I thought the comment (2nd paragraph from the end) made by Mr. Boardman was interesting... about the difficulty in removing a LD train then, later, trying to restore it. He believes once you lose a LD train it's hard to bring it back due to a premium placed by the freight outfits.
It looks bad for the SW Chief. Maybe that route will be deleted. However, I once read where something like 80% of passengers, boarding in Chicago, do not go all the way to Los Angeles, so the Chief acts a little like a long-distance commuter. Same thing for LA to Chicago.
Once living in Northern Montana, I do know the importance of train travel during the winter months, where highways are very hazardous. The Empire Builder was much appreciated.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, I wanted to give the material you linked the justice it deserves; it appears to be from a source of mature and responsible web journalism.
While of course the $500M the author believes LD trains lose is simply a rounding error in the Federal budget, it does not recognize the indirect subsidy the Class I industry is providing to Amtrak.
The Class I industry's subsidy comprises having Amtrak on their rails depriving the industry for making the 'best use' of that 'slot'. Rail traffic has grown to such extent since A-Day that it can be considered that the Empire Builder is depriving BNSF from dispatching one additional 'Train 1267' (crude oil). I think it is a very safe assumption that Amtrak is hardly paying BNSF the 'opportunity cost' of displacing that oil train. So far as I am concerned, Amtrak operations on the Class I roads at the low levels of remuneration believed to be in place represent a 'taking' contrary to Fifth Amendment protection.
OK; now for the moment let's consider that the industry made a bad deal out of desperation some 42 years ago; to me the dues have been paid and it is now a case of Amtrak to start paying the opportunity cost of that train of theirs on Class I lines - or get off them.
Anyone care to guess what railroad management's position is on that matter?
Now the second matter that would be of concern to railroad industry stakeholders is this concept of the LD trains being longer distance commuter trains, or otherwise as noted 80% of the passengers boarding #3, Chief, at Chicago are not traveling to LA. In short, it becomes a means to travel from, say, La Plata to Lamy. But the problem with this argument is that, say, what if someone residing near North Platte NE decides he wants a train to take him to Evanston WY we approach a situation of 'they've got theirs; we want ours'. This would result in roads that have been passenger train free since A-Day finding themselves again having to host Amtrak. Such a frenzy resulted during the later '70's with political leaning forcing the addition of the North Coast Hiawatha, Pioneer, Desert Wind, Sunset East, Mountaineer, and the Portland Builder. Fortunately, starting with the '79 Carter Cuts, then the '96 Clinton/Mercer, '04 Bush/Mineta 'pruning', and finally the '05 'Kat Kut' of Sunset East, reason prevailed and all of those routes save the Portland Builder are gone.
disclosure: author holds long positions CSX KSU UNP; possibly this should also be added BA
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like you, Mr. Norman, I did feel the article was forthright and fair. I know I differ from your viewpoint, but I would hate to see the eventual demise of the LD train.
I don't know what will eventually happen. Maybe some of the long-distance routes will be consolidated into just a few. Then, perhaps, an increase in frequency and more convenient scheduling (?). I've been trying to figure out a trip from Portland to Spokane, but a midnight arrival time, for Spokane, is just too late. Maybe a Cascade daylight train, out of Seattle, will be on the horizon.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I believe Mr Buffett's Railroad is already asserting themselves regarding the lack of fees from Amtrak. Has the historic Santa Fe (Newton-Raton) been upgraded back to Class 4 or Class 5?
No bucks, no Buck Rogers
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newton - Raton - Albuquerque has simply gone beyond the point that duct tape and baling wire can keep it going at any reasonable speed. Without visiting it, I would guess that it needs a near complete rail relay and major signal repalcement, not to mention a heavy tie and surfacing job with quite a bit of new ballast.
As a light duty 25 mph freight line it can go a long time and the train density is such that BNSF could probably make a good case for shuting down the signal system altogether. This would reduce the maintenance cost to a manageable level.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the popularity of a new train novel called, The Return Of The Santa Fe Super Chief," that describes that route from Chicago to Los Angeles, will make people realize the true beauty of that line through Raton Pass and Lamy.
The book was reviewed in the latest edition of Passenger Train Journal:
"Wrapping the narrative around the romantic notion of the bygone era of luxury train travel, with a level of railroad detail that will grab rail enthusiasts without alienating the rest of the world, Folsom quickly capture's the reader's attention in a story that is engaging, entertaining, and hard to put down."
Posts: 3 | From: Baltimore | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Folsom, first a welcome to our Forum, and you will find that this is 'our Forum' as it is very loosely moderated. We police ourselves around here.
While I respect your profession, along with Mr. Kisor, that profession is not mine. Mine is that of a bean counter; first within the industry, then in private practice as a CPA. With such background, I have difficulty accepting your position.
There is no question whatever that intercity rail passenger service is here to stay, as is the Federal agency charged with operating such - Amtrak. Are there routes over which 'sustainable' service, i.e. with farebox recovery equal to those that are in no danger of being discontinued? Of course there are - think 'Meadows-Angels'. But again back to my underlying thought throughout this topic; what a passenger train advocate calls 'freight outfit obstructionism', is to the industry a 'Taking', which while not all that applicable on A-Day, is very much so today.
A work such as yours, as well as Mr. Kisor's, I would enjoy reading myself. But I would read such for their historical and fictional value, and hardly as an 'outcry' for more passenger trains - especially of the Long Distance varietal.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Per Wikipedia, "From 1850-1871 [alone], the railroads received more than 175 million acres of public land - an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas."
The expectation was of course that railroads provide interstate passengers service.
With the creation of Amtrak railroads received a break, but considering the enormity of what they received from the American people during the 19th Century, have their dues truly been fully paid?
I am passionate about free enterprise, but to me a deal made 42 years ago is still a deal.
posted
While likely you disagree, Mr. Nadeau, so far as I'm concerned the 'Land Grant Debt' has been repaid - with interest.
While I am not informed to what extent the Act proscribed passenger service, I do know that the US Government received reduced rates for both freight and passengers that prevailed through WWII and even into Korea.
Now so far as 'a deal is a deal', the railroads have honored such with respect to their Amtrak contractual obligations. How many instances have there been where a road at the last minute refused to accept an Amtrak train account 'mechanical problems' or some other 'contrived discrepancy'? Somehow, the post-SP merged UP, when the railroad's SP lines were 'melting down' never embargoed the Sunset or the Starlight. Somehow they got 'em over the road.
That the roads (and maybe even Amtrak themselves) have 'not exactly' been cooperative to the extent passenger train advocates would like to see regarding expansion of the LD system, is simply because the roads lived through 'early Amtrak' where instead of the implicit understanding that 'the party would be over in about five years', trains got political traction and new routes. such as the Desert Wind, Pioneer, Mountaineer, Three Rivers, North Coast Hiawatha, Expo Limited (SPK-SEA), and Sunset East, started to proliferate. While those routes were removed through the Carter, Mercer, and Bush/Mineta cuts, they did represent a dangerous precedent that, from one who admittedly holds industry viewpoints, was fortunately reversed.
disclaimers: Y'all know 'em
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The problem, I believe, is that the U.S. Government essentially granted linear monopolies to the railways. The monopoly status of these railways has been grossly unfair to the majority of online shippers that face no alternatives and to Amtrak, which essentially cannot service the public good under the terms that you believe are fair.
These terms in my opinion give ALL negotiating power to these monopolies.
Since the great railway route expansions during the 19th Century, the American people and their federal government have become very concerned about companies that exercise full control over a service but do not offer it in a spirit of fairness to the greater public good.
"While I am not informed to what extent the Act proscribed passenger service . . ..”
Well, hoping to find the smoking gun that would enable me to prevail in this discussion, I skimmed though the Pacific Railway Act of1862 and its numerous amendments through 1874. You will be pleased to know that although passenger service was mentioned, there was no specific mandate to offer it.
“I do know that the US Government received reduced rates for both freight and passengers that prevailed through WWII and even into Korea.”
All companies that I know of that provide goods or services to the U.S. Government still receive very significant discounts, often more than any other customer. (For example, check military rates at hotel chains.) These discounts at least to an overwhelming extent are not given out of a spirit of patriotism but instead to keep government orders from going to other companies.
Somehow, the post-SP merged UP, when the railroad's SP lines were 'melting down' never embargoed the Sunset or the Starlight. Somehow they got 'em over the road.
True! Amtrak received abysmal service no worse than UP’s freight customers.
“ . . . simply because the roads lived through 'early Amtrak' where instead of the implicit understanding that 'the party would be over in about five years', trains got political traction and new routes such as the Desert Wind, Pioneer, Mountaineer, Three Rivers, North Coast Hiawatha, Expo Limited (SPK-SEA), and Sunset East, started to proliferate . . ..”
Actually although not implemented immediately by Amtrak, with the exception of Sunset East, these “new” routes were operating on the eve of Amtrak. “Implicit understandings” are not legal understandings. Apparently, there was a failure of due diligence on the part of the railways.
it would be wonderful if the parties involved would resolve the moral issues of implicit understandings in way that was fair to all. I believe we can agree on that.
posted
I happen to agree completely with Mr. Norman on the Land Grant Debt. As to the wonderful price breaks that the government gets, the reverse is frequently the case. Classic example from my Vietnam days: On the dash of the standard US Army jeep was a plaque that stated this vehicle was purchased under contract number (I have long since forgotten) for $3,1XX.XX each (I have long since forgotten the last digits). At the same time I could have walked onto an AMC lot and bought a six cylinder (instead of four) jeep list for something around $2,600. In other words through the wonders of mass purchasing the government was spending 20% more than I would have to have paid for the equivalent vehicle.
However, I do not agree with Mr. Norman that the railroads should have had any reasonable expectation of getting out of handling passenger trains, nor to make any particular profit on running them. Passenger trains have been part of operating railroads from the beginning, and always regarded as a public service and part of getting the right to build their line in the first place. Passenger trains have never been particularly profitable and for the most part not at all, so be more than break even on avoidable cost should have been the limit of their reasonable expectation.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, a minor correction Mr. Nadeau. Sunset East, or service JAX-NOL did operate until A-Day as the Gulf Wind. Until 'late in the game' a 5BR Obs 'Royal--' car was assigned. One of such cars is on the PV roster and another is an FEC Business Car.
Now to continue with more substantive discussion; Mr. Harris addresses the matter of opportunity cost. In order to be any kind of factor, there has to be the opportunity. On A-Day, during the industry's 'darkest of Dark Ages', there was plenty of capacity not being used - especially when considering that on A-Day, some one third of the intercity passenger train route miles and one half of the train miles were eliminated.
But as the railroad renaissance (passenger train advocates of course say what renaissance) moved forth during the '80's and '90's in the aftermath of Deregulation, Labor's 'statesmanship', globalization, and diminished attractiveness of alternatives, such as highway account fuel costs, the opportunity developed to use the capacity taken by Amtrak trains for more profitable enterprises, such as container and now 'Train 1267's'. Thus, once what was simply a residual use of capacity to move trains became a 'taking' depriving the railroads from 'best use' of its investor owned facilities.
Finally, do I have any documented sources that the trains were to be gone in five years?' Of course not. All I have were washroom walls that talked, and this Management Trainee, whose seniority was measured in months, had ears.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"First, a minor correction Mr. Nadeau. Sunset East, or service JAX-NOL did operate until A-Day as the Gulf Wind. "
Sorry. Before my last comment, I looked at the following to verify operations and misread Chattahoochee as Chattanooga and then didn't notice the illogically of the two routes mentioning that name.
Mr. Norman, my main point is that I do not believe that companies that operate as monopolies or duologies have the right to hold all negotiating power, especially when this conflicts with the public good. In my opinion, what you advocate will mean the death of Amtrak or any private passenger train service on long-distance routes. They will have no leverage.
posted
Don, as a very much minority share owner of rail stock, I have to agree with Mr. Norman. As long as we are a capitalist country (and that's a good word), those who have invested their money in a company should expect them to be good stewards of that investment. So, Amtrak should be paying their full share of costs to use those assets. If they can't, then the alternatives are: move those trains to routes that are not capacity constrained (an argument for the SWC continuing on the Raton pass line); have a local, state, or federal government underwrite the difference if, in fact, it is in the public interest to do so; raise fares; remove the trains.
As to a company giving Amtrak a discount as a public service, that is certainly a corporate decision. But, as we have seen from some of the railroad cost estimates to add passenger trains, not likely to happen if they expect to maximize their shareholders return in order to retain that investment (and keep their jobs). Perhaps Mr. Buffett can write a big check!
A railroad can still be a good public citizen without giving Amtrak a free ride - witness NS's sponsorship of excursions, expediting the start of the new Norfolk service, rebirth of their steam program, and partnership with Virginia on the I-81 corridor project.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
It feels so strange to promote my point of view on this topic because I am such a believer that the capitalistic system brings us better lives.
I agree with you and Mr. Norman that freight railways deserve a just return. However, companies that operate as monopolies or as duopolies in collusion are NOT capitalistic entities. Without government control, they don't compete for business in a capitalistic way; they instead set prices. Without some regulation that promotes fairness, Amtrak stands no chance in negotiations.
posted
Interesting view, Don. As one who was in the industry before and after the Stagers deregulation, I certainly would not want to go back to those dark days - nor would the great majority of railroads' customers. Even partial re-regulation with be starting down that slippery slope and make it even less likely railroads would have capacity to handle a burgeoning passenger business.
While a customers' choice is limited (as it in other industry - like large airplane manufacturers), except in a few cases, such as coal mines in the hollers'of WVA, they do have a choice. It was a constant struggle to stay competitive with other railroads and the truckers - certainly no collusion. And who would have thought a few years ago railroads would ever be competitive in handling crude oil. Even when new pipelines are built railroads are expected to retain a portion of this traffic as the producers like the flexibility of being able to ship to the most efficient refinery. Rail transportation is inherently pretty efficient, if the market is not restricted by government interference.
I saw the other day that UP's Big Boy being restored will now be able to run on routes not possible 50 years ago as the UP's infrastructure is in so much better shape.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DonNadeau: Without some regulation that promotes fairness, Amtrak stands no chance in negotiations.
Mr. Nadeau, when the existing system of seven Class I roads was crafted during the '90's, adequate safeguards by means of trackage rights were afforded to ensure any region that previously had service from two railroads, would continue to have same. An example, when the UP and SP merged, points along the Louisiana coast that had competing rail service from both those roads continued to have competitive service as BNSF was granted trackage rights necessary to provide that competitive service. As that region draws greater importance in the refining of crude, not only that drawn from the Gulf but also shipped there by rail from domestic oil producing regions, this competitive rail access is 'expected' by the shippers and ensures a competitive balance towards that end.
Finally, I'm not quite certain how a 'Rereg' initiative would have any impact upon Amtrak service. If the objective, from a passenger train advocate's viewpoint, is to have additional Long Distance routes and/or frequencies, I'm at a loss to know how a 'rereg' of railroad rates and services would accomplish that end.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
As for competition, at least airlines have a choice between Airbus and Boeing for larger jet aircraft. These companies are known to compete vigorously.
“ . . . when the existing system of seven Class I roads was crafted during the '90's, adequate safeguards by means of trackage rights were afforded to ensure any region that previously had service from two railroads, would continue to have same.”
Unfortunately, the above offers little or no help to Amtrak and to captive shippers who still do not enjoy access to more than one railroad.
What choice did Amtrak really have when UP apparently wanted $750,000.00 prep costs for a daily Sunset Limited? As Mr. Norman mentioned, BNSF has trackage rights only east of Houston (which may not give the right to host Amtrak) and, I will add, otherwise provides competition to the Sunset route only in Metro Los Angeles and at El Paso.
What choice has a potato processing plant in Twin Falls, ID? In its case, at least there are enough captive shippers with political connections to scare UP into not being too outrageous if it wants to escape regulation.
Union Pacific may have been completely justified in asking for $750,000.00. I do not know. It said it was taking into consideration future traffic volumes.
Nevertheless, I do know that UP has an utter monopoly position on using the Sunset route in its entirety. As mentioned before, monopolies are not capitalistic entities. Since 1890 they have not been allowed to do as they please in this country.
As we’ve seen in the Obama administration, there’s a lot that can be done with regulations and executive orders—not all of it in my opinion good. Freight railways would be wise to take note.
I ask one more time what could Amtrak have done if UP was asking for far too much, without some legal standing or government help in some way?
posted
Of course, it's not the same set of market dynamics, and it's certainly not the same economic climate, but maybe some leader will come forward some day to do what JFK did when he stared down "big steel" in 1962, and got them to blink on an across the board price increase on April 13th.
"My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - John F. Kennedy
Full Discloure - His old man was a major SOB himself who made his fortune bootlegging.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't doubt that UP would like $750m to help them with their improvements. I do doubt that UP need $750m to run 8 extra trains per week. "Let's see how much we can milk Amtrak, who in turn can milk the government".
The $750m apparently came about from a rail traffic software simulator. My experience of using these kinds of software is that it can be adjusted to give the figures you want out of it, and are woefully optimistic or pessimistic depending on the operator. In other words, take their results with a carload of salt.
On a side note, I believe the current timings for the Sunset were adjusted to give a better on-time performance - presumably avoiding pinch points at peak periods. Yet, as a passenger on such, I'd hate to be arriving at LAX at 4:24am! (scheduled 5:35am but can leave the previous two stations early, resulting in pre-5am arrivals being achieved at least four times in the last month). Not attractive for an endpoint.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe there are still areas to explore within this discussion that has moved forth with a very high degree of maturity and respect.
First, regarding access for shippers, many an industry in many locations has never had access to more than one railroad, and as Mr. Nadeau notes with his example of Twin Falls, ID, there has never been more than one railroad in Southern Idaho - and that of course is Uncle Pete. Most of the industries that have long lived with this monopoly situation are in the agricultural sector.
The major retaliation weapon at hand for a shipper is a 'short haul'; I saw first hand situations of such even during my 'partial' career. If the home road cannot (or will not) provide the cars that a shipper needs and another road does, guess who is going to get as much of the line haul as possible? I can recall reviewing shipping documents (Bills of Lading; waybills) in which the MILW was clearly being shorthauled on export grain originating in Northern Iowa and on which we could have clearly had a line haul to the West Coast, But the fact remains that the C&NW could provide covered hoppers and all we had available were boxcars fitted with grain doors. If you are a traffic manager with the grainery, who's going to get the business?
But we should note with the breakup of Conrail, industries in the New York, Phila, and Detroit regions are clearly ahead of the game with the entity Conrail Shared Assets. Any of the three roads, CSX, NS, and except Phila CP, can access any industry within the established boundaries.
But again; I'm really at a loss to understand how monopoly factors within the industry affect where and what frequencies Long Distance passenger service is offered?
I sincerely hope that no responsible passenger train advocate, in some kind of ostensible 'pro bono publico' move, is proposing that a given percentage of railroad capacity be 'frozen' for the operation of passenger trains. That is to say if a given segment can handle a total 40 trains a day; that, say, 10 train 'slots' will be reserved for passenger trains. Sorry, but I think any such proposal is simply over the top and would be contrary to 'pro bono publico' as the movement of the must have toy between Santa's Chinese Elves and Wally World's distribution center would be impaired.
Finally, be it noted that even yours truly can be afflicted with fantasy:
posted
Mr. GBN, Very thoroughly and articulately presented. Thank you.
You are one whose RR experience coupled with your profession as a CPA who can communicate so very well about these 'items' so that passenger train fans should be able to understand.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I sincerely hope that no responsible passenger train advocate, in some kind of ostensible 'pro bono publico' move, is proposing that a given percentage of railroad capacity be 'frozen' for the operation of passenger trains. That is to say if a given segment can handle a total 40 trains a day; that, say, 10 train 'slots' will be reserved for passenger trains. Sorry, but I think any such proposal is simply over the top and would be contrary to 'pro bono publico' as the movement of the must have toy between Santa's Chinese Elves and Wally World's distribution center would be impaired.
With that kind of attitude you are, in advance, ridiculing anybody that would dare to contradict you. Nevertheless I will dare to stick my head above the parapet.
First, if those passenger "slots" (the rail term is usually "path") pay for themselves then any railroad would be foolish to reject such income. I would certainly be upset if I were a shareholder and saw passenger trains blocked while capacity exists. Look at BNSF: the $$$ incentives they get when they run Amtrak on time are very valuable to them.
Second, elsewhere in the world, this is exactly what happens. The railroad is required to run certain trains, even at a loss, albeit with government subsidies. Thus the railroad still gets its money. Refuse to run the trains? Expect to lose your operating license. I would not, however, expect UP to lose any operating license but they could certainly be persuaded to assist in other forms - if the political will existed.
Note that I do not advocate running passenger trains if they require unreasonable subsidies.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Mayo, I have the strong impression that you have had no hands on experience with operating a railroad. Perhaps you have operated your own business and if so you may understand what I am choosing to impart.
As in other businesses but especially RR's no day or month is just like the last one. If a RR has a track capacity of 'x' it is not always operating at 'x'. Sometimes there are more trains than the current 'x' and so managers have to prioritize and some must wait. While this can work in freight operations it cannot for passenger operations, they must be allowed to keep their schedules. This then means freight must be delayed and customers dissappointed.
Regarding profiting from passenger operations: like any other well run business some things are more profitable than others and RR's tailor there business to seek and successfully cater to those. This means that they may not seek a freight business that is less dependable or profitable than others. If you operated a store and had only so much capacity, if prudent you would stock and sell those things which your customers wanted that would be the most profitable. I know this is a very simplified analogy with many other factors which may be involved but it is my hope that you see the point.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like to blow my own trumpet but in this case it will help explain why I know what I know.
Back in the UK I authored some rail software which got bought by a rail contractor. That software - still under my leadership - is currently installed in virtually every computerized control center in the UK. This is used for signaller (dispatcher) training and assessment, as well as testing schedules ("can I run an extra train", "what happens if X runs before Y" kind of scenarios). My work has been mentioned in published works by the Institute of Railway Signal Engineers and used in universities teaching rail subjects.
A few years ago I applied to USCIS here in the US for a visa. My attorney's recommendation based on my accolades was to apply for an EB1A visa - "Alien of Extraordinary Ability", specifically in the field of rail software. Eighteen months later it was approved - and these types of visas are not given out like candy, I can assure you. It gives a Green Card upon entry to the US - again, a rare category of visa to do that: most require several years in the US before sponsorship by an organization or immediate family.
Since being in the US I run my own software company specializing in the rail industry (as required by my visa). I recently finished a project to enable management to see the "big picture" when it comes to scheduling - again, "what happens if" type of scenarios when it comes to extra schedules and juggling the order of trains.
My work has also involved visiting, and sitting alongside, dispatchers doing their work. While I have not visited UP's facilities, I do have some knowledge of their dispatching operations.
Again, I did not wish to blow my own trumpet but as you cast doubt on my skills there wasn't much choice. I had hoped that phrases like "my experience of using" would make it clear that I am not just a layman. To put it bluntly, yes I do have a strong idea of what I'm talking about from real world work and current experience.
Now, if you have doubts on particular points then please say so and we can discuss them. You mention capacity and prioritization which is unfortunately only a tiny part of the big picture, the part that laymen typically see. There are so many variables involved that it involves entire volumes on the subject (one of which, ahem, uses my work as a reference).
Hope that explains things.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Mr. Mayo and I only undertook my response above because your previous post seems to suggest that any profit a RR might make from Amtrak should be substituted for a greater profit from another source.
You indicate a significant understanding of capacity constraints so I presume my point about a "slot" not being of the same utility as another "slot".
Again thank you for your participation here and apologies if my approach offended you.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problems - it made me chuckle. I tend to keep quiet generally so my experience could well be mistaken. I am continually learning though - things tend to be a lot more lengthy over here with headways measured in tens of minutes rather than 2-3 minutes common elsewhere.
Actually I said that a RR would be foolish to turn away income from Amtrak if capacity exists to run that train. Again, there are a lot of factors involved but you can work out not just the positive income from running the train, but also the negative income from impacting other trains (if any), as well as infrastructure/dispatching/etc costs. If overall that figure is positive then it becomes questionable why they would turn away business! Of course, they also say they want to run more trains in future - but again, if the capacity exists today and it generates income today, why turn it away? Who knows what the future will bring in terms of the economy or any other factor impacting business?
That does sound like short term gain without considering long term goals - but in this case I believe it fits.
Mind you, BNSF isn't perfect either. "We triple tracked the Cajon Pass so we can get 150 trains a day over instead of 100" they proudly proclaimed a few years ago. "Oh great, so we can run a Metrolink up to Victorville once a day?" - "Oh no, we don't have capacity for that!" (I will concede that Victorville would either need a short layover or an extra track to avoid impacting the main line too much)
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
" . . . as a passenger on such, I'd hate to be arriving at LAX at 4:24am! (scheduled 5:35am but can leave the previous two stations early, resulting in pre-5am arrivals being achieved at least four times in the last month). Not attractive for an endpoint."
Let's look at the bright side. We now most likely have the safest connection from the Sunset to the Starlight since before the UP-SP meltdown in 1977-78!
quote:Originally posted by DonNadeau: " . . . as a passenger on such, I'd hate to be arriving at LAX at 4:24am! (scheduled 5:35am but can leave the previous two stations early, resulting in pre-5am arrivals being achieved at least four times in the last month). Not attractive for an endpoint."
Let's look at the bright side. We now most likely have the safest connection from the Sunset to the Starlight since before the UP-SP meltdown in 1977-78!
True... only once has the Sunset even been close to missing the Starlight in the last month - 4 hours late on August 28th which can be considered to be extraordinary.
Now you've got me wondering where the Sunset to Starlight bus connection was made in previous years - I'm guessing it was Ontario but things somehow look different than 10 years ago when you're now living in the vicinity! It's also odd to think that I live within 600yds of a rail line that I'd traversed at least twice before - and without knowing it until after moving in!
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: I said that a RR would be foolish to turn away income from Amtrak if capacity exists to run that train. Again, there are a lot of factors involved but you can work out not just the positive income from running the train, but also the negative income from impacting other trains (if any), as well as infrastructure/dispatching/etc costs. If ]overall that figure is positive then it becomes questionable why they would turn away business! Of course, they also say they want to run more trains in future - but again, if the capacity exists today and it generates income today, why turn it away? Who knows what the future will bring in terms of the economy or any other factor impacting business?
Mr. Mayo, I couldn't agree more with this thought you have set forth. That is why the railroads did not resist all that greatly the proliferation, from political influence, of Long Distance routes that were added through Amtrak's first fifteen years. When Amtrak was prepared to spend $$$ for on time performance during that same period and before the effects of Dereg set in, they were happy to have Amtrak 'the hottest thing on the line'. An SP official once remarked to me their Amtrak performance payments had a 'positive impact'.
However, things changed and the railroads got busy; the passenger trains were in the way of economic and efficient freight operations. To what extent railroad lobbyists were influential in pushing forth the Carter and Mercer Cuts that shrank the Amtrak LD system essentially back to the Basic System as set forth under RPSA 70, I, and certainly anyone else outside the labyrinth of Washington style influence peddling, have no knowledge of such.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
However, things changed and the railroads got busy; the passenger trains were in the way of economic and efficient freight operations.
I don't have the industry savvy that some of the heavyweights on here do, but didn't the railroads bring a lot of that "busy" on themselves by ripping up track and reducing capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No they did not bring it on themselves. With dereg they were able to compete for more business which resulted in the 'big six' (KCS) spending substantial millions to increase capacity in those corridors and locations where this new business justified, ie. BNSF completing the double track on the southern transcon (almost; UP undertaking the second track from El Paso to LA; all of them developing major distribution centers at principal locations and the details would take more space than should be used at this site. It has all been, and is being documented in TRAINS and major newspapers.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: economic and efficient freight operations
Trouble is, economics and efficiency doesn't always go hand-in-hand with practicalities. Take the example of the local, setting out and picking up while tying up the main line (or even one of a pair of main lines). Inefficient? Yes. Necessary? Also yes. Practical when you've got a string of freights wanting to pass on the main line? No, but you have to work with what you've got.
In a perfect world all freights would be of similar lengths, of equal power-to-weight ratios, and would enter and exit yards at track speeds so as to not delay a following non-stop freight. Instead you, by necessity, have different length trains running at different speeds, and taking up two or more paths (slots) when accessing a yard at what is usually restricted speed. Some yards do have the extra track a couple of miles in advance of the yard allowing trains to recess off the main line at or near track speed, then to slow down on that extra track - and the opposite in reverse.
Taking it back to the passenger examples, you can have a passenger train taking up a single path between a pair of freights but the planets do have to align for it to work perfectly. The passenger train in the middle is very short so it has wiggle room at either end of the block. It also tends to go faster, and accelerate and brake at higher rates, than the surrounding freights. So to start with it's chasing the tails of the train in front but then it slows for a station stop. It can do this relatively quickly (a "typical" stop costs a train 2-3 minutes, maybe more for a long distance Amtrak). Meanwhile the freight behind is now catching up - but the passenger train is now accelerating back up to linespeed and will eventually be chasing the tails of the train in front again. The passenger train is, in effect, ricocheting back and forth within its path. Again, I've made assumptions and simplified here and this does not hold true anywhere near all the time.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
However, things changed and the railroads got busy; the passenger trains were in the way of economic and efficient freight operations.
I don't have the industry savvy that some of the heavyweights on here do, but didn't the railroads bring a lot of that "busy" on themselves by ripping up track and reducing capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
Very true, Mike. In the 80's the name of the game was 'plant rationalization'. But slowly the effect of de=regulation took hold and the industry started making a decent return on investment which resulted in more going back into railroad infrastructure which resulted in more capacity, then more freight. This is a good cycle for any business, but it does squeeze an expanding passenger operation. A solution of course is to have government subsidize it so that it is paying its way on par with freight traffic. But that's a public policy decision, not one the railroads should make.
And yes, as Geoff noted, it is inefficient to work single car customers (believe the term now is loose car) on a busy mainline. That's why you see more and more unit trains. Trains magazine just had a good article on how the railroads regained the aggregate business - something that had traditionally been shunned because of its low revenue. On the merchandise side, those single car customers are also being wooed if they locate in one of the new business parks where auto traffic, transload operations, and intermodal are all concentrated. That is CSX's intent on the line through Ocala to central Florida. The customers get more reliable service and often faster since the consolidated traffic often warrants dedicated trains or solid blocks that are handled more efficiently at intermediate yards.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: [I don't have the industry savvy that some of the heavyweights on here do, but didn't the railroads bring a lot of that "busy" on themselves by ripping up track and reducing capacity as a cost-cutting measure?
I certainly think so. Some companies got so enthusiastic about "rationization" in the 70's and 80's it looked like they were trying to go out of business altogether. I suspect that the current management of some of these line are regretting those decisiions. Also, some of the lines dumped have done better since than they ever did under their former ownership.
An outstanding example of this would be the ICRR's east west line across Mississippi and Louisiana (the A&V - VS&P) which has had tremendous money poured into upgrades under KCS ownership.
Does CSX regret singling the "A" line? NS is adding 2nd track into some parts of the CNO&TP. With some help from North Carolina some of the second track is going back into Southern's Washington - Atlanta main. Finally, looks like there is more than enough traffic in the northwest to keep Milwaukee's Pacific Extension adequately busy.
I see this difference: 30 years ago most railroad companies were willing if not anxious to sell what they perceived as being excess land. Now the thought appears to be that our land is precious and we are not letting go of any of it.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was there at the time!!! Nice to suspect but??? What was sold to short lines or sold outright was and is not significant to the topic of passenger service, with perhaps small exceptions.
Those of us who, without any concept of the rationale at that time, will 2nd guess (Montana Rail Link) that it was a mistake. Not so then and MLR remains available to BNSF traffic today W/O the significant costs of ownership.
In business you mst deal with current situations and most RR decisions with which I had experience would be done again under similar circumstances.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What was sold to short lines or sold outright was and is not significant to the topic of passenger service, with perhaps small exceptions.
This month's TRAINS magazine mentioned about big operators (UP, BNSF, CSX, NS etc) potentially selling short lines to smaller outfits (family businesses) on the theory that the customers on the short line might get a better experience. The short line operator would organize the customers on the branch and arrange for pickups/dropoffs with the big boys on the main line. More efficient all round, if the theory holds true.
Off into fantasy land now but one wonders whether short lines have considered passenger service, particularly if there is the potential for connections on the main line (ie Amtrak or a regional operator like Metrolink, Metra etc).
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
