Here is what I wrote in another post regarding the Texas Eagle.
"The Texas Eagle, prior to the Great Recession, ran so late, as a rule, that those of us who rode it joked that we would not get to San Antonio before the bars closed. With the coming of the Great Recession, however, the on-time performance improved. The reason is clear. Freight traffic diminished in response to the downturn in the economy. Now, of course, the economy has come back. And so too has the freight traffic. And the Eagle is again running late more often than not."
Irrespective of performance incentives paid to the freight carriers to get Amtrak's trains over their systems, or what Boardman threatens, as long as the performance incentives are inadequate, and Amtrak does not compensate the freight carriers for the full cost of hosting its trains, the freight carriers don't have an incentive to help Amtrak stay on time.
Two weeks ago I took the Texas Eagle from Taylor to Dallas. Number 22 was four hours late. Lets see, it is 117 miles from San Antonio, where Number 22 originates, and Taylor. Four hours late! It is happening frequently now that the UP is again crowded with freight trains. Rather than constantly tick-off passengers because of late running trains, we would be better off to kill the long distance trains and run trains in relatively short, high density corridors. Even if they are run over a freight carrier, if they don't have too far to go, there is a higher probability of keeping them on time.
Sam1 Rather than constantly tick-off passengers because of late running trains, we would be better off to kill the long distance trains and run trains in relatively short, high density corridors. Even if they are run over a freight carrier, if they don't have too far to go, there is a higher probability of keeping them on time.
Rather than constantly tick-off passengers because of late running trains, we would be better off to kill the long distance trains and run trains in relatively short, high density corridors. Even if they are run over a freight carrier, if they don't have too far to go, there is a higher probability of keeping them on time.
On the BNSF, first the problem was winter's snow and cold; now the problem is spring and the frost coming out of the ground. I wonder what new unseasonal phenomenon summer will bring?
Sam1 Two weeks ago I took the Texas Eagle from Taylor to Dallas. Number 22 was four hours late. Lets see, it is 117 miles from San Antonio, where Number 22 originates, and Taylor. Four hours late! It is happening frequently now that the UP is again crowded with freight trains. Rather than constantly tick-off passengers because of late running trains, we would be better off to kill the long distance trains and run trains in relatively short, high density corridors. Even if they are run over a freight carrier, if they don't have too far to go, there is a higher probability of keeping them on time.
Okay, so I have to ask, since you suggest that short corridors would be better than LD for timekeeping: How long (short) should those corridors be then, since apparently 117 miles is way too long, as seen in the case you relate?
dakotafred: I'm sure BNSF is all ready with its warm weather excuses. I predict they will say the EB is late this summer because:
1. It's so hot the rails get sun kinks.
2. The air is so hot the locomotives are overheating.
3. The heat has played havoc with the signaling system.
4. Tornadoes have torn up the track.
5. Summer rains have caused wash-outs along the ROW.
6. Business is so good for us that you passengers on Amtrak just have to wait for the oil to go by.
7. Nos. 1 - 7 have combined to make The Empire Builder "lose its slot." Now you have to wait some more.
8. The moon is in the wrong phase for people on trains; the stars favor freight trains.
9. There's a derailment up ahead.
10. A once-a-day passenger train is way too much trouble for us to handle and you people aren't paying "the real costs" (as determined by us) to run your crummy train.
11. Mr. Buffet is out of the office and unable to take your call. Please leave your message after the beep.
See? Lots of seasonal reasons why BNSF can't run the train on time. And all valid, too. Tough bananas, people. Try again when the summer's over and it's getting cold. (Then invoke the usual cold-weather "reasons")
It is easy to SAY Amtrak should have preference in it's operation over a territory.
It gets much more difficult when you have to find a place to hold (meet) every other train on the particular territory. 9000 foot freight trains occupy 9000 feet of track space no matter where they are - Main Track, Passing Siding, Yard track - freight trains do not magically disappear because Amtrak is coming.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CJtrainguy Sam1 Two weeks ago I took the Texas Eagle from Taylor to Dallas. Number 22 was four hours late. Lets see, it is 117 miles from San Antonio, where Number 22 originates, and Taylor. Four hours late! It is happening frequently now that the UP is again crowded with freight trains. Rather than constantly tick-off passengers because of late running trains, we would be better off to kill the long distance trains and run trains in relatively short, high density corridors. Even if they are run over a freight carrier, if they don't have too far to go, there is a higher probability of keeping them on time.
CJtrainguy Sam1 Okay, so I have to ask, since you suggest that short corridors would be better than LD for timekeeping: How long (short) should those corridors be then, since apparently 117 miles is way too long, as seen in the case you relate?
Sam1
The consensus among the experts seems to say that a 200 to 250 mile high density corridor is ideal for passenger trains. To be successful the trains must be quick, frequent, comfortable, economical, and dependable. Moreover, if they are hosted by a freight railroad, it must be compensated to cover all of its costs. Unless that happens the freight carrier has no incentive to keep the renter's trains on-time.
The Eagle delay that I noted above was a bit of a one off. Number 22 is rarely that late. Part of the problem was that the Eagle picked up Amtrak's display cars from Number 2. The cars were going to Fort Worth for National Train Day. If I remember correctly, Number 2 was late that morning.
When it is not saddled with the connecting cars from Number 2, the Texas Eagle is usually on-time or nearly on-time into Fort Worth. But on those days when the cars off the Sunset Limited are transferred to the Eagle, the train is likely to be late, especially if the Limited is more than an hour or so late getting into San Antonio. If I am taking the Eagle to Dallas, I frequently look on Amtrak's status page before going to bed to see when Number 2 is expected to arrive into Del Rio. If it is seriously late, i.e. more than two hours, I can be reasonably sure that the Eagle will be late departing San Antonio.
The further one has to go, the greater the probability that he will run into a delay. Although I don't have any numbers to back-up this notion, experience tells me that it is so. Support for this notion appears to lie in the fact that Number 22 gets 2 hours and 31 minutes to run from San Antonio, its point of origin, to Austin. Number 21 gets 3 hours and 25 minutes to run from Austin to San Antonio, in large part because it is frequently late on its run from Chicago.
Sam1: Thanks for your response. Your comments about length of run and timekeeping are reasonable and seem to match experience in Europe where the rail renaissance in many cases started with shorter corridors that were upgraded and see frequent (often hourly or better) service. Then as they were successful, the trend has been to expand the system, making the runs longer, and frequently finding that delays increased in the process, especially when turn-around time at the end point was cut down to maybe 10 minutes, allowing for no recovery.
Re: host railroad incentives for keeping trains on time, being based on the passenger train paying all it's costs, the challenge lies in determining what those costs actually are. From the freight railroad perspective, anything above today's standard would seem to be for the benefit of new passenger rail and so they'd want to charge the passenger train for it, and yet, because of generally increasing traffic, that freight railroad might have to make some of those upgrades anyway.
I agree that determining what is a fair cost to the freight railroad to host Amtrak's trains is challenging. Having said that, if an investor owned company (freight railroad) is not compensated adequately for the use of its facilities, it should not be required to give priority to Amtrak or anyone else.
CJtrainguySam1: Thanks for your response. Your comments about length of run and timekeeping are reasonable and seem to match experience in Europe where the rail renaissance in many cases started with shorter corridors that were upgraded and see frequent (often hourly or better) service. Then as they were successful, the trend has been to expand the system, making the runs longer, and frequently finding that delays increased in the process, especially when turn-around time at the end point was cut down to maybe 10 minutes, allowing for no recovery.
I have seen that trend in Germany with the older, conventional equipment IC (Intercity trains) but the shorter corridors using ICE ) Intercity Express - HSR) services have remained true to the concept, with more frequent running.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The Balt Assistant Chief Dispr brought up the most significant factor in this discussion which seemed to me predicated on the idea that since freight business recovered and in some places improved, Amtrak delays also recovered....congestion....
Distributed Power allows long trains in places they didn't or couldn't run. When BaltACD's 9000' long train runs on a 'road that had been accomodating 5 & 6 thousand feet long trains, a 'trick dispr's options at a meet shrivel.
Meets,, rolling or not, can't happen at a 6000' siding; and put a 2 miles long train through 10 mph slow order (switch frog worn, needs welding) well, slow before and accelerate after it from say 60 mph to 10 and back, that's 4 miles, reasonable train performance, at 30 mph average, consider that the rear end of the train travels 2 miles at 10 mph to clear the slow order's limits, thus, 6 minutes a mile for two miles plus the twice the length of the slow order, then,throw in the four miles at an average of 30, or 2 min a mile.
Is that 20 minutes, or more, that a following Amtrak train would suffer?
you don't need to bet.....Betcha!
Care to explain why the Palmetto route at 829 miles, has the best cost recovery ratio (after State payments are subtracted) amongst all the much shorter coach only runs?
BTW, these engineers from MIT are not part of the consensus, but instead explain the Utility of Time theory and access costs in TRB papers as a driver of trip choices, not speed and frequency alone.
Sam1 and I obviously disagree over the idea that economics alone should govern the priority a freight railroad gives passengers because the very building of every railroad required government assistance, if only concerning the right of eminent domain. And the railroads were allowed this privilege with the idea of transporting passengers as well as freight. And then agreed to cut their passenger losses by transfering their operating responsilbities for passenger service to Amtrak. Sam says they have a right to violate that agreement and reduce their passenger responsibilities even further. Nuts to that!
daveklepper Sam1 and I obviously disagree over the idea that economics alone should govern the priority a freight railroad gives passengers because the very building of every railroad required government assistance, if only concerning the right of eminent domain. And the railroads were allowed this privilege with the idea of transporting passengers as well as freight. And then agreed to cut their passenger losses by transfering their operating responsilbities for passenger service to Amtrak. Sam says they have a right to violate that agreement and reduce their passenger responsibilities even further. Nuts to that!
The U.S. is the longest surviving republic in existence today. Many constitutional scholars claim its longevity is due to the flexibility of its governing documents and institutions, which allow the covenants and laws that govern us to be adjusted for different conditions.
Practically everything in our society has changed since the republic was founded. Requiring investor owned railroads to provide passenger service when there were few alternatives may have made sense at one time, but the times they have a changed. Now people have numerous alternatives, and passenger rail is no longer critical for the well being of the nation.
Passenger rail makes sense in relatively high density, short corridors where the cost to expand the airways and highways is prohibitive. Long distance trains, which are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers, make no sense. The freight carriers should not even be required to host them unless they are compensated for the full cost of doing so.
Here is the thing, in the next fifteen years practically all the interstates highway route mileage will be congested (except for some areas out west away from cities), either by trucks in some regions or commuter automobiles and trucks in others. The problem is that the fuel taxes were leveraged off the local system not financed by fuel taxes to build the interstates. We have no political will to fund rebuilding and nothing to leverage from transportation wise of value.
V.Payne Here is the thing, in the next fifteen years practically all the interstates highway route mileage will be congested (except for some areas out west away from cities), either by trucks in some regions or commuter automobiles and trucks in others. The problem is that the fuel taxes were leveraged off the local system not financed by fuel taxes to build the interstates. We have no political will to fund rebuilding and nothing to leverage from transportation wise of value.
When I was working in the Technology arm of my company - the only positions that got rewarded were those that did 'new applications'. Heaven forbid that you got tasked with maintaining a legacy system. The same beliefs apply to our highway system - lets build a new road instead of repairing and updating the old one - there is no 'glamor' in maintaining anything.
BaltACD V.Payne Here is the thing, in the next fifteen years practically all the interstates highway route mileage will be congested (except for some areas out west away from cities), either by trucks in some regions or commuter automobiles and trucks in others. The problem is that the fuel taxes were leveraged off the local system not financed by fuel taxes to build the interstates. We have no political will to fund rebuilding and nothing to leverage from transportation wise of value. When I was working in the Technology arm of my company - the only positions that got rewarded were those that did 'new applications'. Heaven forbid that you got tasked with maintaining a legacy system. The same beliefs apply to our highway system - lets build a new road instead of repairing and updating the old one - there is no 'glamor' in maintaining anything.
BaltACD When I was working in the Technology arm of my company - the only positions that got rewarded were those that did 'new applications'. Heaven forbid that you got tasked with maintaining a legacy system. The same beliefs apply to our highway system - lets build a new road instead of repairing and updating the old one - there is no 'glamor' in maintaining anything.
I-35 from Jarell, TX to north of West, TX is being rebuilt. According to TXDOT's chief engineer, it is the longest road construction project in the U.S. Ultimately, most of I-35 will be rebuilt. In addition, significant portions of I-20 and I-10 in TX have been rebuilt during the past decade. Moreover, I-635, which runs around Dallas, TX., is being upgraded, and I-35 from I-635 north through Denton will be rebuilt and/or upgraded.
Clearly, TX has spent a lot of money on new highways. But it has not ignored the existing roadways. I continuously hear that TX roadways are not being maintained, and they are falling apart. I drive nearly 25,000 miles per year. All of it is on TX roadways. And not just the same roadways. If they are falling apart, I don't see it.
As per Table 1-27 of National Transportation Statistics, On-Line Edition, which rates roadway smoothness as an indicator of roadway conditions, with the high number (>220) being rough and a low number (<60) being smooth, the Interstate Highway System has been getting better since 1995 or before. For example, in 1995 1.8 per cent of rural interstate highway mileage was rate >220, but by 2011 it had declined to .5 per cent. In 1995 13.9 per cent had been rate <60, but by 2011 it had increased to 37.0 per cent. In the case of urban interstate highways, the per cent > 220 was 1.8 per cent in 1995, but it declined to 1.5 per cent in 2011. The per cent <60 increased from 11.4 per cent in 1995 to 24.7 per cent in 2011. There are, of course, lots of numbers between the highs and lows, as well as for other roadways, but they suggest, as is the case with highway bridges, that they are being maintained and, in fact, are getting better.
Sunday, June 8th, the Texas Eagle is expected to arrive in San Antonio at 3:18 a.m. Monday or 5 hours and 23 minutes late. This is devastating even for us night owls. All the bars will be closed. Shoot, most of the muggers will have given it up and gone home.
In most states the surfacing improvement refereed to above was due to the 2009 ARRA (Stimulus-summer of recovery-green shoots-shovel ready projects). Asphalt was a big recipient of those funds, and it will be gone in 8-9 years from the project time (~2018). The I-635 project is to add through toll lanes only even though it received a direct grant from the trust fund and uses low interest loans. The managed tolls are going to be quite high (starting at $0.09/mile to a $0.75/mile cap for now) and they suppose they can charge that as they predict the "free" lanes will degenerate into gridlock at all hours. Texas has a November 14 ballot measure to partially fill the hole in their HTF. I could start a new thread to discuss this further if there is interest.
V.Payne In most states the surfacing improvement refereed to above was due to the 2009 ARRA (Stimulus-summer of recovery-green shoots-shovel ready projects). Asphalt was a big recipient of those funds, and it will be gone in 8-9 years from the project time (~2018). The I-635 project is to add through toll lanes only even though it received a direct grant from the trust fund and uses low interest loans. The managed tolls are going to be quite high (starting at $0.09/mile to a $0.75/mile cap for now) and they suppose they can charge that as they predict the "free" lanes will degenerate into gridlock at all hours. Texas has a November 14 ballot measure to partially fill the hole in their HTF. I could start a new thread to discuss this further if there is interest.
The only purpose of my response was to counter the argument made by others that America is not maintaining its infrastructure or that only the new stuff gets any attention.
This is a forum to discuss railway activities; I don't think it is a forum to discuss highways.
People frequently make a comment about this or that without any data to support it. As the Vice President has noted, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Knowing your competitors is part of being a good businessman, in any businesss, Highway maintenance is not off-topic because it imipacts costs and reliability of freight (and passenger) competition to railway service. Similarly truck driver wages, working conditions, barge operationos, air freight, should all have a place on this Foruom because they all afftect the railroad business.
Sam1 People frequently make a comment about this or that without any data to support it. As the Vice President has noted, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
dakotafred Sam1 People frequently make a comment about this or that without any data to support it. As the Vice President has noted, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. You're asking us to believe a convicted plagiarist like Biden invented that quote? You, an Obama voter, probably think Gore invented the Internet.
Sam1 dakotafred Sam1 People frequently make a comment about this or that without any data to support it. As the Vice President has noted, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. You're asking us to believe a convicted plagiarist like Biden invented that quote? You, an Obama voter, probably think Gore invented the Internet. I did not say that Biden invented the quote. And I did not say anything about the invention of the internet. The key point, irrespective of any quotes, is that people are entitled to whatever opinion they want to hold; they are not entitled to their own facts.
I fail to see who said what about who invented the internet as relevant to transportation. But I agree with Sam1 that facts should be kept as facts, and when opinions are contrary to facts, they are no longer valid opinions. Sam and I agree on the facts of passenger losses and freight railroad subsidization of Amtrak. He has a valid argument and i respect his opinion. But my answers are more questions: (1) what percent of the people visit national parks or use public libraries? (2) How many Americans plan never to use a long distance train for travel but want it around, like the fire department, in case they do need it and are williing to subsidize it for that reason? (3) What gives the railroads the right to abrogate an agreement that they considered beneficial to them? Sam, you have answered my argument already, and we know your position. But I think that a majority of the American people agree with me, and the USA is a Democracy, imperfect, but still one, and corporations, like people, are expected to live up to their agreements.
Look. I buy a store from a merchant who retires. In my town I am resposible for the upkeep of the sidewalk in front of my store. Unkown to the merchant selling the store or me the buyer, there is a ground situation under the sidewalk, and a big pot hole develops a week after I take over the store. Its repair costs half as much as what i paid for the store! Unfair! But it is the cost of my doing business.
I hope that subsidization at the present level of Amtrak's long distance service is the only so-called unfair sitiuation the major freight railroads face. It looks like CN in Canada is going to have to fight a far worse situation. If Amtrak can keep LD services running with the railroad's help, it will help them fight such worse situations if they develop in the USA.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.