile trip and taking an extra 15 minutes to add more service to the largest metro area enroute seems like a reasonable accomodation. The present schedule is padded at the St. Paul stop anyway, so on many days the stop wouldn't change the eastbound departure time from St. Paul.
CMStPnP schlimm As far as other cities go, why have two stops for MKE? Why multiple Amtrak stops in Chicago area? Why in NYC and Newark? [Rhetorical questions] Both the route and schedule were inherited from the Milwaukee Road which relied on suburban trains South of Glenview. 15-20 miles North of Glenview is farm land. Besides, apple and oranges as Chicago - Milwaukee is a Corridor not a one train LD routing. If the Twin Cities had properly planned the Corridor route of their Commute trains to include Amtrak stations......we would not be having this conversation at all BUT they didn't. You'll note the Empire Builder stops on Chicago-Milwaukee are restricted pretty heavily as they should be. Thats rail planning as it should be. Where are the Twin Cities plans to boost HSR when it arrives as far as LRT or Heavy Rail Commuter.........Oops! Non-existant. Dallas is planning them now and Wisconsins plan is further than Minnesota's.
schlimm As far as other cities go, why have two stops for MKE? Why multiple Amtrak stops in Chicago area? Why in NYC and Newark? [Rhetorical questions]
Can it be someone(s) at Amtrak is not studying the lessons from BOS's Route 128 stop ? Of course it is once again the equipment problem ( lack of ). From a distance it appears this should be actual termination stop or a for a second CHI - MSP service or definitely for a thru train to the north ?
Try reading more carefully. I said those were rhetorical questions.
The EB always stopped in both twin cities, pre-Amtrak, as did the NP, so the idea is hardly revolutionary.
RR Johnson BaltACD I think that Amtrak thinks Minneapolis-St.Paul is a single city for their purposes and their current arrangement is what they want. BaltACD: Believe me, St paul and Minneapolis are NOT the same city!!! They have had separate downtowns since before the Civil War! Their city councils are still at war with each other! Most Minneapolitans, either don't known that St Paul exists or if they do, they would not remotely consider venturing past the city limits to visit there. St Paulites have the same issues! Trust me, I've lived in the Twin Cities all my life, in either one or the other. Now they're fighting over who owns the Metro Green Line and where it should be extended. Now St Paul wants in own LRT line to the airport! Amtrak should known this by now!! Don't they ever talk to anybody here!! If a new stop is made in Fridley, neither city will object as long as it isn't in Minneapolis or St Paul!!
BaltACD: Believe me, St paul and Minneapolis are NOT the same city!!! They have had separate downtowns since before the Civil War! Their city councils are still at war with each other! Most Minneapolitans, either don't known that St Paul exists or if they do, they would not remotely consider venturing past the city limits to visit there. St Paulites have the same issues! Trust me, I've lived in the Twin Cities all my life, in either one or the other. Now they're fighting over who owns the Metro Green Line and where it should be extended. Now St Paul wants in own LRT line to the airport! Amtrak should known this by now!! Don't they ever talk to anybody here!! If a new stop is made in Fridley, neither city will object as long as it isn't in Minneapolis or St Paul!!
I am not saying they are the same....Amtrak appears to be saying they are.
schlimmThe EB always stopped in both twin cities, pre-Amtrak, as did the NP, so the idea is hardly revolutionary.
Did they have suburban trains back then as they do now?
Dakguy201I believe it would be a positive to add a stop on the west side of the Twin Cities. After all this is a 2200 mile trip and taking an extra 15 minutes to add more service to the largest metro area enroute seems like a reasonable accomodation. The present schedule is padded at the St. Paul stop anyway, so on many days the stop wouldn't change the eastbound departure time from St. Paul.
So we should remove the schedule padding with no corresponding increase in speed to offset and accomdate the new stop and to hell with the on time schedule for the LD passengers......great marketing approach.
CMStPnP So we should remove the schedule padding with no corresponding increase in speed to offset and accomdate the new stop and to hell with the on time schedule for the LD passengers......great marketing approach.
Dakguy201 CMStPnP So we should remove the schedule padding with no corresponding increase in speed to offset and accomdate the new stop and to hell with the on time schedule for the LD passengers......great marketing approach. I believe the current schedule is the result of additional padding being added when BNSF was choking with the addition of crude oil trains. Now that capacity had been increased through additional trackwork and crude demand moderated, it may be possible to tighten up the schedule to accomodate an additional stop. If that isn't so, I don't see that a few minute change in arrival in Chicago makes much difference. The cities at the other end may be more a problem as they already have a short (for Amtrak) time to turn the equipment. Provided the incoming equipment is anywhere near on time, I doubt 15 minutes would make any difference.
Schedules are not something to be taken lighlty, both from an Amtrak viewpoint and a host railroad viewpoint. There are a lot of considerations that go into setting schedules and the 'padding' that gets built into a schedule vs. quickest run times between locations. No train is the only train on a railroad when opeations are normal. There are a heirarchy of claiments for track times on any line segment.
In general schedules are set within the following heirarchy - Amtrak, RR Priority freights, RR Secondary Priority freights, RR routine merchandise freights, RR local wayfreights that need main track time to work industries, RR unscheduled bulk commodity freights. Once the scheduled needs are accounted for, MofW - both track and signals fight for the remaining track time to perform their required tests and maintenance. Once you start overlaying the Hours of Service requirements that apply to Train and Engine Crews as well as Signal personnel - a few minutes one way or the other CAN become a very critical time.
So a few minute change is not trivial.
BaltACD Dakguy201 CMStPnP So we should remove the schedule padding with no corresponding increase in speed to offset and accomdate the new stop and to hell with the on time schedule for the LD passengers......great marketing approach. I believe the current schedule is the result of additional padding being added when BNSF was choking with the addition of crude oil trains. Now that capacity had been increased through additional trackwork and crude demand moderated, it may be possible to tighten up the schedule to accomodate an additional stop. If that isn't so, I don't see that a few minute change in arrival in Chicago makes much difference. The cities at the other end may be more a problem as they already have a short (for Amtrak) time to turn the equipment. Provided the incoming equipment is anywhere near on time, I doubt 15 minutes would make any difference. Schedules are not something to be taken lighlty, both from an Amtrak viewpoint and a host railroad viewpoint. There are a lot of considerations that go into setting schedules and the 'padding' that gets built into a schedule vs. quickest run times between locations. No train is the only train on a railroad when opeations are normal. There are a heirarchy of claiments for track times on any line segment. In general schedules are set within the following heirarchy - Amtrak, RR Priority freights, RR Secondary Priority freights, RR routine merchandise freights, RR local wayfreights that need main track time to work industries, RR unscheduled bulk commodity freights. Once the scheduled needs are accounted for, MofW - both track and signals fight for the remaining track time to perform their required tests and maintenance. Once you start overlaying the Hours of Service requirements that apply to Train and Engine Crews as well as Signal personnel - a few minutes one way or the other CAN become a very critical time. So a few minute change is not trivial.
By the way, "heirarchy" would mean, literally. "rule by heirs."
I have long been somewhat amused by the use of the word "hierarchy," since a translation from the Greek would be "rule by priests." (hieros==priest; archy=an anglicization of the word meaning "rule.") However, this word has long been taken to describe how power descends from the top.
In general, I think this is an idea that should be followed up. However, a problem has dawned on me. Unless things have changed recently, there is an additional coach that is added at St. Paul to run to Chicago. If a western suburban stop attracts significant patronage, on most days could it be accomodated before that coach is added? Would a corresponding problem exist for the westbound?
Dakguy201 In general, I think this is an idea that should be followed up. However, a problem has dawned on me. Unless things have changed recently, there is an additional coach that is added at St. Paul to run to Chicago. If a western suburban stop attracts significant patronage, on most days could it be accomodated before that coach is added? Would a corresponding problem exist for the westbound?
ALL:
I do agree that there should be a conditional stop in Anoka, Coon Rapids Riverdale, or Fridley, however there are a number of operating considerations that must be addressed:
1. The Fridley station is only on Track 2.
2. Anoka and Riverdale can be accessed on Tracks 1 or 2. How would the passengers be told to be on Track 1 or Track 2? (Public address by Metro Transit?)
3. If the stations are remotely locked after North Star, Metro Transit would need to unlock them.
Many considerations to approach and solve. I did appear at an Anoka City Council meeting about one year ago to address stopping at Anoka and have not heard if Amtrak and the BNSF are willing to discuss the subject.
Ed Burns
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.