Jump to content
me_little_me

Any real effort to "restore" passenger train priority?

Recommended Posts

Seems like nothing has happened in years and nobody is making an effort, either in the courts or with congress, to "restore" passenger train priority. All that is happening is that on-time performance sucks for LD trains but Amtrak is cutting onboard service (discussed elsewhere).

 

Is anyone privy to any information about what specific actions have been taken in the past year or 6 months by either Amtrak's wonderful new CEO or his predecessor in regards to a resolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you missed Amtrak's challenges and the various lawsuits from 2012 that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The ruling came last year that Amtrak may not participate in developing regulations regarding preference. Here is the Cliff Note version:

 

 

 

 

The STB with 13 supporting “intervenors,” including the National Association of Railroad Passengers and its state affiliates plus the U.S. Conference of Mayors, argued that it had the right to establish metrics “by virtue of its authority to adjudicate complaints brought by Amtrak. Any other result would gut the remedial scheme, a result Congress clearly did not intend.”

But the court accepted the argument of petitioners Union Pacific, CSX Transportation, and CN, with the Association of American Railroads as intervenor, that the “gap-filling rationale does not allow one agency to assume the authority expressly delegated to another.”

It found that the only place in the statute where the 80 percent standard was spelled out was in section 207, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional because Amtrak had a hand in developing it.

Congress’ statutory right of passenger train “priority” over freight trains remains, but the ruling means that Amtrak has no way challenge a host railroad’s systematic denial of that right. The strongest tardiness deterrent falls to the proprietary and confidential incentive contracts Amtrak has with freight carriers for on-time handling, but other than not paying the incentives for non-performance under whatever those terms are, the passenger operator will have no enforceable yardstick unless Congress authorizes the FRA to develop a new standard without input from Amtrak.

 

 

The last thing I heard is the FRA was trying to come up with a policy. However, the freight lobby is also on the case, making their presence felt...just as they did with this ruling.

 

AS of now, there isn't much of a solution...or penalty unless someone offers them a ton of money for passage (and it would have to be more than tehy could make on their own...which isn't likely) or the states terrorize the freights into complying on a local level ***cough coughVirginiacough cough***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Virginia can take this opportunity to correct their original error of not acquiring the RF&P when they could have done it for much cheaper. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out last year at the RPA meeting, it is still possible for Amtrak to sue individually for each individual case of failure to provide dispatch preference across junctions, providing a dossier for each indivdual case. This is established by the original statutory preference requirement and the legal principle that there is no right without a remedy; straight-up civil lawsuit for each individual instance where an Amtrak train was not given preference at a junction, asking for money damages.

 

This is generally considered a scorched-earth strategy as the freight railroads would *really hate it*, but the real problem is that Amtrak management doesn't seem to be willing to assemble the dossiers. Admittedly that's *extensive* legal work compared to an overall "pattern of delay" case, but suing over each individual delay is not affected by the recent court or STB rulings. It's just something Amtrak hasn't bothered to do.

Edited by neroden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the level of damages on each delay that seem likely, I can't help but imagine Amtrak and one of the Class I railroads facing off in small claims court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember how many years, but quite a while ago, a few friendly Senators and Representative threaten the freights with starting Congressional Hearings on detailed investigation on how Amtrak was handled on a train by train basis. The freights suddenly had Amtrak running close to on time, at least for a year or so. It appeared that the freights did not want specifics on how they did their dispatch process to be aired publicly, so it was easier to push Amtrak through than make these few in Washington mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you missed Amtrak's challenges and the various lawsuits from 2012 that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The ruling came last year that Amtrak may not participate in developing regulations regarding preference.

I'll admit, this isn't something I have much first hand knowledge about. A lot of what I know, is from what I read here (and there), which could have easily been wrong.

 

Doesn't Congress have the right to develop regulations regarding preference? And didn't Congress do exactly that, back when it formed the National Railroad Passenger Corporation?

 

I thought Congress wanted to keep the remaining independent (freight) train companies from interfering with their new passenger service, and part of that, was to give their new passenger service schedule priority on using tracks.

 

Now (please), explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure how you missed Amtrak's challenges and the various lawsuits from 2012 that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The ruling came last year that Amtrak may not participate in developing regulations regarding preference.

I'll admit, this isn't something I have much first hand knowledge about. A lot of what I know, is from what I read here (and there), which could have easily been wrong.

 

Doesn't Congress have the right to develop regulations regarding preference? And didn't Congress do exactly that, back when it formed the National Railroad Passenger Corporation?

 

I thought Congress wanted to keep the remaining independent (freight) train companies from interfering with their new passenger service, and part of that, was to give their new passenger service schedule priority on using tracks.

 

Now (please), explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.

 

In a nutshell, a law passed by Congress enabling development of specific performance metrics to drive enforcement of OTP regulations was found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and so here we are....

 

All of the regulations from previous exercises are still around regarding granting priority etc., but lacks clear cut enforcement mechanisms at this time. The enforcement mechanisms, such as the ones that exist, as described by neroden and others, are apparently considered to be too onerous even by those that have a standing to try to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One trouble I have observed is that not a lot of people outside rail operations seem to really understand how dispatching works.People seem to think their are these mathematical "slots" and perfect windows and if you miss that, all timekeeping goes out the window. Yes something like the NEC, Metro North, LIRR lines or busy Chicago Metra lines have turns figured out to the minute. But an extra train in the mix isn't the end of the world. The dispatchers are professionals.

And as far as class one freight lines, yes the intermodal trains have departure times and usually run at or close to schedule. But other than that, as far as dispatching, the dispatcher on class one's is just going to run what comes first as efficiently as possible most of the time, taking into account which crews are short on time etc....

In my mind, there really shouldn't ever be delays of more than 2 hours even on a Long Distance trip unless you have a crossing incident, a derailment, or severe winter storm type of event.

If there are consistent delays to Amtrak of more than 2 hours, the STB should investigate and take action.

On the other hand, I don't think the class one's should be fined for things like 5 or 20 minute delays because stuff does happen.

 

However, Amtrak passengers should be able to depend and count on their guaranteed connections without having to worry.

Therefore,in my opinion, the host railroad should be held reponsible for all the cost of Amtrak missed connections. Say of an hour and a half or 2 hours or more.

If a law was passed for that reason, you might eliminate a lot of the more serious delays. Believe me,if the hot guaranteed UPS train is in danger of missing the cutoff arrival time, the freight railroad dispatchers are going to give them some good signals to try to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the fault is with the dispatchers per se. As you say, they run what they're given with what they've got.

 

On the other hand, when a railroad closes a line or a yard which cause traffic to be shifted onto a busy line or into a busy yard so that the result is too much traffic on a particular line, which results in passenger train delays - the STB should order the reopening of the line or yard and/or the rerouting of freight traffic so that delays no longer occur.

 

The incentive there is that the freight companies will put their best effort forward in order to avoid any government "help".

 

jb

 

PS - Another classic is the EHH 2-mile long special with broken knuckles tying up the railroad but good. In such a case the STB should step in and save the freight railroad from itself since it affects freight shipments, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, you make excellent points. There certainly has been too many yard or line closures with little action from the STB. I wish the STB would be much more proactive in general which would help both the freight and passenger industry in spite of themselves.

 

One other frustration for me is how little understanding there is of how road and yard train crew productivity relates to mainline capacity regardless of infrastructure.

 

If you have a well run rail yard, the crews will get the trains in and out and switched as quickly as possible which frees up space on the main line because trains keep moving.

 

On the other hand, if a rail yard is managed poorly with the crews in fear of the managers, they are going to move slowly just to try to keep their jobs. Which reduces rail capacity exponentially across the United States much more than people realize.

 

Now also, some people don't realize that there are still well run yards and main lines that get things done pretty quickly and efficiently most days.

Railroading isn't a totally lost art.

 

However, it is important to realize that large companies are often not homogeneous.For instance, one division or yard or mainline on UP, BNSF or NS for example might be run well. Another yard or line within the same company might be run very slow and inefficiently.

But once a yard or Division is run badly and the crews slow down, it is hard to get the culture back up to speed without some real good experienced leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, Amtrak passengers should be able to depend and count on their guaranteed connections without having to worry.

Therefore,in my opinion, the host railroad should be held reponsible for all the cost of Amtrak missed connections. Say of an hour and a half or 2 hours or more.

If a law was passed for that reason, you might eliminate a lot of the more serious delays. Believe me,if the hot guaranteed UPS train is in danger of missing the cutoff arrival time, the freight railroad dispatchers are going to give them some good signals to try to make it.

 

I'm not an apologist for the freights, but this seems a bit unreasonable and difficult to enforce. I say this because Amtrak typically travels over more than one host. Which host should bear the responsibility if a train is 30 minutes late off the connecting territory but you couldn't wait thirty minutes to run you hot shot? These delays are often cumulative.

 

Additionally, someone is allowing these railroads to merge and reduce capacity, which has led to a lot of the problems, particularly if there is track work or any other type of incident that causes delays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thirdrail7, I respect that you want to be fair and reasonable to the frieghts. I want them to be successful too.

But I humbly disagree that holding the hosts accountable for the cost of 2 hour or more delayed Amtraks is unreasonable or difficult to enforce.

 

With all the trackside aei scanners everywhere, it is known as a matter of record exactly when trains are interchanged. If the Amtrak train departed on-time and had no enroute mechanical failures it will be exactly clear where the delay was and recorded in the computer system.

If it's an hour delay on one railroad, and then an hour delay on the next, the law could either be written to divide the cost between the two hosts or be 100 percent on the first for handing it off late. Or 75 to 25 on the first host.

 

The fact of the matter is the railroads already have these types of things in their interchanges with each other. For instance, there is a through intermodal train that runs from Los Angeles to New Jersey, on the BNSF to Chicago, and NS the rest of the way. There is a certain amount of time the NS has to swap the power out in Chicago or the delay is on them. And vice versa when the BNSF had to reroute the train via Kansas City recently because of a derailment,the delay was on them.

 

Anyway I am just saying we should have some reasonable regulation for on time performance. Nothing too exacting, but if a freight railroad can't run a couple of measely daily Amtraks within 2 hours of schedule they need to get their act together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an apologist for the freights, but...Amtrak typically travels over more than one host. Which host should bear the responsibility if a train is 30 minutes late off the connecting territory...someone is allowing these railroads to merge and reduce capacity, which has led to a lot of the problems...

You can't seem to decide if the problem is too many hosts or too few. To which I can only say, to thine own self be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not an apologist for the freights, but...Amtrak typically travels over more than one host. Which host should bear the responsibility if a train is 30 minutes late off the connecting territory...someone is allowing these railroads to merge and reduce capacity, which has led to a lot of the problems...

You can't seem to decide if the problem is too many hosts or too few. To which I can only say, to thine own self be true.

 

 

If you bother to read and comprehend before typing,you'd notice I never actually said there was a problem with too many or too little hosts. I only stated that holding one operator accountable for the actions of the another operator that delivers a late train may be unreasonable.

 

That being said, having only one host would not necessarily eliminate the problem. You see, when you allow a lot of mergers, duplicate routes are often downgraded, merged, sold off or abandoned. When that happens, that can lead to capacity constraints as the operator flood the remaining routes. This leaves little room for error and problems snowball as congestion mounts.

 

One only need to look at CSX for examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not an apologist for the freights, but...Amtrak typically travels over more than one host. Which host should bear the responsibility if a train is 30 minutes late off the connecting territory...someone is allowing these railroads to merge and reduce capacity, which has led to a lot of the problems...

You can't seem to decide if the problem is too many hosts or too few. To which I can only say, to thine own self be true.

 

If you bother to read and comprehend before typing,you'd notice...

 

Rather than get into a debate over the risks of aggressive capitulation I'd rather just ask how you would go about handling the stick portion of the donkey motivation metaphor. So far as I am aware Amtrak already has the carrot covered.

Edited by Devil's Advocate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who don't understand dispatching there is a very good freeware simulator named Train Dispatcher 2 it also comes with over a hundred territories that can give you a good grasp of what a dispatcher does.

 

The best territories to understand what goes on is the Seaboard Airline Mainline from Raleigh to Richmond which is a single track mainline that in the simulator has ten scheduled passenger movements, plus about thirty freight movements. It also doesn't include troop extras, and other freight extras.

 

What makes it particularly difficult is that just like the real world the sidings are of varying length. You lose one point for every minute of lost running time, and five points for every minute a passenger movement is late arriving.

 

So it challenges you to juggle meets, keep trains moving, and keep the railroad fluid. Which is a lot harder than one expects.

 

Another great territory to control for learning purposes is CSX Cincinnati terminal. It has roughly 200 different movements between CSX, Amtrak, and Norfolk Southern. It's difficult to keep trains rolling in the bottle neck a, as well as routing trains to the proper destinations. Especially around the yard where there is a single track bottle neck that can often times have three trains backed up each side trying to get around.

 

Lastly I would recommend the fictional Ohio High Speed Railroad because it is exclusively double track with sections of four tracks. Every movement has a schedule, with express, limited stop, and locals. Tor task is to keep them on schedule, and route express trains around slower locals without anyone losing time.

 

The game also has Grand Central in rush hour, Penn Station New York, and Many other territories. Playing can teach you an understanding of what dispatchers deal with everyday.

 

It's actually a game developed by one of the companies that built the CTC systems for computers.

 

It only works on XP and earlier computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rather than get into a debate over the risks of aggressive capitulation I'd rather just ask how you would go about handling the stick portion of the donkey motivation metaphor. So far as I am aware Amtrak already has the carrot covered.

 

The REAL problem is the "carrot."

 

Here's the thing about attempting to muscle and/or bribe a company that has money: they don't care. CSX would rather spend their own money and be free of passenger service than take the carrot and be stuck with passenger service. The "threat" of fining them means nothing if they can make more running their own trains. During the 1990's, an officer in CSX once famously declared how much he disliked Amtrak and would rather pay the fines.

 

One of the things Amtrak can do is be consistent with the help and be prepared to heavily invest in your partner's infrastructure.

 

Along with that, when hosts are threatening to reduce capacity, the states and Amtrak should step up and assist with the improvements, and demand strict accountability for their efforts. A perfect example is when BNSF wanted to get rid of the Devil's Lake Sub, the FRA, Amtrak and BNSF split the cost of improving the line. If I'm not mistaken, Maryland contributes to CSX's Old Main Sub to alleviate pressure on the Metropolitan Sub, which allows MARC trains to run with less interference.

 

However, that only works if there is an actual interest in a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

BNSF is extremely helpful because they look at the performances incentives as income. It is free(?) money to them. As previously mentioned, what good is money, incentives etc to someone that is indifferent (at best) or downright hostile (at worst) to your presence? All the money VA put into the former RF&P sub to expedite the movement of passenger trains means nothing if CSX refuses to cooperate.You can fund improvements, build bypasses, put in switch heaters, or even give them your interpretation of fair market rate. If they aren't interested in the carrot, it remains just another excuse.

 

Call it what it is. Some people aren't interested in the carrot. Knowing that, you have two real choices. Hope someone with deep pockets will assist you with establishing an incentive program that will improve capacity and make the hosts feel as though you're a partner and not a squatter. The other choice is to hope someone with legislative chops can terrorize the hosts into cooperation. However, the barn door to that was partially closed when the railroads were allowed to reduce capacity.

 

I'm afraid the only stick we can find is too small to motivate the donkey. So, now we must find a big enough carrot to feed it...because in the spirit of honesty, if I operated a freight line, I would appreciate the extra money Amtrak paid for the maintenance/inspections that allowed me to operate at a higher speed. However, before I decided if the Amtrak or my freight would take the siding, I'd definitely look at the balance sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thirdrail7, I respect that you want to be fair and reasonable to the frieghts. I want them to be successful too.

But I humbly disagree that holding the hosts accountable for the cost of 2 hour or more delayed Amtraks is unreasonable or difficult to enforce.

 

With all the trackside aei scanners everywhere, it is known as a matter of record exactly when trains are interchanged. If the Amtrak train departed on-time and had no enroute mechanical failures it will be exactly clear where the delay was and recorded in the computer system.

If it's an hour delay on one railroad, and then an hour delay on the next, the law could either be written to divide the cost between the two hosts or be 100 percent on the first for handing it off late. Or 75 to 25 on the first host.

 

The fact of the matter is the railroads already have these types of things in their interchanges with each other. For instance, there is a through intermodal train that runs from Los Angeles to New Jersey, on the BNSF to Chicago, and NS the rest of the way. There is a certain amount of time the NS has to swap the power out in Chicago or the delay is on them. And vice versa when the BNSF had to reroute the train via Kansas City recently because of a derailment,the delay was on them.

 

Anyway I am just saying we should have some reasonable regulation for on time performance. Nothing too exacting, but if a freight railroad can't run a couple of measely daily Amtraks within 2 hours of schedule they need to get their act together.

 

Your argument is entirely simplistic and is devoid of realism.

 

Those couple of measly Amtrak that often run at higher speeds, stop, sit in stations, have to operate on certain tracks while they work stations instead of being able to be routed anywhere are like linebackers, attempting to cut through the middle of the pack. Recently, there was an alert about the Crescent. 20 had to sit in siding for almost two hours because there were freight trains littered in every siding for 70 miles. So, it was held for a wave of south bounds+train 19. When the wave passe,d they back 20 out of the siding it was in (behind two freights) and allowed it to proceed.That is because congestion is at an all time high, particularly since railroads have a tax and payroll incentive to shed extra capacity.

 

While a lot of congestion has been caused by longer trains and the associated problems, there are a great many delays caused by weather, trespassers, grade crossing incidents, police interference and track improvements. Let's say you're CSX, and NS just handed you a train that is 30 minutes late due to the police closing the tracks. Would you be agreeable to paying the fines? How much is it going to cost you to run that train over yours? How long are you willing to delay YOUR MANY customers and delay your trains for as you put it "a couple of measly trains?"

 

Furthermore, what if an Amtrak departs on time but is delayed assisting passengers. Would you allow the host to say "it departed the first stop late because it needed...(insert any Amtrak related delay)' so all bets are off?

 

 

I don't ever see a law as you've proposed written. I can see it as part of an operating agreement that is based on an influx of capital. However, when that happens, you'll see even more than what you see now: the freights refusing to operate the trains during outages or long term improvements.

Edited by Thirdrail7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thirdrail7, I appreciate your inside knowledge of Amtrak and know it is a great plus to this form that you take the time to contribute. Especially when you can confirm or refute facts that have only been rumor. However I ask you to remember that you are not the only person with rail industry knowledge.

I stand by my comment that if a railroad cannot handle running a couple of Amtrak trains a day within a few hours of schedule they should be held accountable. Your comments make running the railroad seem much more complicated than it actually is. To have a few short trains running at 80mph and have station stops besides the long freights at 50, 60 or 70mph is not brain surgery. It's been done well by many people and companies over the years. The railroads are built to run trains!

If it is not being done without major delays such as your crescent example, then either the host railroad has not hired enough crews, bought enough engines or built enough track.

And if is so busy, they are overwhelmed in the short term then they are making more than enough money to hire more people and build some more capacity and buy some engines.

If they are unwilling to do that, while their balance sheet shows billions in profit, then we need more serious regulation than just about Amtrak on time performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of overly simplistic - even as a devout capitalist I believe it is ludicrous that the government doesn’t own the tracks. It’s not the 1800s any more. The west is as settled as it’s going to be...

Edited by IndyLions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of overly simplistic - even as a devout capitalist I believe it is ludicrous that the government doesn’t own the tracks. It’s not the 1800s any more. The west is as settled as it’s going to be...

 

That is one of the main problems. The tracks are privately owned, dispatched and maintained in accordance with the needs of the hosts....not necessarily the tenant. That is what makes the points below quite amusing.

 

I stand by my comment that if a railroad cannot handle running a couple of Amtrak trains a day within a few hours of schedule they should be held accountable. Your comments make running the railroad seem much more complicated than it actually is. To have a few short trains running at 80mph and have station stops besides the long freights at 50, 60 or 70mph is not brain surgery. It's been done well by many people and companies over the years. The railroads are built to run trains!

If it is not being done without major delays such as your crescent example, then either the host railroad has not hired enough crews, bought enough engines or built enough track.

And if is so busy, they are overwhelmed in the short term then they are making more than enough money to hire more people and build some more capacity and buy some engines.

If they are unwilling to do that, while their balance sheet shows billions in profit, then we need more serious regulation than just about Amtrak on time performance.

 

You;re still acting like railroads haven't spent years cutting capacity. They did it because even though a lot of people think it was shortsighted (and in multiple cases, it probably was), that is the business of the HOST. If the host is fine with lower speeds to save money, that is on them. If the host would rather deal with the congestion because it is cheaper to pay crews than it is to pay for the infrastructure, that is on them. If the hosts decide to bench their engines, eliminate their crews and operate longer trains that will no longer fit in their sidings, that is on them. If the host railroad has determined they don't want to really spend the extra in infrastructure costs to combat the spikes in business and their customers are willing to wait for the deliveries, then that is on them.

 

It is their business to run as they see fit, and that may be the very reason their "balance sheets shows billions in profit."

 

As for Amtrak fitting in, that is exactly why I mentioned being a partner, not a squatter. Most of the current carriers did not exist as they did when this agreement was made. Additionally, Amtrak itself has added many more trains into areas of known congestion and in many cases, they did nothing to improve the infrastructure or increase capacity. Indeed, I know of many occasions when hosts have basically said "We're getting rid of this but if you pay for it, we'll keep it" and they have declined. If Amtrak wishes to push onward into territory (hey, let's run more trains into Virginia), then they should be prepared to pay and make it worthwhile to the hosts. Just showing up and saying "you have to run us and we should have priority" isn't going to cut it. This is particularly true in areas that also have seen an influx of commuter service. They can team with the states to preserve and upgrade the routes (a la New York and the CSX lease). If such actions occur, I definitely believe the stakes should be higher and the operating agreement needs to reflect it. I wouldn't expect any help from the government since they are the ones that stood by and allowed the routes to be cut, the mergers to be made and only started asking questions when services started melting down.

 

I'd hardly call their role "active." ^_^

 

The other option I'd like to explore is altering the schedules. Does Amtrak dictate their schedule and the host tries to fit them in or does the host say when they will run passenger trains? With all of the construction and congestion, are they realistic?

 

I don't know much about western ops. However, trains on the eastern side have their schedules adjusted constantly. On the NEC, literally 1000s of trains are moved around monthly to accommodate summer track work by host railroads. Commuter railroads adjust their schedules based upon Amtrak's work schedule.

 

So, it can be done.

 

Off corridor schedules on the east have been adjusted numerous times over the years. A point of note is 80. Before CSX took over the RF&P, the trains that came from the south were very reliable. Once CSX took over priorities changed. Things went further south when Conrail was broken up. They were extremely helpful to Amtrak. N&S is reasonable, but at the end of the day, they want to make money.

 

After a lot of contention, (and pressure from a few states) CSX, asked for more time in the schedules in exchange for a fixed OTP. In my eyes, that isn't all that unreasonable. This is because the operating profile for the territories have changed since the schedules were made. They were no longer realistic based upon the resurgence of freight traffic and commuter traffic, combined with capacity cuts. com. As such, a lot of the day trains schedules were changed. When they moved 80 from an 8am departure to a 7am departure, tweaked the south end around Selma ( I think) to make a better slot at RVR, the train performed much better. Is there still recovery time between RVR-WAS? Absolutely. This will help the the train fit in on the busy NEC which is necessary since 80 hits the corridor in rush hour.

 

On the other side, 43 used run like a champion when Conrail owned the territory. When N&S took control, it dropped off. A lot of it had to do with increased freight traffic and a capacity cut. There is a big chunk of fat between GNB and PGH. A vast majority of the time, that schedule is needed as the train starts to deteriorate between ALT-JST. That tells me that something is going there. Something routinely occurs in that section of track that impacts the schedule.

 

What is it?

 

Are there too many trains and not enough track? Is there some sort of bottleneck? If there is, who should pay for it?

 

Why did the Crescent's performance dramatically change? (Seriously, what is going on down there?) I've heard some of it has to do with longer trains, which don;t fit in as many places and block diamonds/crossings etc. However, has anyone looked at the schedule? Is Amtrak willing to change their schedule or do they say "8 has to leave at this time to connect to 30 and 30 has to leave at this time to connect to 97?"

 

Perhaps it is time to revamp the ENTIRE system schedule. Perhaps a meeting with all of the host carriers would be fruitful in ironing out problem areas. This might not yield anything, but I wonder if it has been tried. Perhaps the schedules along a particular route is no longer realistic. Perhaps a new schedule based upon today's traffic patterns is needed.

Edited by Thirdrail7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the government came in, and "rescued" the bankrupt northeast railroads, by creating Conrail...they did a good thing. And they were blessed with some excellent leadership, that really turned that carrier around to the point that the government sold it via an IPO, and made a nice return on the investment.

The worst thing they did, was to later allow it to be chopped up when the other eastern carrier's got into a bidding war over it. Just imagine if instead, it was merged with a western carrier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of overly simplistic - even as a devout capitalist I believe it is ludicrous that the government doesn’t own the tracks. It’s not the 1800s any more. The west is as settled as it’s going to be...

While it would be ideal for Amtrak to own all the tracks, I can only imagine how much it would cost to buy them off of the freights or for Amtrak to build the tracks themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×