I took the Texas Eagle (22/322/422) this weekend and we had to pull over for just about every single frieght between Saint Louis and Lincoln, Illinois.
TWICE we had to pull into a siding -- wait for the freight to pass -- and then back up (over a mile both times)to get back on the mainline because another freight was sitting ahead on the siding or should I say just some empty freight cars?
Most of the passengers were freaked we were backing up for quite sometime and didn't understand what was going on.
We were between 4-5 hours late Saturday getting into Union Station. But kudos to the Amtrak crew at CUS who got 22 cleaned and turned around as 59 in just about an hour and a half.
ALSO... any idea what happened to 4 this weekend? It was due in 3:20pm Saturday (May 13), but arrived after 6am Sunday (May 14). Nearly 15 hours late!
I'd love to hear the story on that one.
Posts: 100 | From: Milwaukee, WI | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It hit a pedestrian in Arizona, and lost time along the way.
Posts: 286 | From: Knee deep in the retention tank | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What to do with UP? I'd say lay them a few thousand miles of second main line track, upgrade the existing track to higher speeds, make them lose some of their freight to road haulage, and then everybody should be happy. Might cost a dollar or two, but hey, it fixes their problems.
Geoff M.
PS Tongue firmly embedded in cheek.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Following up on Mr. Geoff's thoughts without any tongue in cheek, let us simply recognize that the Amtrak contract puts about $100M in Union Pacific's coffers. Their Total Railway Operating Revenues are about $13B, and as such the contract represents some SIX TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT of the Total.
Can anyone reasonably expect that UP is going to plan their operations around Amtrak's requirement of service? Uh, I don't think so, they will move 'em over the road when they can!
If I were a UP stakeholder (debt or equity; the latter I have been in the past) and my management did such, they would hear about it in Omaha.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love to see the contract UP signed with Amtrak after 1996. Contracts were renegotiated with each of the Railroads on which Amtrak operated. I wonder if Amtrak has no recourse according to this contract? Or perhaps Amtrak doesn't want to haul UP into court for fear that UP will retaliate.
Offer 'em a carrot...Amtrak will get rid of the Sunset Limited for "Iron-clad" guarantees that other trains running on UP will be held as close to schedule as possible.
Yeah, I know, this is going to ____ some people off. But I wonder about the possibilities of wheeling and dealing! Let the fur fly!
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is BNSF able to accommodate Amtrak so well, without serious disruption to their freight business ? Is there a major difference in their infrastructure, or does UP just suffer from poor management ?
Posts: 133 | From: Canaan, CT | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jgart56: I would love to see the contract UP signed with Amtrak after 1996. Contracts were renegotiated with each of the Railroads on which Amtrak operated. I wonder if Amtrak has no recourse according to this contract? Or perhaps Amtrak doesn't want to haul UP into court for fear that UP will retaliate.
Offer 'em a carrot...Amtrak will get rid of the Sunset Limited for "Iron-clad" guarantees that other trains running on UP will be held as close to schedule as possible.
Yeah, I know, this is going to ____ some people off. But I wonder about the possibilities of wheeling and dealing! Let the fur fly!
After you get rid of the sunset, 6 months later UP will back to it's old tricks until you offer to get rid of another train.
Posts: 562 | From: Beaumont Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If any Class I choses to forego the performance bounus in their contract the the only standard applying is 'reasonable dispatch". Short of some party establishing that a carrier had intentionally delayed a train, as distinct from moving it along with other requirements of service, it is best to consider that reasonable dispatch has been met.
Best just live with it, Mr. Gart, as the performance is likely to get worse as traffic demands grow. Further, I would not consider the BNSF immune from deterioriating OTP in the future.
Lastly Mr. Tabern, lest we forget someone in Omaha has likely asked "what are we going to do about Amtrak disrupting our operations?"
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Can anyone reasonably expect that UP is going to plan their operations around Amtrak's requirement of service? Uh, I don't think so, they will move 'em over the road when they can!
If I were a UP stakeholder (debt or equity; the latter I have been in the past) and my management did such, they would hear about it in Omaha.
If I were a UP stakeholder, I would be asking why so much freight is delayed. Its a capacity problem to a large extent. But I wouldn't be surprised if inefficient management of resources might also be a factor. A handful of Amtrak trains are not the problem, nor is mishandling Amtrak part of the solution. Even if Amtrak went away tomorrow, UP freight would still be delayed.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I am wromg. When Amtrak was formed, the provate freight companies agreed that no existing track (at the time ) was to be removed and that Amtrak was to have full access to it. Since that time , a full 1/3rd HAS been removed or abandoned----with no recourse for Amtrak but to simply accept the fact.
Perhaps I am misinformed.
I jonestly believe that just simply is not the capacity that there once was.
Millions and millions of dollars must now be RE-invested in track capacity. This money must come from SOMEwhere. That will "fix" the problem. Either the federal government must come up with the money , or the private freight companies themselves.
Also, I believe that the private companies might be offered major tax incentives to "embrace" Amtrak more.
I am curious as to just how much of a "discount" Amtrak receives from the private freight companies. I have heard it is about a full third. Is this true ?
Posts: 187 | From: Pittsburgh , PA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since UP is currently on a gigantic hiring and buying of locomotives binge, I would have to agree with Mr.Toy that there is some problem with inefficient management. My suggestion of wheeling and dealing was tongue in cheek.
I believe BNSF has built more capacity and in the past, knows when to cut back on "amounts hauled" when it can't do the job. I think UP just takes more and more haulage and then wonders what to do with it! Now their excuse is of course "we don't have enough personnel and locomotives."
Mr. Norman, I think UP intentionally (along with CSX) delays Amtrak with the hope of "maybe they'll go away." I STILL wonder what, if any recourse Amtrak has? Legally, that is! Gee, how about finding some former UP dispatchers who would be willing to testify?? (That was tongue in cheek too)
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were a UP stakeholder, I would be asking why so much freight is delayed. Its a capacity problem to a large extent. But I wouldn't be surprised if inefficient management of resources might also be a factor. A handful of Amtrak trains are not the problem, nor is mishandling Amtrak part of the solution. Even if Amtrak went away tomorrow, UP freight would still be delayed
There is likely all too much truth to your quoted statement, Mr. Toy. It seems the consensus out there amongst industry and financial professionals is that the BNSF is a better managed property.
However, a thought with which I would strongly disagree if it were to be expressed or implied, is that Amtrak operations should be a direct beneficiary if UP were to "get its act together'. Any additional capacity realized from a more economic and efficient operation should be used to move additional freight traffic. The traffic is there, and that is what UP in business to handle.
Once again, UP is an investor owned business enterprise - and Amtrak is on their rails and taking up a "slot' yet contributing nothing whatever to the "bottom line'.
To continue, Mr. Talk, the provisions you note regarding "same degree of utility as pre-existing" (the language used IIRC) were delineated in Section 3.3 of the May 1, 1971 Agreement, however, such expired under the twenty five year "sunset" provision.
Lastly, Mr. Gart notes;
Mr. Norman, I think UP intentionally (along with CSX) delays Amtrak with the hope of "maybe they'll go away."
Let the record show that I disagree with that statement.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
As a shareholder of the UP, I'm delighted in how their share price and EPS has improved in the past 12 months.
It was $61 a year ago. I'ts $96.16 this morning.
I do hope UP will reinvest in infrastructure. I may write in a question before the Annual Meeting.
If you REALLY do not like UP, go and buy its stock, then go to the Annual Meeting and make comment. Even better, as a shareholder you can make motions in the proxy statement to have the Corporation DO THINGS (or not do them!).
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But some decisions just seem to be a waste of money, but I know it's the corporate world.
Case and point, the UP line between Chicago and Kenosha (not the one the Hiawathas run on).
I was told it was double-tracked between Chicago and Milwaukee, but then they (or C&NW back then) tore up one track between Kenosha and Milwaukee, but it kept it double track between Chicago and Kenosha so the Metras could run.
Now they (now owned by the UP) are talking about Metra being extended to Milwaukee and possibly putting in a second track again in the coming years on that line.
Maybe railroads shouldn't be so eager to single track so much!
Posts: 100 | From: Milwaukee, WI | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fully agree Mr Tabern, that railroads during the '70's were simply to aggressive to reduce plant. They either could not or wished not to forsee the explosion in rail traffic arising from de-regulation and from globalization.
But having been in the industry during that era, be assured the way a manager earned points was to see what he could cut.
I'm sure that CSX has thought twice about the wisdom of both single tracking the ACL and truncating the SAL as a through routing. The same applies to the single tracking of the IC "Main Line of Mid America' Homewood-Memphis.
Other similar examples abound, but these are the travesties that served no one's long term interests. I hope the managers who signed off on these projects are enjoying their brownie points. As far as the rail shipping community is concerned, I doubt if they are singing Oscar Strauss' "My Hero' in their behalf.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BNSF and I assume UP are now declining freight because they cannot handle it and keep the committments they have made to existing customers. Both are spending substantial sums to expand capacity at the locations where there is a demand. By the way, these are not the same locations where track capacity was cut back a few years ago. The market driven economy changes and the RR's being the most energy efficient means to move the products in demand are beneficiaries.
For those at this site who really wish to understand what the current dynamics are I suggest a subscription to TRAINS, or at least read it occasionally. Also, RAILWAY AGE is good.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was at the northeastern NARP meeting in March and NARP president Chilson was bordering on optimism with both UP and NS having recieved "young blood" heading their respective corporations, perhaps not managing "by the book" as much. I am willing to wait and see at this point in time. Out here, when Mr. Snow left CSX all of a sudden the railroad was maintained, or so it seemed, but they still have a long way to go. Different railroads view their incentive clauses differently. BNSF (don't forget CN/IC and CP here too) have traditionally been very accomodating of passenger trains, whereas UP, CSX, and NS (in that order) are not. UP has hit problems since the late nineties. As you've seen, they have had a huge upswing in tonnage to move, so you get longer trains and more of them. All of a sudden, freight trains don't fit in their sidings so Amtrak has to hit the hole for a while. "We Will Deliver" is incredibly vague as to when. Now that they seem to have almost enough motive power (running) to pull everything and finally enough crews to move the trains, they have an opportunity to move forward on extending some sidings and adding track-miles, and if I were a stakeholder, that's what I would be watching very closely. This overcapacity crunch in transportation is NOT going to go away, so it makes sense that the Class I railroads should get their infrastructure in shape to handle it now, at the beginning of the wave, and show new customers what they can do. Diesel is getting expensive, and (thanks to people like me) highways are under construction for the summer. Sure, railroads are being worked on too, so it's a question of whether the UPS trucks are moving faster than the UPS trailers-on-flat-cars.
If I wrote Amtrak's schedules (I would live in Wilmington and) I'd just spot the Chief and the Lakeshore behind the hot container/TOFC trains. I know, it's not that easy, and those freights hardly run on a set schedule. Where's Paul Reistrup nowadays?
Posts: 391 | From: Schenectady | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Once again, UP is an investor owned business enterprise - and Amtrak is on their rails and taking up a "slot' yet contributing nothing whatever to the "bottom line'.
Forgive me for oversimplifying things, but doesn't Amtrak's contribution to the UP ultimately manifest as relief from a government requirement that they operate a passenger service, even if it is at a severe loss?
(The administration has, after all, suggested that private companies ought to handle the long distance trains... nobody ever said it had to be *voluntary*)
Posts: 108 | From: Culver City, CA, US | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
That may have been the case with the original contracts that the freight railroads signed circa 1971; but when they died in 1996, new contracts were negotiated with each of the freight railroads. I hazard a guess that your above mentioned language is not in any of the new contracts. Again, I would love to see some of these contracts...I also hazard another guess that you will not be able to find any of them online!
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me for oversimplifying things, but doesn't Amtrak's contribution to the UP ultimately manifest as relief from a government requirement that they operate a passenger service, even if it is at a severe loss?
Not exactly, Mr. RY.
Railroads that declined to join Amtrak were required to forego petitioning the ICC to discontinue trains operating on A-Day eve for a period of five years.
Even if railroads had their petitions to discontinue trains denied at that time, namely 1976, the railroad industry was deregulated with respect to rates and services upon implementation of the Staggers Act during 1980.
Quite simply, had there not been the Amtrak enabling legislation, there would not be an LD train anywhere in the USA today, and in all likelihood the reasonably strong California initiative would also simply "never been".
Continued operation and public funding for the Corridor would simply have been a provision of the Conrail enabling legislation - the RRR Act of 1975.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At BNSF we take pride in running Amtrak on time we will lay down the Rairoad for Amtrak to get across it starts about an hour and a half before Amtrak is due thru that area when we start going into the siding's to clear up.
-------------------- Matt Marderosian Director Of Save Our Trains Michigan www.saveourtrainsmichigan
posted
I'm guessing BNSF feels sorry for Amtrak and WANTS to keep them alive. Then the UP on the other hand....Wants them gone NO MATTER WHAT. UP will never be nice to Amtrak as to them it is just foreign trains taking up their tracks. And the more trains they get rid of the more people get angry. Eventually (maybe never) UP will realize that Amtrak isn't going away (we hope) and will consider running their trains on-time. When the 8444 came into town the UP came to a hault everthing stopped no one moved until it well on it's way. Trains didn't start moving until after the passing of the 8444. And once a LONG time ago... if it was a passenger train it would get the same treatment.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
