quote: But Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said it was only right that Amtrak also benefit from capacity upgrades. The service was formed in 1970 when Congress agreed to let railroads unload passenger service they said was dragging them down. In exchange, the railroads were required to give Amtrak priority on their tracks.
It may be impossible to keep both sides happy.
“There are areas, especially where there’s just a single track, where Amtrak takes as much as 30 percent out of the capacity of freight rail. That’s huge when you’re in a capacity crunch,” said Mullett, the analyst. “There will be hard public policy decisions, and that would include Amtrak.”
Sounds like amtrak might be getting the short end of the stick once again on any sort of infrastructure improvements in the future.
Posts: 30 | From: Colorado | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be helpful to know exactly where Amtrak is consuming 30% of capacity. No doubt someone would like to use this as an excuse to attack the long-distance network, but I doubt Amtrak is anywhere close to being 30% of the traffic in one-train-a-day land. More likely Amtrak takes up more space in emerging regional lines which haven't yet seen much improvement.
posted
First, Mr. Toy, I believe this pertinent quote from the Associated Press material noted by Mr. Spirit is relevant regarding how "one iddy bitty passenger train" can command considerably more track capacity than does its mere number:
quote:The problem on the shared tracks has worsened in recent years as freight traffic has soared. Passenger trains move much faster than most freight trains, and in many areas there is only a single track, forcing trains to pull over onto side tracks and wait while trains coming in the other direction pass.
Secondly, as likely many here know, the Union Pacific has raised $2B either from internally generated funds or the capital markets to double track the Sunset route LA-El Paso. Since at El Paso, traffic diverges to three routes, i.e. Golden State, MP Eagle to Dallas, and of course the existing T&NO route of the Sunset Limited, there is no need at this time to progress the project East of "The Pass'. So much for any thoughts of "why can't they go all the way and put The Argonaut back on".
Now can anyone reasonably expect that the UP is obligated to allocate a portion of this additional capacity being added from private capital sources to handle additional passenger trains?
Finally, while there is no question I am anti-LD train and have been so likely since A-Day and definitely since "dereg", I continue to reiterate that my LD trips made when the mode is convenient to my travel needs and once aboard I find "more positives than negatives', I have a wedding to attend in NY on Sep 13. I am giving thought to a Cardinal #50 out (I have not seen the New River Gorge since Sep 1962), return either Lake Shore or Capitol through Wash. But then, I just might fly as either rail or auto would require me to travel on 9/11, and who would be home to take my flag down at Sunset?
Posts: 9981 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my tiny mind, if Amtrak participates in capacity growth, then it should participate in improved speeds, timeliness, and perhaps space allocation on the line.
Of course, the Amateur Iconoclast in me goes... "Where's the money?"
Equally of course, the inevitable answer to that is 218+51+1.
That said, we need capacity expansion for rail Nationwide. Our investor-owned railroads may not like it, but some form of public-private partnership is justifiable. Perhaps a reasonably palatable path is grants to the State who in turn decide which railroad, where gets the growth.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1st, railroads are indeed spending big $$ to expand and they are doing it where their current and future needs appear.
Public $$ are needed in places where the conflict between increasing public transportation needs and freight RR's business growth vie for the same corridors. Those corridors are almost always owned by the RR's and if they are to 'share' the ROW then public funds muut pay so that fluidity of both freight and public transportation can occur.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if public funds were available to benefit passenger service from track expansion over railroad owned LD routes, there is no assurance that the Class I industry would hang out the welcome sign.
First, there would be the disruption to existing operations; and then the question would arise "what's in it for us"?
More passenger trains mean more people would be along railroad property, so the issue of who will indemnify now that the property has become more so of an "attractive nuisance"? While I think the position CSX has taken regarding the lines in Central Florida proposed to be sold to a local agency and used predominately to support a new regional passenger service operation is a "bit much", it nevertheless means that more people at trackside (and I don't mean railfans - most more safety conscious than many an employee, vagrants, and "sickos" looking for a way to 'end it all") and, hence, more exposure. In this matter, CSX has taken the position that they will be fully indemnified for any injuries, property or persons, by the owning local agency - even if one of THEIR trains "takes a spill' (apparently CSX will still have access to these agency owned tracks to serve on-line industries).
To continue, we must consider the array of "Rules and Regulations" that go with any "government contract" and the impact of such on an otherwise private sector property. Again I must ask the question of "what's in it for us"?
Finally, we must consider contemporary railroad management's mindset. I guarantee you, "back in my day" the sentiment of management was simply "why can't they find somewhere else to run their trains" or "can't they save the taxpayers some $$$ and just fold up"? Nothing has passed since then to mollify that sentiment and with the increase in profitable traffic that is straining the existing system, that sentiment has likely hardened to "what the h--- did our predecessors get us into when they signed on with that morphodite outfit they call Amtrak'?.
Posts: 9981 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read the text of Lautenberg as going to the House for final debate.
It seems to me the capital improvement $$$ in the bill, to wit:
quote: d) Capital Grants- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the use of Amtrak for capital projects (as defined in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 24401(2) of title 49, United States Code) to bring the Northeast Corridor (as defined in section 24102(a)) to a state-of-good-repair, for capital expenses of the national rail passenger transportation system, and for purposes of making capital grants under section 24402 of that title to States, the following amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2009, $1,202,000,000. (2) For fiscal year 2010, $1,321,000,000. (3) For fiscal year 2011, $1,321,000,000. (4) For fiscal year 2012, $1,427,000,000. (5) For fiscal year 2013, $1,427,000,000.
(e) Amounts for State Grants- Out of the amounts authorized under subsection (d), the following percentage shall be available each fiscal year for capital grants to States under section 24402 of title 49, United States Code, to be administered by the Secretary of Transportation:
(1) 41.60 percent for fiscal year 2009. (2) 38 percent for fiscal year 2010. (3) 38 percent for fiscal year 2011. (4) 35 percent for fiscal year 2012. (5) 35 percent for fiscal year 2013.
is a way for Congress to fund capacity improvements for many of the freight railroads without saying so.
I find the percentages interesting. Anyone care to bet that the size and seniority of the Congressional delegation will have much to do with who gets what?
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Mr. Norman mentions above, the UP is spending more this year than the total allocted in any year by the legislation.
Folks, it costs lots of money to keep a RR in 1st class operting condition; and while the amounts mentioned in the legislation sound very large to we correspondents they are actually rather small amounts when compared to monies spent annually by the RR's
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: First, Mr. Toy, I believe this pertinent quote from the Associated Press material noted by Mr. Spirit is relevant regarding how "one iddy bitty passenger train" can command considerably more track capacity than does its mere number:
quote:The problem on the shared tracks has worsened in recent years as freight traffic has soared. Passenger trains move much faster than most freight trains, and in many areas there is only a single track, forcing trains to pull over onto side tracks and wait while trains coming in the other direction pass.
GBN, that quotation is much too vague to determine any specific impact on capacity. It merely explains what happens when there are too many trains and not enough track: somebody has to wait. This principle is not unique to railroads. It also applies to runways and roadways.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Mr. Toy, the quotation is vague, but it effectively communicates to a layman.
I find that the Associated Press seems to have a cadre of staff reporters well informed on railroad industry affairs.
Posts: 9981 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I agree Mr. Toy, the quotation is vague, but it effectively communicates to a layman.
Again, I disagree. It implies that the passenger train is automatically at fault for creating congestion. The error is compounded by stating that passenger trains account for 30% of the congestion on some routes, without identifying the routes. This only serves to mislead, rather than enlighten, the layman.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it is misleading - to anybody. Whilst statistics can be made to give any figure you like, 30% seems quite high. But I suspect that the reporter is quoting just a few very isolated areas where the impact of Amtrak disgorging passengers on a single line could severely dent the headways on the line, or where Amtrak is given priority over freights parked in sidings, or perhaps the Fort Worth quadrangle where two backup moves are performed twice a day, each taking some time and blocking several routes. But in any case the statement could have been far more specific whilst still being perfectly understandable by a layman.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem on the shared tracks has worsened in recent years as freight traffic has soared. Passenger trains move much faster than most freight trains, and in many areas there is only a single track, forcing trains to pull over onto side tracks and wait while trains coming in the other direction pass
This is nothing but static. If it communicates anything to the layman, it's false information. A comparison of average speeds would clear that noise up in a heartbeat. They're trying to make it sound like every Amtrak train bolts along single track with passing sidings at the same rate of speed they travel on the Northeast Corridor at. Truth is, Amtrak is perhaps 5 percent faster than freight on those routes, if and when they are given the headway to operate at such speed.
So...where's that 30 percent?
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
