Can all LD trains be taken off UP tracks?

[Texan Eagle]

I have often read things being said, and observed it myself too, directly and indirectly that Union Pacific doesn't really like having Amtrak passenger trains on its network. BNSF on the other hand, is relatively warm in letting Amtrak trains on its network. I was wondering, just a random thought, is it technically possible to pull off all Amtrak services from Union Pacific tracks and re-route them via BNSF or any other railroad's tracks without "killing" any service? Assuming a hypothetical situation that this happens, what could be the alternate possible routes, specifically for the five western LD trains- EB, CZ, SWC, TE/SL and CS? Would any of these five routes continue without any change to existing passenger stops? What towns would lose train service and what towns could possibly gain Amtrak service if this is done?

PS: I do not work for BNSF nor do I have any personal grudge against UP. Just a curiosity based question.

 

[the_traveler]

The SL/TE and the CS, not at all!

Maybe portions of other western routes, but not easily.

 

[Trogdor]

1) No.

2) The other railroads don't want Amtrak any more than UP does. Some just manage to handle the existing trains a bit better.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

For that matter, how are the hosts railroads compensated by Amtrak?

 

[Texan Eagle]

Yes yes I know none of the freight railroads would happily accommodate Amtrak trains, but my query is more about wanting to know what alternate routes are available, rather than discussing whether this can actually happen or not. Without getting into the fine details of what is the quality of tracks and whether it has signaling for passenger trains etc, can someone provide some details on hypothetical possible routes for the five Amtrak trains avoiding UP tracks? Assuming that if there is a track existing, Amtrak train can go over it. I am curious to know the route network, not the economic and financial technicalities.

 

[zepherdude]

I do not totally understand what I am asking, but I thought when private Railroads turned over infrastructure to Amtrak in the 1970s and eventually to freight railroads, it was to be a given that Amtrak had total use of the rail system. Why has this become such an issue now? No doubt due to the fact freight is such a huge business and no one wants passenger trains involved with freight. Not to mention safety concerns, extra upkeep and actual room.

Is it possible for congress to revisit the agreements, although, nothing would come of it.

 

[jphjaxfl]

As has been said, there no alternate rail lines from Seattle to Los Angeles. Denver to Oakland, Los Angeles to New Orleans, San Antonio to Temple,Texas. BNSF has the former Texas Chief route from Chicago Fort Worth to Temple to replace the Eagle route. When Amtrak started, the only train on UP was from Denver to Borie Wy to Ogden,UT, but SP and MP were not part of UP, yet.

 

[Trogdor]

I do not totally understand what I am asking, but I thought when private Railroads turned over infrastructure to Amtrak in the 1970s and eventually to freight railroads, it was to be a given that Amtrak had total use of the rail system. Why has this become such an issue now? No doubt due to the fact freight is such a huge business and no one wants passenger trains involved with freight. Not to mention safety concerns, extra upkeep and actual room.

Is it possible for congress to revisit the agreements, although, nothing would come of it.

This comes up frequently on this forum (and elsewhere).

But, the Cliffs Notes version is that the original Amtrak authorization only lasted for 25 years (it expired in 1996). There have been a couple of reauthorizations since then, but the way it works is that Amtrak can't just go up to a railroad and say "we're running a train here, now let us on." Amtrak has to work out contractual agreements with each of the railroads over which it operates, and it is up to Amtrak and the railroad (not Congress, and hopefully we can leave Congress out of it, because otherwise it is guaranteed to be f---ed up) to establish the terms of that agreement.

Railroads can't say "no, go away" to Amtrak, but they can set up "cost to capacity" requirements that basically detail how much capacity they would have to give to Amtrak to operate a given train on a given schedule with a given reliability. This isn't required of any existing train, but it is required for any new train (or reroute of an existing train onto new tracks). This is why UP is able to demand $750 million in order to run the Sunset Limited daily. This is why other railroads can make it difficult or impossible for Amtrak to reroute over their tracks.

 

[Texan Eagle]

This is why UP is able to demand $750 million in order to run the Sunset Limited daily. This is why other railroads can make it difficult or impossible for Amtrak to reroute over their tracks.

Is there no legislation or system in place that can challenge UP's claim and ask them why it would cost $750 million and maybe independently verify if it is indeed going to cost UP that much to allow Sunset Limited to run daily? Or is it upto the freight railroads to come up with a one-sided estimate of how much money they want? It might be possible that the freight railroad is presenting a highly inflated estimate simply because they don't want Amtrak over their tracks.

 

[Ocala Mike]

I do not totally understand what I am asking, but I thought when private Railroads turned over infrastructure to Amtrak in the 1970s and eventually to freight railroads, it was to be a given that Amtrak had total use of the rail system.

No infrastructure was ever "turned over" to Amtrak, and the only "given" (although it wasn't ever committed to in writing) was that the entire Amtrak concept was to have a life span of only a few years. Amtrak today "owns" a little over 700 route miles of trackage, and has "rights" through agreements over the rest of the rail system.

As far as Congress revisiting any of this, I would submit that they have bigger fish to fry right now.

 

[PRR 60]

This is why UP is able to demand $750 million in order to run the Sunset Limited daily. This is why other railroads can make it difficult or impossible for Amtrak to reroute over their tracks.

Is there no legislation or system in place that can challenge UP's claim and ask them why it would cost $750 million and maybe independently verify if it is indeed going to cost UP that much to allow Sunset Limited to run daily? Or is it upto the freight railroads to come up with a one-sided estimate of how much money they want? It might be possible that the freight railroad is presenting a highly inflated estimate simply because they don't want Amtrak over their tracks.

The Surface Transportation Board has the authority to review capacity enhancement needs and costs.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

As far as Congress revisiting any of this, I would submit that they have bigger fish to fry right now.

'Bigger problems' have never stopped Congress from 'toying' with, and micromanaging, Amtrak in the past. Afterall, it is much easier to appear to be solving problems (even if no major problems actually exist) than it is to actually take the bull by the horns, or appear to be doing nothing. :huh:

 

[VentureForth]

I still don't get why daily service on the Sunset gas to cost more than thrice weekly. What upgrades are needed to tub a train exclusively on days it doesn't already? If they need this money, then I suppose the existing Sunset is horribly unsafe on the days it runs. Unless, of course, UP runs many fewer trains when Amtrak is running...

 

[Anderson]

Let's be honest: UP is BSing their way into a "no" answer. They can't refuse it, but they can put terms on the request that are either so good that it would be an offer they can't refuse if they got the offer.

In most other cases, the first request is a negotiating position that may or may not be unreasonable but is something that they'd be willing to work with. However, in the case of UP it's more of a "f*** off".

The freights have varying attitudes on passenger trains, but in general, I believe the governing attitude is "As long as you're not in the way, we don't mind hosting you if the price is right and/or we're not really using the tracks."

 

[Gratt]

Let's be honest: UP is BSing their way into a "no" answer. They can't refuse it, but they can put terms on the request that are either so good that it would be an offer they can't refuse if they got the offer.

In most other cases, the first request is a negotiating position that may or may not be unreasonable but is something that they'd be willing to work with. However, in the case of UP it's more of a "f*** off".

The freights have varying attitudes on passenger trains, but in general, I believe the governing attitude is "As long as you're not in the way, we don't mind hosting you if the price is right and/or we're not really using the tracks."

Has their been any update since UP told Amtrak to get lost over the daily sunset idea? I have heard many complaints on this fourm and many ideas of what if anything Amtrak should do, but since then has anything (in public or otherwise) progressed on this subject?

It seems like Amtrak simply said dang, and moved on with other ideas in other places.

 

[Trogdor]

There has been some movement on the Sunset, but not daily service. Should be more announced in a month or so.

 

[TVRM610]

If UP can't handle 8 extra trains per week on the mainline, I'd say they need to invest in their infrustructure!!!

Norfolk Southern just spent all kinds of money on the "Crescent Corridor" which involved adding passing sidings, straightening curves, and increasing track speeds. They did this because they want to run intermodals faster, and more reliable. It just makes good business sense!

 

[Texan Eagle]

If UP can't handle 8 extra trains per week on the mainline, I'd say they need to invest in their infrustructure!!!

It's not like they can't handle 8 extra trains per week on the mainline, they just don't want to. And that's what my original question was- since UP has decided to be a pain in the posterior for Amtrak, are there absolutely no railway tracks that go from San Antonio area west towards Los Angeles which do not belong to Union Pacific? Any routing, any secondary lines, unused lines, abandoned lines, nothing at all? Seems unlikely considering how vast the network of railway tracks is in almost the entire country when we put everything together- all Class 1 Railroads, other smaller railroads, abandoned lines etc.

 

[DET63]

The SL/TE and the CS, not at all!

Maybe portions of other western routes, but not easily.

The CS runs on BNSF track from SEA to PDX. From PDX south, however, it's almost exclusively UP. There are no or very few miles of alternative routes. I suppose BNSF could be used from SAC south, though that would involve operations over the heavily used Tehachapi Sub, which is UP territory.

In short, Amtrak is stuck with UP on much of the West Coast.

 

[TVRM610]

Let's not forget that CSX is no better! (in my opinion worse, but that's probably cause I love UP for the steam program).

 

[MikefromCrete]

Looking at the BNSF website, it looks like it doesn't directly serve San Antonio, doing so only on trackage rights on the UP. I don't think there's way to get to SAn Antonio via rail except on the UP, so there goes any rerouting of the Sunset.

It also looks like there no's non-UP way between Denver and Emeryville or from Portland to Emeryville, so no reroute for the CZ or CS.

SWC and EB don't utilize any UP trackage.

At the start of Amtrak, there was an alternate way from Denver to Oakland by way of the original CZ routing, Denver and Rio Grande Western and Western Pacific, but since 1971, the UP octopus has eaten up D&RGW and WP along with C&NW, MP and SP.

In this age of seven big freight systems, alternate routes have almost gone away.

 

[ColdRain&Snow]

When I'm on a train stuck in the hole along the UPRR somewhere, I sometimes recollect a memorable excerpt from James McCommons' book Waiting On A Train. He relays a conversation held one day between an Amtrak product line agent/revenue manager at Longview, TX and a Union Pacific executive.

After the Amtrak manager made a comment about how the UP and Amtrak might cooperate to improve the Eagle's OTP, the UP exec responded back emphatically:

"You know Griff, you just don't get it. Amtrak doesn't get it. And maybe you guys will never get it, but we just don't care -- that attitude is instilled in the people running this railroad. It will take a full generation to run it out, and it may just pass on to the next generation.

You need to understand this...if you're right to the minute on time and an ass in every seat, we don't care. If you're nine hours late, and nobody is on the train, we don't care. If you have an engine failure and are stuck, we don't care. If you bring a few million to the table in incentives, we don't care. We're a $3-billion company, it means nothing to us.

So no matter what Amtrak does. No matter what you do, we don't care. WE DON'T CARE."

It's just one UP exec opining, but it was one of the more memorable exchanges from McCommons' book.

 

[acelafan]

But suppose for a moment that Amtrak could move off of UP onto BNSF or other host railroads. What's to guarantee that the same level of "friendliness" will exist for many years to come? Management can change at any time and then Amtrak is back to square 1 with a less-than-friendly host RR.

Seems like it could be a lot of effort for an undetermined amount of gain.

 

[ehbowen]

While there is no alternative to the Sunset Route if you have to serve San Antonio, El Paso, and Tucson, there is BNSF's Coleman Cutoff route which runs Houston-Temple-Brownwood-Sweetwater-Lubbock-Clovis, where it ties in with the Belen Cutoff Transcon. I believe the trackage is still in place to reach Fort Worth and Dallas as well. This route hosted the California Special until July of 1968. When and if the Southwest Chief is ever rerouted onto the Transcon for good, Amtrak might want to look at reviving this route as a connection to Houston, Dallas and potentially New Orleans.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The UP Executive mentioned in "Waiting on a Train" had a attitude much like Southern Pacific management as far back as the 1950s. I had a neighbor who was retired Espee agent. He got in trouble with management in the 1950s for doing too much to promote passenger service in his city. It was either change his attitude toward passenger trains or move to a different railroad.