Bill to Save Southwest Chief

[Paulus]

Related question: has anyone seen published per mile lease/usage fee rates? ie, for a single SWC, what does Amtrak pay to BNSF to run from LAX to CHI, ie, what percentage of the ticket price goes to pay the track fees... don't have any sense at all of even the size of this number - is it insignificant, or is it large enough to be a determining factor in terms of routing and budgeting?

The contracts are confidential but Amtrak averages just a bit over $4 per train mile as of a few years ago.

 

[gmushial]

Related question: has anyone seen published per mile lease/usage fee rates? ie, for a single SWC, what does Amtrak pay to BNSF to run from LAX to CHI, ie, what percentage of the ticket price goes to pay the track fees... don't have any sense at all of even the size of this number - is it insignificant, or is it large enough to be a determining factor in terms of routing and budgeting?

The contracts are confidential but Amtrak averages just a bit over $4 per train mile as of a few years ago.

Many thanks - that's a huge insight. Any sense of NEC or LD routes costing more or less? ... but given your number than it sounds like there's $8k +/- that comes off the top for a CZ from end to end... any sense if these charges are on a per consist basis, or a per car basis, ie, can Amtrak save a little if they have a half empty CZ by dropping an unused coach car or sleeper?

again, many thanks,

greg

 

[jis]

The track charges are per train mile I believe.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[gmushial]

The track charges are per train mile I believe.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

So, there's no way to save money on Amtrak's part if they have a half empty LD train - the track charges are basically a fixed cost item :-(

 

[Ryan]

Why the :-(?

It's a good thing - longer, fuller trains don't cost any more to run (from that perspective, obviously other costs are variable) and bring in a lot more revenue.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.

 

[VentureForth]

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is willing to clear a station in within an agreed window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then eventually you'd risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in our lifetime. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.

And with sidings designed for long freight trains, you would have to be running 40 cars+ before you're even a blink in picking sidings.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the Android Amtrak Forums mobile app

 

[gmushial]

Why the :-(?

It's a good thing - longer, fuller trains don't cost any more to run (from that perspective, obviously other costs are variable) and bring in a lot more revenue.

'Cause if the western LDs are being subsidized by the eastern trains and there is no way to trim costs when the western LDs run half empty, then it might become tempting to reduce the schedule or worse eliminate them/some. ... let's hope the ridership continues to grow and this doesn't come up.

 

[gmushial]

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.

I was thinking that the fees were based on induced costs to the host, ie, wear, ie, x cars produce f(x) wear and 2x cars produce f(2x) wear... though maybe the biggest wear source might be the loco(s). Hadn't considered the cost to the host in terms of the time-domain, but that would also make sense.

thanks - greg

 

[Devil's Advocate]

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.

I was thinking that the fees were based on induced costs to the host, ie, wear, ie, x cars produce f(x) wear and 2x cars produce f(2x) wear... though maybe the biggest wear source might be the loco(s). Hadn't considered the cost to the host in terms of the time-domain, but that would also make sense.

thanks - greg

I doubt most Amtrak hardware is heavy enough or runs often enough to play much of a roll in general wear and tear along much of the nationwide route network. In areas where Amtrak runs dozens of trains per day they obviously represent a much larger fraction of the wear, but those areas are few and far between and if even one full sized freight train passes in an entire day it may cause as much damage to the rails and roadbed as all of the Amtrak trains combined. Even Amtrak's locomotives (and some of their rolling stock) have specialized trucks that cause less wear to the rails than conventional trucks.

 

[gmushial]

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.

I was thinking that the fees were based on induced costs to the host, ie, wear, ie, x cars produce f(x) wear and 2x cars produce f(2x) wear... though maybe the biggest wear source might be the loco(s). Hadn't considered the cost to the host in terms of the time-domain, but that would also make sense.

thanks - greg

I doubt most Amtrak hardware is heavy enough or runs often enough to play much of a roll in general wear and tear along much of the nationwide route network. In areas where Amtrak runs dozens of trains per day they obviously represent a much larger fraction of the wear, but those areas are few and far between and if even one full sized freight train passes in an entire day it may cause as much damage to the rails and roadbed as all of the Amtrak trains combined. Even Amtrak's locomotives (and some of their rolling stock) have specialized trucks that cause less wear to the rails than conventional trucks.

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

You mean like what UP wanted to charge Amtrak to make the Sunset Ltd a daily train?

 

[gmushial]

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

You mean like what UP wanted to charge Amtrak to make the Sunset Ltd a daily train?

An intriguing sentence... but I'm unaware of this situation: can you bring me up to speed on this?

many thanks, greg

 

[AlanB]

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

You mean like what UP wanted to charge Amtrak to make the Sunset Ltd a daily train?

Not really a fair example, as that wasn't a serious offer in terms of actually running the service. That unusual amount came about as a way to simply shut down all talks after Amtrak blew the initial deal.

 

[gmushial]

Maybe I'm the only one here that isn't aware of the details of UP vs. The Sunset Ltd - might somebody that knows, shed some light on said details?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.

I was thinking that the fees were based on induced costs to the host, ie, wear, ie, x cars produce f(x) wear and 2x cars produce f(2x) wear... though maybe the biggest wear source might be the loco(s). Hadn't considered the cost to the host in terms of the time-domain, but that would also make sense.

thanks - greg

I doubt most Amtrak hardware is heavy enough or runs often enough to play much of a roll in general wear and tear along much of the nationwide route network. In areas where Amtrak runs dozens of trains per day they obviously represent a much larger fraction of the wear, but those areas are few and far between and if even one full sized freight train passes in an entire day it may cause as much damage to the rails and roadbed as all of the Amtrak trains combined. Even Amtrak's locomotives (and some of their rolling stock) have specialized trucks that cause less wear to the rails than conventional trucks.

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

Although the specifics are kept a secret I believe the fees themselves represent a maintenance and an operational impact that is difficult to quantify in absolute terms. Running a single daily Amtrak train does represent an opportunity cost as to the scheduling of other trains, but since the host controls the dispatching and must agree to any changes they are able to choose when and how to handle this disruption so that it creates the least possible impact to their own operations. Another consideration is that Amtrak trains can run faster that freight trains and as a result are potentially more likely to have accidents involving fouled crossings or poorly maintained track due to their increased speed and lighter weight. In the case of an accident involving an Amtrak train the liability cost is largely indemnified onto Amtrak's shoulders. That being said the host railroad remains responsible for cooperating with the various regulatory agencies during the post accident period, for rerouting and rescheduling their own trains, and for repairing the track and related infrastructure and returning it to working condition. Some of that cost is likely to be added into the fees involving trackage rights for Amtrak.

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

You mean like what UP wanted to charge Amtrak to make the Sunset Ltd a daily train?

Not really a fair example, as that wasn't a serious offer in terms of actually running the service. That unusual amount came about as a way to simply shut down all talks after Amtrak blew the initial deal.

Maybe I'm the only one here that isn't aware of the details of UP vs. The Sunset Ltd - might somebody that knows, shed some light on said details?

As I recall there was a request by Amtrak for a one time schedule change involving the Sunset Limited. The route would remain the same but the timing would change and the frequency would increase to once per day. In reply to this request UP came back with a fee of seven hundred million dollars. Again, this was for a one time schedule change involving what would become a single daily train. Many of us saw this as nothing more than a middle finger extended in Amtrak's direction. The figure itself was a leak but I don't recall either party challenging the figure after it came out. Union Pacific (and other massive class ones) have been known to play hardball when they perceive themselves as having the upper hand, but the size of this fee appeared to be completely detached from reality. How do you continue to negotiate in good faith after receiving an offer that appears designed strictly to bankrupt you?

 

[AlanB]

Maybe I'm the only one here that isn't aware of the details of UP vs. The Sunset Ltd - might somebody that knows, shed some light on said details?

As I recall there was a request by Amtrak for a one time schedule change involving the Sunset Limited. The route would remain the same but the timing would change and the frequency would increase to once per day. In reply to this request UP came back with a fee of seven hundred million dollars. Again, this was for a one time schedule change involving what would become a single daily train. Many of us saw this as nothing more than a middle finger extended in Amtrak's direction. The figure itself was a leak but I don't recall either party challenging the figure after it came out. Union Pacific (and other massive class ones) have been known to play hardball when they perceive themselves as having the upper hand, but the size of this fee appeared to be completely detached from reality. How do you continue to negotiate in good faith after receiving an offer that appears designed strictly to bankrupt you?

Your recollection is partially correct. Amtrak wanted to run the Eagle daily to LA, run a stub train NOL to SAS to connect with the daily Eagle. A plan that some of us were against.

Amtrak & UP upper level Exec's wrapped up a deal for that plan; only to have some underlings at Amtrak blow the deal while trying to cross the T's and dot the I's. After that, UP came out with its outrageous $750M number to put an end to all further negotiations.

 

[Aaron]

Your recollection is partially correct. Amtrak wanted to run the Eagle daily to LA, run a stub train NOL to SAS to connect with the daily Eagle. A plan that some of us were against.

Running the risk of taking this further off topic, I'm curious as to what about that plan rail fans might have been against. Surely not the daily running... Is it the breaking off of NOL-SAS as the stub train? If so, is just turning the existing routing into a daily train a better option? Does it provide the same equipment savings as the stub train plan in the PIP?

 

[Aaron]

'Cause if the western LDs are being subsidized by the eastern trains and there is no way to trim costs when the western LDs run half empty, then it might become tempting to reduce the schedule or worse eliminate them/some. ... let's hope the ridership continues to grow and this doesn't come up.

A half empty train is going to have the same track costs as a full train, but there are other ways to theoretically save costs when the trains run empty. If Amtrak dropped cars from the consist, they could save on labor costs of attendants, fuel costs, and any mileage related maintenance or wear costs for the cars that aren't running. Of course, that's not likely to happen that often, since it becomes a logistical nightmare with cars not where they need to be and unions crying over their members not working. So, we only really see that kind of thing with the extra cars that get added on some routes seasonally then dropped when the expected demand is over.

 

[AlanB]

Your recollection is partially correct. Amtrak wanted to run the Eagle daily to LA, run a stub train NOL to SAS to connect with the daily Eagle. A plan that some of us were against.

Running the risk of taking this further off topic, I'm curious as to what about that plan rail fans might have been against. Surely not the daily running... Is it the breaking off of NOL-SAS as the stub train? If so, is just turning the existing routing into a daily train a better option? Does it provide the same equipment savings as the stub train plan in the PIP?

Aaron,

I don't think that most rail fans were opposed to the idea, although I never conducted a poll; certainly those in California were not. But I was very opposed to it as it would have killed the Sunset Limited IMHO. There would have been a big revenue loss for the Sunset NOL-SAS with passengers needing to change trains, and currently there is far more ridership west of SAS coming from the Sunset as opposed to the Eagle. I believe that overall revenue would have been greatly impacted by a daily Eagle plan vs. a daily Sunset plan; the latter of which doesn't exist.

And the plan would have brought PRIIA into the equation, requiring that Texas and/or Louisiana fund the stub train since it would have been under the 750 mile limit.

I'm not really sure about equipment; but I believe that it would have required more equipment than either the current plan or the daily Eagle plan. I also didn't like the fact that it would have used extra equipment repaired with Stimulus monies that was originally supposed to have gone to the EB expanding that consist and at least back then, generating far more revenue from said equipment than the daily Eagle would have. Right now with time keeping issues those extra cars might have been a waste.

The big issue here remains the fact that most people near or already coming through Chicago aren't looking for an extra night on the train. Only railfans want that; most people are going to board the SW Chief.

 

[cirdan]

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

Costs delivered to host railroads are not just for wear and tear. I guess wear and tear are but a small part of the costs. Costs also cover the inconvenience of having to accomodate an extra train, congestion this may cause and delays to freight trains as well as the general and overhead costs of planning and accomodating for such trains, paperwork etc.

Think of it like paying for a taxi? What percentage of your taxi fare genuinely covers gas and wear and tear versus general costs of opportunity?

 

[Paulus]

You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.

Costs delivered to host railroads are not just for wear and tear. I guess wear and tear are but a small part of the costs. Costs also cover the inconvenience of having to accomodate an extra train, congestion this may cause and delays to freight trains as well as the general and overhead costs of planning and accomodating for such trains, paperwork etc.
Think of it like paying for a taxi? What percentage of your taxi fare genuinely covers gas and wear and tear versus general costs of opportunity?

Nope. By law Amtrak only pays for incidental MoW; though they've signed for some minor bonuses for OTP. True slot payments are significantly higher (X-Train was around $130/mile iirc).

 

[jis]

When Amtrak was created the host railroads were itching to get rid of their passenger trains and there was oodles of excess capacity. So they had readily agreed to a basic MoW based trackage charge scheme. Of course since then they have shed capacity and demand for capacity has gone up and the results of that are visible in many places. Now they are sort of stuck with the flat rate scheme whereas they would all (ironically even Amtrak on the NEC) dearly love to have a scheme which takes into account opportunity costs and not just maintenance costs. And well here we are with the endless arguments and bickerings that follow from it.

 

[VentureForth]

How did Amtrak muck up the deal?

 

[gmushial]

To all those that have chimed in on this over the last 24 hours: many thanks - clearly yet again demonstrated the very high level of knowledge in this forum - which for the rest of us has provided an opportunity to learn a lot about the inner workings of Amtrak and the rail system in general, ie, don't stop this discussion now... there's still more for the rest of us to learn

Clearly: many thanks,

greg