When was the last time this happened at CUS? I was there yesterday AM and had to take a picture.
I Couldn't Believe It
- Thread starter MrFSS
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
A
Amtrak OBS Employee gone freight
Guest
Holy Crap!!! Stop the presses!!! :lol: :huh: :blink:
OBS gone freight.....
OBS gone freight.....
launch the Fireworks
Aloha
Aloha
Everydaymatters
Engineer
Is this what they mean when they say "trick photography"? Are you sure there's no mistake? 
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,508
58 and 29 arrived early on Tuesday. 49 arrived 1 hour, 10 minutes late (still not bad).
RailFanLNK
Conductor
I have a daily ritual of checking the CZ into LNK, eastbound and westbound. The CZ has really improved as well. I was so used to seeing the #6 at least 3 hours late to 5 or 6 hours late. Its been getting here within the hour of arrival alot more lately. This sounds selfish, but with the CZ 4 or more hours late on a Saturday morning, I could go to the Farmers Market in the Haymarket (where the station is), shop for good eats and knick knacks and the mosie over to the station and see the #6 pull in, talk trains a little with some other gawkers. Its not been nearly as late this summer as last summer.
Special thanks for sharing this with us.
What a great way to begin the day.
Amtrak would be so much stronger today if only there had been more casual strolls through CUS (and many other stations) with these results
This gives us hope.
Maybe it will be like this the weekend of Ootober 13-14!!!!!! Now that would be a railforum meet to talk about for years. (and brag on to our friends and relatives who think we are crazy for loving and riding trains).
What a great way to begin the day.
Amtrak would be so much stronger today if only there had been more casual strolls through CUS (and many other stations) with these results
This gives us hope.
Maybe it will be like this the weekend of Ootober 13-14!!!!!! Now that would be a railforum meet to talk about for years. (and brag on to our friends and relatives who think we are crazy for loving and riding trains).
I've always felt that OTP and OBS were the two biggest issues Amtrak had to handle. I base this opinion on my years on the street in the newsbiz.
To a certain degree, people are remarkably tolerant of how fast one is travelling -- they haven't lost the notion that getting there can be half the fun. But when Amtrak schedules turn into better science fiction fantasies than Ray Bradbury's, and OBS personnel resemble the sullen, nasty train crew of yesteryear, the public will become turned off.
I think most of the frequent posters here have noted that friends and family may give Amtrak a chance, if their expectations are managed a bit. Most of the frequent posters tend to tell people not to expect super OTP, to take a few snacks along on an Amtrak trip, and many times, Amtrak is able to meet modest expectations. IMO, this is a start.
I would suggest here the pressure needs kept on the elected representatives who vote on Amtrak's subsidy, as far as OTP is concerned. IMO, only the federal government can "speak softly while carrying a big stick" as far as keeping the freight railroads in line. While I would not question the AAR's position that freight railroads deserve adequate compensation (PDF file) for moving Amtrak trains, the fact still remains the federal government has made a regulatory trade-off. In exchange for a certain number of rights as a monopoly, the railroads have to serve a public good. I would suggest the "public good" is first: being a common carrier of goods, and second: running passenger trains as part of the national transportation grid.
Mistrust of the railroads led in no small part to the creation of today's interstate highway system. The only reason the freight railroads have gotten as much monopolistic power as they have today is because outside of the NEC and possibly Chicago, most Americans do not consider passenger trains for transportation needs. If we in the USA are to change this, fixing Amtrak in terms of OTP and OBS will have to happen first.
To a certain degree, people are remarkably tolerant of how fast one is travelling -- they haven't lost the notion that getting there can be half the fun. But when Amtrak schedules turn into better science fiction fantasies than Ray Bradbury's, and OBS personnel resemble the sullen, nasty train crew of yesteryear, the public will become turned off.
I think most of the frequent posters here have noted that friends and family may give Amtrak a chance, if their expectations are managed a bit. Most of the frequent posters tend to tell people not to expect super OTP, to take a few snacks along on an Amtrak trip, and many times, Amtrak is able to meet modest expectations. IMO, this is a start.
I would suggest here the pressure needs kept on the elected representatives who vote on Amtrak's subsidy, as far as OTP is concerned. IMO, only the federal government can "speak softly while carrying a big stick" as far as keeping the freight railroads in line. While I would not question the AAR's position that freight railroads deserve adequate compensation (PDF file) for moving Amtrak trains, the fact still remains the federal government has made a regulatory trade-off. In exchange for a certain number of rights as a monopoly, the railroads have to serve a public good. I would suggest the "public good" is first: being a common carrier of goods, and second: running passenger trains as part of the national transportation grid.
Mistrust of the railroads led in no small part to the creation of today's interstate highway system. The only reason the freight railroads have gotten as much monopolistic power as they have today is because outside of the NEC and possibly Chicago, most Americans do not consider passenger trains for transportation needs. If we in the USA are to change this, fixing Amtrak in terms of OTP and OBS will have to happen first.
Sam, overall I have no objection to most of what is contained in that AAR report. I do think that Amtrak should be paying more for its passage on the freight RR's tracks. That of course though would mean greater subsidies from the Fed in order for Amtrak to make those payments.
However, I do have one bone of contention that must be dealt with, something that the AAR does touch upon. That being the retirement program for RR workers. I do agree that Amtrak shouldn't be able to shift the burden for Amtrak workers to the freight RR's. However, since Amtrak's inception it has been paying gradually decreasing amounts of money into the fund for workers who used to provide passengers service back when the freight RR's used to run passenger service. These workers retired before Amtrak came into existance.
Yet Amtrak, not the freight companies is paying for those costs. I see these past payments as additional compensation being paid to the freight RR's, since they are saving that money because Amtrak was forced to shoulder that burden. At present I believe that the amount Amtrak still kicks in every year is a bit more than $110 Million. IIRC, it was much closer to $200 M back when Amtrak was first formed.
So, if Amtrak starts paying more for passage, then the freight RR's must shoulder the burden of paying retirement benefits for their workers who provided passenger service before Amtrak and retired without ever working even one day for Amtrak.
And technically the freight Co's should be sharing the payments for passenger service workers who spent part of their career working for Amtrak and part of it working for a freight Co. There should be some form of pro-rated payment based upon years of service at Amtrak vs. a freight company. Instead that too remains Amtrak's burden at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
had8ley
Engineer
Holy boxcars Batman...they actually beat the Batmobile to CUS.
Dakguy201
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 67
CRX has been making a lot of noise about federal help upgrading its route from Washington DC to Florida. I don't object to this in principle, but it is to occur, it ought to come with ironclad understandings regarding Amtrak priority on this and other routes, together with financial recapture should such an agreement not be honored.
frj1983
OBS Chief
I agree,
One only needs to look at what Guilford (now PanAm) did after receiving Federal Monies to upgrade their line heading north into Maine. What do you mean we have to run passenger trains at a higher rate of speed than our freight? Ironclad it must be!
I'd agree. The issue as I see it is that the freight RRs want rid of Amtrak trains once and for all. I have a problem with that. When Amtrak was formed, the cry was "Our railroads will be profitable without having to run those money-losing passenger trains." The AAR's position paper of today is not much different, only now the freight RRs say, "Amtrak is keeping us from making the money 'Wall Street' demands."
Uh-huh. Passenger trains can share the tracks with freights. I grant that track capacity is an issue. OTOH, the freight RRs want to run 10,000 ton land barges at 20 mph, which is not compatible with passenger service. Public funds for building additional track on the same right of way in exchange for Amtrak access seems a reasonable public policy for the USA -- unless we choose to build separate, dedicated HSR. I don't see those kinds of funding being available, however. I would also think high-value integral container trains could share HSR; run freights at night, passengers during the day.
This is one of those issues not easily solved, even with the application of vast piles of money.
RRB is another issue worth looking at, but from Amtrak's perspective, taking employees out of Railroad Retirement will have to be negotiated as part of a collective bargaining agreement. When we get to the point where no Amtrak employees were working for freight railroads, we might see some action on this matter. I don't see Congress picking up the ball on this anytime soon.
Perhaps the most effective threat to coerce the freight RRs to give Amtrak the mandated priority would be to tell them that if they don't honor that, Amtrak will conduct a full-scale lobbying effort to change that benefit and retirement system so that it is fair and equitable, compared to how it is now, and that if that lobbying is successful it will ultimately cost the freight RRs Billion$ of $ in what is effectively a federal subsidy of their benefit/pension system. Ad long as their behavior really doesn't hit them in the wallet, the freight RRs, especially UP, are NOT going to honor their promises re Amtrak.
I'm not so sure I'm getting the retirement issue. All railroads pay into Railroad retirement, Amtrak included. A railroad employee is paid his/her retirement based on how long the employee works for a railroad not specifically Amtrak or otherwise. Railroad employees do not collect Social Security- they pay Railroad Retirement, (and that payment is MUCH more than paying into SS), which was and is intended to be an actual living retirement wage not a supplement like Social Security. If you get rid of that benefit, you lose a significant incentive for folks to work at Amtrak; not to mention what those employees already paid into Railroad Retirement how would they get that money back?
Mark,
First, Amtrak has been at least talking about wanting to eventually remove it's workers from the RR system and bring them into the SS system. I think it unlikely that this will happen, since the workers will most likely appose it and I believe that Amtrak must have Congressional permission to do so even if the workers approved it. No doubt however that this would save Amtrak considerable money.
Second, if they did ever go down that road, then it would probably have to be setup such that all new hires don't go into the RR system, while all existing workers continue in the RR system until they retire.
Finally, and perhaps this is causing a bit of confusion, my point that I object to is as follows. Many workers who worked in passenger service exclusively for the freight RR's before Amtrak was formed, retired before Amtrak was formed. Put another way, they retired when the freight companies were still providing passenger service.
However, as part of the agreement that the Fed made with the freight companies when they formed Amtrak to relieve that burden from the freight Co's, Amtrak was forced to make payments into the RR retirement system for those workers who retired right before Amtrak was formed. So Amtrak is paying retirement benefits to workers who never, ever worked even 1 day for Amtrak.
AmtrakFan
Conductor
Are we sure this wasn't a Computer error?
had8ley
Engineer
This is so true. We paid TWICE what the going rate was for Railroad Retirement versus Social Security. If SS rate was 7% we were paying 14% to the RRB right off the top of our paychecks. I'm enjoying the fruits of my labor now because I'm over $3,000 a month and my wife gets an additional 45% of that figure when she reaches 60. It's a nice chunk of change.
"However, as part of the agreement that the Fed made with the freight companies when they formed Amtrak to relieve that burden from the freight Co's, Amtrak was forced to make payments into the RR retirement system for those workers who retired right before Amtrak was formed. So Amtrak is paying retirement benefits to workers who never, ever worked even 1 day for Amtrak."
Wow, I never knew that but did these people work for a railroad? Yes, so I think they are entitled to RR Retirement, unless I'm still missing the point. Sure Amtrak would save a lot of money by having its workers return to SS but as you said previously the workers would not go for it- nope not at all in my humble opinion. Even if Amtrak started today with the new hires paying SS it would still be 20+ years before all the workers 'grandfathered' would retire. The RR retirement board would have a fit as well in losing some 19,000 people paying into its accounts.
Wow, I never knew that but did these people work for a railroad? Yes, so I think they are entitled to RR Retirement, unless I'm still missing the point. Sure Amtrak would save a lot of money by having its workers return to SS but as you said previously the workers would not go for it- nope not at all in my humble opinion. Even if Amtrak started today with the new hires paying SS it would still be 20+ years before all the workers 'grandfathered' would retire. The RR retirement board would have a fit as well in losing some 19,000 people paying into its accounts.
Not to find any fault or start a war about retirement. Plus I am not familiar about the funding of either retirement system but I sure wish the 15.2 percent going to my SS would pay me more than $1300.00 at retirement, now raised to 66 for me.
had8ley
Engineer
The 14% was the employees share. I'm not positive but I think the RR's paid half again as much. So, as another poster listed, it was designed to be a "livable" pension versus SS which is a supposed supplement. I was able to start full retirement at age 60 and started receiving a supplemental annuity of $43 per month in addition to the regular Tier I and Tier II benefits. It sounds great but we ate a lot of mosquitoes and only saw air conditioning in the very late part of our careers. It was always triple digit temps on any locomotive in the south along with a triple digit share of mosquitoes all fighting for the same blood. And to add to your Christmas cheer the old Missouri Pacific would run extras on Christmas Day if they could round up a crew. It was not an ordinary 9-5 job.
Mark, yes the people that I'm talking about did work for a RR. In fact they probably spent their entire lives working for a freight RR company. So absolutely they are entitled to RR Retirement. My only objection is over who is paying for that retirement. Since they never worked for Amtrak, it shouldn't be Amtrak who is paying for that retirement. It should be the freight RR(s) for whom they worked for during their entire career.
Now for an employee who spent part of his career working for a freight Co, and then part working for Amtrak, the payments into the fund should be pro-rated based upon the number of years spent working for each company.
As for where we go in the future, that will be up to the employees, Congress, and Amtrak.
But that won't change the fact that Amtrak has spent more than $3 Billion dollars paying retired workers who never worked for Amtrak, perhaps even as much as $4B. That money should have been paid by the freight RR's that those employees spent their lives working for, not Amtrak. Instead, Amtrak has been sadled with paying money for workers who retired right before Amtrak was formed. Why should Amtrak pay for their retirements, when they never, ever worked for Amtrak?
Last edited by a moderator:
had8ley
Engineer
Unless there has been a change it is my understanding that the railroad companies do not contribute their share of your retirement monies until the day you actually retire. If they contributed every month like we did there would probably be a rock solid base to RRB. Talk about getting away with murder...
Well that would certainly explain how that obligation got dumped on Amtrak. A bunch of workers took retirement when they saw Amtrak was being formed, the freight RR's didn't want to pony up the money that they were obligated to pay, so they twisted a few arms in Congress and Amtrak got stuck paying for those workers even though they never worked for Amtrak.
Now I get what you mean Alan, (I'm a bit slow sometimes). It does not make sense at all that Amtrak is stuck with the bill for those employees who never actually worked for them. I also didn't know that the RRs don't actually pay the retirement portion until the employee retires.
- Status
