Passenger vs. Freight Priority. Was: DOJ sues Norfolk Southern for making Crescent late

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... ak-delays/

The civil complaint, filed today (July 30) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges NS regularly fails to give the Crescent preference over freight trains as required by statute, leading to delays that harm and inconvenience passengers, impede passenger rail transportation, and negatively affect Amtrak’s financial performance. The New York-Atlanta Crescent operates on NS-owned or managed track between Alexandria, Va., and New Orleans, including the state-owned North Carolina Railroad segment between Danville and Greensboro, N.C. In all, NS controls 1,140 of the Crescent’s 1,377 route-miles.

In 2023, the Justice Department said, only 24% of southbound Crescent trains traveling on NS-controlled track arrived at their destination on time.

The 16-page complaint includes examples of significant delays, including a Nov. 25, 2022, instance when the northbound Crescent was held in a siding for 1 hour, 11 minutes to allow three freight trains to pass, and a Feb. 17, 2024, case where the northbound train was delayed for 2 hours when it was sent into sidings on three occasions for meets with four freight trains. It notes that because NS regularly operates freight trains too long for the sidings on the route, the Crescent is frequently delayed when it is forced to follow the slower-moving freights.

This was my experience with it,15 years ago.
Image PSR just made it worse.

The DOJ finally grew a pair and is trying to enforce the law?

Good.

Any settlement should include refunds for affected passengers, and compensation to Amtrak for their financial losses.

Maybe it is time for congress to pass a law stating the longest train on any district
cannot be longer that the shortest sidings every 25 - 30 miles.
BTW NS can keep the Crescent on time. #20 / 30 July was never more than 6 minutes late NOL - ATL.
#19 29 was only 3+ hours late due to 2 different vehicles on tracks. It made up time ATL - NOL
Guess NS wants to bring this service to the district court?

The Class I roads would do well to recall the circumstances of the late 60s and early 70s, when the industry had sunk to such a low estate in the Northeast that self-help remedies including reorganization under protection of bankruptcy were no longer sufficient to continue vital services, and much less so, the needed improvements. The situation had reached a crisis as wide-scale liquidation became imminent . Initially, most roads outside the Northeast viewed the situation from a perspective of sympathetic denial.

The denial was untenable, however, as commercial interchange and interline settlement practices eventually made it clear to all that resources and reforms in public policy that would only be available through Federal initiative would be sufficient.

The FIRST step was the creation of Amtrak (1971), which relieved the industry of the costs and losses associated with their intercity passenger services.

The following steps - in order - reorganized the Northeastern bankrupts into Conrail (1976), with sufficient resources to create a well-maintained service network. Additional steps provided for deregulation (Staggers Act), relief from commuter service obligations (NERSA), and finally, reorganization of the necessary regulations (STB) and abolishing the ICC.

It was by THESE INITIATIVES the industry became able to achieve the competitive stability (i.e., PROFITABILITY) enjoyed today.

Certain operating practices of "PSR", which introduced trains of such length as to exceed limits of network efficiency are, on the basis of my experience and judgment, an unreasonable breach of Amtrak's right to priority in the exercise of its scheduled operations as a tenant of the Class I roads.

Through Amtrak the industry has a continuing GOOD-FAITH duty to the public. It is axiomatic that, when people or materials fail to make the appointed time and place, THEY LOSE VALUE.

I wholly agree with Mr. Carey's underlying thought that if the roads have reduced their physical plant and staffing levels "too far", they will "pay in the marketplace".

If a major shipper with high-value traffic, i.e. Containers, vehicles, decides "Topper, you're out to the pasture", that will make 1200 Peachtree St. NE take note. Likewise, this "visible" - even if at the level of a "nuisance" - legal action the DOJ is taking over the mishandling of Amtrak trains, it will still cost Topper some oats to defend.

The industry could well conclude, that the quest of "Saint Elwood's Holy Grail" simply went too far, and will start hiring workers (if they can find any willing to accept the working conditions) and reducing train consists that their existing plant can handle "fluidly and efficiently".

This includes Amtrak.

No NS caused delays yesterday or so far today. 19 had 2 vehicle mishaps yester but NS was able to recover some of that time.

R Paul Carey wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 7:41 am The Class I roads would do well to recall the circumstances of the late 60s and early 70s, when the industry had sunk to such a low estate in the Northeast that self-help remedies including reorganization under protection of bankruptcy were no longer sufficient to continue vital services, and much less so, the needed improvements. The situation had reached a crisis as wide-scale liquidation became imminent . Initially, most roads outside the Northeast viewed the situation from a perspective of sympathetic denial.

But why did the Class 1's get to this stage? We can't heap "bad management" across the board on Pennsy, NYC, REading, CNJ, B&M, NH, Rock, Milwaukee, NYO&W, Erie, Lackawanna, Lehigh Valley, etc...

As any student of the railroad collapse will tell you and any book on the subject will tell you, the ICC and state governments would not allow abandonment of disused trackage, nor setting of market rates for carriage of people or freight. The infrastructure was built to move people and freight pre-1920, with no airlines or automobiles as a serious alternative. No CTC, no computers, no diesels nor electrics. By 1940, let alone 1960, the infrastructure was grossly overbuilt. The revenues (set by the feds) were not enough to cover the costs (defacto set by the feds).

You simply cannot compete or run a business in 1960 on the 1920 model. Of course we had a collapse. It was caused by the ICC.

Now back to this riduculous lawsuit.

If you peruse Amtrak's annual P&L, Salaries last year were $2.6b and total expenses were $5.4b. That's about half. Trackage rights were (I think ) just part of the line item for "train operations" at $342m. That's maybe five percent of their total operating budget. If we compare this to UP, their salaries last year were $4.6b and total operating expenses $14.9b. We can see that it takes a lot more than just engineers, conductors, and deminimus cut-rate trackage right payments to run a real railroad.

When Amtrak ponies up for the real cost of their trackage rights, the trains will run on time. It's just that simple. The class 1's have shown they are very capable of running time-sensitive intermodals for decades now.

I completely get your argument about trackage rights payments. The Class I's back in the ICC days made a "Faustian bargain" with the feds to get out of passenger service. So for now, they're stuck with it.

Now, could these fees be renegotiated? NPRC is nominally private, but government-funded. Which means that if the Class I's today want to increase those fees, the feds will have to fund that. Would Amtrak and the feds pay market-rate to be given true-priority? What would that cost? What would be the features of such a deal with the devil be for new or restored routes? Capital investment?

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:26 am I completely get your argument about trackage rights payments. The Class I's back in the ICC days made a "Faustian bargain" with the feds to get out of passenger service. So for now, they're stuck with it.

Now, could these fees be renegotiated? NPRC is nominally private, but government-funded. Which means that if the Class I's today want to increase those fees, the feds will have to fund that. Would Amtrak and the feds pay market-rate to be given true-priority? What would that cost? What would be the features of such a deal with the devil be for new or restored routes? Capital investment?

I bet the Class 1s would agree to have some of the doubletrack put back in, If amtrak pays for it, and they aren't taxed for it.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:26 am I completely get your argument about trackage rights payments. The Class I's back in the ICC days made a "Faustian bargain" with the feds to get out of passenger service. So for now, they're stuck with it.

That bargain was in 1971, and the legal context behind that bargain suggests it is not just "we will relieve you of your passenger losses which are bankrupting you, if you let us use your track". There is a chain of bargains and laws made between the rails and the government going back 200 years almost.

1. 1800's: Common carrier status - you can take whatever land you want for market price provided you haul anything
2. 1910: Progressive ICC and state legislatures - you cannot set market rates, discontinue service, abandon track without public (gov't) consent.
3. WWI, WWII - use to the point the rail infrastructures are broken and worn out (common throughout the world in many belligerant countries).
4. 1950's: Gov't subsidized air and interstate passenger and freight carriage with less onerous regulation by ICC-like bodies
5. 1967: Discontinuance of USPS contracts and financial ruin for passenger trains without mail
6. 1971 creation of Amtrak with "priority" for passenger trains, but little teeth to "priority".
7. 1980: Deregulation little mechanism for saving Amtrak-centric routes such as PRR Broadway, etc...
8. 1998: Re-up of Amtrak legislation in 1990's with no teeth to "priority"
9. George W Bush era federal funding mechanism PRIIA legislation with no funding for upgraded trackage rights or "priority"
10. 2007: Obama era HSR initiatives, still no teeth to "priority", not even on MTA-owned NEC areas


Taken in that context, (a) there never was real legal mettle behind Amtrak's "priority" and never will be; (b) the rails and the gov't/public are probably squared up on their bargains, and if not, nobody cares about "priority" as you do not hear any politicians talking about it; (c) again if we can find billions to add passing sidings or new trains from fantasy-like endpoints (see the recent FRA study), we can certainly find $300m to double the trackage rights annual fees to make the existing trains run on time. Same with the $25b the Bidens claim to have invested in EV charging stations and the $300+m they found this week.

TLDR any faustian bargains are well squared up and the government needs to dip into their "green efforts" piggy bank to find $300m yearly or we are at the same sad place as we were in 1971.

I'm all for this, provided the class 1s stop getting billions of dollars in start up costs to add an AMTRAK train on their tracks.

I'm all for this, provided the class 1s stop getting billions of dollars in start up costs to add an AMTRAK train on their tracks.

That's a reasonable position to take. It seems when a new shipper approaches a Freight Road for service, they look at the price to move those trains, plus the price to build a switch and spur, and then it becomes an intellectual argument surrounding the present value of money.

In other words, if the price to run the trains is $1000/mo and the price to build the spur is $24,000, does the shipper sign an agreement stating $2,200/mo for two years? Or does the shipper say "we'll pay up front for some of the capital upgrades and monthly for service" and the agreement looks like $12,000 today and $1,500/month? This then becomes a negotiation between the two parties and the principal costs are just one piece, you also have payment terms (net 30, net 15, cash in advance...) and even perhaps currency (say the shipper is headquartered in Canada or EU).

Whether they pay for new capital costs and/or operating costs up front or monthly, this opens the door to smarter trackage rights agreements. For example, guarantee five years of service but no inflation adjustments for years the trains are more than 15pct late (incentivising the host to perform), or priority demands lapse if Amtrak is late out of the originating terminal or has a engine breakdown (incentivizing Amtrak to perform).

I'll say it again. Amtrak's trackage rights are a taking without just compensation.

Maybe getting this in front of a judge will bring that to light, since it's rare for someone getting essentially free access to complain about the lack of hot water in the morning.....

Ah, a 5th amendment argument. Nice.