5 ms·

> due to freight having priority Fun fact: by law, Amtrak has priority. Not that it matters much, even back when laws themselves mattered.

by pkulak 1y ago

JadeNB 1y ago
> Fun fact: by law, Amtrak has priority. Not that it matters much, even back when laws themselves mattered. Are you sure about that? I've never looked up the law, but my understanding is that, for most (all?) of its routes, Amtrak is running on privately owned track, and, on such track, freight has priority. (I'm surprised at the number of downvotes. The replies indicated that I'm wrong, which is awesome in the sense that I like riding Amtrak and want it to have priority, and so I understand the frustration; but I think that I cannot be the only one who has heard from every Amtrak rider they've talked to that freight has priority, and surely it's a good thing to seek an authoritative answer? Maybe it looked like I was rhetorically saying that someone was wrong rather than honestly seeking clarification.)
- MBCook 1y ago
  Yep. Federal law requires passenger trains to get priority. But for some reason the government basically stopped enforcing it like 40 years ago. So in practice it tends to work the other way.
  - strken 1y ago
    I've been told that there's a legal loophole where freight trains are built to be too large to fit into overtaking loops, and so don't need to use them.
- cogman10 1y ago
  Yes [1]. [1] https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/09/135986-amtrak-trains-get-priority-over-freight-legal-settlement https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/09/135986-amtrak-trains...
- crockeo 1y ago
  My understanding is that as part of the Amtrak Improvement Act[1] Amtrak is given preference over freight rail, even on private track. However only the Department of Justice may enforce this, which it has done only once. Fair warning I haven't read the text of the law in full, only heard this second hand. https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/15427 https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/15427
- blendergeek 1y ago
  Due to the history of Amtrak this is actually true. The railroads in America (while privately owned and operated) were built with much government subsidy. The railroad companies originally provided passenger service. Eventually, to ensure this service continued a law was passed that prohibited railroads from dropping passe nger service. After the rise of personal cars coinciding with the massive federal investment in car infrastructure in the 1950s with the interstate hughway system, passenger rail travel was in free fall in the late 60s and the railroad companies begged to be allowed to end passenger service. Congress stepped in and nationalized the passenger service exempting the railroad companies from their mandate to provide passenger service while requiring them to give passenger trains priority in scheduling. So, TL;DR passenger trains have legally mandated priority over the freight trains of the host railroad.
returningfory2 1y ago
To the downvoters: this comment is correct. E.g. [1] for an example of this being enforced. Apparently the problem is the law is not enforced that much? And that there are loopholes around it. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/norfolk-southern-agrees-give-amtrak-trains-highest-priority-over-freight-trains-and-make-its https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/norfolk-southern-agrees-give-...
andrewguenther 1y ago
It's not an enforcement issue so much as it is a heavily exploited loophole. Part of the reason freight trains are so long is so that they can't fit in passing sidings. Since Amtrak does fit, they end up having to yield because the freight trains simply cannot. Could this be fixed by legislation on max train length to ensure all trains fit in sidings? Yes. Will that legislation get passed? No. An interesting video on the subject: https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?si=t3u3iyZj1kRQQUCe https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?si=t3u3iyZj1kRQQUCe
- oofbey 1y ago
  Classic America. Laws favor industry and commerce over individuals. Because lower prices benefits everybody. Uh huh.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Amtrak says this but the freight disagree. At this point I assume both sides are lieing.
  - crooked-v 1y ago
    Amtrak isn't lying. You can see that the freight trains are too long by literally just watching one.
  - manquer 1y ago
    Having a enforced max length on any route especially those with commuter service is not a bad idea, it is the tendency of freight to scale up the number of cars as much as possible for efficiency, passenger services work better shorter with more frequent services. Yes there are myriad other reasons Amtrak gets delayed, it is not like this is the only bottleneck they have, but that doesn't mean this is not also a key problem.
    - tacticus 1y ago
      long trains are great for reducing cost and reducing total profit by delivering slower less frequent services :\
mschuster91 1y ago
The problem is, overtaking is one thing when you got two parallel rails and ample point switches. But when you don't have them or only every 100km or whatnot, or any of the potential places (such as in a train station) just isn't long enough to accept and buffer a 3 miles long train... then good luck, there just is no physical opportunity for the faster passenger train to speed ahead, not to mention the absurd amount of energy wasted in braking and then re-accelerating that 3 mile freight monster. Fixing this would be possible - either by limiting the maximum length of a train or by forcing the extension of parallel rail segments. The former makes logistics significantly more challenging plus it requires more staff (which is the real problem, long haul isn't wanted much these days, neither rail nor road), the latter is darn expensive and someone has to foot the bill - Congress certainly won't.
- rlpb 1y ago
  > ...not to mention the absurd amount of energy wasted in braking and then re-accelerating that 3 mile freight monster. > Fixing this would be possible - either by limiting the maximum length of a train... It can't be both. Splitting a freight train and then stopping and starting the smaller trains would take the same amount of energy as stopping and starting the single long freight train. Unless they're deliberately moving empty freight cars to make it artificially long.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    The smaller trains wouldn’t have to stop as frequently. The total number of stops increases but the average rail cart sees fewer stops.
bombcar 1y ago
Amtrak trains have priority until they fall out of their slot.
nunez 1y ago
I thought they didn't due to the rails they use being privately owned...

> due to freight having priority Fun fact: by law, Amtrak has priority. Not that it matters much, even back when laws themselves mattered.

by pkulak 1y ago

> due to freight having priority Fun fact: by law, Amtrak has priority. Not that it matters much, even back when laws themselves mattered.

JadeNB 1y ago

> Fun fact: by law, Amtrak has priority. Not that it matters much, even back when laws themselves mattered. Are you sure about that? I've never looked up the law, but my understanding is that, for most (all?) of its routes, Amtrak is running on privately owned track, and, on such track, freight has priority. (I'm surprised at the number of downvotes. The replies indicated that I'm wrong, which is awesome in the sense that I like riding Amtrak and want it to have priority, and so I understand the frustration; but I think that I cannot be the only one who has heard from every Amtrak rider they've talked to that freight has priority, and surely it's a good thing to seek an authoritative answer? Maybe it looked like I was rhetorically saying that someone was wrong rather than honestly seeking clarification.)

MBCook 1y ago
Yep. Federal law requires passenger trains to get priority. But for some reason the government basically stopped enforcing it like 40 years ago. So in practice it tends to work the other way.
- strken 1y ago
  I've been told that there's a legal loophole where freight trains are built to be too large to fit into overtaking loops, and so don't need to use them.
cogman10 1y ago
Yes [1]. [1] https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/09/135986-amtrak-trains-get-priority-over-freight-legal-settlement https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/09/135986-amtrak-trains...
crockeo 1y ago
My understanding is that as part of the Amtrak Improvement Act[1] Amtrak is given preference over freight rail, even on private track. However only the Department of Justice may enforce this, which it has done only once. Fair warning I haven't read the text of the law in full, only heard this second hand. https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/15427 https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/15427
blendergeek 1y ago
Due to the history of Amtrak this is actually true. The railroads in America (while privately owned and operated) were built with much government subsidy. The railroad companies originally provided passenger service. Eventually, to ensure this service continued a law was passed that prohibited railroads from dropping passe nger service. After the rise of personal cars coinciding with the massive federal investment in car infrastructure in the 1950s with the interstate hughway system, passenger rail travel was in free fall in the late 60s and the railroad companies begged to be allowed to end passenger service. Congress stepped in and nationalized the passenger service exempting the railroad companies from their mandate to provide passenger service while requiring them to give passenger trains priority in scheduling. So, TL;DR passenger trains have legally mandated priority over the freight trains of the host railroad.

returningfory2 1y ago

To the downvoters: this comment is correct. E.g. [1] for an example of this being enforced. Apparently the problem is the law is not enforced that much? And that there are loopholes around it. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/norfolk-southern-agrees-give-amtrak-trains-highest-priority-over-freight-trains-and-make-its https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/norfolk-southern-agrees-give-...

andrewguenther 1y ago

It's not an enforcement issue so much as it is a heavily exploited loophole. Part of the reason freight trains are so long is so that they can't fit in passing sidings. Since Amtrak does fit, they end up having to yield because the freight trains simply cannot. Could this be fixed by legislation on max train length to ensure all trains fit in sidings? Yes. Will that legislation get passed? No. An interesting video on the subject: https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?si=t3u3iyZj1kRQQUCe https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?si=t3u3iyZj1kRQQUCe

oofbey 1y ago
Classic America. Laws favor industry and commerce over individuals. Because lower prices benefits everybody. Uh huh.
bluGill 1y ago
Amtrak says this but the freight disagree. At this point I assume both sides are lieing.
- crooked-v 1y ago
  Amtrak isn't lying. You can see that the freight trains are too long by literally just watching one.
- manquer 1y ago
  Having a enforced max length on any route especially those with commuter service is not a bad idea, it is the tendency of freight to scale up the number of cars as much as possible for efficiency, passenger services work better shorter with more frequent services. Yes there are myriad other reasons Amtrak gets delayed, it is not like this is the only bottleneck they have, but that doesn't mean this is not also a key problem.
  - tacticus 1y ago
    long trains are great for reducing cost and reducing total profit by delivering slower less frequent services :\

mschuster91 1y ago

The problem is, overtaking is one thing when you got two parallel rails and ample point switches. But when you don't have them or only every 100km or whatnot, or any of the potential places (such as in a train station) just isn't long enough to accept and buffer a 3 miles long train... then good luck, there just is no physical opportunity for the faster passenger train to speed ahead, not to mention the absurd amount of energy wasted in braking and then re-accelerating that 3 mile freight monster. Fixing this would be possible - either by limiting the maximum length of a train or by forcing the extension of parallel rail segments. The former makes logistics significantly more challenging plus it requires more staff (which is the real problem, long haul isn't wanted much these days, neither rail nor road), the latter is darn expensive and someone has to foot the bill - Congress certainly won't.

rlpb 1y ago
> ...not to mention the absurd amount of energy wasted in braking and then re-accelerating that 3 mile freight monster. > Fixing this would be possible - either by limiting the maximum length of a train... It can't be both. Splitting a freight train and then stopping and starting the smaller trains would take the same amount of energy as stopping and starting the single long freight train. Unless they're deliberately moving empty freight cars to make it artificially long.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  The smaller trains wouldn’t have to stop as frequently. The total number of stops increases but the average rail cart sees fewer stops.

bombcar 1y ago

Amtrak trains have priority until they fall out of their slot.

nunez 1y ago

I thought they didn't due to the rails they use being privately owned...