Amtrak & Politics

mattfels wrote:
I say it's perfectly reasonable to expect and demand that freight railroads run Amtrak trains with competence for what they're getting now. Remember, anything they're getting now is more than what they're getting from FRA and STB in exchange for compliance. Only difference is, neither FRA nor STB faces the annual prospect of extinction. So there's no point in whining. About Amtrak, though, that's another matter. UP's Dick Davidson evidently thinks that if he makes enough noise, he can whine Amtrak right off his right of way.

I agree with Matt. However I fear this rational approach will not work when dealing with corporations - at least some corporations in the rail industry, who seem to cling to their 1890's mentality of We Do Whatever We Want. They would, of course, want the increased money without improving service, and would use the same excuses and evasions to get it - and their friends in Washington would undoubtedly help them out. They've got those senior management stock options to think of....

The thinking behind my idea was that we "level the playing field" by taking away one of their major gripes and excuses (i.e. we don't get enough money to provide good service) and see how they perform. Theoretically (to read their websites, at least) they are all capable of providing excellent expedious service - it would be interesting to see how that translates in the real world. It's putting the host railroads in a sink-or-swim mode, with real money on the line. If they do right, they get their market rate. If they continue to fail, they get less and less money.

Let me see if I have this straight: Since we can't expect rational behavior of certain freight railroads, we have no choice but to pay what they ask? And then HOPE it means that trains run on time? That doesn't pass the sniff test, let alone logic.

To put this in simple English, we're talking blackmail. And it doesn't work except in the very short term. Because sooner or later the blackmailer will come to feel he needs more money, the game starts all over again, and the "negotiation" goes in one direction only.

Part of any real solution is to send the clearest possible message that no amount of whining will enable a freight railroad to wriggle out of its Amtrak obligations. Congress can do this by getting Amtrak off the annual appropriations treadmill. Letters to reprsentatives will help, in a way that enlisting Amtrak in a blackmail scheme never will.

http://www.house.gov/writerep
http://www.senate.gov (Shortcut: replace "www" with senator's last name)

I don't see it as blackmail at all - rather, I think it's a "put up or shut up" or "put your money where your mouth is" approach that plays hardball with the freights. By taking away the obstacle (whether it be real or made-up) of the railroad having to "subsidize" Amtrak trains because of low compensation, and insisting on performance levels appropriate to the amount of money being spent, we could perhaps get acceptable performance from the freights. If they don't perform, they don't get the money. In essence, we would be making Amtrak like any other customer of the railroads.

Trouble is, this will cost money - although it would be money spent on American companies and supporting American jobs (and, in an extended sense, American retirement accounts) but political opportunists would no doubt convieniently ignore that. But if we could get off the annual appropriations merry-go-round, that would be less of an issue.

"Put your money where your mouth is" =is= the name of the game.

Although I don't have any numbers, look at what money to the railroad can do.

How much $ does one UPS-express train from CHI to NYC pay CSX?

How much $ does one Amtrak train from CHI to NYC pay CSX for the same routing?

I'll bet there's a wide disparity between the two.

It's simply good business. Would you expect the airlines to treat first class passengers the same as cattle-car class? Or how about a casino treating all customers alike, regardless of whether they have $10 million to gamble or only $10?

Business is business...you give all kinds of service and amenities to the "big shooters". The rest get to wait in line.

The first 25 years of Amtrak, the 'deal' made by each RR with Congress to take passenger trains off their hands was that they would dispatch all Amtrak trains with "best possible" expertise. That deal expired in 1996. Since then, the RRs follow a simple rule..."money talks". Unless Amtrak (eg, Congress, eg, John Q Public) is willing to pony up $$$, we will get what we pay for.

bratkinson wrote: How much $ does one UPS-express train from CHI to NYC pay CSX?

How much $ does one Amtrak train from CHI to NYC pay CSX for the same routing?

I'll bet there's a wide disparity between the two.

There is indeed. UPS carries cargo. Amtrak carries passengers. Here is another disparity: UPS doesn't exist because the freight carriers were looking for a way to get out of the time-sensitive cargo business.

It is best to think of Amtrak, and the obligation to move its trains competently, as one of the last of the industry-specific government obligations. Yes, business is business, and as I've written before, a competently run business fulfills ALL its obligations with competence.

No respectable business provides unacceptable service to the customers who in its judgment don't pay enough--while it shakes them down for more money. Once we see a consistent record of competent handling of Amtrak trains, then it's appropriate to discuss incentives.

But (and this is the part that requires an attention span) first things first.

It's one thing to pay for an upgrade from acceptable to excellent, quite another thing--which we call blackmail--to pay for an upgrade from unacceptable to acceptable.

Lest we forget, that two events appertaining this discussion have occurred.

First is enactment of the 1980 "Staggers Act" that simply would have enabled all railroads outside the NECorridor of any obligation to provide passenger service to kill whatever service they operated, and even this presumes that some kind of Regional Authority would have been cobbled together under crisis conditions.

In short, in the absence of RPSA 1970 and Amtrak, there would be as many LD's here as there are today in Mexico (i.e. nada). I would also place my bets that these would have been nada on the North side of the 49th; VIA was essentially a "me-too copycat" of Amtrak.

The second event was the "Sunest" provisions of the May 1, 1971 Agreement that occurred on 4-30-96. Either Amtrak or "we the people" (take your pick) chose not to "pony up" any further performance payments to the railroads (or at least enough to make it worth their while). Ergo: the rather abysmal performance seen today of LD's over their Class One hosts.

I think it is a case of "be thankful we got what we got" with regards to Class One "host" performance.

Be thankful? This is a joke, right?

Here's a great suggestion: The next time CSX really socks it to the westbound Lake Shore Limited, amble down to Union Station and interview the passengers detraining it. Ask them how "thankful" they feel.

I know there are lots of so-called rail fans who are tickled pink when freight railroads mishandle Amtrak trains because they see it as some kind of deserved punishment--take that, Mister Amtrak! Only problem is, there is no Mister Amtrak. There are, however, these passengers on board the trains, who cannot and should not be expected to understand why THEY might "deserve" to have their train late.

Freight railroads that mishandle Amtrak trains don't need excuses made for them. They certainly don't need to have good money thrown at them to "make this little problem go away." A real fan wouldn't suggest that Amtrak pay blackmail. A real fan would support efforts to send the message, through Congress, that Amtrak isn't going anywhere and must therefore be dealt with. With competence. You know, the way BNSF does.

I'm sorry, Mr. Fels, but that was no joke.

Neither is "you get what you pay for".

Suffice to say, I am hardly privy to the contractual performance provisions, if any, existing today between the Class Ones`and Amtrak, and I would dare say any FOIA search regarding such matter would turn up a "dry gulch".

What I will say, because the events are almost thirty years removed, ATSF elected not to enter into any contractual performance provisions during the 'seventies" when most other roads did so. Yet commedably, ATSF was always amongst the best for on time performance.

FOIA schmoia. More jokes.

Are we saying that freight railroads, the poor dears, shouldn't be expected to run Amtrak trains on time because a particular piece of paper is missing from the files? That reminds me of a similar claim that used to made around here: that Metro-North, the poor dears, should be excused for running Amtrak trains through the CP216 interlocking at 15 mph because it never got a memo from Amtrak informing it that Acelas were on the way.

We venerate the railroads as organizations of integrity. If we're going to hold Amtrak to the standards of railroading 50 and more years ago, I say it's perfectly consistent to hold the freight railroads to same. Can't have it both ways. Choose one.

For a freight railroad, Amtrak is an obligation, not a customer. I say that Amtrak, which does pay something, should be handled as competently as matters involving IRS and SEC, which pay NOTHING. When UP starts paying taxes late and filing 10Qs late, then maybe I'll be inclined to revisit this issue. But not until.

UP and CSX have found a way to get along with IRS and SEC because they know they have to. Neither IRS nor SEC is going away. Both are a simple fact of corporate life that must be dealt with. Efficiently and competently. What will it take for them to view Amtrak that way? Something that only Congress can provide: a meaningful, long-term mandate.

I still stand by my 'you get what you pay for' comment. Or, put another way, "show me the $$$". You'll get some results!

However...

Has anyone considered the general 'slow down' (some may call it a melt down) that's occurred on most mainlines in the past 10 years or so? Why is it that even with the most up-to-date CTC equipment, there may be more tonnage, but fewer trains on the same tracks as there was during World War II, when almost all dispatching was done via telegraph to manned towers?

It seems to me that someone in Jacksonville FL dispatching perhaps 5 or more dis-jointed pieces of railroad, some CTC, some ABS, some even dark, is at the point of 'overload'. To watch even a single segment of, perhaps 200 miles of busy mainline railroad requires full-time attention. But through the miracles of technology, that same dispatcher is now watching half a dozen branch lines in addition to the mainline portion. It's probably more than most dispatchers can handle.

Look at the turnover in dispatchers of late. It's typically about 3-6 months between job postings for dispatchers at the CSX, NS, UP and BNSF web sites. Often, there opening is for 3-5 positions each. That tells me there's a tremendous turnover. Unfortunately, that very same turnover means that those dispatching a particular portion of railroad probably don't have strong familiarity with the territory. They may not "instinctively" dispatch, knowing where the slow spots are, knowing the 'tricks' needed to weave 10 trains together, etc. And the following week, they end up on another dispatcher desk, knowing even less about their new territory. In short, the "old heads" that really knew how to run the railroad are gone.

What this has done is to make everything on the railroad run slower, wait longer, and pay more for the priveledge. I suspect that for a hot UPS train, the dispatchers may have some trains wait more than an hour for the meet, just to get that one hot train through. Trying to get a couple of 'hot' Amtrak trains through may just be more than todays 'state of the art' dispatchers and computer systems can do!

Pay the money and get "results"? Sure, blackmail works great in the short run. Until it doesn't. And that's the problem.

When you pay money to spur a competent supplier toward excellence, that's a good business practice. But when you pay to make unacceptable behavior disappear, you set yourself up for a return to unacceptable behavior whenever the provider wants more money. Thus all the power reverts to the provider. Show of hands: Who wants to see Amtrak more powerless?

Should Amtrak pay more in certain circumstances in order to get better handling? Sure. But competence first. No competence, no extra cash.

I know there are lots of so-called rail fans who are tickled pink when freight railroads mishandle Amtrak trains because they see it as some kind of deserved punishment--take that, Mister Amtrak

.

sounds abit unlikely to me , i have not seen evidence of that attitude on here . i guess we see what we want to see , but lots of it ???

It is interesting to note that the Union Pacific's 2003 Annual Report (mine showed up yesterday; thank you Uncle Charlie) does not mention one word about any contractual relationship with Amtrak. The same applies to the SEC 10-K (the annual version of 10-Q's often mentioned here by Mr. Fels) which is an integeral part of the Report.

In short folks, the "Man from Mars" (isn't he always some kind of exceptionally intelligent guy, or do I watch the wrong Sci-Fies?) would not even know Amtrak operated any trains over the UP.

Lest we forget that all Passenger and related ancilliary Revenues comprise less than 2% of Total Railway Operating Revenue - that, folks, includes not only Amtrak but also every commuter agency out there as well!!!

Much, if not the majority of, those Revenues are earned over trackage owned or controlled by the various passenger agencies, which simply means that disproportionately less are earned operating over Class One "hosts". I believe it was once reported at this Forum that the total of contract payments received from Amtrak represent less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of all UP revenues (remember, folks, UP is now a pure railroad; Overnite Trucking is gone). Somehow, I simply do not think any more time of Mr. Davidson beyond maybe a quick "Hi Dave, Hi Dick" phone call every couple of months is warranted, and as a shareholder, I would not want him to direct any more of his time to Amtrak affairs.

I trust it is understood that by no means am I condoning the willful delay of an Amtrak train on UP or any other Class One's rails. Without having any evidence to support this statement, I believe it is very doubtful that any Class One has willfully delayed an Amtrak train.

Lastly, back on the UP Annual, somehow doubt if the attractive, yet very business looking, woman Train Dispatcher (OK, probably a model) appearing on the back cover is hearing the Chief Dispatcher saying "stab Amtrak, honey" through her headset.

Intentions matter some, but actions matter more. A lack of provable malice doesn't wipe out bad actions.

If the dry cleaner ruins a shirt through carelessness, does that mean someone there had it in for you? No. Does that matter? No. All that matters is that someone's carelessness has cost you one shirt. If the person behind the counter shows some real contrition, you might let the one incident go--but if another shirt gets ruined, you'll switch dry cleaners.

I find it unlikely that certain railroads' dispatchers set about willfully to put Amtrak trains off schedule. But that is course irrelevant. (Ask any of the "thankful" passengers stepping off a late train if they should care about a dispatcher's attitude.) The fact remains that a host's inattention means that Amtrak trains often run late. And unlike dry cleaning, there isn't some railroad just around the corner that can take Amtrak's business if UP makes enough of a botch of it.

When I was 16 and learning to drive, my dad taught me something very important about the difference between intentions and actions: When approaching an intersection and preparing to make a left turn, examine the oncoming cars very closely. "Notice their signals," he said, "but watch their wheels." Intentions matter some, but actions matter more.

Matt,

Does Amtrak have a statutory Authorization Act in place? IIRC the present law is either near expiry or gone.

I rather suspect that a railroad suit to demand a "train-off" notice, in the right US District Court, might actually fly.

If you look at Kratville's UP streamliners, he has a precis of the various contracts over the 37 years of City operations. I can only presume there are valid and viable contracts between Amtrak and the various railroads.

Unfortunately, as we discussed sometime back in the newest old forum, the incentive fees from Amtrak are marginal, and the disincentive fees to Amtrak (imo) are very close to a corporate "cost of doing business" blow-off.

John