[tshaddox]

> Its no joke to delay a cargo shipment, there are tons of penalties built into those contracts.

It’s hard to imagine many examples of rail freight that is justifiably more time-sensitive than passenger rail. Surely very time-sensitive freight shipments already go on trucks or planes, for obvious reasons.

[protomyth]

Well, no. Multiple plants around this country process crops for multiple end-products. These plants are fed by the railroads and need to keep running. Delaying a passenger doesn't shut down the airport, but it could shutdown a plant. There are large classes of freight that are not shipped by planes and trucks are a feeder for rail in those situations.

[tshaddox]

Of course a huge amount of agricultural freight transportation goes by freight train. The question is whether these train deliveries are highly sensitive to small delays (relative to the time the train journey normally takes). Is it a major problem for these agricultural plants if, say, a particular freight train that normally takes 48 hours to complete its journey instead takes 60 hours due to delays?

[protomyth]

The addition of 12 hours to a freight contract can cause a processing plant to require a shutdown. There is a reason for the penalties in those contracts. Worse, the people who show up to load a train and have a small window are now waiting for the train and stuck in a holding pattern. Disrupting the freight system when passengers in the US have multiple other ways to get from A to B is problematic. The whole idea that moving people from A to B is more important than moving cargo from A to B doesn't take into account the jobs and time required to maintain our complex economy. Delays will increase the price of basic goods which has a big effect on the rest of the economy. Look at what happens when energy is more costly then add other basic product building blocks to that rising price beyond just fuel. That person buying groceries is more important than passengers riding a train.

[Teever]

Why can't these plants float a 12 hour buffer of stock?

This sounds like a JIT failure more than anything else.

[protomyth]

Why spend extra money for an event that doesn't happen very often? Elevators have storage (it's part of their function) so plants don't have to deal with that. Changing our manufacturing/ agriculture sector to cater to people wanting to ride the train seems a poor decision based on the needs of everyone else.

[dehugger]

Yes. logistics is a house of cards. Small delays cascade and pile up, leading to systemic problems with staffing, spoilage, contract violations, etc. A 12 hour delay means an entire shift of workers doing nothing while they wait for the product to arrive, for example. When you have production scheduled out months in advance it matters quite a bit, which is why contracts are so strict on this in the first place.

[bastawhiz]

Why do we prioritize industrial efficiency over individuals? Surely businesses can adapt to minor disruptions. That's the promise of an efficient market, right? So then why do we force those inconveniences onto the public, where delays and disruptions are personally costly and frustrating? Why do 250 people need to have their travel plans disrupted instead of the supermarket having eight varieties of mayo instead of nine, or my new sofa arriving in thirty days instead of twenty five?

[bluGill]

Why are we running low speed long distance trains in the first place. You just made the argument that Amtrak shouldn't run on this track at all, but get its own track with real high speed. I agree with that idea

[protomyth]

Because more individuals depend on our nation's logistic system than would benefit from riding the train. Passengers have an array of solutions to solve their problems. Individuals are served by choice and dependable delivery of goods. Why should 250 passengers be valued over thousands of people?

[bastawhiz]

But that's based on the idea that our logistic system is running on a razor thin tolerance. The logistic system can be designed with buffer and resistance to disruption. There is no reason businesses and process can't become tolerant to disruption rather than shifting pain on to individuals.

[protomyth]

Why change when it works fine and will negatively affect more people than it helps. It would be cheaper to buy Amtrak it's own track than rearrange the people and companies needed to get passenger service on current tracks. Why are the needs of a few so much more important than everyone else?