Passenger Service

[Anonymous]

Which is exactly the beauty of the Trans Texas Corridors. Having the state build new double track, and then charging the railroads, and I mean any, a fee to use the new fast double freight tracks. No more little monopolies.

Toyota to build a new truck plant in San Antonio. The land chosen is close to UP tracks. However, Toyota wanted at least 2 railroads nearby to choose from. Enter BNSF, they will build a branch to the new site. There would be no need to build a new branch if UP would have allowed any other railroad to service the Toyota truck plant. But nnoooooo, not on our tracks. Nevermind the fact that San Antonio is a fast growing city with a closed air force base. Looks as if San Antonio needs Toyota more than UP....

[edblysard]

Hey back at ya!
It took a whole lot of work just to catch up. The hardest part was changing the culture at the railroad. After years of just having to get it there with no regard for when, suddenly, all these railroaders had to start to hustle up to make it "on time". Imagine having to change the entire way your business works, from the start time to when you get to eat, to where your going to work. Old habits die hard, but we are getting there.
Stay Frosty
Ed

[sooblue]

Hay Ed,
Thanks for explaining it to me. I understand "just in time" It can be a big pain when you try to schedule work. The RRs had to do a lot to deal with it. I never knew how much. You opened up a whole new TRAIN of thought *smile*
In my industry we do "0 inventory" so everything that is made is "just in time" It turns out to be a big game with lots of lossers if something isn't "on time".
Thanks, Sooblue

[Modelcar]

...Thanks for the details. I was under the impression there was something of an obligation to the Rail Carrier to do the job as contracted.
UP seems to be operating just as the public impression is of many R R's. The public be damned. Seems to me their bonus would help lay new rail, etc...that they have been doing.

QM

[Anonymous]

Actually it is an act of Congress, in other words THE LAW! Nevertheless, Amtrak does pay a bonus at the end of the year, a $20 million bonus to the railroad for being 90% on time . BNSF, CSX, and NS earned their bonus, taking the money as a god send since all they did was dispatch properly. UP on the other hand, didn't get a penny. You don't get the bonus when your on time status is no where near 90% but closer to 50%.....they ain't even trying....

[Modelcar]

...It's more than the money paid to the Rail Carrier to move the Amtrak train across their Division it is an agreement of some sort signed by the Carrier and Amtrak that it would be done as such....

Any word I've read about the N E C in recent years it is the property of Amtrak.

QM

[Mookie]

I apologize - it was DART (I have a friend in the Bay Area).

I hope she shares your feelings and is reminded every day of the loss of her child.

[edblysard]

Dont know if Amtrak is sole owner, or part owner with the cities, but yeah, whoever wrote the regulation about expiditing Amtrak wasnt thinking. Did they really belive railroads would cut their own throats? $2000,000.00 verses $10,000.00, kinda a no brainer, huh...
Stay Frosty
Ed

[edblysard]

BART, or DART, ( Dallas Area Rapid Transit).
Either way, I agree with you that driving aroung a crossing gate, or attempting to defeat a grade crossing device should carry a stiffer penalty than it currently does. I suppose under the current traffic laws, the lady could be charged with manslaughter, at the least reckless endangerment. But, I think if her daughter was killed, you could say punishment has already been meetered out. She has to live with the fact that her bad decision killed her daughter. Dont know if I could handle that...
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Mookie]

Somewhere in this thread there were several Texas residents that mentioned BART - I heard on the radio that BART suffered a mishap yesterday - due to a silly woman going around the gates and onto the track to share space with the BART train! Her young daughter was not belted in and was killed. (I hope I have all my facts right.) I think in conjunction with "fast" trains, they should make penalties for such actions much more stringent - if I heard this all correctly, this is a homicide, in my thinking.

[wabash1]

Ed if i remeber correctly the north east corridor is owned by amtrak ( i may be wrong if so correct me) and if they own the rail they should be able to keep their trains on time. but once they leave there they are at the mercy of the road they are on. And if that dispatcher is wanting to run a train that will produce 2mil in revenue over a amtrak train that might pay trackage right of 10k its not hard to see who gets the shaft.

[edblysard]

Because it was their trains, their track, and yes they had a reutation to keep up, if we can get you there on time and quickly, we can get your frieght there on time too. But its not their train anymore, so why would you stop your guys from earning you money to allow a train that just pays a fee to disrupt your railroad?
Playing devils advocate here, but thats exactly how it is...
Ed

[edblysard]

Hi,
Dont ever kid your self into thinking the FRA is some type of railraod policeing agency. It's sole purpose is to address public issues and to limit the liability of whatever administration is currently in office. Thats why the head of the FRA is a political appointed position, not elected. Their main focus is safety issues, enforcing compliance to federal regulations, and gathering data for safety reports. The dont make federal rules, but they can enforce them. And yes, they are quite aware of how Amtrak is treated, but without proof,? The is no way they could put an inspector on each Amtrak, and the dispatchers will just say they had no choice, traffic was to heavy, so they had to clear it out to allow the safe passage of Amtrak. Besides, Amtrak was late and missed its time slot, you can't expect them to stop the entire railroad and put all the freights in siddings just to wait for one train. How do you plan moves around a train the never shows up when its suppost to? And theres no way to find out who started what, so who do you fine? Everybody else blames the other guy, and no one gets in any trouble.
As to compensation, well, which would you run, the 100 car freight which earns hundreds of thousands of dollars, or the 5 car Amtrak that only pays a track fee? And again, if anything happens to the Amtrak train, the passengers will sue the carrier whos track it happened on. So would you run a potential 60 or 70 lawsuites over your railroad? Thats why excerusion trains are dissappearing, no one will sell them insurance they can afford, and no carrier would allow them to operate on their tracks without it.
And lastly, the rules and laws the FRA administers are so ambiguous, and leave so much leeway in how each person could interpet them, that it allows the FRA to simples lable most Amtrak delays as unavoidable. If you ever get you hands on a copy of the GCOR, which the FRA also administers, and read the opperating rules in it, you will find almost all of them have at least two of three diffrent ways to be interpeted, the whole thing reads as if it were written by a slightly above average 8th grade student writting about something they had never seen or done. The unions dont write the rules, the FRA dosn't write them either, the carriers do, so who do you think the rules will favor?
Stay Frosty
Ed

[Anonymous]

It does make sense, don't it, and keeping politics out of the equation, going with numbers of 5 million metros to 2.5 million metros. A lot of cities would be linked to high speed rail. And as I have posted before, it is not the airlines the fast train competes with, it is our automobiles. And a days travel is a days travel, up to 8, 10, even 12 hours. People drive that distance today. And the frequency will improve significantly. One can get from Denver to New York City in less than 15 hours, from Dallas to Chicago in 6 hours or so, and from Chicago to Orlando less than 15 hours..... Not jet busting, but hey, the long distance airlines are having profit problems too. It seems only the short haul airlines are turning a profit, I wonder how long they will be profitable when we have fast trains.....

[Anonymous]

In the last month gasoline has gone up 10 cents a gallon. Although we complain, we pay. While a penny might be noticed, a penny or two is what will build a high speed rail network around America the envy of the world.

[Anonymous]

Obviously, the freight railroads are accepting the funds from the FRA to upgrade a lot of their track Amtrak runs to high speed rail, well, 100-120 mph improvements in the high speed rail corridor program. A program I disapprove.

Yet, I agree with you. Passenger trains should run at 186 mph and be on separate tracks from freight. I am tired of being delayed 2 hours in North Little Rock, Arkansas, by UP dispatchers!

What is the sense of running fast passenger trains 186 mph if the dispatchers are going to put the fast train in the hole?

It would be much better to run the passenger trains on new fast track. That way, the slow freight trains won't slow the fast train up!

[Anonymous]

I have no doubts. The last two trips to Chicago and back to Dallas on the Texas Eagle I have seen for my own eyes the dispatchers disregard for Amtrak. Both times the train and I sat in the middle of double track, in the former MIssouri Pacific main yards in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Both times for over 2 hours. Double track all the way to Newport and double track all the way past Texarkana, and in the middle of all of this double track, and in the biggest yard of the former MoPac railroad, the Eagle sits for hours. Yes, both times I saw 7 trains pass by.

[Anonymous]

I keep hearing about short distances, and have seen in print a number of short distances in which a train can compete with the airlines. Yet, from my experience in Europe, it is not the airlines a train is in competition with, it is the automobile!

Is it 250 miles, 300 miles, 350 miles, 400 miles, 450 miles, or 500 miles? I think it has more to do with the speed of the train than the miles! Keep in mind the northeast corridor Acela runs is 441 miles, much farther than the 250-300 miles a lot of experts suggest a train can compete with the airlines!

In my Rand McNally road atlas chart, the shortest fastest distance (they do not use the shortest distance, but figure in the shortest fastest distance using interstates) is 933 miles. However, if we go through Kansas City in route to Chicago instead of Springfield, it probably is more than 1000 miles.

Nevertheless, 900 miles or 1000 miles, if a train can average 150 mph, the trip will last either 6 hours or 6 hours and 40 minutes. Okay, we will go through Kansas City so it will be 6 hours and 40 minutes. The whole point I am attempting to make is that at an average speed of 60 mph, figuring in some stops to eat, gas, plus the roadside park rest room relief, one cannot average 70 mph by car. But at 60 mph average, it would take 16 hours and 40 minutes to drive 1000 miles by automobile.

Most people do not fly, they drive. If they can drive the distance in one long day, you can bet your house they can ride a train for 6 hours and 40 minutes!

And as far as business is concerned, most businesses write off a whole day for travel. Yes, a whole day, or 8 hours. A day is a day!

[wabash1]

the passenger service got the ax. My guess is that as we became a 2 car family nation nobody rode the trains. but like i said before with the restrictions on meeting amtrak trains the freight roads dont want them.

[Anonymous]

Good Morning, Ed of Houston, Thanks much for this detailed, informative reply you've given on current and recent freight operations. As one who doesn't earn my keep from the railroads but seek to learn all I can this analysis was very helpful. Keep up your great commentary! Stay safe, Capers.

[Anonymous]

MOST DEFINITELY - if long distance passenger trains go, there is no way the rest of the country should fund the corridors in Northeast or anywhere else. THEY need to worry about that there.

[Anonymous]

But what about passenger and freights running on the same tracks of their owners for years upon years?

[Modelcar]

...Sorry, one button too many. QM

[Modelcar]

...I have been under the impression that Rail Carriers under the obligation of putting an Amtrak train through a Division were subject to a "fine" if held up unnecessary and by the same reasoning were compensated more if put through better than scheduled...I suppose if this even is true there is no one to follow up on these circumstances and or to inforce it.

I see today where the Bush Administration has the real cure for it all....Just to eliminate all long distance passenger trains...I wouldn't have expected any less from them.

If they do away with all of them then I think leader Gunn should shut it all down and let someone else figure out how to move people in the large Metro areas.

QM

[Modelcar]

...I have been under the impression that Rail Carriers under the obligation of putting an Amtrak train through a Division were subject to a "fine" if held up unnecessary and by the same reasoning were compensated more if put through better than scheduled...I suppose if this even is true there is no one to follow up on these circumstances and or to inforce it.

I see today where the Bush Administration has the real cure for it all....Just to eliminate all long distance passenger trains...I wouldn't have expected any less from them.

If they do away with all of them then I think leader Gunn should shut it all down and let someone else figure out how to move people in the large Metro areas.

QM

[Mookie]

exactly - I don't see any of the population of Nebraska really supporting Amtrak right now - of course, this morning Amtrak came through at 4 am -it was due at 2 and a few months ago darn near killed a guy east of town because it went through
an unmarked crossing at about 5 am. It was his inattention that caused the accident; he didn't expect a train on those tracks at that time (I know this rule has a number in the book somewhere)

Even the light rail line proposed from Lincoln to Omaha - by the time the pols get done with it, there would be no practical reason to use it!

[edblysard]

Blue,
No one is kidding anyone, we are getting it there on time. What happened is that the way business operate changed, and the railroads were not prepared for it, and had to play a lot of catch up. Before, getting it there was all that mattered, as long as it was close to the advertised, no one really cared. Because business warehoused a large quanity of product, and a day or two diffrence in delivery times made no real impact on their business, when it got there did not matter, as long as it got there. Then, almost overnight, everyone went to "just in time, or just on time" production schedules, because they realized it was cheaper to use the frieghtcars as rolling warehouses, and they planed productions shifts around the deliver time. When railroads couldnt keep up, business went to trucks for this service, after all, it easier for a truck to park for a while, and then drive up to your dock exactly on time, than it is to get a train to your dock on the money. You cant park a train for a few hours, so you can arive right on time, and you cant "speed" in a train to make up a couple of hours either.
Nowadays, General Motors plans pick up truck production around the deliver time of the frames in a rail car. They keep in constant contact with the railroad, and know, down to the half hour, when the train will be spotting their plant. It would take several pages to explain how we "caught up" and some problems still need to be addressed, but a large part is due to the Staggers act of 1985. That allowed railroads to really compete amongest themselves for the first time. After years of being told by the goverment what trains we have to run, and how much we can charge, we can now do away with trains that don't make money, and we can compete between carriers on prices. Passenger trains wouldnt do anything but get in our way. We dont schedule trains anymore, technology has done away with the need for it, as soon as the train is built and crewed, its gone. Scheduled passenger trains would throw a wrench in the works. It dosnt matter how many trains are ahead of me, going in the same direction, or how many I will meet comming at me, with the longer sidings and other improvements, we just keep on rolling, almost all of us at the same speed. And yeah, its is sorta like the guy who wins the Lotto, and then gripes about having to pay taxes.
Funny, if I won ten million, they could have 7 million, I think I could get by on a measley 3 million, plus interest.
Stay Frosty, dont get too blue,
Ed

[edblysard]

Ralph, Your right, the tracks are pretty good, UP and BNSF are spending like mad replacing track, and double or triple tracking heavy traffic corridors. What really happens is the dispatcher "stabs" the Amtrak into a siding, and there it sits untill the moneymaking freights clear. I see and hear it everyday. Officialy, the carriers say they do their part to expidite Amtrak across their division, on the QT, they dont want it there, its in the way, it cost them in delayed freight trains, it never shows up on time, due in part to having been "stabbed" by the last dispatcher it had to deal with, so you cant plan moves around it, you never know when its getting to your patch of the railroad, and the libality of the passengers bother the carriers most, if something happens, well, a boxcar of auto parts isnt going to sue you if it gets derailed, or falls over, but you can bet any passenger hurt in a derailment of a Amtrak train will sue the carrier whos track it happens on.
If any Amtrak engineers or conductors are out there, they will back me up on this. Frieght railroad dont want passenger train on their tras, and will either get them across the division asap to get rid of them, or, most likley, sta***he Amtrak, untill their trains are where they need or want them to be.
Like I said, I see the latter more than I see the former.
Stay Frosty
Ed

[edblysard]

One of the things no one seem to add into the equation is that A:, the TGV is partly owned/subsidised by the french goverment, cost overuns were kept in check, and the europeans already ride trains on "short trips".
B: most of the cities and stops the TGV make are a whole lot closer together that what the average American realizes, their entire country would just about fit inside Texas, and most of their cities were planned and designed for rail service.
C: with the exception of the northeast corridor, most of the American population is spread out over vast distances, yes, there are dense populations in and around all major cities, but look at how many cities we have, compared to france, and how far apart they are.
The vast majority of Europeans live within a few miles of where they work.
Commutting for them is diffrent that what we are used to.
Add to all of that is the culture diffrences.
Personal mobility has become such a part of our way of life that we no longer even think twice about driving miles to go grocery shopping, or to the movies and dinner. But there, market day is still a big thing, its planned a week in advance, they go and buy everything they need for a week or two. If the town or village where they live has a movie theater, then they go to the movies, if not, its a big deal to get on the train and go to a city which has a theater.
Most Amreicans fill up their gas tank, and dont really bother about the cost, its just a part of our daily life, over there, buying a liter of gas is a pretty good sized investment, its really expensive, automobiles come with a luxury tax, they cost more than we would think, even the compacts, and driving is not as casual as it is here.
And last but not least, railroads and the services they provide are a integral part of the french national goverments transportaion plans and policies, as in most european nations. The french goverment closed or re-routed roads that would have crossed the TGV rightof way, and those they couldnt close or move, they installed underpasses. The TGV can run at 200mph plus all day long and not have a grade crossing to worry about, due to the goverments participation in its design and construction.
Try gettin the lower 48 states to agree on something like that.
Now I am not a big time fan of the Trans Texas Corridor, I havent had time to really study all of the propaganda TDOT has put out, but it seems to me if each state tried something along those lines, under the umbrella of the federal goverment,with money in the form of matching funds, or a state fuel tax, and they followed a uniform desigin, then every one wins. The states get jobs building the thing, politicians get to declare how they saved the state, the wheel greasers get their cut, we get a transcontinental railroad that works, plus a lot of trucks off our overcrowded highways and freeways, less pollution, more trains,(thats the best part).
But there is no way you could do it as a private enterprise, the cost of just one track across the continent is way beyond any private corporation's ability to raise capital.
Maby after it had been there a while, the states could sell it to private contractors, but the start up would have to be under federal management.
And this, or any other plan, would only work if the American people decide they want it, and then tell their elected representives that they demand it. If your Senator or Congressperson dosnt hear from you, how will they know what you want?
For more info on the trans texas corridors, go to the TDOT website, or contact Senator Kay Bailey Hutchingson, she's big on commuter rail and light rail service.
Stay Frosty,
Ed