My Sunset Limited improvement plan

[GlobalistPotato]

I will say that improving the Sunset Limited to daily status and other improvements along the route should be a priority for Amtrak.

I agree with most of Amtrak's plan for the Sunset Limited, but there are some details I'd change, like the arrival and departure times into Los Angeles and the connections between the LAX-SAS-CHI train and the SAS-NOL train.

I will also look at disarming Union Pacific's requested bribe... eerh.. I mean demand, for $750 million to upgrade the route. Part of this is making some concessions that would reduce pressure on UP, part of this is calling bluff on them, and part is see WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING?

I do have a feeling though that the stub-train and restoring the Sunset East will require the repeal or modification of the 750 mile rule. Or making a case that loop-holes the rule. But I don't like loopholing...

I'll have the plan up by Friday. I'll be in picture form, so YAY!!!

Just remember: The Texas Eagle used to be a tri-weekly train between CHI and SAS before it was saved in 2003 by passenger rail advocates. So advocate for improved Amtrak service!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I will say that improving the Sunset Limited to daily status and other improvements along the route should be a priority for Amtrak.

I think it's pretty clear that the only way to bring daily status to the Sunset Limited is to hand over nearly a billion dollars worth of taxpayer funded bribe money to Union Pacific. I doubt that Amtrak will ever see that level of discretionary cash flow, but even if they do I hope they don't lose their mind and actually hand it over to UP.

 

[saxman]

The Eagle went back to daily running in about 1998 or so.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

I will say that improving the Sunset Limited to daily status and other improvements along the route should be a priority for Amtrak.

I think it's pretty clear that the only way to bring daily status to the Sunset Limited is to hand over nearly a billion dollars worth of taxpayer funded bribe money to Union Pacific. I doubt that Amtrak will ever see that level of discretionary cash flow, but even if they do I hope they don't lose their mind and actually hand it over to UP.

I would agree that it's crazy. There's probably some weird deal Amtrak could make with UP, like sharing part of the revenues of the train when UP allows the train to run on time, or some weird thing like that.

But yeah, I'd say that UP is out of their minds. $750 million dollars would be a reasonable amount of money for Amtrak to upgrade routes and buy equipment, etc, to run a daily Sunset AND several corridors along the same route, like LA-Tuscon and SAS-HOU-NOL. But not just for a daily train.

Of course, the other likely way for UP to retract their demands is a change in corporate leadership.

The Eagle went back to daily running in about 1998 or so.

Okay then. Point is that it was once tri-weekly and now it's daily. 1998 tells me that this route went daily when equipment was freed up from the canceled routes?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Of course, the other likely way for UP to retract their demands is a change in corporate leadership.

The last forty years have seen vast changes in corporate ownership (and leadership) in the freight rail sector. If that's all that was required to give Amtrak a fighting chance then our passenger rail network would presumably have resolved these sorts of conflicts and complications long ago. Instead Amtrak remains just as impotent today as it was back when it was first formed. Perhaps even more so. A change in the status of a few corporate charters might finally change things around, but I think we all know that's never going to happen.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Of course, the other likely way for UP to retract their demands is a change in corporate leadership.

The last forty years have seen vast changes in corporate ownership (and leadership) in the freight rail sector. If that's all that was required to give Amtrak a fighting chance then our passenger rail network would presumably have resolved these sorts of conflicts and complications long ago. Instead Amtrak remains just as impotent today as it was back when it was first formed. Perhaps even more so. A change in the status of a few corporate charters might finally change things around, but I think we all know that's never going to happen.

I'm talking about UP changing their corporate philosphoy from the one they have now (or had back in the 2000s) to one similar to BNSF, which is much friendlier to Amtrak and passenger rail in general.

 

[had8ley]

All the $750 mil equates to is, "Go away Amtrak, you bother me enough." :lol:

 

[had8ley]

Of course, the other likely way for UP to retract their demands is a change in corporate leadership.

The last forty years have seen vast changes in corporate ownership (and leadership) in the freight rail sector. If that's all that was required to give Amtrak a fighting chance then our passenger rail network would presumably have resolved these sorts of conflicts and complications long ago. Instead Amtrak remains just as impotent today as it was back when it was first formed. Perhaps even more so. A change in the status of a few corporate charters might finally change things around, but I think we all know that's never going to happen.

I'm talking about UP changing their corporate philosphoy from the one they have now (or had back in the 2000s) to one similar to BNSF, which is much friendlier to Amtrak and passenger rail in general.

Now I'm confused....whenever has the UP had a friendly hand out for Amtrak ??? They can hang all the banners they want about not delaying Amtrak but whoa to the rev pax if freight biz ever picks back up to mid-90's levels. Just when was the UP Amtrak friendly?; I would think their $750 mil daily Sunset nonsense would tell you something and it ain't open arms...

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Of course, the other likely way for UP to retract their demands is a change in corporate leadership.

The last forty years have seen vast changes in corporate ownership (and leadership) in the freight rail sector. If that's all that was required to give Amtrak a fighting chance then our passenger rail network would presumably have resolved these sorts of conflicts and complications long ago. Instead Amtrak remains just as impotent today as it was back when it was first formed. Perhaps even more so. A change in the status of a few corporate charters might finally change things around, but I think we all know that's never going to happen.

I'm talking about UP changing their corporate philosphoy from the one they have now (or had back in the 2000s) to one similar to BNSF, which is much friendlier to Amtrak and passenger rail in general.

Now I'm confused....whenever has the UP had a friendly hand out for Amtrak ??? They can hang all the banners they want about not delaying Amtrak but whoa to the rev pax if freight biz ever picks back up to mid-90's levels. Just when was the UP Amtrak friendly?; I would think their $750 mil daily Sunset nonsense would tell you something and it ain't open arms...

So UP is being a *****? So what, back out of this plan? I'm not going let that happen.

If traffic ever gets back up to mid-90s levels, then there's going to be less delays because there's more capacity, due to the Sunset Route double-tracking.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

So UP is being a *****? So what, back out of this plan? I'm not going let that happen. If traffic ever gets back up to mid-90s levels, then there's going to be less delays because there's more capacity, due to the Sunset Route double-tracking.

It's not about UP "being a *****" so much as it's about them following in the footsteps of Southern Pacific before them. This battle against the Sunset Limited has been going on for decades and the number of friends Amtrak still has in congress has been shrinking for almost as long. Even before routinely attacking Amtrak became the new cause célèbre of a major political party, Amtrak's record of standing up to Union Pacific was dismal at best. In today's financial and political climate Amtrak has no bargaining chips left with which to negotiate a more amicable resolution. UP is being hard on Amtrak because they know they hold all the cards at this point.

 

[jis]

I think the issue regarding UP is a matter of striking the right deal with them. UP appears to be quite friendly to Amtrak California these days, and naturally there was some money involved in getting there. The question is how much money would be involved and whether at the end of the day that is considered a win-win.

If anyone is thinking that UP or anyone else is going to change their operating philosophy easily, keep dreaming, that won;t happen. Whatever happens will happen through adult negotiations and not through throwing tantrums, threats and sulking. There has to be something in it for everyone for a deal to be self-sustaining and successful.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think the issue regarding UP is a matter of striking the right deal with them. UP appears to be quite friendly to Amtrak California these days, and naturally there was some money involved in getting there.

Even with all their myriad budget problems, California still has the kind financial and regulatory clout that the rest of Amtrak could only dream of having. UP plays ball with California because they know California has the ability and the willingness to cause them pain if they don't. Amtrak has no such leverage or ability. Let's look at this another way. If you were a UP executive in charge of operating rights negotiations, what possible reason would you have for lowering your demands to whatever miniscule sum Amtrak can actually afford to pay you? Even if you were simply a UP stockholder there is no benefit to you if UP agrees to give Amtrak a fair shake. Better to simply demand a figure that Amtrak can never hope pay and absolve yourselves of ever having to deal with additional traffic again.

 

[bretton88]

Beg to differ. California has no "prior right" over the UP. My friends at Caltrans are helpless to do anything over the rr. Money played a big role in their cooperation, specifically 350 million of it. The biggest problem is not the UP, it's that Amtrak hasn't even tried to bargain with them and negotiate that price down to a reasonable one. Amtrak has legal authority to force the UP to go before the STB and accept Amtrak service. And as for the "friendly" BNSF, all you have to do is look at their 550 million $ demands to do an extended Heartland Flyer to realize they aren't much better.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Beg to differ. California has no "prior right" over the UP. My friends at Caltrans are helpless to do anything over the rr. Money played a big role in their cooperation, specifically 350 million of it. The biggest problem is not the UP, it's that Amtrak hasn't even tried to bargain with them and negotiate that price down to a reasonable one. Amtrak has legal authority to force the UP to go before the STB and accept Amtrak service. And as for the "friendly" BNSF, all you have to do is look at their 550 million $ demands to do an extended Heartland Flyer to realize they aren't much better.

I was of the understanding that while California did not have any direct influence over ROW or scheduling authority and the like, they did have indirect regulatory authority over things like emissions standards that were capable of causing their own kind of pain. That's not to say that California always got their way. UP is still free to challenge or simply ignore California's position on any number of disputes. I'm just saying that it's not as bad as the scorched earth negotiating position that much of Amtrak's network is faced with when attempting to negotiate for new services. I'm curious as to which cards you think Amtrak still has left with which to bargain against UP when it comes to new service? Even assuming Amtrak decides to get the STB involved, how much do you believe Amtrak could afford for a one-time schedule change? I'm guessing it's far less than whatever UP would be willing to accept. Unless the STB can force UP to keep lowering the fee until Amtrak is able to pay it I don't see much leverage here.

 

[bretton88]

If Amtrak can come up with a reasonable price, the STB can force the UP to take it.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

I think the issue regarding UP is a matter of striking the right deal with them. UP appears to be quite friendly to Amtrak California these days, and naturally there was some money involved in getting there. The question is how much money would be involved and whether at the end of the day that is considered a win-win.

If anyone is thinking that UP or anyone else is going to change their operating philosophy easily, keep dreaming, that won;t happen. Whatever happens will happen through adult negotiations and not through throwing tantrums, threats and sulking. There has to be something in it for everyone for a deal to be self-sustaining and successful.

Exactly. I'm thinking that Amtrak and UP can negotiate to a deal that benefits them both. Of course, I'd like to know if that $750 million asking price is for just track rental, or for capacity upgrades. I'm thinking that the price can be reduced, but Amtrak will have to make some capacity upgrades to the route and keep some padding in (but not as much as there is now). For instance, I'd reduce the layover in SAS to about 3-4 hours, more than Amtrak's proposed 1 hour, but less than the current 9-10 hour layover.

And I would have LAX-NOL thru cars, but the setup would be a lot easier to switch than what exists now.

Most of the capacity improvements would be:

Adding a full-length siding at every station (assuming there isn't one there already), giving Amtrak trains the ability to pull over and get out the way when making their stops. I'm pretty sure UP would love to legally pass Amtrak. :lol:

Restore the route into Pheonix to bring back service to that place AND take Amtrak off the Sunset Route for some hundred-odd miles. Cost would probably be $1 million/ mile for Class IV track (based on costs on the Downeaster Expansion), plus extra money to rebuild bridges and make grade-crossing improvements. In addition, the restored track gives UP an extra route for their trains, allowing some degree of directional running in the Phoenix area. This track, or at least the abandoned western portion, would be owned by Amtrak, giving them control over the route.

If I could, I would phase the project, probably starting with returning the Sunset Limited to its pre-super-padding schedule and reconfiguring the Texas Eagle thru cars. Then, daily service could be phased in for the biggest markets.

If UP is asking for another track along the route, then Amtrak might as well use that extra capacity to run a multi-daily corridor service between LAX-TUS and SAS-NOL.

 

[jis]

If Amtrak can come up with a reasonable price, the STB can force the UP to take it.

Yes. In principle Amtrak actually has more statutory power than California can ever dream of having. But it is also almost impossible for Amtrak to exercise such meaningfully unless the en-route states are on board. This is necessary both for the exercise of that power to be politically palatable and also to actually come up with the necessary money that will inevitably be part of the equation for a final deal. Dreaming of getting Amtrak to enhance service through a state where there is zero or negligible local political support is just that, a nice dream at best.

The PRIIA studies and the initial outrageous amounts demanded by the railroads involved, are just a starting gambit in the process. For it to go anywhere from here there needs to be discernible political support for each project from at least a significant plurality of state enroute. Then again Amtrak (and NARP for that matter) seem to be ambivalent about doing even low cost enhancements like the through cars from Pennsylvanian to the Capitol at Pittsburgh. So I don't know what to make of it all.

Anyway, for example, I surmise that a Silver service down FEC will happen before Sunset becomes daily as things stand right now. And that because of push from local interests rather than because Amtrak wants to do anything. In general Amtrak does not want to do anything regarding LD trains unless directed to do something by the Congress AFAICT. Though I must admit that the single level car order was a welcome deviation from the general pattern. That may be suggestive of how desperate the situation is regarding baggage and diners, which where preponderance of the order is.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes. In principle Amtrak actually has more statutory power than California can ever dream of having. But it is also almost impossible for Amtrak to exercise such meaningfully unless the en-route states are on board.

In other words Amtrak's power is largely theoretical and almost completely unenforceable without assistance from the individual states. This sort of arrangement works well enough in pro-rail states and along pro-rail corridors. However, on route like the Sunset Limited that crosses a series of states that are either indifferent or overtly anti-rail, Amtrak finds itself unable to leverage even the most fundamental of mandates. Would you agree?

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Then again Amtrak (and NARP for that matter) seem to be ambivalent about doing even low cost enhancements like the through cars from Pennsylvanian to the Capitol at Pittsburgh.

Why would that be? Especially with NARP, who are notably fans of LD trains?

Anyway, for example, I surmise that a Silver service down FEC will happen before Sunset becomes daily as things stand right now. And that because of push from local interests rather than because Amtrak wants to do anything. In general Amtrak does not want to do anything regarding LD trains unless directed to do something by the Congress AFAICT. Though I must admit that the single level car order was a welcome deviation from the general pattern. That may be suggestive of how desperate the situation is regarding baggage and diners, which where preponderance of the order is.

Yeah, I agree about local support. Perhaps the 4th and 5th largest cities in the nation would want better rail service, regardless how "car-oriented" people say they are. I've been hearing people's reports that even in Houston, people are getting tired of having to drive around everywhere. But that seems to be more of local transportation issue than a intercity one. Still, I bring it up because people will use the "we like driving cars" argument. Still, I'd imagine that the states along the route would want more than one train per day. So corridor service is a possibility.

On that, this project and President Obama need to be as separate as possible. This project is much more likely to fly if it is seen as a project Texas and the other states' residents want, not something out of Washington. And by all means, unless the tracks are being upgraded to handle speeds of 125 mph or more, then this project MUST not be named high-speed rail.

(The exact project I'm thinking of is a combination of the daily Sunset and several multi-day corridors along the route. It'd be more expensive, but those communities would be getting for their money by spreading the fixed costs.)

 

[George Harris]

Beg to differ. California has no "prior right" over the UP. My friends at Caltrans are helpless to do anything over the rr. Money played a big role in their cooperation, specifically 350 million of it. The biggest problem is not the UP, it's that Amtrak hasn't even tried to bargain with them and negotiate that price down to a reasonable one. Amtrak has legal authority to force the UP to go before the STB and accept Amtrak service. And as for the "friendly" BNSF, all you have to do is look at their 550 million $ demands to do an extended Heartland Flyer to realize they aren't much better.

I was of the understanding that while California did not have any direct influence over ROW or scheduling authority and the like, they did have indirect regulatory authority over things like emissions standards that were capable of causing their own kind of pain. That's not to say that California always got their way. UP is still free to challenge or simply ignore California's position on any number of disputes.

California has their Public Utilities Commission (the CPUC) which has sections that are regarded as regulating railroads. However, they have found that these are toothless due to interference with Interstate Commerce issues. That is to say, US Federal Railraod Administration requirement preempt the CPUC. This issue has been through the courts.

 

[AlanB]

Exactly. I'm thinking that Amtrak and UP can negotiate to a deal that benefits them both. Of course, I'd like to know if that $750 million asking price is for just track rental, or for capacity upgrades. I'm thinking that the price can be reduced, but Amtrak will have to make some capacity upgrades to the route and keep some padding in (but not as much as there is now).

Essentially the amount covers double tracking the entire route from LA to San Antonio; this despite the fact that more than half is already done. In other words UP wants Amtrak to pay for work already completed. Additionally it includes money for the PTC system that UP must install under Federal law within the next few years.

And there is probably a bit thrown in simply to compensate UP for the fact that what Amtrak pays them for passage doesn't cover the actual costs of allow Amtrak to run on the tracks. In fact, that's probably part of the logic behind wanting Amtrak to pay for the double tracking already done.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Exactly. I'm thinking that Amtrak and UP can negotiate to a deal that benefits them both. Of course, I'd like to know if that $750 million asking price is for just track rental, or for capacity upgrades. I'm thinking that the price can be reduced, but Amtrak will have to make some capacity upgrades to the route and keep some padding in (but not as much as there is now).

Essentially the amount covers double tracking the entire route from LA to San Antonio; this despite the fact that more than half is already done. In other words UP wants Amtrak to pay for work already completed. Additionally it includes money for the PTC system that UP must install under Federal law within the next few years.

And there is probably a bit thrown in simply to compensate UP for the fact that what Amtrak pays them for passage doesn't cover the actual costs of allow Amtrak to run on the tracks. In fact, that's probably part of the logic behind wanting Amtrak to pay for the double tracking already done.

If Amtrak is going to pay for PTC in the next few years, isn't that something Amtrak will have to pay for anyway, regardless if the Sunset Limited was daily or not?

Yeah, I'd call out on UP for double-charging Amtrak for double-tracking. Any information on how much of the Sunset Route has been double-tracked?

Also, I've heard that double-tracking between Sierra Blanca and San Antonio won't be necessary because most traffic goes north on the ex-T&P line to Dallas, Paralleling I-20.

However, the route between SAS and HOU will have to be double tracked, because congestion maps I've seen show that the railroad is at capacity.

Trackage rights shouldn't involve paying for the whole thing over again. It's like having to pay full price for a house when you're only renting it.

 

[AlanB]

If Amtrak is going to pay for PTC in the next few years, isn't that something Amtrak will have to pay for anyway, regardless if the Sunset Limited was daily or not?

Amtrak isn't going to have to pay for PTC on that route if things remain as they curently are. Even if Amtrak were to stop running the Sunset, something that I'm not suggesting, UP must still install PTC. If UP fails to install PTC on that route, then they'll have to stop running trains with hazardous materials on those tracks. And since they are required to carry those materials, that means a very long expensive rerouting via tracks that do have PTC.

Yeah, I'd call out on UP for double-charging Amtrak for double-tracking. Any information on how much of the Sunset Route has been double-tracked?

As I mentioned, I believe that a little more than half has been done. George may have a better handle on just how much.

 

[alanh]

Just a note that UP is actively working on double-tracking again. I just drove along the Sunset line from Maricopa to Casa Grande, AZ. Crews were out working on the track today. The rails are in place but it looks like the second track isn't quite done yet. The signals are still turned away from the track.

There's not much going on between Casa Grande and Tucson, though. The second track was graded out and the culverts widened a while ago, but there's no ballast or rails.

 

[had8ley]

Of course, the other likely way for UP to retract their demands is a change in corporate leadership.

The last forty years have seen vast changes in corporate ownership (and leadership) in the freight rail sector. If that's all that was required to give Amtrak a fighting chance then our passenger rail network would presumably have resolved these sorts of conflicts and complications long ago. Instead Amtrak remains just as impotent today as it was back when it was first formed. Perhaps even more so. A change in the status of a few corporate charters might finally change things around, but I think we all know that's never going to happen.

I'm talking about UP changing their corporate philosphoy from the one they have now (or had back in the 2000s) to one similar to BNSF, which is much friendlier to Amtrak and passenger rail in general.

The only change that you're going to see in the immediate future at the UP is the operating ratio needed to run trains. CSX has announced that they're aiming for 65%~ the UP seemed content with 75% (and some of the cuts at 75% were outrageous) but will not be outdone by a smaller RR. Sooo...in order to have a "perfect" RR they can't have a pax train, that creates little revenue, in the way of double stacks that create monstrous revenue and profits for the share holders. Another $750 mil would have the shareholders celebrating for years. BTW, I just sold my UP stock... Warren Buffett bought the right RR; I look for him to suck up the KCS anyday now. :help: