4 ms·

The post suggests that "freight trains have priority." By law, passenger travel is expected to have "precedence." Read: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/pro

by tuke 4y ago

The post suggests that "freight trains have priority." By law, passenger travel is expected to have "precedence." Read: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/HostRailroadReports/mythbusters-enforcing-amtraks-legal-right-to-preference.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

jrochkind1 4y ago
Interesting! Your link suggests that legally passenger trains are supposed to have priority, but that in practice freight trains are given priority. I didn't know this, and it makes me even madder! But as far as an explanation for why Amtrak trains are so often delayed (which is how it appeared in OP?), it appears to be correct that it's because freight trains are given priority. It's just that... they're not supposed to be, right? At least according to Amtrak? I wonder if anyone has a third-party analysis of what's going on? I'm surprised I've never heard this before, thank you for bringing it up. > The leading cause of delay to Amtrak passengers is “freight train interference”... > ...Myth: “Amtrak already has the highest priority of all trains on freight rail lines.” > Truth: Freight trains represent the largest cause of delay to passengers.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  The TLDR is that most of the US is single tracked and the freight trains are bigger than the passenger train has to wait even if it has priority because the freight train is too big to wait.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Also, because Wall Street is so obsessed with making the balance sheets as efficient as possible, they have pretty much no interest in capital improvements like longer sidings or additional tracks.
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      It's worse than that. They have a specific interest in not having longer sidings. The companies that own the tracks own the freight trains, so longer sidings would be worse since then their trains would have to yield.
- noahtallen 4y ago
  There is something called "Precision Scheduled Railroading" (PSR) which ultimately means that freight trains are longer than they used to be. (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105420 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105420) The result is that these long trains (even 3 miles long) can't fit on sidings, which means that they can't practically give way to, say, Amtrak, when there's only a single track. (Which is a lot of routes!) In other words, freight rail has optimized very hard on saving costs, and since they own the tracks, there's not much Amtrak can do to win. I think the only real solution is dedicated, grade-separated tracks for passenger trains (ideally high speed), but that's unfortunately a pipe dream :(
  - hannasanarion 4y ago
    The real solution is to eliminate private ownership of track. Corporate-owned track makes as much sense as corporate-owned highways, ie none. The rails should belong to the people, and companies allowed to use them as the government allows, not the other way around.
    - antognini 4y ago
      Britain seems to have a better system than the US. In the US the rails are privately owned, but the train service is operated by the government. In Britain the rails are owned by the state but the operators are private. That seems to make for a better experience.
      - secabeen 4y ago
        Britain has gone through regular and repeated crises with their trains, and pretty much the entire system went bankrupt during COVID. The government paid what it took to keep it going, but it's not a smooth system by any means. Even during what people would consider the heyday of British Rail, it still required significant and ongoing government subsidies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1995_to_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948%E2%80%931994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  The problem is that the DoJ is the one with the power to enforce said regulations, and DoJ is about as interested as a patrol officer being asked to do parking enforcement. There have been bills to allow Amtrak to file civil suits but as far as I know they haven’t passed.
azefiel 4y ago
While technically true, that law is never enforced, so in practice OP's statement is sadly correct. Wendover Productions made a great video [0] explaining this situation. [0]: https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=07m40s https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=07m40s
yaomtc 4y ago
Here's the specifics in the law. U.S. Code Title 49 § 24308 - Use of facilities and providing services to Amtrak https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=24308&f=treesort&fq=true&num=9&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title49-section24308 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=24308&f=treesort&fq=...

by tuke 4y ago

jrochkind1 4y ago

Interesting! Your link suggests that legally passenger trains are supposed to have priority, but that in practice freight trains are given priority. I didn't know this, and it makes me even madder! But as far as an explanation for why Amtrak trains are so often delayed (which is how it appeared in OP?), it appears to be correct that it's because freight trains are given priority. It's just that... they're not supposed to be, right? At least according to Amtrak? I wonder if anyone has a third-party analysis of what's going on? I'm surprised I've never heard this before, thank you for bringing it up. > The leading cause of delay to Amtrak passengers is “freight train interference”... > ...Myth: “Amtrak already has the highest priority of all trains on freight rail lines.” > Truth: Freight trains represent the largest cause of delay to passengers.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
The TLDR is that most of the US is single tracked and the freight trains are bigger than the passenger train has to wait even if it has priority because the freight train is too big to wait.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Also, because Wall Street is so obsessed with making the balance sheets as efficient as possible, they have pretty much no interest in capital improvements like longer sidings or additional tracks.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    It's worse than that. They have a specific interest in not having longer sidings. The companies that own the tracks own the freight trains, so longer sidings would be worse since then their trains would have to yield.
noahtallen 4y ago
There is something called "Precision Scheduled Railroading" (PSR) which ultimately means that freight trains are longer than they used to be. (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105420 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105420) The result is that these long trains (even 3 miles long) can't fit on sidings, which means that they can't practically give way to, say, Amtrak, when there's only a single track. (Which is a lot of routes!) In other words, freight rail has optimized very hard on saving costs, and since they own the tracks, there's not much Amtrak can do to win. I think the only real solution is dedicated, grade-separated tracks for passenger trains (ideally high speed), but that's unfortunately a pipe dream :(
- hannasanarion 4y ago
  The real solution is to eliminate private ownership of track. Corporate-owned track makes as much sense as corporate-owned highways, ie none. The rails should belong to the people, and companies allowed to use them as the government allows, not the other way around.
  - antognini 4y ago
    Britain seems to have a better system than the US. In the US the rails are privately owned, but the train service is operated by the government. In Britain the rails are owned by the state but the operators are private. That seems to make for a better experience.
    - secabeen 4y ago
      Britain has gone through regular and repeated crises with their trains, and pretty much the entire system went bankrupt during COVID. The government paid what it took to keep it going, but it's not a smooth system by any means. Even during what people would consider the heyday of British Rail, it still required significant and ongoing government subsidies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1995_to_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948%E2%80%931994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...
bobthepanda 4y ago
The problem is that the DoJ is the one with the power to enforce said regulations, and DoJ is about as interested as a patrol officer being asked to do parking enforcement. There have been bills to allow Amtrak to file civil suits but as far as I know they haven’t passed.

azefiel 4y ago

While technically true, that law is never enforced, so in practice OP's statement is sadly correct. Wendover Productions made a great video [0] explaining this situation. [0]: https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=07m40s https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=07m40s

yaomtc 4y ago

Here's the specifics in the law. U.S. Code Title 49 § 24308 - Use of facilities and providing services to Amtrak https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=24308&f=treesort&fq=true&num=9&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title49-section24308 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=24308&f=treesort&fq=...