DOCSLIB.ORG

Amtrak-Host Railroad Relations 10/22/2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Amtrak-Host Railroad Relations 10/22/2019 Amtrak-Host Railroad Relations 10/22/2019 Amtrak-Host Railroad Collaboration MIPRC 2019 Annual Meeting October 22, 2019 Confidential. For internal use. Opportunities for collaboration are abundant 2 1. Service and capacity expansion • Add capacity: Chicago-St. Louis, Indiana Gateway • New frequencies/stops: Cascades, Virginia Service, Piedmont, Downeaster • New routing: Vermonter 2. Operating improvements and on-time performance • Schedule modifications • Delay reduction initiatives 1 Amtrak-Host Railroad Relations 10/22/2019 State of the Network 3 FY19 On-Time Performance for Select Services vs. prior year Hiawatha 92% -3 pts Carl Sandburg / Illinois Zephyr 78% -8 pts Illini / Saluki 26% +5 pts Lincoln Service 71% -3 pts FY19 OTP by Service Line Blue Water 45% -14 pts Northeast Corridor 83% Pere Marquette 64% -13 pts State Supported 75% Wolverine 34% -16 pts Long Distance 42% Missouri River Runner 67% -11 pts System 74% California Zephyr 34% -11 pts Capitol Limited 28% 0 pts Cardinal 53% -1 pts City Of New Orleans 70% +13 pts Empire Builder 46% +2 pts Lake Shore Limited 44% +14 pts Southwest Chief 32% -11 pts Hoosier State 77% +1 pts Improving on-time performance through continuous improvement 4 Amtrak is using continuous improvement principles to reduce delays. Objectives Method • Reduce Amtrak-responsible delays that • Perform data analysis to identify affect initial terminal performance and on- performance drivers and prioritize efforts. time performance. • Set relatable goals. • Engage team at all levels efficiently to • Use the “5 Why” approach to conduct identify and implement solutions. After Action Reviews to determine: • Focus on goals and the actions we should 1. What happened? take to increase the likelihood of meeting 2. Why did it happen? them. 3. What should have happened? 4. What are the short-term and long- term fixes? • Identify and implement corrective actions. • Monitor performance against goals. We are working to pursue a similar approach with joint host railroad initiatives 2 Amtrak-Host Railroad Relations 10/22/2019 Case Study 1: San Joaquin 5 San Joaquin On-Time Performance 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% New schedule 50% implemented 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% July May April June March August October January February November December FY 2019 FY 2018 September Case Study 2: Cascades 6 Delays to the Cascades 2,000 1,800 Continuous improvement initiative begins 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 Delay Minutes per 10,000 Train-Miles 10,000 per Minutes Delay 200 0 Jul-19 Oct-18 Apr-19 Jan-19 Jun-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Nov-18 Dec-18 Aug-19 Sep-19 May-19 BNSF Amtrak 3 Amtrak-Host Railroad Re Amtrak-Host Railroad Case Study Case Study 3: Piedmont Case Study 2: Cascades 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0% Oct-17 lations 10/22/2019 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 Performance Piedmont On-Time May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 regarding performance Nov-18 Letter fromNCDOT Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 8 7 4 Amtrak-Host Railroad Relations 10/22/2019 What makes joint initiatives successful? 9 We have found that collaborative initiatives work best when the following exists: 1. Free, open, and candid sharing of information. 2. Engagement with operating, dispatching, and scheduling/network design representatives of both parties. 3. Robust tracking of concrete action items. 4. Involvement and support from state partners. Appendix 10 5 Amtrak-Host Railroad Relations 10/22/2019 11 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Cole County/Jefferson City Missouri Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Cole County/Jefferson City Missouri Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan November, 2010 Prepared by: Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission 206 East Broadway P.O. Box 140 Ashland, MO 65010 Phone: (573) 657-9779 Fax: (573) 657-2829 Plan updates available online at www.mmrpc.org Cover Photos: Upper Left: US Army Corps of Engineers photo taken in 1993 of the HWY 63/54 intersection just north of the Missouri River Bridge outside of Jefferson City. Upper Right: Inspection of the Renn’s Lake Dam failure in 2009(Jefferson City News Tribune, photo by Julie Smith). Lower Right: A Russellville home after a 2007 ice storm that caused damage across much of Western and Central Missouri (Jefferson City News Tribune, photo by Julie Smith). Lower Left: Missouri State Highway Patrol photo of damage to home after an F4 tornado touched down in Southwest Missouri in 2008. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................1 Prerequisites ...............................................................................................................2 Section 1: Introduction and Planning Process ....................... 3 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................3 1.2 Background ......................................................................................................4 1.3 History of the Cole County/Jefferson City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan .. 4 1.4 Participating Jurisdictions ...............................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Construction & Track 4–FY 2009 Appropriations Projects
    Track 1a – FD/Construction OMB No. 2130-0583 Project Name: MO-KC to STL Corridor-Missouri Rail Crossing Safety Improvements Date of Submission: 8-24-09 Version Number High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Application Form Track 1a–Final Design (FD)/Construction & Track 4–FY 2009 Appropriations Projects Welcome to the Track 1a Final Design (FD)/Construction and Track 4 Application for the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. Applicants for Track 1a FD/Construction and/or Track 4 are required to submit this Application Form and Supporting Materials (forms and documents) as outlined in Section G of this application and in the HSIPR Guidance. We appreciate your interest in the program and look forward to reviewing your application. If you have questions about the HSIPR program or this application, please contact us at [email protected]. Instructions: • Please complete the HSIPR Application electronically. See Section G for a complete list of the required application materials. • Please name the project according to the following format and include the project name in the header on ALL application materials. The distinct Track 1a and/or Track 4 project name should be less than 40 characters and follow the following format: State abbreviation-route or corridor name-project title (e.g., HI-Fast Corridor-Track Work IV). • For each question, enter the appropriate information in the designated gray box. If a question is not applicable to your FD/Construction Project, please indicate “N/A.” • Narrative questions should be answered concisely within the limitations indicated. • Applicants must upload this completed application and all other application materials to www.GrantSolutions.gov by August 24, 2009 at 11:59pm EDT.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan 2016
    Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Capital Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan 2016 Holts Summit - Jefferson City - Lake Mykee - St. Martins - Taos - Wardsville - portions of Cole & Callaway Counties Adopted 10/19/2016 The preparation of this plan was financed in part by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, or the Missouri Department of Transportation. Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request. CAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Policy The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is committed to the policy that no person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity on the grounds of race, color, sex, age, disability or national origin, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259). CAMPO Administration is provided by the City of Jefferson, Missouri Department of Planning and Protective Services/ Planning Division Room 120 John G. Christy Municipal Building 320 East McCarty Jefferson City, Missouri Telephone 573-634-6410 www.jeffcitymo.org/campo Plan Produced by: Sonny Sanders, AICP Alex Rotenberry, AICP Katrina Williams, GISP and Rachel Ruhlen PhD, Intern Cover photos courtesy CAMPO staff and Jefferson City Parks, Recreation & Forestry Acknowledgements: The CAMPO Board of Directors, Technical Committee and staff wishes to thank those who participated in the development of the plan through participation the Steering and Advisory Committees.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2019 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2019 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210419 Amtrak Metrics Reporting
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 30th Street Station Philadelphia, PA 19104 April 12, 2021 Mr. Michael Lestingi Director, Office of Policy and Planning Federal Railroad Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Lestingi: In accordance with the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule published on November 16, 2020 (the “Final Rule”), this letter serves as Amtrak’s report to the Federal Railroad Administration that, as of April 10, 2021, Amtrak has provided the 29 host railroads over which Amtrak currently operates (listed in Appendix A) with ridership data for the prior month consistent with the Final Rule. The following data was provided to each host railroad: . the total number of passengers, by train and by day; . the station-specific number of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and . the station-specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose railroad right- of-way serves the station, by train, and by day. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Blair Sr. Director, Host Railroads Amtrak cc: Dennis Newman Amtrak Jason Maga Amtrak Christopher Zappi Amtrak Yoel Weiss Amtrak Kristin Ferriter Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Michael Lestingi April 12, 2021 Page 2 Appendix A Host Railroads Provided with Amtrak Ridership Data Host Railroad1 Belt Railway Company of Chicago BNSF Railway Buckingham Branch Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Coast Service
    ATLANTIC COAST SERVICE JANUARY 14, 2013 NEW YORK, VIRGINIA, the CAROLINAS, GEORGIA and FLORIDA Effective SM Enjoy the journey. featuring the SILVER METEOR ® CAROLINIAN SM SILVER STAR ® PALMETTO ® AUTO TRAIN ® PIEDMONT® 1-800-USA-RAIL Call serving NEW YORK–PHILADELPHIA WASHINGTON–RICHMOND–RALEIGH–CHARLOTTE CHARLESTON–SAVANNAH–JACKSONVILLE ORLANDO–KISSIMMEE–WINTER HAVEN TAMPA–ST. PETERSBURG–FT. MYERS WEST PALM BEACH–FT. LAUDERDALE–MIAMI and intermediate stations AMTRAK.COM Visit NRPC Form T4–200M–1/14/13 Stock #02-3536 Schedules subject to change without notice. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. ATLANTIC COAST SERVICE Silver Silver Piedmont Piedmont Palmetto Carolinian Silver Star Train Name Silver Star Carolinian Palmetto Piedmont Piedmont Meteor Meteor 73 75 89 79 91 97 Train Number 98 92 80 90 74 76 Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Normal Days of Operation Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily R y R y R B R B R s R s R s R s R B R B R y R y l l y l å y l å r l r l On Board Service r l r l y l å y l å l l Read Down Mile Symbol Read Up R R R95 R93/83/ R82/154/ R R R 67 67 Mo-Fr 161 Connecting Train Number 174 66 66 66 9 30P 9 30P 6 10A 9 35A 0 Dp Boston, MA–South Sta. ∑w- Ar 6 25P 8 00A 8 00A 8 00A R9 36P R9 36P R6 15A R9 41A 1 Boston, MA–Back Bay Sta.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees May 1998 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes GAO/RCED-98-151 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-279203 May 14, 1998 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Chairman The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Since it began operations in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. However, despite efforts to control expenses and improve efficiency, Amtrak has only reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, and it projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million this fiscal year.1 Amtrak remains heavily dependent on substantial federal operating and capital subsidies. Given Amtrak’s continued dependence on federal operating subsidies, the Conference Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to examine the financial (1) performance of Amtrak’s current routes, (2) implications for Amtrak of multiyear capital requirements and declining federal operating subsidies, and (3) effect on Amtrak of reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rail Report
    NCDOT Rail Division The Rail Report @NC_By_Train facebook.com/NCByTrain ncbytrain.org 919-707-4700 Feb. 2019 The Piedmont and Northern Railway Proves to be a NCDOT Rail Corridor Preservation Program Success Story In 1991, the abandoned Piedmont and Northern Railway (P&N) corridor became the third line purchased by the State under NCDOT’s Rail Corridor Preservation Program. This rail line, located in Gaston County, held great promise for future economic growth in the region due to its strategic connections to both Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, and its proximity to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region just 20 miles to the east. The 13-mile Piedmont and Northern rail line was returned to service in 2010, serving the communities of Mount Holly, Belmont, Ranlo, Lowell and Gastonia. In its early years P&N Transload Facility at Saxony Drive the P&N had two customers and moved about 12 carloads a month. In 2015, the contract to operate the railroad onboard, carloads on the P&N are anticipated to reach around was awarded to Progressive Rail Incorporated who has 1,600 carloads a year. aggressively marketed the railroad and worked with the This is the type of story that we like to share at the Rail Division, NCDOT Rail Division to transform a former Weyerhauser one where the State’s commitment to preserving corridors and warehouse into a supply chain hub. investing in revitalizing rail lines makes a difference by bringing Progressive Rail’s marketing efforts have paid off. The current more jobs to the community and growing the local economy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Piedmont Triad Region Freight Movement Report
    2012 Piedmont Triad Region Freight Movement Report September 12, 2012 Report Prepared by: C. David Hauser, Project Manager Transportation Institute NC A&T State University In Partnership with the: The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation, and In cooperation with The Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization, The Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, The High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization, and The Winston-Salem Metropolitan Planning Organization Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of chapter 1.2 Relevance to the Transportation System and the Plan 2 Existing Conditions and Trends 2.1 Entire Freight System: Statewide and Regional Conditions and Trend 2.2 Highway Freight: National Conditions and Trends 2.3 Highway Freight: Statewide and Regional Conditions and Trends 2.4 Highway Freight: Conditions and Trends in the Piedmont Triad Study Area 2.5 Rail Freight: National Conditions and Trends 2.6 Rail Freight: Statewide and Regional Conditions and Trends 2.7 Rail Freight: Condition and Trends in the Piedmont Triad Study Area 3 Current and Future Issues 3.1 Entire Freight System: Statewide and Regional Current and Future issues 3.2 Highway Freight: National Current and Future Issues 3.3 Highway Freight: Statewide and Regional Current and Future Issues 3.4 Rail Freight: National Current and Future Issues 3.5 Rail Freight: Statewide and Regional Current and Future Issues 3.6 Freight System: Current and Future Issues Within the Piedmont Triad Study Area 4 NC ports 5 Airports 5.1 Piedmont Triad International Airport 5.2 Smith Reynolds Airport 5.3 Additional Piedmont Triad Regional Airports 6 Safety and Security 7 Recommendations for Piedmont Triad Study Area 7.1 Truck Route Recommendations 7.2 Summary Recommendations 2012 Piedmont Triad Region Freight Movement Report 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of chapter Freight movement is critical to an advanced industrial economy, and the ease of freight movement is a component of a region’s economic competitiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    People Before Freight On-time trains on host railroads 3 LATEST REPORT CARD SIGNALS NEW GOLDEN AGE OF ON-TIME TRAINS 1 Canadian Pacific A 2 BNSF A 3 Union Pacific A 4 CSX A 5 Canadian National A 6 Norfolk Southern A Average grade for all host railroads: A 4 Amtrak National Network Passengers Continue to Experience Poor On-Time Performance 1 Canadian Pacific A 2 BNSF B 3 Union Pacific B- 4 CSX B- 5 Canadian National D- 6 Norfolk Southern F Average grade for all host railroads: C 5 Grading National Network routes on OTP 17 of 28 State-Supported Services Fail Class I Freight Percentage of trains on‐time State‐Supported Trains Route Host Railroads within 15 minutes Pass = 80% on‐time Hiawatha CP 96% Keystone (other hosts) 91% Capitol Corridor UP 89% New York ‐ Albany (other hosts) 89% Carl Sandburg / Illinois Zephyr BNSF 88% Ethan Allen Express CP 87% PASS Pere Marquette CSX, NS 84% Missouri River Runner UP 83% Springfield Shuttles (other hosts) 82% Downeaster (other hosts) 81% Hoosier State CSX 80% Pacific Surfliner BNSF, UP 78% Lincoln Service CN, UP 76% Blue Water NS, CN 75% Roanoke NS 75% Piedmont NS 74% Richmond / Newport News / Norfolk CSX, NS 74% San Joaquins BNSF, UP 73% Pennsylvanian NS 71% Adirondack CN, CP 70% FAIL New York ‐ Niagara Falls CSX 70% Vermonter (other hosts) 67% Cascades BNSF, UP 64% Maple Leaf CSX 64% Wolverine NS, CN 60% Heartland Flyer BNSF 58% Carolinian CSX, NS 51% Illini / Saluki CN 37% 6 Grading National Network routes on OTP 14 of 15 Long Distance Services Fail Class I Freight Percentage of trains on‐time Long
    [Show full text]
  • Host Railroad Report Card &
    Host Railroad Report Card & FAQ 1) What is a “host railroad”? Most of Amtrak’s network is on tracks owned, maintained, and dispatched by highly-profitable freight railroads, known as “host” railroads where Amtrak uses their tracks. Most of the trains on these rail lines are the freight railroads’ own freight trains. Because the freight railroads make all dispatching decisions about which trains have priority in using the rail line, the freight railroads have a tremendous amount of influence over Amtrak’s operations on their lines. Prior to Amtrak’s creation in 1971, the privately-owned railroads had a common carrier obligation to operate passenger trains themselves – an obligation that dated back to when the railroads were built in the 1800s. Because the railroads were losing money on their passenger trains, Congress created Amtrak and relieved the private railroads of their obligation to operate passenger trains. A very important part of the deal was that Amtrak would still have access to the railroads’ lines in order to operate passenger trains. Every year Amtrak pays host railroads $142 million for using their tracks and other resources needed to operate Amtrak trains. 2) What distinguishes hosts with good Amtrak performance? Hosts typically achieve good Amtrak performance through a combination of: a) Commitment to providing quality service for Amtrak’s passengers, b) An active partnership with Amtrak, where both sides work cooperatively and the hosts respect Federal law which protects the rights of our nation’s passengers, and c) A well-disciplined operation that benefits both Amtrak and freight customers alike. 3) What does “Delays per 10,000 train miles” mean? It is a measure of how much delay each host railroad causes to Amtrak trains.
    [Show full text]