Pad EB schedule?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Should the EB's schedule be padded?

  • No, misconnecting passengers and other OTP-related issues are insignificant.

    Votes: 15 62.5%
  • Yes, by 1-2 hours.

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Yes, by 3-6 hours.

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Yes, by 7-12 hours.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, VIA Canadian style (by more than 12 hours)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
Status
Not open for further replies.

NY Penn

OBS Chief
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
515
Location
New York City
A description of the EB's OTP:

Winter: slow orders, avalanches, and snowbanks often cause the EB to be late.

Spring: slow orders, flooding, and washouts often cause the EB to be late.

Summer: slow orders, construction, and freight traffic often cause the EB to be late.

Autumn: derailments and other miscellaneous things often cause the EB to be late.

While this is a rather pessimistic account of the EB
sad.gif
, I still think that the train's schedule could use a bit of padding. After all, it's better to be early than to be late.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The schedule already has plenty of padding. It just isn't enough to account for the unprecedented weather delays it's experienced this year.

Additional time added to the schedule:

1) Would be almost impossible to take out once the conditions improve (host railroads don't like giving up time once they get it)

2) Would break connections, hurting the train's revenue

3) Would increase crew costs, possibly breaking operating crew turns which would drive up costs even more (and would require hiring additional conductors/engineers, which would take months to train and qualify)

4) Would possibly require additional equipment, depending on where the padding is added.

Meanwhile, Monday's arrival into Seattle was less than 20 minutes late (Portland was less than 10), so I'm not sure what additional padding would have done to that train other than to increase costs. The train has been doing quite a bit better eastbound, too. Monday's Chicago arrival made every connection except for train 370 (9 passengers), and would have even been in before 5 pm (thus making that connection) except that it missed a Metra slot by about two minutes, and had to follow the local all the way in.

Your description of the Empire Builder's OTP is very simplistic and not reflective of the reality that the Empire Builder has historically encountered.

The FY2010 OTP was 78%. Its OTP for September 2010 was 82.5%. That doesn't really match your doom-and-gloom description of all these things that "often cause the EB to be late."

I mean, "Autumn: derailments and other miscellaneous things..." That's a ridiculous stretch if I've ever heard one. Derailments can happen on any line, at any time. Do you have any real proof that there are proportionally more derailments on the Empire Builder route than anywhere else in the Amtrak system?

You throw the term "slow orders" around, but, other than around Devils Lake, what slow orders are you specifically talking about? Snowbanks? Seriously? Avalanches...not too common, but yes, they can cause disruptions if they occur (and "padding" won't fix a disruption caused by that; you're either going through or you're not). Mudslides are a problem on the West Coast, but those do not impact the train's OTP. Instead, they just determine (generally) whether the train will carry passengers past Everett.

Finally, I must take exception to your only "No" option being "No, misconnecting passengers and other OTP-related issues are insignificant." Those issues are not insignificant, but, other than this year, they really have not been a problem for the Empire Builder (at least, not moreso than any other western long-distance train).
 
This is what I would have voted: No; connections are important any more padding would eliminate the turnaround on the West Coast and require an additional set of Superliner equipment, which Amtrak does not have.
 
I've relied on the Empire Builder many times for short trips in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota many times over the last several years. Most of the time its been pretty reliable for me. I know this year has been rough, but it has been rough for many of Amtraks routes.
 
Finally, I must take exception to your only "No" option being "No, misconnecting passengers and other OTP-related issues are insignificant." Those issues are not insignificant, but, other than this year, they really have not been a problem for the Empire Builder (at least, not moreso than any other western long-distance train).
I feel similarly.
 
Right now, if there's a train that needs padding, it's the CZ. And that's the problem with padding schedules. A couple months ago, padding on the EB would've been a help; now, the train seems to be getting back on it's feet and it's the CZ that's a disaster. But the host railroads are never going to allow you to add a few hours on the schedule for just a month or two, especially not on as important a route in BNSF's northern transcon. I think it's safe to assume that at some point in the next month the multi-hour delays are going to become much rarer on western trains, to the point where padding the schedule more is going to result in more costs (Trogdor's list). Padding for a relatively short-term event is a kneejerk reaction that only causes equal or greater problems further down the line, IMO.
 
Just to make one thing clear. Changing a schedule of a train that runs on host railroads is almost impossible. It would take the approval of BNSF and CP Rail. Good luck with BNSF.
Actually IIRC, CP is far worse to deal with than BNSF. Could be CN, I can't recall right now which one was the worst, but it was one of the two Canadian RR's that it was near impossible to get any changes out of.

That's not to suggest that Amtrak can just snap its fingers and get BNSF to agree to a change.
 
Just to make one thing clear. Changing a schedule of a train that runs on host railroads is almost impossible. It would take the approval of BNSF and CP Rail. Good luck with BNSF.
Actually IIRC, CP is far worse to deal with than BNSF. Could be CN, I can't recall right now which one was the worst, but it was one of the two Canadian RR's that it was near impossible to get any changes out of.

That's not to suggest that Amtrak can just snap its fingers and get BNSF to agree to a change.
CP's worse eh? :lol: Our Canadian Friends seem to have issues with train schedule changes..
 
Tonight is the first time in a long while that none of the EBs are in the red (over 1.5 hours late) on the Status Maps. Compare that to the Zephyrs three of which are over 12 hours late.

Mark
 
I've relied on the Empire Builder many times for short trips in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota many times over the last several years. Most of the time its been pretty reliable for me. I know this year has been rough, but it has been rough for many of Amtraks routes.
Exactly this. We've traveled the EB several times, including THIS spring (early March) and it was just fine. This year has been an anomaly...
 
The schedule already has plenty of padding. It just isn't enough to account for the unprecedented weather delays it's experienced this year.

Additional time added to the schedule:

1) Would be almost impossible to take out once the conditions improve (host railroads don't like giving up time once they get it)

2) Would break connections, hurting the train's revenue

3) Would increase crew costs, possibly breaking operating crew turns which would drive up costs even more (and would require hiring additional conductors/engineers, which would take months to train and qualify)

4) Would possibly require additional equipment, depending on where the padding is added.

Meanwhile, Monday's arrival into Seattle was less than 20 minutes late (Portland was less than 10), so I'm not sure what additional padding would have done to that train other than to increase costs. The train has been doing quite a bit better eastbound, too. Monday's Chicago arrival made every connection except for train 370 (9 passengers), and would have even been in before 5 pm (thus making that connection) except that it missed a Metra slot by about two minutes, and had to follow the local all the way in.

Your description of the Empire Builder's OTP is very simplistic and not reflective of the reality that the Empire Builder has historically encountered.

The FY2010 OTP was 78%. Its OTP for September 2010 was 82.5%. That doesn't really match your doom-and-gloom description of all these things that "often cause the EB to be late."

I mean, "Autumn: derailments and other miscellaneous things..." That's a ridiculous stretch if I've ever heard one. Derailments can happen on any line, at any time. Do you have any real proof that there are proportionally more derailments on the Empire Builder route than anywhere else in the Amtrak system?

You throw the term "slow orders" around, but, other than around Devils Lake, what slow orders are you specifically talking about? Snowbanks? Seriously? Avalanches...not too common, but yes, they can cause disruptions if they occur (and "padding" won't fix a disruption caused by that; you're either going through or you're not). Mudslides are a problem on the West Coast, but those do not impact the train's OTP. Instead, they just determine (generally) whether the train will carry passengers past Everett.

Finally, I must take exception to your only "No" option being "No, misconnecting passengers and other OTP-related issues are insignificant." Those issues are not insignificant, but, other than this year, they really have not been a problem for the Empire Builder (at least, not moreso than any other western long-distance train).
I goofed on my reply button..but this is in response to trogdors post....Have ridden the EB many times and all times of year...and I agree wholeheartdly with his comment..thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If one is going to do a poll, the options should be less biased. Even so, "No" is still pulling ahead. Unintended consequences?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top