New Report Shows Delays on Freight Railroad Lines Cost Amtrak Millions

Report Requested by Sen. Lautenberg Highlights Need

for Improved National Rail Policy

Full story is HERE.

Was there ever any doubt about this? The UP will have to pony up a pretty penny on just the Sunset alone.

I have to wonder if not delaying Amtrak would cost freight railroads millions, though.

A part of me wonders if, for example, in places where there is currently double track and the right of way is wide enough for a third track, if it would make sense for Amtrak to buy part of the width of that right of way sufficient for one track, and Amtrak could build a new track there to high speed standards, and then some arrangement could be worked out for Amtrak to use the freight tracks along that right of way when they need a passing siding, and Amtrak could let the freight railroad borrow its track in return when there was no passenger train occupying it.

Making the signal system work right in that environment might involve some extra challenges, though.

They can pass all the bills they want,

but unless they regularly appropriate money they aren't worth the paper they're printed on...this includes the recently passed Amtrak reinvestment act!

Joel N. Weber II said:

I have to wonder if not delaying Amtrak would cost freight railroads millions, though.
A part of me wonders if, for example, in places where there is currently double track and the right of way is wide enough for a third track, if it would make sense for Amtrak to buy part of the width of that right of way sufficient for one track, and Amtrak could build a new track there to high speed standards, and then some arrangement could be worked out for Amtrak to use the freight tracks along that right of way when they need a passing siding, and Amtrak could let the freight railroad borrow its track in return when there was no passenger train occupying it.

Making the signal system work right in that environment might involve some extra challenges, though.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure it makes financial sense for Amtrak. Perhaps it would on routes where Amtrak has multiple daily trains (corridors, etc.), but on the typical long-distance route, Amtrak runs two trains per day--one in each direction. That's an awful lot of time for that track to be mostly unused, even if the occasional freight train is allowed to use it. Maybe Amtrak loses millions due to freight delays every year, but you can figure each mile of CTC track costs $1 million to build. Doing this to Amtrak's entire system would cost in the neighborhood of $15-20 billion. It'd take a lot of freight delays to make that project worthwhile.

The freight railroads would likely find that third main more useful than Amtrak. It might be possible to make an arragement where Amtrak pays a certain portion of the cost of building it, with the rule that Amtrak gets bar none priority usage on that track, but enforcing that would probably be just as problematic as enforcing the current law regarding Amtrak's supposed priority.

Signaling wouldn't be a problem, unless Amtrak wanted to retain control of the track by using its own dispatchers. I think it would be more cost-effective (and make for better compatibility) to outsource the dispatching to whichever railroad the line parallels but maybe maintain an Amtrak employee or liason on each dispatching center (like BNSF does) to ensure Amtrak gets the use of that track when it needs.

A part of me wonders if, for example, in places where there is currently double track and the right of way is wide enough for a third track, if it would make sense for Amtrak to buy part of the width of that right of way sufficient for one track, and Amtrak could build a new track there to high speed standards, and then some arrangement could be worked out for Amtrak to use the freight tracks along that right of way when they need a passing siding, and Amtrak could let the freight railroad borrow its track in return when there was no passenger train occupying it.

Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by "high speed standards." To reach truly high speeds, the route of the track is as much as factor as the track itself. Anything approaching high speeds is going to need to minimize curves, which existing freight trackage may or may not do. AFIK, with regard to the signaling, Amtrak would need to install equipment for positive train control to be allowed above speeds of 79 MPH.

It's also questionable whether trains would just experience additional bottlenecks at places where there wasn't enough room for a third track without major expense. I'd imagine the number of such places would be high.

In a utopian world, what I'd love to see is real high speed corridors installed along major routes, with upgrades made to freight tracks on lesser used routes. For example, extending the Boston-Washington corridor to Flordia is occasionally talked about. However, to make this competitive with airline routes, you'd want true high speed service. I'd love to see average speeds of 110-120 MPH (I believe the NEC is about 60-70 MPH average). At such speeds you'd be able to go New York to Orlando in around 9 hours, which I think thousands of people would opt for over the hassle of air travel, especially with the proper onboard amenities. And that's really not even considering everyone would get on and off at intermediate stops.

I think you could see similar New York-Chicago markets also, and a number of other corridors. However, until things dramatically shift in this country, the required billions will never be available. Not to mention the airline industry will spend millions lobbying against the project and trying to kill it in any way possible (consider Southwest and the Texas TGV project in the early 90s).

rnizlek said:

A part of me wonders if, for example, in places where there is currently double track and the right of way is wide enough for a third track, if it would make sense for Amtrak to buy part of the width of that right of way sufficient for one track, and Amtrak could build a new track there to high speed standards, and then some arrangement could be worked out for Amtrak to use the freight tracks along that right of way when they need a passing siding, and Amtrak could let the freight railroad borrow its track in return when there was no passenger train occupying it.

Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by "high speed standards." To reach truly high speeds, the route of the track is as much as factor as the track itself. Anything approaching high speeds is going to need to minimize curves, which existing freight trackage may or may not do. AFIK, with regard to the signaling, Amtrak would need to install equipment for positive train control to be allowed above speeds of 79 MPH.

It's also questionable whether trains would just experience additional bottlenecks at places where there wasn't enough room for a third track without major expense. I'd imagine the number of such places would be high.

In a utopian world, what I'd love to see is real high speed corridors installed along major routes, with upgrades made to freight tracks on lesser used routes. For example, extending the Boston-Washington corridor to Flordia is occasionally talked about. However, to make this competitive with airline routes, you'd want true high speed service. I'd love to see average speeds of 110-120 MPH (I believe the NEC is about 60-70 MPH average). At such speeds you'd be able to go New York to Orlando in around 9 hours, which I think thousands of people would opt for over the hassle of air travel, especially with the proper onboard amenities. And that's really not even considering everyone would get on and off at intermediate stops.

I think you could see similar New York-Chicago markets also, and a number of other corridors. However, until things dramatically shift in this country, the required billions will never be available. Not to mention the airline industry will spend millions lobbying against the project and trying to kill it in any way possible (consider Southwest and the Texas TGV project in the early 90s).

Click to expand...

In my opinion the FRA should make PTC mandatory. This would almost entirely eradicate crashes between two trains, stop a lot of single train derailments, allow for higher speeds on Amtrak, allow freight railroads the opportunity to look into higher-speed freight trains (UPS, Hotshot Intermodals going 90, Amtrak did it with the failed express service.), overall I believe it would result in good returns for the railroads when they have fewer derailments and fewer multi-million dollar lawsuits. I see PTC now as the airbrake was in the 1800s the railroads were strongly against it at first, a few tried it, it worked out great, then the government made it mandatory and now all railroads use them. To me if we had nation-wide PTC the FRA could relax crash-worthiness to the point that Amtrak could buy off-the-shelf equipment from Europe. I know installing PTC would be a major cost and a huge undertaking but it will easily pay for itself over time. Especially when it stops trains hauling hundreds of millions of dollars of cargo from derailing and the railroad having to cover the damage with insurance and their profits.

I think having a 2nd or 3rd amtrak owned track paralleling existing frieght tracks would work in certain areas. For instance on the the line of the Crescent, have a high speed (90-110MPH) line from Atlanta to Greensboro, this not only improve the crescent time keeping, but also allow a new amtrak corridor connecting Atlanta GA, Greenville SC, Charlotte NC, and Greensboro NC as well as intermidiate stops. The population for these 4 towns alone totals over 6 million people, who's gonna say that a keystone type corridor would not be used in this situation?

My point though is this, it does not make sense for amtrak to build there own track on the route of the Crescent from New Orleans to Birmingham, but it does for Atlanta to Greensboro (and possibly even further north than that, there really needs to be a day train from Atlanta to New York but that is another thread!). Likewise the Silver Service route, as was mentioned before has, on a large portion the Star, the Meteor, Palmetto, and Auto Train thats 8 trains a day, much of that line would greatly benefit from Amtrak dedicated track capable of at least 90mph speeds (110 is about all we can realistically hope for). That to me would make financial sense for amtrak to build.

Are the current FRA standards mainly as a result of collisions with other trains? I always thought that they were primarily a result of high numbers of grade crossings in this country, which isn't the case in Europe.

rnizlek said:

Are the current FRA standards mainly as a result of collisions with other trains? I always thought that they were primarily a result of high numbers of grade crossings in this country, which isn't the case in Europe.

Click to expand...

FRA standards are a result of many things, including the both of the above, but certainly not limited to them either. Then throw in some politics and you get what we have today.

The FRA standards cannot be explained in a couple of sentences, or even a couple of pages. There are track safety standards, which up to the 90P/80F level are just that. Above that point there are road crossing and right of way fencing standards that come into the picture. Those things, in addition to the jump in inspection requirements are why we will never again see the 100 mph speed limit on the old ATSF even though the signal system would permit it legally. 90 it is and 90 (or less) it will remain. Of course there are the two well know lower pause points: 59P/49F limits if there are no signals at all and 79 mph if there is no ATS / ATC, etc.

Rzinlek is right. For much of the system other than fairly flat and level terrain having 100 mph plus track would be meainingless because you would have it on a 70 mph minus alignment. The ex-Southern main Washington to Atlanta is a good example of this. Once south of about Charlottesville VA very little of the line is straight enough for a long enough distance to allow even the 79 mph track speed, much less anything faster. And Atlanta to Birmingham: The slightly over 4 hours for 165 miles is as good as it is going to get without an almost complete rebuild on new alignment. For the most part the speed limit is 50 mph and under due to curves.

As to country wide PTC? It is not a magic bullet. It will not solve all problems. Collisions and derailments have been managed on tracks that had all the possible "lights, bells, and whistles" in place. Stupidity and carelessness can find a way. Regardless of the system, no way should we ever go to the flimsy boxes that are allowed to roll around Europe, regardless of what we have for a signal system. The concept that PTC or some other wonderful system of mechanical or electronic stupidity prevention will cure all problems is something that exists in the minds of government regulators and lawyers, not in the realm of reality.

Read some of the ICC and NTSB accident reports. If the line had no signals, they will say something like "Application of a proper block signal system would have prevented this accident" If the line had signals, they will say something like "Use of a proper Automatic Train Stop (or ATC or something else) would have prevented this accident. If the line had ATS, they will find something else that should have been done or installed.

It is too easy to get over hyped about the perceived deficiencies in what is already a very safe system meanwhile not doing something where much greater improvements could be achieved. In the Bible this is called "Gnat straining and camel swallowing."

Its the product of the American mindset more than anything else.

George Harris said:

The ex-Southern main Washington to Atlanta is a good example of this. Once south of about Charlottesville VA very little of the line is straight enough for a long enough distance to allow even the 79 mph track speed, much less anything faster. And Atlanta to Birmingham: The slightly over 4 hours for 165 miles is as good as it is going to get without an almost complete rebuild on new alignment. For the most part the speed limit is 50 mph and under due to curves.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to argue with you but there seems to be alot of line on the ATL-WAS portion that has 79MPH running. Even ATL to BHM, where it is quite curvy, there are a few portions where 79MPH is reached. I can only imagine that properly banked and maintained track would provide faster running. Not saying that 90-110 would be the speed limit for the entire line, but I'm sure that it would be possible for some faster running.

TVRM610 said:

George Harris said:

The ex-Southern main Washington to Atlanta is a good example of this. Once south of about Charlottesville VA very little of the line is straight enough for a long enough distance to allow even the 79 mph track speed, much less anything faster. And Atlanta to Birmingham: The slightly over 4 hours for 165 miles is as good as it is going to get without an almost complete rebuild on new alignment. For the most part the speed limit is 50 mph and under due to curves.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to argue with you but there seems to be alot of line on the ATL-WAS portion that has 79MPH running. Even ATL to BHM, where it is quite curvy, there are a few portions where 79MPH is reached. I can only imagine that properly banked and maintained track would provide faster running. Not saying that 90-110 would be the speed limit for the entire line, but I'm sure that it would be possible for some faster running.

Click to expand...

There is a good deal of 79mph between TCL and BHM and then a fair number sections between BHM and ATN and then a few smaller sections between ATN and ATL. I have been at the stations in ATN and TCL and hear the defect detectors come over the scanner announcing the speed being in the upper 70s and occasionally reaching the lower 80s. Unless there are inaccuracies in the speeds reported by those defectors there si a lot more 70-79 track than there used to be, NS has been doing a good bit of upgrading between MEI and ATL, a number of curves have been smoothed out and super elevated (granted not as much as on the NEC), the Crescent is doing very well at keeping schedule in this section, and amazingly well over the whole route. The last time I was on the Crescent the conductor told me that its not uncommon for them to run slightly above 79, the locomotive's speed limiting software has a buffer of up to 82 for a full minute, so an experienced engineer could take advantage of this to regain lost time, he said he's heard of engineers hitting 85+ in straight-aways then bringing it back to less than the 82 buffer limit before the minute elapsed. Apparently if the crew at the terminals forget to set the software correctly for the route that the locomotive is running trains that run in 90mph territory could be stuck in 79mph mode and 79mph territory could be in 90mph mode or the system could be completely off and only provide dead-man alerter monitoring.

One thing I've noticed that makes no sense on Amtrak's part is that the NB and SB are scheduled to stop in Tuscaloosa so close together that its impossible for both trains to arrive on time, they always get in each others way and the first one to get to the last siding before the station gets to stop first, it can be confusing to passengers when the trains arrive out of scheduled order, especially when the trains appear on the schedule as running N-S and are actually running E-W through Alabama, its fairly common for people to miss trains because of this, after quite a few people got on the wrong train they've started taking tickets before boarding at the platform. Why can't Amtrak take this into account and schedule them to meet in Meridian ?, there are numerous platforms and both trains could be in the station at the same time, all that would be involved would be adjusting the departure times in NYP and//or NOL. The SB could leave NYP at 2:45 and the NB could leave NOL at 6:45 or 7.

Crescent ATN & TCL said:

The last time I was on the Crescent the conductor told me that its not uncommon for them to run slightly above 79, the locomotive's speed limiting software has a buffer of up to 82 for a full minute, so an experienced engineer could take advantage of this to regain lost time, he said he's heard of engineers hitting 85+ in straight-aways then bringing it back to less than the 82 buffer limit before the minute elapsed.

Click to expand...

It's hardly worth it for an engineer to ever bother trying to push the train up to 85 and risk getting scrammed by the computer for a speed violation. First of course, would be the issue of the computer shutting him down and his having to explain why he was speeding. Second, if he got caught by the host RR or the FRA, he could loose his license to drive the train.

Finally, the time gained is so small as to be almost insignificant. Over the course of 100 miles, assuming that he could keep the train at a solid 85 vs. 79 and he had no stops or slower sections, he'd gain less than 5 minutes. The time saved would be even less if he just holds 82, and it works out to even less than that 5 minutes, since he has to keep slowing up and speeding up. Far too much work and risk, just to gain a few minutes.

Crescent ATN & TCL said:

Apparently if the crew at the terminals forget to set the software correctly for the route that the locomotive is running trains that run in 90mph territory could be stuck in 79mph mode and 79mph territory could be in 90mph mode or the system could be completely off and only provide dead-man alerter monitoring.

Click to expand...

I'm far from an expert on this, but AFAIK only certain locomotives are fitted with the necessary equipment/overlays to permit 90 MPH or greater operation. Since these locomotives, with the three different overlays are limited in number, they are generally only sent out on routes where they can actually run at higher speeds.

Engines 26-37, as well as 126-128 are fitted with ITCS, the technology needed to run on Michigan runs.

Engines 101-111 are fitted with ASCES, used for NEC operations.

Engines 50-65 are PTC fitted, which I believe are used on the SW Chief for the 90 MPH sections.

Beyond the above engines, I can't imagine why the software in any other engine would ever be set to operate in 90 MPH mode, since they don't have the necessary fittings to permit running faster than 79 MPH.

One thing I have found out about most railroaders is they like to brag and usually stretch the truth. "Oh yea.. we were running 85 for 55 seconds in that straightaway" blah blah blah... haha. What I'm saying is that I believe that a conductor told you that, but I think he was exagerating a bit.

However I'm sure that the speed limit is stretchted a bit, I know I hear hot box detectors announcing 80 or 81 alot. 85 may be pushing it.. but I'm really not sure (I know I've been on the Crescent where it felt we were pushing 85!)

As for the engine computer being set for 90mph operation, are the Crescent Locomotives not based out of WAS? If so, I would think it would be possible to get a NEC locomotive ocassionally, not always, but certainly sometimes.

TVRM610 said:

As for the engine computer being set for 90mph operation, are the Crescent Locomotives not based out of WAS? If so, I would think it would be possible to get a NEC locomotive ocassionally, not always, but certainly sometimes.

Click to expand...

All locos out of DC are officially part of the Chicago pool, and those locos are not equiped with ACSES. The ACSES (NEC) equipped locos largely operate on the Downeaster, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, Vermonter, Lake Shore, and the Springfield shuttles.

AlanB said:

TVRM610 said:

As for the engine computer being set for 90mph operation, are the Crescent Locomotives not based out of WAS? If so, I would think it would be possible to get a NEC locomotive ocassionally, not always, but certainly sometimes.

Click to expand...

All locos out of DC are officially part of the Chicago pool, and those locos are not equiped with ACSES. The ACSES (NEC) equipped locos largely operate on the Downeaster, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, Vermonter, Lake Shore, and the Springfield shuttles.

Click to expand...

Oh ok.. gotcha. Are some of the Chicago engines capable of 90, for the Chicago-St. Louis Portion? Not saying they would ever make it on the Crescent though, that would seem quite odd, but just curious.

TVRM610 said:

AlanB said:

TVRM610 said:

As for the engine computer being set for 90mph operation, are the Crescent Locomotives not based out of WAS? If so, I would think it would be possible to get a NEC locomotive ocassionally, not always, but certainly sometimes.

Click to expand...

All locos out of DC are officially part of the Chicago pool, and those locos are not equiped with ACSES. The ACSES (NEC) equipped locos largely operate on the Downeaster, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, Vermonter, Lake Shore, and the Springfield shuttles.

Click to expand...

Oh ok.. gotcha. Are some of the Chicago engines capable of 90, for the Chicago-St. Louis Portion? Not saying they would ever make it on the Crescent though, that would seem quite odd, but just curious.

Click to expand...

I know that they were working on improving that corridor, but last I had heard the system had failed and money had run out. So I'm not sure that any trains are operating at the speed on that line. I've no idea what has happened to the few locos that had equipment installed for the testing. They may still have that equipment installed, it may have been removed.

Wouldn't getting there on time be a matter of pride for the engineer, and perhaps a reason to speed?

Green Maned Lion said:

Wouldn't getting there on time be a matter of pride for the engineer, and perhaps a reason to speed?

Click to expand...

Not anymore and not at risk of loosing the license that allows him/her to do their job. And as I pointed out, unless the train is only about 10 to 15 minutes late, the limited speeding that an engineer can do isn't going to bring the train in on time. Sadly as we all well know, for most trains outside the corridor, we're not talking about being 5 to 10 minutes late. We're sadly talking about hours.

Green Maned Lion said:

Wouldn't getting there on time be a matter of pride for the engineer, and perhaps a reason to speed?

Click to expand...

It used to be in the old days, but not this day in age. It is not worth the possible days in the street or the loss of the job all together all because of a speeding violation! And it must be noted, that an engineer who speeds who doesn't work by the rules puts MY job in jeapordy if I am on the same crew. And above all, it can be a major safety issue with my crew as well as other train crews operating in the vicinity. Nope, I am sure it still happens on occasion, but with computers, etc, one should not even take the chances. It is not worth the miniscule time to be gained.

OBS gone freight...

Some crew members do hold a lot of pride in being on time so I would say yes, then you have the problem with crews expiring (in this case Amtrak, the Freight RRs and pretty much everybody else involved would care less if the train broke the speed limit if it meant that a train didn't have to be halted in the middle of nowhere.) Also you have to consider the fact that the crews don't get off work until they arrive at the crew change point or they expire.

I have seen 50 series locos, 100 series locos, and basically every other loco number group on the Crescent. Wouldn't the Crescent need NEC locos in the event of an electric loco shortage at WAS? I know they used to change in Philadelphia rather than WAS.

Crescent ATN & TCL said:

Some crew members do hold a lot of pride in being on time so I would say yes, then you have the problem with crews expiring (in this case Amtrak, the Freight RRs and pretty much everybody else involved would care less if the train broke the speed limit if it meant that a train didn't have to be halted in the middle of nowhere.) Also you have to consider the fact that the crews don't get off work until they arrive at the crew change point or they expire.

Click to expand...

The FRA will still care, and it will suspend, if not revoke the license of any engineer caught speeding.

AlanB said:

Crescent ATN & TCL said:

Some crew members do hold a lot of pride in being on time so I would say yes, then you have the problem with crews expiring (in this case Amtrak, the Freight RRs and pretty much everybody else involved would care less if the train broke the speed limit if it meant that a train didn't have to be halted in the middle of nowhere.) Also you have to consider the fact that the crews don't get off work until they arrive at the crew change point or they expire.

Click to expand...

The FRA will still care, and it will suspend, if not revoke the license of any engineer caught speeding.

Click to expand...

Well Alan has pretty much summed it up for you.

And I can tell you in addition to the FRA, we are watched almost daily! I work for one of Amtrak's host railroads, and they watch Amtrak's train and crews closely in addition to our own freight trains and crews. I for one do NOT want to work with anyone who won't follow the rules, because as a conductor it can hurt (in job security and literally) me as well. If my engineer is caught in a speed rules violation, they (the management, FRA, etc) are going to come to me ask me if/why I didn't take control of the situation. If I can't prove it, then I am going to hung out to dry, too. I am happy to say, however, that most of us railroaders do not want to work with anyone who is "unsafe" or thinks it is OK to stretch the rules frequently. It is so easy to get into trouble when you are "doing everything" exactly right as there are so many safety/operating rules to contend with. So with that said, my instances are very few with having to deal with an unsafe employee in the almost ten years of working in this industry. Most of us will look out for each other, and agree it is a lot easier to just do it right the first time by not putting any reason to place our jobs on the line. True, there are exceptions but I have lucky not to encounter them too much.

OBS gone freight...