Analysis: good-faith effort needed to avoid slower schedules
The carriers are right. Most schedules were established years ago, if not decades. But they haven’t been revised because renegotiating schedules has become a tortured process. It affects financial incentives Amtrak pays to its hosts if trains are on time at certain mid-route checkpoints and endpoints — and penalties if punctuality isn’t achieved.
Historically, the agreements have given railroad dispatchers enough wiggle room to garner a bonus — even with moderate delays — by putting virtually all recovery time just prior to the final stop or checkpoint. For instance, CN is given twice as much time, 45 more minutes, to get the northbound City of New Orleans from Homewood, Ill., to Chicago than its southbound counterpart receives for those 25 miles.
Now all of these contracts, not just schedules, must be renegotiated to reflect how much passenger activity takes place at every station along the route.
As for what is “reasonably achievable,” if Amtrak had been willing to adjust its schedules during the fall of 2016 congestion meltdown on the Chicago-Toledo, Ohio, portion of NS’ east-west main line, or during the last two years on the all-NS New Orleans-Washington, D.C. Crescent route, the price of being “on time” would be appreciably slower schedules that could chase riders away.
The primary reason Amtrak has chosen to stick with what it has is because the railroads insist on lengthening schedules. Furthermore, establishing a “market conditions” or “traffic volumes” metric is a slippery slope compared to “pure running time,” defined by the FRA as “the minimum amount of time required for a train to operate between two locations via its normal routing.” This, plus recovery time and station dwell time, are the building blocks of passenger train schedules.
Rail Passengers Association President and CEO Jim Mathews bemoaned “endless litigation delays” by the Class Is in their attempt to counteract past efforts to hold host railroads accountable for on-time performance and Amtrak’s statuory right of operating preference. Without the threat of regulation, some railroads consistently make Amtrak trains wait, while other dispatchers, such as those at CP, BNSF Railway (which did not testify), and most recently CSX, continue to keep passenger train routes fluid.
Another common thread in the testimony is Amtrak’s lack of transparency in sharing data. This was reflected in the Rail Passengers Association presentation, by Ray Chambers, President of the Association of Independent Railway Operators, and in post-hearing commenter Justin Larsen, who called into question the opacity and usefulness of Amtrak’s Customer Satisfaction Index. Contending data it collects is proprietary, as the company has claimed for the last five years in shielding operating details from the press and the public, does nothing to promote transparency.
Running trains on time shouldn’t be that difficult as long as all the parties negotiate in good faith. With the right regulatory framework, maybe some progress can finally be made.
To get a complete picture of this complicated issue, more information is available at several websites:
— The FRA’s “Notice of proposed rulemaking” is available here.
— Copies of written transcripts from host railroads and other participants at the April 30 hearing are available here.
— Additional comments submitted so far are available here.
— And those wishing to comment can do so here until June 1.