What would be the operational and financial impacts on CSX if it did not have to host any Amtrak trains?
Or, to put the question another way, how much does it cost CSX directly and indirectly to put up with Amtrak?
Facts that you will NEVER find from either party.
I can think of several cost categories to consider.
-
wear and tear on the physical plant: For a typical daily pair of Amtrak trains it will be minimal on any busy line, compared with the pounding from long heavy freight traffic.
-
delay to CSX’s own traffic: A real cost, but pinning it down requires a bunch of arbitrary assumptions. When railroads purposely delay their own freight traffic for internal convenience, they rarely assign the “cost” of so doing. If the line is reaching maximum capacity, or there are multiple passenger trains, the direct cost might be significant, otherwise quite debatable.
-
Management and supervision: Obviously field staff will have to include overseeing Amtrak as part of their responsibility for safe operation of ALL the trains within their territory. It is unlikely that the eliminating a pair of passenger trains will result in any change to CSX management level. There will likely be extra staff to handle the billing process.
-
Emergent issues: Locomotives die on the road, and crews run out of legal hours, and often a host railroad will help out. I believe that type of out-of-pocket cost will be fully covered by Amtrak.
Offsetting the real and theoretical costs, there is an income stream as a result of hosting an Amtrak train. My belief is that it more than covers the immediate costs, but not by enough to compensate for the perceived nuisance. I could be wrong, - I’ll await with interest any response by some of the experts here.
John
Your thoughtful comment shows how difficult finding a factual answer would be. “Experts” will likely have their answers colored by POV or agenda.
Is that even an option? I thought Amtrak was a given for the freight railroads at this time.
We shouldn’t forget that all participating railroads were relieved of all further obligations to run passenger trains. Not participating required railroads to run all passenger trains for four more years until January 1975 with all the legal uncertainties associated with the ICC abandonment procedure.
Four more years would have meant an additional loss of around $1.8 billion based on 1970’s deficit of $450,000.
Regards, Volker
Any delays are due in large part to the “halo effect” surrounding an Amtrak train. This can be easily seen over the course of a day along the former Water Level Route, which hosts the Lake Shore as well as three regional trains in each direction each day.
The key factor in such situations is not Amtrak in and of itself, it’s the differing speeds involved. It’s been found that having all trains running the same speed is the best way to run trains. With Amtrak running at 79, I/M running at 60, and manifests running at 50, the dispatcher has a bit of a chess game going.
I’m sure even the mix of I/M and manifest traffic is a bit of a headache…
If Amtrak ran 60, like the IM trains, it might not be quite so bad. Bring Amtrak and the I/M’s down to 50, and aside from station stops, everything would be hunky-dory…
And that’s on a two track main. Single track is another story…
Given the current political environment, it probably is not an option. But that was not what I was getting at.
I am more interested in knowing the cost and operational issues.
For example, if CSX has to route a frieght train into a siding so Amtrak can go by either way, is there a significant increment cost in getting the train underway again?
Had Amtrak not been created, we don’t know what would have happened. History does not allow us to run parallel universes. Legal requirements can be changed. But we are where we are, and the decision cannot be unwound.
Amtrak was a political decision. Had it not been created, the railroads would have been successful in discontinuing their passenger operations, especially if they could have shown that they would go belly-up had they not been allowed to do so.
Train delay costs run somewhere in the $200-400 per hour range (depending on train size, crew cost, how many engines, if you are counting engine cost, train type, etc.) Assume $300/hr, that’s $5/min, a 30 min delay costs $150 (regardless of whether its Amtrak or a CSX train).
This is the sort of specificity that I was seeking. Thanks!
When a freight and passenger train meet and the freight goes in the siding, how do we separate the delays that were caused solely by the Amtrak train’s presence from those that have additional reasons?
Like CX500 said, freight trains are often parked for reasons that are not at all related to Amtrak. If one of these low-priority trains is held to allow Amtrak to pass its record will show a Amtrak-caused delay, but in reality the Dispatcher knew it would stop farther down the line anyway and chose to prioritize a train whose schedule actually mattered.
Reasons for these non-Amtrak-related delays include lack of crews, freight yard congestion ahead, and customer requests (maybe the port, coal mine or grain terminal doesn’t want their unit train right away). There are many more.
What constitutes delay?
Best run time over a track segment is 2 hours 30 minutes for freights.
Scheduled running time for the fastest freight is 3 hours 30 mintes.
The scheduled freight meets Amtrak on the run and makes it in 3 hours.
Was the freight train delayed?
I’m confused. You’re telling Volker he can’t play what if because that’s a historical thing and that’s the way it is. Then you play what if on something that can’t be done?
Gee, Murp, didn’t you know? It’s a case of rejecting hypo
Maybe this is another PJS1 from a parallel universe that was able to sneak over here?
There is a subtle difference. If Amtrak had not been created, knowing the alternative is impossible.
However, in the case of the train offs, the trend had been established since the early 1950s. Most of the petitions were successful. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the “trend” would have continued.
A fine point to be sure, but there is a difference between hypothesizing a complete unknown as opposed to projecting a well-established trend.
Given the general attitude about passenger service that the railroads had (once the mail contracts/cash cow were gone) and still apparently have, I’d have to opine that the only way passenger service would exist today would be where it could support dedicated ROWs.
It may well have followed the path of urban mass transit, where we’ve seen cities that once willingly closed down trolleys, etc, once again embracing those same trolleys.
I seriously doubt you’d see anything resembling the Amtrak we see today.
Outside of urban areas and corridors there would probably be a few tourist/vacation-oriented cruise or excursion trains, along the lines of Durango & Silverton, Grand Canyon, or Rocky Mountaineer.
Would the American Orient Express have done better in a world where it was the only remaining U.S. train with sleeping cars?
It is a shame that combined passenger-intermodal operation never worked in the real world, that could have made up for the loss of mail traffic.
[quote user=“PJS1”]
Murphy Siding
Had Amtrak not been created, we don’t know what would have happened. History does not allow us to run parallel universes. Legal requirements can be changed. But we are where we are, and the decision cannot be unwound.
Amtrak was a political decision. Had it not been created, the railroads would have been successful in discontinuing their passenger operations, especially if they could have shown that they would go belly-up had they not been allowed to do so.
I’m confused. You’re telling Volker he can’t play what if because that’s a historical thing and that’s the way it is. Then you play what if on something that can’t be done?
There is a subtle difference. If Amtrak had not been created, knowing the alternative is impossible.
However, in the case of the train offs, the trend had been established since the early 1950s. Most of the petitions were successful. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the “trend” would have continued.