passengers train as priority

[Guest]

There are two positions our government needs desperately to take. The number one, of course, is better financing of Amtrak. This has been discussed numerous times here in the forum; and rightly so as it is the number one concern. However, there is a second need from the government, which hasnt been discussed very much.

That is the position that passenger trains must have priority. In the days when trains were the primary transport, that was the case. I took two trips transcontinental in the forties as a kid. I dont remember sitting on a siding waiting for a freight.

The government pays UP etal for track usage and with the understanding that passenger trains come first. But the companies give the finger to this, especially UP. The government must use its force to change that.

It can by insisting on upholding the contracts, or else. And the else can be: Threaten to apply the Sherman Antitrust Act, sections I and II if freight companies try to threaten pulling the lease; or threaten eminate domain due to the vast public 'interests'. If the gov. took over the main line tracks, the money saved in rent, and the money charged freight companies would probably pay for upkeep. If faced with this prospect, freight companies would probably change their attitude.

Any thoughts? Am I out of my mind here?? I doubt if the government cares enough in this case.

 

[AlanB]

Guest,

By and large I do agree with you. The Feds do indeed need to flex their muscles when it comes to OTP for Amtrak over freight tracks.

One small point though, what Amtrak pays to the freight RR's does not really reflect the costs incurred by the freight RR's to support the speeds that Amtrak needs. Part of the agreement with the freight RR's that created Amtrak in the first place, was the fact that Amtrak really pays a pittance for passage.

That however does not change the fact that this is indeed what the freight RR’s agreed to in order to get the passenger monkey off of their backs. They should live up to the agreement and obligations. If they don’t, then they should be punished in some fashion or another. Amtrak should not have to pay bonuses, simply to get the freight companies to run Amtrak trains on time.

 

[saxman]

Yes I agree too. Frieght can wait, passengers cannot. The gov. needs to do something about the ontime perfomance. If that happens then riders will flock to the trains. I would. I once read an article in Trains Magazine from an official from UP stating on the Amtrak ontime performance. If I can remember, he said, UP really has nothing against Amtrak, and they try their best to get them through. This may be true but with the dispatchers actuually running the trains, it doesn't seem so. BNSF seems to get them through alright. I've never had to wait for a BNSF freight while riding Amtrak. THough I have waited for 12 hours on the Texas Eagle for 50 freights to pass! Yes 50! That was on UP track in Arkansas.

Chris

 

[Amfleet]

Well freight trains and passenger trains both need to be on the same level. Companies are paying the freight railroads big bucks to send goods across the country. If the goods don't get to where they need to be on time then the freight railroads lose money. At the same time however Amtrak trains do need to be kept ontime along with the freights.

 

[Guest]

Yes I agree too. Frieght can wait, passengers cannot.

Maybe it can, maybe it can't. I'm sure there are freight items that many people would be much more concerned about than they would be about someone taking a train ride for pleasure. Of course, not everyone takes trains simply for pleasure but most people know by now that if they absolutely, positively need to be someplace at a certain time, trains (mostly outside the northeast corridor) are not the way to get there on time.