Forums

[Anonymous]

Who around here thinks that all freight railroads should give Amtrak absolute priority.
Give me ideas
Thanks

[traisessive1]

Unless Amtrak is willing to pay an arm and a leg more than what they already do to use those freight railroads tracks, those railroads should be able to do whatever they please as its just another train.

[kfleeman1]

If Amtrak wants top priority they should have to pay the big $$$ to get top priority.  It's the freight line's trackage, not Amtrak's.  So no, Amtrak should not get priority unless they pay for it.

[csxengineer98]

amtrak is top priority... it is the hosts road to get amtrak across its run on time with minimal delay as possable.. under some trackage rigth agreements...if the host road is responsable for delaying amtrak..amtrak then fines the host road for evey min that the train is behind schedual...also dispatchers cant stand that passanger trains on freight lines becouse it is a major headack tring to zig zag it around all the freight traffic...so why would a dispatcher want to keep it on his/her territory any longer then it has to.. get it off and make it someone elses problem as soon as possable..

also even with good planing as far as train meets goes.. you are also dealing with a major upswing in freight traffic on alot of major lines.. to put it simply..there are only so many miles of track and you have to dispatch X number of trains across it. and well...once in a while amtrak is going to get stabed...also on the lines of good planing..there are also the unforseen issues that arise..the dispatcher could have given the signals for a freigth with plenty of time to clear an interlocking so he can line up a route for amtrak.. but due to a mechanical failer such as the freight haveing an engin go down..or geting a DD..and haveing to stop and inspect his train..  amtrak is going to get delayed... 

csx engineer 

 

[PBenham]

CSX engineer98 has most of it right.

In these sorry parts, Amtrak has to be the low man on the totem pole. They gave up for two days west of Albany-Rensselaer, except for the "Late for Sure Limited!" And, as far as the NYSSR is concerned they want to run (Amtrak's) trains into GCT under their auspices, not Amtrak's. Then Long Island could get their tracks back that they lost back when the "Empire Connection" was put in place! Watch for future developments on this one. The Metro New York City cabal will view the demise of Amtrak's Empire Corridor with glee. They do not care what happens west of I-87, or north of the Mohawk river!

[Anonymous]

no way amtrak should spend some more tax money and build there own right of way

[ndbprr]

To allow Amtrak who sucks up tax dollars to dictate to the owner who pays taxes on his valued property when and how he should run his trains is a form of stealing in my opinion.  It is the equivalent of someone asking his neighbor to borrow his lawn mower and then telling him when he can cut his own grass with it because it incoveniences the borrower.  I'd put Amtrak in a passing track every time it ran on my tracks and send them packing at the first chance.

[Railfan1]

or geting a DD

[csxengineer98]

or geting a DD

DD= Defect Detector..

[Southwest Chief]

Hmmm there's a lot of misinformation here

Amtrak has priority on all freight railroads that were a part of the 1971 agreement creating Amtrak.  The few railroads that joined Amtrak in the mid 80s (notably D&RGW) are also bound by this agreement.  Recent mergers do not, and should not, change these contractual rights. 

Amtrak even has an incentive package for the freight railroads if their trains are on time.  BNSF has benefited from this in recent years.

So the bottom line is, Amtrak has contractual authority to enforce their priority rights, it just hasn't been enforced.  Rumors abound as to why Amtrak refuses to enforce their rights, but the most reasonable seem to be related to freight railroad lobbying power, congressional influence, and simply no funding for the legal proceedings.

But the current pattern of Amtrak delays are almost always the host railroads fault.  Running at overcapacity leaves no room for anything to go wrong, and things always go wrong. 

So when you have a late train that's getting later, an indifferent host railroad, no feasible means to move trains out of the way in congested areas, and Amtrak who doesn't seem willing to enforce their rights for fear of ????, who really cares anymore

[daveklepper]

There is also the public relations angle.   No passenger service means the public will be quite unconcerned about important railroad issues.   Good passenger service is a showcase for the entire railroad industry,

[underworld]

You got your passenger in my freight!!! You got your freight in my passenger!!!!

Two great tastes that go great together!!!!!

Reese's Passenger Freight Trains!!!!!

underworld

[ndbprr]

Hmmm there's a lot of misinformation here " border="0" width="15" height="15" />

Amtrak has priority on all freight railroads that were a part of the 1971 agreement creating Amtrak.  The few railroads that joined Amtrak in the mid 80s (notably D&RGW) are also bound by this agreement.  Recent mergers do not, and should not, change these contractual rights. 

Amtrak even has an incentive package for the freight railroads if their trains are on time.  BNSF has benefited from this in recent years.

So the bottom line is, Amtrak has contractual authority to enforce their priority rights, it just hasn't been enforced.  Rumors abound as to why Amtrak refuses to enforce their rights, but the most reasonable seem to be related to freight railroad lobbying power, congressional influence, and simply no funding for the legal proceedings.

But the current pattern of Amtrak delays are almost always the host railroads fault.  Running at overcapacity leaves no room for anything to go wrong, and things always go wrong. 

So when you have a late train that's getting later, an indifferent host railroad, no feasible means to move trains out of the way in congested areas, and Amtrak who doesn't seem willing to enforce their rights for fear of ????, who really cares anymore

 

I have some questions

1. Didn;t the railroads agree to the "priority" demand in ordert to get out of running passenger trains?  In other words weren't they basically blackmailed into this?

2. Does the Amtrak "Incentive package" equal lor exceed the revenue stream from delivering freight on time?

3. If the railroads are running at "over capacity" are they supposed to turn down business so Amtrak can have clear tracks to run on?  And how does over capacity cause a problem for Amtrak?  Are they parking trains in stations?  What is your definition of Over capacity?

[Southwest Chief]

 

I have some questions

1. Didn;t the railroads agree to the "priority" demand in ordert to get out of running passenger trains?  In other words weren't they basically blackmailed into this?

2. Does the Amtrak "Incentive package" equal lor exceed the revenue stream from delivering freight on time?

3. If the railroads are running at "over capacity" are they supposed to turn down business so Amtrak can have clear tracks to run on?  And how does over capacity cause a problem for Amtrak?  Are they parking trains in stations?  What is your definition of Over capacity?

1) 

Define blackmail for me.  I think you are assuming things that weren't present back in 71.

No one forced the railroads into Amtrak.  In fact they had to pay to join.  So if you didn't want to pay don't join.  Several did not (like Southern, Rock Island, and D&RGW) until they realized home much $ they were loosing operating passenger service.  I've read several entries by John S. Reed (Santa Fe) about the many cost benefit analysis models they did before deciding to join.  After crunching the numbers, the fee to join was less then it would cost to continue operating.  Many forget that to continue operating, most railroads would need new equipment in about 10 years, for many it was sooner.  Thus the millions it cost to join turned out to be less expense overall.  

2)

You should not have to ask this...oh wait you're being sarcastic, how silly of me.  But if there was a way to make extra money for something I'm already contractually bound to do I would jump at the opportunity.  Wouldn't you?

3)

My definition of overcapacity is when there are too many trains in one area to operate a fluid railroad.  Single track lines are especially nasty, such as the Sunset route.  When a train that has contractual priority has to sit for 2+ hours on a small passing siding just so one train clears the block something is very wrong.  Worse is when certain railroads run freights longer then the average passing siding length in order to force Amtrak in the hole. 

They shouldn't be running at max capacity in the first place.  BNSF has in fact turned away business to ensure lines stay open and to ensure guaranteed service.  An incidental beneficiary is Amtrak, because there actually is space for the Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, and on the BNSF portion of the Zephyr.  So is this crazy business practice?  Nope, as a happy investor in BNSF their rate of return is the best of all class 1's in recent years.  

Amtrak doesn't just use stations, they have to use rails in other parts to get to the stations...my part of the sarcasm.  And here in California, many a time a San Joaquin or even the Coast Starlight has had to wait because low and behold the UP actually did park a train at a station, so it actually happens.

 

It's not as if I'm anti-freight railroad, it just annoys me that they can violate a contract they signed.  If they didn't like the terms why join?  Obviously to save a lot of money, a perfectly valid reason.

But if you think blackmail applies, well think of this.  Blackmail is illegal.  There are specific legal terms other then "blackmail" but I won't go into that here.  But wouldn't you think the freight railroads would jump at the chance to void the contract if there was some illegality?  I sure would.

[ndbprr]

In my opinion the reason they signed that contract was because they thought passenger service would eventually die and they din't foresee hundreds of billions of tax dollars poured into it to keep it going for almost forty years now.  I can't believe that the contract is still valid after that amount of time.  Secondly you didn't answer my question about how much revenue a freight train generates compared to the payment Amtrak makes to the railroad.  I suspect far more for the freight.  I am not a fan of Amtrak, bridges to nowhere in alaska or any other government pork.  If the service can't make a profit it should die along with paying angora goat herders for wool since WW2 and subsidizing sugar cane growers for almost 100 years now.  Oh, by the way,  Amtrak did the same thing to Penn Central and CR on the corridor telling them when they could and could not service their customers and charging exorbitant rates to the point CR used other lines that were not nearly as convenient or timely.  Guess contracts regarding freight are ok to break if you are Amtrak.