Did they have suburban trains back then as they do now?
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.
Dakguy201 & CMStPnP: All we are asking for is a 10 min. stop, no checked baggage, as this would be at least initially, an unmanned station, just passengers and their carry on bags only. This suburban stop is 7 miles north of downtown Mpls and about 17 miles from SPUD. It has been noted that all long distance trains have existing suburban stops, why exclude the Twin Cities, which has the 3rd largest and most spread out metro in the midwest and has the 2nd largest economic impact outside of Chicago. There is even a way to recover all of the lost
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 accoun
[quote user=“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 Pri
[quote user=“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
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: You are spot on!! This is one of the reasons why we have been trying to get Midway Station reopened, ever since Amtrak moved to SPUD. Both #7 & 8 stop at Midway every day for servicing, anyway, so why not reopen the station for the convience of passengers. Like Fridley, this does not need to be a manned facility either. Checked baggage can be and is currently, handled at SPUD along with passengers who prefer to board there. Personally, I see no good reason not to have a stop at SPUD, Midway, AND Fridley. All 3 stops could be handled within the confines of the current schedules, except as I have stated before, #8 would need to be held at St Cloud until 6:00am, account of the morning Northstar rush hour; arriving Fridley before 7:00am; arriving Midway about 7:20am; finally arriving SPUD before 8:00am. This could delay the departure at SPUD a few minutes, but could easily be made up again before leaving Minnesota. #7 has plenty of padding in its schedule to accommodate all 3 stops and still leave St Cloud on time. I know that Amtrak, like most organizations, don’t like to admit past mistakes, but with the new leadership at the helm, maybe they would reconsider this now…Yours truly, Edward Johnson
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:
-
The Fridley station is only on Track 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?)
-
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
NP Eddie: The Fridley stop could be a selling point to the BNSF because it removes all passenger trains from Mainline #1 east of Coon Creek Jct. However, at same time it also requres #8 to wait at St Cloud until 6:00am because of both east and westbound Northstar train congestion on Mainline #2 between Interstate and Coon Creek Jct. If Midway Station could be reopened for passengers and if the suburban stop were changed to anyone of the other Northstar stations (Coon Rapids, Anoka, etc.), then this congestion would not be a problem and #8 could depart St Cloud at its present time of 5:19am or between 5:40am and 5:50am with arrival times at say Coon Rapids (Riverdale) of about 6:00am and 6:20am to 6:30am, respectively, without interrupting the Northstar operation, and at the same time leaving a time window BNSF freight trains. But, if the suburban stop were to be changed, IMO, Midway would probably have to be reopened, which would be very good thing as it is much closer to the center of the metro population and would very close to the Univ. of Minnesota (both ca
The lengthened schedule for Bakken delays ended in January of 2015.
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???
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.
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.
[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.
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).”
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?
Schlimm: The gentleman from Dallas “doth protest too much, methinks” (sorry William). Now if he just had something useful to say. As I have said in the previous posts, many mistakes have been made in the past, and the “Twin Cities” is not a single city, nor other entity, anymore than “Dallas Fort Worth” is. And, I don’t see what help there is bringing Wisconsin into this matter, because I truly believe they have more than enough of their own problems to deal with, also including transportation issues. With that said, if anyone has anything helpful or constructive to say, I would be more than happy to respond. Again, as I have said Midway Station IMO, must be immediately reopened. I don’t know of anyone who opposes this, yet. Please, tell me, who and why they might be opposed to this, if you know. Midway is just 3 miles from downtown Minneapolis, has good freeway access, both short term and long term free parking, mutilple transit routes nearby, 8 university campuses within 3 miles, and this where the trains (both #7