And here it is. I would encourage other California Railforum members to contact the governor, too.
Governor, I'm sure you're aware that Amtrak's Coast Starlight has been having serious timekeeping problems lately, due largely to Union Pacific's poor dispatching, freight traffic, and poor track maintenence.
An article I recently read indicates that you believe this is primarily a federal responsibility, and so you do not want to get involved. I find that attitude disappointing. While I agree the Coast Starlight is a federal responsiblity, the lack of federal response to this problem has disrupted travel plans for thousands of California residents and visitors from other states. If California's leadership doesn't speak up, who will?
Therefore, I would like to see you use the influence of your office to persuade the federal government to look into the matter and to correct it as fast as possible.
I would also like you to push for an 80/20 federal match for rail improvement projects, similar to the 80/20 federal match long available to highway projects. Rail needs to be on a level playing field with highways so that the best type of project is selected, not the one that can get the most federal money.
I ask you to persuade California's congressional delegation to support this. Besides the Coast Starlight, 80/20 federal funding would help expand California's growing rail network, and eliminate the delays in implementing new services. Service to my community of Monterey has been repeatedly postponed from 2006, to 2009, and now 2014, all because of lack of funding.
Due to rail's inherent energy efficiency, passenger rail transportation will become more vital as fuel suppies grow less certain. It is essential that we build a funding foundation for a solid infrastructure immediately. Not just for California rail services, but interstate rail as well. The two go hand-in-hand as each type of service feeds passengers to the other.
I believe a diverse and comprehensive transportation system is vital to our state and national economy and security, so it must include rail as a major component, not a minor player. Thus I will be watching to see how you handle this matter, and it will influence my vote come November.
Sincerely, James Toy Seaside, CA
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Mr. Toy - what exactly can Arnold do concerning the UP dispatching of the CS? Are you asking him to seek funding to double-track the UP line or to add some new "dedicated rail corridor" trackage in your great State? I am a bit unclear from reading your letter.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
I am not asking him to take any specific course of remedial action. I'm asking him to put pressure on the relevant federal agencies to investigate the matter so that solutions can be found.
Posted by rY. (Member # 3528) on :
If the FRA wanted to, could it have a "talkin' to" with the UP about its Amtrak dispatching performance? How about a formal investigation?
If the answer is "yes, it could", then the question is, does the FRA *want* to do such things? And I believe THAT is the sort of pressure Mr. Toy is intending...
Posted by earmond (Member # 186) on :
Exactly. A little public spotlight on the subject, or investigation to get someone's attention. Nothing like a little personal Congressional oversite or news media investigational reporting to bring the subject out of the closet. Thanks to Big Oil, Enron Haliburton,etc etc, the public in general is not too tollerant of big businesses pushing their weight around. "Now Mr. Davidson, about those tax credits and write offs you have requested? Can you justify to this panel why we should give you that handout, uh, sorry, benefit, when you treat the public federal transportation system so poorly?
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
My real question is "does the FRA have the legal authority to "take action" against UP (or any other railroad) for its poor dispatching of AMTRAK?" If so, what type of action could that be?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
AFAIC Mr Rich, the answer is, I think legally and am certain pragmatically, no. A host railroad is only governed by reasonable dispatch, which simply means don't intentionally delay a train - something for which I doubt any Class I is guilty.
Naturally, payments for train performance as applicable under the road's proprietary, i.e.you won't find it on the web, Operating Agreement will be adversely affected.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
In practical terms, proof of poor dispatching would be very difficult to prove. First you would need specific locations, dates and times; second, fairly detailed electronic logs of those events need to exist. Finally, and this is the tough one, experts would have to consider not just the impact on Amtrak, but the impact to MANY other things - other high priority trains, crews expiring, essential maintenance, etc. Add all these factors together and you can have numerous end results - the one chosen on the day might be the best, the worst, or - more likely - somewhere in between.
Now, as a judge or whatever, take all those factors and can you unequivocally decide whether "poor dispatching" really did take place.
I'll try to explain a scenario: imagine Amtrak is approaching a converging junction, beyond which is single track. Approaching the other branch of that junction are three more trains, a low priority, followed by two high priority. The crew of the low priority are about to run out of hours, but if they can get to the next siding with "high greens", several miles beyond the junction, then they'll be ok. If they don't get in front of Amtrak then they will expire and block the two high priority trains until the dogcatcher crew arrive. Now: which train goes first over the junction?
That was only a very simple, localised example. Expand that scenario out to a wider area - hopefully you'll get the picture. The problem is, people on the ground cannot see the whole picture and thus don't have the facts in order to reach a conclusion of "poor dispatching".
Mind you, I'm not sticking up for UP here.
Geoff M.
Posted by rY. (Member # 3528) on :
My non-railroading background prompts me to ask a simple question about your hypothetical scenario: Why was the "low priority" crew scheduled such that they got up against the Hours of Service rules in the first place?
More to the point, if the problems that are being attributed to track capacity and slow-orders due to track improvements are being exacerbated by Hours of Service issues, why not just hire more crews? Would that not allow more traffic to move over the road more efficiently, and thus, hopefully, paying for itself in both direct profits as well as the retention of happy(er) customers?
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
Thanks Mr. Norman, and especially thanks to Geoff for some rational discussion on this topic.
Just recently on the topic "laying new track" we stopped suddenly when specifics began to appear. The fact is that rail freight is growing because of many factors, ie., deregulation, energy costs and the growing capitalist economy in china plus several others factors. UP and other Class 1 RR's are building additional track and ancillary facilities as their business growth dictates.
If there is to be a LD passenger service located upon the ROW of these RR's then a separately dedicated track seems to be the answer. Yes, it will at times have to mingle with freight trains at junctions and in cities where space and other factors constrain new tracks being built. But it could be under the control of AMTRAK 80-90% of the time with them building the track,installing the signal system and handling the dispatching.
Now are we willing to incur the costs associated with such a plan????
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by rY.: My non-railroading background prompts me to ask a simple question about your hypothetical scenario: Why was the "low priority" crew scheduled such that they got up against the Hours of Service rules in the first place?
It is a fair point, but it is, as you say, a hypothetical scenario. However, any number of reasons could cause this to happen in reality - the most obvious being as it is low priority, it may well have given priority to other trains and thus gotten delayed.
Geoff M.
Posted by rY. (Member # 3528) on :
I'm not sure a separate ROW is *needed*. I mean, sure it'd be nice to have-- especially in congested areas. But without enthusiastic funding from the feds or some outside source, it just doesn't seem to be in the cards, at least for western routes..
In the meantime, I offer this: Over the weekend, I made another trip between Los Angeles (Bakersfield) and Sacramento on the San Joaquin line (BNSF 'til Stockton, then UP to SAC). According to the conductor, our train met 5 Amtrak and 42 freight trains on the 282 mile trip. We were on time arriving into Sacramento and early into Bakersfield for my return trip on the following day. Now, before someone says "but that's a short trip on an extremely flat and straight alignment", I also offer that there have been numerous reports of favorable timekeeping on Amtrak's Southwest Chief, which travels over an incredibly busy and challenging route.
So, and please pardon my reach here, but what is it that BNSF is doing that UP can't or won't do?
Posted by 20th Century (Member # 2196) on :
ry, that's exactly what I've been asking myself as I read all these possible explanations. My knowledge of dispatching rules, etc. is very limited. But I am looking forward to someone's response to your matter of fact question, ".....but what is it that BNSF is doing that UP can't or won't do?"
Posted by 20th Century (Member # 2196) on :
Also add, what CSX can't or won't do?
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
That, I cannot answer, except perhaps BNSF have more capacity (less congestion) on their lines than UP or CSX.
While BNSF were happy to show me around their facilities in Fort Worth, TX, CSX and UP were not so forthcoming, despite my professional background in signalling. In fact, they didn't even reply to my letters, whereas NS did write a very polite refusal and enclosed some promo material.
Geoff M.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
In part, BNSF does seem to be in a better position on capacity, and they are spending a lot of money to keep it that way. They also simply seem to be able to do a better job at moving everything. Looking at traffic density maps, the BNSF high line across the northwest is in the same ballpark as the Sunset Route, but somehow everything seems to move across it, and the EB keeps fairly well to schedule, and it does not have near the slack in it the Sunset does. And, like the Sunset Route, the High Line is mostly single track. Just a small example, a year ago we made a trip Bakersfield Fresno and back, and on the return done in daylight, we met a train at every siding on the line, sometimes going in the siding, sometimes holding the main, but the only stop and wait we had was about 10 minutes for a northbound passenger train.
Part of it may come down to this old basic in business: Good people that take pride in the quality of what they do like to work for like minded people and have like minded people working for them. Not saying that UP et al do not take pride in their work, just that when you are looking bad the morale of the troops, and the managers all goes down the tubes, which has almost the same effect on the results as incompetence, because you lose your zeal to try. I will say that there are some things coming from UP management that does leave you wondering what are these people thinking, like the picture issue and the silly thing with the model manufacturers.
George
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
George - what is the "silly thing with the [UP] model manufacturers?" I am a model railroader, but have not heard of this......
Thanks...
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here you go, Mr. Rich. Lest we forget, Union Pacific holds the rights to their registered trademarks and, through the link above, have set forth conditions under which they will grant licensure to others for their use.
After reviewing their page, it appears that if you are a "scratch" model builder, the matter is not of concern. If you purchase decals for use on that model of UP trademarked images, the licensure matter is between the producer and the UP.
UP is simply taking prudent business steps to ensure their trademarks do not end up being portrayed in effigy of some kind of "youpeesucks' media material (website, print, whatever)
Posted by rY. (Member # 3528) on :
Not sure if this has been noted elsewhere on the forum, but a letter from Amtrak's William L. Crosbie to UP's Dennis Duffy has surfaced that takes the railroad to task for "chronic unacceptable performance of Amtrak trains operating on the Union Pacific Railroad".
Alternate link via American Railroads
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Real or Windows Media Player will support the 2'32" webcast - no registration required.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Lest we forget, Union Pacific holds the rights to their registered trademarks and, through the link above, have set forth conditions under which they will grant licensure to others for their use.
UP is simply taking prudent business steps to ensure their trademarks do not end up being portrayed in effigy of some kind of "youpeesucks' media material (website, print, whatever)
Since people have been modeling railroads for over 100 years without anybody until recently doing this sort of thing, yes I regard it as silly, and just one more example of a management that seems to be spending too much time on side issues. If they do not want someone spreading around a "youpeesucks" or some such, then they better make sure that the way they operate and act does not leave them open to the charge, which is hardly the case at this time.
George
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
My knowledge of trademark and intellectual property issues is somewhat limited, but I believe if someone wanted to use "youpeesucks" in mock UP advertising, it would be protected speech as a legitimate form of satire. I seem to recall a case before the US supreme court in the early '80s that settled that one. Its the same principle that allowed MAD magazine to publish mock Peanuts cartoons, among others.
By the way, I got a reply from the governator today as follows:
quote:Thank you for sharing your concerns and innovative suggestions on Amtrak's Coast Starlight train.
California was built by the ingenuity and hard work of its people, and our great State continues to thrive because of their involvement and commitment.
I greatly appreciate receiving input from my fellow Californians. Taking the time to communicate your opinions and offer suggestions is essential to good citizenship and good government. Your suggestion will be reviewed and if further information is needed, my Office will contact you.
Again, thank you for your email. I value the comments of people like you who care about the future of California.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Mr. Toy - looks like a typical political bureaucratic response you got from the Guv -- in essence, it says nothing, and he proposes nothing to address your concerns. Do you REALLY think someone from his office will ever contact you for "further information?" This is why I do NOT write to my representatives about AMTRAK or any other issue. I think organizations such as NARP are much more effective in getting things done.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Gilbert - thank you for the info on the UP model railroad licensing question
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: If they do not want someone spreading around a "youpeesucks" or some such, then they better make sure that the way they operate and act does not leave them open to the charge, which is hardly the case at this time.
While this matter goes back about five years, a disgruntled BNSF employee opened a website with the address of www.bnsf.org. Needless to say, the material there was not to the satisfaction of BNSF management, and they successfully pursued the matter of the site's removal. The disgruntled person (his discipline of dismissal having been upheld on appeal) now opened a site entitled BNSF Killers www.bnsfkillers.com - but that too was shut down.
In short "free speech' (I really don't know what that means; I've never known it in this life) does not apply on the web when presenting a corporation in an unfavorable light. However, a "not so nice' site involving United Air Lines www.untied.com somehow survives. However, in the past, I have learned that a reporter with a nationally circulated newspaper is involved with this site (I learned of such from a UAL Flight Attendant), and with that goes knowledge of 'what can and can't be said' in public media.
But I certainly agree, Mr. Harris, for a corporation to clean up their bad acts is a much more positive approach rather than suppressing any negative media comments.
Posted by D.P. Roberts (Member # 4535) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: My knowledge of trademark and intellectual property issues is somewhat limited, but I believe if someone wanted to use "youpeesucks" in mock UP advertising, it would be protected speech as a legitimate form of satire. I seem to recall a case before the US supreme court in the early '80s that settled that one. Its the same principle that allowed MAD magazine to publish mock Peanuts cartoons, among others.
By the way, I got a reply from the governator today as follows:
quote:Thank you for sharing your concerns and innovative suggestions on Amtrak's Coast Starlight train.
California was built by the ingenuity and hard work of its people, and our great State continues to thrive because of their involvement and commitment.
I greatly appreciate receiving input from my fellow Californians. Taking the time to communicate your opinions and offer suggestions is essential to good citizenship and good government. Your suggestion will be reviewed and if further information is needed, my Office will contact you.
Again, thank you for your email. I value the comments of people like you who care about the future of California.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
That letter wasn't from the Governator! If it was, he would have said "Collyfornya"!
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: In short "free speech' (I really don't know what that means; I've never known it in this life) does not apply on the web when presenting a corporation in an unfavorable light. However, a "not so nice' site involving United Air Lines www.untied.com somehow survives.
And somehow http://www.amtrek.net manages to survive as well.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
There is a site called csxsucks that is alive and well. I don't like it and I don't visit it, but that is my right as well. I would suspect that whatever shut down bnsfkillers, it was not violation of any law concerning speech or copyright. Sometimes corporations achieve illegal ends by what is really legal bullying of those that do not have the resources to give them a good fight.
One of the more hilarious examples of an attempt at legal bullying that did not work was the casino going after a strip club in Georgia because it also used the name :Taj Mahal." They seemed to have forgotten they themselves had plagarized the name from a building in India.