I am posing a passenger question to general conversation I am A fan of the Empire Builder #'s 7&8. It has been very late for sometime now and the excuses are piling up. BNSF says that they are at capacity due to oil trains. When I was on it both ways the one that passed us most seem to be merchandise trains. What is CP’s excuse? The run from Chicago to MSP was supposed to be a good one but we lost time both ways. Could it be that the freight roads are making deliberately longer trains so that Amtrak has to sit in the siding because the fright trains are too long? After all how long can Amtrak put up passengers who miss their Chicago connections almost daily? I am asking these questions out of curiosity. Are people trying to kill Amtrak and make it look like a suicide?
Its total number of trains, not necessarily what you met. If the railroad used to run 20 trains and you add in an additional 20 trains, that compresses the original 20 trains. Even if you don’t meet an oil train it has doubled the number of trains on the subdivision.
Train lengths have been growing for the last 3 decades.
What people don’t understand is the footprint that a passenger train casts. If the dispatcher is trying to get the passenger train across a sub with minimal delay, on a single track line, he may be putting trains in sidings from 50 to 100 miles ahead of the passenger train. If he has x sidings and x trains, he has to start dumping trains. If he keeps them going he will end up with multiple trains meeting Amtrak at one siding. If he has more freight trains than sidings then he has to make 2 on one meets.
Since Amtrak is operating 20-30 mph faster than the freights, the dispatcher has to get trains in BOTH directions out of the way because Amtrak will catch the freights ahead. With just freight trains, the dispatcher primarily is concerned with opposing trains since there will be fewer overtakes. That effectively doubles the number of trains the dispatcher has to find a hole for.
If your train lost time, my guess would be that it was following a train in the same direction. Freight train 50 mph, passenger schedule 79 mph, yep you’re go
Making deliberately longer trains just to inconvenience Amtrak? I have heard some pretty weird conspiracy theories, but that one takes the cake.
Only Congress can kill ATK and I wish they do it immediately.
Mac McCulloch
This can be seen even on the two-track CSX Chicago Line in NY - Things get really “quiet” around scheduled Amtrak arrivals.
Questions your proposal raises: 1) what would you propose be done abut moving people? 2) or what do you propose to replace Amtrak or Amtrak’s role? 3) what do you think your proposal would accomplish? 4) how realistic and thought out is your proposal. 5) would we really be better off killing off Congress and saving Amtrak?
BNSF has been perhaps the most accommodating of any of the freight railroads towards Amtrak, I doubt they are actively trying to “kill Amtrak”. Indeed, if any money were forthcoming I’ll bet they would be happy to spend it on track work that would benefit Amtrak, as they have on the CZ route through Iowa (CTC islands, etc, paid for by the federal government, so that the CZ can pass all the coal trains on the otherwise ABS direction of traffic system) and are willing to pitch in on the SWC route through Kansas, Colorado and NM (they have offered to pay one-filth of the cost of upgrading the route to passenger train speeds and remove slow orders, with Amtrak and the three states to pay the rest, met with state government officials on Amtrak’s behalf several times, hosted trains on the line etc to try to get the states to do their part).
I am not as familiar with the EB route as with the CZ and SWC route, can anyone list some specific improvements that could free up capacity and improve EB time keeping?
The current problems of the EB and Texas Eagle (on another thread on Passenger Forum) illustrate the incompatibility of passenger services (or even one train per day) with American freight practices. Even with double track, the top speed differential of 79 mph passenger (really too slow for modern service) to 50-60 mph freight is too great. I do not know what the answer is other than focus on dedicated ROW in short corridors for real passenger services.
The interesting thing is that according to the Amtrak web site, the Acela Express, Amtrak’s premier service operating its own trains on its own tracks, dispatched by its own dispatchers over 2-4 main track, grade separated right of way, they are only averaging 75% on time over the last year.
The most overlooked aspect of the Amtrak footprint is the amount of space that is required ahead of Amtrak for the train to operate at maximum authorized speed on Clear signals. Depending on the signal system and the distances between signals - that preceding footprint could be anywhere from 4 to 12 miles. On a high volume freight railroad, providing that preceding footprint can be very difficult - just because Amtrak is coming, freight trains don’t magically disappear. Parting the waters to facilitate Amtrak’s passage can be a exceedingly difficult undertaking from a simple dispatching perspective, couple that with internal company policies and it may be even more difficult.
The implementation of CTC on prior double track territories (at least on my carrier) has forced a change in the prior dispatching philosophy as in the day of Current of Traffic signaling there were directional passing sidings at strategic locations, allowing a freight train being overtaken to ‘duck in the clear’ and then follow the overtaking train(s) without affecting opposing movements. With the installation of CTC, in most cases, those sidings have been removed or otherwise rendered unusable for that purpose; to get one train around others moving in the same direction opposing movements will in some way be affected.
I like to look at the numbers at the end of the fiscal year. They represent an entire seasonal cycle and are more likely to give a true picture over a long enough period.
In FY13 the Acela’s end point on-time performance record was 85.3 per cent, which was down from 89.7 per cent in FY12. The all stations on-time percentages were 88.7 per cent in FY13 and 92.4 per cent in FY12.
The Northeast Regional trains end-point on-time performance records were 84.2 per cent in FY13 and 86.5 per cent in FY12. The all stations on-time percentages were 87.5 per cent in FY13 and 88.8 per cent in FY12.
For YTD April 2014, the end point on-time performance for the Acela was 75.6 per cent. However, YTD April 14 only represents seven months, and it is unduly impacted from the effects of late fall, winter, and early spring weather. Winter 2013-14 saw some of the harshest weather to hit the United States in decades, and it had an impact on the performance of all modes of transport. As the year goes on, with better weather, the on-time performance numbers for the NEC, including the Acela, are likely to come close to those put up in FY12 and FY13.
Don’t forget that even on the Amtrak-owned track, commuter trains (and some freight) also have to be accommodated. And part of the Acela route is on MNRR trackage.
Some one enlighten us. Isn’t Acela on time arrival times less than regular passenger trains ?. Also the distance the train travels affects how late is still on time ?
The Acela is late if it misses its end point schedule by more than 10 minutes. The other trains in the NEC are late only if they miss their end point arrival times by more than 15 minutes. Some of the long distance trains can be 30 minutes off the advertised and still be counted on-time. The Acela is held to a tighter metric. Go figure.
In FY13 Keystone, Lynchburg, Capitols, New York to Albany (includes trains that operate only between NYC and Albany), Heartland Flyer, Hiawatha, Carl Sandburg / Illinois Zephyr, Lincoln Service, Missouri Service, Pennsylvanian, and City of New Orleans trains had end-point on-time percentages that ranged from just above the Acela’s 85.3 per cent to a system high of 95 per cent for the Capitols.
What the results would look like if the Acela were held to the 15 minute metric like the other trains, or the other trains were held to the 10 minute metric like the Acela, is unknown. A train or plane or bus should be considered on-time only if it arrives in the station when the schedule says that it will. Fudging the outcome does not make a lot of sense.
I have never comprehended reasoning that declares that a train that does not arrive “on the advertised” can be considered to be on time if it arrives within so many minutes late.
At one time airplanes were on time if arrives within 15 minutes for Federal reportig metrics.
The dumbing of America has led to the “I don’t care” of America, the good enough is not only good enough but also probably more than we need. Perfection, performance, quality? I’ll get to it when and if I danged pleased to do so. The ________________ (train, bus, plane, check) got there didn’t it, so quit your complaining.
When the railroads had full control of their own passenger operations, they could see to it that their trains arrived “on the advertised.” Heaven help the freight crew that “stuck” a passenger train (especially a “crack” train).
Today, Amtrak is at the mercy of the railroads over which it runs (except in the NEC). And there’s not much shame in “sticking” an Amtrak train. So all Amtrak can hope for is that they can come close to what they say they will.
The airlines are in the same boat, if you will. There are so many flights, and so much interweaving of those flights, that a delay at a given airport can affect flights that will never see that airport. Too, you have the weather - both locally and at flight level, where a stiff headwind can wreak havoc with flight times.
All told, getting there “close” is probably about as good as we can expect from any transportation source.
We are lazy and apathetic in this country. Don’t say on time can’t be done as we used to achieve it all the time with trains arriving or leaving within the 60 seconds of the minute as advertised. But that was the buffer. Look at European operations, especially the Swiss and the Germans who publish schedules at half, and even at one time I believe, quarter minute times. Thus 1816:15 or 1816:30 (3:16:15 or 3:16:30) which are adhered to with no hedging.
Although I agree that “on time” should mean “On time” not 15-30 minutes late, as far as I know in May of 2014 when I was there, the DB (German rail) published schedules on the minute. AFAIK, in the last 46 years, they were never on the 30 second or 15 second in published timetables. Where in the world did you come up with that tall tale?