Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

While this is hardly a fresh topic at either this or any other railforum, I am concerned that I have personally submitted postings to the 150mph Acela Operation thread that could well draw that discussion "off-topic". Having served two terms as our Forum's Moderator, I am especially onused to 'set the example' with adherence to rules set forth by Messrs. Halstead and Perkowski. Towards that end I am originating this topic with a quote of those thoughts that I believe should be presented separate from the other discussion noted:

• I have a "gut' that the LD's collectively result in an annual 'cookie jar' cash outflow of some $300M. Of further interest, practically all of that $300M is avoidable if the LD's were to be killed; lest we forget the railroads are paid on a trip basis - no go?, no dough.
  
  Further, I believe the now collectively bargained employee protection (under ARAA '97), but I have learned essentially left the legislated (under RPSA '70) Appendix C-2 provisions in place, require any qualifying adversely affected employee to pursue other opportunities both within and without the railroad industry. For example, an affected Locomotive Engineer based at, say, Toledo, would be expected to pursue employment with either NS or CSX, and his'her certification was in order, could likely hire on with either road as quickly as a Rules exam could be administered and to mark up (is that still a term considering the act is now entering one's personal data into a computer?). If an adversely affected Engineer, is not happy about "life on the Chain Gang' (a term on some roads for pool freight service), well that is one big "sorry 'bout that"!!
  
  However, unlike Mr. Halstead, my reasons for being "less than an LD advocate' are not the wasted $300M; I could care less about that as it is simply a minnow in the $3T ocean. My objection to the LD's is that they deprive the roads of needed capacity, even on the "vaunted BNSF", to do what they are out there to do - move freight. Track capacioty was a non-issue on A-Day; hardly the case today.

Here is in pertinent part, a response made by Mr. HSR Fan to my thoughts:

• I think the public good should come before the private railroads' desire to move freight. The LD trains are not that much of a burden, and lest we forget, the private carriers were let off the hook for passenger service when Amtrak was created in exchange for guaranteeing trackage rights

Let our mature and respectful discussion begin.

As an occasional visitor to the US I have travelled by Amtrak every time I have been there. So, thanks very much for the subsidy.

I have used:

Adirondack
International (deceased)
Capitol
Lake Shore (Springfield to Chicago; Chicago to Buffalo)
Various NEC
Vermonter (from Montreal bus now deceased)
Silver service within Florida, several times.

I never fly over land.

Mr Norman thinks that freight railroad congestion makes LD trains un-sustainable.
I think LD trains should be run on schedules that allow them to fit in a freight train slot. This would usually slow up their schedules but would enable them to run more consistently. A train that tries to run significantly faster than the current of traffic is much more disruptive to the railroad than one that "goes with the flow." If a piece of freight railroad is so maxed out that it can't supply one slot each way for Amtrak, then the railroad needs to increase its capacity. This should be encouraged by US tax policy. Meanwhile, if an Amtrak train actually displaces a freight, Amtrak should have to pay the value of running that freight.
I agree with Mr Norman that the Amtrak LD subsidy is of little import. If it is a problem in the budget process, let it be made up by taking the subsidy amount from the sugar growers' subsidy payments.

I support the continuing of Amtrak LD service for 6 reasons:
1)The LD network is necessary to get Congressional support for Amtrak. See Col Perkowski's frequent posts.
2) The LD network preserves passenger railroad infrastructure for the day when more passengers trains will be demanded by Americans, and when one's personal gas-guzzler will no longer be considered superior to a train.
3) The skills of passenger railroading, including the skills of operating personnel and shop forces, are preserved in the LD network. Why this is good, see item 2).
4) Amtrak is the only logical entity for running the NEC. The suggestion that the states along the NEC form compacts just won't work. The 2-state Port Authority of NJ & NY often grinds to a halt because of disputes between only 2 states. For why a compact with many states will fail, look back in American history at the Articles of Confederation, whose failure led to the US Constitution. The LD network is necessary for Amtrak's continued existence; see Item 1).
5) Amtrak is the logical repository for the institutional passenger railroading knowledge necessary to develop the high-speed rail corridors that even Amtrak LD opponents believe are necessary and desirable. No LD network, no Amtrak; see 1) again.
6) Amtrak provides useful transportation to many Americans.

Note that only one of my 6 items involves any consideration of subsidy per passenger mile. Should changing economic and social conditions make passenger railroading more attractive to more Americans, it will cost orders of magnitude more to restore destroyed infrastructure and lost skills than it will to pay the minor subsidy costs of keeping the LD network we now have.

JoeG wrote:If a piece of freight railroad is so maxed out that it can't supply one slot each way for Amtrak, then the railroad needs to increase its capacity. This should be encouraged by US tax policy. Meanwhile, if an Amtrak train actually displaces a freight, Amtrak should have to pay the value of running that freight.

I am reminded of a Supreme Court case that was fought a few years ago, when a nearby community of mine tried to demand that a local business, who was remodeling a building, supply the community with a public walkway along a creek along one of the property's boundaries.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 239 (1897), provides: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [n.5] One of theprincipal purposes of the Takings Clause is "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960). Without question, had the city simply required petitioner to dedicate a strip of land along Fanno Creek for public use, rather than conditioning the grant of her permit to redevelop her property on such a dedication, a taking would have occurred. Nollan, supra, at 831. Such public access would deprive petitioner of the right to exclude others, "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979).

The issue isn't to be addressed by "tax policy"; rather any forced improvements to a private property for the benefit of public policy must be paid for by the public, not through tax credits or deductions, or some other leveraged funding - but by direct payment by the public towards the property owner who is affected.

The other solution would be to nationalize the railroads, which would result in the federal government to purchase all of the railroads - at an extreme burden to the financiers of the government - taxpayers - and would force the government into a debate over the right of one to freely travel within the confines of the country, in order to convince the public that the action of nationalizing the country's railroads is of sufficient benefit to warrant the cost of doing such.

Back to the Supreme Court case; the City was required to pay the plantiff for the cost of the easement, and the cost to construct the trail. Further, the city was required to place a plaque that quotes one line of the Supreme Court decision. That plaque is embedded within the concrete at the beginning of the trail where it coincides with the sidewalk along S.W. Main Street. But, the city was able to require that the store be set back, that the trail be constructed, and that the wetlands and floodplain be protected. So, the federal government could require a passenger train be operated; but there is no obligation unless the government also funds such - including the necessary capacity/infrastructure requirements necessary in order for the operation of the train to take place.

Mr Halstead--
I said, in my post, that if an Amtrak train displaced a freight train, then Amtrak would have to pay for the value of the freight to the railroad. I don't see how this is any different from what you are saying, except that I'm not providing a plaque with a Supreme Court quote on it.
So, I am proposing a system of tax credits for freight railroad infrastructure expansion, and I am saying that if an Amtrak train displaces a freight on a maxed-out railroad, Amtrak should have to pay fair value for having done that.

What do you find objectionable in what I said?

Actually, Mr. Halstead, and with great respect towards two of our valued Members here, it would appear that Mr. HSR's comment is more indicative of Dolan (the case you note) than is Mr. Grossman's.

For ready reference, Here is Mr.HSR's again; it is incorporated as part of my originating posting:

• I think the public good should come before the private railroads' desire to move freight. The LD trains are not that much of a burden, and lest we forget, the private carriers were let off the hook for passenger service when Amtrak was created in exchange for guaranteeing trackage rights

The railroads were indeed nationalized at one time, under the USRA, who are actually credited with introducing a greater degree of standardization with both locomotives and railcars, and by extension were actually also credited with helping the railroads weather the economic ravages of World War I (by contrast, through WWII, the railroads remained in private hands and suffered many ravages that could not be recouped) and possibly helped usher in the so-called "Golden Age" of railroading. The cost was about $1.12 billion ($15 billion in 2003 dollars) over a time frame of a little over two years. If $7½ billion per year could revitalize both passenger and freight rail in this country, that's a real bargain and a half (however, given modern signaling requirements for passenger trains to run at 100 mph and faster, the price tag might be slightly higher than that; but it gives a remarkable window into possibilities if that money were given towards intercity passenger rail alone)…

A random figure for argument's sake: The average speed of Regional trains on the NEC, if applied to LD routes, would permit travel between New York and Chicago in about 10½ hours.

I also seem to recall an old Trains article titled "They slit their throats, and now they want to eat?" Capacity restraints are due to continued abandonments through the 70s, 80s, even 90s (note that you can't get a train to Phoenix AZ anymore). Lest anyone forget, it's not just Amtrak trains that are thrown "in the hole" for freight priority, but also commuter trains.

The track capacity question has been with us for a number of years now, and will likely continue to intensify. To the best of my knowledge, "slotting" is practiced only on a handful of lines in mountainous territory, such as the former Clinchfield (which sees no Amtrak service, and which, BTW, while completely CTC-operated since the 1950's, has never had intermediate block signals), and UP over Tehachapi.

In relatively flat territory, such as the former NYC main and the PRR's former Middle Division (Harrisburg-Altoona) the relatively uniform speeds should allow for movement of a larger number of trains at shorter intervals, (although I'm given to understand that Amtrak trains sometimes cause a problem when moves on an adjacent track have to be held to permit passengers to board).

The real troubles begin when one of that fleet of trains has to be substantially slowed or stopped altogether due to mechanical problems. The long sidings with high-speed turnouts envisioned when the lines were first slimmed down fell into little or no use when passenger traffic evaporated or, in the case of Pennsy, were never built to begin with.

Partly for the reasons cited above, I'm very wary of attempts to deicate a specific slot to Amtrak moves, or to tie financial remuneration directly to performance. But I take note of one of Mr JoeG's points:

(4) Amtrak is the only logical entity for running the NEC. The suggestion that the states along the NEC form compacts just won't work. The 2-state Port Authority of NJ & NY often grinds to a halt because of disputes between only 2 states. For why a compact with many states will fail, look back in American history at the Articles of Confederation, whose failure led to the US Constitution. The LD network is necessary for Amtrak's continued existence; see Item 1).

The sale of the NEC from Penn Central to Amtrak paved the way for a large infusion of capital which funded the first major rebuild of a deteriorated rail infrastructure. The same logic could be used for upgrading some of the current pinch points, or even developing an underused line, such as NS' Southern Tier (former Erie main) as a major alternative freight route to free up the Empire Corridor.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:....my reasons for being "less than an LD advocate' are not the wasted $300M; I could care less about that as it is simply a minnow in the $3T ocean. My objection to the LD's is that they deprive the roads of needed capacity, even on the "vaunted BNSF", to do what they are out there to do - move freight. Track capacioty was a non-issue on A-Day; hardly the case today. Here is in pertinent part, a response made by Mr. HSR Fan to my thoughts:

• I think the public good should come before the private railroads' desire to move freight. The LD trains are not that much of a burden, and lest we forget, the private carriers were let off the hook for passenger service when Amtrak was created in exchange for guaranteeing trackage rights

Let our mature and respectful discussion begin.

As you probably well know, I'm more inclined to agree with HSR Fan than Mr. Norman (who I also respect highly). I don't have much time to delve deeply into this discussion, as I am to be on a LD train tomorrow evening to enjoy a birthday dinner with my sister on Wednesday. I will add that the train is the most practical way for me to get from here to there.

The quote above reminded me of something I read in a recent NARP newsletter, which seems relevant and should add a new element to this oft repeated debate. It is an excerpt from a letter written by then acting Amtrak President David Hughes to the Surface Transportation Board:

“Many host railroads have structured
their operations to give Amtrak trains the
preference required by…law, while successfully
conducting their own operations.
Some hosts indicate that when Amtrak
is running on time, it is a sign their network
is functioning well. Operating
Amtrak is not a zero-sum game where
other traffic must suffer if Amtrak does
well.”
—Amtrak Acting President and CEO David
J. Hughes, in August 17 letters to Surface
Transportation Board Chairman
Charles D. Nottingham

I think the idea that Amtrak acts as the "canary in the coal mine" to some railroads deserves further research to determine if that is really the case. This was obviously written by someone with a particular agenda to advance, but assuming he isn't lying or stretching the truth too much, what does this imply for the current discussion?

The efficacy of the long-distance passenger train is tightly tied to the investor owned infrastructure out there in a field somewhere. Why do we debate supposed loss to investor owned railroads when the government itself is taking away the best, high margin, freight through the cross subsidy of highway freight from automobile users and the general fund? What kind of capital investment could the investor owned railroads provide if that $20 billion in general fund subsidy to highway ROW's did not exist?

If the government would charge adequate rates for highway freight the railroad ROW would begin to shift toward providing higher speed service. Yes, it would be incremental, but the shift would begin and Amtrak's "burden" on the investor owned ROW would become less and less as the freight traffic would begin to look more like Amtrak's.

Mr. Toy wrote: I think the idea that Amtrak acts as the "canary in the coal mine" to some railroads deserves further research to determine if that is really the case. This was obviously written by someone with a particular agenda to advance, but assuming he isn't lying or stretching the truth too much, what does this imply for the current discussion?

As one bit of evidence supporting this point, take a look at the AAR's Performance Measures website; the relative performance looks awfully similar to the breakdown of Amtrak OTP by host railroad.

Considering that Amtrak hasn't exactly been adding LDs right and left, and that performance (esp. timekeeping) used to be much better, the implication that I draw from this is that some railroads have been much more diligent than others in maintaining their networks and adding capacity.

Not all lines are adapted to such operations. Yet, those that are, already see a mix of trains with coresponding speeds such as the Overland Route of UP. Most of Iowa and Illinois now has CTC to allow faster intermodal trains to pass the fleet of coal or grain. Depending on the Dispatcher, there is much flexibility in this kind of operation.

On UP's Spine, a poor man's CTC is being installed to allow increased capacity on a former ABS/TWC only territory. Something like AMT on this line would hardly constrain it if planned well.

But AMT run on something akin to a Branch line with signals, just is far from efficient anymore with the growth of business. And to put AMT on such a line, and expect it to keep the timetable is a silly notion. So is the notion that carriers like UP, turn away cash business on such lines to keep Amtrak on time (which does not contribute the same to the owners pocket, or meet the needed investment).

JoeG wrote:What do you find objectionable in what I said?

I am neither objecting to your post or your comments; I merely suggested that if government is to force its demands upon a private property owner, that the private property owner shall be compensated accordingly - and not through a system of tax credits or other financed funds.

In other words, the government should cut a check for the improvements - prior to the taking of the property.

Now, there are other times in which tax credits would be a legitimate and useful tool to promote investment, but not upon the force of "the public good" but rather a voluntary effort by both parties.

Every society retains the authority to decide how that society is organized. Just because a decision was at one point made does not mean that it can not be changed. Railroads in America have traditionally been privately held, even though their creation was funded mostly by lands and funds granted by the people through the government. In return for these funds the holders of the capital agreed to be bound by regulation of the government, which is to say that their mission was to surve the society as well as those who hold interest in the company. During the Sixties the railroads claimed first that passenger rail was making their mission impossible, then in the seventies they claimed that regulation was. We the society relieved them of the passenger trains, then for the most part regulation as well. Somehow the railroads have gotten the idea that they no longer are obligated to meet sociatal needs,that they need only look after the corporate needs, that their only masters are those who control the corporations through holding stock or bonds or other legal/financial instruments. This is not the case. America relieved railroads of passenger trains and regulation because there was an agreement that this action would allow railroads to better suit the needs of the society. In particular the idea was that through these actions railroads would be better able to modernize and better able to maintain service and the capacity for service. As we all know the first thing the railroads did was go out and gut capacity, which makes their current whining about capacity a sick joke. Railroad managments caused this problem, so I figure they should fix it. But silly me, as the railroads tell it the Governement should solve the capacity problem the the American taxpayers should pay for it.

We as a nation have given the railroads everything that they have wanted for forty years, and what we have gotten in return is a railroad system that can not meet the needs of the nation, excuses for same, demands for government to pay for any significant upgrades in capacity, and a almost blanket refusal to operate Amtrak trains in a reasonable manor.

The railroads need to learn that they are a privately held entities only because the American people allow the railroads to be organized in this way, and that we American people are free to change our minds. I for one have long been feed-up with the railroads. If it were up to me I would demand the the railroads deliver fairness to shippers, service, and meet the overall societal needs, which includes being an active agent in solving Americas personal transportation needs. I am not apposed to governments funds being used to upgrade capacity, but I am apposed to the railroads refusing to do anything to help Amtrak or transit agencies until they get all of their demands satisfied. Somehow the railroads feel that they should never have to pay for anything when it comes to passenger trains, to include doing anything to maintain a capacity above what their freight usage demands. They need to come off of that stance.

This problem will not get solved until the American people demand a solution. The first stage it to tell the railroads that they must either play ball or else face re-regulation. If that club fails to bring about civilized behavior on the part of the railroads then it will be time to nationalize them.

The railroads have gotten a steady diet of carrots, and they no longer work. It is time to show them the stick, and if the showing of it does not work it is time to whack them with it.

VPayne wrote:Why do we debate supposed loss to investor owned railroads when the government itself is taking away the best, high margin, freight through the cross subsidy of highway freight from automobile users and the general fund? What kind of capital investment could the investor owned railroads provide if that $20 billion in general fund subsidy to highway ROW's did not exist?

The $20B quoted above wouldn't be given to the railroads, it would either not be collected as tax revenue, or spent in other ways (Iraq? Homeland Security? No Child Left Behind? etc...) Most of that $20B isn't federal "general fund" subsidy, but rather state and local government funds - surely, police departments and fire departments need new vehicles; schools need to be refurbished; parks need to have the grass mowed and watered, etc. I don't know of one local government who is "happy" with the budget they last presented.

But to suggest that the railroads are simply at the mercy of the taxpayer-funded highway system is at best an argument that railroads are powerless and sick entities that maybe should be allowed to die. It is a combination of the loss of American industralization, and an institution of railroads who despite record revenues on existing facilities that have decided to return the windfall to its investors rather than maintaining the level of maintenance that it had performed for many years, that is causing the railroads to once again sink into medrocity.

Look back at the 1980s - J.B. Hunt, Schneider National, May Trucking, Swift Trucking, Roadway, UPS...were using the railroads to move their precious freight on time. They knew that there was a huge benefit to using the railroad - large numbers of trailers could be moved at once without OTR drivers; lower-paid drivers could simply shuttle the trailers to/from the train to warehouses, LTL terminals, or customers; and don't forget the decrease in fuel expense.

What happened? The railroads got greedy. All that traffic - and cash - and the railroads could have invested it into infrastructure (maintaining what you have, and building new sidings and yards for extra capacity), but blew it away. Sure, the locomotives are newer, but brand new locomotives don't mean nothing when it's facing a red block with the flashing of a FRED just behind it. As the aviation saying goes, the plane only makes money when it's in the air. On the railroad, the train only makes money when it's on the road and moving.

Slowly but surely, those trucks came off the flatcars and back on the road. The railroads couldn't move the traffic. It'd be nice if an international can could be unloaded in Seattle, Oakland or Long Beach and go across the country by train, but they can't - and so the talk is to widen the Panama Canal to move the cans closer to the customer. UPS and FedEx business is booming; both companies have made investments in trucking company (UPS, in particular, picking up former Union Pacific subsidiary Overnite Trucking); and the air cargo business is like never before. There is a huge shortage of truck drivers, and the railroads who have largely scared off much of their potential employment base are begging for employees as well. But of the millions of people who are unemployed - do you really want to subject your life to being "on-call" at whim, working long stretches of time without a day off, the inability to participate in your family's lives, being away from home for days, and subjecting yourself to mental and physical stresses that are unlike any other job - and in some cases akin to being an active-duty solider in wartime?

The issue isn't whether automobile drivers subsidize truckers, it's whether railroads can meet the needs of freight shippers in this country; whether railroads can meet the needs of the people who need to travel in this country - and increasingly the answer is NO. It was the people who stood up to railroad timetables, and demanded that all-weather highways be constructed after Henry Ford sold a car that people could afford. It was the freight customers who were tired of high, monopolistic rate structures. After the government forced competition upon the railroads, they have maintained their "poor baby" attitude, yet rewarded its chief executives whenever hundreds of employees are laid off, and when track maintenance budgets decline (who cares how many derailments occurred afterwards, because that's still in the budget.)

If I own a factory, and have hundreds of employees being paid by the hour, and machinery that costs millions to purchase - I need that money recouped, and the only way I do it is to produce a product that can be sold. If my raw materials are sitting in a railroad car hundreds of miles away on some siding, I'm losing money. Why should I fall into bankruptcy because a railroad can't deliver, when I have the option of trucking my materials on the highway system that I, my employees, and my customers depend on for their everyday lives? Why should I be forced to deal with a monopolistic railroad in order for my business to succeed?

As a person, why should I be forced to schedule my life around the arrival and departure of a train; and why should I be forced to endure the life on the railroad, when I can have the option of a bus, an airplane, or even my own personal automobile? Isn't it arguable that "the public good" includes the freedom to travel when and how I desire - and if statistics tell a story, "the public" overwhelmingly favors non-railroad transport.