Passenger Service

[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]

...Sorry, one button too many. QM

[Anonymous]

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

[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]

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.

[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]

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!

[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]

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]

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]

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.....

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

...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

[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

[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

[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....