Railroad Forums 

  • Wall Street Journal Article on Amtrak and Anderson: A Flight Plan For Amtrak

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1513584  by andegold
 
Thank you Electricron. I think that answer provides a steeper hill to overcome than the others. Too often here the answer is "it's the law" or "it's the union agreement". Both of those things can be changed if the parties on both sides want them to be. The knowledge requirement and human brain capacity is a little harder to overcome.
 #1513614  by Nasadowsk
 
David Benton wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:04 pm I'm not sure about how common dorm space for crew is on Airplanes either.
Some widebodies have crew rest areas on them. Typically for long haul flights where the flight crew is swapped out partly through the flight.
 #1513639  by WesternNation
 
David Benton wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:04 pm I'm not sure about how common dorm space for crew is on Airplanes either. I thought a seat behind a curtain is the best a cabin crew could hope for, while the flight crew take turns having power naps in their cockpit seats.
I don't really see any advantage in extending crew districts for Amtrak, if anything I wold have thought costs savings could come from frequency increases allowing more short turns , so avoiding away from base costs.
Freight trains in Australia do have from cars behind the locos, but your talking territory between the back of a black stump and the middle of nowhere.
Most if not all widebody aircraft have crew rest space.

I read the 2020 blog post. Even if the WH and Anderson wants to cut LD service, I doubt Congress will let it happen, especially with the House controlled by the Democrats.
 #1513709  by bretton88
 
I actually think the opposite might be the case these days, Its the senate that would me more hostile to dismantling the LDs, especially with the rise of the progressive wing of the Ds in the house. Anderson's corridor plan focuses highly on raw ridership numbers, would get people out of cars (one of the progressive's pillars) and would largely benefit cities, which the Ds largely control. It is an interesting switch, contrasted with the senate where the senators defending the LDs have suddenly become Rs because the rural vote is a bigger factor for Rs now.
 #1513712  by BandA
 
Amtrak is really under attack from a federal funding perspective, and some of Anderson's moves seem to be defensive moves to minimize the deficits.
 #1513782  by rcthompson04
 
bretton88 wrote: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:30 pm I actually think the opposite might be the case these days, Its the senate that would me more hostile to dismantling the LDs, especially with the rise of the progressive wing of the Ds in the house. Anderson's corridor plan focuses highly on raw ridership numbers, would get people out of cars (one of the progressive's pillars) and would largely benefit cities, which the Ds largely control. It is an interesting switch, contrasted with the senate where the senators defending the LDs have suddenly become Rs because the rural vote is a bigger factor for Rs now.
Yes. The Democrats have lost most of their rural senators. The Empire Builder is a great example of this shift. 10 years ago it had 2 Republican senators from Idaho for the whole route. Now it is far more evenly split (2 more Democrats than Republicans).

There is probably a bipartisan coalition for shifting to the corridors in the Senate though. Most of the Democratic senators represent areas that are corridor heavy and a few Republicans might be inclined to support the shift as well.
 #1514092  by daybeers
 
mtuandrew wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:32 am Worth running the numbers to see whether it would be cheaper to farm LD service out to the Class 1s.
Even if that were true, I for one would never want to get on a train operated by a Class I considering the "precision railroading" tactics nearly all of them have implemented. Though Amtrak's safety record is far from perfect, I wouldn't be nervous boarding one of their trains.
 #1514094  by David Benton
 
Not to mention they have a reputation for bad customer service to freight customers. If they treat 100k plus freight customers badly, how are they going to treat someone with a $20 ticket?
 #1514116  by Tadman
 
daybeers wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:43 am
mtuandrew wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:32 am Worth running the numbers to see whether it would be cheaper to farm LD service out to the Class 1s.
Even if that were true, I for one would never want to get on a train operated by a Class I considering the "precision railroading" tactics nearly all of them have implemented. Though Amtrak's safety record is far from perfect, I wouldn't be nervous boarding one of their trains.
If the mass media were to tone down their clickbait-based reporting these days, you wouldn't be as scared. Somewhere, we used to have a linked study from Northwestern U in Chicago showing that trains were 17x safer than autos in terms of fatalities per 1000 miles. Even if one rail carrier is +/- 10% from another, it's far safer than getting in a car this morning and driving to work.

Here's why:
Professional transport companies - bus, rail, air - are very heavily regulated. FRA and FAA inspectors keep their job by finding fault, which they should. Further, the insurance companies and lawyers of those companies don't want a lawsuit, so they are equally rigorous in their zeal to prevent accidents. This is why freight employees in the USA wear safety glasses, orange vests, and steel toes. Go over to Europe, and they wear trainers and t-shirts.

If a class 1 were to form a division similar to Abellio or Arriva (Train Operating Companies owned by Dutch National Railways and German Federal Railways, respectively), I have no doubt their insurance and lawyers would be all over safe operating practices.

For that matter, BNSF and UP both operate Metra services in Chicago and have quite good reputations.
 #1514117  by Tadman
 
Also, I could be wrong, but I think we're about to hit "peak PSR". It seems the magic is wearing off to say the least. It worked really well at CN because it was a 100 year government make-work project and there was a lot of fat to trim. Not so at CSX. John Snow trimmed that one too much in the 1980's, not sure what else was there to trim so they cut some meat.
 #1514139  by Jeff Smith
 
I'm going to tack on to some of what Tad said:

Would/could/should Amtrak adapt "precision railroading"? I would think so; there'd be a LOT less pushback from host railroads if Amtrak actually met their slots. But it's a quasi-government agency (a corporation primarily owned by the US, aka NPRC), so there's going to be a lot of patronage and somewhat sweetheart work rules and union deals. NOW BEFORE everyone gets upset by the union reference, I'm not knocking unions and the role they play in protecting workers; I myself formerly belonged to the NTEU. I could say more, but I don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into unions.net. I'm merely pointing out that the government, even in Amtrak's case (nominally meant to turn a profit), is less incentivized to report to shareholders the way publicly owned companies are.

Anderson: I know he's been much discussed on here, and it seems mostly reviled. I get that, whether it comes from railroaders or railfans, the primary point being "he's not a railroader". Lots of companies may hire CEO's who aren't necessarily from that industry; they're hired for strategic leadership and direction. They can hire COO's for actual industry knowledge. I'd also point out that most CEO's are usually not held in high esteem by their subjects.... er, employees. Look at Iger at Disney. Big article on him today from an actual Disney heir. But he's probably doing what should have been done years ago, and was being done since NPRC's inception: rationalize the system. We don't have to like it, but I understand the business case.

Europe and Safety: I can't speak to Europe's safety culture; I haven't been there since 1991. I do know they have a more favorable environment for workers than the US though, particularly in time off. Make what you want of that economic model. In the US, there seems to be a much more confrontational model between management and employee, especially lately, and especially in low margin industries. Lots of pressure, and management that essentially disowns workers who get hurt on the job, whether by their own fault or by management dictates. Safety culture is dictated down, by the top. We've seen that in the Class I's, and in Amtrak recently in particular (Cascades 188). I hope that culture is changing. I will agree with Tad, though, in that railroad operation is indeed much safer than the trucking industry, which has operators who even under federal rules still push the limits on Time of Service, mechanical safety, etc. I feel much safer on a train, even with the morons who run around gates, than I do on the highway. And again, don't get me wrong, most truckers are professionals, and drive great, and are hazarded by "four wheelers" who do such stupid things around them.
 #1514153  by daybeers
 
Tadman wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:11 am
daybeers wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:43 am
mtuandrew wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:32 am Worth running the numbers to see whether it would be cheaper to farm LD service out to the Class 1s.
Even if that were true, I for one would never want to get on a train operated by a Class I considering the "precision railroading" tactics nearly all of them have implemented. Though Amtrak's safety record is far from perfect, I wouldn't be nervous boarding one of their trains.
If the mass media were to tone down their clickbait-based reporting these days, you wouldn't be as scared. Somewhere, we used to have a linked study from Northwestern U in Chicago showing that trains were 17x safer than autos in terms of fatalities per 1000 miles. Even if one rail carrier is +/- 10% from another, it's far safer than getting in a car this morning and driving to work.

Here's why:
Professional transport companies - bus, rail, air - are very heavily regulated. FRA and FAA inspectors keep their job by finding fault, which they should. Further, the insurance companies and lawyers of those companies don't want a lawsuit, so they are equally rigorous in their zeal to prevent accidents. This is why freight employees in the USA wear safety glasses, orange vests, and steel toes. Go over to Europe, and they wear trainers and t-shirts.

If a class 1 were to form a division similar to Abellio or Arriva (Train Operating Companies owned by Dutch National Railways and German Federal Railways, respectively), I have no doubt their insurance and lawyers would be all over safe operating practices.

For that matter, BNSF and UP both operate Metra services in Chicago and have quite good reputations.
I'm not sure it's the media that's affecting my view. There are many freight derailments with cars on the ground that don't get reported because it doesn't fit into the news cycle of pulling at your heart strings: it's just containers of stuff. While I agree a new passenger division of a Class I would probably have better operating procedures, it's still a concern. For one example, CSX has clearly shown they care about short-term profits long before caring about two-three mile trains not fitting into sidings, breaking couplers, and derailing.

Oh I know trains are far safer than automobiles: you're probably more likely to get in an accident between your home and the train station than on the 2000+ miles you might travel on the train. That's one of the reasons why I try to use other forms of transportation as much as possible.
 #1514178  by mtuandrew
 
daybeers: and as pointed out, CSX has zero interest in even having a passenger division. The other five majors (excl KCS) have played ball to greater or lesser extents. Of them, I would only theoretically see BNSF being amenable to a long-distance passenger department, not being answerable in the same way to shareholders.

All of that said, Amtrak might still keep such a study on file in order to wave it at privatization advocates and say, “look, we literally can’t pay companies to provide the service we do.”