How Much Do Railroads Get Paid For Carrying Amtrak?

[PaTrainFan]

Is there any knowledge on how much the freight railroads are compensated for carrying Amtrak trains? Is this publicly disclosed? I would have to think it is, somewhere. Do they actually turn a "profit" on it or do they barely break even on costs, or even lose money? The perception is that the freights would be more than pleased to see Amtrak go away, but if that happened would it have any effect on their bottom line?

 

[zephyr17]

The agreements are confidential.

However, it must be based on "avoidable costs" that the railroad would not incur if not handling Amtrak, per the Federal law that established Amtrak and relieved railroads of their common carrier obligation to provide passenger service.

Performance incentives and exactly how each railroad and Amtrak determine "avoidable costs" is confidential between the parties.

Bottom line, Amtrak isn't generally a profit center. The performance incentives do contribute, but not that much.

In California, the JPA has negotiated higher rates with UP for preferred access to the Cal P line between Sacramento and the Bay Area. So the Capitol Corridor trains run with pretty good on time performance. So money does talk.

The avoidable cost based access rate and mandated access is available only to Amtrak under current law. That is one of the hurdles of other companies getting into the business. I shudder to think of what UP is charging Rocky Mountaineer.

It is also why some lines become endangered. Service to Phoenix was discontinued because SP stopped using the Phoenix West line, so all maintenance costs became "avoidable" and Amtrak would have become wholly responsible for them had they decided to continue service on the line.

A similar situation applied to Raton, since BNSF does not use it, but BNSF reached an agreement with Amtrak and the states that if they would fund capital improvements to reduce maintenance costs, BNSF would continue to maintain the line. They didn't have to do that. I am not sure if that was purely an act of good corporate citizenship, or a desire to keep the Chief off the Transcon, or some of both. Amtrak has the legal right to force access to the Transcon, since it hosted passenger service in 1970, BTW.

As it stands, the current route of the California Zephyr is quietly endangered. UP really does not use the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and the Salt Lake area. The only through trains running on it now are the Zephyr itself and one BNSF trackage rights train. The thing that is keeping it open is UP's desire to keep BNSF off the Overland Route. BNSF trackage rights were a condition of the UP-SP merger.

 

[neroden]

In more hospitable states, when the Class I freight railroads don't want to maintain a line, they use this avoidable costs situation to push it at the state government -- option 1, pay a lot in avoidable costs for us to maintain it, option 2, buy it and maintain it yourself with ownership.

The eastern half of Amtrak's Michigan line was pushed at the Michigan state government by NS in this way -- they pretty much said "buy it, we won't maintain it any more". That had an excellent outcome. NY and Amtrak acquired various line segments from CSX, CN, and formerly Conrail, under similar situations. I would hope that Colorado would be open to buying the California Zephyr route if similar circumstances applied.

However, by contrast, the state of Arizona was unwilling, at the time the Phoenix line was downgraded, to buy the line.

 

[zephyr17]

I would hope that Colorado would be open to buying the California Zephyr route if similar circumstances applied.

Well, kind of doubtful since the really lightly trafficked part that is endangered is west of Grand Junction and so mostly in Utah.

 

[jis]

It would be fun to watch UP give trackage rights to BNSF across Sherman Hill to compensate for abandoning the Moffat Route if it comes to that.

 

[Cal]

or a desire to keep the Chief off the Transcon

I thought they offered Amtrak over the transcon?

 

[zephyr17]

I thought they offered Amtrak over the transcon?

They did quite a few years ago, but when the last brouhaha over the Chief blew up under Anderson, BNSF said they didn't want a reroute.

 

[neroden]

Well, kind of doubtful since the really lightly trafficked part that is endangered is west of Grand Junction and so mostly in Utah.

Then I'd hope Utah would buy it but it does seem much less likely.

But this makes me ask: What on earth is the freight traffic east of Grand Junction?

- The branch to Montrose doesn't look like it has much online business -- one lumber company?
- The branch on the North Fork of the Gunnison River goes to coal mines which are shutting down (one already shut down).
- The branch to Steamboat Springs & Craig serves two coal mines which aren't shutting down *yet*. But they will soon. - The Tennessee Pass branch seems to be out of service except for American Gypsum.
- There seems to be nothing along the mainline.

West of Grand Junction, there's the potash company and the nuclear cleanup at Moab (the nuclear cleanup should end eventually).

Is there actually any sustainable freight traffic along this line at ALL? I don't think one gypsum mine, one potash mine, and one lumber company are going to pay the maintenance on this line. I was looking for a copper or other metal mine, or intermodal, or something.

Unless I've missed a major metal mine, it looks to me like the entire line will become an albatross for UP pretty soon. And Colorado may have to buy the part east of Grand Junction.

 

[zephyr17]

It isn't exactly the most heavily trafficked line, but right now there is some traffic. The mines on the Craig branch are probably the primary online traffic source right now. Traffic is light enough in the middle that PTC has not been installed between Grand Junction and Mounds where the Sunnyside branch takes off and Amtrak can still run the Zephyr despite lack of PTC. Not sure about the traffic base there, Sunnyside has a landfill that used to be rail served, but not sure if there still is rail traffic. Up until the late 1990s, Weber and Salt Lake Counties shipped waste by rail there. Don't disagree that the entire former D&RGW appears to have thin prospects under UP. Although I wouldn't entirely rule out BNSF taking it if UP ever did decide they had no more use for it. Most of D&RGW's traffic in the 20th Century was bridge traffic, not so much traffic generated on line.

 

[frequentflyer]

Ironic, since the 90s BNSF wanted Amtrak to move the Chief over to the transcon and now BNSF says "no". Good one Amtrak, good one. And I bet the costs for running the Chief are higher since they are the only traffic for the most part on the historic line.

Back in the late 80s or early 90s there was a BNSF article in Trains Mag that stated Amtrak was their most profitable customer when ran on time. At that time Amtrak had built in on time bonuses, but I think they have been removed. Presently, 3 and 4 time keeping is good not great, but probably better than the other LD services.

If you want railroads to take LD Amtrak trains seriously, gonna have to make it worth their while. You can fine them or give them bonuses for on time arrivals, which one do you think the DS will respond too ( a Z train is not going into a siding for an Amtrak train). If Amtrak wants to to be treated like UPS, JB Hunt and Schneider, then its going to have pay like money. And no, railroads do not care what was agreed upon two generations ago in 1971.

 

[zephyr17]

And no, railroads do not care what was agreed upon two generations ago in 1971.

They may not care about it, but avoidable cost access fees and mandated track access remain Federal law. It really doesn't matter how old the law is.

The railroads play games with avoidable cost, such as saying they needed to double track the Sunset route at a cost if $800 million to let the Sunset run daily, but they do abide by the law. They don't have to like it.

And clearly they needed double track for their own traffic, since they largely double tracked since anyway.

 

[WWW]

Then I'd hope Utah would buy it but it does seem much less likely.

But this makes me ask: What on earth is the freight traffic east of Grand Junction?

- The branch to Montrose doesn't look like it has much online business -- one lumber company?
- The branch on the North Fork of the Gunnison River goes to coal mines which are shutting down (one already shut down).
- The branch to Steamboat Springs & Craig serves two coal mines which aren't shutting down *yet*. But they will soon. - The Tennessee Pass branch seems to be out of service except for American Gypsum.
- There seems to be nothing along the mainline.

West of Grand Junction, there's the potash company and the nuclear cleanup at Moab (the nuclear cleanup should end eventually).

Is there actually any sustainable freight traffic along this line at ALL? I don't think one gypsum mine, one potash mine, and one lumber company are going to pay the maintenance on this line. I was looking for a copper or other metal mine, or intermodal, or something.

Unless I've missed a major metal mine, it looks to me like the entire line will become an albatross for UP pretty soon. And Colorado may have to buy the part east of Grand Junction.

West of Grand Junction, there's the potash company and the nuclear cleanup at Moab (the nuclear cleanup should end eventually).
Is there actually any sustainable freight traffic along this line at ALL? I don't think one gypsum mine, one potash mine,

This is the line that is being used by the Rocky Mountaineer - spur off of Crescent Junction (I70 & US191).
The RM must be pure gravy to UP as the infrequent short train which can take to any siding and is strictly a daylight operation poses no threat to freights.
Another couple of months and the RM operation is a wrap for the season

 

[Barb Stout]

A similar situation applied to Raton, since BNSF does not use it, but BNSF reached an agreement with Amtrak and the states that if they would fund capital improvements to reduce maintenance costs, BNSF would continue to maintain the line. They didn't have to do that. I am not sure if that was purely an act of good corporate citizenship, or a desire to keep the Chief off the Transcon, or some of both. Amtrak has the legal right to force access to the Transcon, since it hosted passenger service in 1970, BTW.

What is the route for the Transcon that you are referring to here?

 

[zephyr17]

What is the route for the Transcon that you are referring to here?

Through Amarillo, Clovis, Belen. Would depart from current route at Dalies southwest of Albuquerque on the west end, and either Ellinor west of Emporia or Newton on the east end. If Newton, Newton could be retained as a stop and Wichita added.

Albuquerque would be missed. They could either run the train up to Albuquerque from Dalies, wye it, and run it down to Belen, or do a Thruway bus connection from Belen.

 

[Barb Stout]

Through Amarillo, Clovis, Belen. Would depart from current route at Dalies southwest of Albuquerque on the west end, and either Ellinor west of Emporia or Newton on the east end. If Newton, Newton could be retained as a stop and Wichita added.

Albuquerque would be missed. They could either run the train up to Albuquerque from Dalies, wye it, and run it down to Belen, or do a Thruway bus connection from Belen.

Missing ABQ would be terrible.

 

[zephyr17]

Missing ABQ would be terrible.

Well, they'd either run the train up to Albuquerque, then back down, there is a wye there they could use (or at least there was a few years ago). That would probably add 2 or 2 1/2 hours of running time. Or there would be a Thruway bus connection. One issue is Albuquerque is a service and water stop. I doubt Belen still has water facilities since the last passenger trains through there were the last San Francisco Chiefs on May 1, 1971. I also understand the track layout at Belen has changed.

 

[neroden]

It would require extremely minor track improvements to run the train up from Belen to Albuquerue (the wye needs rehabilitation, that's all). Running along the Wichita - Amarillo - Clovis route, *with* Albuquerque, would take about the same amount of time as running along the current route, and have a lot more online population.

The stops which would be lost east of Albquerque and west of Garden City, KS are pretty much nothing, some of the lowest-ridership stops on the entire system, especially now that Santa Fe has the RailRunner connection to Albuquerque. The occasional Boy Scout trip doesn't amount to much. However, Garden City, Dodge City, KS, and Hutchinson, KS have significant ridership and would be a serious loss.

If I had a free hand to design the route structure, I would run the Southwest Chief via Wichita, Amarillo, and Clovis, and Albuquerque; then I would run a train from Denver to Pueblo to Garden City, Dodge City, Hutchinson, and Wichita, and onward to either Kansas City or to Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. But that's a fantasy map. :sigh: