Prioritizing freight over passenger trains

[Nathanael]

CN also responded noting that certain of Amtrak's specific dispatching claims either simply didn't happen

That's what's known as "lying to the STB" on CN's part.

or were advantageous for Amtrak.

That's what's known as "bogus".

They also pointed out that Amtrak made a bad habit out of running out of fuel on their mainlines.

And that's what's known as "omitting crucial information" -- namely, that it's easy to run out of fuel *if you're getting delayed*.

CN's response didn't pass the laugh test. I read both Amtrak's complaint and CN's response.

 

[Braniff747SP]

CN's response didn't pass the laugh test. I read both Amtrak's complaint and CN's response.

Do you have a link?

 

[PRR 60]

CN's response didn't pass the laugh test. I read both Amtrak's complaint and CN's response.

Do you have a link?

Here is a page from the STB that has links to all the documents of the case:

STB Docket NOR_42134_0

 

[Enter Your Name]

CN also responded noting that certain of Amtrak's specific dispatching claims either simply didn't happen

That's what's known as "lying to the STB" on CN's part.

or were advantageous for Amtrak.

That's what's known as "bogus".

They also pointed out that Amtrak made a bad habit out of running out of fuel on their mainlines.

And that's what's known as "omitting crucial information" -- namely, that it's easy to run out of fuel *if you're getting delayed*.

CN's response didn't pass the laugh test. I read both Amtrak's complaint and CN's response.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong here.

I'm sure if CN perjured themselves, they'll face massive repercussions (and if you have evidence of such perjury, you should bring that to the attention of the proper authorities, but I'll bet anything you don't).

The instances cited where trains ran out of fuel, you're just assuming, which zero evidence whatsoever, that those trains ran out of fuel while sitting delayed as a result of CN's actions. Then again, since you also have no evidence of CN's prejury, I'm not surprised that you're making unsubstantiated claims in this case as well.

As for your claim that CN's statement that certain dispatchers moves save Amtrak time is "bogus," that shows even more that you really don't know how this works.

CN's claim is not bogus.

Consider this hypothetical situation: A 10,000-foot-long freight train and an 800-foot Amtrak train are running in opposite directions, and are expected to reach a specific siding at the same time (assume the siding is two miles, just long enough to hold the freight train). The main track speed is 79P/60F, and the siding speed is 30P/20F. If Amtrak is routed onto the siding, it will take the train four minutes to run through the siding, while it takes the freight train (at 60 mph) two minutes to clear the switch at the other end of the siding. That freight train could actually be clear by the time Amtrak reaches the other end of the siding. Total delay might be as low as 3 minutes (including acceleration delays).

Change that and instead put the freight through the siding (which is what some of the Amtrak folks think should happen). The freight train must enter the siding at 20 mph, which will take at least six minutes to clear the far end of the switch, during which time Amtrak will be sitting on the main line, waiting. Factor in the acceleration from 0 to 79 (which will be even more delay than 30 to 79), and your delay may be 7-8 minutes (probably even longer, because, depending on the freight train's braking characteristics, it will have to slow down from 60 mph far in advance of the siding; passenger trains are much more nimble in their braking capabilities).

If Amtrak is expected to reach the siding slightly earlier than the freight, then it becomes even more advantageous to run Amtrak in the siding. Only if the freight can get to the siding 10 or more minutes ahead of the passenger train does it clearly become preferential to the passenger train to put the freight in the siding.

That's not a matter of priority (nor a matter of a dispatcher "hating" Amtrak for no real reason), that's a matter of physics.

 

[Ryan]

CN's response didn't pass the laugh test. I read both Amtrak's complaint and CN's response.

Do you have a link?

Here is a page from the STB that has links to all the documents of the case:

STB Docket NOR_42134_0

Thanks for sharing that - I'm only halfway through Amtrak's first filing, and the background info is outstanding.

 

[George Harris]

Our "Guest Enter Your Name" provided a very good explanation of why it makes sense to park the passenger train in the siding. I would have only a couple of comments to make / nits to pick:

For a normal passenger train the time cost of a stop over running straight through at 79 mph is almost exactly 3 minutes plus dwell time. That is by measurement of quite a few stops watch versus mileposts from start of braking to back up to full speed. To slow to 30 mph, run 30 mph for 2 miles and accelerate back up to 79 mph will be about the same 3 minutes up to no more than 4 minutes.

A nit: Normally turnout and siding speeds are the same for all cllasses of train so, let's call it 30 mph for all. This does not change the outcome of the analysis.

A freight train will be running at siding speed for the length of the siding plus a train length. Thus, to start you have 4 miles at 30 mph instead of 60 mph, costing 4 minutes plus braking and acceleration time.which for a freight is nuch longer.

There is also signal time / dispatcher response time.

 

[Nathanael]

In "Guest Enter Your Name"'s scenario, the question then becomes why the schedule was designed to obstruct the passenger train with a freight train which didn't get out of the passenger train's way on time. *That's a choice*, and it's not one which the old railroads which prioritized passenger traffic would have made.

Specifically, that's a "We deliberately decided to delay passenger trains for the benefit of freight trains" choice, and there's no two ways around that.

 

[Nathanael]

To be fair, the "freight railroads" (as they think of themselves) are only doing what comes naturally: they have very, very strong financial incentives to delay passenger trains to benefit freight trains.

This is why the tracks should be owned by a government which doesn't have those incentives.

 

[Nathanael]

I'm going to be even ruder and blunter to "Guest Enter Your Name". That freight train? Why wasn't it stopped in the *previous* siding?

Get the picture yet?

 

[henryj]

To be fair, the "freight railroads" (as they think of themselves) are only doing what comes naturally: they have very, very strong financial incentives to delay passenger trains to benefit freight trains.

This is why the tracks should be owned by a government which doesn't have those incentives.

I think you are hallucinating. Are you off your meds again?

 

[Braniff747SP]

CN's response didn't pass the laugh test. I read both Amtrak's complaint and CN's response.

Do you have a link?

Here is a page from the STB that has links to all the documents of the case:

STB Docket NOR_42134_0

Thank you, good sir.

 

[Paulus]

I'm going to be even ruder and blunter to "Guest Enter Your Name". That freight train? Why wasn't it stopped in the *previous* siding?

Get the picture yet?

Because the last available siding was tens of miles away? Because it was already occupied? Because Amtrak wouldn't have screwed up the meet if they had been on time? Because HOS means that they would have died on the mainline if they had been held back at an earlier siding and the system would've been screwed to hell and back?

 

[Trogdor]

Speaking for myself and myself only, a healthy freight train network is important for the nation's economy, and for Amtrak. If freight traffic is reduced and isn't replaced with a corresponding increase in passenger traffic, the justification for keeping maintenance up on the line is reduced. Take a look at the Southwest Chief between Newton and Albuquerque to see what happens when that is taken to the extreme (or, for that matter, what happened on the Michigan Line before the state took millions of dollars of HSR to pay to repair the line).

As for why not hold the train in the previous siding? That eats up capacity. That causes backups behind it, which could very well lead to more delays to the passenger train making the meet (and also the passenger train heading in the opposite direction, going the same direction as the freight train that you want to hold back).

I've already opined previously (don't remember exactly when) that nationalization of the railroad infrastructure is a terrible idea. For one, it makes no sense to have the government take over the tracks, which are running just fine for 99% of the traffic, on routes that have just one or two passenger trains per day. Second, the government in general is terrible at managing infrastructure. Third, you don't want even more vital maintenance and investment to be done at the whim of the incompetents in congress who hold good ideas hostage for their own pet projects, and who make important decisions based on politics rather than economic need. I could go on, but this has all already been argued in previous threads.

Bottom line, the world isn't as perfect or as cut and dry as some people wish it was, and it's simply not practical or realistic, given current conditions, to have a delay-free long-distance passenger service.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I also do not support nationalization of US railroads for the aforementioned reasons.

 

[Train Rider]

Perhaps this is already the case, but one way that Congress could assist Amtrak with this issue without writing a check directly is to pass some tax breaks for train companies that rebuild/refurbish rail lines that carry Amtrak lines to the highest possible standard for higher speed and with double tracks. Or Congress could build into the next highway bill, additional funding to states to build new RR viaducts and improved crossing signals that are required for higher speed trains.

Considering that economic impact of freight RR is dwarfs passenger RR, nationalizing the RR system would be foolish and would never have the political support to make it happen.

There are creative ways to do this outside of demanding huge, immediate appropriations -- those are dead-on-arrival in Congress for the foreseeable future.

 

[RRrich]

I usually ignore Guest postings but when they make good sense, I make exceptions. Its not often but this is the time that justifies AU's Guest posting policy :

 

[Nathanael]

Speaking for myself and myself only, a healthy freight train network is important for the nation's economy, and for Amtrak.

Well, of course. It doesn't mean it should be privately owned. The freight haulers underinvest in the freight network, too. In fact, when transportation infrastructure is privately owned, there's practically always underinvestment in infrastructure, with solid examples dating back to the era of "turnpikes' in pre-Victorian Britain. (The exception is when there are market bubbles and overinvestment.)

If freight traffic is reduced and isn't replaced with a corresponding increase in passenger traffic, the justification for keeping maintenance up on the line is reduced. Take a look at the Southwest Chief between Newton and Albuquerque to see what happens when that is taken to the extreme (or, for that matter, what happened on the Michigan Line before the state took millions of dollars of HSR to pay to repair the line).
As for why not hold the train in the previous siding? That eats up capacity. That causes backups behind it, which could very well lead to more delays to the passenger train making the meet (and also the passenger train heading in the opposite direction, going the same direction as the freight train that you want to hold back).

I've already opined previously (don't remember exactly when) that nationalization of the railroad infrastructure is a terrible idea.

It works in every other country in the entire world. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of countries with private ownership of significant numbers of tracks. One of those is Mexico, and I would not assess their privatization as a success.

But your opinion may vary.

Second, the government in general is terrible at managing infrastructure.

This is simply untrue. In practice the government is, on average, better at managing infrastructure than private companies. I could give you hundreds of examples, but I suggest you look at power distribution companies (municipals are, on average, better than privately-owned -- there are studies, Google them) and for God's sake, railroads versus highways.

Third, you don't want even more vital maintenance and investment to be done at the whim of the incompetents in congress who hold good ideas hostage for their own pet projects, and who make important decisions based on politics rather than economic need. I could go on, but this has all already been argued in previous threads.

Likewise, you don't want this done at the whim of the incompetents in charge of major corporations, who hold good ideas hostage for their own pet projects, and who make important decisions based on whether it will increase their quarterly bonus rathe than economic need. I could go on, but this has already been argued for decades.

And I've been proven right.

 

[Nathanael]

Perhaps this is already the case, but one way that Congress could assist Amtrak with this issue without writing a check directly is to pass some tax breaks for train companies that rebuild/refurbish rail lines that carry Amtrak lines to the highest possible standard for higher speed and with double tracks. Or Congress could build into the next highway bill, additional funding to states to build new RR viaducts and improved crossing signals that are required for higher speed trains.

What Congress actually did was to order the freight railroads to keep their side of the bargain made when Amtrak was formed. Their side of the bargain? Keep running the passenger trains on time. What they got out of it? They were able to discontinue the vast majority of passenger trains.

Actually, CN is required to keep running the passenger trains on time *unless* the STB (formerly the ICC) determines that this would cause too much trouble to freight traffic. This is what makes all of CN's excuses hollow: CN is explicitly supposed to delay its own freight traffic for the passenger trains unless it gets STB approval. There is a procedure for saying "yes, this would cause too much trouble for freight traffic" and CN didn't use it.

So yes, CN *is* legally obligated to delay its freight trains by days if necessary to keep the passenger trains running on time -- unless it requests a ruling from the STB, which it didn't.

As Amtrak points out in its filing, if the freight railroads are not kept to their obligation, Congress is perfectly within its rights to restore the freight railroads' obligation to run passenger trains on time themselves, which existed from shortly after the dawn of railroad service. Many towns refused to have freight railroads unless they got passenger service. Operating the railroad so as to deliver Amtrak trains on time is the replacement for the passenger service common carrier obligation which railroads previously possessed.

Now, when you read CN's filing, CN makes some valid comments about how it should not be blamed for delays crossing other lines and how the numbers look bad when Amtrak is only on CN for 5 miles. But these ring hollow when CN's terrible performance from Chicago to New Orleans is figured in. In fact, all of CN's comments have the air of dishonest excuses, carefully avoiding mention of the facts which show that CN is actually at fault; each situation provokes a different excuse, and the worst situations are ignored completely. Amtrak won't participate in the 'common operational picture'? Well, have you offered them some FUNDING for it? Amtrak is willing to participate.

When you look at the later filings, you see that CN is intent on creating unnecessary delay in investigation. If it were truly not responsible for the delays, CN would happily encourage a swift investigation. It is quite clear that CN is at fault and is trying to hide it with bafflegab.

 

[PRR 60]

...

Now, when you read CN's filing, CN makes some valid comments about how it should not be blamed for delays crossing other lines and how the numbers look bad when Amtrak is only on CN for 5 miles. But these ring hollow when CN's terrible performance from Chicago to New Orleans is figured in.

...

Terrible performance between Chicago and New Orleans??? According to the Amtrak MPR for September, the City of New Orleans had an 88% on-time rate in FY2012. The City was the best performing long distance train in FY2012.

 

[Trogdor]

...

Now, when you read CN's filing, CN makes some valid comments about how it should not be blamed for delays crossing other lines and how the numbers look bad when Amtrak is only on CN for 5 miles. But these ring hollow when CN's terrible performance from Chicago to New Orleans is figured in.

...

Terrible performance between Chicago and New Orleans??? According to the Amtrak MPR for September, the City of New Orleans had an 88% on-time rate in FY2012. The City was the best performing long distance train in FY2012.

Why would you let facts get in the way of a good rant?

 

[AlanB]

Perhaps this is already the case, but one way that Congress could assist Amtrak with this issue without writing a check directly is to pass some tax breaks for train companies that rebuild/refurbish rail lines that carry Amtrak lines to the highest possible standard for higher speed and with double tracks.

This is unlikely to work, unless the tax breaks are huge. It's not just a matter of building/refurbishing things to HS standards; one must spend big bucks to maintain things to that standard. Those on going costs would be too significant for the freights to endure, unless the initial tax break was huge. And that I think unlikely.

If they thought that they could trust Congress not to repeal a long term tax break, then the RR's might be willing. But I don't see that happening either and I don't see them trusting Congress.

Or Congress could build into the next highway bill, additional funding to states to build new RR viaducts and improved crossing signals that are required for higher speed trains.

That would be very nice, but again I don't see that happening under the current political climate.

 

[Henry Kisor]

I've wondered myself why Amtrak doesn't have relief crews staged for immediate deployment when operating crews go off the law. Maybe it has something to do with the cost of paying folks to sit around doing nothing on the off chance that they might sometime be needed?

 

[Trogdor]

I've wondered myself why Amtrak doesn't have relief crews staged for immediate deployment when operating crews go off the law. Maybe it has something to do with the cost of paying folks to sit around doing nothing on the off chance that they might sometime be needed?

What do you mean by this?

When Amtrak crews die on the law, the vast majority of the time a relief crew has already been called out and sent out to a location to meet the train. I'd even go so far as to say that, except when there are no qualified crews available (nobody qualified on the territory is rested), you almost never have a crew die without a replacement crew already called. Sometimes they may not quite make it to the train before that train's crew outlaws, but they're definitely on their way.

Further, far more often than not, if a crew is going to outlaw, a replacement crew has already boarded and taken over, even when the existing crew has time left (as an anecdote, last summer I was on a train when a replacement crew boarded at the last station prior to the destination, even though the existing crew could have made it in, just barely, if there were no further delays enroute).

People on AU seem to think that crews outlawing is some random event that comes as a complete surprise to everybody. It's not. The crew, the railroad dispatcher, and the crew dispatchers are all very well aware of who is outlawing and when. Sometimes the crew isn't available right away, because they still have to get rested. Sometimes there are further delays that occur that prevent the train from getting to a planned recrew point even after the replacement crew was called. Sometimes the anticipated delay is going to be so significant (such as a derailment or major equipment problem blocking the line) that they don't want to call the replacement crew (and start their clock ticking) until they know that there will be some place for that train to go once the crew gets there. (And, since we're dealing with humans, yes, sometimes people just make a mistake and make the wrong decision; however, in the case of crews outlawing, this isn't really that common.)

Having replacement crews staged "just in case" would require dozens more crew bases (and their associated costs), so in the end, you use the extraboard at existing bases. It actually works quite well.

And considering that it's essentially the same thing freight railroads (profit-making corporations responsible to directors and shareholders) do, you can be sure that if there were a more effective solution, they would have figured it out by now.

 

[Shanghai]

Good & factual response, Trogdor.

 

[Train Rider]

Perhaps this is already the case, but one way that Congress could assist Amtrak with this issue without writing a check directly is to pass some tax breaks for train companies that rebuild/refurbish rail lines that carry Amtrak lines to the highest possible standard for higher speed and with double tracks. Or Congress could build into the next highway bill, additional funding to states to build new RR viaducts and improved crossing signals that are required for higher speed trains.

What Congress actually did was to order the freight railroads to keep their side of the bargain made when Amtrak was formed. Their side of the bargain? Keep running the passenger trains on time. What they got out of it? They were able to discontinue the vast majority of passenger trains.

it isn't 1971 anymore and everyone would be wise to understand that.

Advocating for nationalization of RR lines is perhaps the worst thing that could happen to Amtrak on Capitol Hill.