Any real effort to "restore" passenger train priority?

[philabos]

Speaking of overly simplistic - even as a devout capitalist I believe it is ludicrous that the government doesn’t own the tracks. It’s not the 1800s any more. The west is as settled as it’s going to be...

While it would be ideal for Amtrak to own all the tracks, I can only imagine how much it would cost to buy them off of the freights or for Amtrak to build the tracks themselves.

Given the capital requirements of the NEC, the last thing on earth Amtrak wants is to own more track.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Given the capital requirements of the NEC, the last thing on earth Amtrak wants is to own more track.

That isn't necessarily true. Amtrak took over maintenance of quite a bit of railroad during the Boardman years. As long as capital funding is available, taking on more railroad shouldn't be an issue. Besides, the railroad wouldn't likely have the capital costs of the corridor.

 

[me_little_me]

In a nutshell, a law passed by Congress enabling development of specific performance metrics to drive enforcement of OTP regulations was found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and so here we are....

All of the regulations from previous exercises are still around regarding granting priority etc., but lacks clear cut enforcement mechanisms at this time. The enforcement mechanisms, such as the ones that exist, as described by neroden and others, are apparently considered to be too onerous even by those that have a standing to try to use them.

So the only issue is that Amtrak can't be a part of determining the rules and/or deciding if they were violated. So if the STB set up the rules with equal participation of Amtrak and RR representatives to hammer it out (or without either of them), then the STB established an independent committee to decide when Amtrak complained of being delayed by the RRs or the RRs complain that Amtrak's own problems are delaying the freights and set an appropriate penalty, this issue could be put to bed w/o new laws and would meet court requirements?

And, if the government took over the dispatching and then gave it to a third party to manage (ala FEC and AAF), then it wouldn't need to buy all the track?

Just asking.

 

[Seaboard92]

In a nutshell, a law passed by Congress enabling development of specific performance metrics to drive enforcement of OTP regulations was found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and so here we are....

All of the regulations from previous exercises are still around regarding granting priority etc., but lacks clear cut enforcement mechanisms at this time. The enforcement mechanisms, such as the ones that exist, as described by neroden and others, are apparently considered to be too onerous even by those that have a standing to try to use them.

So the only issue is that Amtrak can't be a part of determining the rules and/or deciding if they were violated. So if the STB set up the rules with equal participation of Amtrak and RR representatives to hammer it out (or without either of them), then the STB established an independent committee to decide when Amtrak complained of being delayed by the RRs or the RRs complain that Amtrak's own problems are delaying the freights and set an appropriate penalty, this issue could be put to bed w/o new laws and would meet court requirements?
And, if the government took over the dispatching and then gave it to a third party to manage (ala FEC and AAF), then it wouldn't need to buy all the track?

Just asking.

It wouldn't work because the freight companies would still run freights that are too long to fit in the hole. So you would still have to deal with that. Most delays aren't the fault of the dispatcher but whomever is managing the actual railroad (bean counters) trying to do less with more. If you eliminate the bean counters and I can promise you the railroads will be more fluid.

 

[me_little_me]

In a nutshell, a law passed by Congress enabling development of specific performance metrics to drive enforcement of OTP regulations was found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and so here we are....

All of the regulations from previous exercises are still around regarding granting priority etc., but lacks clear cut enforcement mechanisms at this time. The enforcement mechanisms, such as the ones that exist, as described by neroden and others, are apparently considered to be too onerous even by those that have a standing to try to use them.

So the only issue is that Amtrak can't be a part of determining the rules and/or deciding if they were violated. So if the STB set up the rules with equal participation of Amtrak and RR representatives to hammer it out (or without either of them), then the STB established an independent committee to decide when Amtrak complained of being delayed by the RRs or the RRs complain that Amtrak's own problems are delaying the freights and set an appropriate penalty, this issue could be put to bed w/o new laws and would meet court requirements?
And, if the government took over the dispatching and then gave it to a third party to manage (ala FEC and AAF), then it wouldn't need to buy all the track?

Just asking.

It wouldn't work because the freight companies would still run freights that are too long to fit in the hole. So you would still have to deal with that. Most delays aren't the fault of the dispatcher but whomever is managing the actual railroad (bean counters) trying to do less with more. If you eliminate the bean counters and I can promise you the railroads will be more fluid.

Then, again, those long freights could be required to sit in the yards until the passenger and short freights went through.

 

[railbuck]

And, if the government took over the dispatching and then gave it to a third party to manage (ala FEC and AAF), then it wouldn't need to buy all the track?
Just asking.

It wouldn't work because the freight companies would still run freights that are too long to fit in the hole. So you would still have to deal with that. Most delays aren't the fault of the dispatcher but whomever is managing the actual railroad (bean counters) trying to do less with more. If you eliminate the bean counters and I can promise you the railroads will be more fluid.

If the government took over dispatching, it could require that no train be longer than the shortest siding on its route.

As a side benefit, the resulting construction of siding extensions would create jobs.

 

[frequentflyer]

BNSF years ago stated moving Amtrak across there system on time was profitable because of the bonuses and it was no cost to BNSF for manpower or equipment. Do not know if that is still case for BNSF.

Its time for Amtrak to up the payment to the railroads. Then Amtrak can dictate penalties for non conforming performance. The flip side is that throws the economics of LDTs out of whack.

I work in Logistics and UPS moves a lot of time sensitive ground and Three Day Air packages via container trains in the US. One example is a container train that goes from the UPS hub outside of Dallas to Chicago. An Amtrak train will sit in the hole for that UPS train to pass. BNSF will not delay that train. You get what you pay for, if Amtrak wants to be treated premium, they have to pay for it.

And please stop bringing up, "the government gave the railroads land grants two hundred years ago, the railroads owe the government" argument. Its embarrassing. Or, " the government did the railroads a favor taking over passenger service, so the railroads owe to the government to run trains on time", no.........no the freight railroads do not owe any favors to the government.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Its time for Amtrak to up the payment to the railroads. Then Amtrak can dictate penalties for nonconforming performance… You get what you pay for, if Amtrak wants to be treated premium, they have to pay for it.[

How much is Amtrak paying now? How much more should they be forced to pay in the future?

And please stop bringing up, "the government gave the railroads land grants two hundred years ago, the railroads owe the government" argument. Its embarrassing. Or, " the government did the railroads a favor taking over passenger service, so the railroads owe to the government to run trains on time", no.........no the freight railroads do not owe any favors to the government.

Part of the agreement of taking over passenger services was that host railroads were expected to give Amtrak priority over their own freight movements. This makes sense since passenger trains are generally permitted faster speeds and are expected to run tighter schedules than freight. You can call that a "favor" if you want but that doesn't change the fundamental premise or expectation. Which leaves me wondering, why should Amtrak be forced to pay a premium just to maintain the schedules upon which they and their freight hosts have already agreed?

 

[frequentflyer]

Its time for Amtrak to up the payment to the railroads. Then Amtrak can dictate penalties for nonconforming performance… You get what you pay for, if Amtrak wants to be treated premium, they have to pay for it.[

How much is Amtrak paying now? How much more should they be forced to pay in the future?

And please stop bringing up, "the government gave the railroads land grants two hundred years ago, the railroads owe the government" argument. Its embarrassing. Or, " the government did the railroads a favor taking over passenger service, so the railroads owe to the government to run trains on time", no.........no the freight railroads do not owe any favors to the government.

Part of the agreement of taking over passenger services was that host railroads were expected to give Amtrak priority over their own freight movements. This makes sense since passenger trains are generally permitted faster speeds and are expected to run tighter schedules than freight. You can call that a "favor" if you want but that doesn't change the fundamental premise or expectation. Which leaves me wondering, why should Amtrak be forced to pay a premium just to maintain the schedules upon which they and their freight hosts have already agreed?

This has nothing to with scheduling and everything to do with compensation. You get what you pay for and treated as such.

 

[west point]

Now if Congress required the freight RRs to take over all present Amtrak trains and run them on time ?

 

[jis]

As far as I know there was no sunset date for the passenger priority commitment that the freight railroads made in the NRPC Act which allowed them to unburden themselves of passenger trains. So it is now a bit disingenuous to say that extra money is need to keep a commitment made. Sounds like Mafia style bait and switch if you ask me. The hands of the freight railroads are not as clean as it is being made out to be, perhaps out of ignorance of how we got here in the first place.

 

[frequentflyer]

As far as I know there was no sunset date for the passenger priority commitment that the freight railroads made in the NRPC Act which allowed them to unburden themselves of passenger trains. So it is now a bit disingenuous to say that extra money is need to keep a commitment made. Sounds like Mafia style bait and switch if you ask me. The hands of the freight railroads are not as clean as it is being made out to be, perhaps out of ignorance of how we got here in the first place.

I keep reading reference to a law or aspect of a law that Amtrak is suppose to have priority. Then it must not have any teeth. Because if it did this would not be a topic of conversation.

 

[jis]

Any law has only as much teeth as enforcers are willing to give it.

We have had discussions here before about Amtrak choosing to ignore some laws that are inconvenient too.

Freight railroads have always found that law to be inconvenient and have mounted a concerted effort to undermine it, and apparently have won many converts. That is one way to remove teeth from the law, basically remove all constituents that may care enough to do anything about it. Actually the law was somewhat diluted in early 21st century, but still the priority for passenger law is in place and undermined at every opportunity under many pretexts by the freight railroads, duly cheered on by their large army of apologists. That is the way these things work.

 

[frequentflyer]

Any law has only as much teeth as enforcers are willing to give it.

We have had discussions here before about Amtrak choosing to ignore some laws that are inconvenient too.

Freight railroads have always found that law to be inconvenient and have mounted a concerted effort to undermine it, and apparently have won many converts. That is one way to remove teeth from the law, basically remove all constituents that may care enough to do anything about it. Actually the law was somewhat diluted in early 21st century, but still the priority for passenger law is in place and undermined at every opportunity under many pretexts by the freight railroads, duly cheered on by their large army of apologists. That is the way these things work.

I don't disagree with anything you state, with that said the question is why Amtrak have not pursued this with more vigor? ( To keep good relations with the freight RRs, not enough money in the budget to litigate, etc............)

To be a fly on the wall when someone tells Anderson its actually the law that Amtrak have priority over freight trains.

 

[jis]

Anderson knows about it as did Moorman, both impressions gleaned from personal face to face conversation with those two gentlemen.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Its time for Amtrak to up the payment to the railroads. Then Amtrak can dictate penalties for nonconforming performance… You get what you pay for, if Amtrak wants to be treated premium, they have to pay for it.[

How much is Amtrak paying now? How much more should they be forced to pay in the future?

And please stop bringing up, "the government gave the railroads land grants two hundred years ago, the railroads owe the government" argument. Its embarrassing. Or, " the government did the railroads a favor taking over passenger service, so the railroads owe to the government to run trains on time", no.........no the freight railroads do not owe any favors to the government.

Part of the agreement of taking over passenger services was that host railroads were expected to give Amtrak priority over their own freight movements. This makes sense since passenger trains are generally permitted faster speeds and are expected to run tighter schedules than freight. You can call that a "favor" if you want but that doesn't change the fundamental premise or expectation. Which leaves me wondering, why should Amtrak be forced to pay a premium just to maintain the schedules upon which they and their freight hosts have already agreed?

This has nothing to with scheduling and everything to do with compensation. You get what you pay for and treated as such.

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. How can you expect to win people over with vague deflections and tired cliches? For someone who works in logistics this seems like some really low effort reasoning.

 

[user 14106]

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Court-ruling-allows-Amtrak-FRA-to-set-on-time-standards--55175

 

[jis]

Report from Trains about the court ruling:

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/07/20-court-ruling-opens-door-for-fra-amtrak-to-establish-on-time-performance-metrics

 

[railiner]

But it mentions that more appeals process is open to the railroads...this can drag on for who knows how long....

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I work in Logistics and UPS moves a lot of time sensitive ground and Three Day Air packages via container trains in the US. One example is a container train that goes from the UPS hub outside of Dallas to Chicago. An Amtrak train will sit in the hole for that UPS train to pass. BNSF will not delay that train. You get what you pay for, if Amtrak wants to be treated premium, they have to pay for it.

One wonders if UPS is paying correctly for there trains. It seem if a train is force in a sliding for another train. There is limited capacity on said rail line.

Of course UPS has more business available, multiple routes available, and multiple modes of transportation available. So they can bully the provider to give them solid service. If you dont run our train between Dallas to Chicago in this time frame, we will take away your LAX to Chicago business.

Dont forget the attacks on the US Postal Service. If they raise rates on Amazon then so can FedEx and UPS.

I do recall one railroad officer claim he made more money on one UPS container then he made from an Amtrak train.

This statement is completely bunk. Profit are available in moving freight but efficient is key. First and Last mile is not cheap. Leaves little for a intermodal provider. Was talk to a random BNSF guy about how to be more efficient with technology in trucks. My story is we already have automatic trucks it call intermodal. He complained on the cost of terminals. I explained the intermodal trucks work on a 250 mile range, out and back. Lack of terminal was holding it back. I work out of Liberal or Dodge City Kansas. No intermodal yard within 250 miles. Therefore no intermodal transportation.

So in recap I dont think UPS is paying for the capacity they are using. Its just them bullying themselves onto the railroad.

 

[Thirdrail7]

But it mentions that more appeals process is open to the railroads...this can drag on for who knows how long....

Until the lawyers bankrupt one side or the other?

 

[Thirdrail7]

The last thing I heard is the FRA was trying to come up with a policy. However, the freight lobby is also on the case, making their presence felt...just as they did with this ruling.

Well, here is the latest attempt to establish metrics. The comment period for future part 273 (if it passes) ends 6/1/20.


Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service

Highlights are included in the STB OTP Rule-Making thread, but please note, this proposed rulemaking is not limited to OTP. There are also amendments to the Customer Service metrics that already exist in PRIIA. If I'm reading this correctly, instead of it being lumped into one metric and averaged out, it will have numerous subcategories that will now stand alone as part of the index. Examples include subcategories for onboard cleanliness and onboard food, which were previously lumped together under a single CSI score.


Feel free to post your thoughts on the FRA website.