Strike questions

[Joel N. Weber II]

However, there is still a bit of problem, in that the Fairmount line can't handle the normal traffic load that it carries, plus the load from the Franklin line. And that's with an operational South Station. I'm not sure what they can handle if South Station and all of its tracks are off limits. After all, the Fairmount still feeds into the Old Colony corridor tracks, which in many places go down to a single track. That doesn't leave a whole lot of turning room, unless they send trains to the yard.

I don't understand what ``turning room'' means in this context.

If they could simply reverse the direction of an inbound train once they reach Uphams Corner, there may be no reason to continue onto the tracks shared with the Old Colony Lines if South Station is closed, since South Station is the only stop inbound from Upham's Corner.

And that poses yet another question, can the T get it's trains out of the yard? I'm guessing that they can, but I'm not sure how they can get trains over to either the Needham or the Worcester line without crossing the corridor.

The Google Maps satellite imagery suggests there are overhead wires over a good part of the yard south of South Station, and I'd guess those overhead wires come with Amtrak control. But maybe some of the tracks in that general area are controlled by the MBTA.

The Worcester Line has a connection to the Grand Junction Railroad somewhere to the west of Back Bay, so a north side train could probably reach it with little difficulty if it turned out the south side yards didn't have a viable connection.

At Needham Junction, Google Maps suggests there's a track that branches off through Dover to Harding, and it looks like at Harding it joins another track that leads to Framingham. I don't get the impression that tracks that show up on Google Maps necessarily still exist, however, and the MBTA may not have rights to move trains over those tracks if they even still exist.

 

[wayman]

At Needham Junction, Google Maps suggests there's a track that branches off through Dover to Harding, and it looks like at Harding it joins another track that leads to Framingham. I don't get the impression that tracks that show up on Google Maps necessarily still exist, however, and the MBTA may not have rights to move trains over those tracks if they even still exist.

As a data point, I think much of the satellite map imagery is at least five years old but generally less than ten years old at this point.

This is judging from maps in my local area and the amount and progress of construction and development within the past decade shown (currently c.2000-03). But when satellite view was introduced (3 years ago?), maps of that same area were much older (c.1990-93), so they do get updated when more recent imagery becomes available. Age of maps around Boston may be different, of course, but 2000-2003 is probably a reasonable ballpark. Would those tracks have been ripped up that recently (ie, within the past decade or less)?

 

[Steve Manfred]

The way this all reads to me is that the unions will not be backing down and will strike unless management gives them what the PEB recommended, but management can't do that without extra money from Congress. And it looks like that won't happen until the strike actually happens for at least a few days. Do I have this right?

And is management even talking with the unions at this point?

None of this looks very good for my trip on Feb. 12. I think I have to look at alternatives, which aren't very good when you don't fly like I do (or should that be don't?).

 

[had8ley]

The way this all reads to me is that the unions will not be backing down and will strike unless management gives them what the PEB recommended, but management can't do that without extra money from Congress. And it looks like that won't happen until the strike actually happens for at least a few days. Do I have this right? And is management even talking with the unions at this point?

None of this looks very good for my trip on Feb. 12. I think I have to look at alternatives, which aren't very good when you don't fly like I do (or should that be don't?).

In 37 years of railroading I never remember a strike that lasted longer than 3 days. I would almost book money that your date is safe unless the union leaders postpone the strike date.

 

[Dakguy201]

If there is a strike, and if it effects the various eastern commuter systems, Congress will be forced to impose a settlement. To not get people back working quickly has very negative political implications, even if this was not an election year.

Given how disfunctonal this Congress is (or the Congress and the Executive Branch if that is your preference), should they be trusted to impose an equitable settlement on a quick and dirty basis? I don't think so. It seems to me reaching a settlement before then is in the interest of everybody. If the problem is that a portion of the settlement would have to be financed in next years federal budget, I believe assurances could be obtained from certain Congressional leaders that it will be provided.

 

[wayman]

The way this all reads to me is that the unions will not be backing down and will strike unless management gives them what the PEB recommended, but management can't do that without extra money from Congress. And it looks like that won't happen until the strike actually happens for at least a few days. Do I have this right? And is management even talking with the unions at this point?

If it seems increasingly obvious to all, including Congress, that the strike is inevitable, would it not be in Congress's best interest to grant the extra money around the 29th of January?

The question of whether Congress would act in their best interest, of course, is up for grabs. But given that a strike would *cripple* rather a lot of Senators' and Representatives' districts--VA, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, IL, and CA at least--I would think there's a reasonable chance intervention might actually happen pre-emptively.

Well, unless a Democratic Congress thinks it's instead in their best interest to *allow* the strike, for a day or two, just to demonstrate to a Republican administration that passenger rail actually *is* beneficial, with a "show; don't tell" mindset, briefly showing the mare's nest resulting from its absence before giving the money rather than just speechifying about it.

I'm extremely dubious that such a strategy would play well for *Amtrak* in the public's eye, though--I think the inconvenienced and irate commuters are more likely to blame the union/railroad than its lack of proper federal funding.

 

[MrFSS]

I haven't looked back in the thread and don't remember - are the two sides in active negotiation at this time to try and resolve it before 2/1/08?

 

[had8ley]

I haven't looked back in the thread and don't remember - are the two sides in active negotiation at this time to try and resolve it before 2/1/08?

Tom;

I think Dutchrailnut said the deadline was January 30th.

 

[gswager]

Which areas of track are controlled by Amtrak dispatchers? I generally know that there's some in NEC and some section in Michigan if I'm corrected.

 

[AlanB]

Which areas of track are controlled by Amtrak dispatchers? I generally know that there's some in NEC and some section in Michigan if I'm corrected.

Most of the NEC, with the exception of MN territory between New Rochelle, NY and New Haven, CT is dispatched by Amtrak, some 100 miles or so in Michigan west of Detroit is controlled by Amtrak, all of the tracks leading into Chicago's Union Station, and a very short stretch I believe of a freight connector in the Chicago area between BNSF and NS I think.

Perhaps someone who was with us on the yard tour remembers better just what they controlled, but I do recall the guide from the tower tour mentioning that Amtrak dispatched something for the freight Co's in that dispatch room on the third floor.

 

[AlanB]

However, there is still a bit of problem, in that the Fairmount line can't handle the normal traffic load that it carries, plus the load from the Franklin line. And that's with an operational South Station. I'm not sure what they can handle if South Station and all of its tracks are off limits. After all, the Fairmount still feeds into the Old Colony corridor tracks, which in many places go down to a single track. That doesn't leave a whole lot of turning room, unless they send trains to the yard.

I don't understand what ``turning room'' means in this context.

If they could simply reverse the direction of an inbound train once they reach Uphams Corner, there may be no reason to continue onto the tracks shared with the Old Colony Lines if South Station is closed, since South Station is the only stop inbound from Upham's Corner.

Sorry, I wasn't really thinking about where the Fairmount line joins with the Old Colony lines, I just knew that they joined together at some point. Upon looking at the map though, I'm not real sure just what running a train down to Uphams Corner would accomplish, since I don't think that there are any stations that link to a subway.

As for turning room, regardless of where they turn the trains, one still has to have time and space for the engineer to walk from one end of the train to the other, perfrom a brake test and then head back in the other direction. Too many trains in too short of a period of time will pose a problem on any one or two track line, and I'm not sure how many tracks the Fairmount line has at Uphams.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

However, there is still a bit of problem, in that the Fairmount line can't handle the normal traffic load that it carries, plus the load from the Franklin line. And that's with an operational South Station. I'm not sure what they can handle if South Station and all of its tracks are off limits. After all, the Fairmount still feeds into the Old Colony corridor tracks, which in many places go down to a single track. That doesn't leave a whole lot of turning room, unless they send trains to the yard.

I don't understand what ``turning room'' means in this context.

If they could simply reverse the direction of an inbound train once they reach Uphams Corner, there may be no reason to continue onto the tracks shared with the Old Colony Lines if South Station is closed, since South Station is the only stop inbound from Upham's Corner.

Sorry, I wasn't really thinking about where the Fairmount line joins with the Old Colony lines, I just knew that they joined together at some point. Upon looking at the map though, I'm not real sure just what running a train down to Uphams Corner would accomplish, since I don't think that there are any stations that link to a subway.

Right, there's no easy transfer to any subway station anywhere on the Fairmount Line or on the Franklin Line, except at South Station. I believe one version of the plans for the Orange Line had contemplated the Orange Line having one branch continuing past Forest Hills to Readville, which would have provided such a connection, and I believe the bus that runs parallel to that route is one of the most popular in the system. (I think there's text in wikipedia claiming it's the most popular bus route, but then I think I've seen other text elsewhere claiming that the decades long temporary replacement bus for the E branch of the Green Line is the most popular bus route).

If the T wanted to run shuttle buses, though, Uphams Corner to South Station (or perhaps somewhere to the south of that on the Red Line) might be a relatively short route, and keeping the route short ought to increase the number of people per hour a single bus could carry.

Without shuttle buses from Uphams Corner, I'm not sure there'd be much point in running any Fairmount/Franklin trains if South Station and the NEC shut down.

As for turning room, regardless of where they turn the trains, one still has to have time and space for the engineer to walk from one end of the train to the other, perfrom a brake test and then head back in the other direction. Too many trains in too short of a period of time will pose a problem on any one or two track line, and I'm not sure how many tracks the Fairmount line has at Uphams.

Is there a good explaination of what's involved in a brake test somewhere? I keep coming across mention of this requirement, but without much explaination.

 

[AlanB]

As for turning room, regardless of where they turn the trains, one still has to have time and space for the engineer to walk from one end of the train to the other, perfrom a brake test and then head back in the other direction. Too many trains in too short of a period of time will pose a problem on any one or two track line, and I'm not sure how many tracks the Fairmount line has at Uphams.

Is there a good explaination of what's involved in a brake test somewhere? I keep coming across mention of this requirement, but without much explaination.

Well I'm not the best expert at this, but I'll give it a stab. Other's who know better may chime in and add details, or even correct things that I'm saying.

When the train arrives at the point where an end change is required, the engineer of course first stops the train at the station or other point. The hand brake is typically set either by turning a wheel or pulling a lever that in turns pulls a chain that causes the brakes on the car to clamp down on the wheels. The engineer then drops the air (releases the air pressure needed to push the brakes away from the wheels on the cars and engine). He probably fiddles with a few other settings in the cab, be it the engine cab or the cab car, that starts the transfer of control to the other end of the train. He also has to pack up all of his belongings, including the rule books and other paperwork.

Then the engineer must walk from what was the front of the train to the other end, and the new front of the train. Upon reaching the new cab, he/she then gets all of his/her rule books and paperwork out again. They then flip whatever other switches might be needed to complete the transfer of control to the new head end. Then they charge up the air, bring the air pressure back up to a level that would allow the engineer to release the brakes. With a conductor at the other end of the train, the engineer applies the brakes so that they clamp down on the wheels. If the conductor observes that the brakes at the far end of the train do indeed clamp down, he/she then radios the engineer that the brakes were applied. At that point the engineer once again releases the brakes to ensure that the brakes release at the far end of the train.

At some point after that, the engineer either reapplies the brakes or perhaps uses the dynamic brakes on the engine to keep it from moving, while the conductor walks back to relase the hand brake that he set earlier.

At this point in time, the engineer would radio the dispatcher that the train is ready for departure and receive any last minute changes, speed restrictions, warnings about crews working on the tracks, and so forth. In the meantime, assuming that the train is in a station, passengers have been busy boarding and once the scheduled arrival time is met, the train would leave the station if the railroad is clear.

 

[mags]

I am travelling from Australia to take the train around the US in February, something I have been wanting to do for 10 years. If a strike doesnt allow me to do this - will not be a happy camper. Here's hoping as discussed here that if there is a strike on the 30th Jan it only lasts a few days...

 

[Falco]

Having little experience with work and such, I feel I have no right to comment on the vast majority of said topics.

However, I do request that all parties involved, be reminded that Passenger Rail Travel is not a reserved niche in this economy. Airlines and Auto-Manufacturers would be more than happy to pick up the slack if things gave way.

I feel I can say this: "We, as rail fans and rail travelers, have spread our dreams under your feet, tread softly, for you tread on our dreams."

-Kudos to you who know where this came from

 

[MrFSS]

Well - the possible strike has made the national news.

Full story HERE.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Having little experience with work and such, I feel I have no right to comment on the vast majority of said topics.However, I do request that all parties involved, be reminded that Passenger Rail Travel is not a reserved niche in this economy. Airlines and Auto-Manufacturers would be more than happy to pick up the slack if things gave way.

I feel I can say this: "We, as rail fans and rail travelers, have spread our dreams under your feet, tread softly, for you tread on our dreams."

-Kudos to you who know where this came from

They sure would- in the long term. In the short term, they couldn't. Period. Block off just one of the 4 main arteries running into New York City from New Jersey to the south on a weekday. What you will have is every single road going into the city grinding to a halt from all the traffic diverted off the road. Even if its the smallest road. (Say, Route 1 & 9) In two weeks time, traffic will start moving once again if the road stays closed. It will take time for people to merge, get used to the new route, replan their commutes around the changes, and so forth.

The Airlines would have the same problem. The system shuts down, and all of a sudden the traffic it once carried will have to be diverted elsewhere. Shutting down just Penn Station and the North Shore tunnels would be a nightmare in and of itself. You'd have just cut off 600,000 people going into and out of the city. These people will have to take airplanes and roads. Add about 20% more traffic onto the road grid and see what happens. Gridlock. Sure, in a few years, everything will sort out. New York City would be forced to build a new road into city, for one. The Port Authority or MTA would take over Penn Station and that section of the NEC would be manned by SOMEONE. Things would slowly get back to normal. But the effect of the lack of Amtrak would reverberate through Boston, NY, California, Washington, and Chicago in a way that would have Congress racing to get the system back up before it came to that.

 

[John Bredin]

But the effect of the lack of Amtrak would reverberate through Boston, NY, California, Washington, and Chicago in a way that would have Congress racing to get the system back up before it came to that.

Yes, and then a bunch of people in Congress who were on the fence on Amtrak, neither vehemently opposed to it nor a strong defender, come to the conclusion (right or wrong) that any dependence on Amtrak is dangerous, realize the union can't paralyze the nation again if Amtrak doesn't exist, and start voting with the kill-Amtrak faction.

Amtrak as a political entity is dependent on the goodwill of Congress, which has some linkage to the public's goodwill. Screw around with enough of the traveling or commuting public, and you get swarms of letters to the editor -- and to Congressmen -- calling for Amtrak's proverbial head on a platter. Get enough of those, and someone starts dancing the dance of the seven veils while a guard sharpens his sword. Angry people often don't make distinctions between Amtrak, its unions, or the man in the moon: their commute or travel was goofed up "due to Amtrak" and someone's going to pay!

I see a lot of people on various web-boards who seem eager to "stick it to the Man!" utterly ignoring that Amtrak is hardly "the Man." Am I the only one who recalls the old saying about getting blood from turnips?!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Congress's usual solution to problems is to throw money at it. Solving the problem is never going to happen by dissolving a multi-billion dollar system serving millions of constituents. Its easier to stand at a podium, speak big words while waving your fist, and make a feeble "no-amtrak" vote motion than to actually do something. Amtrak ain't gonna disappear. Fade into oblivion over a period of years, possibly. Simply disappear? No.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Would a short lived strike be all that bad? I mean after a day of the Northeast being thrown into turmoil because people can't get to work Amtrak would get alot more respect and Congress would think twice about cutting Amtrak funding.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Would a short lived strike be all that bad? I mean after a day of the Northeast being thrown into turmoil because people can't get to work Amtrak would get alot more respect and Congress would think twice about cutting Amtrak funding.

Lets stop the would a, could a doomsday scenario, There will probably not be a strike but untill the rank and file votes, and results are tallied around March 10th we will not know.

 

[MDRailfan]

Would a short lived strike be all that bad? I mean after a day of the Northeast being thrown into turmoil because people can't get to work Amtrak would get alot more respect and Congress would think twice about cutting Amtrak funding.

Lets stop the would a, could a doomsday scenario, There will probably not be a strike but untill the rank and file votes, and results are tallied around March 10th we will not know.

I read under NARP on their website tonight that a tenative agreement was signed by UTU conductors and asst conductors and needs to be ratified. Is this a different contract then the other being ratified? Does this prolong the two tallies way past March 10? I'm travelling on March 15 on the Autotrain. Do I need again to worry?

 

[Dutchrailnut]

The UTU deal has nothing to do with the 9 union vote and possible deal in March.

the UTU is in seperate negotiation and not even close to a strike.