I asked this question on the TRAINS.com forum, but I believe it fits better here. Last Christmas I rode the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle to Fort Worth. There I finished my trip on the Heartland Express to Oklahoma City. On the way back home to California we were crossing Texas making good time at about 60 mph. But every once in a while we would cross a section of track that would cause the train to jerk violently. It would almost knock you down. A fellow passenger remarked that since the UP and the BNSF only have to transport freight at 55 mph maximum, they don’t care that Amtrak can’t move smoothly across the Western United States.
Back in the sixties I rode the City of Los Angeles from Upland, CA to North Platte, NE and in the open spaces the train pushed 90+ mph. No way can that happen today. With the unending reports of derailments everywhere, shouldn’t the railroads begin to upgrade their roadbeds? My local Metrolink has concrete ties and welded rail on it’s right-of-way and it can travel safe, fast, and smooth.
On person responding to my question said that in the past there were Sectionmen who maintained the tracks with pride. Now they are gone and the result is “crappy” track. Couldn’t the railroads justify the expense with less accidents, less injuries and deaths, and quicker transport of their goods???
Traveling by train is so much nicer than being crammed like a sardine in what they call modern airline transporation. This is not even mentioning the strip searches and the rifling of your luggage.
I feel your pain, joesap9. Riding Amtrak in 98’ I encountered many of the same situations.
That said, the bread and butter of the railroad is freight. If the RR is most profitable running freight at 50 and there isn’t demand for higher speeds outside of Amtrak, than no dice.
Secondly, you’re right. Section gangs are gone. My great-grandfather worked as a section gang member for the GN way back. in west-central MN. As priorities changed, the miles they had to cover grew in junction with the new “defferred maitenence” policies of all the granger roads, until the track was down to 10, they were laid off and the line was abandoned.
I know. I hate to sound like I’m crashing the party. Read the past posts and you’ll find I’m a huge defender of Amtrak, but the state of railroading today is just how it is, however sad, when the railroad can’t do what it did.
Pretty ironic, isn’t it, that in an industry that has prided and boasted of so much innovation over the past 50 years; SD90’s, miles of welded rail and concrete ties; computer dispatching; etc., cannot go as fast as their forefathers on the same line.
We don’t need super bullet trains- we just need to go back to a 1940’s mindset on this- if a F-7 Milwaukee Road Hiawatha could clip 100mph between the Twin Cities and Chicago in 1939; it’s pretty embarrassing for us to say “progress” is a 79 mph maximum speed limit.
I think railroads found that the extra expense to have their trains go faster is not justified by the cargo they usually carry. If they spend 25% more on track maintenance but their revenue only goes up by 10%, was that a good decision?
You guys make very good points. The railroad is being run like everything else in the US of A - cutthroat- strickly for the buck. Service, quality, and ride are gone. It really pains me when I see freight cars covered with grafitti, too.
If it saves lives, you bet ya! Just imagine the lawsuits involved with the railroad owner when passenger trains jump the track and people get injured or killed … not to mention the track repairs and repairs to any other properties in the vicinity affected by the accident.
Save a little now, pay a lot later.
Got bad news for you chessking. When Amtrack goes on the ground, its Amtracks bill, not the freight railroad host. This does two things – first, it limits the liability of the host and therefore lowers the track rental fee and also raises Amtracks operating costs ( liability for injury and probperty damage and repairs to track, track structure, birdges etc and repair to any rolling stock; and — second, it all but eliminates court actions since the only party that can have a legal action filed upon it is Amtrack.
Given the above, it would seem strange for Amtrack to accept this situation, but the future cost of any derailment is built into the ticket price and it reduces costs relative to accident settlements to the point that the situation is a financial wash. On average, the situation balances.
At what point do you say the track is in good enough shape? Railroads could spend 10 times the amount of money on maintenance that they do now. They would reduce derailments due to track but not eliminate them (unless they spent so much on maintanence they went under and now run no trains). Amtrak would not derail, because the tickets would be so expensive airlines would look like they were from the bargain basement. This may be a shock to people unfamilar with engineering, there is a certain amount of accidents that is acceptable, because they cannot be eliminated and trying to reduce them beyond a certain amount is cost prohibitive.
I don’t want to rock the boat here with anyone being that I’m new, but I do believe what was supposed to be bad news is probably no news at all (no disrespect). According to the FRA, there are track classes. If Amtrak is running on a freight line within the maximum allowable speeds for whatever class trackage and a section of it malfunctions below, well of course there will be a thorough NTSB investigation and the conclusion will ultimately have fingers pointing one way or the other who is faulted here. I am aware Amtrak’s Accela Express (or however it’s spelled) had problems with wheels (2000 issue Trains Magazine). Had a wheel or truck malfunctioned and been the result of a catastrophe, this is Amtrak property and so be it. But the origin of the tread stated rail problems. This stuff is common today because nobody gives a (no I won’t say it) anymore about railroad maintenance. I got some info from www.csx-sucks.com
Maybe I’m blowing smoke here … so feel free to rebuke this at a moment’s notice. But with track conditions as they are today, it’s like running hex wheels over a flat surface. “Enjoy the smooth, worry free ride.”
CSX and NS inherited well maintained Conrail trackage. I haven’t heard of many incidents occurring during Conrail’s heydays. Now if you could, verse their statistics with CSX and NS (to date). Whatever happened afterwards with the degradation of these lines was the result of the corporations. Ok, I will no longer blame the small numbers of track crews, signal men, etc, any longer.
Does it need to be in caps for you to see??
A disclaimer of sorts: though I’ve been lurking for a while, this is the first time I’ve posted to this forum, since professional considerations prevent me from revealing my identity…and I’m loathe to post anonymously or with an alias. I will say that I’ve worked as both an agreement employee and as an officer in the engineering departments of several class 1 railroads.
I’m afraid I take umbrage to Mr. Chessking’s statements. I will agree with Mr. Hemphill that RR engineering departments take their jobs seriously; it’s inappropriate to make a blanket statement that the field employees (to wit: “…small numbers of track crews, signal men, etc…”) are the only ones who care about their work whilst the “corporations” (which, perhaps incorrectly, I interpreted to be “management”) remain blissfully ignorant, as Chessking seems to imply.
In simple terms, there’s a limited amount of cash available at budget time. Each department makes its case for some of that cash. While we may think that the operating, engineering, and mechanical departments are the only ones to need some of that cash, there are actually many more stakeholders eyeing a comparitively small pile of money. Don’t forget the marketing, administrative, IT, legal, finance, and procurement departments, to name a few. Oh yes, investors are also looking at that cash as a way to recoup their investment.
Even if the investors forfeited their share, there still wouldn’t be enough money to bring the railroad network up to what I perceive to be your standards. Just how does one define “well maintained,” anyway? (And, I can assure you that if the investors don’t get some cash, the railroad will soon grind to a halt, long before the physical plant is made “perfect.”)
But, to help elucidate the situation, suppose our favorite engineering department gets a 15% budget increase this year. Where to spend the money? More tie inserters? Tampers? What about ballast? What about saftey glasses and raingear for the men
Hi Guys,
One thing that sems to have been overlooked…the weak link concept.
I work for the PTRA, a terminal and switching railroad in Houston.
We are the end point for almost all freight into and out of the Port Of Houston, the 4th largest port in the US in terms of tonnage, and the Houston ship channel.
If you have the last issue of Trains magazine, look at the map of Houston, we are the guys in blue.
We receive, or yard, on average, a 100-120 car unit train(coke, grain, carbon black, plastic) every 4 hours, and several smaller, 50 to 100 car mixed freights per 8 hour shift.
Whether the train arrives at 90 mph, or 10 mph make no difference, it will be switched and classified, blocked and sent to the industry in the same amount of time.
The fact is, there is only so much space to park the train, and only a limited amount of space to switch them.
You could run intermodel from LA to Chicago at 100 mph. if you chose to and could afford the track maintainance, but the end result is, you still have to have some place for the train to go once it reaches Chicago.
For intermodel, it possible, due to the nature of the container and the way you unload it, but for boxcars, tanks and covered hoppers, well, someone has to take the inbound train apart, and block it out for its final destination.
And, once your tank car gets to it’s final destination, you have to add in the turnaround time for it to be emptied or loaded, and then switched back into a outbound train to head back home.
Your per car dwell time at any terminus is the choke point on any railroad.
So, you could build a double track, 90 mph main across the west, but if this super road has no place to park the trains when they get to the terminus…
Keep in mind too, that “back in the day” when UP ran its City trains, and Santa Fe had bragging rights with the Super Chiefs, most railroads were scheduled railroads.
Ed and Mark
I think you would both agree that most main tracks are in better shape today than they have ever been. Track caused derailments are down over the last couple of decades by virtually every measure. Not perfect but has been getting better.
Mac
So much for the good ol’ days of Railroading when the only thing the Railroads care about now a days is the all mighty dollar than over SAFETY!
Changing gears for a quick question (sorry). Amtrak is liable when the train hits the ground! Can Amtrak turn around and sue to re-coup losses if the cause of accident is deemed to be outside of Amtrak or the Frieght line. I.E. The manufacture of the car (bad car wheels) or the barge operator that hit the bridge? I’m sure Amtraks Insurance company is looking to re-coup from somebody.
Mark ,I see your point, but years ago didn’t the RR’s cut back on funds on Maintence to cut back on spending?
Can’t dispute Mark’s numbers, but IIRC, that is absolutely true - although you have to go back 40-50 years to see it. I suspect we are still paying for that, however.
Mark:
Thanks for trying. (Sometimes you teach and they actually listen. Other times emotion gets in the way and ruins a good lesson…)They may never “get it” or understand the difference between FRA Class 4 and Class 5 track in 49CFR213. The comment about running a maximum of 55 mph is flawed (Fuel conservation maybe, track condition most likely not) If that was still SP instead of UP, there would be slow orders deluxe because SP was broke. UP has thrown bucketloads of cash at the problems on the former SP and will continue to do so just to get their heads above water for years of deferred maintenance by SP)…
The comment about MetroLink is an uninformed one. If freight railroads had the maintenance budget they have had lately, things would be different. [ If the current regime at MetroLink/SCRRA was not there including a well known TRAINS contributor (and ex SP Division Engineer, a really good one), the freight railroaders would be tagging them with their old nickname which was “MetroJoke”…] It isn’t only ties and rail, ever understand the concept of surfacing? Somebody needs to understand also what rail corrugation is and what increased heavy tonnage does to the rail, ties and roadbed. Track modulus anyone?
BNSF still runs AMTRAK at 90 mph on 132# jointed rail (until the ATS inductors go away) here in Southern Colorado (saw this yesterday at Coolidge, KS/Holly, CO)…
Joesap1 and railman might want to try learning instead of making baseless comments. (or go back into the corner and look at the pretty pictures)
Mudchicken (One annoyed/ dismayed trackman)
[banghead][banghead][banghead]
I don’t want to change the overall trend in this conversation, but this got me wondering. Is there any difference between the ability to run trains at high speed on ribon rail as opposed to jointed rail?
I remember reading a post in a string referring to the fact that Germans run their freight trains at 90mph. Someone said something to the effect that jointed rail changed the equation, something about the small amount of give in each rail being helpful.
I meant to ask about this earlier, but never got around to it.
Gabe
One observation from an innocent bystander:
The roadbed work that most Class 1’s I watch is far superior to that which it is replacing. The railroads are investing in reducing future maintenance costs as well as eliminating operational problems - thus we should see lower costs but better operational performance. I think that Mark’s numbers are pointing this out.
Second - as the Class 1’s upgrade, used ribbon rail is now becoming available. Earlier this fall, I hiked into the site of a spring derailment on an unnamed Class 2 in Texas. Most of the ties were kindling wood, but the rail had been relaid with used ribbon rail and reballested with crushed granite. New ties can be worked into that site later. This was an impressive rebuild job for a Class 2.
Third, there are specific locations on all railroads that are almost impossible to improve over present conditions. The (compass) eastbound approach to the Colorado River bridge in Columbus TX is a good example. Right in the middle of the main line between Houston and San Antonio is a 100 foot section of track that shows strong evidence of pumping. However, there are residences within 50 feet on each side (North and South), a city street crossing to the West and a cliff to the East. Short of buying out the residences, closing a street grade crossing and putting in proper drainage – all the UP can do is throw ballast and slow orders at the problem.
dd
Thanks, mudchicken, F_N_B, Mark, dd…
I just spent a few moments going through the NTSB (and previous equivalents) and Canadian Transportation Safety Board stats and reports for years gone by. It makes interesting, if somewhat repetitive, reading. There is no question when you do that that reportable accidents/incidents attributable to track conditions are declining. No question at all. Yes, the old section gangs are gone – but in their place there are a number of newer or improved technologies which, while not perfect, are pretty good. And there are a lot of dedicated railroaders out there – from the top down, for most companies – who still believe, and still work that safety comes first.
dd also has a good point – there are some places you just can’t fix under present condtions.
I would add, though, a comment on ride quality (which is part of where this all started!): this is a very qualitative thing. However, it is dependent on a lot more than visible track conditions. As Mudchicken notes, surfacing makes a terrific difference, particularly at certain speeds. Another factor, however, is the nature of what you are riding in: in the bad old days, you were, if you were on a first class train, riding in a Pullman or equivalent streamline or heavyweight car. Note that the older streamline cars were ‘lightweight’ in name only – these were big, heavy puppys, make no mistake! And they rode on four or six axle trucks with remarkably long spring travel and a variety of dampers. Since the car itself was very heavy (try 80 tons and up) and the live load was so small (say 50 people), the trucks and springing could be really optimised – and one could get a lovely smooth ride over some pretty g_d awful track. Not so today: a Superliner is big, but it isn’t heavy, and its centre of gravity is high; there is no way it will ride as well. Viewliners and all are much lighter than their predecessors. This has to be taken into account when assessing ride quality.