Lake Shore Limited - New Schedule

LI Loco wrote:In the freight business, if you want guaranteed delivery you pay a premium

What? Dear me, we have left the rails. Again.

When I ship, I expect delivery to be guaranteed at the standard price. Competence should not--and in the no spin zone does not-cost extra. Imagine going to a movie and being asked to pay extra to "guarantee" that the film doesn't break. Going to a restaurant and being asked to pay extra to "guarantee" that the food is edible. Driving thru Whataburger and being asked to pay extra to "guarantee" that they don't screw up your order. Or going to the dry cleaners and being asked to pay extra to "guarantee" that 30-70% of your garments won't be ruined.

It's called a "Rush" job or "Special."

Can the correspondent identify an Amtrak timetable that meets any reasonable definition of a "rush job"? My experience is that so-called rail fans say that Amtrak trains aren't carded fast enough. Now all of a sudden we're saying that the timetables are too aggressive? Can't have it both ways. Choose one.

Can anything be done about it? Doubtful.

As long as the so-called rail fans continue to lay all problems at Amtrak's feet and continue to press for "solutions" that amount to blackmail, then we'll continue to have an Amtrak that the so-called fans deserve. Dick Davidson has YOU in his pocket if you're buying his line--and then reselling it. A real fan would quit. Cold turkey. How about it?

"When I ship, I expect delivery to be guaranteed at the standard price."

Then it will be delivered at the standard time. Want it sooner, you pay more.

"Can the correspondent identify an Amtrak timetable that meets any reasonable definition of a "rush job"?"

Yes. It's called Acela Express. Its gets to Washington (from New York) 30-40 minutes faster and the fare (in coach) approximately double what you would pay to ride in a Regional train.

"As long as the so-called rail fans continue to lay all problems at Amtrak's feet and continue to press for "solutions" that amount to blackmail, then we'll continue to have an Amtrak that the so-called fans deserve."

What's your solution, Mr. Fels? If you don't have a solution to offer, then what business do you have criticizing mine and accusing me of whoring for Dick Davidson?

And try to offer something more than blaming Congress. As long as this country is run by your fellow Texans, George W. Bush and Tom DeLay, and people who think like them we'll see pigs fly before we see real support for passenger rail .

P.S. You might want to grab a copy of the June issue of Trains magazine for an excellent report on the state of UP's operations.

P.P.S. One of the reasons cited for replacing the Chicago - Toronto "International" with the Chicago - Port Huron "Blue Water" and running it on an earlier schedule was freight interference on the Canadian National. Guess what! According to some bulletin board postings I read today, the problem hasn't gone better; it may actually be getting worse.

Are we still talking about the Lake Shore Limited?

-otto-

I wrote:Can the correspondent identify an Amtrak timetable that meets any reasonable definition of a "rush job"?

LI Loco wrote:Yes. It's called Acela Express.

Ha ha. Now then, how about the trains hosted by freight railroads (such as, you know, the Lake Shore Limited)? Any rush jobs there?

I am glad to read acknowledgment that paying the standard rate does entitle the customer to receive standard services at the standard time. Fortunately we have a document that lists the standards for every Amtrak train. It's called a timetable.

What's my solution? Surely that's obvious by now, and yes, it does involve Congress. It also involves the people who call themselves railfans. Please read carefully.

1. Tell your Congressional reps you want a mandate for Amtrak of a meaningful length. Five years would be a good start. And press for a real one this time--not the phony kind passed in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.
2. Tell them to put some teeth in on-time performance, perhaps with a whole new mechanism: FRA. If the FCC can set decency standards and fine broadcasters who flout them, and if FAA can set aircraft-maintenance standards and fine airlines that flout them, then surely FRA can take on the business of monitoring freight-railroad hosting. Isn't that the whole idea of the FRA: to administer the railroad industry?
3. Press those reps for a formal determination that a national passenger-train network is a permanent part of railroading--a natural obligation of freight railroads just like Railroad Retirement. Maybe this is embedded in legislation or is one of those "sense of the House/sense of the Senate" resolutions. We're talking about a policy statement, not appropriation; either avenue will do.
4. And yes, by all means quit whoring for those laggard freight railroads. Great choice of words, by the way.

Why do certain freight railroads waylay Amtrak trains? Why do certain executives whine about the supposedly onerous cost of Amtrak hosting? Because recent history informs them that reducing timeliness and service can get trains taken off. And because they can. Paying blackmail only reinforces this mindset. But Congress can change it--by telling the industry that Amtrak isn't going anywhere and that Congress is watching.

Real fans and train riders have an important role to play: to encourage Congress to do right by the passengers who use the rail portion of the nation's transportation network. That means all parties live up to the promises that a timetable represents. And for the freight railroads, at no extra charge.

Once general timeliness is established on current schedules, then it's appropriate to start taking minutes out of the schedules and paying rush charges. But that comes later. Competence first.

mattfels wrote:

I wrote:Can the correspondent identify an Amtrak timetable that meets any reasonable definition of a "rush job"?

LI Loco wrote:Yes. It's called Acela Express.

Ha ha. Now then, how about the trains hosted by freight railroads (such as, you know, the Lake Shore Limited)? Any rush jobs there?

The original question said nothing about excluding the NEC, so it is inappropriate to apply a different standard after the fact.

I am glad to read acknowledgment that paying the standard rate does entitle the customer to receive standard services at the standard time. Fortunately we have a document that lists the standards for every Amtrak train. It's called a timetable.

The Amtrak timetable does not imply a contractual obligation to operate on time. The "limitation of liability" on page 127 states: "The fares, routes, schedules, services and accessibility information shown in this timetable are not guaranteed, are subject to change without notice and form no part of the contract between Amtrak and a customer." Hence, the timetable is little more than reference information.

What's my solution? Surely that's obvious by now, and yes, it does involve Congress. It also involves the people who call themselves railfans. Please read carefully.

1. Tell your Congressional reps you want a mandate for Amtrak of a meaningful length. Five years would be a good start. And press for a real one this time--not the phony kind passed in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.

Step 1 should be getting rid of Bush, DeLay and the other right wingers who are screwing up this country. You won't get anything more positive than the status quo until they are out of the way.

[*]Tell them to put some teeth in on-time performance, perhaps with a whole new mechanism: FRA. If the FCC can set decency standards and fine broadcasters who flout them, and if FAA can set aircraft-maintenance standards and fine airlines that flout them, then surely FRA can take on the business of monitoring freight-railroad hosting. Isn't that the whole idea of the FRA: to administer the railroad industry?

On-time performance is extracurricular to the FRA's mandate, which is focused mainly on safety issues. To quote from their website (http://www.fra.dot.gov/Content2.asp?P=2):

The purpose of FRA is to: promulgate and enforce rail safety regulations; administer railroad assistance programs; conduct research and development in support of improved railroad safety and national rail transportation policy; provide for the rehabilitation of Northeast Corridor rail passenger service; and consolidate government support of rail transportation activities.

One can push for legislative reform, i.e. reregulation, but expect the big freight RRs to fight tooth and nail on this.

[*]Press those reps for a formal determination that a national passenger-train network is a permanent part of railroading--a natural obligation of freight railroads just like Railroad Retirement. Maybe this is embedded in legislation or is one of those "sense of the House/sense of the Senate" resolutions. We're talking about a policy statement, not appropriation; either avenue will do.

It would have no teeth, whatsoever. I.e. it would be a meaningless jesture.

Why do certain freight railroads waylay Amtrak trains? Why do certain executives whine about the supposedly onerous cost of Amtrak hosting? Because recent history informs them that reducing timeliness and service can get trains taken off. And because they can. Paying blackmail only reinforces this mindset. But Congress can change it--by telling the industry that Amtrak isn't going anywhere and that Congress is watching.

Amtrak only pays incentives for ON-TIME performance. BNSF, which has one of the best records, has received over $20 million in recent years. Evidently, UP and CSX managers can find better ROI elsewhere or they are incredibly stupid. Or maybe, just maybe, their networks truly are plugged up as a result of decades of disinvestment.

You cannot tell freight RRs to improve OT performance merely by passing legislation and willing it so, any more than Congress could get Amtrak to achieve "operating self sufficiency" by passing legislation and will it so.

Capacity is a real issue, and there are no easy solutions. Either you apply a free market solution, which would make track space available to the highest bidder and drive everyone else away, including long distance trains, or you find a way to finance necessary upgrades. Given that railroads cannot earn their cost of capital, the solution is some form of public-private partnership that leverages the ability of RRs to invest in new capacity, albeit with strings attached, including OT handling of passenger trains and a requirement to improve passenger train schedules.

Mr. Fels is correct that we need a public policy that is supportive of investment in railroads, and it can be justified by the constraints on further investment in other modes, including demand growth and energy consumption.

OTP is a interesting and vital topic. As a child, I traveled cross country via rail in the late forties. At that time, trains were the mode for passenger transport. As such, passenger trains had priority, so OTP was the rule. I dont remember sitting on a siding waiting for a freight train.

With air now the mode for long distance travel, trains are the 'step child' of public transportation. And a crying shame that is!!!. The government needs to do two things at once:

Better funding. Obvious and nothing needs to be added to that statement. I am sure that topic has been discussed many times here in this forum.

Second is enforcing the rule of: Passenger trains take priority, period.

So how can the government enforce this? The contract with UP etal already states this. But when track owners give the finger to this concept, the gov. turns a blind eye. The incentive philosophy doesnt seem to work. If the gov. demands priority rating and the UPs of the world threaten to pull the lease, then the gov. can enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act--sections I and II. Or if push comes to shove, they can threaten 'eminate domain' due to vast public "interest". It is possible that owning the rail system could be self supporting by charging freight companies fees for usage; but that can be disputed by CPAs I am sure, as track maintenance is a major problem.


The basic fact is that if the government took Amtrak as a serious and viable mode of transportation, and insisted on giving passenger trains priority rating; then train travel would increase, and aggrevation decrease. Assuming proper fincancing also, of course.

What are the odds of all this happening? Any thoughts?

sorry for the long winded on my first entry into this forum

lancet

LI Loco wrote:You cannot tell freight RRs to improve OT performance merely by passing legislation and willing it so.

Cannot? My goodness, we're having a hard time staying on the rails this weekend. Sure you can. Let's try.

FRA's mandate doesn't cover on-time performance? Change the mandate. Agencies can and do get their mandates changed. Two words: Homeland Security.

Bottom line: I want the freight railroads held accountable for their delays. Here's a better question: Why doesn't everyone who posts on this forum?

mattfels wrote:

LI Loco wrote:You cannot tell freight RRs to improve OT performance merely by passing legislation and willing it so.

Cannot? My goodness, we're having a hard time staying on the rails this weekend. Sure you can. Let's try.

FRA's mandate doesn't cover on-time performance? Change the mandate. Agencies can and do get their mandates changed. Two words: Homeland Security.

Bottom line: I want the freight railroads held accountable for their delays. Here's a better question: Why doesn't everyone who posts on this forum?

Any what penalties would you impose to force the freight RRs to run on time? Remember, they would have to pass constitutional muster!

BTW, the FAA does not penalize airlines for lousy OT performance. Why should the FRA penalize railroads?

Obvioulsy, Mr. Fels and I have a fundamental philosphical disagreement about how to achieve desired behaviors, in this case OT passenger train performance. I say - and Amtrak has agreed for decades - reward good performance, i.e. pay bonuses. He says penalize lousy performance. This chasm cannot be bridged. End of discussion.

First welcome aboard Mr. Lancet.

I think the liklihood of the government seeking any kind of legal remedies against Union Pacific (disclaimer: I hold small position of UNP) for failing to 'give the railroad' to a passenger train is nil to non-existent. I further believe it would be folly and represent government intervention in the affairs of a private enterprise, which at this time is not seeking a "bailout' by a succor for their rights of way.

Lest we forget, Total Railway Operating Revenues are comprised of not more than 2% of revenue from passengers and ancilliary services. This means revenues not only from Amtrak but also every commuter agency out there. In the case of the Union Pacific, their contract with Amtrak essentially for track access and dispatchment comprises not more than "One Tenth of One Percent" of their total revenues.

In short, passenger service to the railroad industry today, especially considering that 60% of Amtrak's, in terms of passenger boardings and alightments, is completely within the NECorridor where Amtrak does in fact "own the railroad" is a "minnow in the ocean". Accordingly, to ask the investor owned Union Pacific, or any of the five other Class Ones over which Amtrak operates trains, to treat an Amtrak train as if it were an emergency vehicle responding to a call during rush hour, is ludicrous.

In closing, Mr. Lancet, allow me to note that I too enjoy riding passenger trains, and I think I "lay my loot on the table' ($ 1300 YTD '04) with that regard. But I respect that the Class One railroads are private business enterprises and should not be compelled to disrupt their operations for something that only can be considered "miniscule" in its nature and scope.

reward good performance, i.e. pay bonuses. He says penalize lousy performance

Exactly. As I've posted on this very topic, you do both. I see no chasm here--only another rant.

Thanks for the welcome, Gilbert, and your insightful responsel. I didnt seriously think the gov. would or should apply eminate domain and take over the rail system. What I was trying to say was: the government is not impotent if it wishes to enforce the passenger priority already agreed upon by UP. There are many ways the government could pressure the companies to perform as contracted. There are also interstate federal regulators that could make it tough if needed.

I too believe in the free enterprise system. There is, however, a doctrine of 'for the benefit of the people'. The government has the power and duty to intervene if it is in the interest of society as a whole. I am NOT a socialist, in fact I am right of the center, not some flaming communist. It would not be an impossible task for freight companies to control the flow of traffic, giving passenger trains priority. It was done in the prime age of passenger trains, and could be done now.

As you pointed out, freight lines make very little off of amtrak leases. They did it more to get the passenger service problem out of their hair. But UP ( I am picking on UP because they are the worst, ie Sunset Limited has almost a 0% OTP past month) are blatantly thumbing their nose at amtrak, and the government sits idly by. UP etal dont give a hoot about amtrak, the government doesnt give a hoot about amtrak, and worse of all, the general public doesnt either.

I have written my congressman about this. I know railfans are concerned and many far more involved and knowledgable than me. I may be wrong, but didnt amtrak say over 20 million passenger last year? Or was that 20 million miles? Thats a lot of people and would fall under the 'public interest'.

All I am suggesting is the our Government needs to take amtrak seriously, both in funding and in demanding OTP capability. But it wont do so without a lot of prodding.

Well, if I am wrong (which is often), I am sure I will be blasted in responses. Fire away and thanks for letting me spout off.

Mr. Norman's points are all well taken. But against those figures, I am mystified; How can something that represents such a tiny fraction of the business be regarded as such an intrusion? Amtrak trains are shorter and faster than most freights - it would seem to be easier to just move them through and collect the payment.

When I worked in catering, we had rather aggressive monthly sales goals to meet (for our stockholder's benefit) yet we accepted a number of cheaply priced community events (Rotary luncheons, etc.) where we took in much less revenue than we would have had we been able to sell the space for a corporate or convention function. (We did that without the chairman of the Four Season Hotel company making public statements about how such events held up back from more higher priced bookings

Yes, the downside was that the price per person was significantly less - theoretically meaning less revenue for us. The upside was that we could "slam out" a nice event and turn the room for the next big thing - be it a dinner, reception or whatever, as most of the attendees had to be back at work and not liable to linger. Also, the Public Relations benefit of hosting community events made us look good in the city. Not many Rotarians were liable to drop $500 for a night's stay or host a 50k wedding reception, but they had a favorable impression of the hotel.

More importantly, however, was that these events were dependable sources of revenue against the vagaries of the travel industry. I know for a fact that in the months following 911 the hotel counted on those tried and true Rotarian-type events to help keep the goals met.

It seems like BNSF has adopted a similar philosophy towards running Amtrak trains. It's too bad that their lead is not always followed.

Community leaders affect hotels in another way as well: They're the ones who have an inside track on issues such as CVB operations, convention-center expansions and the hotel/motel tax that typically funds both. You build up a reserve of public good will so that when you need the public's help, you can draw some of it down.

To bring this back around, that was why freight railroads kept running passenger trains before and after they made meaningful money: public good will.

"The world looks at the railroad industry through the windows of its passenger trains" was a statement once made by David P Morgan likely now almost fifty years ago.

DPM's statement once had great merit to the railroads. Union Pacific very much took this statement to heart, and anyone else out there who had the privilege to board the string of Amrour Yellow cars, with their trucks silver sprayed and the Pullman Porters standing "at attention" can share with me that Union Pacific was once "one of the best".

But the difference was that goodwill inured to the railroad itself, and not to some impersonal beureaucratic government agency. I can understand why "the will' was once there, but I can equally understand today why "the will' to move heaven and earth simply to get what at best is a break even operation over the road cannot be expected to be there.

Mr Drumcorp notes that "Amtrak trains are shorter and faster than most freights - it would seem to be easier to just move them through and collect the payment'. Unfortunately, that is not the case. A train moving at 79mph when the remaining trains move at best 60 is going to create considerably more interference than if all trains were moving at the same speed.

Railroads tend to "fleet" their trains over single track lines i.e. move a group of them in one direction then turn the railroad over to another group moving in the opposite. An Amtrak train such as The Sunset does not always have a schedule that fits in with the pattern. Railroads today are no longer the "Boulevards of Steel" they once were. Today they are analogous to pipelines. This is one thing for the movement of low value bulk commodities,; it is quite something else when a passenger train on a timetable must be accomodated in such an environment.