Texas Freight Bullies

[boyce]

I may be showing my ignorance here but it seems that the "stop & wait" on freight trains is dramatically less in other states. OTP is merely an excursion in futility until the freight lines are curtailed.

 

[xlr]

Amtrak is at the mercy of the freight railroads, unfortunetely. Everywhere except the Northeast corridor, if I'm not mistaken. Freight trans have priority, since they own the tracks. I wish it were different.

 

[Amfleet]

Amtrak is at the mercy of the freight railroads, unfortunetely. Everywhere except the Northeast corridor, if I'm not mistaken. Freight trans have priority, since they own the tracks. I wish it were different.

Well according to the rules set by congress when Amtrak was formed in the late 1960's, freight railroads were supposed to give Amtrak trains priority. Like that really followed through. Yes, freight railroads like the Union Pacific have treated Amtrak trains pretty poorly through dispatching, but otherwise they're in no better shape than Amtrak is. In fact its much worse when you look at the big picture. The freight railroad infrastructure is crumbling and the government is doing nothing about.

 

[battalion51]

Well in some cases to there are situations where the freight has to take "priority" because of extunationg circumstances. Here are a few I can think of. On 97 we were following Q237 (Lousville-Tampa Autoracks). We were knocking down Approach after Approach after Approach. When we called the dispatcher to see what the problem was he said it was because 237 was too long to fit into any of the sidings. Southbound on 97 waiting to meet Q188. We stopped on the main at Kissimmee, but he was 3/4 of the to Kissimmee (from the next siding) when we stopped. Not the best meet in the world, but still not bad since we held the main. Northbound on 98 stopped in siding at West Palm Beach station. We work from siding, the P683 works from the main, K915 passes on the main, K941 passes on the main. Half hour delay for us. We are scheduled to meet 683 at West Palm anyway so no complaints there, while 915 and 941 were both too long to fit in sidings. While both could have pulled in siding as far as the could and then eased on down after we passed the switch there were fewer overall delays.

 

[coronado]

I've taken the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited from Dallas twice in the past 4 months and the southbound train has been at the station on time or early for each of those trips... pretty good performance considering it came all the way from Chicago the day before. Although we were a little behind through the intermediate stops along the way, we actually arrived in San Antonio early both times because of schedule padding.

And about 12:30 this afternoon, I saw the Southbound Eagle running 70 to 75mph just outside of Terrell, TX (about 30 miles east of Dallas)... about 20 minutes ahead of schedule. I've also had occasion to see the Southbound Eagle at Dallas Union Station several other times in the past month or two and it has been in the station at its regular 1:30 arrival time with some consistency.

The most problems I've experience in Texas have been on the eastbound Sunset/northbound Eagle leg overnight from Alpine to San Antonio. The last trip we were almost 7 hours late into San Antonio and actually stopped outside of D'Hanis, TX because the crew had gone off the clock... blamed it on UP freight traffic after leaving Alpine. We actually stopped about 500 short of pulling onto a siding that would have allowed numerous waiting UP freights to pass us until our new crew arrived... hmmm...

 

[AlanB]

Well according to the rules set by congress when Amtrak was formed in the late 1960's, freight railroads were supposed to give Amtrak trains priority. Like that really followed through.

Well the problem with the rule, is that Congress never gave Amtrak or anyone else the authority to take the freight RR's to task for the delays they caused. At a minimum Amtrak should have be given the power to withhold their monthly payment, if a host RR does not reach a certain goal of on time performance.

Yes, freight railroads like the Union Pacific have treated Amtrak trains pretty poorly through dispatching, but otherwise they're in no better shape than Amtrak is. In fact its much worse when you look at the big picture. The freight railroad infrastructure is crumbling and the government is doing nothing about.

It's not just that the government is doing nothing. In most cases the freight RR's don't want money from the government, because they don't want to be beholden to the government. They are afraid that if they take federal monies, then the government will force them to do certain things, run certain trains, allow commuter access and things like that. So they don't ask for federal money.

 

[AlanB]

Well in some cases to there are situations where the freight has to take "priority" because of extunationg circumstances. Here are a few I can think of. On 97 we were following Q237 (Lousville-Tampa Autoracks). We were knocking down Approach after Approach after Approach. When we called the dispatcher to see what the problem was he said it was because 237 was too long to fit into any of the sidings. Southbound on 97 waiting to meet Q188. We stopped on the main at Kissimmee, but he was 3/4 of the to Kissimmee (from the next siding) when we stopped. Not the best meet in the world, but still not bad since we held the main. Northbound on 98 stopped in siding at West Palm Beach station. We work from siding, the P683 works from the main, K915 passes on the main, K941 passes on the main. Half hour delay for us. We are scheduled to meet 683 at West Palm anyway so no complaints there, while 915 and 941 were both too long to fit in sidings. While both could have pulled in siding as far as the could and then eased on down after we passed the switch there were fewer overall delays.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here.

I can think of no time that freight should get priority over passengers. In the example that you sited, yes it would seem that there was no alternative but to delay Amtrak.

However, this is merely an example of poor planning on the part of the RR and specifically the yardmaster. He should have been aware that he was building a train that was longer than almost every siding in that area. While in some sense I'm suggesting that they should had built that train to deal with Amtrak, it does go deeper here.

By building a train that was too long, they also impacted their own freight service. Since they delayed Amtrak, that delayed whatever trains were behind Amtrak. Additionally, it is quite likely that a hotshot running in the other direction was forced into the hole too, simply because this train was put together with no consideration for the operating territory it would run through.

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

The only time BNSF will delay AMTK is if one of our trains is running on short time and can make it without stoping to the crew change point.

 

[Amfleet]

The only time BNSF will delay AMTK is if one of our trains is running on short time and can make it without stoping to the crew change point.

BNSF seems to be Amtrak's best host railroad and the Empire Builders OTP prooves it.

 

[AMTRAK-P42]

The only time BNSF will delay AMTK is if one of our trains is running on short time and can make it without stoping to the crew change point.

BNSF seems to be Amtrak's best host railroad and the Empire Builders OTP prooves it.

They are def. without contest. We can all look at the Empire Builder to see this in action, and it shows.

 

[PennsyFan]

I am as great a believer in the free market as anyone, but I have to say that when I hear about and experience: a. Amtrak's constant latenesses, b. the crumbling infrastructure of freight railways, and c. freight railways' shortsitedness and focus on a temporary profit, I cannot but think that perhaps we might be better off with a nationalized system, or at least a nationalized infrastructure. Let the government (federal, state, or local) take over all right of way, everywhere in the country, used for general traffic (i.e. not the Durango & Silverton and other tour railways). Then put in dispatchers, paid for by an oversight agency, and give them, or a private contractor providing them, pay incentives based on the OTP of all trains, with higher incentives for passenger, then fast freight, etc. Amtrak would then run on time, and would be able to tap a much larger market, especially given the development of infrastructure which would go along with government takeover. It worked in Europe - say what you will about European foreign policy (I do not want to start any sort of argument about an unrelated issue) - their trains do run on time. Given what we know of people's behavior in the free market, we can hardly expect freight railways to do anything other than shaft Amtrak when their profit is at stake.

The other option, of course, is to give passenger operations back to the freight railroads, mandate routes which they must operate, and offer subsidies based on service quality and on-time performance, and not inversely proportional to profitability (in other words, if the service is bad the Freight RRs get nothing, but have to run the trains and lose lots of money because nobody rides them, and if the service is good not only do they lose less money or even make money on the service, they also get subsides for good service being provided. If the subsides disappeared when routes became profitable, the freight RRs would have no incentive to offer good service.)

Either way, the present system just doesn't work.

 

[Amfleet]

I am as great a believer in the free market as anyone, but I have to say that when I hear about and experience: a. Amtrak's constant latenesses, b. the crumbling infrastructure of freight railways, and c. freight railways' shortsitedness and focus on a temporary profit, I cannot but think that perhaps we might be better off with a nationalized system, or at least a nationalized infrastructure. Let the government (federal, state, or local) take over all right of way, everywhere in the country, used for general traffic (i.e. not the Durango & Silverton and other tour railways). Then put in dispatchers, paid for by an oversight agency, and give them, or a private contractor providing them, pay incentives based on the OTP of all trains, with higher incentives for passenger, then fast freight, etc. Amtrak would then run on time, and would be able to tap a much larger market, especially given the development of infrastructure which would go along with government takeover. It worked in Europe - say what you will about European foreign policy (I do not want to start any sort of argument about an unrelated issue) - their trains do run on time. Given what we know of people's behavior in the free market, we can hardly expect freight railways to do anything other than shaft Amtrak when their profit is at stake.
The other option, of course, is to give passenger operations back to the freight railroads, mandate routes which they must operate, and offer subsidies based on service quality and on-time performance, and not inversely proportional to profitability (in other words, if the service is bad the Freight RRs get nothing, but have to run the trains and lose lots of money because nobody rides them, and if the service is good not only do they lose less money or even make money on the service, they also get subsides for good service being provided. If the subsides disappeared when routes became profitable, the freight RRs would have no incentive to offer good service.)

Either way, the present system just doesn't work.

You hit it right on the ball. However, if the federal, state, and local governments were to take over maintaining plant and dispatching nation wide, then in turn they're going to want Amtrak to run as a private sector. Thus no more subsidy, which I think Amtrak will still need anyway.

Giving freight railroads back passenger operations would not be a good decision. Remember, Amtrak was formed because the freight railroads (private railroads) gave up passenger operations back in the '60's. I'm not sure the Union Pacific wants back what they gave up 32 years ago.

 

[PennsyFan]

I think that if physical plant were well maintained and well dispatched, Amtrak or other operators (which would allow competition in its proper place, possibly improve service, and in any case help appease the free-market fundamentalists) possibly could recover 100% or more of above-the-rail expenses. However, I do not think that the federal government would necessarily refuse operating aid if capital costs were covered; airports and air traffic control are paid for by the government, and yet operating subsidies are also given when necessary.

I think, also, that if it clearly made the UP money to run passenger trains well, they would run passenger trains well. The government could impose really punitive penalties (i.e. tens millions of dollars per year per route) on railroads that obviously weren't even trying. This might also help defray the cost of the additonal subsidies. In any event, I don't think this latter plan is a good idea, but it is at least better than the present system in which conflict of interest is so clear that members of Congress are starting to see it.

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

BNSF and Amtrak's MGT work togather BNSF get's $20 million a year for on time performance from Amtrak so the way BNSF looks at it is one more buisness contract but in my rule book it says you will not give AMTK a less then clear signal same with the Z trains that we run i have delayed AMTK once for 15 min pulling into the yard that just made me mad but the Amtrak engineer is a freind of mine and he said he would rather have me pull in the yard then wait in the hole for over an hour.