6 ms·

>"Railroads are under government orders to install positive train control by the end of 2018 after the industry lobbied Congress to extend earlier deadlines, ci

>"Railroads are under government orders to install positive train control by the end of 2018 after the industry lobbied Congress to extend earlier deadlines, citing complexity and cost" Amtrak receives well over a billion dollars a year in subsidies from the US Federal government[1], they should not be allowed to use cost as an excuse for not modernizing safety. Also I think if you sight safety as being too complex then maybe you have no business operating a monopoly passenger rail service. Lawmakers are just as much to blame for this tragedy as the incompetence and disregard at Amtrak. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44782 https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44782

mulmen 9y ago
Agreed on all points. In this case is there a (e:) more competent passenger carrier that could step in to replace Amtrak? My understanding of the subsidies is that there would be no passenger service without it. Is it feasible to have competitive rail service in the US, does anyone do it?
- rayiner 9y ago
  If a private carrier were allowed to take over the northeast regional segment and abandon everything else, it might be feasible. Amtrak runs a profit on this segment, but only because Congress foots the capital expenditures. But maybe a private entity could harness cost efficiencies to make it.
- niftich 9y ago
  Amtrak actually makes a profit [1][2] on both Acela and the slower services in the Northeast Corridor, but not anywhere else. If we suppose that a privatized passenger carrier would want to make a profit, shedding long-distance trains would be wise, but several Amtrak directors have been against doing so time and time again. [1] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012-cost-recovery.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012... [2] http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report
tjohns 9y ago
My understanding is that many modern Amtrak locomotives are equipped with PTC. Either way, the problem was that the track was not yet equipped with the necessary transmitters to communicate with the train (and isn't yet mandated to, since the railroad industry keeps lobbying to move the implementation date forward). In Amtrak's defense, my understanding is that this track was actually owned by WSDOT / Sound Transit. And the mainline track (privately) owned by Union Pacific / BNSF isn't any better. Amtrak owns very little track of it's own on the west coast. The failure to deploy PTC is a systemic issue with the entire railroad industry.
- AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
  Amtrak owns very little track of it's own, period.
  - astronautjones 9y ago
    What could go wrong?
- justicezyx 9y ago
  Classic "obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility"... My problem, not my problem, his problem, not his problem... What a stupid situation...
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Amtrak doesn’t really make a profit on its own. Anyone who has ever travelled portland to Seattle knows how slow it can be as freight gets priority.
    - dawnerd 9y ago
      Pretty much true for the entire coast - not to mention outright expensive. I looked at a ticket from Portland to la and it was more than a flight and they’d probably stick me on a bus in Bakersfield.
    - 9y ago
hnpobdo 9y ago
Except this accident happened on tracks amtrak doesn’t own - and on the tracks amtrak owns the system is already in place.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  Except the lobbying effort to delay the roll out of PTC was done by the Association of American Railroads[1], of which Amtrak is a full member with much influence.[2] The buck always stops somewhere else. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/deadline-for-train-safety-technology-undercut-by-industry-lobbying/2015/10/25/f893446a-2720-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dea... [2] https://www.aar.org/Pages/AARMembers.aspx https://www.aar.org/Pages/AARMembers.aspx
  - saalweachter 9y ago
    If Amtrak has in fact implemented PTC on all of the tracks they control, I would blame the freight railroads who are the other 20 full members of the AAR. If Amtrak is also stalling on implementing PTC on their own tracks, yeah, I'd stop the buck at them.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"If Amtrak has in fact implemented PTC on all of the tracks they control, I would blame the freight railroads who are the other 20 full members of the AAR." This is exactly the logic everyone has been using to absolve themselves from any blame. 'Yes it was our train and our customers but it wasn't our track.' If Amtrak is doesn't want to take any responsibility for peoples lives when they offer service on tracks they don't "control" then they should restrict their routes to tracks they do control. People who purchase fares on Amtrak should have a reasonable expectation that the carrier uses routes that meet modern safety standards.
gt_ 9y ago
What I understand, which has at least been consistent with my experience riding many routes in most regions of the country, is that Amtrak is hindered by having to yield to freight, which takes priority in the US. It's very rare to take Amtrak and not spend what can often be many consecutive hours waiting at a junction for a freight train to pass. Of course freight and passenger trains travel at very different speeds so the problem has no solution that even billions of dollars can solve, and it's only compounded by the vast distances of single-lane track in the US, which serve the purposes of freight needs just fine. The difference in operation and overhead requirements for each use cannot be overstated. Besides a few routes in the Northeast and the Socal coastline, traveling by Amtrack is a novelty or a mistake. Competing with airlines on any route is far from realistic. I used to take this train between Portland and Seattle before it was beat by a <$20 twice-a-day bus program with good marketing and free wi-fi, relegating the train to being only a bit more comfortable and about $60 more expensive (and now more scary). I've been on >10 hour Amtrak rides which had no more than 2 people per car! When you run a route once every few days, you can't just shift people around like the airlines do. Without the subsidies, Amtrak simply doesn't exist.
- ikawe 9y ago
  > It's very rare to take Amtrak and not spend what can often be many consecutive hours waiting at a junction for a freight train to pass. Its true that Amtrak often has to yield to freight on a lot of rail, but saying its “rare” to ride without being stuck for “hours” seems a gross exaggeration, or at least starkly different from my own rides. (Up and down west coast, northeast corridor, a couple times across the middle - highly recommended if you have a few days to spare). Usually it’s 5 minutes of waiting, and for me I don’t recall ever more than 20. Riding across the entire country (Oakland -> Philadelphia) I probably accrued 30 minutes of waiting.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    I have never been on the train between portland and Seattle without yielding for at least an hour.
  - gt_ 9y ago
heisenbit 9y ago
The deadlines were extended for short term financial considerations. The law makers responsible for it should be named. Unlike the executive branch messing up in Flint and killing people the legislative branch can only be made accountable by the people.

mulmen 9y ago

Agreed on all points. In this case is there a (e:) more competent passenger carrier that could step in to replace Amtrak? My understanding of the subsidies is that there would be no passenger service without it. Is it feasible to have competitive rail service in the US, does anyone do it?

rayiner 9y ago
If a private carrier were allowed to take over the northeast regional segment and abandon everything else, it might be feasible. Amtrak runs a profit on this segment, but only because Congress foots the capital expenditures. But maybe a private entity could harness cost efficiencies to make it.
niftich 9y ago
Amtrak actually makes a profit [1][2] on both Acela and the slower services in the Northeast Corridor, but not anywhere else. If we suppose that a privatized passenger carrier would want to make a profit, shedding long-distance trains would be wise, but several Amtrak directors have been against doing so time and time again. [1] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012-cost-recovery.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012... [2] http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report

tjohns 9y ago

My understanding is that many modern Amtrak locomotives are equipped with PTC. Either way, the problem was that the track was not yet equipped with the necessary transmitters to communicate with the train (and isn't yet mandated to, since the railroad industry keeps lobbying to move the implementation date forward). In Amtrak's defense, my understanding is that this track was actually owned by WSDOT / Sound Transit. And the mainline track (privately) owned by Union Pacific / BNSF isn't any better. Amtrak owns very little track of it's own on the west coast. The failure to deploy PTC is a systemic issue with the entire railroad industry.

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
Amtrak owns very little track of it's own, period.
- astronautjones 9y ago
  What could go wrong?
justicezyx 9y ago
Classic "obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility"... My problem, not my problem, his problem, not his problem... What a stupid situation...
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Amtrak doesn’t really make a profit on its own. Anyone who has ever travelled portland to Seattle knows how slow it can be as freight gets priority.
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    Pretty much true for the entire coast - not to mention outright expensive. I looked at a ticket from Portland to la and it was more than a flight and they’d probably stick me on a bus in Bakersfield.
  - 9y ago

hnpobdo 9y ago

Except this accident happened on tracks amtrak doesn’t own - and on the tracks amtrak owns the system is already in place.

bogomipz 9y ago
Except the lobbying effort to delay the roll out of PTC was done by the Association of American Railroads[1], of which Amtrak is a full member with much influence.[2] The buck always stops somewhere else. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/deadline-for-train-safety-technology-undercut-by-industry-lobbying/2015/10/25/f893446a-2720-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dea... [2] https://www.aar.org/Pages/AARMembers.aspx https://www.aar.org/Pages/AARMembers.aspx
- saalweachter 9y ago
  If Amtrak has in fact implemented PTC on all of the tracks they control, I would blame the freight railroads who are the other 20 full members of the AAR. If Amtrak is also stalling on implementing PTC on their own tracks, yeah, I'd stop the buck at them.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"If Amtrak has in fact implemented PTC on all of the tracks they control, I would blame the freight railroads who are the other 20 full members of the AAR." This is exactly the logic everyone has been using to absolve themselves from any blame. 'Yes it was our train and our customers but it wasn't our track.' If Amtrak is doesn't want to take any responsibility for peoples lives when they offer service on tracks they don't "control" then they should restrict their routes to tracks they do control. People who purchase fares on Amtrak should have a reasonable expectation that the carrier uses routes that meet modern safety standards.

gt_ 9y ago

What I understand, which has at least been consistent with my experience riding many routes in most regions of the country, is that Amtrak is hindered by having to yield to freight, which takes priority in the US. It's very rare to take Amtrak and not spend what can often be many consecutive hours waiting at a junction for a freight train to pass. Of course freight and passenger trains travel at very different speeds so the problem has no solution that even billions of dollars can solve, and it's only compounded by the vast distances of single-lane track in the US, which serve the purposes of freight needs just fine. The difference in operation and overhead requirements for each use cannot be overstated. Besides a few routes in the Northeast and the Socal coastline, traveling by Amtrack is a novelty or a mistake. Competing with airlines on any route is far from realistic. I used to take this train between Portland and Seattle before it was beat by a <$20 twice-a-day bus program with good marketing and free wi-fi, relegating the train to being only a bit more comfortable and about $60 more expensive (and now more scary). I've been on >10 hour Amtrak rides which had no more than 2 people per car! When you run a route once every few days, you can't just shift people around like the airlines do. Without the subsidies, Amtrak simply doesn't exist.

ikawe 9y ago
> It's very rare to take Amtrak and not spend what can often be many consecutive hours waiting at a junction for a freight train to pass. Its true that Amtrak often has to yield to freight on a lot of rail, but saying its “rare” to ride without being stuck for “hours” seems a gross exaggeration, or at least starkly different from my own rides. (Up and down west coast, northeast corridor, a couple times across the middle - highly recommended if you have a few days to spare). Usually it’s 5 minutes of waiting, and for me I don’t recall ever more than 20. Riding across the entire country (Oakland -> Philadelphia) I probably accrued 30 minutes of waiting.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  I have never been on the train between portland and Seattle without yielding for at least an hour.
- gt_ 9y ago

heisenbit 9y ago

The deadlines were extended for short term financial considerations. The law makers responsible for it should be named. Unlike the executive branch messing up in Flint and killing people the legislative branch can only be made accountable by the people.