RAILforum: This doesn't bode well for the Sunset Limited

This is topic This doesn't bode well for the Sunset Limited in forum Amtrak at RAILforum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/11/2079.html

Posted by snake (Member # 2430) on :

Freight-Car Congestion Is Worrying Union Pacific

The Sunset Limited left Tucson 4h 37m late last night, and is now 13h 16m late and still hasn't arrived at LAX today!

From today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/business/31rail.html (registration required)

quote:
Freight congestion has spread across the Union Pacific railroad system, especially in Southern California and the Southwest, raising concerns about delays in agricultural shipments and international trade if a solution is not found before the rail freight rush begins in late summer and fall.
In Southern California, some railroad people are calling the situation a small-scale meltdown - similar to, though not yet as bad, as the one that spread from Houston across the Union Pacific system in 1996. Dozens of trains daily are parked on sidings because they cannot get into or out of the Los Angeles Basin.....................

..............The severity of the problem can be traced partly to Union Pacific's effort to provide premium service to one of the largest American carriers by rail, United Parcel Service.
U.P.S. has begun a new coast-to-coast premium service that requires high-speed train shipment to Dallas, Atlanta and New York. The New York train dispatched from Los Angeles on Tuesday is particularly time-sensitive because it is scheduled to arrive in time for package delivery on Friday rather than the following Monday.
To keep the train on time on the busy, largely single-track segment between Los Angeles and El Paso, called the Sunset Route, railroad dispatchers clear other trains onto sidings far ahead of the U.P.S. train, sometimes hours ahead. At times, trains are stalled because their crews have reached the maximum tour of duty under federal law of 12 hours, and no rested crews are available. It can take a week to sort out such situations.

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

Before anyone flames you for the lengthy quote, I want to say thank you. I refuse to "register" for them becuase I do not consider it any more their business who I am than I would for a convenience store clerk to ask my identity before selling me a paper.

Lengthy quotations of this nature are not a violation of the copyright law in any case. The purpose of the law is to prevent others from profiting from the work of the copyright holder. We should not allow it to be used to shut down communication and discussion.

To the subject at hand:

Adding track capcity is not cheap, but neither are the costs for not doing so.

Union Pacific is spendign significant money on track, because they have too. After all, having trains die on the law and spend lengthy time in sidings is a huge waste of manpower and resources. They should probably be spending a lot more on track, but remember most of the stockholders are interested primarily in the short term, and money spent on track is definitely a long term investment.

[This message has been edited by George Harris (edited 03-31-2004).]

Posted by CG96 (Member # 1408) on :

It's not as if UP has been sitting around. It should be noted that over the past several years, Union Pacific has spent several billion $$ adding a third main track on the Transcontinental main across NE to handle the coal traffic, returning a second main track to the ex-CNW main across IA, double-track the Marysville sub, upgrading the old KP, and working on the DRGW to keep the low-margin freights out of the way of the higher-margin coal traffic. UP (and before her, SP) have added capacity to the Sunset Route. Let's also remember that the Sunset Route was double tracked between El Paso & Lordsburg, and recieves very competent handling when there is the capacity for that to take place. Its just that the other projects took priority over the Sunset Route. The ex-CRIP main from KC to Tucumcari, NM for example, had to have a considerable amount of maintenance before it could host trains going anyplace in a decent period of time. Its not like UP has been sitting around doing nothing. It takes time to reverse the effects of decades of the "cut-cut-cut" mentality that has existed for several decades in the RR industry as a whole. This mentality produced the attitude that one cuts one's way to profitability, and also leads to disinvestment in the RR infrastructure. Its just that those things take time and money. For adding all that capacity in those areas, UP is to be commended.

I still have suspicions that Amtraks performance over the Sunset Route tends to put all of the RR industry's operational deficiencies ( and those of certain RR companies) on public display, complete with the results of decades of disinvestment. One also has to think that certain railrods simply don't have the money to spend, and one has to spend money in order to make money.

[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 03-31-2004).]

[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 04-01-2004).]

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

There used to be, maybe still is those things called "Industrial Development Bonds" that a number of states sold to encourage industrial development. These were usually state level bonds to be paid off by the industry that benefited, but guranteed by the state, so that they could be sold as a relatively low interest long term but very safe bond. This would seem to be an ideal vehicle to provide upgrades in bottlenecks. Any discussions?

Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :

Actually, industrial development bonds have already been used to relieve bottlenecks. That's how the Sheffield Flyover in Kansas City was financed.

I think we're moving into an era in which railroads will be considered, along with highways and waterways, as part of the land transportation system. This, I expect, will mean that government funding of various sorts will become available for both freight and passenger projects.

One other possibility for relieving congestion is an improvement to the train control system. CTC was first implemented on the Toledo & Ohio Central Railroad in 1927. Maybe it's time for a new control technology. A combination of GPS location, on-board computers, and a digital data link, called "Positive Train Control" is now under test in Illinois. With "moving block" operation, it could add significant capacity to the Sunset Route and many other busy lines. Now there's an idea for government funding.

Posted by espeefoamer (Member # 2815) on :

It's time to split up the UP.It has gotten too big to manage itself efficiently.They should be orderd to spin off the SP/Rio Grande,and possibly the C&NW.

------------------
Trust Jesus,Ride Amtrak.

Posted by Pojon (Member # 3080) on :

Jesus never rode Amtrak!

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

I trust by now someone has observed toe byline of that New York Times article from which a "rather stretched" "brief passage" was quoted.

As an aside, Mr. Harris, as a producer of intellectual property yourself, I am surprised to see you encouraging the "stretch" of the "brief passage" exception appertaining copyrighted material.

As for being required to register and receiving spam arising from that registration, so be it! That is simply the price that need be paid.

There is of course the alternative that I choose; subscribe @ $600/yr.

Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :

When life gives you dilemmas, make dilemmanade.

Let's see if I understand this. UPS express shipments are causing all other trains to be delayed. So the Sunset is also likely to see worsening delays. Solution: Attach the Sunset passenger cars to the UPS train! Sorta the reverse of the Amtrak Express package business.

Tongue now being removed from cheek.

Posted by MPALMER (Member # 125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
Solution: Attach the Sunset passenger cars to the UPS train!

Now THAT would be one fast Sunset Limited!!

Posted by M190 (Member # 3009) on :

Pojon: Beg to differ there sir, Jesus has ridden with me a number of times on Amtrak! :-D

Mr. Toy: That's one of those ideas seems silly on the surface, but.....hmmm........

Mr. Norman: I fail to understand your fixation with copyrights and lengthy quotes. The post you refer to was duly cited, and I for one find it convenient to read material here rather than follow a bunch of links. Six hundred dollars a year? You're richer than me my friend!

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

Doesn't depriving the rights holder over the control of the distribution of his material sound like an infringement to you, Mr. M190.

If the price of reading the copyrighted material in print is, in the case of the NY Times, $1 per day and $5 on Sunday, so be it. If the price of reading it on the web is registration and the resulting spam, then so be it.

Just because you CAN do something, be it take copyrighted material and include it within the html code of a posting here or jaywalk accross an intersection in my town, does that mean it is a wise thing to do - and announce the, albeit petty, transgression on the World Wide Web?

[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 04-04-2004).]

Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :

Just FYI, I've been registered with the NY Times site for about three years now, and I've never gotten spam from them.

------------------
Sing to the tune of Humoresque:
Passengers will please refrain,
From flushing toilets while the train,
Is standing in the station,
I love you.

The Del Monte Club Car

Posted by David (Member # 3) on :

I have a heard a longer version of this "ditty" which I am told originated in England:

Passengers are requested to please refrain
From flushing toilets when the train
Is standing in the station for a while,
We can deal with constipation
When the train is in the station,
Just cross your legs and grit your teeth and smile.

If you really must pass some water,
Please make sure to ask the porter
To put a little basin in the hall.....

(Sorry, I can't remember the rest.)

[This message has been edited by David (edited 04-04-2004).]

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

To Gilbert Norman: Never said it was spam I was concerned about (Realise that came from Mr. Toy). Spam I can deal with. It is just the nosiness of the NY Times, and some others of having a reader to "register" to read their newspaper online. I object to that on principle. It is nobody's business what I choose to use for a source of information. The point is, the copyright law is to prevent others from profiting and to prevent the copyright holder from losing iegitimate potential income. Neither of which applies to that case. Agree totally with M190 on not having to follow a bunch of links. Also, many news links cease to function after a few days or weeks as old material is removed from the web, so if you want to refer back to it you must copy it. See this no different from keeping an old newspaper because you want the article.

As to me being a "producer of intellectual property" I wonder if you have ever worked in the development of plans and specifications. It is the material that you carry from job to job that you use. Not to mention the copies of specs and plans for jobs that you did not design that you also use for ideas. You modify to fit the differences and to cover the holes and errors that you or the contractor (and will the contractors ever find them) that manifested themselves on the previous job. You have got to use other's work as a source of ideas. You can not think of all you need to include by yourself.

We had a good laugh on one job because when reading the first draft of the specification we found several reference to the Standard Specifications for the State of "X", which was where the writer of that particular part had last worked. He was told to get them all changed to the State of "Y", which was where the job actually was and be sure that the details were all still valid. Nobody considered calling the FBI a rational response. Imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery. We have all heard your point and most of us do not consider it reasonable, so why not drop it.

As to "control of distribution": Ever been to a used book store? Or do you think they are illegal and should be shut down?

Incidentially, concerning all the moaning and handwringing about billions of lost revenue in Asia and various third world countries due to intellectual property "piracy": It is mostly bogus. There is no market at full price because most of the people can not afford it. My computer has 100% legal software, and so does the company's, but for many people in these coutries that is completely unaffordable. I would suspect that a lot of the "piracy" would dissapear if the producers would develop a reasonable pricing structure. If there is any restraint on the distribution of ideas it is by those the exhorbitantly price their products. I see no reason why I should be funding Bill Gates foundations.

I feel that the major copyright holders are having the law warped beyond all reason for their personal benefit, and in some cases to obtain inforation on people that is really none of their business. Even if I would be willing to freely give such information, I will not be coerced into it, if at all avoidable. Sermon ended.

[This message has been edited by George Harris (edited 04-04-2004).]