Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

trains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#71

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

mlindner wrote: post #51

The solution to fixing problems with Amtrak is to privatize it and shut down the unprofitable long distance lines or require states that want them to pay for them. Amtrak is already profitable in areas of high density if they weren't held back by all the unprofitable lines.

This take is very wrong, but it does have a kernel of truth. The unprofitable services Amtrak provides are incredibly necessary for rural communities, but having to operate them is a major drain on Amtrak's resources. IMO, Amtrak's lines in extremely low density areas should be separated from Amtrak's portfolio (not shut down but moved to a separate agency) to allow Amtrack to massively expand service in areas where it could do so properly without having to support tons of inherently unprofitable routes. The east coast specifically should have way more and much higher quality trains than it does.

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#72

Post by crote »

mlindner wrote: post #45
woodruffw wrote: post #7

The history of the US's Western freight lines is fascinating (and frustrating): we've allowed these massive companies (UP, BNSF) to extract rent for well over a century, in exchange for having laid down the original lines (which, mind you, were also paid for in land and bonds[1]). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts

I'm confused why you think that private rail owned, operated, and built by private companies is somehow "rent seeking". Amtrak is even only allowed to use their rails by forced act of Congress. If things followed normal commercial rules Amtrak would have no right to use them at all. More so, they operate below the cost of any freight rail of anywhere in the developed world. They're incredibly efficient in operation.…

It depends on how you look at it.

Purely from a $/tonne/mile perspective, it is a massive success. There is no doubt about that.

However, the technology is literally decades behind compared to the rest of the world. Electrification basically does not exist, and basic safety systems are in their infancy.

Precision Scheduled Railroading has resulted in a system with very little flexibility which makes extremely poor use of the infrastructure available. Working conditions are appalling, and the resulting stress has major safety implications.

Meanwhile, passenger transport - which was the reason they were developed in the first place - has been reduced to a rounding error, and is the laughing stock of the Western world.

Europe transports 35% of its freight by boat, 12% by rail, and 55% by road. The US transports 5% by boat, 11.6% by rail, and 75% by road. The observed success of American freight is primarily due to geographic restrictions: there are virtually zero waterways in the western half, and cross-continent barge transport is impossible. Combine that with a country which is incredibly big and mostly empty, and rail ends up being the only viable method for bulk cargo transport.

The way I see it, US freight is deeply troubled by operating issues, and is only economically successful due to geography making it the only viable option.

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#73

Post by nopenopenopeno »

bobthepanda wrote: post #48
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem here is that freight trains have so much priority in the US, unlike every other major country in the world. It doesn't matter how many or what kinds of trains we have. This sort of policy will always makes trains an unreliable and therefore impractical mode of transportation. And this is a major reason for the US leading the world in carbon consumption per capita.

Honestly we need to build parallel rights of way anyways. The freight rails are slow and dilapidated. It would make more sense for passenger railways to be separated from freight railways entirely rather than to try and squeeze into inadequate trackage. We don’t try to unload air freight through passenger terminals or vice versa.

Good luck with that. The only thing we've been able to do in the last few decades is close railways altogether.

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#74

Post by coryrc »

thfuran wrote: post #56
coryrc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we have far too many.

What about unprofitable fire departments?

Do they cause urban heat effect, break apart communities, and make it unsafe to walk places?

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#75

Post by crote »

mlindner wrote: post #47
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem here is that freight trains have so much priority in the US, unlike every other major country in the world. It doesn't matter how many or what kinds of trains we have. This sort of policy will always makes trains an unreliable and therefore impractical mode of transportation. And this is a major reason for the US leading the world in carbon consumption per capita.

This isn't true. Amtrak has priority by law over freight in the US as long as they are on time. They don't get priority once they area late. What happens is that Amtrak becomes late and then they lose their slot and become further late.

The problem is that freight transporters are intentionally running trains which are longer than the sidings. Even if an Amtrak train has priority by law, it is - by design - impossible for the freight train to pull over.

The result is that an on-time Amtrak train has to wait for a delayed freight train, because it is physically impossible to do anything else. This of course results in the Amtrak train now being late, through no fault of its own.

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#76

Post by nopenopenopeno »

CrazyStat wrote: post #42
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just plain wrong. In practice, of the 30+ interstate Amtrak trips I've taken in the past 10 years, the overwhelming majority of them are delayed by freight rail. It is standard operating procedure.

Yes, that's what de facto priority means. Since the railroads operate the lines and the freight trains, they (illegally) give their own freight trains priority over Amtrak passenger trains, which by law are supposed to have priority.

That is not what de facto means, but regardless what is the point in even mentioning it if it were?

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#77

Post by nopenopenopeno »

bobthepanda wrote: post #49
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the official policy is to prioritize passenger rail Define "official" >hopefully events such as these will begin to change that. What events? If you think this was a rare case, you obviously don't ride Amtrak long distance much. Most interstate Amtrak trips get delayed by freight, and it has been that way for decades.

The official policy, in that it is literally US law. The subject of the article is an attempt to enforce said provisions.

Sure, but there is no precedent for such regulation as long as the railroads are privately owned by the same corporations that control congress. This is yet another case of HN Utopianism.

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#78

Post by crote »

pengaru wrote: post #15
SoftTalker wrote: post #2

Why doesn't Amtrak simply pay UP adequately to get priority? UP is prioritizing freight because it pays better. Fix that.

> Why doesn't Amtrak simply pay UP adequately to get priority? UP is prioritizing freight because it pays better. Fix that. Is it really that simple? Freight trains are _long_, Amtrak passenger trains are relatively short. It's far easier to sideline an Amtrak train to let a multi-mile-long freight train pass than it is to sideline that same freight train for Amtrak to pass. It's not my area of expertise at all, but…

The interesting part is that freight companies are intentionally running trains longer than the sidings. Amtrak trains are legally supposed to have priority, but they made it physically impossible for freight trains to pull over.

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#79

Post by ddevault »

rsj_hn wrote: post #23
pengaru wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why doesn't Amtrak simply pay UP adequately to get priority? UP is prioritizing freight because it pays better. Fix that. Is it really that simple? Freight trains are _long_, Amtrak passenger trains are relatively short. It's far easier to sideline an Amtrak train to let a multi-mile-long freight train pass than it is to sideline that same freight train for Amtrak to pass. It's not my area of expertise at all, but…

To put thing in perspective, US rail moves: 61 tons of freight per American each year 94 tons of freight per mile for each passenger-mile on rail 1/3 of all export goods move by rail 1.7 trillion ton-miles of freight 40% of US long distance freight by volume uses rail So you have a problem in that increasing the costs to freight will affect all Americans in making them pay more for goods, whereas it will only benefit…

These numbers are similarly misleading. Read up on induced demand. Rail passengers in the US are small in number because passenger rail sucks. If it were improved, ridership would go up.

Re: Amtrak asks fed regulators to investigate Union Pacific handling of Sunset Ltd

#80

Post by s1artibartfast »

stetrain wrote: post #57
mlindner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused why you think that private rail owned, operated, and built by private companies is somehow "rent seeking". Amtrak is even only allowed to use their rails by forced act of Congress. If things followed normal commercial rules Amtrak would have no right to use them at all. More so, they operate below the cost of any freight rail of anywhere in the developed world. They're incredibly efficient in operation.…

> From 1850 to 1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres (71 million ha) of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts

That establishes that they were given land, and a hell of a lot of it. So we're settlers, Ranchers, and individuals. A bass portion of land in the US was handed over to private parties who wanted to put it to use. I don't see how that undermines the idea that they are the rightful owners of it today.

They were giving it in the expectation that they would put in rails to make money for themselves, and as a byproduct, there would be rail service for customers.

Sellers remorse after 150 years is not grounds to claim that they don't actually own it

Post reply on HN