Shippers vs. Amtrak

[WashingtonPark]

https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/a ... TZCdnYNw3w

[ExCon90]

Glad to see that point being made publicly. People need to realize that freight is the only reason the tracks are there in the first place; it the freight goes away, the tracks will eventually go also. A number of former passenger routes could not be restored today because when the freight was rerouted the tracks disappeared.

[SouthernRailway]

Agreed.

If the government wants Amtrak to always be on time...pay the freight railroads, via contracts negotiated at arms' length and not under duress, for track improvements.

If the government can force freight railroads to do its bidding, by fiat, then any of us can be crushed by government as well.

[prokowave]

Glad to see that point being made publicly. People need to realize that freight is the only reason the tracks are there in the first place; it the freight goes away, the tracks will eventually go also. A number of former passenger routes could not be restored today because when the freight was rerouted the tracks disappeared.

I'd have to disagree with that. Railroads would have never been built across the U.S. at such as scale if it weren't for governmental subsidies in the form of massive land grants, eminent domain assistance, and significant investments in track and safety infrastructure. Governments agreed to this because of the benefits for both passengers and freight, and Amtrak was created when railroads were no longer interested in upholding the passenger side of the bargain. Part of that agreement is that Amtrak gets priority and now the freight railroads have decided they don't want to abide by the agreement and they want to make the service so bad it gets cut entirely or that the government writes more big checks to build more track.

When railroads are seeing record operating ratios and earnings, I don't think it's too much to ask them to maintain their tracks and build enough sidings so give Amtrak the priority to which it is entitled by law.

[SouthernRailway]

Glad to see that point being made publicly. People need to realize that freight is the only reason the tracks are there in the first place; it the freight goes away, the tracks will eventually go also. A number of former passenger routes could not be restored today because when the freight was rerouted the tracks disappeared.

I'd have to disagree with that. Railroads would have never been built across the U.S. at such as scale if it weren't for governmental subsidies in the form of massive land grants, eminent domain assistance, and significant investments in track and safety infrastructure. Governments agreed to this because of the benefits for both passengers and freight, and Amtrak was created when railroads were no longer interested in upholding the passenger side of the bargain. Part of that agreement is that Amtrak gets priority and now the freight railroads have decided they don't want to abide by the agreement and they want to make the service so bad it gets cut entirely or that the government writes more big checks to build more track.

When railroads are seeing record operating ratios and earnings, I don't think it's too much to ask them to maintain their tracks and build enough sidings so give Amtrak the priority to which it is entitled by law.

Railroads paid back ever cent of subsidy that they received to build transcontinental routes--and more. They paid in part through giving discounted mail contracts to the government. And not every transcon received government aid (in free land)--at least one did not.

There was absolutely nothing in the track-building "deal" in the 1860s that required private railroads to run passenger trains 110 years later.

Railroads were forced to run passenger trains by state and federal regulators.

No private railroad should be forced to maintain tracks and build sidings for Amtrak or anyone.

If the government wants that...pay for it. And no private railroad should have been forced to run money-losing passenger trains. If government wanted that...pay for it (which at least government finally started doing, at least in part).

Question for anyone who thinks that a private business should be forced by government to provide a service that doesn't earn its keep: would you want government to force you to work in a job at below-market pay, particularly when you had no interest in the job? I sure wouldn't.

[ThirdRail7]

Glad to see that point being made publicly. People need to realize that freight is the only reason the tracks are there in the first place; it the freight goes away, the tracks will eventually go also.

Yes, the North Jersey Coast Line, The former Erie Lackawanna mains, the Northeast Corridor, The Atlantic City line, The Reading Lines,The Shore Line, The Springfield Line and The Harrisburg Line all withered and died without the freight trains.

A number of former passenger routes could not be restored today because when the freight was rerouted the tracks disappeared.

That depends on the vision. NYS gobbled up the former CSX line and turned it over to Amtrak. Michigan and Massachusetts have done the same. Virginia threatened to go rogue years ago and put pressure on CSX to straighten up. They also put a LOT of money behind their words, heavily investing in the infrastructure that CSX undermaintained by adding crossovers, additional tracks, switch heaters, and even paid for another bridge across Quantico Creek, since CSX decided it was cheaper to rebuild it with one track.

If the freights left the former RF&P, you can bet real money that Virginia would gobble that up. The thing that is lost in the various articles is this not only impacts long-distance services. State-supported and regional services suffer as well and a lot of the states in tandem with Amtrah have invested in the infrastructure.

Which leads to this:

Agreed.

If the government wants Amtrak to always be on time...pay the freight railroads, via contracts negotiated at arms' length and not under duress, for track improvements.

If the government can force freight railroads to do its bidding, by fiat, then any of us can be crushed by government as well.

Nowhere does it say that Amtrak has to always be on time. All it states is Amtrak has to be given priority. Additionally, there are procedures if this isn't possible:

(c) Preference over freight transportation. --Except in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this subsection.  A rail carrier affected by this subsection may apply to the Board for relief.  If the Board, after an opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of title 5 , decides that preference for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation materially will lessen the quality of freight transportation provided to shippers, the Board shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on reasonable terms.

I have yet to see a major carrier file such a claim, not even during the BNSF meltdown in North Dakota. Prior to that, BNSF wanted to abandon the Devils Lake Subdivision since they said they don't use it. The FRA, Amtrak and BNSF made a deal to keep it and upgrade it, with each making equal contributions.

Naturally, once everyone chipped in, BNSF started using the track they didn't use and started delaying trains.

A lot of money was paid to build the Passenger Main (note it says PASSENGER right in the name) bypass around ACCA yard. What does CSX do? Park trains on it and then puts the Amtrak trains THROUGH the yard, which causes delays. The funny part is CSX shook them down for yet another bypass towards NPN, which will save the trains time.

We'll see how that turns out. I'm not saying that all passenger trains must get all clear railroad and neither does the regulation. However, if there is a shot to run around a train, utilizing infrastructure that was upgraded to accommodate the service, it should be utilized. Even if there isn't an investment, use your railroad. When you follow the same freight train from Manassas, Virginia to Toccoa, Georgia, there is a problem with your priority(or your auto-router.)

If the railroad no longer wish to maintain the infrastructure and wish to offload the lines with passenger operations (which most of them ventured into areas with passenger operations), I'm all for a fire sale. Divest the routes and see if the states or another entity wanst to buy them. Even Amtrak has been putting their hands on territory.

Otherwise, the freights should use the existing statute to request relief. The fact that they haven't EVER requested relief is quite telling.

[CHTT1]

It seems that the freight railroads, with their impercise and unscheduled railroading, are doing more to drive away any freight customers than any passenger trains could ever do. I think CSX, in particular, is getting ready to wrap things up and sell what's left of the railroad to government agencies and scrap dealers.

[prokowave]

Well, my original point is that most tracks across the U.S. would not have been built if it were not for significant public support - not just to serve freight markets.

Railroads still benefit from favorable laws and regulations today. If that were not the case, what would stop states or towns from seizing the land upon which tracks sit through eminent domain to build roads and schools? Not only that but the public foots much of the bill for railroad crossings and safety programs. Another example: the law generally gives right of way to trains, so railroads aren't sued out of business every time a car gets hit by a train.

I could go on, but railroads have had a long and complicated relationship with government and today enjoy a pseudo-monopolistic situation (could you imagine a new railroad startup trying to build new tracks and compete with the Class I's today?). The public puts up with the noise and traffic disruptions and as such deserves the small benefit of passenger train prioritization at the very least, especially when Amtrak is paying for the use of the tracks.

[David Benton]

Agreed.

If the government wants Amtrak to always be on time...pay the freight railroads, via contracts negotiated at arms' length and not under duress, for track improvements.

If the government can force freight railroads to do its bidding, by fiat, then any of us can be crushed by government as well.

Its a rather sad state of affairs that anyone could see the government would be out to crush them.
In other democracies, it would seem the government is more focused on protecting and providing for its citizens , perhaps shown in a higher provision of passenger trains and other public transport. .

[SouthernRailway]

Agreed.

If the government wants Amtrak to always be on time...pay the freight railroads, via contracts negotiated at arms' length and not under duress, for track improvements.

If the government can force freight railroads to do its bidding, by fiat, then any of us can be crushed by government as well.

Its a rather sad state of affairs that anyone could see the government would be out to crush them.
In other democracies, it would seem the government is more focused on protecting and providing for its citizens , perhaps shown in a higher provision of passenger trains and other public transport. .

Well, try living in the US instead of New Zealand. The US is full of people at each other’s throats, who use government as a weapon.

[mtuandrew]

America isn’t unique in how different factions use control of the bureaucracy to bludgeon their opponents and create lasting power structures that benefit a minority of citizens. (However, it’s more rare that a minority of citizens can elect a large majority of their faction to government, like we do here through gerrymandering and the Electoral College winner-take-all system.)

What I find unique is the strong yet informal role that big business plays in both state and federal governance, when the government plays a smaller role in corporate governance than in most other countries. There is a US Department of Commerce tasked with getting foreign contracts to American businesses, but business influence plays a huge role in everything from transportation safety to drug regulations to foreign affairs protocol. There are innumerable regulations that point to industry trade group standards rather than something promulgated by a government body; America has historically taken a light touch with corporations, even during corporate breakups.

What that means for Amtrak is, there’s always been more incentive in the Department of Transportation to let freight railroads do their thing. Conrail was an anomaly and the US Government rid itself of it as soon as it got its money back, and let most of the others go through bankruptcy reorganization or abandonment without much government assistance; they never pushed for or wanted a nationalized system. SNCF, British Rail, or Deutsche Bahn would be anathema here. Even government-owned lines (regional railroad authorities and state DOTs) have fully spun off their freight operations to private companies.

At least since the Staggers Act deregulated the industry, if not since the late 1960s, the US government hasn’t had an appetite to really push freight companies to be fair to passenger rail - and “fair” has different definitions based on who says it. It would be a sea change for the American government to strongly push for passenger rail when it might affect the bottom line of private companies.

[SouthernRailway]

Well, passenger rail doesn't have to be a zero-sum game: private companies don't have to lose if passenger rail wins.

My view is that passenger rail should be contracted out to private companies where feasible, and as long as the total subsidy is less than what government would pay to have a state agency handle it. So any private company that could run passenger rail more efficiently than a state agency could would win by offering to run it in exchange for that lower subsidy.

But no Class I has jumped to run Amtrak's long-distance services, which are (at least in part) eligible to be handled by Class Is, so I must be missing something. Thank goodness for Brightline, which I think we all can agree is a well-run service.

[STrRedWolf]

Well, look at Brightline and see what subsidies they get. If it's nothing, then they must be doing something right.

If they are getting money from the government for passenger service, then it's just another Amtrak NEC service.

[SouthernRailway]

Brightline has been able to use tax-advantaged bonds and I think governments have paid for some crossings and maybe are offering funds for more stations that governments want. That’s it.

[mtuandrew]

Brightline has been able to use tax-advantaged bonds and I think governments have paid for some crossings and maybe are offering funds for more stations that governments want. That’s it.

Has Brightline been charged fair market value for the use of government land? If not, that’s another subsidy.