x-press said:
Mr. AlanB claims that higher penalty payments would eliminate a lot of delays. I'm not so sure. When I say "tracks aren't made ready for passenger service," that includes the dispatching, understaffing, etc. The freight RR's of this country need infrastructure improvements to support passenger rail, but I rarely hear them discussed by either side of the debate. I hear anguished howls at the prospect of microwaves in the dining car, but a train leaving its origin 5 hours late gets a "nothing we can do about it" response. If this is the best support the long distance train can get, then a tough road just got tougher.
JPS
JPS,
I'm not saying that improvements to capacity, signaling, and dispatching aren't needed for many freight Co's. There is no doubt in my mind that there are problems there. I fully support and believe in the idea that some form of Federal / Freight partnership needs to be reached, to fund those improvements.
On the other hand though, there are many occasions where capacity is not an issue. Since Amtrak pays a pittance, far less than the damage to the infrastructure that an Amtrak trains causes, many freight companies see Amtrak as an intrusion. It costs them money to run Amtrak period, be it on time or late.
So faced with paying penalties for late freight, or even lost business because the freight is late, some RR's choose to put Amtrak on the siding rather than their money making freight trains. Now I'm not suggesting that the freight Co's shouldn't be concerned with their bottom line. After all they are in business to make money. But they also did sign a contract that promised priority to Amtrak and passenger service.
So Amtrak in an effort to make things better now pays bonuses to those companies that achieve certain on time performance levels. BNSF routinely collects those bonus checks. UP on the other hand doesn't seem to care or think that they are big enough.
Personally, what I'm proposing is a combination plan. First, Amtrak should be paying more for the right of passage. Yes, that may mean a bigger subsidy to Amtrak, but it is only fair. I'm not suggesting that a freight Co should be making a profit off Amtrak, but they should be getting fair compensation.
Second, I could see leaving the bonus plan in effect; offering bonuses to Freight Co's that achieve at least a 90% to 95% OTP record for Amtrak.
Finally, for a freight Co that doesn't achieve a minimum OTP of say 70% or so, they should then be penalized for that poor record. Penalties could include no payment from Amtrak at all that month, fines payable to Amtrak, or perhaps refunds to all pax delayed by the company.
What we need is a system that fairly compensates the freight Co's for Amtrak's passage, yet a system that makes it costly for their failure to do so, assuming factor within their control. Obviously things like floods, derailments, accidents and such would not be considered in any penalty calculations. But it is a proven fact that some companies can run on time most of the time, while others don't. It's not just a capacity infrastructure problem; it's the culture of management at the top of the company.
Some people just need to be persuaded to do the right thing. This happens in all facets of life. Some people and companies consistently do the right thing, while others try to cut corners and bend the rules. What I'm proposing, while nothing but a dream and unlikely to ever happen, gives the Freight Co's incentive to do the right thing, and smacks them when they don't.
