Possible Crescent trip next year

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
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.
LookingGlassTie

LookingGlassTie

OBS Chief
AU Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
628
Location
Portsmouth, VA
Hey everyone,

I MIGHT be taking the Crescent to NOL in July of next year for a conference. Given that the Crescent is known for delays between Atlanta and New Orleans, how many "buffer" days should I give myself? I would be taking the Northeast Regional from NPN to WAS and then the Crescent from WAS to NOL. Based on info from the Amtrak site, the trip SHOULD take about a day and a half (both train segments and the layover in DC). But I'm thinking I should allow for an extra day just in case. My goal is to arrive at the conference hotel at least a day before the conference starts.

Thanks!
 
To play it safe, I would arrive two days prior to your meeting so if you are over 3 hours late you don't get to your hotel at midnight.
 
If you have the time, two days in New Orleans gives you plenty of pad, and a good amount of time to enjoy a lttle of the Crescent City. Hopefully by the time you get there, recovery from the latest storms will be further along. It really breaks my heart to see my old home town get such a battering. I'm grateful that the Crescent is hanging in there.

Now if we could just get that DAL - Meridian connection back under consideration...
 
me_little_me said:
Not the same thing. They are avoiding fighting with NS by giving in and taking the hit instead of making NS meet its commitments.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s a different reason, though your glib oversimplification is full of spin and questionable accuracy. My point was that padding exists, for whatever reasons, in other modes of transportation.
 
Chatter163 said:
Of course it’s a different reason, though your glib oversimplification is full of spin and questionable accuracy. My point was that padding exists, for whatever reasons, in other modes of transportation.
Click to expand...
Amtrak has always had padding but now in their settlement with NS they just added more. Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. I can't see any other explanation as to why a rule that says Amtrak must have priority ends up being - "we added even more padding" and "we made the stop at our most important station south of Washington be at a much worse time".
 
me_little_me said:
Amtrak has always had padding but now in their settlement with NS they just added more. Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. I can't see any other explanation as to why a rule that says Amtrak must have priority ends up being - "we added even more padding" and "we made the stop at our most important station south of Washington be at a much worse time".
Click to expand...
You seem to see the "rule that Amtrak must have priority" as a black or white, this or that dichotomy. I don't know the complexities of the legislation, but I do know that we railfans tends to see this is a simple issue, and we lament the fact that it does not always seem to happen. However, I suspect that the realities are far more complex. I know that the freight railroads have successfully argued, to varying degrees, that they are within their rights when they dispatch Amtrak as they do. There is apparently a lot of gray area in terms of interpreting the legislation that gives Amtrak priority, as evidenced by the fact that "in 2013, a federal court invalidated performance metrics developed under Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA)" (Amtrak's own website blog at A Message from Amtrak Regarding On-time Performance). So the very means by which priority would be measured and maintained were thrown out. I don't know what, if anything, was established in its place. I do know that these issues are not new, as evidenced by this eight-year old blog post.

I know that the Crescent's new schedule is the result of FRA-mandated arbitration that ended last year, partly ordered because of conflicting interpretations of Amtrak legislation. If Amtrak's priority were as cut-and-dry as you seem to imply, you can be sure that no arbitration would be needed. Evidently there is gray here, however distasteful Amtrak supporters may find it, and the two railroads were forced to compromise, and submit to legally-binding arbitration.
 
Last edited:
Chatter163 said:
You seem to see the "rule that Amtrak must have priority" as a black or white, this or that dichotomy. I don't know the complexities of the legislation, but I do know that we railfans tends to see this is a simple issue, and we lament the fact that it does not always seem to happen. However, I suspect that the realities are far more complex. I know that the freight railroads have successfully argued, to varying degrees, that they are within their rights when they dispatch Amtrak as they do. There is apparently a lot of gray area in terms of interpreting the legislation that gives Amtrak priority, as evidenced by the fact that "in 2013, a federal court invalidated performance metrics developed under Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA)" (Amtrak's own website blog at A Message from Amtrak Regarding On-time Performance) The issues are not new, as evidenced by this eight-year old blog post.

I know that the Crescent's new schedule is the result of FRA-mandated arbitration that ended last year, partly ordered because of conflicting interpretations of Amtrak legislation. If Amtrak's priority were as cut-and-dry as you seem to imply, you can be sure that no arbitration would be needed. Evidently there is gray here, however distasteful Amtrak supporters may find it, and the two railroads were forced to compromise, and submit to legally-binding arbitration.
Click to expand...
"Amtrak was created by Congress in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1971, assuming the common carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost."

Per the FRA: Amtrak | FRA

I believe the courts invalidated it because the legislation referred to gave the STB and Amtrak the right to determine what was allowed and the courts said that was not permitted because Amtrak was a party to the issue and so could not be a determiner of the potential violations. That would like the judge being the plaintiff at the same time.
 
Chatter163 said:
You seem to see the "rule that Amtrak must have priority" as a black or white, this or that dichotomy. I don't know the complexities of the legislation, but I do know that we railfans tends to see this is a simple issue, and we lament the fact that it does not always seem to happen. However, I suspect that the realities are far more complex. I know that the freight railroads have successfully argued, to varying degrees, that they are within their rights when they dispatch Amtrak as they do. There is apparently a lot of gray area in terms of interpreting the legislation that gives Amtrak priority, as evidenced by the fact that "in 2013, a federal court invalidated performance metrics developed under Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA)" (Amtrak's own website blog at A Message from Amtrak Regarding On-time Performance). So the very means by which priority would be measured and maintained were thrown out. I don't know what, if anything, was established in its place. I do know that these issues are not new, as evidenced by this eight-year old blog post.

I know that the Crescent's new schedule is the result of FRA-mandated arbitration that ended last year, partly ordered because of conflicting interpretations of Amtrak legislation. If Amtrak's priority were as cut-and-dry as you seem to imply, you can be sure that no arbitration would be needed. Evidently there is gray here, however distasteful Amtrak supporters may find it, and the two railroads were forced to compromise, and submit to legally-binding arbitration.
Click to expand...
After the Supreme Court ruled that Amtrak couldn't set the metrics, Congress amended the law so that it became the STB's responsibility to set the metrics. The railroads sued again, lower courts ruled that was okay, that the STB could set the metrics, and the Supreme Court refused to hear it, so that ruling stands.

After more litigation, the STB released their final passenger delay metrics in December 2020. Those metrics are going into effect and the new schedule appears to be a result of NS-Amtrak negotiations resulting from those metrics.

The law is going into effect, the STB regs and metrics that became effective in December provide for a six month period, once mutually agreed upon schedules go into effect, during which the STB and FRA will monitor compliance with the metrics, but no enforcement action will take place. After six months, enforcement action by the STB can take place.

PRIIA is finally going into full effect with regulator developed passenger delay metrics now becoming effective.

The basic metric is any passenger delayed more than 15 minutes at their destination station counts.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top