Well good for them for suggesting ways to eliminate or minimize the effects if these problems. But golly the inability to work around the data outage is pretty jaw-dropping.

In the recent discussion about building up the core vs line extensions for metrorail, one of the key responses was "if Metro focuses on the core and stops extending out into the fringes, commuter rail needs to step up." While Metrorail for all its faults provides a level of service not seen anywhere else in the US outside NY, many other cities have commuter rail service way ahead of our town.

I think this story kind of illustrates this. Someday I hope Maryland gets serious about rail. Until then the demands to extend Metro out to the ends of the earth will continue.

by DavidDuck on Jun 25, 2011 12:31 am • link • report

Argh, should have previewed. Should have said:

While Metrorail for all its faults provides a level of service not really surpassed anywhere else in the US outside NY

by DavidDuck on Jun 25, 2011 12:33 am • link • report

The insistence on written orders from a certified printer is just one example of a very annoying general phenomenon, which is that CSX ostentatiously obeys, to the letter and without exception, regulations that slow down travelers.

The work-zone "slow orders" are another example. The "equipment defect detector" is yet another -- when it finds a fault, the train stops until someone has walked around to the outside and investigated.

All of which makes CSX and MARC look stodgy and hidebound next to Metro!

by Turnip on Jun 25, 2011 9:26 pm • link • report

@Turnip, these are visible effects of the safety culture that railroaders live by and Metro claims to have -- but doesn't.  There's a world of difference, one that's immediately apparent to anybody who observes the operations or listens in on their radio traffic. 

Metro looks unprofessional and unsafe next to railroads!

by intermodal commuter on Jun 26, 2011 9:41 am • link • report

@intermodal commuter

Railroaders are indeed good at being railroaders, but they're not very interested in actually improving their own procedures or actually advancing the service they provide. Instead, they do what railroaders do, because, well, that's what they do.

A great deal of why our intercity train service isn't better is because of that culture. Same thing for commuter rail service (as this article notes).

by Alex B. on Jun 26, 2011 10:03 am • link • report

@Alex B., railroads' rulebooks and safety practices got where they are over long experience, one incident at a time.  The industry does often seem to be more about managing liability than service quality or innovation, but this could actually be a rational response to its unique regulatory environment (the pervasiveness of railroad safety culture is, in my view, driven by the industry's exposure to FELA). 

An unanticipated consequence of the railroads' exit from retail passenger business through the establishment of Amtrak and the regional commuter agencies has been the erosion over time of a professional tradition for rail passenger operations.  These successor organizations with their roots in government or in other transport modes have not been able to maintain the skill sets once held by the carriers' passenger operations departments (just look at how MARC is treated within MTA) while in turn the railroads are moving more freight more efficiently than ever but passenger railroading is no longer a corporate core competency.  If it were, CSX would see passenger ops as a profit centre; instead it seems to see them as a distraction on a good day, a liability on a bad day, and a nuisance every day. 

Over the past few years as the potential for passenger rail has been rediscovered, making it happen has required the lost art of passenger railroading to be rediscovered, or reinvented.  I would submit that loss of skill set, and disinvestment in passenger-specific infrastructure not needed for freight operations, are greater factors than safety culture.  I would also agree that we could be doing a great deal better! 

p.s.	it's clear from your other posts here that you already know all this; the above is meant more for the benefit of other GGW readers.

by intermodal commuter on Jun 26, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

Subways and interurbans have always operated under much laxer procedures than mainline railroads. You can get away with that when you operate heterogenous services using equipment that's capable of stopping quickly.

The woes of MARC have nothing to do with traffic control procedures. Technical failures like this are a rarity, and this very article notes that CSX is moving to ensure that the problem won't happen again.

MARC service is unreliable not because of railroad culture, but because we don't care enough to give commuter trains the kind of priority that they need over freight traffic.

You can have perfectly dependable, fast passenger service on mainline railroads, even using far more laborious, paperwork-intensive procedures than today's. Just look at the outstanding state of passenger rail service before about 1960. Fax machines? That's nothing. Try sending train orders by telegraph, not just at the start of a run but for every time a train deviates from the timetable. And yet the railroads did better than today.

That won't happen again unless you have a system that puts passengers first.

by David R. on Jun 26, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

@intermodal commuter - yes, the FRA regulations are a huge part of the problem - however, the railroader culture plays a large role in shaping those very regulations and forms a great deal of the resistance to changing them.

Alon Levy identified several key areas that hold US railroads back:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/bad-us-rail-practices-and-what-it-means-for-fra-regulations/

And what best practices should look like instead:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/good-industry-practices-thread/

by Alex B. on Jun 26, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

With the possible exception of "inappropriate stock," those "key areas that hold US railroads back" and the best practices have nothing to do with mainline safety culture. Scheduling, operational decisions, investment, fare structures, yes. But not the rules and methods that brought about the delays on June 1st - rules and a culture that generally contribute to smooth operation.

by David R. on Jun 26, 2011 12:43 pm • link • report

@ David R.

That's true to some extent, but I often feel that 'safety' is cited as a reason to avoid changing regulations - even those that have nothing to do with safety and can offer huge improvements to the passenger experience and the level of service.

And no, they're not directly related to the June 1 delays - I'm making a broader point about the opportunities to improve.

by Alex B. on Jun 26, 2011 5:28 pm • link • report

Freight rail companies are required under Federal law to give priority to passenger rail trains. All this stems from the agreement between railroads and the Federal government in 1970s to allow private rail companies to exist the passenger rail business (which wasn't profitable for private railroads).

The safety issues, speed restrictions, etc. are due to the design of freight vs. passenger rail. CSX designs their rail for freight loads, not for passenger loads. Freight operations are typically slower, less time critical compared to passenger rail, among other factors. As a result, signalling, scheduling, and basically all operations are optimized for CSX's business....freight.

The US has a top-notch freight rail network, and moves more goods by freight than most other countries. We don't have a passenger rail network. We'd avoid these snafus if passenger and freight rail were separately owned-operated networks.

by Larry W. on Jun 27, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report

"While Metrorail for all its faults provides a level of service not really surpassed anywhere else in the US outside NY - by DavidDuck "

Actually, Chicago's is better and NYC's more accessible for long distance commuting because of the flat fare system.

DC's Metrorail, conversely, uses price to ration its services, and is therefore, not accessible to major portions of the population. Hence the high percentage of minorities, immigrants and people with children riding the flatfare bus system.

by Capt. Hilts on Jun 28, 2011 7:10 am • link • report