Help me understand the "Host Railroads" issues with Amtrak.

[ArchBishop]

I understand that most Amtrak trains run on somebody else's track. I can even understand that a host railroad may not like it when the Amtrak train stops at stations so they have to work around that.

What I don't understand is Amtrak is a paying customer, why is a paying customer treated so bad in some places. I'm sorry but I just don't get it. So why do the Host Railroads despise Amtrak so much?

 

[NW cannonball]

I understand that most Amtrak trains run on somebody else's track. I can even understand that a host railroad may not like it when the Amtrak train stops at stations so they have to work around that.

What I don't understand is Amtrak is a paying customer, why is a paying customer treated so bad in some places. I'm sorry but I just don't get it. So why do the Host Railroads despise Amtrak so much?

The "host railroads" are regional monopolies.

They treat all the "paying customers" as badly as they can get away with.

Including Amtrak.

 

[Paulus]

Amtrak is paying significantly below market rate and frequently, often due to its own failings, arrives late and out of slot, which snarls rail traffic. This is generally the entirety of the so-called hostility by Class Is; note that the trains with the best OTP record (Capitol Corridor) run on UP trackage, which is supposed to be the most hostile.

 

[rrdude]

Host, well some of them, think of Amtrak as a "virus" that just won't go away. Tracks that see passenger service have to be inspected weekly, vs less than weekly for freight. (thou this distinction is fading fast, as tracks can be inspected much, much, faster, and in more detail with computers today) But it's still a pain.

Like other posters noted, Amtrak "gets in the way" of the hosts schedule, whenever Amtrak goes "off schedule".

I believe, but am open to correction, that Amtrak pays "below market value" for the time/space spent on host track.

Amtrak issues can, sometimes, give the hosts RR a black eye when it comes to publicity. And vice-verca.

Generally, right or wrong, host RR just see Amtrak as a "fly in the ointment". Some, obviously, are friendlier than others to Amtrak, I think that comes from a Top Down mentality. Since so few railroaders at the exec level today ever had anything to do with running fast, famous, iconic passenger trains, that "Top Down" mentality towards Pax trains will tend to go south, rather than north.

 

[battalion51]

A lot can vary depending on dispatchers too. Some dispatchers work the same territory for years, so they know what they can and can't get away with, and where good meets will happen. Other dispatchers may only work that territory once in awhile when the regular guy is on vacation or out for training, so they don't have the same comfort level with territory. I know this is much more a micro issue, but it can make a huge difference.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Passenger trains take up two freight train slots. (General speaking)

Passenger trains pay on a perform bases. While intermittent stopping mean something. Freight does not care how many times it stops, as long as it get to the end point when it should.

Freight railroad have stated that a single box of United Parcel Service makes them more money than the whole passenger train does. (Complete BS, but that was a UP CEO that nobody corrected or challenged.)

People/Stockholders ride the trains and can see the inner works of a company and ask hard questions.

Amtrak has track standards.

 

[BCL]

I understand that most Amtrak trains run on somebody else's track. I can even understand that a host railroad may not like it when the Amtrak train stops at stations so they have to work around that.

What I don't understand is Amtrak is a paying customer, why is a paying customer treated so bad in some places. I'm sorry but I just don't get it. So why do the Host Railroads despise Amtrak so much?

Stopping at stations is rarely a problem for the freight railroads. They don't own them. Most are owned by some entity like a city or regional authority.

The issue is that by law they're required to let Amtrak use their tracks and Amtrak doesn't pay a whole lot for that use. By law Amtrak is supposed to have the highest priority, even though freight traffic is basically how the railroad companies make money. There are supposed to be fines for failure to give priority, but they resist it. It's also difficult to find a siding for a freight train that might be a mile long. So for practical reasons and for

It's getting better with some of the railroads. It was bad around 2006-7. Back then Union Pacific would constantly delay the Coast Starlight in favor of freight traffic. Some found themselves stuck for hours.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/COAST-STARLIGHT-LOSING-ITS-LUSTER-The-train-2491613.php

But Alan Miller, also with the Train Riders Association of California, said Union Pacific is failing to uphold an agreement with Amtrak and the federal government to give Amtrak trains priority on the track. This agreement, part of the 1970s negotiations that allowed Union Pacific to discontinue its passenger rail service, requires Union Pacific to give Amtrak trains the right of way.

Because right of way is determined by Union Pacific dispatchers in Omaha, Neb., advocacy groups say there is no way to be sure that Union Pacific actually is giving Amtrak priority over freight.Passengers who rode the train late last week reported seeing so many freight trains pass them by, they thought the freights had the automatic right of way.

Passengers who rode the train late last week reported seeing so many freight trains pass them by, they thought the freights had the automatic right of way.

I've talked to some conductors who said it was much better, but back then they suspected that UP was intentionally giving Amtrak the shaft because they resented the supposed priority for passenger traffic.

 

[SANSR]

It's also difficult to find a siding for a freight train that might be a mile long.

That is an interesting and logical factoid and one that most of us probably hadn't considered. Residing 'in the hole' as the I understand the phrase and waiting for authorization to proceed seems to align with the passenger operation over the freight operation, perhaps for this very issue of siding short comings. No pun intended.

 

[PerRock]

The issue is that by law they're required to let Amtrak use their tracks and Amtrak doesn't pay a whole lot for that use. By law Amtrak is supposed to have the highest priority, even though freight traffic is basically how the railroad companies make money. There are supposed to be fines for failure to give priority, but they resist it. It's also difficult to find a siding for a freight train that might be a mile long. So for practical reasons and for

It's getting better with some of the railroads. It was bad around 2006-7. Back then Union Pacific would constantly delay the Coast Starlight in favor of freight traffic. Some found themselves stuck for hours.

Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe another issue (especially back in 06-07) was that there really isn't much government oversight to ensure that the host railways give Amtrak priority. The Surface Transportation Board would be the ones responsible for enforcing the law (to my understanding.)

Stopping at stations is rarely a problem for the freight railroads. They don't own them. Most are owned by some entity like a city or regional authority.

While the stations are owned by lots of different organizations, the tracks the train stops on (where really this issue comes up) are still owned by the host RR. And actually I believe the bulk of the stations are still partially owned by the host RRs, the buildings themselves may be owned by the local government or Amtrak, but the property is owned by the host, at the very least usually the platforms are on 'rented' property.

peter

 

[henryj]

When Amtrak was formed over 40 years ago the railroads had excess capacity so the rates that Amtrak paid were a plus for them even if they were below market. Now most of the lines are at or exceeding capacity so the slot that Amtrak takes costs them money as it's a slot they could be running a freight train in. In addition, freight trains run at a slower, sometimes much slower speed than a passenger train so the passing of a passenger train down the line disrupts traffic continually as it negotiates it's route as not only do opposing trains have to be out of the way, but it is catching up to slower freights which have to be sidetracked to let Amtrak by. This causes the freight crew to lose time and it cost the railroad more money. With all the mergers, many railroads now use different lines for directional running. Amtrak, since it has to make certain stops at passenger stations, has to run against the grain of traffic on those lines to get to it's station stop. All this disrupts the flow of traffic for a private freight railroad and costs them money. People on here bad mouth the freight railroads all the time, but they are in business to make money, not run a charity system for the few trains that Amtrak runs. Having said all that, the freight railroads are not opposed to Amtrak if the are reimbursed for what their track time is worth. And there lies the crux of the problem. Amtrak has no money to pay for what it wants and even if it did, could they charge enough in ticket revenue to pay for it.

 

[me_little_me]

When the railroads gave up passenger service, they were required to cooperate as part of the agreement. They have long since forgotten their commitment as they expected Amtrak to be long gone.

http://history.amtrak.com/archives/rail-passenger-service-act-of-1970/@@download/item/Rail%20Passenger%20Service%20Act%20of%201970.pdf

 

[BCL]

It's also difficult to find a siding for a freight train that might be a mile long.

That is an interesting and logical factoid and one that most of us probably hadn't considered. Residing 'in the hole' as the I understand the phrase and waiting for authorization to proceed seems to align with the passenger operation over the freight operation, perhaps for this very issue of siding short comings. No pun intended.

Someone apparently has to pay for the siding too.

There was a siding finished in 2009 that was 9000 ft long and built at the cost of about $8 million paid for by Missouri and the federal government.

New siding eliminates Amtrak, UP bottleneck in Missouri

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/New-siding-eliminates-Amtrak-UP-bottleneck-in-Missouri--22136

Yesterday, Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), Union Pacific Railroad and Amtrak officials marked the opening of an $8.1 million, 9,000-foot siding on a UP line used by Amtrak Missouri River Runner trains between Kansas City and St. Louis.

Located near California, Mo., the siding will eliminate a bottleneck between UP coal trains and Amtrak passenger trains on a 25-mile stretch of single track. The state of Missouri provided $4.8 million and the Federal Railroad Administration, $3.3 million for the project.

The siding also will help reduce Amtrak train delays, perhaps by about 17 percent annually, according to the national intercity passenger railroad. A MoDOT-commissioned study conducted by the University of Missouri had determined that building a siding in the single-track area would reduce passenger train delays. MoDOT, Amtrak and UP plan to make similar infrastructure improvements in the Knob Noster and Strasburg areas.

 

[Shortline]

When the railroads gave up passenger service, they were required to cooperate as part of the agreement. They have long since forgotten their commitment as they expected Amtrak to be long gone.

http://history.amtrak.com/archives/rail-passenger-service-act-of-1970/@@download/item/Rail%20Passenger%20Service%20Act%20of%201970.pdf

I can't pull up that body cited reference, but wasn't that law effective for a 25 year period, and therefore expired as of 1996?

 

[George Harris]

It's also difficult to find a siding for a freight train that might be a mile long.

That is an interesting and logical factoid and one that most of us probably hadn't considered. Residing 'in the hole' as the I understand the phrase and waiting for authorization to proceed seems to align with the passenger operation over the freight operation, perhaps for this very issue of siding short comings. No pun intended.

As a blanket statement, this is simply not true. Most single track lines with any volume of two way traffic will have sidings over a mile long at fairly frequent intervals.

As has been noted, for lines with any significant grades the passenger train average speed will be significantly higher than average freight train speeds. This is particularly true for lines where the main freight flow is heavy mineral and commodity trains. Much less so where the majority of the traffic is high value container traffic. When there is a great disparity is speed the issue becomes following a slow freight until a reasonable passing point is reached.

The California "Capital Corridor" Yes this line has a fairly high volume of passenger trains on a UP main line. However, a few things make sure these trains are treated well: First the state has put quite a bit of money in upgrades with part of the conditions being that the passenger trains be treated as a priority. Second, the terrain is near flat, so that there is not the problem of grades slowing down the freight trains. Third, it is two main tracks throughout, with bidirectional signaling. There is therefore no going into sidings for meets.

The California Missouri siding: I believe that the UP line west of Jefferson City is effectively paired tracks, with one line parallel to the Missouri River and the other being the one more cross country which is the one passing through California. Back in MoPac days, the river line carried most of the freight and the direct line the passenger trains. I think this is no longer the case but one direction goes on the direct line. I am not really sure. Regardless, sidings on the line used by the passenger trains were few and far between. The cost probably involved a lot more than track and turnouts. It may have involved quite a bit of earthwork, and maybe a bridge. This is fairly hilly terrain.

Amtrak is at times their own worst enemy. Better reliability of their own equipment would go a long way to make the host railroads happier.

When UP was doing such a miserable job of handling passenger trains, these were mostly on former Southern Pacific lines. Their maintenance had been neglected as far as they dared so that breakdowns were frequent. The track conditions on these lines was at best marginal for the traffic being carried, so the least problem could really snarl things up. I have heard, but do not know how true it is that UP fired many of the SP side managers and sent in their own people. Since UP has for many years been a well maintained and operated railroad with little to no arrears in maintenance of anything, these guys had no idea of how to operate a railroad that was essentially held together with string and duct tape.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Amtrak was formed in 1971 with the idea that passenger trains, except for the Northeast Corridor and commuter trains would be gone in 10 years or less. Amtrak has managed to stay alive, sometimes just barely to the chagrin of freight railroads for soon to be 43 years. As has been stated the freight railroads were smaller and had more capacity. Through mergers and consolidations, we have the major railroads today own by shareholders that demand profits. Passenger trains, as they were over 43 years ago, are not part of that equation.

 

[andersone]

Size matters in sidings?

 

[Johnny_Long]

Size matters in sidings?

If the siding is long enough, the train doesn't even have to come to a complete stop while the other train passes on the main track.

 

[jis]

More importantly if the siding is not long enough to hold the long freight train then it is the short Amtrak train that goes in the hole while the long freight train trundles by slowly or even at a moderate speed. Add to that long signal blocks and you have a formula for Amtrak trains to spend very significant time sitting in sidings.

 

[cirdan]

Also, one shouldn't automatically assume a railroad is intentionally giving Amtrak the shaft. People get restless when a train is stopped in the middle of nowhere, and become more aware of what's going on around them. They automatically assume every stop is unplanned and therefore contributing to the train's delay. When an Amtrak train stops to allow a freight to pass, that is perceived as freight being given the priority while the schedule goes south (although in fact the schedule may actually include an allowance for that and there is no reason to worry). When the opposite happens and a freight sits in the hole as Amtrak thunders past, most passeners probably don't even notice if they're not keenly following what's going on, and may not be aware that freight trains have schedules too and that Amtrak may actually be causing freight trains to be late. So there is an observation bias towards assuming Amtrak is being treated second class and that the freight railroad is getting having their way, even when this isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Guest]

More importantly if the siding is not long enough to hold the long freight train then it is the short Amtrak train that goes in the hole while the long freight train trundles by slowly or even at a moderate speed.

I thought the Amtrak train is always the one that the host railroad puts into the siding.

 

[jis]

More importantly if the siding is not long enough to hold the long freight train then it is the short Amtrak train that goes in the hole while the long freight train trundles by slowly or even at a moderate speed.

I thought the Amtrak train is always the one that the host railroad puts into the siding.

No. That is not true at all. Though it is true that when an Amtrak train gets placed in the siding, the uninitiated notice it, whereas when it thunders by freight trains parked in the siding very few notice it. The latter is the more common occurrence. Otherwise Amtrak trains would consistently be days late.

 

[BCL]

Size matters in sidings?

If the siding is long enough, the train doesn't even have to come to a complete stop while the other train passes on the main track.

I thought that sidings were often installed with lighter rails meant for lower speeds, to save on costs. Even if it could timed perfectly, I don't think a short freight train would be able to keep momentum through a siding at normal speed without risk of damaging the rails.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I thought that sidings were often installed with lighter rails meant for lower speeds, to save on costs. Even if it could timed perfectly, I don't think a short freight train would be able to keep momentum through a siding at normal speed without risk of damaging the rails.

We didn't say they maintained full track speed in the siding, we merely said they didn't come to a complete stop. If they do come to a complete stop, they have to get that whole train moving again from a dead stop- overcoming stopped inertia. If they were moving, even at a substantially reduced speed, it takes much less time and a lot less energy.

 

[George Harris]

Size matters in sidings?

If the siding is long enough, the train doesn't even have to come to a complete stop while the other train passes on the main track.

I thought that sidings were often installed with lighter rails meant for lower speeds, to save on costs. Even if it could timed perfectly, I don't think a short freight train would be able to keep momentum through a siding at normal speed without risk of damaging the rails.

Re: damage to rails: Not so. Speed of train is sidings is normally limited by the allowed speed through the turnout from the main line into the siding. Therefore, that is the speed limit on the siding track. It would be pointless for it to be higher. The track in the siding is maintained for that speed or higher, but rail is only part of it. Tie condition and deviations in alignment also come into play. The FRA has a set of standards for track quality for various speeds. Most passenger carrying main lines these days have maximum speed limits of 79P/60F. This requires the track be maintained to FRA class 4, which is 80P60F. The general philosophy is to main the track to one class higher to avoid frequent application of slow orders. Class 5 permits 90P/80F. The reason for 79 instead of 80 is a requirement for additional controls in the signal system to run "80 mph or faster"

Rails in siding are normally rails that were in mainlines for many years and then taken out due to wear or defects. The defects and higher wear areas are cut out and the rail then placed in tracks with less usage and lower speeds. Normally when relaid, the side of the rail that had been toward the center of the track is places to be on the outside so that the sidewear will be on the other side of the head. The current standard for rail to be laid in mainlines is 136 lb/yard or 141 lb/yd. Some lessser traffic volume lines may be given 115 lb/yd. For example, the new rail placed in Vermont on the route of the Vermonter was 115 lb/yd. The rail in sidings will normally be 115 lb/yd or less, but usually no less than 100 lb/yd. It may be between 40 and 60 years old or more. However, it is still capable of carrying fully loaded freight trains. The rate at which rail has been purchased for installation in track in North America over the last 50 plus years averages out to give a total life in track of rail of about 100 years. This is not unreasonable.

I have quoted rails by weight per yard, which is the usual way rail is described. However there have been many shapes, most of which look to be the same to the casual observer for their weights. The sections mentioned above are all sections designed by the AREMA (the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association), and are generally referred to as 115RE, 136RE, 141RE with some lessons learned on best shape of the wheel-rail contact zone. All these shapes listed are the result of many years of usage and refinements of rail shape and size, in fact the 141RE is essentially a refinement of the best qualities of 132RE, 133RE, 136RE, and 140RE. Books have been written on the subject of rails, although hardly best sellers. An attempt to list all rails used in North America has several hundred sections, and is not really a complete list.

And all this is not even getting into standard rail shapes used in other countries.

 

[rrdude]

Ha! The shortline I used to be involved with had mostly 80LB rail!