Has there been any word as to how BNSF plans to utilize the Montana Rail Link route beyond the current traffic moving over the line? I could think of several possibilities -
-General relief valve for whatever doesn’t fit on the old Great Northern main?
-directionally-weighted (with the steeper grades on the old NP/MRL route, would running most eastbound grain/oil/ethanol empties this way make sense?
Here’s how I see it. I’m thinking BNSF will utilize the MRL to return empty bulk trains back to the Dickinson, and Hettinger Subs and beyond. I’ll even say the Sindey Line may get more active by returning MTY shuttles back to the Hi-Line instead of routing them entirely across it. I don’t see the Sidney Line handling WB bulk traffic due to the Snowden Bridge across the Missouri which is restricted to 268K GRL.
I also think BNSF will try its best to eliminate helper operations across both Mullan and Bozeman Passes by doing some sort of directional running with MTY’s. As Marias Pass with its lower grade can handle the WB Bulk traffic. I do wonder if coal will be routed up the line between Laurel-Shelby though.
I don’t see any CHI-MSP-SEA-PTL intermodal traffic being re-routed as it would increase route circuity and you don’t want that with intermodal. Carload is not much of an issue when it comes to adding some miles
I think this might also faciltate the return of Amtrak service over the former NP in Montana as well since it will be under BNSF. Far easier to negotiate then with two seperate railroads.
If they use the two long and widely separated parallel routes (High Line and MRL/NP) for directional running, how will they efficently get crews to a return run?
It won’t matter. There is a much better chance that the existing long distance trains will perish before Amtrak returns to Southern Montana. The current Superliner fleet is 30 to 40 years old, and there is no plan for refurbishment. Even with potential money from the IIJA, Amtrak hasn’t ordered any new long-distance equipment, so realistically, replacement is 7-10 years off. It’s unlike the cars currently in use will last that long, and the existing trains will be discontinued. Couple this reality with that Amtrak has no desire for any additional long-distance trains and an infrastructure cost of $1.5 billion to $2 billion this service, and a new train in Southern Montana or anywhere else is unlikely indeed.
Minnesota is advocating for a second Amtrak daily frequency between Chicago and St Paul by extending one of the Hiawatha trips. Siemens Venture single-level equipment purchased with IIJA funds would be the most likely option for a second frequency.
As to Empire Builder replacement equipment, the most recent double deck cars constructed for long distance service were the California Cars. Those are getting long in the tooth also.
The future of long distance trains may be single level equipment.
Actually, we’ve never heard this before. And that we couldn’t’ve is simple math. Amtrak’s Superliners are 30 to 40 years old. It’s never happened that there’s been equipment Amtrak has been using WITHOUT any replacement cars at least in the works. Even most of the equipment obtained from Amtrak at its inception never was in use this many years, and even then, new cars were being built (such was the case for the Superliners in the late 1970s and early 1980s). With no replacement cars on order, limited manufacturers, lengthy build times likely AND no current refurbishment program, the likelihood that sufficient serviceable equipment will be available to keep the current long distance trains using Superliners for the next decade is unlikely.
As for Congress, they are powerless to fix the problem when the equipment simply does not exist and won’t be available many many years in the future.
First you assume that a refurbishment program won’t be started. Second, that supposedly no one in Congress is aware of the problem. Possibly third, with PTC, they may consider something closer to off-the-shelf foriegn equipment safe enough.
When did the plans to issue RFPs for the bi-level Superliner replacements in 2023 and 2024 change? That’s the next announced priority after the Amfleet replacement design, as I recall. We’re barely into 2023.
Assuming that no refurbishment program will start is more logical than assuming one will simply because it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that one should have already been done, especially in light of the fact that no new cars have been ordered.
In Amtrak’s 2022-2027 “Five Year Plan”, they indicate 173 cars are “inactive” as of October, 2021. At the open Amtrak board meeting held in St. Louis on December 1, 2022, Amtrak CEO Gardner responded to an inquiry about returning inactive cars to service: “stored equipment that is no longer commercially viable are essentially donations to the parts supply.” This strongly suggests that current intent is not to return these cars to service. In the mean time, Amtrak is already not operating some trains due to lack of equipment and most long-distance trains are operating with fewer cars than pre-Covid.
The eastbound Empire Builder which departed Seattle on January 18 was delayed over 13 hours just west of Spokane due to a service interruption. The train was scheduled to arrive in Chicago at 445 PM January 20 with its equipment standing to protect the westbound counterpart train on January 21. Amtrak has already canceled the outbound westbound trip on January 21, showing it cannot create a makeup set of equipment nor can it expect to turn an inbound set of equipment in less than 10 hours or so.
The only hope for a refurbishment program would be if Amtrak does decide to revive the “inactive” equipment it is currently cannibalizing for parts. Obviously, these cars would need signficant work. Otherwise, a refurbishme
Don’t hold your breath. Equipment is still a problem, especially considering some trains are still without and many run far from their full complement of cars. And if the CP-KCS merger is approved, perhaps the CP’s “We can handle anything” stance will change. Especially since the $53 million or so in track upgrades haven’t yet been made.
Vermontanan, I’m traveling and just saw your response. Your original thesis was that Amtrak would never start an ex-NP train because they planned on eliminating long distance trains apparently thru equipment attrition. When they announced their request for equipment proposals, I considered your argument refuted, and am surprised you are continuing your off topic comments.
If Amtrak can start thie service in 2023 then how is it going to get 2 complete train sets…? 10 cars each train set with a 20% spares means that to get 20 COT&S would take 80 days acording to Amtrak CMO. But during that time regular in service cars will come up on their 4 year deadline. With those figures which are very suspect no way service this year. Now maybe completion times of COT&S might change?