EB - Lateness Problems This Summer

[Swadian Hardcore]

I don't think there are many permanent slow orders in eastern Montana, so "getting back up to speed" is more a matter of finishing construction so the work-related slow orders go away. (For this reason I would anticipate decent OTP from now until May with the exception of weather events.) There appears to be a rule that track is rated for 25 mph for a certain amount of time after tie replacement, allowing the track to settle and inspecting for any alignment defects. With multiple sections of 10 miles or so seeing new ties at any time, that can really slow the EB down - both due to direct loss of time and waiting for freights that are also moving at 25 mph.

Where the EB could really use some more speed is the section from Minot to Fargo, large portions of which are 50 mph or 60 mph and rough enough that even that feels a bit too fast. I wonder if BNSF has plans to improve this section back to mainline standards now that the Devils Lake problem is solved? In particular the stretch from Grand Forks to Fargo needs work in order to get back to the posted timetable.

Mark

How rough is it now? It wasn't too rough when I took it a year ago.

 

[anir dendroica]

I don't think there are many permanent slow orders in eastern Montana, so "getting back up to speed" is more a matter of finishing construction so the work-related slow orders go away. (For this reason I would anticipate decent OTP from now until May with the exception of weather events.) There appears to be a rule that track is rated for 25 mph for a certain amount of time after tie replacement, allowing the track to settle and inspecting for any alignment defects. With multiple sections of 10 miles or so seeing new ties at any time, that can really slow the EB down - both due to direct loss of time and waiting for freights that are also moving at 25 mph.

Where the EB could really use some more speed is the section from Minot to Fargo, large portions of which are 50 mph or 60 mph and rough enough that even that feels a bit too fast. I wonder if BNSF has plans to improve this section back to mainline standards now that the Devils Lake problem is solved? In particular the stretch from Grand Forks to Fargo needs work in order to get back to the posted timetable.

Mark

How rough is it now? It wasn't too rough when I took it a year ago.

I shared a roomette with my dad on the EB last month - my first time in sleeper and his first time on Amtrak. The rough ride, mainly in ND, was his #1 complaint - bad enough that he couldn't get much sleep and therefore doesn't consider the train a good alternative to flying. I slept through most of it on the top bunk but did awaken with a mighty shake a few times praying we stayed on the track. It seemed like the worst part was the last 30 or so miles into Fargo. Once we hit Fargo it was amazingly smooth on the double track mainline the rest of the way to MSP.

Eastern Montana also has some rough spots - mainly at switches and crossovers but occasionally for no apparent reason. I'm hoping the tie replacement will make that section smoother.

Mark

 

[TraneMan]

There was a very rough spot somewhere between WPT and WTN.. We were having dinner, and there was a good bounce! I thought we were going to derail for a moment!!

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I don't think there are many permanent slow orders in eastern Montana, so "getting back up to speed" is more a matter of finishing construction so the work-related slow orders go away. (For this reason I would anticipate decent OTP from now until May with the exception of weather events.) There appears to be a rule that track is rated for 25 mph for a certain amount of time after tie replacement, allowing the track to settle and inspecting for any alignment defects. With multiple sections of 10 miles or so seeing new ties at any time, that can really slow the EB down - both due to direct loss of time and waiting for freights that are also moving at 25 mph.

Where the EB could really use some more speed is the section from Minot to Fargo, large portions of which are 50 mph or 60 mph and rough enough that even that feels a bit too fast. I wonder if BNSF has plans to improve this section back to mainline standards now that the Devils Lake problem is solved? In particular the stretch from Grand Forks to Fargo needs work in order to get back to the posted timetable.

Mark

How rough is it now? It wasn't too rough when I took it a year ago.

I shared a roomette with my dad on the EB last month - my first time in sleeper and his first time on Amtrak. The rough ride, mainly in ND, was his #1 complaint - bad enough that he couldn't get much sleep and therefore doesn't consider the train a good alternative to flying. I slept through most of it on the top bunk but did awaken with a mighty shake a few times praying we stayed on the track. It seemed like the worst part was the last 30 or so miles into Fargo. Once we hit Fargo it was amazingly smooth on the double track mainline the rest of the way to MSP.

Eastern Montana also has some rough spots - mainly at switches and crossovers but occasionally for no apparent reason. I'm hoping the tie replacement will make that section smoother.

Mark

Ooh, that's no good! If it;s that bad then they better get the construction done even if it means temporarily delaying the EB. I'd much rather have a late ride than a late AND rough ride!

 

[NW cannonball]

Simple law of physics here--One can only put so much "stuff" in a given space at any time. The construction on the hi-line is scheduled to be completed in late 2014. The increase in tanker trains is actually slightly ahead of schedule and is not that weather dependent, so 2013 could be very interesting.

What specific constructiona re we talking about here? I'm just curious, apart from fixing aging tracks to remove slow orders and speed up the route, what else is in store? Complete double-tracking all the way to the Twin Cities from North Dakota, or anything else along those lines? I know of the trackbed raising int he vicinity of Devil's Lake, but thought that the timeframe on that was sooner.

Minot-Grand Forks -- possible benefit to the BNSF. Grand Forks - Fargo - not so much. Back in 1988 the track from Fargo to Grand Forks was bad - not better now - for two reasons - One - no significant freight on the line. Two - line runs in the valley (known for flooding) of the Red River - with lots of insecure alluvial underpinnings. I clearly remember being in the upper berth through this stretch (Fargo-Grand Forks) back in 1988 it was bad then - it's never going to get better.

Eastern Montana and maybe parts of the main Fargo - MSP - BNSF has incentive to fix. Maybe even Minot - Grand Forks. Fargo - Grand Forks - never.

 

[Phil S]

Eastern Montana and maybe parts of the main Fargo - MSP - BNSF has incentive to fix. Maybe even Minot - Grand Forks. Fargo - Grand Forks - never.

I thought the Devil's Lake rebuild was supposed to deal with this. Or is the section being rebuilt just a part of the problem?

 

[NW cannonball]

Eastern Montana and maybe parts of the main Fargo - MSP - BNSF has incentive to fix. Maybe even Minot - Grand Forks. Fargo - Grand Forks - never.

I thought the Devil's Lake rebuild was supposed to deal with this. Or is the section being rebuilt just a part of the problem?

The Devil's Lake project will - we hope - keep the BNSF's line from Minot to Grand Forks viable. The line from Grand Forks to Fargo is probably not of much concern to BNSF.

Does anyone here know how much freight moves on the line from Fargo to Grand Forks? I'm guessing - probably not much.

The EB has been doing this 2-sides-of-the-triangle routing for many years - but the Fargo-Grand Forks leg is by far the weakest.

Also, more OT, the winter storm in eastern Montana doesn't seem to have been a big problem

 

[anir dendroica]

Eastern Montana and maybe parts of the main Fargo - MSP - BNSF has incentive to fix. Maybe even Minot - Grand Forks. Fargo - Grand Forks - never.

I thought the Devil's Lake rebuild was supposed to deal with this. Or is the section being rebuilt just a part of the problem?

The Devil's Lake project will - we hope - keep the BNSF's line from Minot to Grand Forks viable. The line from Grand Forks to Fargo is probably not of much concern to BNSF.

Does anyone here know how much freight moves on the line from Fargo to Grand Forks? I'm guessing - probably not much.

The EB has been doing this 2-sides-of-the-triangle routing for many years - but the Fargo-Grand Forks leg is by far the weakest.

Also, more OT, the winter storm in eastern Montana doesn't seem to have been a big problem

I could imagine BNSF implementing directional running as a way to deal with oil traffic - westbounds via New Rockford, eastbounds via Grand Forks or vice versa. That would force one of the EB trains to run "against the flow", but it would restore the Grand Forks-Fargo leg to mainline status.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Why don't they just reroute the EB to the Surrey Cutoff? Best side of thetriangle solves these problems. Shorter distance, too. Also, dosen't the EB have to backtrack into GFK?

 

[anir dendroica]

There is no backtracking into GFK. The station is on the wye that connects the N-S Hillsboro sub (GFK-Fargo) to the E-W Devils Lake sub (GFK-Devils Lake).

As for the Surrey re-route, at one point it seemed almost inevitable given the rising level of Devils Lake, but with the recent repairs the current route is safe. The Surrey line is shorter but not really any faster because a) it has a ton of freight traffic, and b) there is a section of 10 mph track to get from the Surrey line to the Fargo station. The main reason for the choice of route is demographic. The current route serves Grand Forks (pop. 52,631), Devils Lake (7,141), and Rugby (2,886). The Surrey line would serve only New Rockford (1,388).

The story is that the line through Grand Forks was the original GN mainline, which served as a nucleus for population centers. The Surrey cutoff was built later as a short-cut, but as the state was settled at that point and the CP track was nearby it failed to attract any significant towns. Pass-through travelers like myself would prefer sleeping on the smoother Surrey line, but North Dakotans are very attached to the Grand Forks routing, as evidenced by the ND senators' recent successful lobbying to keep the line above water.

Mark

Why don't they just reroute the EB to the Surrey Cutoff? Best side of thetriangle solves these problems. Shorter distance, too. Also, dosen't the EB have to backtrack into GFK?

 

[NW cannonball]

There is no backtracking into GFK. The station is on the wye that connects the N-S Hillsboro sub (GFK-Fargo) to the E-W Devils Lake sub (GFK-Devils Lake).

As for the Surrey re-route, at one point it seemed almost inevitable given the rising level of Devils Lake, but with the recent repairs the current route is safe. The Surrey line is shorter but not really any faster because a) it has a ton of freight traffic, and b) there is a section of 10 mph track to get from the Surrey line to the Fargo station. The main reason for the choice of route is demographic. The current route serves Grand Forks (pop. 52,631), Devils Lake (7,141), and Rugby (2,886). The Surrey line would serve only New Rockford (1,388).

The story is that the line through Grand Forks was the original GN mainline, which served as a nucleus for population centers. The Surrey cutoff was built later as a short-cut, but as the state was settled at that point and the CP track was nearby it failed to attract any significant towns. Pass-through travelers like myself would prefer sleeping on the smoother Surrey line, but North Dakotans are very attached to the Grand Forks routing, as evidenced by the ND senators' recent successful lobbying to keep the line above water.

Mark

Why don't they just reroute the EB to the Surrey Cutoff? Best side of thetriangle solves these problems. Shorter distance, too. Also, dosen't the EB have to backtrack into GFK?

I was just now composing a post - but you anir made the major points quite clear.

The Fargo - Grand Forks line has a lot of problems - including "compressible soils" and being in a "20 year floodplain" - or maybe 10-year floodplain.

And has little freight traffic.

The main reason for the EB to take this slow route is the traffic at Grand Forks -- not a lot.