4 ms·

AIUI it’s partly due to priority rules. In most countries, passenger trains have priority over freight. Amtrak doesn’t own much rail itself, and mostly runs on

AIUI it’s partly due to priority rules. In most countries, passenger trains have priority over freight. Amtrak doesn’t own much rail itself, and mostly runs on 3rd party tracks. On these Amtrak only has priority if it’s running on time. So as soon as a train gets one delay, the various railway operators stop giving the train priority, and it just gets more delayed.

protomyth 6y ago
The penalties on cargo timing are pretty severe. If that cargo train is supposed to be somewhere to load / unload, it really is a problem if it doesn't arrive on time and costs the railroads money they do not want to pay. Cargo, as many SV startups have discovered, is much more profitable than passenger.
klyrs 6y ago
This boondoggle brought to you by the oil, gas, and auto lobbies; who paid our politicians to kneecap Amtrak and more generally, our rail industry. Bonus: libs are placated by nice bike trails on the bones of dead infrastructure, happy to "do their part" to reduce oil use and blissfully ignorant of the difference that electric trains would make in displacing diesel trucks.
- montjoy 6y ago
  > libs are placated by... Sorry but you don’t know WTF are you talking about. Any proposal to expand train service and especially electric trains in MN is vehemently attacked by conservatives, often with the loss of federal money to support light rail expansion.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Actually, I'm a cyclist who has participated in "rails to trails" advocacy. That was actually a statement of self-awareness and I know precisely WTF I'm talking about because I've talked to perhaps hundreds of other cyclists about this issue. It's easy to blame conservatives. But a huge portion of democrats take the same money and vote for the same bills, only they dig in their heels a little to score green points with trifling shit like rails to trails.
- rhino369 6y ago
  Amtrak is clinging to an unprofitable business model (outside the Boston-DC route). 85% of adults in America have a car. The 15% (plus children) who don't can use Greyhound/Megabus buses, which are fine. Flights are generally more convenient for trips over 300 miles anyway. There is no significant use case for Amtrak. It doesn't take a conspiracy to make it unprofitable.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    There was a significant use case when Amtrak was gutted to make way for "modernization" of transit, which resulted in the urban sprawl and high rate of car ownership that you see today. And also, Amtrak is a quasi-public corporation like USPS. Its existence is meant to be a public good, not to be profitable.
  - freeopinion 6y ago
    I wonder how things might change if 1% of highway funding were diverted to rail funding. And if 1% of USPS funding went into funding mailcars on Amtrak trains. And if 1% of federal unemployment stimulus went into hiring new employees for rail. Maybe current funding dwarfs all those accumulated 1%s. I don't know. But maybe a dozen 1%s could help out a dozen other challenges and give a huge boost to passenger rail in the U.S.

protomyth 6y ago

The penalties on cargo timing are pretty severe. If that cargo train is supposed to be somewhere to load / unload, it really is a problem if it doesn't arrive on time and costs the railroads money they do not want to pay. Cargo, as many SV startups have discovered, is much more profitable than passenger.

klyrs 6y ago

This boondoggle brought to you by the oil, gas, and auto lobbies; who paid our politicians to kneecap Amtrak and more generally, our rail industry. Bonus: libs are placated by nice bike trails on the bones of dead infrastructure, happy to "do their part" to reduce oil use and blissfully ignorant of the difference that electric trains would make in displacing diesel trucks.

montjoy 6y ago
> libs are placated by... Sorry but you don’t know WTF are you talking about. Any proposal to expand train service and especially electric trains in MN is vehemently attacked by conservatives, often with the loss of federal money to support light rail expansion.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Actually, I'm a cyclist who has participated in "rails to trails" advocacy. That was actually a statement of self-awareness and I know precisely WTF I'm talking about because I've talked to perhaps hundreds of other cyclists about this issue. It's easy to blame conservatives. But a huge portion of democrats take the same money and vote for the same bills, only they dig in their heels a little to score green points with trifling shit like rails to trails.
rhino369 6y ago
Amtrak is clinging to an unprofitable business model (outside the Boston-DC route). 85% of adults in America have a car. The 15% (plus children) who don't can use Greyhound/Megabus buses, which are fine. Flights are generally more convenient for trips over 300 miles anyway. There is no significant use case for Amtrak. It doesn't take a conspiracy to make it unprofitable.
- klyrs 6y ago
  There was a significant use case when Amtrak was gutted to make way for "modernization" of transit, which resulted in the urban sprawl and high rate of car ownership that you see today. And also, Amtrak is a quasi-public corporation like USPS. Its existence is meant to be a public good, not to be profitable.
- freeopinion 6y ago
  I wonder how things might change if 1% of highway funding were diverted to rail funding. And if 1% of USPS funding went into funding mailcars on Amtrak trains. And if 1% of federal unemployment stimulus went into hiring new employees for rail. Maybe current funding dwarfs all those accumulated 1%s. I don't know. But maybe a dozen 1%s could help out a dozen other challenges and give a huge boost to passenger rail in the U.S.