State-sponsored train observations, questions

[DaveKCMO]

i've ridden a lot of amtrak's system lately and am working with the group who's trying to get service expanded in kansas. so, here are my questions and observations about how various states handle their sponsored routes (note: i'm sure a lot of these things are decided by legislatures and DOTs, but wanted to check anyway):

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

2) does anyone have any info or experience with the cost of on-board services? for example, is it more cost-effective to have cart service (wisconsin), a full cafe car (missouri), or just give away snacks so that no employees are needed (north carolina)?

3) does amtrak have a say over whether a quiet car or business class are implemented on a state-sponsored route?

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

that's all for now. i'm sure i'll come up with more later.

dave

 

[George Harris]

i've ridden a lot of amtrak's system lately and am working with the group who's trying to get service expanded in kansas. so, here are my questions and observations about how various states handle their sponsored routes (note: i'm sure a lot of these things are decided by legislatures and DOTs, but wanted to check anyway):
1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

It is part of the requirement that the state provide the equipment.

2) does anyone have any info or experience with the cost of on-board services? for example, is it more cost-effective to have cart service (wisconsin), a full cafe car (missouri), or just give away snacks so that no employees are needed (north carolina)?

Have no idea

3) does amtrak have a say over whether a quiet car or business class are implemented on a state-sponsored route?

It is state supported, remember. The state can do whatever they are will to pay for.

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

Only that the DMU must meet FRA crashworthiness requirements. The 1950's era RDC do. The so far not very successful Colorado Rail Car diesel cars do. The European and Japanese built diesel cars do not. There is a lot of noise being made that it is impractical to build a FRA compliant car, but I do not believe it. I think they do not want to because if they do, then people in other places will be saying why are you building us a less safe car when you can do better?

 

[Rafi]

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

Only that the DMU must meet FRA crashworthiness requirements. The 1950's era RDC do. The so far not very successful Colorado Rail Car diesel cars do. The European and Japanese built diesel cars do not. There is a lot of noise being made that it is impractical to build a FRA compliant car, but I do not believe it. I think they do not want to because if they do, then people in other places will be saying why are you building us a less safe car when you can do better?

Which reminds me... there seem to be a fair number of RDC sets in fairly good condition sitting in commuter yards around the country (MARC's yard in Brunswick, MD comes to mind), and I know in MARC's case, they'd be happy to unload them for a fair price. I have no idea if the cost of purchasing old RDC's like that and then completely gutting them is cheaper than purchasing new cars from Colorado Rail Car, but it may be something to consider.

-Rafi

 

[Rail Freak]

i've ridden a lot of amtrak's system lately and am working with the group who's trying to get service expanded in kansas. so, here are my questions and observations about how various states handle their sponsored routes (note: i'm sure a lot of these things are decided by legislatures and DOTs, but wanted to check anyway):
1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

2) does anyone have any info or experience with the cost of on-board services? for example, is it more cost-effective to have cart service (wisconsin), a full cafe car (missouri), or just give away snacks so that no employees are needed (north carolina)?

3) does amtrak have a say over whether a quiet car or business class are implemented on a state-sponsored route?

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

that's all for now. i'm sure i'll come up with more later.

dave

This new hobby of mine is deeper than I anticipated! But that's just fine!!!!!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

Amtrak simply doesn't have the equipment to do it any other way. In terms of availible short-distance passenger equipment, Amtrak has 347 30+ year old Amfleet cars, and 97 20 year old Horizon cars. That is the extent of the non-powered short distance equipment Amtrak currently has. In addition to that, they have 141 long distance Amfleet cars of about 28 years of age, and variously aged, 161 Superliner coaches. All but 133 of these cars are past their intended service age, and haven't been maintained as well as they should be to boot. It is a testment to the build quality of Budd and Pullman that they remain on the road at all. On any given day a surprising number of these cars are out for repairs or maintnence. Its not that it makes financial sense, it is that it is the only option.

2) does anyone have any info or experience with the cost of on-board services? for example, is it more cost-effective to have cart service (wisconsin), a full cafe car (missouri), or just give away snacks so that no employees are needed (north carolina)?

All of them cost a ton of money. Cafe service would probably be the idea for encouraging ridership.

3) does amtrak have a say over whether a quiet car or business class are implemented on a state-sponsored route?

If the state wants them, they get them.

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

Nothing other than the limited selection of such cars on the US market. Amtrak probably doesn't want to touch CRCs with a ten foot pole, and I don't blame them.

 

[AlanB]

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

It is part of the requirement that the state provide the equipment.

It absolutely is not part of the requirement that the state provide the equipment. Oklahoma did not provide the equipment for the Heartland Flyer, Maine did not provide the equipment for the Downeaster, Michigan does not provide equipment, nor do Wisconson or Illinios. I believe that Michigan did help to pay for some of the conversion of the F40's to cabages, but I don't believe that they actually own them fully. Amtrak must use them on the Michigan routes, but again I don't believe that Michigan owns them. North Carolina only owns the equipment used on the Piedmont, Amtrak supplies the equipment on the Carolinian.

California owns much of the equipment used, but by no means all of it. The State of Washington owns half the Talgo fleet, Amtrak owns the rest.

Now it may be more cost effective for a State to own it's own equipment and they get a better say in what type of equipment is used, if they own it.

But it is not a requirement at all.

 

[AlanB]

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

Amtrak simply doesn't have the equipment to do it any other way. In terms of availible short-distance passenger equipment, Amtrak has 347 30+ year old Amfleet cars, and 97 20 year old Horizon cars. That is the extent of the non-powered short distance equipment Amtrak currently has. In addition to that, they have 141 long distance Amfleet cars of about 28 years of age, and variously aged, 161 Superliner coaches. All but 133 of these cars are past their intended service age, and haven't been maintained as well as they should be to boot. It is a testment to the build quality of Budd and Pullman that they remain on the road at all. On any given day a surprising number of these cars are out for repairs or maintnence. Its not that it makes financial sense, it is that it is the only option.

If the new trains was to go to single level equipment, and/or if they took the Heartland Flyer to single level and continued that on into Kansas, then Amtrak does have the equipment. They'd probably make Kansas pay for the needed work on the 40 or so mothballed Amfleet I cars that need major inspections done, but those cars could easily cover the service that Kansas is considering.

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

Nothing other than the limited selection of such cars on the US market. Amtrak probably doesn't want to touch CRCs with a ten foot pole, and I don't blame them.

You have got to be kidding. Amtrak wanted to buy CRC DMU's for use on the Hiawatha's and for the Springfield shuttles. And it was Amtrak that was behind Vermont looking at the CRC DMU's as a way to cut the costs to the State of Vermont. I'm not sure if this is a wise choice on Amtrak's part, but all indications are that they would love to get their hands on a bunch of CRC DMU's.

 

[como]

i've ridden a lot of amtrak's system lately and am working with the group who's trying to get service expanded in kansas. so, here are my questions and observations about how various states handle their sponsored routes (note: i'm sure a lot of these things are decided by legislatures and DOTs, but wanted to check anyway):
1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

2) does anyone have any info or experience with the cost of on-board services? for example, is it more cost-effective to have cart service (wisconsin), a full cafe car (missouri), or just give away snacks so that no employees are needed (north carolina)?

3) does amtrak have a say over whether a quiet car or business class are implemented on a state-sponsored route?

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

that's all for now. i'm sure i'll come up with more later.

dave

Dave, I can't answer any of these questions. Take a look at the Missouri Dept. of Transportation's passenger rail site. They have (or had) a number of pdf versions of studies of rail service in Missouri. A few of these go into detail on equipment, frequency of service, etc. They may provide some answers.

 

[BobWeaver]

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

Word on the streets is that NCDOT has acquired a second trainset and is close to beginning true heavy rail commuter service in and out of Charlotte. As far as NCDOT goes, or any other agency like that, I'm sure that sending up a test balloon with one trainset is wiser than beginning with multiple departures daily and multiple trainsets and then not having the demand be there.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The cheap testing thing doesn't really work, though.

A lot of what you need to attract ridership is high quality track. A cheap test on low quality track is perhaps worse than no passenger train at all.

Frequent service also encourages ridership. That may be a place where DMUs are superior to locomotive hauled trains, because they can be run as single cars with a high frequency if whomever is paying the bills is willing to pay for the extra staff required for that. But then the tracks also need to have the capacity for frequent service (which may imply double tracking or passing sidings depending on exactly what the tracks are used for).

What's the current state of the track in Kansas? Are there exsiting tracks that aren't saturated with freight that would be usable for passenger service?

 

[haolerider]

i've ridden a lot of amtrak's system lately and am working with the group who's trying to get service expanded in kansas. so, here are my questions and observations about how various states handle their sponsored routes (note: i'm sure a lot of these things are decided by legislatures and DOTs, but wanted to check anyway):
1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

2) does anyone have any info or experience with the cost of on-board services? for example, is it more cost-effective to have cart service (wisconsin), a full cafe car (missouri), or just give away snacks so that no employees are needed (north carolina)?

3) does amtrak have a say over whether a quiet car or business class are implemented on a state-sponsored route?

4) is there anything stopping a state from purchasing DMUs and having amtrak operate them?

that's all for now. i'm sure i'll come up with more later.

dave

Have you spoken with Amtrak? They have a department that handles state relationships and they can answer all your questions and then do a feasibility study to determine if service is warranted and would be utilized. Seems to me that you would want to go directly to the source and not solicit opinions of forum members. I would suggest starting with Government Affairs and work your way through the system.

 

[DaveKCMO]

yes, we've spoken to amtrak and will be meeting with them in chicago next month. the track between OKC and newton is all BNSF and is reportedly in good shape (the rest of the route currently supports amtrak). there are a couple of choke points, but i think we've noted those for the DOT and included them in the capital upgrade estimate we're using. i've also reviewed most of what MoDOT has published, but it hasn't really answered all of my questions.

this leads me to my next one:

is there any state that has approved a multi-year authorization for amtrak services? i know about S.294 and its prospects, but i'm curious about state funding. kansas has a constitutional provision that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses to approve funding, so i'm curious if it's others have proven successful in requesting a 2- to 5-year funding package for new services. we'd like to prevent the annual fight that keeps these services from growing and improving (such as the annual house vs. senate fight in missouri).

 

[Amtrak OBS Gone Freight]

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

Word on the streets is that NCDOT has acquired a second trainset and is close to beginning true heavy rail commuter service in and out of Charlotte. As far as NCDOT goes, or any other agency like that, I'm sure that sending up a test balloon with one trainset is wiser than beginning with multiple departures daily and multiple trainsets and then not having the demand be there.

And to add to this Alan, if I am not mistaken I believe that NCDOT owns the right of way between Charlotte and Selma, too.

OBS gone freight...

 

[WICT106]

Well, let me chime in. You could take a page or two from SW Airlines' operations book, and schedule several times per day each way service. Once per day does not work too well in developing this, and other nascent corridors such as the MWRRI. Good luck in your development efforts.

 

[WICT106]

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

Word on the streets is that NCDOT has acquired a second trainset and is close to beginning true heavy rail commuter service in and out of Charlotte. As far as NCDOT goes, or any other agency like that, I'm sure that sending up a test balloon with one trainset is wiser than beginning with multiple departures daily and multiple trainsets and then not having the demand be there.

And to add to this Alan, if I am not mistaken I believe that NCDOT owns the right of way between Charlotte and Selma, too.

OBS gone freight...

OBS is correct. The State of North Carolina owns the tracks outright, I think it is Norfolk Southern that has a 99 year lease on the railroad.

 

[AlanB]

is there any state that has approved a multi-year authorization for amtrak services? i know about S.294 and its prospects, but i'm curious about state funding. kansas has a constitutional provision that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses to approve funding, so i'm curious if it's others have proven successful in requesting a 2- to 5-year funding package for new services. we'd like to prevent the annual fight that keeps these services from growing and improving (such as the annual house vs. senate fight in missouri).

Dave,

Please don't quote me on this, but I believe that Maine did when they first setup the Downeaster. Now that federal funds are running out, I'm not sure what will happen up there. I know that there is plenty of talk on how to find the extra money, but I haven't heard that they've ironed out anything, much less that it's long term.

In addition to Missouri, add Michigan to that list. They go through an annual fight too. I also seem to recall Oregon having annual discussions, but not so much a nail biting fight. I seem to recall Oklahoma going through this initially, but that furor seems to have died down now that the train is a success, not to mention that Texas is now helping out. Not sure about how Texas is handling things and it may well be that their battles are coming, as IIRC Texas is only in its first year of providing funding. At most, they are in their second.

Now I'm not quite sure how California, North Carolina, Washington, or Illinois handle things, but I can't recall hearing about annual battles for funding. It may be that they have long term plans or it maybe that the politicians in those states are just smart enough to know that they need trains and don't bother to fight over the funding.

 

[DaveKCMO]

thanks, alan. i'll watch michigan and oregon. you're correct on oklahoma; i think they still have a fight, but the texas money (new for last year?) has abated much of the heat.

i found an article that says texas is teaming up with some neighboring states ("ark-la-tex") for new service (as well as considering amtrak for an austin-to-san antonio route). anyone know about those efforts?

austin: http://asarail.org/

ark-la-tex: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=21874

 

[jis]

We should add Virginia to the list of states that are funding railroad development for passenger rail. Virginia has already funded improvements between Washington DC and Richmond and Manassas. They are working with North Carolina on the South East High Speed Corridor project which will include reactivation of the old (now abandoned) line between Petersburg and Raleigh (abandoned between Richmond and Norlina) as a high speed line. They are also working with Amtrak to extend an NEC train to Lynchburg. The target Record of Decision date for federal funding of the South East High Speed Corridor is sometime in 2010.

 

[DaveKCMO]

We should add Virginia to the list of states that are funding railroad development for passenger rail. Virginia has already funded improvements between Washington DC and Richmond and Manassas. They are working with North Carolina on the South East High Speed Corridor project which will include reactivation of the old (now abandoned) line between Petersburg and Raleigh (abandoned between Richmond and Norlina) as a high speed line. They are also working with Amtrak to extend an NEC train to Lynchburg. The target Record of Decision date for federal funding of the South East High Speed Corridor is sometime in 2010.

are they subsidizing services? or just paying for capital improvements? i've heard of the lynchburg effort and it sounds like it will be a state-sponsored route.

 

[John Bredin]

Now I'm not quite sure how California, North Carolina, Washington, or Illinois handle things, but I can't recall hearing about annual battles for funding. It may be that they have long term plans or it maybe that the politicians in those states are just smart enough to know that they need trains and don't bother to fight over the funding.

I can say in Illinois that it's (more or less) the latter. Illinois' funding for Amtrak service is part of the State's annual operating budget, so the reason it keeps passing is because it's relatively popular.

If and when Illinois adopts a capital budget, it (1) will be multi-year and (2) might include capital improvements to speed Amtrak trains. Everything about the capital budget is up in the air: everyone wants a capital budget but nobody's figured out how to pay for it, so nobody knows how big the budget will be. :angry:

 

[George Harris]

OBS is correct. The State of North Carolina owns the tracks outright, I think it is Norfolk Southern that has a 99 year lease on the railroad.

The original lease expired a few years back and a new lease, for how long I do not know, is now in effect. The original lease began somewhere around 1896 with Southern Railway System. I was not paying much attention at the time, but havve heard that there was a fairly extended legal fight between the state of NC and NS RR around the time the original lease was coming to an end.

 

[Palmland]

It might be worth talking with the folks at NC DOT. I believe they have a dedicated funding source, but not familiar with details. They also have an outstanding program for upgrading stations, including ones that they may need down the road, but want to preserve them now.

NC does own the tracks the Carolinian and Piedmont use but only from Selma, NC to Greensboro. From Greensboro into Charlotte that is the mainline of the NS and was once double tracked from Washington to Atlanta back in the days of the Southern RR and its passenger train fleet. NC is helping to upgrade that line but doesn't own it. They are also working on adding another frequency between Charlotte and Raleigh using the Piedmont's equipment that is idle between its morning and evening runs.

For a state with a relatively modest population, they have been very aggressive in promoting passenger rail.

 

[George Harris]

NC does own the tracks the Carolinian and Piedmont use but only from Selma, NC to Greensboro. From Greensboro into Charlotte that is the mainline of the NS and was once double tracked from Washington to Atlanta back in the days of the Southern RR and its passenger train fleet. NC is helping to upgrade that line but doesn't own it.

This is incorrect. The state owns the whole thing all the way from Morehead City to Charlotte. Look up North Carolina Railroad.

The dedicated funding source is the lease payments that NS makes to the state for their lease of the whole thing. A lot f the relevant information can be found by going to www.bytrain.org

 

[BobWeaver]

1) does it make more sense financially for the state to own/lease the equipment for amtrak to operate? in california's case, is it simply easier because there are so many frequencies? north carolina's state-owned train only runs once daily, but did they save money doing it that way?

Word on the streets is that NCDOT has acquired a second trainset and is close to beginning true heavy rail commuter service in and out of Charlotte. As far as NCDOT goes, or any other agency like that, I'm sure that sending up a test balloon with one trainset is wiser than beginning with multiple departures daily and multiple trainsets and then not having the demand be there.

And to add to this Alan, if I am not mistaken I believe that NCDOT owns the right of way between Charlotte and Selma, too.

OBS gone freight...

NCDOT (the NCRR) owns the NS right of way from Charlotte through Morehead City. Charlotte > Salisbury > Greensboro > Raleigh > Selma > Goldsboro > New Bern > Havelock > Morehead City.

We should add Virginia to the list of states that are funding railroad development for passenger rail. Virginia has already funded improvements between Washington DC and Richmond and Manassas. They are working with North Carolina on the South East High Speed Corridor project which will include reactivation of the old (now abandoned) line between Petersburg and Raleigh (abandoned between Richmond and Norlina) as a high speed line. They are also working with Amtrak to extend an NEC train to Lynchburg. The target Record of Decision date for federal funding of the South East High Speed Corridor is sometime in 2010.

are they subsidizing services? or just paying for capital improvements? i've heard of the lynchburg effort and it sounds like it will be a state-sponsored route.

Check out this gem: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/studies/files...t%201-25-08.pdf

For a state with a relatively modest population, they have been very aggressive in promoting passenger rail.

Remember that a large part of NC's population (and the areas with the greatest growth) is located within around 30 miles from the route of the Piedmont.

 

[Palmland]

George, thanks for the correction. I never realized the NC RR went on into Charlotte. NC DOT clearly has their act together and would be a good one for other states to study.