schlimm CMStPnP I think the Twin Cities needs to get it's act together on where it wants the rail terminus' located before it initiates cooridor service to Chicago. Reading this thread makes Minnesota sound like the land of confusion right now. Happy to say that Wisconsin is a little more forward thinking in the planning area. How do you figure that? Other than planning/adding another train to Chicago (jointly with IDOT), what has WI done except waste millions to cancel the train to Madison?
CMStPnP I think the Twin Cities needs to get it's act together on where it wants the rail terminus' located before it initiates cooridor service to Chicago. Reading this thread makes Minnesota sound like the land of confusion right now. Happy to say that Wisconsin is a little more forward thinking in the planning area.
I think the Twin Cities needs to get it's act together on where it wants the rail terminus' located before it initiates cooridor service to Chicago. Reading this thread makes Minnesota sound like the land of confusion right now. Happy to say that Wisconsin is a little more forward thinking in the planning area.
How do you figure that? Other than planning/adding another train to Chicago (jointly with IDOT), what has WI done except waste millions to cancel the train to Madison?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
VerMontanan schlimm 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. The locomotive power was changed in St. Paul, never in Minneapolis. For many years, CB&Q power would power the Empire Builder as far as Havre where it would be replaced with GN power and return to Chicago on the eastbound train the next day.
schlimm 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.
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.
The locomotive power was changed in St. Paul, never in Minneapolis. For many years, CB&Q power would power the Empire Builder as far as Havre where it would be replaced with GN power and return to Chicago on the eastbound train the next day.
My original post was, but I omitted "at SPUD" : "Pre-Amtrak, pre-BN, the EB stopped in Minneapolis and even changed engines (from GN to CB&Q)."
[quote user="VerMontanan"]
This whole situation should be a reminder to us about the lack of foresight of allowing the Minneapolis Great Northern Station to be torn down in the late 1970s. This was the best site for a passenger stop in all of the Twin Cities, and now we're trying to figure out how to correct this ongoing blunder. While Midway Station lacked aesthetic appeal, it did offer free parking and rental cars, and was quite close to the University of Minnesota. For the $243 million that was spent on the boondoggle that is St. Paul Union Depot, the route through Midway Station could have been signaled and the speeds upgraded.
I am all for a surburban Minneapolis stop. I think that the Coon Rapids facility has best access to roads, and is safest, being near a large shopping area. Looking ahead, the stop needs to return to downtown Minneapolis at or near Target field. This of course will require infrastructure upgrade there, but also because the Empire Builder would again need to be routed via Willmar (and even given that the train's current schedule, I believe ridership would be as good as the current routing through St. Cloud), which would require that railroad to be upgraded to 79 MPH.
Ridership for the Twin Cities Amtrak stop has fallen since it was moved to SPUD. Given the challenges of timekeeping during the Bakken boom, and then subsequent loss of ridership in the Bakken bust, it's hard to pinpoint a reason that ridership at St. Paul has fallen, but I believe over the years if the operation of the train is stablized (and the Republicans don't discontinue it altogether which is very real threat), we will see that it is lower than at Midway, simply due to the inferior location of stopping at St. Paul Union Depot.
And speaking of routing the Empire Builder via Willmar, could there be a more idyllic suburban stop than Wayzata???[quote user="VerMontanan"]
VerMontanan:
When the Empire Builder and the North Coast Limited were combined on the Burlington, the trains were split in St. Paul and ran separately to Minneapolis and on to the West Coast.
Johnny
Mark Meyer
And speaking of routing the Empire Builder via Willmar, could there be a more idyllic suburban stop than Wayzata????
Dakguy201 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.
The lengthened schedule for Bakken delays ended in January of 2015.
NP Eddie 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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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?
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 I think that Amtrak thinks Minneapolis-St.Paul is a single city for their purposes and their current arrangement is what they want.
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!!
I am not saying they are the same....Amtrak appears to be saying they are.
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]
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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!!
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?
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]
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.
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.
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]
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??
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.