posted
With all this talk of late trains and other service problems, has anyone ever quantified the cost of reparations to passengers? I'm sure all of those hotel rooms, flights, free meals etc. end up costing Amtrak a bundle. Maybe holding the host road responsible for such things would help get trains through on time. Yea, like THAT would ever happen.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So long as the host road has moved the train "over the road" with reasonable dispatch and in the absence of gross negligence by either party, the operating contracts with the roads call for self-indemnification, or in the vernacular, "no-fault".
Passenger inconvenience costs are the responsibility of Amtrak; any change from that would require Amtrak and the roads to negotiate such - and you could be sure if the roads were potentially liable for those costs, they would want their "pieces of silver".
[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 07-16-2004).]
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, too, have often wondered the same thing. How much would Amtrak save if it didn't have to pay for frequent bustitutions? The host railroads may have no financial liability in that regard, but the fact remains, it does cost Amtrak money to make those alternate arrangements. Finding out how much would be most interesting.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the severly late Amtrak trains I've been on in the last decade had departed hours late from thier origin point because of equipment problems. And from then on it's only going to get worse--late trains always get later.
Posts: 7 | From: dallas, tx | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When in SAC with my dad i was digging in a bunch of old stuff and we found a folder from 71 and it predicted Amtrak would have an x-amount of money(forgot the amount) and the amount they predicted Amtrak would make is half of wht it is now. So according to 71 Amtrak is doin fine
[This message has been edited by chubbes (edited 07-16-2004).]
Posts: 98 | From: Bakersfield, CA, USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to your comment Mr. Toy: No liability, but I seem to recall that host railroads get a bonus if AMTRAK trains run on time. I am guessing one of the board members knows the accuracy of that notion. I would also like to see what the airlines' cost ratios are for comparable customer transportation problems: missed connections, hotel vouchers, freebies for overbooking, crew waiting time for non revenue producing times (waiting on the ground and then having to have a new crew because of hours). That info is also probably out there somewhere, as closely monitored as the airlines are.
Somewhat off this vein: I heard a piece on NPR today about the railroads having so much coal and other product moving business because of the booming economy, that they are experiencing a shortage of freight cars; customers are having to wait, causing production slowdowns and delivery delays. I don't know enough about the numbers of cars etc etc, but I found the story interesting. Seems to me pressure to get their equipment moved around to produce greater revenue than they get from AMTRAK would come into play more strongly if this is the case.
Posts: 300 | From: Denver, CO USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ira Slotkin: I seem to recall that host railroads get a bonus if AMTRAK trains run on time.
That is correct. And hosts that fail to deliver Amtrak trains on time pay penalties. Maybe the penalties are sufficient to cover the cost of bustitutions, I don't know.
I don't know about this year, but a couple years ago UP was the only railroad to pay penalties to the tune of $1.2 million. That same year, BNSF racked up $12 million in incentive payments, far more than any other railroad.
According to David Gunn, BNSF considers Amtrak to be a "profit center." UP, on the other hand, figures the penalties aren't severe enough to justify delaying freight. There are two entirely different corproate cultures at work here. The unanswered question is how to make UP more like BNSF. But that is a topic for another thread.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 07-17-2004).]
posted
Mr Toy is correct - that is what somebody at BNSF told me as I was touring their facility near Fort Worth, TX. It is a good source of income for BNSF, whereas UP don't seem to regard the bonuses as worthwhile.
It's the same over in the UK. Ntwork Rail manages the track and signalling, and if they delay a train, then that train operating company (TOC) gets a penalty payment made to them. If the TOC delays other trains then the TOC pays Network Rail a fine.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then, it may be possible that Amtrak has no financial incentive on whether trains are on time or not. If on time they pay out a bonus. If very late they may have to pay for busses, hotels, etc. So maybe their objective is to always be just a little bit late to maximize revenue?
Posts: 363 | From: Southwest North Central Florida | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
For example, in February 2004, Union Pacific got $0 in incentive payments, but was not penalized either. BNSF received $776,860 for the month, which is the highest amount to any freight railroad but was, in fact only 34% of the potential incentives earned!! So if BNSF had operated all Amtrak trains on time, they would have stood to benefit $2.3 million just for ONE MONTH.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
