Justice Department Lawsuit about Amtrak priority

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It is strange that running any kind of priority train is so difficult in the current railroad environment, not only passenger trains but hotshot freights, which the railroads have given up on as stated in the article. Years ago this was commonplace, not only passenger trains but freight trains carrying livestock or refrigerated goods etc. I guess one difference is the reduction in infrastructure such as removal of double track, abandonment of parallel routes, etc. Although we also have better technology such as radios and CTC. I wonder if it is also something about the culture of railroading now, that getting a train somewhere on time is not valued as much since most freight is considered low priority.
 
It is strange that running any kind of priority train is so difficult in the current railroad environment, not only passenger trains but hotshot freights, which the railroads have given up on as stated in the article. Years ago this was commonplace, not only passenger trains but freight trains carrying livestock or refrigerated goods etc. I guess one difference is the reduction in infrastructure such as removal of double track, abandonment of parallel routes, etc. Although we also have better technology such as radios and CTC. I wonder if it is also something about the culture of railroading now, that getting a train somewhere on time is not valued as much since most freight is considered low priority.
Isn't this what Precision Scheduled Railroading is all about? If so, the freight railroads are certainly executing it very poorly.
 
Isn't this what Precision Scheduled Railroading is all about? If so, the freight railroads are certainly executing it very poorly.
I think the name is deliberately deceptive. You would think it has something to do with optimizing scheduling so that trains (including passenger trains and high-priority freight) get to their destinations with the shortest possible delay, minimizing wait times, yard waits and switching. Instead the "precision" is all about maximizing short-term ROI, at the expense of customer and employee satisfaction, and using as much OPM as possible. It is very much penny-wise and pound-foolish.
 
It is strange that running any kind of priority train is so difficult in the current railroad environment, not only passenger trains but hotshot freights, which the railroads have given up on as stated in the article. Years ago this was commonplace, not only passenger trains but freight trains carrying livestock or refrigerated goods etc. I guess one difference is the reduction in infrastructure such as removal of double track, abandonment of parallel routes, etc. Although we also have better technology such as radios and CTC. I wonder if it is also something about the culture of railroading now, that getting a train somewhere on time is not valued as much since most freight is considered low priority.

The article, from FreightWaves/Trains-com, doesn't say all priority trains are gone. I guess that agrees with what you wrote, but to clarify:
BNSF Railway parted the waters for the once-weekly UPS hotshot that left Los Angeles on a Monday and was due in New Jersey by Friday. BNSF determined that the delays the bullet train inflicted on the rest of its traffic were unacceptable. Norfolk Southern reached the same conclusion after its participation in the test runs east of Chicago. Union Pacific picked up the baton, however, and ran the service for a few months in conjunction with CSX. But UP threw in the towel, too, due to the collateral damage the hotshot caused to the rest of UP’s traffic, including its high-priority Z trains.

Livestock and cold goods: is this new? The Norfolk Southern web site does say it ships cold goods. But under agricultural, just grains and fertilizer and ethanol. I could have sworn I saw a bunch of livestock cars on a NS or CSX siding yesterday in rural Virginia (the sky was something after Storm Debbie passed), but maybe they were not is use. A few years ago I came across a big storage lot of reefer containers in Norfolk, stacked, some with live electrical hookups.

Or maybe I don't know what a livestock car looks like. This picture is from the CSX web site, and is what I saw. But sure enough, if you click it, no livestock is mentioned:
maybe-livestock-car.png

It is odd to see fuel delivered to the big NS yard in Norfolk at Lamberts Point by tractor trailer. Makes sense I guess.

Norfolk to Columbus OH is almost exactly two days on NS, while it's a nine hour drive. I also could have sworn a few years ago I saw the NS web site promoting certain fast routes, but I don't see it now.
 
Last edited:
There needs to be some kind of formula for all trains on any district to not be longer than the shortest siding on that district. The number of and distance between sidings needs a formula depending on number of trains operating on a district. Sidings need to be long enough for a following train to pass a slower train if that kind of traffic is on that district. Amtrak trains are a definite example..
 
There needs to be some kind of formula for all trains on any district to not be longer than the shortest siding on that district. The number of and distance between sidings needs a formula depending on number of trains operating on a district. Sidings need to be long enough for a following train to pass a slower train if that kind of traffic is on that district. Amtrak trains are a definite example..
I don't think a formula can or does exist. Mathematically (I am not a mathematician), I think the problem can be solved by modeling the network (or a portion of it) and adding or removing sidings on single-track segments and stochastically modelling the effects on traffic and costs for various situations. The situations should be normal (short train has to wait for long train because of bad timing), typical problems (cascading effects of a late train or minor equipment problem like an engine that won't start, but there are multiple engines or heat delays or missed slots), critical (derailment that doesn't rip up the tracks, disabled train on a single-track segment, grade-crossing collisions) or catastrophic (major derailment like East Palestine, bridge or tunnel collapse or fire, etc.) Then the model has to evaluate various improvements, such as longer or additional sidings, double tracking, adding signaling for dark territory, improving track or signaling to allow faster trains, etc.)

The costs of delays needs to be evaluated and include repayments to customers for missed deliveries or missed connections (including hotels), medical, damage and cleanup costs for collisions and derailments, opportunity costs for when a route is out of service, and HUGE FINES for delaying passenger trains (looking at you, FRA and whatever government regulatory agencies are involved. There are also externalized costs, such as the costs paid by drivers and truckers waiting at grade crossings for 2-mile-long, 20 MPH freight trains to clear the crossing (time, fuel, etc.) The railroads should be accountable for externalized costs.

The costs of improvements are highly variable, depending on whether single-track line was formerly double-tracked and the ROW hasn't been encroached on or sold off, whether the bridges and embankments are still adequate or need upgrading, etc. Definitely NOT a single cost-per-mile, some improvements cost many times as much as similar improvements at other locations.

The benefits of improvements are much more than risk reduction. Faster trains means crews get paid less or can go greater distances before timing out. Existing infrastructure can be used more efficiently reducing fuel costs. Railroads should be charged for externalized costs, but also be rewarded for externalize benefits like reduced pollution (vs trucks or planes), and lowering their carbon footprint. If a carbon-tax or carbon-credits system were introduced (which I think is inevitable over the next decade or two), these benefits would accrue naturally to any business that improved its resource usage efficiency.

I'm sure large railroads have used such models for decades, but they've probably misused them to over-simplify and increase quarterly profitability over long-term sustainability. (Guy in a top hat and monocle: "If we tear up the second tracks on all our lines and don't do any maintenance, our profits will soar until everything collapses, and then well demand a bailout. What's not to like? How much will we save in expenses until bad stuff happens? Do it!")

Done ranting for a while...
 
The article, from FreightWaves/Trains-com, doesn't say all priority trains are gone. I guess that agrees with what you wrote, but to clarify:


Livestock and cold goods: is this new? The Norfolk Southern web site does say it ships cold goods. But under agricultural, just grains and fertilizer and ethanol. I could have sworn I saw a bunch of livestock cars on a NS or CSX siding yesterday in rural Virginia (the sky was something after Storm Debbie passed), but maybe they were not is use. A few years ago I came across a big storage lot of reefer containers in Norfolk, stacked, some with live electrical hookups.

Or maybe I don't know what a livestock car looks like. This picture is from the CSX web site, and is what I saw. But sure enough, if you click it, no livestock is mentioned:
View attachment 37415

It is odd to see fuel delivered to the big NS yard in Norfolk at Lamberts Point by tractor trailer. Makes sense I guess.

Norfolk to Columbus OH is almost exactly two days on NS, while it's a nine hour drive. I also could have sworn a few years ago I saw the NS web site promoting certain fast routes, but I don't see it now.
The picture is for auto racks rail cars. They might be two or three levels inside. No live cattle for quite sometime. Even fresh produce was dropped a few years back. Frozen foods only. Still see a lot of McDees french fries on the rail. That’s more about volume than service. A box car can carry three truck loads of products. (Generally)
 
The article, from FreightWaves/Trains-com, doesn't say all priority trains are gone. I guess that agrees with what you wrote, but to clarify:


Livestock and cold goods: is this new? The Norfolk Southern web site does say it ships cold goods. But under agricultural, just grains and fertilizer and ethanol. I could have sworn I saw a bunch of livestock cars on a NS or CSX siding yesterday in rural Virginia (the sky was something after Storm Debbie passed), but maybe they were not is use. A few years ago I came across a big storage lot of reefer containers in Norfolk, stacked, some with live electrical hookups.

Or maybe I don't know what a livestock car looks like. This picture is from the CSX web site, and is what I saw. But sure enough, if you click it, no livestock is mentioned:
View attachment 37415

It is odd to see fuel delivered to the big NS yard in Norfolk at Lamberts Point by tractor trailer. Makes sense I guess.

Norfolk to Columbus OH is almost exactly two days on NS, while it's a nine hour drive. I also could have sworn a few years ago I saw the NS web site promoting certain fast routes, but I don't see it now.
That photo looks to me like an auto-carrier car. I didn't know livestock were not transported by rail any longer. Those cars had horizontal slats and sliding doors of the same slats and plenty of space between slats. A friend from SD tells of riding trains with their cattle in those cars in the 1950s and they would stop and let the cattle off to graze in a pasture by the track. During that time they may have cleaned the cars a bit, but I didn't inquire about that.
 
I don't think a formula can or does exist. Mathematically (I am not a mathematician), I think the problem can be solved by modeling the network (or a portion of it) and adding or removing sidings on single-track segments and stochastically modelling the effects on traffic and costs for various situations. The situations should be normal (short train has to wait for long train because of bad timing), typical problems (cascading effects of a late train or minor equipment problem like an engine that won't start, but there are multiple engines or heat delays or missed slots), critical (derailment that doesn't rip up the tracks, disabled train on a single-track segment, grade-crossing collisions) or catastrophic (major derailment like East Palestine, bridge or tunnel collapse or fire, etc.) Then the model has to evaluate various improvements, such as longer or additional sidings, double tracking, adding signaling for dark territory, improving track or signaling to allow faster trains, etc.)

The costs of delays needs to be evaluated and include repayments to customers for missed deliveries or missed connections (including hotels), medical, damage and cleanup costs for collisions and derailments, opportunity costs for when a route is out of service, and HUGE FINES for delaying passenger trains (looking at you, FRA and whatever government regulatory agencies are involved. There are also externalized costs, such as the costs paid by drivers and truckers waiting at grade crossings for 2-mile-long, 20 MPH freight trains to clear the crossing (time, fuel, etc.) The railroads should be accountable for externalized costs.

The costs of improvements are highly variable, depending on whether single-track line was formerly double-tracked and the ROW hasn't been encroached on or sold off, whether the bridges and embankments are still adequate or need upgrading, etc. Definitely NOT a single cost-per-mile, some improvements cost many times as much as similar improvements at other locations.

The benefits of improvements are much more than risk reduction. Faster trains means crews get paid less or can go greater distances before timing out. Existing infrastructure can be used more efficiently reducing fuel costs. Railroads should be charged for externalized costs, but also be rewarded for externalize benefits like reduced pollution (vs trucks or planes), and lowering their carbon footprint. If a carbon-tax or carbon-credits system were introduced (which I think is inevitable over the next decade or two), these benefits would accrue naturally to any business that improved its resource usage efficiency.

I'm sure large railroads have used such models for decades, but they've probably misused them to over-simplify and increase quarterly profitability over long-term sustainability. (Guy in a top hat and monocle: "If we tear up the second tracks on all our lines and don't do any maintenance, our profits will soar until everything collapses, and then well demand a bailout. What's not to like? How much will we save in expenses until bad stuff happens? Do it!")

Done ranting for a while...
Your last paragraph—YES! I grew up when trains where I lived in Michigan were two tracked. They didn’t sit on sidings and quickly whipped by each other going opposite directions.
 
Isn't this what Precision Scheduled Railroading is all about? If so, the freight railroads are certainly executing it very poorly.
Today’s WSJ article says Berkshire Hathaway is disappointed with BNSF earnings and will no longer take a hands off approach to its management. As result this has occurred:

“The WSJ’s reports that the railroad has brought in industry veteran Ed Harris, a proponent of the precision scheduled railroading operating model that is prized by investors and so far resisted by BNSF. The 74-year-old Harris is a disciple of the late Hunter Harrison, the father of PSR, and has helped implement the system at several freight railroads.”

Apparently he has been hired as a consultant and “BNSF never was a PSR railroad and isn’t becoming one now,” Matt Igoe, BNSF’s chief operating officer, said in a recent interview.

Probably not good news for those on Amtrak’s trains on BNSF.
 
Today’s WSJ article says Berkshire Hathaway is disappointed with BNSF earnings and will no longer take a hands off approach to its management. As result this has occurred:

“The WSJ’s reports that the railroad has brought in industry veteran Ed Harris, a proponent of the precision scheduled railroading operating model that is prized by investors and so far resisted by BNSF. The 74-year-old Harris is a disciple of the late Hunter Harrison, the father of PSR, and has helped implement the system at several freight railroads.”

Apparently he has been hired as a consultant and “BNSF never was a PSR railroad and isn’t becoming one now,” Matt Igoe, BNSF’s chief operating officer, said in a recent interview.

Probably not good news for those on Amtrak’s trains on BNSF.
Thanks, Warren. 😥
 
NS seems to be doing a good job keepiing the Crescent on schedule. Even the times Amtrak has delays it NS has usually made up time or as of today 19 / 05 lost 3:20 at WASH and it is still about 3:15 late at Hattiesburg thereby not loosing any more time even out of its normal slot.
 
Back
Top