It appears that Amtrak has lost patience. Going to the STB may cause all the freight RRs to realize that continuing delay tactics will no longer be in their best interests. Certainly the other RRs know now that but for the grace of god that Amtrak not yet ready to add trains to their routes may be comming to an end.
Just speculation. Do the RRs just want to reduce the number of dispatchers and that Amtrak service may slow or stop consolidating dispatch districts?
No matter how the STB rules all three parties may end up finally going to SCOTUS for a final delay.
I don’t know what CSX’s current policy is with the operation of Amtrak.
When I was working CSX was paid a ‘bonus’ for trains making various checkpoints in their route ‘On Time’ (ie. within 15 minutes of the advertised). On Time was also adjusted for ‘Amtrak delays’. (ie. 30" late from Washington Union Station was Amtrak would be added to the checkpoint time for bonus calculation). On Time would also be adjusted for delays in getting trains from other carriers.
As I recall, the Bonus conpensation ranged from approximately $1500 to as muxh as $11500 (for AutoTrain). As I recall, Bonus amounts were only payable if the train involved exceeded 85% On Time. At the time, not earning the Bonus was viewed as throwing ‘free money’ away.
Over the years Amtrak has tried different ‘incentive’ plans for the operation of their trains - some more successful than others.
I have no idea how PSR is affecting the operation of Amtrak on CSX today.
Nothing really has changed. They paraded around an oversized Publishers Clearing House style check last year of the Amtrak bonus. It was displayed in the Passenger Office all year.
Unfortunately for Amtrak, the Chicago machine also made it’s move in ensuring METRA folks were appointed to STB. Guess what that probably means for control of Union Station in Chicago…long-term. Though it might assist with this on-time operation of passenger trains issue.
BTW, anyone notice on FOX News reporting on HR1. $1.5 Billion to Amtrak to compensate for loss of passengers is singled out as a “waste” item but $30 Billion for Airlines in same bill for same purpose is not even mentioned. Noticed it was a talking point of one particular party as well and FOX was generally echoing it without any research. I watch FOX regularly and spot stuff like this, thats why I get a good chuckle when someone attempts to use it as an example of non-partisan reporting…it really has the same issues the other cable news channels have on reporting domestic news. You just have to listen carefully at times.
Those bonus numbers are for each checkpoint, each day. AutoTrain only had a single checkpoint. The other trains, for the most part, had 4 to 6 checkpoints in their route. When adding up the checkpoints per train the total approached $10K per train per day.
Start adding the checkpoint values over 365 days and it turns into a sizable yearly sum.
As per Page 41 of Amtrak’s Consolidated Financial Statements for the Years Ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, the company has agreements with the freight railroads to pay them for hoisting its trains. Payments are based on usage and performance. In FY20 the payments were $176.7 million, up from $173.7 million in FY19. The report does not setout the amount for on time performance.
A complete reading of both documents indicates that Amtrak’s accounting policies, procedures, and practices are proper.
It appears that the embedded and oversight controls governing the APT system are adequate. The criticisms leveled at APT by largely unknowing critics are not supported.
As noted in the studies, five long-distance trains that run on the NEC are allocated a proportional amount of the NEC expenses, which is proper cost accounting.
As per the footnote on the bottom of Page 4 of How Does Amtrak Calcul
Yes, but… I have to wonder if the author(s) fully understand switching passenger trains at Sunnyside. One of d’Amato’s stated claims was that APT allocated ten times the amount of cost to switch one of the Florida trains than the other one. It is difficult for me even using New York prices and labor characteristics to figure out how the difference could with integrity be an order of magnitude – I’m certainly open to seeing the difference described in analytical terms, but to dismiss it implicitly is not permissible.
Where is the independently verifiable primary support documentation for d’Amato’s claim. For an independent auditor, it would be in the company’s books. Specifically, it would be the APT report for the latest accounting period.
Of all the people that claim Amtrak’s cost accounting is flawed, as far as I can determine not a single one of them has had access to the company’s books. And without that access they are simply blowing in the wind.
The accounting of costs done by a organization is the most closely held of any of the company’s intellectual property. No company worth a dollar or more will ever let such information fall into the hands of anyone not properly authorized - especially no one outside the company.
Anything published outside the company will rise to the level of accounting fiction.
Very true! In any sort of logical, rational and/or scientific venue, publishing wild statements suggesting possible fraudulent error without a scintilla of hard evidence are looked upon as trash.
Except in circumstances where the assertations are made by ‘proof of contradiction’ in published material supposedly derived from proprietary information. Which appeared to me, at least, to be what d’Amato thought he was doing – he couldn’t possibly have known anything about what the costs of turning the two trains were unless he had numbers to flesh that out, and he couldn’t have gotten those anywhere but in published data. Unless he’s talking out of his butt, which is entirely possible, and I confess I’m not enough ‘concerned as a private citizen’ to do the Woodworth and Bernstein fact-checking and delving to confirm or disprove any conspiracy.
As Einstein liked to point out, effectively disproving a theory is considerably less difficult than either forming one or debating it on its merits. And that process can start from disparity in reported results, whether or not referenced to some invisible methodology.
That of course does not imply a given ‘disproof’ is valid… only that it can’t be dismissed out of hand without equally dismissing validity of the apparent contradiction of reported results. Which in this particular case would involve interesting results both with regard to d’Amato and Johnston.
Except in circumstances where the assertations are made by ‘proof of contradiction’ in published material supposedly derived from proprietary information.
Merely passing along published material SUPPOSEDLY derived from [unseen] proprietary information is not good enough. That’s not much better than “anonymous sources said**”** in terms of corroborated validity. How do we know that the intermediary source got it right?
Remember - if and when a organization publishes ‘cost data’ they are doing so for the benefit of the STORY they are trying to tell. Also remember they will only disclose the data that benefits that STORY. No data will be made available that could put the STORY in a bad light.
To split a hair, I’m not talking about using ‘supposedly proprietary information’, I’m talking about my supposition that real proprietary information was used. The former case makes it the source’s supposition (and hence as you note little better than any other source’s supposition); the latter would be no better than ‘hearsay’ if subsequently asserted as fact but could still be reasonably used subject to subsequent falsification or contradiction.
In the present case, d’Amato did cite particular sources, but I wasn’t interested enough to review them. If someone cares enough to find where his source for the assertation about different turn prices on the New York-Florida trains was, and goes back to check the original material, this will become less hypothetical, at least with respect to oral-rectal inversion.