Winter Planning for Empire Builder Trips

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are booked on the Builder leaving PDX Monday afternoon, and all I can say is: I am glad we are booked in a sleeper, and I am glad we are not trying for a connection to another LD train.

But it looks like we are probably in for a late night (or early morning) bus ride to Springfield.
 
I nearly always connect from the EB to Wolverine 354 in Chicago. With a (theoretical) arrival time of 3:55 and a departure of 6:00, making this connection has become nothing more than a fond memory in the past few years. If the EB is seriously late, Amtrak will run a bus from MSP to CHI for people making connections. It works, but it's not the reason I ride Amtrak.

For my next trip, I'm seriously considering taking the Megabus from MSP to CHI. If I'm going to be on a bus anyway, I might as well save some money in the process.
 
who, at amtrak, in charge of the eb? and what in the heck do they do? iirc ,i remember when the recently retired brian rosenwald, a great amtrak employee imho, was in charge of the cs. he took personal responsibility for problems and fixed them to the customer's satisfaction
 
This has been said many times, but Amtrak just needs to have more flexibility and change the schedules. Even if it means cobbling together a sixth trainset (best option) or breaking all eastbound connections in Chicago by having the #8 arrive c. 10 pm (with a matching later departure from the west coast). Traffic volumes on the railroad have increased nearly 50% with the oil boom. That's not BNSF's fault - it's not fair for a relatively minor interest to ask a company in the business of hauling freight to refuse shipments - and any efforts to expand capacity such as are presently underway will have the near term effect of making problems worse with construction zones, slow orders, etc.

When a delay is predictable, as with road construction or rush hour traffic, the only prudent response is to adapt to the delay and then reassess the situation if and when the heavy traffic/construction delays end.

Heck, Amtrak could even contract with a hotel in Chicago to allow booking of overnight connections from the EB. That would add cost to the tickets and time to the journey, but it would save Amtrak money and would be preferable to the uncertainty of the current situation.
 
I wonder what percentage of connecting passengers originate in MSP and points east? If this number is significant, Amtrak might consider adding a second MSP-CHI train to take the load off the EB. A better on-time performance might induce others to ride the train -- people who won't consider it now because of the delays and missed connections.
 
Don't they already usually put on an OT bus for passengers boarding at MSP and points east when the Builder is super late? Or did they stop that for some reason?

Don't get me wrong, I think CHI-MSP makes perfect sense as a corridor, but the main justification would not be just to protect connections. In any case, it would be subject to the PRIIA rule that runs under 750 miles have to be funded by the states, and Wisconsin seems to be a problem there.
 
zephyr17 said:
Don't they already usually put on an OT bus for passengers boarding at MSP and points east when the Builder is super late? Or did they stop that for some reason?
Click to expand...
I think it usually depends on how late the train is and what's facing #8 the night before. The times a bus has taken me from TOH to either MKE (to catch the Hiawatha) or CHI, I've received a call from Amtrak between 2 PM and 7 PM Central Time. If I don't receive a call by 7 PM, I just assume the train will be taking me to CHI and if my connection is missed, alternate transportation is arranged from there. The announcement is made shortly after we depart MKE if the latter is the case and we are told to go to Passenger Services for the details once we arrive at CUS.
 
I think the decision to run a bus from MSP to CHI is at the discretion of MSP station personnel. If the EB is running 3-4 hours late or more, they will order a bus; otherwise, missed connections are dealt with in Chicago.

On one trip I took this past August, the EB was running about 1-2 hours late in ND, and they decided not to order the bus. By the time it reached MSP, it was down 6 hours. I got into Chicago around 10 PM, and was bussed to Dearborn from there. Arrived DER at 4:30 AM!
 
anir dendroica said:
That's not BNSF's fault - it's not fair for a relatively minor interest to ask a company in the business of hauling freight to refuse shipments
Click to expand...
Like hell it isn't. Those trains don't just magically appear.

It's "not fair" to expect that a company honor agreements that they've made? How would you feel if you bought an Amtrak ticket and showed up at the station and the conductor said "I know you've paid for this ticket and all, but that guy over there is willing to pay $50 bucks more for your room. Pay up, or I'm selling the room to him". I'd be pretty pissed myself.
 
That is nearly as inexcusable.

Their problem is that lengthening the schedule means you need a 6th trainset, and I don't think they have the equipment for that.

It's a problem that doesn't have a quick and easy solution so long as BNSF continues to refuse to dispatch Amtrak on time.
 
Sorry, but Amtrak going up against BNSF and a guy who has one of the deepest pockets in the entire world, is not an option. I have had clients who had solid cases against the US government for example, and we were told point blank to our faces by the govt lawyers to go ahead and try to sue them, because in 5 years when the case was still being litigated and we were out of money the government would "win" anyway. This is similar, except in this case Amtrak is the poor stepchild and it is the commercial entity holding all of the cards.

Sad to say this really isn't a case of right or wrong, but the reality of what has happened on this line. My BNSF guy said he believes they are paying some penalties, per the contract, for the delays outside the established parameters, which clearly does not appear to be bothering Berkshire Hathaway at all. He also noted, rather pointedly, two very key points: (1) Amtrak is a tiny, tiny part of BNSF's operation, and (2) that a certain percentage of the very lengthy delays experienced by Amtrak trains on the Hi-Line this year (outside of BNSF derailments, which evidently don't kick in any penalties) were due at least in part or significantly to Amtrak equipment issues.

No easy answers here. That is why I say people from both Amtrak and BNSF need to look at what is realistic and what can be done, both short term and long term (one would hope long term the $1.4 Billion that BNSF is spending on the Hi-Line will make a big difference-we won't know until it is all done in a couple years though will we).

Based on all of the replies from Amtrak customer relations so far it would appear they are willing to just take the hits and live with the very long delays.
 
My BNSF guy said he believes they are paying some penalties, per the contract, for the delays outside the established parameters, which clearly does not appear to be bothering Berkshire Hathaway at all.
Click to expand...
This is what I thought must be the case. Could Amtrak actually force BNSF to forego business so that the Empire Builder runs on time? Wouldn't any court case instead focus on the issue of how much BNSF had to pay for violating its contract? My ignorance of civil law is very deep, so I'd be happy to be wrong.
 
After Reading Montana Mikes Last Post perhaps its time for the Politicians to get Involved! As the Old saying Goes, from the Courthouse to the White House! I still wonder if Warren Buffet got a Call from the Veep Amtrak Joe Biden or even President Obama about Working Something Out Between BNSF and Amtrak that a Reasonable Solution to this Issue Couldnt Be Found????

This is Costing Amtrak LOTS of Money that they really Don't have! Perhaps Joe Boardman and Amtrak's Crack Political Liaison Department could get the Mayors, Governors and Congress Critters from the Involved Cities, Districts and States Involved in this Situation????
 
Last edited by a moderator:
montana mike said:
Sad to say this really isn't a case of right or wrong, but the reality of what has happened on this line.
Click to expand...
Bull.

It's very clearly a case of what's right and what's wrong.

BNSF has made a business decision that making more money comes before honoring their commitments to Amtrak. It's a business decision that corporations make every day, and it's bulls--t.

Realistically, Amtrak has no options. They can do a better job of communicating the utter trainwreck (no pun intended) that the Empire Builder is and will be until either a) additional equipment is procured or b) BNSF adds enough capability or freight traffic decreases enough to allow them to get Amtrak to get over the road on the agreed upon schedule.
 
You answered your own comment in the last paragraph--Amtrak has no options.

This is how the REAL world operates--like it or not. And sadly I think WB would likely ignore Amtrak Joe--I know I would (just as the Chinese just not so politely told him to go back to the US and sit down and shut up over the air space issues in the far east this week).

If BNSF is paying the fines IAW the contract I don't see where Amtrak has any recourse, legal or otherwise.
 
montana mike said:
This is how the REAL world operates--like it or not.
Click to expand...
I don't.

We can either sit back and take it, or try and do something about it, and I'm not going to just sit by and give BNSF a pass because they're holding all of the cards.

When I make an agreement, I do my best to live up to it. The world would be a better place if more people thought and acted that way.
 
Where is BNSF not living up to the LETTER of the contract? They are causing delays and paying for them, IAW the contract. I think any of our lawyers would say there is no "breach of contract" here. That is why the penalty clauses are in place. We don't know how much AMtrak is getting in this situation. But my guess is the fact that we haven't seen ANY public squawking about this mess would indicate that BNSF is fully complying with the Quid Pro Quo in that contract and therefore Amtrak is either in no position to do anything else and/or the compensation is such that it compensates them fully for the mess in Chicago (and along the route) and perhaps then some.

The entire idea behind penalty clauses in contracts (I was contracting officer for years) is to try to make the party that has been "injured" whole via compensating factors--either in the form of cash or other mitigating actions. It would appear this is in place.

PS--I have never gotten the impression from any of my discussions with the BNSF people that they aren't trying very hard to make things work. They have just been overwhelmed with circumstances (yes, some of the company's own doing) and they are at least putting a vast amount of resources into this region to improve the situation, but please remember the construction season on the Hi-Line is only about 6 months long, so any and all "fixes" will take longer than say in the SE or SW US. Plus we have avalanches, floods and other wonderful natural occurrences that are an ongoing challenge. For example, I look at how much BNSF is spending to mitigate (finally) the mudslide areas north of Seattle--big bucks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did I say that they weren't living up to the "LETTER of the contract"?

(hint: I didn't)

BNSF is legally 100% in the right. I'm a federal contractor and understand how contracts work.

I'm speaking morally, and in that realm, BNSF is in the wrong. They agreed to handle Amtrak on-schedule and then abandoned that when they were put in a position to make more money. Same as most other corporation out there. Screw the little guy, as long as they can get away with it legally and it helps the bottom line.
 
As a federal contractor--as part of my company is as well-- you should know very well that the first entity to "screw the little guy" is the federal government--brutal. I have been on BOTH sides of the aisle in this situation and there is no harsher, unfeeling, uncaring entity to deal with than federal bureaucrats.

Sadly, if the Amtrak people weren't smart enough to build into their contract with BNSF safeguards to adequately protect them, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

I would suggest you take a ride all the way on the Hi-Line and see first hand what BNSF is trying to do the "fix" the mess and the challenges they face (for example the years and years of EIS and permitting required to do anything on NPS land, USFS land). I am not defending BNSF (they should have reacted better and more quickly to this mega change in this region, but they didn't), just pointing out the reality of the situation.
 
I take a somewhat different perspective here. Sure we can say that BNSF didn't live up to its contract and fight over that. But let's look at what is really happening.

Railroads are infrastructure that move freight - essential for the operation of our society. Sure corporations make money in the process, but the truth is that we all like to drive, fly, etc., and it so happens that much of the oil that is keeping our fossil fuel economy afloat is coming from North Dakota. Like it or not, we have collectively decided not to build much in the way of new pipelines, which means the oil has to move by rail. I don't blame BNSF for not seeing this coming in 2003 and starting upgrades then. They had no way of knowing at the time how much oil there would be and how many pipelines might get built.

Now we have the rail equivalent of congested highway made more congested by emergency construction to expand the highway. Now imagine if a city bus operator had a contract with the construction company that their buses must always get through on time, or else. Would the resultant delays to construction and other traffic be worth it, or would it be better overall to renegotiate the contract?

We are all of us, at the gas pump, benefiting from the oil BNSF is hauling. It's not about BNSF being a greedy corporation; it's about BNSF being a cog in the giant machine that feeds energy into modern society. Rather than force BNSF to run a highly inefficient operation (by clearing all trains from the main to let Amtrak through), let's renegotiate the contract for the time being, setting a schedule that allows Amtrak to run reliably on time and that allows BNSF to get their trains over the road and their tracks upgraded.

Mark
 
anir dendroica said:
Railroads are infrastructure that move freight - essential for the operation of our society. Sure corporations make money in the process, but the truth is that we all like to drive, fly, etc., and it so happens that much of the oil that is keeping our fossil fuel economy afloat is coming from North Dakota. Like it or not, we have collectively decided not to build much in the way of new pipelines, which means the oil has to move by rail. I don't blame BNSF for not seeing this coming in 2003 and starting upgrades then. They had no way of knowing at the time how much oil there would be and how many pipelines might get built.
Click to expand...
It's not so much about whether we've decided to build pipelines -- the fact is, railroads have beaten the pipeline guys by underbidding them. Transporting crude by rail is dangerous in a different way than potentially leaky pipelines, as the accident in Lac-Mégantic Canada illustrated. One of the reasons I like rail travel is that it's a more efficient use of energy resources (but that's another topic...). Anir, you make some good points -- but not all of us want to keep pumping oil like there's no tomorrow.
 
I don't actually want to keep pumping oil - I'm working on a PhD in alternative energy at the moment and see quite a bit of promise in wind, solar, biomass, hydro, wave power, geothermal, and even the much-maligned nuclear power (in smaller, safer, modular plants). My point is that we're not pumping oil because corporations can make money. We're pumping oil because our society as it is built needs that oil. Now if we can transition to some combination of alternatives before the oil runs out that will make our future look quite a bit brighter, but in the meantime the unfortunate truth is that we need oil and lots of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top