by x-press
For several years I have been a fairly venomous opponent of Amtrak's mail and express program due simply to the delays it caused trains. I think Amtrak long-distance trains need to be faster and more reliable if they are to be anything more than "land cruises." Nothing wrong with land cruises, but I see no reason to federally subsidize them. Although freight train interference statistically accounts for the largest percentage of long-distance delays, I always felt that Amtrak needed to get its own house in order before complaining about other railroads' time-keeping problems . . . it is hard to take advice advice from a 300 pound doctor advising one to lose weight. Besides, the old phrase that "late trains get later" still seems to apply; a train that is held up due to m/e delays at its originating terminal can miss its "window" on the host railroad. Sometimes I wonder how many of Amtrak's "freight" delays are actually due to this phenomenon.
Still, now that M/E is an Amtrak memory, it's worth asking: Was this a bad idea from the start or was it just poorly executed?
Question one: Could the switching have been in a more efficient manner that wouldn't have slowed down the schedules? Perhaps a more limited, traditional m/e program similar to the ones formerly run by all the old RR's would have required less or no switching, achieving the same results. Could HEP cables have been added, allowing M/E to go to the front end of the train and enabling trains leave directly from terminals like Chicago instead of stopping in the yard? Note, we're talking about SCHEDULED delays here, not unscheduled.
Question two: Why were there so many unscheduled delays with these cars, and could they have been avoided? Were the sticking brakes I encountered on a shocking number of trips caused by bad design, bad maintenence, age, or just awful luck? Were unscheduled switching delays caused by untrained, inexperienced, or indifferent crews? Was there simply insufficient infrastructure at switching points?
Simply put: Could this have worked?
JPS
Still, now that M/E is an Amtrak memory, it's worth asking: Was this a bad idea from the start or was it just poorly executed?
Question one: Could the switching have been in a more efficient manner that wouldn't have slowed down the schedules? Perhaps a more limited, traditional m/e program similar to the ones formerly run by all the old RR's would have required less or no switching, achieving the same results. Could HEP cables have been added, allowing M/E to go to the front end of the train and enabling trains leave directly from terminals like Chicago instead of stopping in the yard? Note, we're talking about SCHEDULED delays here, not unscheduled.
Question two: Why were there so many unscheduled delays with these cars, and could they have been avoided? Were the sticking brakes I encountered on a shocking number of trips caused by bad design, bad maintenence, age, or just awful luck? Were unscheduled switching delays caused by untrained, inexperienced, or indifferent crews? Was there simply insufficient infrastructure at switching points?
Simply put: Could this have worked?
JPS