Amtrak trains fight to go first

[HighBall]

Wall St. Journal...excerpt:

Which train should go first—an Amtrak passenger train or a cargo train? That’s the question federal regulators are trying to resolve.

For more than 40 years, Amtrak says it has had the right to go first under law, meaning freight railroads have to pull over their trains whenever possible to let a passenger train pass or hold their trains in station to prioritize an Amtrak departure, except in emergencies.

Freight railroads want that to change, but Amtrak, whose long-haul national trainsare chronically late, is fighting it.

Linky

 

[HighBall]

Interesting reader comments at the link.

 

[BCL]

Interesting reader comments at the link.

Definitely. One comment was that it was unfair that Amtrak would be competing with unsubsidized bus service. Only several major bus companies do receive subsidies, such as grants to purchase buses, as well as road maintenance. Another claimed that little of US tracks are welded, which is untrue. My understanding is that jointed track isn't really well suited for speeds higher than 25 MPH. I've ridden on tourist railroads using jointed track, and on Amtrak I've never heard the sound of the wheels hitting a joint.

 

[MARC Rider]

Interesting reader comments at the link.

Definitely. One comment was that it was unfair that Amtrak would be competing with unsubsidized bus service. Only several major bus companies do receive subsidies, such as grants to purchase buses, as well as road maintenance. Another claimed that little of US tracks are welded, which is untrue. My understanding is that jointed track isn't really well suited for speeds higher than 25 MPH. I've ridden on tourist railroads using jointed track, and on Amtrak I've never heard the sound of the wheels hitting a joint.

About 15 years ago, I rode the Vermonter on jointed rail, and while not the Acela, it was a lot faster than 25 mph. And the pre 1969 NEC was all jointed rail, and the trains had no trouble doing 90.

 

[zephyr17]

Much of the Raton and Glorietta Subdivisions on BNSF are jointed, and the speed restriction for much of the flat portion is 70 mph. A lot of the line through Kansas had been 90 mph on jointed rail. BNSF let maintenance go a bit, so now it is down to 60.

A lot of the Devil's Lake Sub and Hillsboro Sub on the Empire Builder route was jointed until fairly recently. 70 mph.

The (now) UP Coast Line was largely jointed for a long time and also had 70 mph.

The Milwaukee Road Hiawathas ran over 100 mph on jointed rail (with steam engines).

The entire US rail infrastructure was jointed rail until into the 1960s. It supported passenger speeds of up to 90 mph (and more before the FRA standards went into effect in 1951).

Well maintained jointed rail can pass Class 5 FRA requirements. The question really is one of maintenance. Overall, jointed rail is more expensive to maintain to the same standard than welded. That is the reason the railroads moved away from jointed rail, not because welded is somehow inherently faster.

Most of the mainlines on which Amtrak runs are welded rain, but significant portions are jointed, especially where secondary mainlines are used, such as the Coast Line, Devil's Lake and Hillsboro Subs, Raton and Glorietta Subs.

Wherever you still hear the "clickety-clack" you are on jointed stick rail.

 

[BCL]

I admit I could be wrong about it. Actually the tourist only railroads I've seen often have noticeable gaps, and that was more or less what I was thinking of. It's really loud clacking noises when it goes over a joint.

In any case, the comment I read made it sound like welded rail was in the minority of freight railroads' main lines.

 

[FormerOBS]

Whether the rails are connected by welds or angle bars, the important thing is that the track structure is geometrically true. In general, jointed rail requires more maintenance cost than welded rail. In terms of mechanical integrity, either can be quite suitable for high speed running. Around the turn of the 20th Century, New York Central 4-4-0 steam locomotive 999 exceeded 100 miles per hour on jointed rail.

Of course, standards have changed, maintenance levels are entirely different, and regulations are completely different. But there is no inherent reason that trains can't be run at high speeds on well-ballasted track that uses jointed rail.

Tom

 

[HighBall]

Mods:

I posted this thread relating to passenger vs. freight trains having priority.

However, it has turned into a discussion on the merits of jointed vs. welded rail.

Isn't your job to keep posters on subject? Maybe start a thread on rails?

Mods at Flyer Talk pounce when this goes on.

 

[KmH]

Many, if not most, AU members do not subscribe the the Wall Street Journal and cannot read the article.

As it is Amtrak and the freight railroads have had a suit in progress for several years regarding the issue.

The suit has already heard by the Supreme Court at least once.

 

[HighBall]

Many, if not most, AU members do not subscribe the the Wall Street Journal and cannot read the article.

As it is Amtrak and the freight railroads have had a suit in progress for several years regarding the issue.

The suit has already heard by the Supreme Court at least once.

All you need to do is put the title of the article on a search line to bring up the article from WSJ and others.

Even though heard by SCOTUS in the past, the article discusses what the issue is..

 

[BCL]

Many, if not most, AU members do not subscribe the the Wall Street Journal and cannot read the article.

As it is Amtrak and the freight railroads have had a suit in progress for several years regarding the issue.

The suit has already heard by the Supreme Court at least once.

Try searching for keyword in Google News. I got the article and it showed a followed link even though I hit the paywall. However, when I clicked on that link in Google News I could see the entire article. Kind of strange, but a lot of websites Check the link source.

 

[MikeM]

Highball - welcome to the Amtrak Unlimited Discussion forum. Be happy this thread hasn't morphed into a discussion on which side of the sleeper is the best for a given trip...

 

[CCC1007]

Mods:

I posted this thread relating to passenger vs. freight trains having priority.

However, it has turned into a discussion on the merits of jointed vs. welded rail.

Isn't your job to keep posters on subject? Maybe start a thread on rails?

Mods at Flyer Talk pounce when this goes on.

Highball, just so you know, the moderators on this board only step in if the thread degenerates into a shouting match between multiple members, or if they think that a subject needs to be split off due to two or more conversations taking place at the same time.

 

[Paul CHI]

Can somebody educate me on the history of this? e.g. before Amtrak, were railroads required to carry passengers as a trade-off for having received generous land grants? Or was passenger traffic always voluntary?

 

[BCL]

Can somebody educate me on the history of this? e.g. before Amtrak, were railroads required to carry passengers as a trade-off for having received generous land grants? Or was passenger traffic always voluntary?

That sounds about right. Private railroads were given generous rights to land, almost to the point where they could exercise eminent domain. What the establishment of Amtrak did was relieve the obligation to provide passenger service.

Passenger service wasn't necessarily a money loser. It ebbed and flowed, but by the time Amtrak was established it clearly wasn't profitable. It was also a way to advertise. The railroad were huge when it came to building facilities to utilize railroad traffic. UP's Utah Parks Company built some iconic lodges in our national parks, to attract passengers to ride the rails.

 

[Paul CHI]

I do remember reading that the Santa Fe passenger trains made a profit when they carried mail, but when the mail was moved to trucks/airlines, those trains started losing money.

 

[zephyr17]

Can somebody educate me on the history of this? e.g. before Amtrak, were railroads required to carry passengers as a trade-off for having received generous land grants? Or was passenger traffic always voluntary?

As common carriers they were regulated by the ICC and required to provide passenger service for "the public convenience and necessity". Discontinuing an interstate passenger train required them to petition the ICC for approval. Not all were approved, they were open to public comment and often hearings were held. They were required to show that the train was an "undue burden to interstate commerce" primarily by proving losses and the losses were unavoidable, not self-inflicted. And in many cases, the losses had to prove to be severe, a money losing passenger train could be required to be continued if it was deemed that the public necessity required it and the losses were not crippling, especially if it were the last train serving that route.

The SP tried to discontinue the Sunset after downgrading it severely (no sleeper, no dining car). The ICC fought it and eventually they reached a deal in 1970 in which the ICC allowed the frequency to be cut back to tri-weekly and in exchange SP restored sleeper and dining car service. That is the origin of the Sunset's tri-weekly schedule, BTW.

Intrastate trains were regulated by the states. In California the PUC was the regulatory agency and had gotten very allergic to train off petitions, especially by the SP. Other states were much more forgiving.

The carrot to join Amtrak was the ability to offload all passenger trains in one shot. The stick was the ICC would not consider train off petitions from any railroad not joining Amtrak until 1975 for any reason.

 

[KmH]

From the Library of Congress:

During the drive to settle the western portion of the United States, Congress sought to encourage the expansion of railroads, at first through generous grants of

rights of way and lands to the great transcontinental railroads between 1862 and 1871, and later through the enactment of a general right of way statute.

The 1875 General Railroad Right of Way Act permitted railroads to obtain a 200-foot federal right of way by running tracks across public lands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transportation_in_the_United_States#Freight_rail_working_with_passenger_railhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mail_Service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_post_office#Decline_and_withdrawal

 

[AmtrakLKL]

Many, if not most, AU members do not subscribe the the Wall Street Journal and cannot read the article.

As it is Amtrak and the freight railroads have had a suit in progress for several years regarding the issue.

The suit has already heard by the Supreme Court at least once.

The Supreme Court clarified a very narrow but significant point in the lawsuit - is Amtrak a private or government entity? In 2013, the DC Court of Appeals struck the PRIIA law on grounds that Amtrak was a private entity. Congress is prohibited from delegating legislative authority to a private entity, thus Amtrak could not, as a private entity, regulate on-time performance standards. In 2015, SCOTUS only ruled that Amtrak is a government entity and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further review with this new guidance.

Last month, the DC Court of Appeals again struck down the law on the basis that a governmental agency, Amtrak, must not have a vested interest in the outcome of the regulation. In setting on-time standards, Amtrak certainly has an interest in protecting their business, depriving freight railroads of due process by a disinterested regulator.

Congress could fix the entire mess by changing the law to remove Amtrak from the equation, leaving the FRA and STB to jointly establish the performance standards. Until they do, it will likely continue to slog through the courts. This decision was made by a three-judge panel on Court of Appeals. The next step would ask all 11 judges on the court to review the case. If they affirm the decision, it could be appealed to the Supreme Court again. Of course, this all depends on how far through the courts DOT lawyers and the White House want to push the issue. A change in the presidency could change DOT's legal priorities.

 

[neroden]

Can somebody educate me on the history of this? e.g. before Amtrak, were railroads required to carry passengers as a trade-off for having received generous land grants? Or was passenger traffic always voluntary?

In the East, for the most part, railroads were required to carry passengers as a condition of getting the local permits necessary to run through towns. The federal government specifically relieved them of some of these obligations (there are actually still arguments about whether they're required to do some of them, and whether they're currently in violation of those laws).

Passenger railroad service was profitable up through roughly the late 1910s when the federal government started funding free paved roads, and was close enough to break-even until the 1950s when the Interstate Highways were funded.

 

[neroden]

Many, if not most, AU members do not subscribe the the Wall Street Journal and cannot read the article.

As it is Amtrak and the freight railroads have had a suit in progress for several years regarding the issue.

The suit has already heard by the Supreme Court at least once.

The Supreme Court clarified a very narrow but significant point in the lawsuit - is Amtrak a private or government entity? In 2013, the DC Court of Appeals struck the PRIIA law on grounds that Amtrak was a private entity. Congress is prohibited from delegating legislative authority to a private entity, thus Amtrak could not, as a private entity, regulate on-time performance standards. In 2015, SCOTUS only ruled that Amtrak is a government entity and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further review with this new guidance.

Last month, the DC Court of Appeals again struck down the law on the basis that a governmental agency, Amtrak, must not have a vested interest in the outcome of the regulation. In setting on-time standards, Amtrak certainly has an interest in protecting their business, depriving freight railroads of due process by a disinterested regulator.

Of course they made this up. There is no such Constitutional principle, and you can ask the Minerals Management Service if you're curious about the history of government agencies having a vested interest in their regulations and their regulations being upheld.

(This has actually been a thorn in the side of environmentalists for years: mineral extraction regulations are written by agencies who profit from mineral extraction. The agencies win *every time* when this is challenged as a due process violation, frustratingly if you're an environmentalist. Similar crap happens with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I'd love it if the DC Court of Appeals were stating an accurate legal principle, because we could ban all license extensions for nuclear reactors essentially immediately, and force the rebidding of all coal and oil leases on government land within about a year. But they're not stating an accurate principle.)

The DC Court of Appeals made a lawless ruling contrary to precedent, for a second time. It has corrupt criminals on it who probably belong in prison, but certainly not on the bench. We'll see when this goes back to the Supreme Court.

 

[jis]

Unless the Supreme Court gets a new associate justice it will probably just let the appeals court decision stand as is on such a divisive issue. It's a bloody mess up there.

 

[fairviewroad]

From the thread title, I thought this was going to be about dueling Amtrak trains gunning it to see which one gets to go first.