Passenger Trains > Lengthened LD schedules.. the new normal?

The Crescent's new timetable added 90 minutes to the trip between New Orleans and New York, mainly to cater to its host railroad thanks to recently changed OTP metrics.  The new rule measures against all stations, not just the endpoints.  While this rule was being debated at congressional hearings, I remember AAR reps stating how host railroads would need to renegotiate Amtrak schedules if this became law.  Well it did, and the Crescent appears to be the first schedule to have changed.

Concurrently, Amtrak is not making LD timetables available.  While some information on the PDF documents (dining, amenities, etc..) will be changing soon, I can't believe this to be the only reason why they're still missing.  Could it be Amtrak is currently in negotiation regarding all its schedules?  Will we see more lengthened schedules to appease the host railroads?

The short answer is YES, the railroads (at least Norfolk Southern) will be negotiating the schedules with Amtrak, and you can bet that will involve longer times - at least for the Capitol and Lake Shore.

Jim

thetuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Crescent's new timetable added 90 minutes to
> the trip between New Orleans and New York, mainly
> to cater to its host railroad thanks to recently
> changed OTP metrics.  The new rule measures
> against all stations, not just the endpoints. 
> While this rule was being debated at congressional
> hearings, I remember AAR reps stating how host
> railroads would need to renegotiate Amtrak
> schedules if this became law.  Well it did, and
> the Crescent appears to be the first schedule to
> have changed.
>
> Concurrently, Amtrak is not making LD timetables
> available.  While some information on the PDF
> documents (dining, amenities, etc..) will be
> changing soon, I can't believe this to be the only
> reason why they're still missing.  Could it be
> Amtrak is currently in negotiation regarding all
> its schedules?  Will we see more lengthened
> schedules to appease the host railroads?

What "rule" are you referring to, and what "became law" -- and what is the statute? You have given us no point of reference here for your assertion about the Crescent's lengthened schedule as being related to a certain "rule" or "law". This can all certainly be discussed, and you may be entirely correct. But please, give us some frame of reference for your conclusion about the Crescent's schedule. Thank you.

MC

ironmtn Wrote:

> What "rule" are you referring to, and what "became
> law" -- and what is the statute? You have given us
> no point of reference here for your assertion
> about the Crescent's lengthened schedule as being
> related to a certain "rule" or "law". This can all
> certainly be discussed, and you may be entirely
> correct. But please, give us some frame of
> reference for your conclusion about the Crescent's
> schedule. Thank you.
>
> MC

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/metrics-and-standards-final-rule-november-16-2020

Thank you for giving us this link to the rule in the Federal Register. This gives a point of reference and adds context to your comments on the Crescent's new schedule.

MC

I actually don't mind it on the western runs it makes for a nice break to get off the train. And if people are smart they will set up shops etc

Posted from Android

Amtrak should NEVER NEVER agree to such lengthening of schedules.  VIA Rail and their Canadian train schedule is exhibit A.  That train is stil late despite adding 12 hours to the schedule.  

NS does NOT want any passenger trains on their railroad ever.  They must be legally forced to operate the existing schedules on-time.  If there was a 3rd mainline from South Bend to Chicago, NS would still delay the trains.  Capacity is not the problem.  

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak should NEVER NEVER agree to such
> lengthening of schedules.  VIA Rail and their
> Canadian train schedule is exhibit A.  That train
> is stil late despite adding 12 hours to the
> schedule.  
>
> NS does NOT want any passenger trains on their
> railroad ever.  They must be legally forced to
> operate the existing schedules on-time.  If there
> was a 3rd mainline from South Bend to Chicago, NS
> would still delay the trains.  Capacity is not
> the problem.  

Interesting opinion, as Norfolk Southern has recently been a partner in adding service to Norfolk and Roanoke. 

I thought the delays on the Crescent were due to an unplanned surge in traffic as well as ongoing infrastructure improvements and they were not permanent.

Nick

Posted from iPhone

Lengthening running times is nothing more than a DOWNGRADING of passenger service.

Basically, this is a case of one industry (frt. railroads)  - harming the business of another industry (pass. rail).

I hope Amtrak fights the frt. railroads on this issue, before the STB -- using the following arguments

.  Amtrak trains get priority, even if this means freight trains are delayed (with big fines for non-compliance)

. If this issue is caused be the railroads removing track, signals, etc-  they should be ordered to restore those facilities.

.  The frt. railroads must take all steps necessary to run passenger trains on the former, faster schedules

.  If the frt. railroads claim pass. rail  is harming their business -- they must prove it before the STB




 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/21 08:55 by ronald321.

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lengthening running times is nothing more than a
> DOWNGRADING of passenger service.
>
> Basically, this is a case of one industry (frt.
> railroads)  - harming the business of another
> industry (pass. rail).
>
> I hope Amtrak fights the frt. railroads on this
> issue, before the STB -- using the following
> arguments
>
> .  Amtrak trains get priority, even if this means
> freight trains are delayed (with big fines for
> non-compliance)
>
> . If this issue is caused be the railroads
> removing track, signals, etc-  they should be
> ordered to restore those facilities.
>
> .  The frt. railroads must take all steps
> necessary to run passenger trains on the former,
> faster schedules
>
> .  If the frt. railroads claim pass. rail  is
> harming their business -- they must prove it
> before the STB
>
>
>
>
>  

What former schedules?  There have been many iterations. Some of the routes that allowed fast schedules are gone. 

The waters get muddier here, as Amtrak has agreed to a lengthened schedule.  It's very difficult to go back to a prior agreement if you signed a new one. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/21 09:18 by altoonafn.

NGotwalt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the delays on the Crescent were due to
> an unplanned surge in traffic as well as ongoing
> infrastructure improvements and they were not
> permanent.
>
> Nick
>
> Posted from iPhone

No it's permanent.........

And no, never want freight railroads dictating schedule, as they will just be lengthened and nothing good has ever come of that. The "traffic" seems to go in cycles, so just hunker down for a little bit is my advice......

The railroad from Cleveland to Chicago has been a bottleneck for DECADES, even adding track. Doesn't seem that much will change this. Adding time will just lead to other problems for when the train may be early, but have to wait till scheduled departure. And who knows what freights could then get parked in front of it!

If Amtrak wants to re-negotiate all LD schedules, then they are just looking to:

1) Continue the kill on the LD network, despite what Congress may want. 
2) Bring attention to the fact that railroads need "improvement" - be it additional trackage or otherwise. 

And look at the westbound Capitol Limited today, 6/21 arriving into Chicago - it got delayed and stopped again in Cleveland "due to an equipment inspection." This cost the train nearly a two hour delay! It then got swept up into the heels of train 49, ALSO bound for Chicago, but freight train "congestion" slammed it........Had the delay not occurred at Cleveland (an Amtrak problem), would the freight train congestion ensued afterwards? Remeber this train is timed to be AHEAD of train 49, which actually arrived EARLY into Chicago today..........So had 29 been AHEAD of 49, it would have had a fighting chance in potentially making up some time it was down coming into Cleveland and even arriving on-time, a little late, or perhaps even a little early. So how do you want to play this.

Amtrak has even talked about re-routing 48/49 the Lake Shore Limited across Michigan instead of western Ohio and eastern/central Indiana......

Didn't TAW say it was more than just "track expansion?" There's a LOT of truth to that!!! And the line already has a third track from what Porter to Chicago? 

ronald321 Wrote
> Basically, this is a case of one industry (frt.
> railroads)  - harming the business of another
> industry (pass. rail).
>
> I hope Amtrak fights the frt. railroads on this
> issue, before the STB -- using the following
> arguments
>
> .  Amtrak trains get priority, even if this means
> freight trains are delayed (with big fines for
> non-compliance)
>
> . If this issue is caused be the railroads
> removing track, signals, etc-  they should be
> ordered to restore those facilities.

I think some of you foamers are forgetting that the freight railroads with, the exception of BNSF, are publicly held companies who have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. Amtrak is just a noisy tenant who adds nothing to the bottom line. P.S. I’m an Amtrak fan but a realist. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/21 10:49 by 41bridge.

I agree with 41bridge on this point. Amtrak doesn't even carry a bus load of people south of Atlanta. NS is in business to make money not run a bus load of people around on a very busy main line that probably carries almost 1/2 of the intermodal traffic of the east coast not counting chemicals from Houston and New Orleans to northern locations. This line has always been single track and would be nearly impossible to double track anyway. 

41bridge Wrote:

> I think some of you foamers are forgetting that
> the freight railroads with, the exception of BNSF,
> are publicly held companies who have a fiduciary
> responsibility to their stockholders. Amtrak is
> just a noisy tenant who adds nothing to the bottom
> line. P.S. I’m an Amtrak fan but a realist. 

You are forgetting they have a business contract to have Amtrak at incremental cost and the matter now lies with the STB. Hosting Amtrak is not intended to be a money making event. Freight customers are not happy with Class I performance either and some have shifted to trucking on public highways, which we all subsidize.That makes it a public concern.That does not matter to shareholders. 

41bridge

Calling us names like foamers -- doesn't make you a "realist".  In my book, it marks you as uninformed about railroads.

It doesn't matter that they are publicly held companies -- or, that their allegiance is to their stockholders

Railroads are a special creature called a "common carrier" and come under the Interstate Commerce Clause of
the Constitution.  This limits what they can do--if their actions are deemed to harm or restrict "interstate commerce"

These two issues is what Amtrak will have to prove -- before the TSB
. that slowing schedules is causing them harm
. and railroad refusal to permit expanded pas. trains is obstructing Interstate Commerce.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/21 12:43 by ronald321.

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 41bridge
>
> Calling us names like foamers -- doesn't make you
> a "realist".  In my book, it marks you as
> uninformed about railroads.
>
> It doesn't matter that they are publicly held
> companies -- or, that their allegiance is to their
> stockholders
>
> Railroads are a special creature called a "common
> carrier" and come under the Interstate Commerce
> Clause of
> the Constitution.  This limits what they can
> do--if their actions are deemed to harm or
> restrict "interstate commerce"
>
> These two issues is what Amtrak will have to prove
> -- before the TSB
> . that slowing schedules is causing them harm
> . and railroad refusal to permit expanded pas.
> trains is obstructing Interstate Commerce.
>
>  


The presence of Amtrak trains on a busy freight railroad obstructs interstate commerce.  A UPS train sitting in the siding while an Amtrak train pots along between engine failures is causing harm to thousands of consumers. 

41bridge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ronald321 Wrote
> > Basically, this is a case of one industry (frt.
> > railroads)  - harming the business of another
> > industry (pass. rail).
> >
> > I hope Amtrak fights the frt. railroads on this
> > issue, before the STB -- using the following
> > arguments
> >
> > .  Amtrak trains get priority, even if this
> means
> > freight trains are delayed (with big fines for
> > non-compliance)
> >
> > . If this issue is caused be the railroads
> > removing track, signals, etc-  they should be
> > ordered to restore those facilities.
>
> I think some of you foamers are forgetting that
> the freight railroads with, the exception of BNSF,
> are publicly held companies who have a fiduciary
> responsibility to their stockholders. Amtrak is
> just a noisy tenant who adds nothing to the bottom
> line. P.S. I’m an Amtrak fan but a realist. 

Oh Please...You;re a much bigger Class 1 RR fan than an Amtk Fan.  And also probably a class 1 RR stockholder.   "Fiduciary responsibility" means responibility by the ppl running the company, to the stockholders as well as themselves.  It has nothing to do with "we have to go for short term gain, and ignore agreements we made, and ignore any sort of public responsibility, in order to increase stock price.  Its used as an excuse by ppl like u, tho.   Sorry, I get pretty sick of hearing  "alls fair in Love, War, and Big Business" dragged out over and over again.

Whats realistic....is Amtk being run bu someone with teeth, not the usual political patsy's.  The real issue here is that the Class 1's contribute to political compaigns, and amtk doesnt.

Altoonafan

You are confusing yourself by mixing up legal  terms that apply to common carrier railroads -- i.e., "Delay" and "Obstruct".

If Amtrak delays a UPS stack train--it is not  permanently "obstructing" it from operating
(and we all know freight trains delay other freight trains)

But, the refusal of frt. railroads to reinstate Gulf Wind service, or refusing to operate increased passenger frequencies, 
according to Amtrak is an "Obstruction" of Interstate Commerce, because it permanently prevents them from operating,

Better find a better argument in your avid support of the railroads over Amtrak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/21 14:09 by ronald321.

altoonafn Wrote:

> The presence of Amtrak trains on a busy freight
> railroad obstructs interstate commerce.  A UPS
> train sitting in the siding while an Amtrak train
> pots along between engine failures is causing harm
> to thousands of consumers. 

Says you, a Class I shareholder. Ineptitude is what obstructs interstate commerce. Nobody told them to run 2 and 3 mile long freight trains that plug up the whole railroad, run slowly, with inadequate sidings, that also break down, and take forever to get moving again.  "PRECISION SCHEDULED Railroad" means just that. It is obviously a hoax and you shareholders and hedge fund managers fell for it, while the freight customers themselves are heading for the trucks, which we all then must subsidize.  You act like everything would flow just fine if that pesky Amtrak train weren't there when in fact they are nothing more than a canary in a coal mine. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/21 14:27 by joemvcnj.