"Intercity and commuter rail preference". Is that the same as intrastate and interstate rail preference? Would it apply to intrastate Amtrak trains such as the Pacific Surfliners?
Another quote:
"Under this view of preference, the Board would take a systemic, global approach in determining whether a host carrier has granted the intercity passenger train preference".
Richard
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Richard, the RPSA 70 legislation said that the member roads roads would operate the train's in an "economic and efficient manner" - a statement that is one of those to which one asks "Big Daddy, what do you want it to mean"?
During 1973. Amtrak and the roads entered into Amended Agreements" which provided for performance payments. a good number of years or well into the '80's that was a good incentive to keep 'em on time. However, rail traffic continued to grow, and along with, to me, some "bonehead" reductions in track capacity, the economic incentive to "give 'em the railroad" was gone. To add insult to injury, Amtrak curtailed the performance payments to such extent that they were meaningless. While I highly doubt if any road wilfully and maliciously delays Amtrak trains (I know some advocates hold that view), the sentiment is simply "we'll get you over the road when we can".
So Amtrak, if you want them to run on time, and especially if you want to see 16hr NY CHI schefules, and 24hr NY MIA, best start "digging deep".
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
Another quote from the article:
"The surface transportation board is now proposing a change to a system where railroads that own tracks shared between passenger and freight trains are able to make more nuanced operational decisions".
My dictionary defines "nuance" as a slight or subtle difference in expression or meaning. Yes, "Big Daddy, what do you mean?".
I quite agree, Mr. Norman, that the freights aren't maliciously delaying trains and Amtrak has to share in some of the reasons for lateness.
However, I sure hope we don't go back to the old days, where it would not be unusual for the northbound Coast Starlight to arrive in Portland 2-4 hours behind schedule.
Richard
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
I have noticed that some laws/acts/legislation do seem to be deliberately written to give the widest possible latitude to its interpretation. Who benefits from that depends on the decided interpretation of such.
Regardless, I can understand why freight RRs want to do this. I have been in dispatching centers, or read/heard comments about RRs pretty much shutting down when Amtrak comes through - freights in the sidings half an hour before Amtrak, greens for 25 miles ahead. Obviously that is not always the case, and certainly not on certain RRs, but I have seen enough to see it's solely beneficial to Amtrak and not its host. A better balance that gives a slight preference rather than an absolute priority to Amtrak, in my opinion, would be better for all.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:
A better balance that gives a slight preference rather than an absolute priority to Amtrak, in my opinion, would be better for all. [/QB]
****************************************
I agree, Geoff.
I thought there was some sort of decision, in 2013, involving Amtrak vs. CN which pretty much said that CN did have priority, which I would think would settle the issue. However, I may be wrong.
Richard
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
DISCLAIMER: IRA Position in UNP.
We are now 45 years downstream from the railroads handing over service to NRPC. That's a new baby born on A-Day now an adult in the prime of his working career.
The premise of taking passenger service out of the hands of the railroads is long gone. The changes to the Interstate Commerce Act, sponsored by a Democratic Congress, no less, long ago would have given most passenger service its final train-off via the STB.
It's time for Amtrak to pay its economic share of service to the railroads for the time trains spend on the line. There are any number of viable and valid equalization models, from traditional "per diem" to renting a time block on the line. Amtrak and the roads need to select one and truck on.
My thoughts.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Given the current corporate interest in yield pricing, I wonder if this would be appropriate for Amtrak use of freight RR trackage. Trains on routes with excess capacity would have lower use charge than ones with low capacity due to high freight demand. And that equation would be modified based on overall demand with changes in the economy. So, a Cardinal on an excess capacity coal route and during a economic slowdown would pay considerably less than a SWC operating on the Transcon during boom times.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: It's time for Amtrak to pay its economic share of service to the railroads for the time trains spend on the line. There are any number of viable and valid equalization models, from traditional "per diem" to renting a time block on the line. Amtrak and the roads need to select one and truck on.
But they do pay track access charges - of what value is likely commercially sensitive.
What is publicly known is that BNSF get $$$ incentives to run Amtrak on time, and the incentives work both ways. No idea on UP or other RRs though.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Yield pricing would work.
If the track usage is 200 movements per day, Amtrak should pay 1% of the daily cost of operation.
If the track usage is 2 movements per day, and Amtrak is the last customer on the line, it should pay 100% of the daily cost of operation.
That latter would certainly apply on the historic Santa Fe, the route of 3-4, and I have heard on portions of the historic SP Coast Route, the route of 11-14.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
I would have thought it would be more than just number of trains a day as a percentage of all trains. The UK takes into consideration weight, use of electrification (overhead catenary or 3rd rail), coal spillage (!), and vehicle type (some vehicles cause more wear and tear to the railway than others). The costs are even public. IIRC Amtrak also publishes haulage rates for private cars.
The other factor is that Amtrak is short, fast, and makes sometimes long stops. Not the most efficient combination if you're shifting similar train after similar train of freight across the Transcon, only to mix it with a virtual "local".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr.Mayo, all the six Class I's holding Agreements with Amtrak have performance payments. However, as I noted earlier, the scope of the payments was greatly reduced during '97, and to such extent that the roads no longer had reason to get Amtrak "over the road" to earn the payments.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr.Mayo, all the six Class I's holding Agreements with Amtrak have performance payments. However, as I noted earlier, the scope of the payments was greatly reduced during '97, and to such extent that the roads no longer had reason to get Amtrak "over the road" to earn the payments.
Which returns to my point. The investor owned railroads properly should make sufficient return for the burdened cost of moving an Amtrak train over the line. If they do not, then they need to notify NRPC that they are changing the cost.
If the NRPC agrees, then the railroad has the reasonable duty to move the train with due dispatch.
If the NRPC does not agree, then IMO the train should be handled as a local extra, at the very bottom of the priority list.
Oh: The railroads should file actions with the STB, and notify their patron Congresscritters.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr.Mayo, all the six Class I's holding Agreements with Amtrak have performance payments. However, as I noted earlier, the scope of the payments was greatly reduced during '97, and to such extent that the roads no longer had reason to get Amtrak "over the road" to earn the payments.
That might be true for some RRs but certainly not all. Back when I was at the BNSF NOC 11 years ago the manager touring me around mentioned the large bonuses they receive from Amtrak, and they work hard to get them. Just about a month ago one of Amtrak's route directors in LA said exactly the same thing about BNSF (and simultaneously bemoaned the SCAX dispatching from Pomona CA once in SCAX territories).
Anyhow, since I doubt anybody here is privy to the numbers, all we can say is "yes Amtrak should pay their way" and it may be that they already do. Somewhat difficult to quantify anyway.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
If Mr Buffett's Road has the money locked in, more power to Berkshire Hathaway!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)