New Report Shows Delays on Freight Railroad Lines Cost Amtrak Millions

[abqdave]

I love reading this site, I am learning possible solutions to railroading issues I never even knew existed before. Cab signaling, different classes of track, tensioned catenaries …from seeing trains on TV I thought you just put them on a track, moved that big lever toward you, and there you go (just make sure you don't fly off the track around corners).

I am still not sure I understand what is involved with making a high(er) speed line. So…

(1) most track in the US is class 4, which limits passenger trains to 80 mph (79 mph for Amtrack without a signaling system). (2) some of the SW Chief runs on class 5 track (primarily in NM it appears), so there it can go 90mph. Does this mean that if Amtrak installed a signaling system on class 4 track, its trains could only increase from 79 to 80mph? Not 79 to 90mph? Similarly, can you go 90 mph on class 5 track, even if you don’t have a signaling system?

Is the difference between class 4 and 5 track things like curves, or type of rail/ballast/ties used to construct it, or is it poor maintenance?

Jackal said CTC track cost $1m per mile. So now that I googled CTC and know it means Centralized Traffic Control, does that mean just adding a signaling system costs $1m per mile? If so, is there a general guide as to how much constructing new track on an existing line would cost? I know for urban light-rail systems, something like $25m per mile is often quoted.

And it doesn't matter whether your trainset has 'tilting' technology or not...it's just the class of track (and maybe a signalling system) that limits how fast the train can go?

I hope I am getting closer to understanding what is really involved with improving rail, so when I contact my elected representatives I can speak intelligently.

 

[TVRM610]

The tilting technology can increase the speed limit, but not beyond 79mph without cab controls. For instance on the Cascades line with the tilting TALGO equipment there is a portion where the Passenger Speed is 65 but the Talgo Speed is 79. So the speed has increased because of the tilting technology. However, even if the TALGO trains could take those curves comfortably and safely at 90, they are not permitted to do so without the Cab Control Systems in place.

 

[transit54]

The tilting technology can increase the speed limit, but not beyond 79mph without cab controls. For instance on the Cascades line with the tilting TALGO equipment there is a portion where the Passenger Speed is 65 but the Talgo Speed is 79. So the speed has increased because of the tilting technology. However, even if the TALGO trains could take those curves comfortably and safely at 90, they are not permitted to do so without the Cab Control Systems in place.

Any chance of this happening at some point?

 

[WICT106]

The tilting technology can increase the speed limit, but not beyond 79mph without cab controls. For instance on the Cascades line with the tilting TALGO equipment there is a portion where the Passenger Speed is 65 but the Talgo Speed is 79. So the speed has increased because of the tilting technology. However, even if the TALGO trains could take those curves comfortably and safely at 90, they are not permitted to do so without the Cab Control Systems in place.

Any chance of this happening at some point?

The chance of this is rather small. There would have to be a return on investment in order to justify the additional expense of maintaining the track in question to a higher standard. Railroads used to do this, but the returns just were not there once people began abandoning the trains.

In order to have any train be subject to a speed limit greater than 79 mph, one of the following has to be installed: Automatic Train Stop (which is a type of system where, in the event a train passes a restrictive signal, the train controls are overridden and brought to a stop), or some sort of Automatic Train Control (which is like ATS, with the addition that ATC enforces speed limits as well as stop signals), or plain cab signals (where the traffic signals are displayed inside the engine cab). Because railroads generally have to pay for their own maintenance, these systems are few and far between. It is less expensive to simply maintain track to FRA Class 4 standards, as the railroads receive no compensation for maintaining track to a higher standard for only one pair of trains per day.

It should also be noted that railroads are free to set a lower speed limit, as they are private entities.

 

[AlanB]

The tilting technology can increase the speed limit, but not beyond 79mph without cab controls. For instance on the Cascades line with the tilting TALGO equipment there is a portion where the Passenger Speed is 65 but the Talgo Speed is 79. So the speed has increased because of the tilting technology. However, even if the TALGO trains could take those curves comfortably and safely at 90, they are not permitted to do so without the Cab Control Systems in place.

Any chance of this happening at some point?

The chance of this is rather small. In order to have any train be subject to a speed limit greater than 79 mph, one of the following has to be installed: Automatic Train Stop (which is a type of system where, in the event a train passes a restrictive signal, the train controls are overridden and brought to a stop), or some sort of Automatic Train Control (which is like ATS, with the addition that ATC enforces speed limits as well as stop signals), or plain cab signals (where the traffic signals are displayed inside the engine cab). Because railroads generally have to pay for their own maintenance, these systems are few and far between. It is less expensive to simply maintain track to FRA Class 4 standards, as the railroads receive no compensation for maintaining track to a higher standard for only one pair of trains per day.

Actually I seem to recall having read something that the State of Washington is planning to help BNSF install some form of PTC. I don't know if that work ever got started or not, much less if the State has put forward any monies towards the project. But again IIRC, one of the reasons that the Talgos were choosen was because they would be capable of higher speeds on the run between PDX & SEA.

 

[abqdave]

So the SW Chief goes 90 mph because it has either train stop, train control, or a signalling system, not because the track is class 5, correct? Thanks.

 

[AlanB]

I am still not sure I understand what is involved with making a high(er) speed line. So…(1) most track in the US is class 4, which limits passenger trains to 80 mph (79 mph for Amtrack without a signaling system). (2) some of the SW Chief runs on class 5 track (primarily in NM it appears), so there it can go 90mph. Does this mean that if Amtrak installed a signaling system on class 4 track, its trains could only increase from 79 to 80mph? Not 79 to 90mph? Similarly, can you go 90 mph on class 5 track, even if you don’t have a signaling system?

The class of the track is a combination of many things, and in some classes you'll find that certain things that didn't matter in a lower class, now do matter.

For example, you cannot have a class 4 track without some form of wayside signals. If you must call a dispatcher on the radio for permission to enter a section of track without signals, then you aren't on class 4 track. You're on class 3 track.

But other factors also come into play here. The weight of the steel rails, the higher the class, the heavier the steel and typically the higher the speed limit. How well the track is maintained and cared for affect the class. If there is grass growing in between the ties, it's a pretty safe bet that you on Class 1 or 2 track, because routine maintenance would stop any grass from growing. What are the radius of the curves, are they banked, affect the class of the track.

When you start looking at speeds above 79 MPH, you now bring grade crossing equipment into the track class picture. IIRC, you must have active signals to run between 79 and 90 MPH. Active meaning flashing lights, ringing bells, and crossing gates. Head above 90 MPH and now you either have to close the crossing or put in Quad Gates, so that people can't run around the gates.

Jackal said CTC track cost $1m per mile. So now that I googled CTC and know it means Centralized Traffic Control, does that mean just adding a signaling system costs $1m per mile? If so, is there a general guide as to how much constructing new track on an existing line would cost? I know for urban light-rail systems, something like $25m per mile is often quoted.

I would assume that is what he was quoting, the numbers needed to install the signals only. Not contructiion of track.

And it doesn't matter whether your trainset has 'tilting' technology or not...it's just the class of track (and maybe a signalling system) that limits how fast the train can go?

Tilt technology is about passenger comfort at high speed, not about the speed itself. The Talgos tilt going at 79 MPH, while the old Metroliners and today's Regional go 125 MPH without tilt technology.

 

[AlanB]

So the SW Chief goes 90 mph because it has either train stop, train control, or a signalling system, not because the track is class 5, correct? Thanks.

As I mentioned above the class of the track includes many different factors. In this case, the class 5 track indicates that the rails weight X pounds, that certain maintenance standards are met, and that there is some form of PTC (Positive Train Control).

PTC exists in many forms be it ACSES (used on the NEC), ITCS (used in Michigan), ATS, but all systems will bring the train to a stop if the engineer runs a signal or goes through a signal indicating 40 MPH operations at 70 MPH, and the engineer is doing nothing to comply with the new indicated speed.

 

[WICT106]

So the SW Chief goes 90 mph because it has either train stop, train control, or a signalling system, not because the track is class 5, correct? Thanks.

Not quite. The track quality of maintenance, combined with the installation and use of Automatic Train Stop, are what makes the track Class 5 or whatnot. Once that track quality meets Class 5 standards, and has the addition of ATC, or ATS, or cab signals, then the SW Chief may go 90 mph.

 

[MrFSS]

So the SW Chief goes 90 mph because it has either train stop, train control, or a signaling system, not because the track is class 5, correct? Thanks.

Not quite. The track quality of maintenance, combined with the installation and use of Automatic Train Stop, are what makes the track Class 5 or whatnot. Once that track quality meets Class 5 standards, and has the addition of ATC, or ATS, or cab signals, then the SW Chief may go 90 mph.

And 90MPH it does go. Here is a screen shot from my GPS a few weeks ago. After you slow down to 79MPH it feels like you are crawling!

 

[WICT106]

It would be nice to have some of the Class 5 rail here in Minnesota or Wisconsin. We should consider ourselves fortunate to have what class 5+ rail we already have.

 

[jis]

Y'all may find many of the articles in this thread on railroad.net quite instructive and relevant to the track class, ICC requirements and allowed speed discussion.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

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.

I think the curves are the real problem here.

If Amtrak could work out a deal where they got priority where there wasn't space for an extra track in exchange for letting freights use their track when Amtrak wasn't using it, that might work out.

Also notice how the MBTA has outsourced dispatching to Amtrak on some of the tracks the MBTA owns. I kinda suspect the MBTA runs more trains per hour than Amtrak does, at least during peak commuting times. This might argue that some deal could maybe be worked out with freights outsourcing dispatching on their mainline to Amtrak.

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.

What that proposal would actually do, I think, is shift some cargo currently carried by rail on lesser used lines to the highways. And that mode shift would probably reduce safety.

(On the other hand, on the more heavily used lines, making this mandatory might well improve safety.)

If it would pay for itself over time, why aren't the railroads doing it now, without encouragement from the FRA? I'm pretty sure the management of the railroads understands cost savings when they see it, and the sellers of this equipment undoubtably are willing to help them see the cost savings. I would expect them to be able to borrow money to pay for this, and I think the accounting rules would let them basically charge just the interest and the principle being paid off to the current year. I can only suspect that, with the liability the railroads currently have, the equipment doesn't really pay for itself.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

This country doth not runneth over with long term thinkers, methinks.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Yes, but I'm starting to think there's another, more subtle problem.

The people in power in large businesses and in government tend to be older. If there's a plan that will take thirty years to execute, they may not be alive 30 years from now to see the results.

On the other hand, it seems like there are plenty of reasonable railroad projects that can be done in 10 or so years. And environmentally concious retirees can experience the environmental benefits of investing in wind farms even if they don't see a positive monetary ROI in their lifetime.

 

[Larry H.]

Just curious about the speed that has come up in this thread.. What are the reasons the previous railroad owners were able to maintain a higher speed in many cases. Here by me the City of New Orleans used to run at what they called an average speed of 100 miles per hour. Granted even some of the gentle curves in track down south sent sparks flying off the wheels and pretty heavy swaying of the cars, I recall one such ride when you wondered if it would stay on the rails. After the horrific wreck a few miles from here at Tonti the speed was reduced to 79. But was it the speed or the maintenance that was the problem.. Seems some places the system could go faster than it currently does?

 

[WICT106]

Just curious about the speed that has come up in this thread.. What are the reasons the previous railroad owners were able to maintain a higher speed in many cases. Here by me the City of New Orleans used to run at what they called an average speed of 100 miles per hour. Granted even some of the gentle curves in track down south sent sparks flying off the wheels and pretty heavy swaying of the cars, I recall one such ride when you wondered if it would stay on the rails. After the horrific wreck a few miles from here at Tonti the speed was reduced to 79. But was it the speed or the maintenance that was the problem.. Seems some places the system could go faster than it currently does?

Easy: the powers that be at corporate HQ thought there was a return on the investment. In Other Words, the higher maintenance costs were justified by the higher prices that people were willing to pay for faster service. Once people were no longer willing to pay those prices, there was no longer any justification for that degree of investment.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

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.

I think the curves are the real problem here.

If Amtrak could work out a deal where they got priority where there wasn't space for an extra track in exchange for letting freights use their track when Amtrak wasn't using it, that might work out.

Also notice how the MBTA has outsourced dispatching to Amtrak on some of the tracks the MBTA owns. I kinda suspect the MBTA runs more trains per hour than Amtrak does, at least during peak commuting times. This might argue that some deal could maybe be worked out with freights outsourcing dispatching on their mainline to Amtrak.

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.

What that proposal would actually do, I think, is shift some cargo currently carried by rail on lesser used lines to the highways. And that mode shift would probably reduce safety.

(On the other hand, on the more heavily used lines, making this mandatory might well improve safety.)

If it would pay for itself over time, why aren't the railroads doing it now, without encouragement from the FRA? I'm pretty sure the management of the railroads understands cost savings when they see it, and the sellers of this equipment undoubtably are willing to help them see the cost savings. I would expect them to be able to borrow money to pay for this, and I think the accounting rules would let them basically charge just the interest and the principle being paid off to the current year. I can only suspect that, with the liability the railroads currently have, the equipment doesn't really pay for itself.

I think it has to do more with short term cost and not longterm savings, I think people think in terms of today and tomorrow and not 5-10 or more years down the road. I mean what other explanation is there for Amtrak spending more on maintenance for worn out cars than it would cost to replace them?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They've learned from the Viewliner program not to start car building projects until they are sure they can finish them.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

They've learned from the Viewliner program not to start car building projects until they are sure they can finish them.

Well if every time they tried they were able to get 50 cars they'd be better off than not trying at all.

 

[AlanB]

I think it has to do more with short term cost and not longterm savings, I think people think in terms of today and tomorrow and not 5-10 or more years down the road. I mean what other explanation is there for Amtrak spending more on maintenance for worn out cars than it would cost to replace them?

Actually that's easy to explain. Note, I said easy to explain, but I didn't say that it was logical.

It's called penny wise, pound foolish.

It's easier to ask and get from Congress $1.4 Billion each year, than it is to ask for $10 billion this year to buy new cars. It doesn't matter that over the next 10 years, they'll have spent more maintaining the existing fleet than if they had brought new cars. All that matters in the eyes of Congress and the White House is that they didn't ask for $10 Billion this year. The politician's motto seems to be, put off what we can do today, so that someone else can worry about how to pay for it in the future. That's especially true if whatever they are spending money on, isn't going to help the get re-elected.

 

[GG-1]

I think it has to do more with short term cost and not longterm savings, I think people think in terms of today and tomorrow and not 5-10 or more years down the road. I mean what other explanation is there for Amtrak spending more on maintenance for worn out cars than it would cost to replace them?

Actually that's easy to explain. Note, I said easy to explain, but I didn't say that it was logical.

It's called penny wise, pound foolish.

And in theater we call it "Champagne taste with a beer budget", gets you the same result.

 

[Sam Damon]

Report Requested by Sen. Lautenberg Highlights Needfor Improved National Rail Policy

Full story is HERE.

I had tree trimmers wipe out my internet connection this past week, so I'm only now getting around to this.

Folks, this is ammo for this year's election cycle. It's a simple issue to explain to people -- "You know, if the railroads would run Amtrak on time, that would be $100 million dollars in savings."

Of course, there's the whole rolling stock issue, but that's another thread. The point is that this report requested by Senator Lautenberg reinforces what we've discussed ad nauseum here -- that late trains make a lousy way for the public to travel in the USA.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Didn't know bears liked champagne.

But anyway, this isn't limited to Amtrak. It also seems to be a fixture of most publicly traded companies these days.

 

[Sam Damon]

Folks, this is ammo for this year's election cycle. It's a simple issue to explain to people -- "You know, if the railroads would run Amtrak on time, that would be $100 million dollars in savings."

Gotta update myself, here after digging a bit more.

Not only is this over $100 million in savings for better OTP, but it would cut the operating loss of Amtrak an astonishing 30 percent.

(Astonishing to me, that is. YMMV.)