Passenger Trains > Some clarity on the STB and the Amtrak On-Time issue

The Surfacre Transportation Board put out this press release on April 15, 2021 on this subject.

I was unable to furnish the link -- so I will type it out..  I have condensed it for brevity to show the main points.

"Pursuant to the Passenger Rail Investment Act of 2008 (PRIIA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
recently adopted a final rule that set metrics and minimum standards for intercity passenger rail service.

PRIIA  provides that the STB is the agency to investigate and adjudicate issues related to the on-time
performance of Amtrak's intercity passenger rail service under these new metrics and standards .

The standard for on-time performance will begin to apply on July 1, 2021, with quarterly reporting on that
metric from the FRA to start in the months following.

...(the) FRA adopted a final rule that established a minimum standard for on-time performance of passenger rail trains
of 80% for any two consecutive calendar quarters, 

(The STB is authorized) to investigate a failure to meet the on-time performance standard , either on its own initiative
or upon complaint by Amtrak or another eligible complainant, to determine whether and to what extent that failure is due
to causes that could be reasonably addressed by rail carrier over whose tracks the...passenger train operates, or by Amtrak,
or other ...passenger rail operator.

STB may also award damages and prescribe other relief, should it determine that failure to meet the on-time performance
standard was attributable to a rail carrier's failure to provide preference to Amtrak over freight transportation as required
under 49 U.S.C. 24308(C).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/21 07:23 by ronald321.

Such a lofty goal. 80... is about the same as the worst on time performance in Europe.

TAW

You have to start somewhere...

What makes me happy about all this is ---

at last, Amtrak will have some "Legal Claws" to fight the freight railroads miserable handling 
of Amtrak trains.

of course, this also gives the railroads "claws" to make allegations against Amtrak.

Both sides will have to prove their case--but, it looks like Amtrak has a much better chance for better service.

Even with 1.5 hrs added to the schedule southbound CRESCENT19 has 10 late arrivals (average 52 min) into New Orleans out of 13 trains since June 8.
A prime candidate for a complaint
Andy

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Surfacre Transportation Board put out this
> press release on April 15, 2021 on this subject.
>
> I was unable to furnish the link -- so I will type
> it out..  I have condensed it for brevity to show
> the main points.
>
> "Pursuant to the Passenger Rail Investment Act of
> 2008 (PRIIA), the Federal Railroad Administration
> (FRA)
> recently adopted a final rule that set metrics and
> minimum standards for intercity passenger rail
> service.
>
> PRIIA  provides that the STB is the agency to
> investigate and adjudicate issues related to the
> on-time
> performance of Amtrak's intercity passenger rail
> service under these new metrics and standards .
>
> The standard for on-time performance will begin to
> apply on July 1, 2021, with quarterly reporting on
> that
> metric from the FRA to start in the months
> following.
>
> ...(the) FRA adopted a final rule that established
> a minimum standard for on-time performance of
> passenger rail trains
> of 80% for any two consecutive calendar
> quarters, 
>
> (The STB is authorized) to investigate a failure
> to meet the on-time performance standard , either
> on its own initiative
> or upon complaint by Amtrak or another eligible
> complainant, to determine whether and to what
> extent that failure is due
> to causes that could be reasonably addressed by
> rail carrier over whose tracks the...passenger
> train operates, or by Amtrak,
> or other ...passenger rail operator.
>
> STB may also award damages and prescribe other
> relief, should it determine that failure to meet
> the on-time performance
> standard was attributable to a rail carrier's
> failure to provide preference to Amtrak over
> freight transportation as required
> under 49 U.S.C. 24308(C).

Frankly, I thought this is what gave NS the "claw" to have the Crescent's schedule re-timed. No?

Did Amtrak not launch a complaint against the time-keeping of the Crescent, the two did some mediation, and hence this is WHY we now have the new schedule for the Crescent? Does anyone have the FACTS on this?

True? Not true?

Or kinda true, but there's some clarification? 

Anyone?

I don't necessarily see this STB "ruling" as a positive for Amtrak cause it gives the freight RR's ample reason to present a case that they are running at FULL capacity and even two passengers on their line is two too many. So then the alternative becomes - "but we are open to seeing Amtrak make changes to the schedule....."

Did anyone notice that this morning, again, train #49 got ahead of train #29 at Cleveland - cause train #29 came in late up from Alliance and Pittsburgh.

- Train #49 arrived a few minutes early into Chicago this morning. But as opposed to some past experiences, #29 got in/out of Cleveland relatively quickly (no equipment inspection needed, no unforeseen crew change, no locomotive issues).

- So then #29 was put into the wake of #49 (ran closer behind it) than yesterday and arrived into Chicago only an hour late, as opposed to nearly 4 HOURS late yesterday when it had an Amtrak problem in Cleveland and then got stuck in freight congestion.

- Yesterday train #49 arrived early into Chicago as well, BUT unlike today #29 had a delay in Cleveland due to equipment issues. By the time it got back moving, I am sure a bunch of freights got ahead of it, and Amtrak was out of its slot so it got slammed and hence the four hours late into Chicago.  

Same track structure and same amount of trains proceeding over the railway as yesterday morning on this stretch, I am sure! 

As long as manufactures have the railroads serving as just in time warehouses on wheels, we will never have Amtrak as a priority.
Especially now so, as import deliveries are so far behind due to Covid!  All the traffic is concentrated on some of the most important,
and fastest tracks that Amtrak obviously also utilizes.  Add in a dose of PSR, and jumbo two mile freights, and it's a recipe for disaster for Amtrak LD trains!

twropr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even with 1.5 hrs added to the schedule southbound
> CRESCENT19 has 10 late arrivals (average 52 min)
> into New Orleans out of 13 trains since June 8.
> A prime candidate for a complaint
> Andy

A schedule change is not going to account for some of the reasons why the Crescent was late:

1) Heat delays
2) Trees down on the tracks
3) Bad weather that knocked out electricity and the sigals etc. 
 

twropr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even with 1.5 hrs added to the schedule southbound
> CRESCENT19 has 10 late arrivals (average 52 min)
> into New Orleans out of 13 trains since June 8.
> A prime candidate for a complaint

Maybe the regulation needs to include a benchmark...like maybe the schedule running time of 1955.

TAW

jp1822

please stop worrying about "Acts of God" (trees down, heat restrictions, derailments, etc.)

These events are not part of the on-time regulations,  and may never happen in any given year on a particular route..

The magic word is FREIGHT TRAIN INTERFERENCE.

 

I remember the original contract from the 70s-96 and man did Amtrak go after freight railroads when that was in effect, especially the worse ones!

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember the original contract from the 70s-96
> and man did Amtrak go after freight railroads when
> that was in effect, especially the worse ones!

Your memory is different than mine on that.  My memory is that chronic performance problems in the first few years were primarily with the Penn Central, and there was little Amtrak could do other than lengthen schedules and/or reroute trains to other roads, as was the case with the Riley and Floridian.  Later, as roads such as the ICG began reducing capacity, the response again was to add time to the schedules.  The only really rigorous enforcement case I remember was the seizure of the B&M River Line used by the Montrealer.  Even there, it could be argued that owner Guilford made out well, in that the line was simply transferred to the historical tenant Central Vermont, and upgraded with Federal funds while Guilford retained traffic rights.

Dave

In the late 1970's I think they also sued Espee over the Sunset Ltd and won. 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the late 1970's I think they also sued Espee
> over the Sunset Ltd and won. 

That case was settled outside of court. 

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ProAmtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I remember the original contract from the
> 70s-96
> > and man did Amtrak go after freight railroads
> when
> > that was in effect, especially the worse ones!
>
> Your memory is different than mine on that.  My
> memory is that chronic performance problems in the
> first few years were primarily with the Penn
> Central, and there was little Amtrak could do
> other than lengthen schedules and/or reroute
> trains to other roads, as was the case with the
> Riley and Floridian.  Later, as roads such as the
> ICG began reducing capacity, the response again
> was to add time to the schedules.  The only
> really rigorous enforcement case I remember was
> the seizure of the B&M River Line used by the
> Montrealer.  Even there, it could be argued that
> owner Guilford made out well, in that the line was
> simply transferred to the historical tenant
> Central Vermont, and upgraded with Federal funds
> while Guilford retained traffic rights.
>
> Dave

I heard Amtrak got after IC when they did that, but forcing to lengthen schedules than enforcing to maintain the current schedules, that's bad on Amtrak's part, never gonna froget the fight they always had with Conrail on their handling of the Lake Shore though!

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jp1822
>
> please stop worrying about "Acts of God" (trees
> down, heat restrictions, derailments, etc.)
>
> These events are not part of the on-time
> regulations,  and may never happen in any given
> year on a particular route..
>
> The magic word is FREIGHT TRAIN INTERFERENCE.
>
>  

I can say right now that will be one issue that you probably won't understand, especially when a passenger train goes into a hole and a few seconds a freight shows up on a timely meet, you propbably would claim that being illegal!