The Best Days Of Passenger Rail Lie Ahead

[Eric S]

On a note related to the SWC reroute over the transcon, I read on TRAINS' website that the commissioners of Garden City Kansas have allocated $20,000.00 for lobbying in an effort to keep the SWC over Raton Pass. Lamar and La Junta CO have passed resolutions to keep the SWC where it is. Sounds like these towns are taking a similar course of action that the towns in ND took over the Empire Builder's potential reroute away from Devil's Lake. I would think the cost of keeping the SWC where it is would be greater than the cost of keeping the EB where it is, and whether the towns on the SWC route are as successful obviously remains to be seen.

One thing I thought was interesting, and worth noting, is a quote from Garden City manager Matt Allan:

Garden City manager Matt Allen said the remote cities of southwestern Kansas benefit from the daily Chicago-Los Angeles passenger train. "We're fans of passenger rail," he said. "The communities west of Newton [Kan.], we have the highest levels of ridership."

IMHO it is great to see support for Amtrak in a "Red" state like Kansas. Maybe this is obvious, but the benefits to the communities it serves is a major reason why Amtrak has weathered so many threats to its existance.

Also from the article:

Marc Magliari, an Amtrak spokesman, said support from cities like Garden city is helpful as the passenger railroad continues its discussions with BNSF and the impacted states.

I agree with you regarding what seems to be growing support in CO and KS (and NM?) for keeping the Southwest Chief on its current route. Hopefully Garden City (and Dodge City and Hutchinson) elected officials will continue to be vocal in their support of Amtrak service, both publicly and with their contacts in Topeka (and Washington).

 

[afigg]

2) Could Superliners, if there was track to support it, be reworked or redesigned going forward for 125 MPH rating?

The corridor bi-level cars will be 125 mph capable. If/when Superliner IIIs are ordered and delivered, they will be based on the new bi-level spec and will be 125 mph capable. Even though there are no tracks or routes to run them at 125 mph at the current time.

If in 10 years, there are a number of 110 mph corridors in the Midwest and some 125 mph corridors that the Superliner equipped LD trains run on, the simplest solution may be to equip the LD trains that run on the 110 and 125 mph corridors with the Superliner IIIs that have replaced and augmented the Superliner I fleet. The LD trains that don't run on the 110 and 125 mph corridors - AutoTrain, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight?, and why not, new AutoTrain services that were added when gas hit and stayed above $5 a gallon - get the older Superliner I and IIs. Assuming, of course, that a complete set of Superliner III types have been ordered.

Besides, if the Superliner LD trains are restricted to 100 mph over the higher speed corridors, that is not that big a deal. They will have improved trip times over what they have now with many slow segments fixed. As older Superliner get phased out with new 125 mph equipment because the cost of expanding the fleet is modest compared to the cost of upgrading tracks over multiple corridors to 110 and 125 mph speeds, the 100 mph issue fades away.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

2. Daily Sunset Limited - negotiations need to start instead of the parties sitting at their respective corners just glaring at each other.

I hope this isn't a case of unsubstantiated false equivalency.

If/when Superliner IIIs are ordered and delivered, they will be based on the new bi-level spec and will be 125 mph capable.

Just think how slow 125MPH will seem five decades from now when the Superliner III's are finally retired.

 

[AlanB]

What about intericty buses? Why are they not included? I would think that they are quite efficient.

They refuse to provide the data, no doubt because it would make them look bad comparative to the other modes.

 

[AlanB]

Another possibility would be a return of 2 unit Budd cars in the west rated at 110-120 mph. Imagine a service that required just a team of two, engineer and conductor, and possibly a snack car attendant. Would the UTU accept it if they were an expansion of their numbers or would they demand that there be a fireman as well? ;-)

Many Amtrak trains currently operate without a fireman. Basically, if the engineer is going to be out on the road for less than 8 hours, no fireman is required.

 

[AlanB]

I also recall an article claiming that by the year 2030(?) I-95 in southern Florida will need to be something like 25 lanes wide to handle the volume of projected traffic.

They're already up to 12 IIRC, so that 2030 goal is certainly attainable.

 

[PRR 60]

What about intericty buses? Why are they not included? I would think that they are quite efficient.

They refuse to provide the data, no doubt because it would make them look bad comparative to the other modes.

The reason there is no data for intercity buses (and school buses) after 1999 it that the organization that provided it to DOE, the Eno Transportation Foundation, stopped collecting it. It is not a "refusal" by anyone to provide the data. DOE assembles the summary data by mode, but they do not collect and total the data for each mode. They rely on someone else to do that: Amtrak for intercity rail and APTA for transit, for example. Air data is collected by DOT, so DOE gets the data from them. Right now, there is no single group that represents intercity bus transportation and collects fuel use data, so there is no data for DOE to publish.

The last time intercity bus data was published (1999), the energy intensity was under 1000 BTU/PM, by far the lowest energy use of any intercity passenger mode.

 

[Anderson]

Some of the most heavily used bilevel high speed trains would fit within the loading gauge of NEC today. For example, TGV Duplexes are well within the NEC loading gauge, though there may be a slight problem with platform height if they are taken as is.

But the real fact of the matter is that since train lengths on the NEC are so much shorter than the max possible that bi-level is not really necessary as yet, though maybe sometime in the future. Simpler things like the ability to operate two Acela sets in tandem, maxing up Regionals to 12 or 14 cars, and increasing train frequencies, may be more cost effective for now, and possibly for decades to come.

BTW, if you look at world passenger train lengths the except for the Auto Train, all other Amtrak trains are downright puny in terms of length. So that is not a real argument for not converting to single level.

However, given that we have the Superliners and given that going forward we have a standard design for the next gen, and no reason otherwise not to use them on lines with the clearance, I don;t see why anyone would want to convert them.

Now then, prognosticating about LD trains, I suspect the following are likely to happen within the next 5 or so years:

1. Pennsy run through section on the Cap, possibly the number of run through cars growing after inauguration if it catches on.

2. Extension of the Palmetto at least to JAX.

3. Section of at least one Silver service going via the FEC JAX - MIA.

4. Southwest Chief via the Transcon, abandoning Raton Pass Route.

5. Oakland - LAX day train, unless California steps up to provide facility at 4th and Townsend to handle such a train, in which case San Fran to LAX. An example of corridors stitched together to create an LD -ish train.

Less likely but possible:

1. Daily Cardinal - this could happen if Virginia specifically accelerates passing siding work on the BBRR.

2. Daily Sunset Limited - negotiations need to start instead of the parties sitting at their respective corners just glaring at each other.

3. Boston and New York sections of the LSL running as separate trains, perhaps with some NY State and Massachusetts financial support.

4. Resurrected Montrealer, only if both Vermont and Quebec step upto it.

OK, that's my modest list.

On the first batch:

#1 seems almost definite. #3 seems extremely likely in conjunction with some corridor service, and #5 seems almost definite as well. #4 seems more likely than not. However, I haven't heard much (if any) serious talk of #2 on here or elsewhere (though that does surprise me...why was the Palmetto cut back from JAX to SAV?).

On the second batch:

#1 seems most likely. I don't see #2 happening, period.

#3 is plausible...but the problem is the small size of the Boston section. If you put a diner onboard it and joined it with one of the other Buffalo-bound Empire trains, however, you might be able to extend that (and effectively get a second NYP-CHI train on a different schedule in the process).

#4 is interesting. Is there a chance that Quebec might look into subsidizing some sort of operations here? You also raise a glaring point: Quebec wins from a Boston-Montreal train (for example), but I haven't seen much talk other than generic "we like this idea" talk from their end. The big thing there would be, IMHO, getting a Montreal-bound train operating either from somewhere south of NYP or that offered sane connections to somewhere south of NYP.*

*Actually, there might be a way to do this "on the cheap"...if Quebec was interested and the equipment made available, a sleeper and a coach could be run from 66/67 to the Adirondack. I'm not sure of the movements involved, but the idea might work. Clunky timing, yes. Also, if you could restore the old Meteor departure from NYP and get a ten hour Adirondack timetable, you could launch a 7-ish AM MTR departure and run a through car. Messy timing in Penn, yes, but it's at least there on paper.

 

[Anderson]

I also recall an article claiming that by the year 2030(?) I-95 in southern Florida will need to be something like 25 lanes wide to handle the volume of projected traffic.

They're already up to 12 IIRC, so that 2030 goal is certainly attainable.

Hmmm...as far as traffic goes, if you dedicate a given strip of land to passenger rail versus to an interstate, I'm wondering what the comparative capacities are in terms of passengers per day.

 

[afigg]

Now then, prognosticating about LD trains, I suspect the following are likely to happen within the next 5 or so years:

1. Pennsy run through section on the Cap, possibly the number of run through cars growing after inauguration if it catches on.

If the Pennsylvanian through section gets enough business, might possibly be enough to result in the restoration of the Three Rivers in some form with better equipment than it used to have. If PA is interested in a second daily PHL-PGH frequency (or 3rd by the time a Three Rivers resumption is floated), wonder if Amtrak could get PA to contribute to a Three Rivers LD train?

2. Extension of the Palmetto at least to JAX.

3. Section of at least one Silver service going via the FEC JAX - MIA.

Extending the Palmetto to JAX would make for a very long day train. Unless it provides a connection of some sort to a FEC corridor service, a Palmetto to JAX might not provide that much utility. At that long a distance, may be better to add some sleepers, baggage-dorm and extend it overnight on the FEC to Miami.

Less likely but possible:

1. Daily Cardinal - this could happen if Virginia specifically accelerates passing siding work on the BBRR.

Provided there are not major cuts to Amtrak subsidies this fall as a result of the election, I would give strong odds on the Cardinal going daily. Amtrak will have the Viewliners they need in several years. With NYP-WAS-CVS growing as a corridor, VA could use a daily Cardinal to provide daily afternoon service options to CVS. VA might also see utility in improved direct VA service from CVS to WV and to a lesser extent Chicago.

There is political support in WV for daily Cardinal service. Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) is the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He has called for daily Cardinal service to his district multiple times. if the Democrats win the House this fall, Rahall is in line to become the Chairman of the committee in place of Chairman Mica. When the Chairman of a powerful House committee wants some small or medium sized projects that benefits his district, he usually gets what he wants.

There is the additional complication of Indiana state support for the Hoosier State by the start of FY14. VA is putting up 70% of the funds to fix up the Buckingham Branch. VA may be willing to put up 70% of the funds to extend some sidings to 8500' or longer on the BB, the question who provides the matching 30%? Depending on the cost of extending the sidings, Amtrak might be wise to kick in the 30%.

2. Daily Sunset Limited - negotiations need to start instead of the parties sitting at their respective corners just glaring at each other.

UP is continuing to build out the double tracking from LA to El Paso; UP is also getting considerable federal and state money for track and flyover projects in CA. As the double tracking approaches completion, UP can't demand $750 million any more. Amtrak could restart the process of negotiation for a daily SL with more leverage. Maybe a high ranking politician could point out to UP that it had not been for Gadsden Purchase which was mostly done for the rail ROW, they would not have a rail line there. Some debts last a very long time.

3. Boston and New York sections of the LSL running as separate trains, perhaps with some NY State and Massachusetts financial support.

Is there enough ridership from BOS to ALB to CHI to support a stand-alone LD train? The slow trip times from BOS to ALB are a major hindrance on this service. BOS to SPG will eventually see improvements, but SPG to ALB higher speed upgrades are not on the agenda. Two separate LD trains would speed both up though with the time savings in ALB by eliminating the splitting up and combining the consist.

4. Resurrected Montrealer, only if both Vermont and Quebec step upto it.

VT is not going to provide state funding for an overnight train that goes through VT in the middle of the night. The Vermonter would get extended to Montreal on a daytime schedule and stay called the Vermonter.

 

[George Harris]

. . . the cost of expanding the fleet is modest compared to the cost of upgrading tracks over multiple corridors to 110 and 125 mph speeds, the 100 mph issue fades away.

And it is not just upgrading tracks. It is alignment modifications. That is the primary reason that the Northeast Corridor cannot get much faster than it is now. They have just about squeezed all they can out of a line with multiple curves that was upgraded over a period of many years with 80 mph being the target speed.

For the long distance lines that will be even more of an issue. It is not just finding ways to straighten out curves, it is also adding tracks to make operation over a wider range of speeds among trains practical.

 

[George Harris]

Do a search for Specification for PRIIA Bi-Level Passenger Rail Car. What you should come up with should be PRIIA Specification No. 305-001 Amtrak specification No. 962 Revision B Release Date: January 24,2012. It runs 588 pages.

You will see 125 mph liberally sprinkled through it.

 

[trainviews]

I also recall an article claiming that by the year 2030(?) I-95 in southern Florida will need to be something like 25 lanes wide to handle the volume of projected traffic.

They're already up to 12 IIRC, so that 2030 goal is certainly attainable.

Hmmm...as far as traffic goes, if you dedicate a given strip of land to passenger rail versus to an interstate, I'm wondering what the comparative capacities are in terms of passengers per day.

Rail advocates here say that a double track railway has the capacity of an eight lane highway. I don't know where they have the numbers from and I also suppose this is for a dedicated passenger track with no freight on as mixed traffic has less capacity.

 

[jis]

Now then, prognosticating about LD trains, I suspect the following are likely to happen within the next 5 or so years:

1. Pennsy run through section on the Cap, possibly the number of run through cars growing after inauguration if it catches on.

If the Pennsylvanian through section gets enough business, might possibly be enough to result in the restoration of the Three Rivers in some form with better equipment than it used to have. If PA is interested in a second daily PHL-PGH frequency (or 3rd by the time a Three Rivers resumption is floated), wonder if Amtrak could get PA to contribute to a Three Rivers LD train?

Anything is possible, however, I was assuming that any negotiation with NS and CSX for additional frequencies will be a long drawn out affair. Actually PA could conceivably step up to the plate for the second PHL - PGH frequency and that way Amtrak can use the train it funds to be predominantly a run through train, either as a standalone west of PGH or as a part of the Cap. The latter will of course be cheaper to operate since it won;t require additional slot.

2. Extension of the Palmetto at least to JAX.

3. Section of at least one Silver service going via the FEC JAX - MIA.

Extending the Palmetto to JAX would make for a very long day train. Unless it provides a connection of some sort to a FEC corridor service, a Palmetto to JAX might not provide that much utility. At that long a distance, may be better to add some sleepers, baggage-dorm and extend it overnight on the FEC to Miami.

There was a period when it used to terminate in JAX. If it manages to get sped up by an hour or so in the north then the schedule becomes almost as viable as is the SAV schedule at present.

As soon as you add Sleepers and Diners and stuff, its cost recovery immediately takes a nose dive compared to that of a day train, notwithstanding how much you can charge for a Sleeper.

Richard Saunders in his Main Lines - Rebirth of the North American Railroads, 1970-2002 makes a very cogent case suggesting that historically trains with Sleeping accommodations always have had greater difficulty in being profitable when compared to day trains on heavily traveled corridors. He is a true insider and he ought to know what he is talking about.

Less likely but possible:

1. Daily Cardinal - this could happen if Virginia specifically accelerates passing siding work on the BBRR.

Provided there are not major cuts to Amtrak subsidies this fall as a result of the election, I would give strong odds on the Cardinal going daily. Amtrak will have the Viewliners they need in several years. With NYP-WAS-CVS growing as a corridor, VA could use a daily Cardinal to provide daily afternoon service options to CVS. VA might also see utility in improved direct VA service from CVS to WV and to a lesser extent Chicago.

There is political support in WV for daily Cardinal service. Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) is the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He has called for daily Cardinal service to his district multiple times. if the Democrats win the House this fall, Rahall is in line to become the Chairman of the committee in place of Chairman Mica. When the Chairman of a powerful House committee wants some small or medium sized projects that benefits his district, he usually gets what he wants.

The primary problem with this one is to get the necessary infrastructure of lengthened and more frequent crossing sidings in place. No amount of operating subsidy will make this happen until the infrastructure is upgraded.

There is the additional complication of Indiana state support for the Hoosier State by the start of FY14. VA is putting up 70% of the funds to fix up the Buckingham Branch. VA may be willing to put up 70% of the funds to extend some sidings to 8500' or longer on the BB, the question who provides the matching 30%? Depending on the cost of extending the sidings, Amtrak might be wise to kick in the 30%.

I agree, or some suitable son of TIGER. I doubt very much that Amtrak will kick in the 30% from its own funds. Does not make sense to do so given Amtrak's current priorities.

2. Daily Sunset Limited - negotiations need to start instead of the parties sitting at their respective corners just glaring at each other.

UP is continuing to build out the double tracking from LA to El Paso; UP is also getting considerable federal and state money for track and flyover projects in CA. As the double tracking approaches completion, UP can't demand $750 million any more. Amtrak could restart the process of negotiation for a daily SL with more leverage. Maybe a high ranking politician could point out to UP that it had not been for Gadsden Purchase which was mostly done for the rail ROW, they would not have a rail line there. Some debts last a very long time.

The dearth of high ranking, or for that matter any ranking politician actually stepping up to the plate in support of the Sunset is the core problem. I doubt that the Gadsden argument will take anyone too far.

As I have said before, the primary issue on this one is trackage charge. $750 million is a ruse to get pre-paid trackage charges. It is too bad that Amtrak has not seen it fit to at least negotiate the possibility.

3. Boston and New York sections of the LSL running as separate trains, perhaps with some NY State and Massachusetts financial support.

Is there enough ridership from BOS to ALB to CHI to support a stand-alone LD train? The slow trip times from BOS to ALB are a major hindrance on this service. BOS to SPG will eventually see improvements, but SPG to ALB higher speed upgrades are not on the agenda. Two separate LD trains would speed both up though with the time savings in ALB by eliminating the splitting up and combining the consist.

BOS - ALB already support a seperate LD train, namely the LSL. The issue is - is there sufficient additional ridership to be had ALB - CHI if there were a second train.

4. Resurrected Montrealer, only if both Vermont and Quebec step upto it.

VT is not going to provide state funding for an overnight train that goes through VT in the middle of the night. The Vermonter would get extended to Montreal on a daytime schedule and stay called the Vermonter.

I was thinking more in terms of a daytime train providing basic transportation, which would most likely have much better cost recovery than an overnight train with all its bells and whistles. If MA can step upto it, maybe they could run a Boston section which hooks into it a Springfield.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

$750 million is a ruse to get pre-paid trackage charges. It is too bad that Amtrak has not seen it fit to at least negotiate the possibility.

You have made these claims again and again without a source. Do you have an actual basis for any of this or are you just speaking as a proud shareholder of Union Pacific stock?

 

[jis]

$750 million is a ruse to get pre-paid trackage charges. It is too bad that Amtrak has not seen it fit to at least negotiate the possibility.

You have made these claims again and again without a source. Do you have an actual basis for any of this or are you just speaking as a proud shareholder of Union Pacific stock?

I have already stated the basis for this opinion the first time I expressed it, and that has not changed. It is based on conversations I have had with people, further details of which I am not free to disclose. So in general it is just hearsay and my opinion. Take it or leave it. But since I believe it to be true, I hope you will grant me the freedom to state it as my opinion?

Incidentally, I don't own any UP shares outside of any that incidentally happen to be owned by many mutual funds that I own shares in, and it has no bearing on this matter.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I would like to see a CHI-KCY corridor on the current SWC line and a NYP-ATL daytrain. I haven't seen people talk about it.

 

[Anderson]

I'd be interested to see a serious breakdown of diner versus cafe costs (and revenues), as well as a breakdown on operating a sleeping car (or a set of sleeping cars) versus a coach/set of coaches on a train. I do not disagree with the analysis, but I would like to see more information here.

As to the Lake Shore Limited, I'd wonder if there was the business to upgrade 280 or 284 for the job eastbound (i.e. attach a set of cars at Buffalo and then run an "Empire Service" section down to New York). I'm hard-pressed to see "just" 448/449 have enough business to operate completely independently...but 48-448 and 49-449 is getting to be almost unwieldy, and the addition of much more to either section is going to cause some length-of-train issues sooner or later. If you operate a separate train entirely, you have to pay for an extra crew ALB-CHI that you wouldn't otherwise; combining operations makes for a headache in Albany, but it saves you a crew in Upstate NY.

The other thing to consider is that a stand-alone 448/449 would be a fourth CHI-East Coast train (alongside the Lake Shore Limited, the Capitol Limited, and the Cardinal). The big rub is that it would be the first such train to neither serve NYP/NYG nor WAS. I'm also not sure what the "intra-upstate" business situation looks like at /all/, but I can't see passing on allowing some sort of through-selection to NYP (and indirectly, more effective connections to New York-area destinations).

With the Sunset...not happening, not a priority, and frankly shouldn't be a priority.

As to the just-floated idea of NYP-ATL...I don't see that happening. Southern cut the Piedmont Limited at Washington and forced a transfer; the sheer time involved (and the resulting bad timing for either ATL or NYP, or both) is what kills here. Amtrak is also rather loath to stop trains at WAS or force transfers because so much business tends to be bound for PHL and NYP.

Another thread tackled this idea, and what we could see happening is extending a train down to Charlotte via NS's line with support from VA and NC. It's pretty clear that there business to be had for at least a second train out there (the Lynchburger is generating almost enough revenue to pay for a second frequency on the operating surplus alone); that plus the demand for a "reverse" train (that is, one that goes north in the evening and south in the morning) would support that particular notion.

KCY-CHI getting a second frequency is something that I could buy happening (IL and MO could probably work something out with one of the corridor routes there...I'm just not sure what), though I think MO and IL both have a lot of other irons in the fire (MO is looking at two or three other routes, and IL has two new routes "in process").

And while we're playing a version of the disclosure game, I have shares in both CSX and Norfolk Southern (and I fully intend to attend the latter's shareholder meetings on an annual basis for a long, long time as a matter of interest in the industry...I live in Newport News, and Norfolk Southern seems prone to holding their meetings in Williamsburg). I'd have looked at BNSF once upon a time, but Buffet beat me to them. As to UP, wouldn't touch their stock with a barge pole.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

$750 million is a ruse to get pre-paid trackage charges. It is too bad that Amtrak has not seen it fit to at least negotiate the possibility.

You have made these claims again and again without a source. Do you have an actual basis for any of this or are you just speaking as a proud shareholder of Union Pacific stock?

I have already stated the basis for this opinion the first time I expressed it, and that has not changed. It is based on conversations I have had with people, further details of which I am not free to disclose. So in general it is just hearsay and my opinion. Take it or leave it. But since I believe it to be true, I hope you will grant me the freedom to state it as my opinion? Incidentally, I don't own any UP shares outside of any that incidentally happen to be owned by many mutual funds that I own shares in, and it has no bearing on this matter.

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations. All we know so far is that UP wanted more than $700 million to make a one-time schedule change involving less than 1% of the Sunset Route's tonnage. To me that sounded a bit like a blunt GFY response meant to kill further discussions. To you it was a perfectly reasonable opening offer meant to spur more good-faith negotiating to get the job done between two equal partners. Unfortunately the negotiations appear to have stalled indefinitely. I guess Amtrak saw Union Pacific's high-cost, low-flexibility opening offer as less than promising and UP saw little reason to change it.

 

[Anderson]

$750 million is a ruse to get pre-paid trackage charges. It is too bad that Amtrak has not seen it fit to at least negotiate the possibility.

You have made these claims again and again without a source. Do you have an actual basis for any of this or are you just speaking as a proud shareholder of Union Pacific stock?

I have already stated the basis for this opinion the first time I expressed it, and that has not changed. It is based on conversations I have had with people, further details of which I am not free to disclose. So in general it is just hearsay and my opinion. Take it or leave it. But since I believe it to be true, I hope you will grant me the freedom to state it as my opinion? Incidentally, I don't own any UP shares outside of any that incidentally happen to be owned by many mutual funds that I own shares in, and it has no bearing on this matter.

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations. All we know so far is that UP wanted more than $700 million to make a one-time schedule change involving less than 1% of the Sunset Route's tonnage. To me that sounded a bit like a blunt GFY response meant to kill further discussions. To you it was a perfectly reasonable opening offer meant to spur more good-faith negotiating to get the job done between two equal partners. Unfortunately the negotiations appear to have stalled indefinitely. I guess Amtrak saw Union Pacific's high-cost, low-flexibility opening offer as less than promising and UP saw little reason to change it.

I'm just wondering, but what do you think would have been a reasonable "high bid" for UP to start with?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm just wondering, but what do you think would have been a reasonable "high bid" for UP to start with?

Something in the ballpark to the actual tonnage that the new Amtrak trains would represent. Heck, you could even double or triple that amount and still be at a reasonable opening offer. At a minimum it should be something in the realm of what Amtrak could actually afford to pay. So far as I'm aware $700,000,000 isn't anywhere near either of those two criteria.

 

[afigg]

There was a period when it used to terminate in JAX. If it manages to get sped up by an hour or so in the north then the schedule becomes almost as viable as is the SAV schedule at present.

As soon as you add Sleepers and Diners and stuff, its cost recovery immediately takes a nose dive compared to that of a day train, notwithstanding how much you can charge for a Sleeper.

Richard Saunders in his Main Lines - Rebirth of the North American Railroads, 1970-2002 makes a very cogent case suggesting that historically trains with Sleeping accommodations always have had greater difficulty in being profitable when compared to day trains on heavily traveled corridors. He is a true insider and he ought to know what he is talking about.

Savannah to Jacksonville is about 2.5 hours on the Silver schedule. Even trimming an hour off the current Palmetto trip time still leaves NYP-JAX as a very long daytime run. Doable though, if the OTP performance was reliable enough to allow for consistent overnight turnaround in JAX.

Is there a specific reason for extending the Palmetto to JAX? Matches up for crew service stops? Is there enough business for daytime JAX to SAV, Charleston, Rocky Mount, RVR, WAS trips that is not well served by the Silver Meteor?

The Palmetto incidentally is not running today, nor from Monday to Thursday for the next month because of CSX track work. Maybe enough CSX track work will eventually allow Amtrak to trim time off the Palmetto and SM schedules.

I agree, or some suitable son of TIGER. I doubt very much that Amtrak will kick in the 30% from its own funds. Does not make sense to do so given Amtrak's current priorities.

Amtrak is putting up a fair amount for the Empire Builder to help fix the Devil's Lake tracks, up to $30 million as I recall. Yes, the EB is a premium LD train, but it loses a fair amount of money in total annual dollars.

What I have not seen is any info on how much it would cost to extend the sidings on the Buckingham Branch. Would extending just 1 or 2 sidings be sufficient to allow the CSX empty coal trains to operate to CSX's satisfaction? The BB is getting a lot of track and signal improvements over the next several years. Those improvements should allow the EB and WB Cardinals to run over the BB more quickly and thus reduce the time the Cardinals are blocking the BB for the long CSX trains. Seeing a cost estimate for extending the sidings would give a sense on whether it is a easy to fix issue or one that is not.

The dearth of high ranking, or for that matter any ranking politician actually stepping up to the plate in support of the Sunset is the core problem. I doubt that the Gadsden argument will take anyone too far.

As I have said before, the primary issue on this one is trackage charge. $750 million is a ruse to get pre-paid trackage charges. It is too bad that Amtrak has not seen it fit to at least negotiate the possibility.

I wonder if there is a long term strategy Boardman and Amtrak's upper management has in mind for the SL or they just shrugged their shoulders and figured they will let somebody else worry about it in a couple of years.

BOS - ALB already support a seperate LD train, namely the LSL. The issue is - is there sufficient additional ridership to be had ALB - CHI if there were a second train.

The LSL to BOS is a stub train with only 1 sleeper, 2 coach cars, a cafe and a baggage car. To make it fully separate LD train would require a diner, more equipment, and, of course, have to pay for trackage fees from Schenectady to Chicago. The BOS LSL might draw more business from Hartford, new intermodal station in SPG, and the new Vermonter route stops once the NHV-SPG corridor sees more trains, and the Vermonter re-route is in place. Doubt if this idea is on Amtrak's radar, but if they were to run a separate BOS-ALB-CHI LD train, what is the best adjustment for the BOS-CHI schedule to provide sufficient spacing from the NYP-CHI LSL?

 

[afigg]

I would like to see a CHI-KCY corridor on the current SWC line and a NYP-ATL daytrain. I haven't seen people talk about it.

The NYP to ATL day train idea has come up here a lot. The problem is that on the current Crescent schedule, it is an 18 hour trip. So leave NYP at 6 AM, arrive ATL at midnight? As discussed in detail in the recent Crescent PIP report, the Atlanta station is in a poor location and needs a new station, which is another concern for a NYP-ATL daytrain along with storage in Atlanta.

We recently discussed the alternative of a Charlotte, NC to NYP day train over the Crescent route to provide additional service to CVS and a faster WAS-NYP train option for Charlotte, NC. If the Carolinian is getting sold out too often, a train between Charlotte and NYP via CVS would provide additional capacity and better CVS-LYN to NC Piedmont corridor connections. NC likely needs to build the new station with more overnight capacity in Charlotte first though.

As for CHI-KCY, the SWC provides ok daytime hours for KCY to CHI trips. The lack of major population centers between Kansas City and IL has to be taken into account. Is there enough demand for seats on the SWC between KCY and CHI that it creates a capacity problem?

 

[PRR 60]

I'm just wondering, but what do you think would have been a reasonable "high bid" for UP to start with?

Something in the ballpark to the actual tonnage that the new Amtrak trains would represent. Heck, you could even double or triple that amount and still be at a reasonable opening offer. At a minimum it should be something in the realm of what Amtrak could actually afford to pay. So far as I'm aware $700,000,000 isn't anywhere near either of those two criteria.

The current Amtrak law provides for significant penalties for railroads that are found to have delayed Amtrak by freight interference or dispatching. While that was implicit in the preceding laws, this most recent law made the requirement more specific and quantified what constitutes "delay" (2 calendar quarters with less than an 80% on time rate for Amtrak). If found in violation of that requirement, the STB can assess damages to be paid by the railroad to Amtrak. Amtrak has made it known that they will take actions to enforce that requirement, and have instituted just such an action against CN.

An unintended consequence of Amtrak's new-found power is that railroads are going to be very demanding in what they claim is required for capacity enhancements to accept new Amtrak service. If a railroad's feet are going to be held to the fire if they delay Amtrak with potential significant financial penalties for violations, then the railroad is going to do everything they can up front to ensure they can meet the requirements. What they will not do is forfeit any of their existing capacity to accommodate Amtrak (and the law says they do not have to do that). What they are doing is determining the full capacity of the subject line, applying that traffic in freight, injecting the proposed Amtrak trains on top of that, and determining what improvements are needed to retain the full line capacity with zero permitted Amtrak delays. That is a killer requirement.

Specific to the Sunset Line, the existing service is irrelevant. Once Amtrak asks for new service, the whole package of requested service is reviewed - 14 trains per week. Since Amtrak trains run at higher speed then freight and on a hard schedule, the impact of Amtrak much greater than simply running 14 trains on top of the freight service. It is a pretty big deal.

If Amtrak insists on delay-free operation per law (and they do), and if the owning railroad is allowed the right to all the capacity represented by the existing line after adding Amtrak (and they are), then adding new Amtrak trains to any freight railroad will be a very expensive proposition no matter what the existing service looks like. Whether that is "within the realm of what Amtrak could actually afford to pay" is of no relevance whatsoever.

If Amtrak thinks the UP or any railroad's capacity enhancement requirements are unreasonable, they can take their case to the STB for resolution. I don't see them doing that with the UP, so a reasonable presumption is that Amtrak recognizes that the UP's capacity requirements are not unreasonable given the operational ground rules of the Amtrak law.

 

[jis]

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations. All we know so far is that UP wanted more than $700 million to make a one-time schedule change involving less than 1% of the Sunset Route's tonnage. To me that sounded a bit like a blunt GFY response meant to kill further discussions. To you it was a perfectly reasonable opening offer meant to spur more good-faith negotiating to get the job done between two equal partners. Unfortunately the negotiations appear to have stalled indefinitely. I guess Amtrak saw Union Pacific's high-cost, low-flexibility opening offer as less than promising and UP saw little reason to change it.

Afterall I just spend a quarter of my time in such silly negotiations, except that it is in the space of large computer companies dealing with cross-licensing. So what would I know about such things?

How would anyone know what their flexibility was except perhaps based on claims made by someone from Amtrak?

It was dream come true for Amtrak management, since they could just blame it on someone else and walk away.... something they are very adept at, practicing victimhood to the n-th degree and playing to the galleries like NARP who sit around clucking after them.

The fundamental problem is that it is Amtrak that is not willing to step upto the plate and do the necessary jawboning with UP. Blaming UP for being the typical dick that large corporations are in such situations is hardly a constructive thing to discuss or spend time on. What is necessary is to figure out how to make progress, and Amtrak's approach certainly ain't going to make any, and I believe they are perfectly content with that.

If you keep harping on tonnage it won't help make any progress since it is not the issue at all. The issue is disruption of flow of freight traffic by a service that travels at a different speed and demands higher priority and yet pays way less for said priority treatment than what UP would earn running a multi-modal on time. As long as one refuses to recognize that as the core business driven negotiating issue, there is next to zero chance of making progress. No one cares what the weight of Amtrak train is as long as it is heavy enough to trigger track circuits.