Short Overnight Routes?

[BCL]

Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996. They can refuse to allow access or charge whatever they deem necessary to make "improvements" to provide access, see UP's $800M demand to make the Sunset daily. That would not have been permissible while the original legislation was in effect. Now, UP can bar Amtrak from Tehachapi if it wants to, and it does. In general, that is a major reason why it is so difficult to resume service on a line once it has been lost.

BTW, BNSF has a trackage rights agreement with UP that is long-standing and dates from the late 1800s or early 1900s between SP and AT&SF. BNSF does not need "special permission" to operate over Tehachapi. The trackage rights were negotiated as part of the transfer of the line between Mojave and Needles from the SP to the Santa Fe. I understand now there is more BNSF traffic over Tehachapi than UP.

I bet that the State of California, if it really wanted it could get access for its trains on Tehachapi. They have enough leverage with UP and BNSF to make such things happen. But for now it is not clear that such access worth the number of chits they will have to cash in for it.

They keep on talking about it. It's in the latest California Rail Plan.

http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_Copy_2013_CSRP.pdf

UPRR Mojave Subdivision, Kern Junction to Mojave (Tehachapi Trade Corridor) (1)

UPRR as owner and BNSF as tenant operate on this primary freight corridor through the Tehachapi Mountains. Seventy percent of the freight volume transported over this corridor originates in the Central Valley.

BNSF has been concerned about capacity constraints and their impact on future freight growth, because its trains that operate over this route tend to be more service-sensitive. BNSF routes intermodal trains from the Port of Oakland and northern California over the Tehachapi Mountains to connect with their TRANSCON mainline in Barstow. As such, this location has also been identified as a constraint to growth of rail services to the Port of Oakland. The route through the mountains includes steep grades, extreme track curvature, and a single track through the majority of the corridor. Train volumes on this line are high, and are projected to approximately double, which will exacerbate existing capacity issues.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2012 Kern County Infrastructure Report Card, the Tehachapi Trade Corridor has a rating of “At Capacity,” indicating no room to serve increases in traffic. Improvements on this route have been approved to receive support under California’s TCIF, and will include double-tracking, siding extensions, and signal system upgrades. Additional information on this project is provided in Chapter 9, Freight Investment Program.

Of course it's more than just the Tehachapi Loop. However, it looks like the state might chip in some funds because the freight traffic is limited due to this chokepoint.

 

[Seaboard92]

With that route I'm sure if the state wanted the service the state could get it. Look at North Carolina for example they are putting millions of dollars into the NS north south main line to add a few extra trains. NS benefits big time from the private public partnership. NS has to deal with a handful of trains, and the rest of the time it helps speed up their trains, and add capacity for them. So I could see if the state wanted it, the railroads could be sold on the idea.

 

[BCL]

Man - this is bringing back memories of all the companies I dealt with during my part time job at a shipping company in San Francisco. It was a who's who of companies that have merged and where the names disappeared. I remember names like ATSF, Burlington Northern, Contrail, Denver Rio Grande, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, and Southern Pacific.

My various jobs included tracking containers and processing vendor invoices. It was interesting making calls to automated systems via phone; there was no tracking via internet. The most interesting thing I did was hand deliver a check to Southern Pacific at the San Francisco headquarters at One Market.

 

[afigg]

With that route I'm sure if the state wanted the service the state could get it. Look at North Carolina for example they are putting millions of dollars into the NS north south main line to add a few extra trains. NS benefits big time from the private public partnership. NS has to deal with a handful of trains, and the rest of the time it helps speed up their trains, and add capacity for them. So I could see if the state wanted it, the railroads could be sold on the idea.

You need to take a look at the terrain in the Tehachaphi mountains. Fairly steep in change of elevation from the San Joaquin Valley to the Mojave desert floor with the mountain range in between. Makes for expensive projects to add tracks to the winding route through the mountains.

The Bakersfield to the Mojave desert segment through the Tehachapi mountains is going to be perhaps the biggest engineering challenge and possibly the most expensive segment for the CA HSR system to build. I don't have the Bakersfield to Palmdale EIS and alternative documents in front of me, but IIRC, the alternatives include 10 to 15+ miles of tunnels with up to 6% sustained grades through those mountains. An HSR EMU trainset can handle 6% grades; mile long freight trains? not so much.

 

[jis]

Just to give you some perspective on the 6% grade, for the Hudson Tunnels Amtrak and NJT were having a huge argument for having a grade greater than 2%, with NJT opposing it. Finally Amtrak won thus reducing the cost of the project by some..

 

[MARC Rider]

Short overnight trains are a nice thought, but the invention of the jet airplane spelled their doom. Why should a businessman spend a night on a train when he can get to his destination in an hour or two on a plane and eliminate any overnights away from home? Fast, daytime trains in the 400-500 mile range are the future of passenger railroading. Everything else is just a quaint remnant of earlier times.

Even the shortest flight takes a minimum of 4-5 hours door-to-door, especially during busy travel periods when security lines are backed out the door. (I missed a flight last summer when I arrived at the airport 1 and a half hours ahead of flight time. By the time I got through security and ran up to the gate, I could see my plane pushing back. So from now on, I'm arriving 2 hours early.)

So you want a full workday out of town, eh? Arrive at 8 AM means you have to be out of the house by 4 AM, which means you need to get up at least a half hour early. Then you work all day, and it's 4:30 (but who works only an 8 hour day nowadays, plus it might be a good idea to have a couple of drinks with your colleagues, and may get dinner, etc. So you might not be ready to leave until 6:30 or 7:30, so you're not home until close to midnight. I don't know about others, but a full workday out of town for me means at least one night in a hotel, if only to preserve my sanity.

I've done WAS-Anne Arbor (MI) overnight trips on 29/30 to/from Toledo with the Thruway Bus connection to Ann Arbor. Works fine, I was in Anne Arbor by 8:30 AM, and the bus came around 8 PM, so I had enough time for a full day in town. Of course, coming back on 30 didn't get me in DC until lunch time, but one can work on the train, so it's not all a negative.

The main problem with this route is the lack of schedule reliability.

 

[jis]

To some extent it depends on whether one likes to sleep on a train or not. If there are late evening flights available my general preference is to fly late evening, overnight in hotel and arrive fresh for work. And as it turns out, it is cheaper than Amtrak sleeper overall too.

 

[Anderson]

To some extent it depends on whether one likes to sleep on a train or not. If there are late evening flights available my general preference is to fly late evening, overnight in hotel and arrive fresh for work. And as it turns out, it is cheaper than Amtrak sleeper overall too.

On the one hand I like sleeping on the train; on the other hand, I'll note that it sort of depends on the market. In some of the insanely expensive hotel markets (SFO is the most glaring, but there are some others...NYC, LAX, etc. which aren't far behind at the last minute) the value proposition flips (or you have to stay well outside the city center). Of course, there are also plenty of markets where the hotels are super-cheap.

 

[BCL]

To some extent it depends on whether one likes to sleep on a train or not. If there are late evening flights available my general preference is to fly late evening, overnight in hotel and arrive fresh for work. And as it turns out, it is cheaper than Amtrak sleeper overall too.

On the one hand I like sleeping on the train; on the other hand, I'll note that it sort of depends on the market. In some of the insanely expensive hotel markets (SFO is the most glaring, but there are some others...NYC, LAX, etc. which aren't far behind at the last minute) the value proposition flips (or you have to stay well outside the city center). Of course, there are also plenty of markets where the hotels are super-cheap.

San Francisco does have an issue with geography. I'm guessing that a lot of people don't associate it with trains as one would of NYC, Chicago, or even Los Angeles. Train station settings in movies or TV might have a little something to do with the public consciousness.

 

[neroden]

Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996.

This is just false; I'm not sure who's been spreading this false rumor, but I'd like you to stop spreading the rumor, because it's a lie.

I've gone through the law with someone who actually knows it. All railroads -- including those which didn't join Amtrak -- are required to allow Amtrak access to ANY LINE WHATSOEVER, including lines which didn't have passenger service in 1970.

The catch, of course, is *how much the railroad can charge for access*, which is nearly unregulated now. The *rate regulation* on lines which had passenger service in 1970 is what expired in 1996 (or possibly earlier). Basically the private railroads can put up prohibitive go-away prices, like UP asking for $750 million dollars for the daily Sunset Limited. Amtrak *can* go to the STB to dispute the charges, but Amtrak doesn't want to do that except in extreme cases, since the Class Is are well known for sabotaging Amtrak dispatching in an hard-to-prove manner. And there is no clear, objective rule regarding how much the Class I can charge in such a case.

The other thing which ended in 1996 or before was the quality-of-service guarantee. Amtrak still has a legislated right of priority at junctions, but the Class Is have no obligation to maintain the track to any standards; if it's 10 mph track, they can say "Sure, Amtrak may run on this at 10 mph, and we'll charge a billion dollars for it".

The right of access is granted to Amtrak by current law, and only to Amtrak -- not to any other commuter rail or passenger rail operators. The class Is can outright refuse other operators access. But for Amtrak, they are required by law to grant Amtrak access -- but not at any particular price. They could just demand, like Dr. Evil, "ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS". ;-)

The only other issue which is related to the original 1970 act is that railroads which agreed to join Amtrak were relieved of all their obligations to provide intercity passenger service themselves -- including obligations imposed locally and not by the federal government. (Railroads in the Northeast had their obligations to provide commuter service removed later, in 1983. Many other railroads had their state & local passenger service obligations removed by bankruptcy courts.) Railroads which *didn't* join Amtrak were *not* relieved of their passenger service obligation, and may still have an obligation to provide passenger service themselves (not via Amtrak) if it's required by state law, or by their charters, or by the conditions of easements (since it's not required by the federal government). I don't think a case has ever been filed over this; it would be hard to find an example, and there may not be any examples.

 

[Carolina Special]

Do the charges for access to Amtrak from the freight railroads have to be periodically renegotiated (likely upwards) every few years? Or do these rates apply until Amtrak wants to change the service, such as with the daily Sunset example?

 

[BCL]

Do the charges for access to Amtrak from the freight railroads have to be periodically renegotiated (likely upwards) every few years? Or do these rates apply until Amtrak wants to change the service, such as with the daily Sunset example?

https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/AMTRAK%20Access%20Fees%20(Final%20redacted3).pdf

While Amtrak does make track usage payments to owning freight railroads, it does not pay an "access fee" for such use. The Railroad Passenger Service Act of 1970 grants Amtrak priority access to freight railroads' rights-of-ways and requires that Amtrak compensate owning freight railroads only for the incremental cost (rather than a negotiated market cost) associated with accommodating intercity passenger services over their tracks.

 

[BCL]

The law is as follows, although I'm not sure if it's still in effect:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf

SEC. 402. FACILITY AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS.

(a) The Corporation may contract with railroads or with regional transportation agencies for the use of tracks and other facilities and the provision of services on such terms and conditions as the parties may agree. In the event of a failure to agree, the Interstate Commerce Commission shall, if it finds that doing so is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, order the provision of services or the use of tracks or facilities of the railroad by the Corporation, on such terms and for such compensation as the Commission may fix as just and reasonable, and the rights of the Corporation to such services or to the use of tracks or facilities of the railroad or agency under such order or under an order issued under subsection (b) of this section shall be conditioned upon payment by the Corporation of the compensation fixed by the Commission. If the amount of compensation fixed is not duly and promptly paid, the railroad or agency entitled thereto may bring an action against the Corporation to recover the amount properly owed.

(b) To facilitate the initiation of operations by the Corporation within the basic system, the Commission shall, upon application by the Corporation, require a railroad to make immediately available tracks and other facilities. The Commission shall thereafter promptly pro- ceed to fix such terms and conditions as are just and reasonable.

So it's not quite so cut and dry that a railroad can bar Amtrak from using its tracks. They're supposed to come to a reasonable agreement (yeah right).

 

[BCL]

OK - to add on, Section 402 was modified by Congress in 1973, but so far I can't find anything that shows the complete law. The amendments are as follows:

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/93/146.pdf

Well - it looks like this part was repealed and replaced with a different law (49 USC 24308).

§ 24308. Use of facilities and providing services to Amtrak

(a) General Authority.—(1) Amtrak may make an agreement with a rail carrier or regional transportation authority to use facilities of, and have services provided by, the carrier or authority under terms on which the parties agree. The terms shall include a penalty for untimely performance.

(2) (A) If the parties cannot agree and if the Surface Transportation Board finds it necessary to carry out this part, the Board shall—
(i) order that the facilities be made available and the services provided to Amtrak; and
(ii) prescribe reasonable terms and compensation for using the facilities and providing the services.
(B) When prescribing reasonable compensation under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Board shall consider quality of service as a major factor when determining whether, and the extent to which, the amount of compensation shall be greater than the incremental costs of using the facilities and providing the services.
(C ) The Board shall decide the dispute not later than 90 days after Amtrak submits the dispute to the Board.

(3) Amtrak’s right to use the facilities or have the services provided is conditioned on payment of the compensation. If the compensation is not paid promptly, the rail carrier or authority entitled to it may bring an action against Amtrak to recover the amount owed.

(4) Amtrak shall seek immediate and appropriate legal remedies to enforce its contract rights when track maintenance on a route over which Amtrak operates falls below the contractual standard.

(b) Operating During Emergencies.— To facilitate operation by Amtrak during an emergency, the Board, on application by Amtrak, shall require a rail carrier to provide facilities immediately during the emergency. The Board then shall promptly prescribe reasonable terms, including indemnification of the carrier by Amtrak against personal injury risk to which the carrier may be exposed. The rail carrier shall provide the facilities for the duration of the emergency.

(c ) Preference Over Freight Transportation.— Except in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this subsection. A rail carrier affected by this subsection may apply to the Board for relief. If the Board, after an opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of title 5, decides that preference for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation materially will lessen the quality of freight transportation provided to shippers, the Board shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on reasonable terms.

 

[BCL]

Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996. They can refuse to allow access or charge whatever they deem necessary to make "improvements" to provide access, see UP's $800M demand to make the Sunset daily. That would not have been permissible while the original legislation was in effect. Now, UP can bar Amtrak from Tehachapi if it wants to, and it does. In general, that is a major reason why it is so difficult to resume service on a line once it has been lost.

I had a look at the current law, and it looks like the terms were changed in 1994 with a large omnibus transportation bill. Back then they mentioned the ICC as the agency that could make the decision. Somewhere that was changed to the STB, although I can't quite find out where.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1758rs/pdf/BILLS-103hr1758rs.pdf

This is what I found about your example:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2010/09/03/is-a-daily-quot-sunset-limited-quot-worth-750-million.aspx

Here’s how I suspect this story will play out: His past behavior suggests that Amtrak President Joe Boardman has no stomach whatsoever for confrontion. So don’t count on his negotiating with UP’s chief executive, Jim Young. Odds are that Amtrak will take this to the Surface Transportation Board for adjudication. The STB will take a sword and cut the baby in half, ruling that Amtrak must make some capital improvements but nowhere near the $750 million. And about the time the Obama girls graduate from college, you and I will be able to enjoy daily service on the historic Sunset Limited.

I suppose the big deal is that "quality of service" (I think this means for the host railroad) is factored if it goes to the STB for a decision on reasonable compensation. I guess UP was claiming that it would cost them $750 million - minus whatever incremental cost there would have been for maintenance or improvements needed for the additional passenger service.

What I gather this means for the Tehachapi Loop is that UP could possibly get compensation for a reduced quality of theirs and BNSF's service. However, California is looking to spend to improve this rail corridor - primarily to help with the current freight congestion. So perhaps after that happens, Amtrak won't necessarily be on the hook.

 

[neroden]

Yeah, officially the host railroads are supposed to charge "reasonable rates" for access, but there's no definition of "reasonable", which makes it an obnoxious fight. UP would certainly say that $750 million for upgrades plus whatever for operations was a "reasonable rate".

Boardman doesn't want to get into that kind of fight, because the Class Is have the ability to retaliate in an illegal but hard-to-prove manner by sabotaging dispatching.

 

[neroden]

I had a look at the current law, and it looks like the terms were changed in 1994 with a large omnibus transportation bill. Back then they mentioned the ICC as the agency that could make the decision. Somewhere that was changed to the STB, although I can't quite find out where.

There's a law called the ICC Termination Act. After removing a bunch of the powers of the ICC, it has a clause which replaces all remaining references to the ICC with references to the STB. The STB is basically the ICC under another name, with fewer powers; I think it even inherited the same commissioners, though I don't remember for sure.

 

[Anderson]

The other issue is what comprises "incremental" improvements needed? On a horridly under-utilized branch line I suspect the answer is "How fast do you want your train to actually be able to go?" (e.g. if you're happy with a train that can only do 39 MPH...you might need your head examined but you could probably run a service for next to nothing; almost all of the improvements in the NCH report, for example, had to do with runtimes and not pure access issues) On a packed mainline where a 79-90 MPH passenger train is going to be "bumping into" mineral trains capped at 50 MPH all over the place, the answer may be not too far off of "just build yourself a spare track in the ROW and we'll let you onto the mainline for a few passing moves or if there's somewhere the extra track is truly impractical" (this is where NS is with an additional Pennsylvanian and about where UP was on the Daily Sunset).

I guess the question is, in various cases, what the freights would demand if an Amtrak train was to be run as a super-high priority intermodal (e.g. same operating speeds except to make up for a station stop or other delay)? That's a lot slower than Amtrak can manage right now, but at the same time the Amtrak train wouldn't be tearing a massive rip in a string diagram. I know this is undesirable and I consider the question to be an intellectual exercise and nothing more, but it comes to mind all the same.

 

[BCL]

I looked over the law again, and I believe I misinterpreted what "quality of service" meant. It likely means the expected service that Amtrak receives.

There are also a lot of references to the RPSA of 1970 as well as amendments of 1973. However, it looks like it was scrapped in 1994 and replaced with language that was effectively the same language.