6 hour delay between cities 200 miles apart is preposterous!

[Cal]

2. On a double main, dispatching Amtrak should be easy money. . BNSF stated that years ago, they slot the Chief among the intermodals and take Amtrak's money.

If BNSF can do it on their southern transcon, why can't UP?

 

[jis]

If BNSF can do it on their southern transcon, why can't UP?

I suspect because UP does not have as much double track on their southern transcon as BNSF does.

The reason that single track railroads work worse in this country than almost anywhere else is because of the freight railroad's insistence on running freight trains that are way longer than the length of passing loops on the route.

 

[adamj023]

I used to use UPS Ground which included routing packages by train at the time. One of my boxes once was in an incident and labeled as such though item was not damaged. This is how I knew it was on a train. My point of this is that more people use freight trains to ship what they need or use than actually take passenger rides on Amtrak on which is much more necessary for our economy to function. If freight trains are an issue on certain tracks, then Amtrak should get different trackage or have additional infrastructure built. I would not nor am I complaining about passenger train prioritization on freight tracks as this is the wrong approach for our country. The speed and frequency of the freight trains benefits the country more. The two do not have to conflict with each other if more passenger rail was built if it was lucrative. We need additional infrastructure. It took many years before the interstate highway system was finalized. And the transcontinental railroad also took a significant time before such was accomplished.

Every time you check train status you see claims of freight train interference. Amtrak’s wording is very misleading and deceptive. There will always be freight trains using freight tracks and until Amtrak has their own trackage and bypasses and the like, this will not change. I don’t believe that will ever happen on the entire system but improvements have and will be made over time especially on the more lucrative northeast corridor.

 

[me_little_me]

I’ve only witnessed this in Canada when riding VIA rail. If you get annoyed with how Amtrak trains are dispatched... never ride the Canadian lol.

Unlike the U.S. Government which made priority for passenger service a condition for allowing the railroads to disband their passenger service and dump it on the government, the Canadian government didn't have the brains or the will to do the same so VIA has no right to priority. It's unfortunate they made that mistake.

 

[Ryan]

If freight trains are an issue on certain tracks, then Amtrak should get different trackage or have additional infrastructure built.

Amtrak just can't go to another railroad and get different trackage, nor are they funded to just build their own in random places around the country.

Once upon a time, the freight RR's were required to continue running their freight trains because of the public benefit that moving people around the country provides. They were relieved of that responsibility with the creation of Amtrak, but with it came the obligation to host Amtrak and treat them well. They are not living up to that obligation in all cases, and the reaction to that shouldn't be to just let them get away with it and build more infrastructure to work around their malfeasance (in the places where that actually exists).

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I used to use UPS Ground which included routing packages by train at the time.

So we really should prohibit passenger vehicles from using the interstates right? They delay the trucks that are making deliveries and that’s much more important than moving people.

 

[saxman]

A 6 hour delay in one location is a lot more than UP purposely delaying Amtrak. Obviously something happened to cause the delay that was out of the dispatchers control, such as a disabled freight train. So before we grab the pitchforks, let's figure out what really went wrong. Other than disabled trains, I truly believe most host railroads want to get Amtrak moving out of the way, but in comes many externalities. Bad or inexperienced dispatchers, too many trains trying to occupy too little track, sidings not long enough will all make for late Amtrak trains. IMO, the biggest culprit is simply too little capacity. Despite our anger toward late trains, the hosts railroads do have a duty to move their freight and make money too.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

So before we grab the pitchforks, let's figure out what really went wrong.

If writing a politician is considered pitchfork level craziness then what level of advocacy is acceptable to you?

Other than disabled trains, I truly believe most host railroads want to get Amtrak moving out of the way, but in comes many externalities. Bad or inexperienced dispatchers, too many trains trying to occupy too little track, sidings not long enough will all make for late Amtrak trains.

If the freight host is not responsible for dispatching oversized trains around insufficient sidings then who is?

IMO, the biggest culprit is simply too little capacity. Despite our anger toward late trains, the hosts railroads do have a duty to move their freight and make money too.

If three trains per week is too much to ask what do you think is a more reasonable number?

 

[Cal]

A 6 hour delay in one location is a lot more than UP purposely delaying Amtrak. Obviously something happened to cause the delay that was out of the dispatchers control, such as a disabled freight train. So before we grab the pitchforks, let's figure out what really went wrong. Other than disabled trains, I truly believe most host railroads want to get Amtrak moving out of the way, but in comes many externalities. Bad or inexperienced dispatchers, too many trains trying to occupy too little track, sidings not long enough will all make for late Amtrak trains. IMO, the biggest culprit is simply too little capacity. Despite our anger toward late trains, the hosts railroads do have a duty to move their freight and make money too.

When there is a disabled freight train, Amtrak states that. They simply said freight interference in this case.

 

[Cal]

How much delays can ONE Amtrak train cause to freight? I'm curious. Someone on Youtube said it could back log dozens of trains, however I want opinions here

 

[adamj023]

I am not saying that Amtrak should not use freight rails as there is spare capacity for passenger trains. But if you want faster speeds, its advantageous to both freight and passenger trains to upgrade infrastructure.

 

[Ryan]

When there is a disabled freight train, Amtrak states that. They simply said freight interference in this case.

You're assuming everyone involved has perfect knowledge of the situation. You can't draw the inference that it wasn't a disabled freight train from the available data.

 

[Cal]

You're assuming everyone involved has perfect knowledge of the situation. You can't draw the inference that it wasn't a disabled freight train from the available data.

Fair. But every time I've seen a major delay that was most likely caused by freight interference, that's what it said. So I assumed they are correct.

 

[Exvalley]

So we really should prohibit passenger vehicles from using the interstates right? They delay the trucks that are making deliveries and that’s much more important than moving people.

Surely you understand that the logistics of sharing a highway or not the same as sharing a railway.

 

[MARC Rider]

I suspect because UP does not have as much double track on their southern transcon as BNSF does.

The reason that single track railroads work worse in this country than almost anywhere else is because of the freight railroad's insistence on running freight trains that are way longer than the length of passing loops on the route.

Oh, well ,then the regulatory solution is easy: Prohibit trains from being longer than the passing loops along the route. If the railroad wants the benefit of the longer trains, they need to pay for adequate passing loops (sidings?)

 

[adamj023]

If Amtrak knows they can’t provide service on a short route and has a long delay, they should have suspended the route by train and arranged for alternative transportation. This is not a prioritization issue at all. If I was a customer, I would have did a credit card chargeback and arranged for alternative transportation myself. But I wouodn’t have blamed freight trains for this. Amtrak knows they are selling service which runs on freight train tracks in many places. They should better communicate this to their own customers.

 

[Ryan]

The Sunset Limited is not a short route.

Your chargeback isn't likely to end well, given the terms of service you agree to when you buy a ticket:

Amtrak further specifically disclaims liability for any inconvenience, expense, or damages, incidental, consequential, punitive, lost profits, loss business or otherwise, resulting from errors in its timetable, shortages of equipment, or due to delayed trains, except when such delay causes a passenger to miss an Amtrak train guaranteed connection. When a guaranteed Amtrak train connection is missed, Amtrak will provide passenger with alternate transportation on Amtrak, another carrier, or provide overnight hotel accommodations, at Amtrak's sole discretion, but only when such circumstances resulted from the actions of Amtrak and this shall constitute Amtrak's sole liability and passenger's sole and exclusive remedy.

Also, they communicate their performance to anyone that cares to look:
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...mtrak-2019-Host-Railroad-Report-Card-FAQs.pdfhttps://www.amtrak.com/on-time-performance

 

[OBS]

Fair. But every time I've seen a major delay that was most likely caused by freight interference, that's what it said. So I assumed they are correct.

No one has ever told you what happens when you "assume"?

 

[Cal]

No one has ever told you what happens when you "assume"?

Again, fair.

 

[Trogdor]

How much delays can ONE Amtrak train cause to freight? I'm curious. Someone on Youtube said it could back log dozens of trains, however I want opinions here

It really depends on the set of assumptions going into the equation. The way freight trains operate today, as noted above, means that in many times, they are longer than certain passing sidings that were built decades ago, when trains were a lot shorter. A freight-only railroad can work around that by "fleeting" the trains for hours at a time, so all trains heading in the same direction operate for a period, then the direction reverses, and trains heading the other way can go. A train going against traffic in this hypothetical situation will kill the capacity on the line if those sidings are unusable.

If the passenger train is going against the flow of traffic, those freight trains would have to be parked in sidings possibly dozens of miles apart (depending on how far apart sidings or double track sections are that could hold a long freight train).

Going with the flow of traffic is a bit better, but passenger trains are faster than freight trains, so you either have to pull the leading freight trains over into sidings, or have the passenger train slow down to freight train speeds to stay in line. Some of this can be made up just through normal station stops on passenger trains, but not always.

A freight train is also a lot less nimble than a passenger train, so slowing down to a stop, and then getting moving again, is going to cost a lot more total time than a similar maneuver for a passenger train.

An extreme example that I recall from years ago was that the Buckingham Branch (where the Cardinal runs) typically operates long freight trains (coal trains, IIRC) in a directional one-way pair with a parallel freight route. These trains are longer than almost all the sidings on that line, but since all the freight trains are going the same way, it doesn't matter. On the days when the Cardinal operates, they have to basically shut down freight traffic for hours to allow both Cardinal trains to pass through (50 and 51 are scheduled to meet somewhere on the BB, don't recall exactly where). As the railroad isn't that heavily congested to being with, and it's only 3x/week, they handle it fine. But I recall that being a major issue during the discussions of potentially expanding the Cardinal to daily service.

 

[HammerJack]

I think it's important to understand that Amtrak is granted priority over freight operations by regulator authority and contractual agreement. Freight hosts have no right to penalize Amtrak for their own incompetence or lack of planning.

I’m not saying that I agree with their practices. I’m just saying that from a business model, freight railroads see it as okay to delay Amtrak because the penalties are small/non-existent. I was more giving an explanation rather than a defense.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

No one has ever told you what happens when you "assume"?

Which is why I presume, not assume.

 

[Cal]

It really depends on the set of assumptions going into the equation. The way freight trains operate today, as noted above, means that in many times, they are longer than certain passing sidings that were built decades ago, when trains were a lot shorter. A freight-only railroad can work around that by "fleeting" the trains for hours at a time, so all trains heading in the same direction operate for a period, then the direction reverses, and trains heading the other way can go. A train going against traffic in this hypothetical situation will kill the capacity on the line if those sidings are unusable.

If the passenger train is going against the flow of traffic, those freight trains would have to be parked in sidings possibly dozens of miles apart (depending on how far apart sidings or double track sections are that could hold a long freight train).

Going with the flow of traffic is a bit better, but passenger trains are faster than freight trains, so you either have to pull the leading freight trains over into sidings, or have the passenger train slow down to freight train speeds to stay in line. Some of this can be made up just through normal station stops on passenger trains, but not always.

A freight train is also a lot less nimble than a passenger train, so slowing down to a stop, and then getting moving again, is going to cost a lot more total time than a similar maneuver for a passenger train.

An extreme example that I recall from years ago was that the Buckingham Branch (where the Cardinal runs) typically operates long freight trains (coal trains, IIRC) in a directional one-way pair with a parallel freight route. These trains are longer than almost all the sidings on that line, but since all the freight trains are going the same way, it doesn't matter. On the days when the Cardinal operates, they have to basically shut down freight traffic for hours to allow both Cardinal trains to pass through (50 and 51 are scheduled to meet somewhere on the BB, don't recall exactly where). As the railroad isn't that heavily congested to being with, and it's only 3x/week, they handle it fine. But I recall that being a major issue during the discussions of potentially expanding the Cardinal to daily service.

Thank you!

 

[frequentflyer]

If BNSF can do it on their southern transcon, why can't UP?

I believe is double tracked from LA to El Paso. At one time UP had grand plans of competing with the BNSF's LA-CHI route (LOL).

Amtrak is part of the problem too. Watch this late SL when it arrives in Tuscon on Youtube. Tuscon is a 50 minute schedule service stop, it takes 20 minutes to refill the Genesis with one fuel truck and for INS to let Rover walk the train, yet watch a 5 hour late SL sit there for 30 minutes more. I wander if Amtrak is as concerned about time as the pax.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Surely you understand that the logistics of sharing a highway or not the same as sharing a railway.

Yes I understand that. But it’s passenger vehicles clogging up the interstates keeping deliveries from arriving on time. According to the quoted posters logic, passengers should all have to build individual roads so they don’t slow down deliveries!