"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Originally posted by BNSF4ever Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 18, 2005 8:02 AM I can only speak from my experience. My wife and I took the empire builder last month from Milwaukee to Seattle (and back). It was my observation that BNSF put most of their freights in the siding for us both ways. The only exception to that was when we were near Seattle, where we had to wait for a couple of freights to clear the station area. On the CPRail portion of the trip, I observed freight trains wating in sidings for #8 to pass. We took the Southwest Chief east bound from LA to Chicago 2 years ago. I did not observe any delays from UP feight trains. In fact, we arrived in Chicago ON TIME. I have read all the horror stories about late trains, and I guess I've been lucky. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 18, 2005 1:14 PM Why should UP give Amtrak the top priority, if they make more money running freights than running Amtrak. This is why they cut passenger service in the first place, now you want to force them to lose money. Now if Amtrack had a better inscentive ($$$). James[C):-)] Reply Edit BNSF4ever Member sinceDecember 2004 380 posts Posted by BNSF4ever on Monday, July 18, 2005 1:37 PM Yes facts. If I saw one or two freights at a standstill I might not think much of it. But I saw this time and again. UP has no incentive for giving Amtrak higher priority. However, Amtrak was formed at a time when the government still regulated the railroads. I am surprised that some language was not put in the National Rail Passenger Act that guaranteed Amtrak priority. What was in it for the railroads? Those that joined Amtrak (for a fee, yes), were immediately freed from money losing passenger trains. Again, we're not talking a huge number of passenger trains. But the act is written, what's done is done and it appears Amtrak's western intercity trains are at the mercy of the freight railroads. Reply owlsroost Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Cambridge, UK 419 posts Posted by owlsroost on Monday, July 18, 2005 1:50 PM QUOTE: We took the Southwest Chief east bound from LA to Chicago 2 years ago. I did not observe any delays from UP feight trains. In fact, we arrived in Chicago ON TIME. Probably because it's an all BNSF route - ex AT&SF from LA to just west of Galesburg, then ex CB&Q to Chicago (nice run too, although the only time I've been the whole distance was pre-BNSF, so it was AT&SF routing all the way to Chicago) Tony Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, July 18, 2005 2:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF4ever Yes facts. If I saw one or two freights at a standstill I might not think much of it. But I saw this time and again. UP has no incentive for giving Amtrak higher priority. However, Amtrak was formed at a time when the government still regulated the railroads. I am surprised that some language was not put in the National Rail Passenger Act that guaranteed Amtrak priority. What was in it for the railroads? Those that joined Amtrak (for a fee, yes), were immediately freed from money losing passenger trains. Again, we're not talking a huge number of passenger trains. But the act is written, what's done is done and it appears Amtrak's western intercity trains are at the mercy of the freight railroads. I could be wrong but I belive Amtrak does have financial incentives for on time performance. I have noticed that BNSF does a much better job of giving priority to Amtrak. On the other hand UP treats them quite poorly, especialy on there busy Sunset route. Reply trainster1073 Member sinceFebruary 2004 74 posts Posted by trainster1073 on Monday, July 18, 2005 5:06 PM I hate to say it but with UP business first, playtime............................................................................................................Later. Dustin Reply TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Monday, July 18, 2005 5:18 PM I knew that pre merger that BN put high priority on passenger traffic, to the point of having high priority freight traffic go into the hole. Since the merger I think they've kept the same attitude. I like the UP, but it seems they've taken an SP attitude towards passenger service. Regards Gary Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:44 PM on the handful of trips i've made on the southwest chief they've all been pretty smooth. if it was delayed it was as a result of amtrak, not the host railroad. but i can't contribute much to this, as i've only rode the southwest chief and none others. one thing that stood out to me though was the ride quality. on the ex-SF from arizona to galesburg it was rough as hell. when we crossed over to the ex-BN it was smooooth as glass. Reply Edit dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:49 PM My Amtrak experience on the Texas Eagle has been just opposite -- smooth track on UP and rough on BSNF. The only delays on either were for maintence projects. dd Reply dinwitty Member sinceAugust 2004 2,844 posts Posted by dinwitty on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:17 PM used to be crack passenger trains had priority over any other class of train. generally the train priorities went 1st class passenger/2nd class pasenger/mail/1st class scheduled freight, 2nd/3rd class freights/extra - peddle freights with low priority a nd if there were arguements, the lower class train was to take siding to let the higher class pass. and eastbound or westbound would have priority over the opposing directing... this helps make operations organized and without arguements. now what..... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dinwitty used to be crack passenger trains had priority over any other class of train. generally the train priorities went 1st class passenger/2nd class pasenger/mail/1st class scheduled freight, 2nd/3rd class freights/extra - peddle freights with low priority a nd if there were arguements, the lower class train was to take siding to let the higher class pass. and eastbound or westbound would have priority over the opposing directing... this helps make operations organized and without arguements. now what..... Crack passenger trains brought in a lot of money back then. Reply Edit CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:02 AM Priority of trains by class disappeared when operation by timetable and train order was superseded by other methods. In fairness to UP, delays on the Sunset Route are caused by a lack of capacity, not by a lack of will. After all, UP is moving to double-track this line. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:17 AM Interesting. Back before Amtrak, UP did a creditable job of running its passenger trains, and the Milwaukee did a pretty good job of handling the UP trains on its tracks, after the Northwestern fell down on the job because of too many bad track slow orders. But it was the SP that was the problem, but not as bad as the UP is now. But the SP did well with the Coast Daylight, possibly because not much freight went over the Coast Line. I never rode the Sunset until Amtrak ran it, and it was a about an hour or two late into LA from New Orleans if my memory is correct. Interesting trip when I was working on the Garden Grove church: Panama or City of New Orleans (whatever Amtrak called it at the time) and then the Sunset to LA, and the Super or Soutwest Chief back to Chicago. I think I had to ride coach LA to Chicago (Aurora, then Downers Grove on a suburban), because sleepers were all sold out or to save the client money, but I felt less couped up then I have felt on 7-hour airplane trips. There was always the lounge car or the diner to visit. The time of the trip can be placed by the Chicago - New Orleans train using heritage equipment converted to head-end power, the Sunset using Superliner 1, and the Chief Superliner sleepers and El Cap coaches. Can anyone date the trip definitely? I do not particularly remember massive delays anywhere on the trip, and no really terrible track conditions, although the IC main line was not as smooth as I had remembered from the best days of the Panama Limited and the King's dinner, and names of passengers on the sleeping car room doors. And the service on the Chief was good, but not quite the Super of old. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:28 AM Really if you think about it, the long distance Amtrak stuff should be third in priority because it is more of a leisure ride then a commuter run. Commuter traffic should be first either Amtrak commuter or Metrolink type then Z class intermodal and then Amtrak long distance service. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:41 AM That's basically what I've been telling people who go from Chi to the West Coast: Your Amtrak trip is a "land cruise" so don't expect the priority of the top-class intermodals or the various Cal. commuter trains. Expect to be two to four hours late. Don't tell your relatives to meet you at San Diego -- CALL them from L.A.! And that sort of thing. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:50 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Really if you think about it, the long distance Amtrak stuff should be third in priority because it is more of a leisure ride then a commuter run. Commuter traffic should be first either Amtrak commuter or Metrolink type then Z class intermodal and then Amtrak long distance service. Good point. As such that is why it is usually late. Reply Edit Chris30 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: near Chicago 937 posts Posted by Chris30 on Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:14 PM Amtrak might get better dispatching on the BNSF because they have more track capacity. Why does the BNSF have more track capacity than the UP? Lets see... the UP in California is mostly ex-SP. The SP physical plant at the end was not in the best shape and oh yeah, the UP took a lot of ex-BNSF business [(-D]. Then again, maybe the BNSF hates the Amtrak using their track just a little less than the UP does. el-firestart-o... CC Reply zapp Member sinceAugust 2003 From: weatherford,Tx 367 posts Posted by zapp on Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:51 PM [}:)] I don't think so!! I must tell you I've spent alot of hours in the hole waiting on AmCra***o come by. Many hours, 20 miles from the depot to tie up and go to the house,just to wait on Amtrak,because they do get priority on UPRR. But I do believe that UP dispatchers aren't going to allow a train to hog out just to keep Amtraks schedule either! Reply PwdOpd Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Oklahoma 76 posts Posted by PwdOpd on Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:58 PM Interesting discussion. Here's my experiences. Pre-Amtrack: 1946 (I'm telling my age) UP No.11, Omaha to Los Angeles Left Omaha on time, arrived Los Angeles 45 minutes late. Return trip-UP No 8 Left Los Angeles on time, arrived Omaha on time. A number of trips to Chicago from Omaha and return on CNW. All on time, which means the UP trains were on time arriving Omaha. One trip Omaha to Chicago on CBQ Denver Zepher. On time leaving and arriving. From Hutchinson, Ks. to Chicago and return on Santa Fe. At least 2 round trips. Never on time. Usually 1 to 1 1/2 hours late, both directions. One trip out of Chicago, we were 45 minutes late into Peoria. Days of Amtrack: Never rode Amtrack on the UP, but I have on the former Sante Fe. Again. Hurchinson to Chicago and return. Same as before-late both ways. One trip, Huchinson to Alburque and return. Late going. On return, left Alburque on time, arrived Huchinson 1 1/2 hours late. Paul Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:13 PM I'd say the American traveling public had to worry about more than punctuality if the Santa Fe Railway wound up in Peoria. Are you sure the last leg wasn't CRI&P? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 22, 2005 12:33 AM You can't spell "stupid" without a UP! Reply Edit PwdOpd Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Oklahoma 76 posts Posted by PwdOpd on Friday, July 22, 2005 1:34 AM Sorry: Didn't mean Peoria. YES , VERY STUPID. I meant Joliet. Does this make more sense? Paul Reply ValorStorm Member sinceMarch 2002 From: MRL 3rd Sub MP117 "No defects, repeat, no defects" 360 posts Posted by ValorStorm on Friday, July 22, 2005 1:40 AM QUOTE: Crack passenger trains brought in a lot of money back then. Another reminder, and I'm certain we'll all need many more reminders: Passenger rail was not, is not, and never will be profitable anywhere in the world. The best that can be said for passenger rail, even during "The Golden Years," is that it provided a modicum of success as a freight marketing tool. The other point that many in this thread have hinted at but haven't nailed down is that increased traffic is a major function of capacity problems. It's not always lousy track. The UP is doing precisely what they ought to: increase capacity, and delay the cruise train. Reply Chris30 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: near Chicago 937 posts Posted by Chris30 on Friday, July 22, 2005 12:46 PM Now that Amtrak is not hauling the mail... What is supposed to be the hottest train? The Amtrak train. What's the next hottest train? The "Z" train with the UPS & other LCL freight companies? What if [X-)] Amtrak helped the freight railroads by hauling some of that traffic at higher speeds? Do ya think the land cruiser would be sitting in the hole at Modesto? Of course this would never happen because of schedules and other logistics. The point is, put something the freight railroads care about on a Amtrak train and watch the on-time performace improve. Do ya see the hidden joke in the last sentence?, CC Reply BNSF4ever Member sinceDecember 2004 380 posts Posted by BNSF4ever on Friday, July 22, 2005 1:16 PM I see the point of those who say that intermodals and commuters should come first. Experienced rail travellers know and usually accept that intercity trains will be late. But from passengers I talked to on my recent Coast Starlight journey, I could tell that the delays really put off the casual rail traveller--the first timers. Amtrak needs all the ridership it can get and cannot afford to have passengers on their first trip experience two hour delays before boarding and two hour delays accrued on route. As these folks told me, they were not going to ride Amtrak again. You know the business school cliches about dissatisfied customers and the range of people their stories reach. I don't know the numbers in any given 24 hour period but considering that west of the Mississippi you just have the Sunset Limited, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Texas Eagle, and Coast Starlight--we are not talking that many trains that the freight railroads have to put up with. Surely it's the fewest amount of Western long-distance intercity trains in American railroad history. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 22, 2005 4:08 PM Amtrak did try hauling fast, fast freight in 2004 but it didn't work out for them somehow. A couple of the trains were vitually X-type with people cars in the middle: there was one to Maine and another to Iowa, I think. But many or most had some freight. If I recall TRAINS magazine from earlier this year, the only one left is the Southwest Chief because of some binding contracts. I have a shot of the Chief going thru Galva, Illinois, on July 2 of this year and there are indeed several express-type freight cars on the end. While passenger trains did tend to lose money on fares, the United States Post Office (note anachronistic name) virtually subsidized American trains for many years by operating RPO's inside of them. When LBJ pulled the mail off the trains in 1967(ostensibly to please Jimmy Hoffa by p***ing off Bobby Kennedy), revenue REALLY fell and the last great wave to cancel passenger trains was on. Paul, we all make that kind of mistake; me at least. Reply Edit 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: We took the Southwest Chief east bound from LA to Chicago 2 years ago. I did not observe any delays from UP feight trains. In fact, we arrived in Chicago ON TIME.
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF4ever Yes facts. If I saw one or two freights at a standstill I might not think much of it. But I saw this time and again. UP has no incentive for giving Amtrak higher priority. However, Amtrak was formed at a time when the government still regulated the railroads. I am surprised that some language was not put in the National Rail Passenger Act that guaranteed Amtrak priority. What was in it for the railroads? Those that joined Amtrak (for a fee, yes), were immediately freed from money losing passenger trains. Again, we're not talking a huge number of passenger trains. But the act is written, what's done is done and it appears Amtrak's western intercity trains are at the mercy of the freight railroads.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dinwitty used to be crack passenger trains had priority over any other class of train. generally the train priorities went 1st class passenger/2nd class pasenger/mail/1st class scheduled freight, 2nd/3rd class freights/extra - peddle freights with low priority a nd if there were arguements, the lower class train was to take siding to let the higher class pass. and eastbound or westbound would have priority over the opposing directing... this helps make operations organized and without arguements. now what.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Really if you think about it, the long distance Amtrak stuff should be third in priority because it is more of a leisure ride then a commuter run. Commuter traffic should be first either Amtrak commuter or Metrolink type then Z class intermodal and then Amtrak long distance service.
QUOTE: Crack passenger trains brought in a lot of money back then.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.