When I moved to San Antonio there were at least three major railroads serving our city. Missouri Pacific (est. 1851), Missouri–Kansas–Texas (est. 1870), and Southern Pacific (est. 1865). As the Clinton administration worked hard to codify Regan's regressive playbook of perpetual deregulation all of these century old railroads were eventually swallowed by the once tiny Union Pacific. Here in 2011 UP's network and influence is large enough and powerful enough that there is virtually nothing Amtrak can do to seriously entice (or threaten) UP into allowing new or substantially improved passenger rail services. Although there are rules and regulations that can force UP's hand in theory, in actual practice they are rarely used to any serious effect. If you didn't know better you might think America needs a healthy UP a lot more than UP needs a healthy America. Sure, there may be some additional adjustments allowed here and there, but for the most part UP is simply running out the clock on nationwide passenger rail in America.
That's interesting to know Jim! I figured the slow speeds were mostly due to the curved tracks and never realized it was any sort of struggle for a modern four thousand horsepower locomotive to cross with a handful of passenger cars. Assuming that one P42 is still operative, would it have been possible to simply disengage the traction system on the borrowed freight locomotive and run at full speed during the 99% of the route that is essentially flat? Or are there technical and/or rule based issues preventing that?
This.
UP is running intermodals along the Sunset route and has been double tracking the route over the past decade. They just don't want to deal with Amtrak any more than they have to.
This is also true of the Metra Trains that UP runs. I ride the West Line daily and it is always late going into Chicago or coming home...UP simply doesn't care and wishes Metra would go away as well!
And Amtrak would still be paying their below market track access rates. So in effect UP is still subsidizing Amtrak (in comparison to what they could be getting for that premium slot, Amtrak is considered the equivalent of a Z train). And I'm not sure if Amtrak has tried negotiating the 750 million down. It sounds like Amtrak just threw up their arms and said forget it.
Glad we got the melodrama out of the way right at the start. :lol:
I don't think you'll find a single AU member who doesn't think UP should be paid fairly for any additional interruption on the part of Amtrak. We just don't see how a single daily train should cost Amtrak anywhere near $750 million taxpayer dollars. Isn't that a bit like saying Amtrak should foot the bill for 25% of the double tracking work for less than 1% of the routes tonnage? And if so how exactly is that a reasonable proposition?
Ah, we're back to the melodrama again. :giggle:
Do you have a source for that? I'm not even sure what "market rates" would be when there is no other potential passenger rail customer and thus no market to speak of. There is certainly no "Z" train and since we're apparently talking about Vegas I would like you and Eagle628 to explain why UP doesn't owe Amtrak anything after the American taxpayer paid UP for double tracking Amtrak has yet to be allowed to use.
Z train=intermodal train. I know that's BNSF's code, UP's is something similar.
Erm, about those sources...
If UP wants to run another train along the Sunset route then how exactly would a single daily Sunset Limited run prevent that? We're not talking about a capacity restricted route here, at least not yet or in this context. Around here it's more likely to be a lack of refreshed manpower that prevents a train from running, not some overwhelming deference to Amtrak. The double track that is already in progress will add capacity while helping to cut down on delays due to track work and on fuel spent restarting diverted trains.
Fair enough, I'm trying to track down where I read that. In the mean time I'd still like to hear what you think about the $750 million "offer" UP made to Amtrak for a one-time change in the schedule of a single train on a single route representing less than 1% of the routes total tonnage. God forbid Amtrak has to make another schedule change down the road and pay UP another $750 million. :wacko:
This post just above might have something to do with it:
Nobody is demanding "unlimited access to their tracks", just a fair deal Amtrak shouldn't have to pay the rates for a premium train unless it's displacing one, which it isn't.
The issue is more complicated than is being made out to be here.
See above. One thing that it is not is "wacko".
Just curious.... how do you know what UP runs or not in those slots on the Sunset off days? How do you know what the crossing sidings situation is where additional crossings will have to be carried out if it became a daily train?
So how exactly does one or two slots per day on a route that is below capacity and becoming less saturated over time equal $750 million? Who else has a record of paying a fee of that size for a one time schedule change involving one or two slots along a single route? I'm not surprised UP would try to stick the American taxpayer for $750 million, I'm just surprised anyone would think that's a reasonable good faith offer for a single schedule change to a single train on a single route.
You mean the part where people quoted Union Pacific's own staff explaining that they and their organization couldn't care less what happens to Amtrak's performance? If you really want to refute that report then maybe you could start with some pro-Amtrak quotes attributed to current UP staff that will help clear the air and set the record straight as it currently stands.
PRR did not actually refute the contention that Union Pacific is indifferent to Amtrak's performance or is unwilling to negotiate in good faith with terms Amtrak has any chance of meeting. In PRR's view there are other railroads that are even worse than UP. That's good to know but I don't see how that contention changes anything with regard to the allegations made against UP. If the only way you can defend the actions of a given company is to bash the actions of other companies, well, that's not much of an actual defense in my book.
You have carefully elided the explanation I gave you as to what is going on, which I have learned talking to people in the know, and then you circle back to your original observation. This suggest to me that you are not trying to develop an understanding of what is happening and then figure out what is a workable solution within the context of the current situation. UP is not trying to stick anything to anyone. It is trying to make it worthwhile for their business to enter into an additional obligation which they per se do not need as a matter of business, and have presented a first negotiating position. However, your implicit preconceived hostility towards UP can understandably make it difficult for you to see it that way.
Good emotional flourish. Yes one guy said so. But net net UP is not out of the norm in living upto contractual terms than anyone else. Could the overall situation be better? I am sure it could. But for that the general tenor of how transport contracts are handled on rail needs to change, specifically as they apply to relationship with passenger haulers. There are examples out there, as mentioned by me earlier, even involving UP where very productive cooperation has been in place between Amtrak California and UP. That could be used as a blueprint to try to handle this one. Amtrak IMHO has not bothered to make a full scale attempt to see what could be negotiated yet.
Actually UP at present is near the top on the best side of the equation. This has not always been the case and they have been much much worse in the past. Union Pacific needs to live upto the contract that they have. It does not matter whether they do it indifferently or enthusiastically. If they don't live upto the contract that they have entered they should be pulled up for it and due action taken, as has been threatened on occasion in the past. Additionally, In entering new contracts it should do so keeping the interest of its owners in mind. They run the business for their owners and their customers.
With all due respect Sir, your own credibility in this particular discussion is a bit dubious itself. As a UNP shareholder, you're certainly not in a position to be slinging arrows at others about their lack of impartiality in this discussion.jis said:
Attributing your insights to the situation by vaguely alluding to contact with "people in the know" is equally underwhelming and specious.jis said:
I seriously doubt that the UP is running at 100% capacity along that line the other 4 days a week. If you've got information that suggests that, I'm all ears.
I think it's improbable, but not implausible, that $750 million is what it would cost UP to handle a daily Sunset. UP began their double-tracking project before a daily Sunset began being seriously considered, so I suppose it's possible that a daily Sunset really does throw their capacity projections off enough that they would have to build $750 million worth of new sidings to handle it.
