Passenger Trains > Empire Builder Woes

Number 8 has been on hold near the old Midway Depot in St Paul since 11:30am with mechanical issues. Still not moving yet. Reports (from Facebook) are that they are waiting for a BNSF engine. Engines 40-303-312. Not sure why they haven't dropped the P42 and left with the two chargers. Unless one or both are having issues of their own? 

7(18) out of Chicago left 1 and 1/2 hours down after one of their 3 chargers died in the yard earlier. They swapped the bad one out and out a P42 in place instead (300-186-311). 

364 - one hour late out of Chicago account mechanical issues. 

352 - 1 hour and 20 mins late out of Chicago account mechanical issues. 

305 - estimating 15 minutes late out of Chicago so far. 

355 - cancelled. I believe the equipment is out of place from yesterday. 

sethamtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Number 8 has been on hold near the old Midway
> Depot in St Paul since 11:30am with mechanical
> issues. Still not moving yet. Reports (from
> Facebook) are that they are waiting for a BNSF
> engine. Engines 40-303-312. Not sure why they
> haven't dropped the P42 and left with the two
> chargers. Unless one or both are having issues of
> their own? 

Has BNSF's 3 working locomotive policy kicked in yet?

WOW!!  Couldn't they at least get 8 into SPUD?

After 5 and 1/2 hours of sitting in Midway Depot, the train has departed from St Paul Union Depot at 6:34pm.

BNSF GEVO leading the P42 and two ALC42 chargers.

SpringedSwitch Wrote:

>
> Has BNSF's 3 working locomotive policy kicked in
> yet?

==================================

YES!!!!

Seems like they don't need 3 working locomotives MSP to CHI?

SpringedSwitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sethamtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Number 8 has been on hold near the old Midway
> > Depot in St Paul since 11:30am with mechanical
> > issues. Still not moving yet. Reports (from
> > Facebook) are that they are waiting for a BNSF
> > engine. Engines 40-303-312. Not sure why they
> > haven't dropped the P42 and left with the two
> > chargers. Unless one or both are having issues
> of
> > their own? 
>
> Has BNSF's 3 working locomotive policy kicked in
> yet?

Empire Builders have been operating regularly with three locomotives for most of this week. Someone has reported that it has gone into effect. There's definitely snow down along the Hi Line and more coming with cold temps!

Amtrak's heading for another mess in terms of time-keeping - Late train #7/27 out of Chicago on 11/18, and train #7/27 of 11/17 will not be making it into West Coast terminals without having a delayed departure coming back West..........IF Amtrak would turn the consists at Spokane when running late and provide alternate transportation, they'd avoid cancelling trains to get them back on track. 

CRAZY! 

Sure didn't take long for the ALCs to act up with cold Temps, Amtrak needs to just stick with the P40s/42s until they can fix those issues!

Posted from Android

Oregonpaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems like they don't need 3 working locomotives
> MSP to CHI?

They don't east of St Paul. Since they sat for 6 hours, I am guessing something catastrophic happened mechanically. 

I figured it would be as simple as dropping the P42 from the lead and letting the two chargers take the train to Chicago. One or both chargers must not have been functional for them to wait several hours for a rescue engine. 

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure didn't take long for the ALCs to act up with
> cold Temps, Amtrak needs to just stick with the
> P40s/42s until they can fix those issues!

Um, it was the P42 that was causing issues, not an ALC.

SpringedSwitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ProAmtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sure didn't take long for the ALCs to act up
> with
> > cold Temps, Amtrak needs to just stick with the
> > P40s/42s until they can fix those issues!
>
> Um, it was the P42 that was causing issues, not an
> ALC.


Why couldn't they drop the P42 and let the two trailing chargers take the train to Chicago? 

Oregonpaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems like they don't need 3 working locomotives
> MSP to CHI?

That is on Canadian Pacific and METRA.  It's BNSF that is requiring the three units, and with Amtrak's wonderful history of mechanical prowess and reliability, BNSF cannot be blamed for not wanting a broken-down Amtrak train clogging their railroad.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/22 01:20 by GenePoon.

All well and good, but what is the story on No 7 of 17 Nov., which departed CHI and MKE on time and then was four hours late leaving Columbus? More or less kept the card after Columbus, until there was more slippage and Glasgow and west. I suppose it's our old friend "Mechanical Difficulties", but what, specifically? Or was the "difficulty" from runnning into something or someone?

widowsihler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All well and good, but what is the story on No 7
> of 17 Nov., which departed CHI and MKE on time and
> then was four hours late leaving Columbus? More or
> less kept the card after Columbus, until there was
> more slippage and Glasgow and west. I suppose it's
> our old friend "Mechanical Difficulties", but
> what, specifically? Or was the "difficulty" from
> runnning into something or someone?


Yup:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,5577513

SpringedSwitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> widowsihler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----Or was the "difficulty"
> from
> > runnning into something or someone?
>
>
> Yup:
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,

Aha. Thanks a bunch. I don't check the "Police" site. (Nor is it obvious how to do so; it doesn't seem to show up in a menu.)