UP Crewless Trains Clog Lines

[steve_relei]

Here is an article from The Sunday Oregonian last Sunday about the rash of retirements of engineers and conductors and other trainmen. This has the result of UP trains not being staffed enough to keep them going, causing them to be stopped in their tracks while waiting for a new crew to take over, but increasingly there is no crew to take over. This is causing delays for Amtrak trains too--both the Starlight and the Cascades runs.

UP Retirements Affecting Train Operations

I, too have noticed excessively late trains on UP. Sometimes, the #507 (southbound Cascades train from Seattle to Portland to Eugene; it's supposed to leave PDX at 5:30pm) arrives on time (even early) off the BNSF but has to wait at the station an extra hour or so for clearance to continue its run. Northbound trains have also been effected. It also shows some of the problems that Amtrak must deal with in order to operate its trains and try to maintain an on time schedule and reputation. The state pays for the Portland-Eugene run. The state is not happy either. You can't afford to get too angry with UP, otherwise it might withdraw permission to run the trains on its lines--even with the funds.

One more problem, there is no word as to when the Oregon City Amtrak station will be finished, opened, and ready for business. I think UP has something to do with this, too. The city has been waiting for the railroad to complete some of its trackwork. That was a few months ago.

 

[AlanB]

You can't afford to get too angry with UP, otherwise it might withdraw permission to run the trains on its lines--even with the funds.

Actually that's the one thing that UP can't do, withdraw permission to run the trains. Amtrak has the right to run any train any time they want. Yes they usually work out a schedule with the host RR, but if the host doesn't agree, then the FRA can step in and order the host to allow the passage of the train. Much like happened to Guilford Freight in the case of the Downeaster.

Now on the other hand, UP can play games with Amtrak. Things like throwing slow moving freights in the way, signal problems, dispatching issues and things like that. They could also withdraw permission to run the Sounder trains, which would hurt the State of Washington.

But they can't stop Amtrak.

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

Thats all UP does is play games i hate running on there tracks there a bunch of jerks. :angry:

 

[steve_relei]

Actually, I think they can withdraw their permission. Wasn't it a couple of weeks ago, during extreme weather on BNSF's high line route, that BNSF said it would not allow the Empire Builder to operate on that particular line until weather improved? Isn't that a form of giving or not giving permission to operate?

Also, UP was going to withdraw permission to operate one pair of the Cascades train runs if it did not get more money from the state for the upgrades it had made. This was after the Legislature had finally voted for funds to keep the trains going. The governor had to make some kind of deal with UP to keep the trains on track.

 

[PRR 60]

Amtrak’s right to use the tracks of the freight railroads is not absolute. Although they can theoretically operate on any line they wish, Amtrak must pay the freight railroads for the cost to upgrade the lines to passenger standards and must pay for capacity improvements that are necessary to accommodate the extra trains. These financial requirements, and particularly the capacity issue, effectively eliminate many potentially useful lines from Amtrak consideration. Tehachapi is a case in point. There is no economic way to provide capacity on that line for Amtrak, so Amtrak cannot operate there.

Back when Amtrak was formed in 1971, there was a much stronger requirement built into the law for Amtrak access to tracks and routes. This was in return for Amtrak assuming control of the money losing passenger services from the private railroads. That requirement, and the economic debt owed by the freight railroads to Amtrak, ended in 1996. Today’s access rights for Amtrak are much more limited and the freight railroads have much greater rights to refuse Amtrak use of their tracks.

 

[battalion51]

Actually, I think they can withdraw their permission. Wasn't it a couple of weeks ago, during extreme weather on BNSF's high line route, that BNSF said it would not allow the Empire Builder to operate on that particular line until weather improved? Isn't that a form of giving or not giving permission to operate?
Also, UP was going to withdraw permission to operate one pair of the Cascades train runs if it did not get more money from the state for the upgrades it had made. This was after the Legislature had finally voted for funds to keep the trains going. The governor had to make some kind of deal with UP to keep the trains on track.

Well BNSF closed the line because of extreme circumstances, that could affect the safety of the train and the passengers on board. Beacuse it was an extreme situatin for safety reasons BNSF has the right to do that. What BNSF can't do is say Amtrak can't run the line for the rest of time to come. Also the UP can cancel that Cascades train for a few reasons, the State of Washington, Amtrak, and UP signed a contract that called for capacity and track improvments paid for by the state for that train to be allowed to come. Should the state not pay up, they can cancel the train because it interferes with other trains because capacity is not there.

 

[steve_relei]

I still say the State of Oregon has to be careful in dealing with the UP in this matter. If the state starts fining the railroad for (ie.) blocking crossings for too long, it could create an animosity between the state and the railroad that might harm relations in terms of being able to operate the Cascades trains--not only the present runs but expansions that may be desired in the future. The UP could use the trains to point to lack of capacity--or interfering with capacity--on its lines.

Oh, the State of Washington pays for the Cascades trains within Washington (that line is owned by BNSF); the State of Oregon pays for the segment of the route between Portland and Eugene. This part of the run is on the UP.

 

[battalion51]

Washington, Orgeon, same thing. :lol:

 

[AMTRAK-P42]

Washington, Orgeon, same thing. :lol:

:lol: . Ive heard that one before!

 

[steve_relei]

No, Washington and Oregon are not the same. Washington has been spending a lot of money not only on Amtrak Cascades trains operations, including restarting train service between Seattle and Vancouver, BC, but it has also financed much of the rebuild of stations and platforms and some track improvements along the I-5 corridor/BNSF line. I don't see Washington getting out of the rail business anytime soon.

And if the funding from Oregon had not come through, the trains would not be running in Oregon, but they would still be funded by Washington for running within Washington (to Portland).

The State of Oregon, on the other hand, is getting by on the bare minimums of expanded rail service. We barely squeeked by in getting funding from the Legislature to keep the two round-trip Cascades train runs. The funding keeps the trains running for 2 years, but what about when the two years run out? What's more, there is still no word as to when there might be an increase in service. Personally, I would like to see an early-morning train from Portland to Eugene and an evening train from Eugene to Portland. This way, people from Portland can visit or do business in the state capital (Salem) or attend school (UO or OSU) or whatever and come back to Portland the same day. Presently, the service/schedules favor people living in Salem, Albany, or Eugene.

There is also the matter of not having east/west service between Portland and eastern Oregon on the UP through the Columbia Gorge. Apparently, the State would have to pick up most of the tab for this train service to have some success in being revived. I wouldn't mind, for a while, a Portland-Boise (ID) only train, perhaps using one of the Talgo trains. Such a service would require a 12-hour ride each way but still would allow for more convenient departure and arrival times at the two largest endpoint cities (Portland and Boise). Previously, westbound departure from Boise was about 3 am!

If the State(s) ever do want to reintroduce this service, besides money, they are going to need the cooperation of the UP railroad to do it. That is important to keep in mind.

Another point: UP may not officially be able to withdraw permission to run Amtrak trains on its routes, but it could conceivably make it more difficult for the trains to run on its lines. It could "neglect" to put a priority on Amtrak schedules when dispatching and/or setting up meets with its own trains. I think it could be done without people being able to prove to everyone's satisfaction that the railroad was engaging in unfair dispatching policies. After all, how can you deny the physics required of stopping and starting heavy freight trains trying to go up or down steep grades (such as those in the Cascades) or at other places? Amtrak trains start or stop fairly easily and quickly. There are times when it is Amtrak's own fault its trains are late, then they lose their window and have to take their chances beyond that.

Another point: if UP can't properly get its own trains across the lines because there aren't enough crewmembers to operate the trains, and the trains are stuck at various places along the line, creating a blocked line, this could very well become an issue of sufficient capacity both for more freight service and for passenger trains.

Point of all this being: it is still a good idea to remain on good terms with the UP if you want to negotiate with them when you are going to want something from them now and/or in the future.

 

[battalion51]

One of the things I think the State of Washington (especially) and Oregon (if they can get their act together) is to purchase these lines they're running on. The State of Florida bought the Miami Subdivsion from CSX back in the 80's and has owned it ever since. While CSX still dispactches, maintains, and has trackage rights, the state is the one holding the keys. State trains (and Amtrak) take priority 99% of the time (unless you get an idiot dispatcher who doesn't usually work the BA console), shoving CSX trains in siding or through crossovers a lot. If the States up there buy the line from BNSF and UP they'll bey the gatekeeper, giving their trains priority, good schedules, and stickin it to UP whenever and wherever possible.

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[tp49]

One of the things I think the State of Washington (especially) and Oregon (if they can get their act together) is to purchase these lines they're running on. The State of Florida bought the Miami Subdivsion from CSX back in the 80's and has owned it ever since. While CSX still dispactches, maintains, and has trackage rights, the state is the one holding the keys. State trains (and Amtrak) take priority 99% of the time (unless you get an idiot dispatcher who doesn't usually work the BA console), shoving CSX trains in siding or through crossovers a lot. If the States up there buy the line from BNSF and UP they'll bey the gatekeeper, giving their trains priority, good schedules, and stickin it to UP whenever and wherever possible.

Good idea except for the current budget problems most states are having. If not for the budgetary issues this would be feasable contingent on UP's desire to sell.

 

[steve_relei]

Keep in mind, too, that the BNSF between Seattle and Portland and Vancouver (WA) to Pasco and Spokane, UP's line (shares the line between Seattle and Portland with BNSF) from Portland to the east and the former SP line to California are all heavy-duty freight lines. It is important to keep all that freight--foreign autos, containers (between ships), piggybacks, etc.--moving too. Many industries as well as state, local, national, and world economies depend on the timely movement of freight. So, I would not want to interfere too much into that area, which could (and probably would) happen if the state got involved. Purchasing lines might be all right when there are several lines available but not if that is the only line to and from certain destinations or directions.

I think it's best to work with what you have. Also, if the states barely have enough money to keep passenger trains barely running, how can they justify and/or hope to purchase a rail line, not to mention maintain it properly?