The Pacific Surfliner service in Southern California is now an excellent example of Amtrak/Caltrans cooperation. Of course, how long has it taken to get there? In the 70s you had the San Diegans, but the service has gradually expanded to provide a pretty fully service.
It helped immensely that Southern Pacific and Santa Fe sold parts of its right-of-way when they were in financial trouble, and retained running rights inperpetuity. Then Metrolink evolved from a weakly financed State experiment into a five county partnership. At first Metrolink and Amtrak butted heads over schedules and funding, then later Union Pacific and Metrolink went at it over delays. Eventually the two freight railroads started cooperating when signal and track improvements were paid for by state/federal transportation improvements. I think they are all on the same page now. So, twenty years ago they passed a half cent increase in the gasoline tax for transportation projects, and in another twenty years perhaps the entire will be rid of grade crossings.
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
HI AL N CHICAGO.I TOLD YOU PREVIOUSLYN THAT I WOULD KEEP YOU UP TO DATE ON THE NORTHERN FLYER ALLIANCE MEETING THIS SATURDAY 12/08/07.I HAD CORRESPONDENCE FROM MARK CORISTON,WHO IS THE LOCAL DIRECTIR FOR NOTHERN FLYER.HE SENT ME A LIST OF THE SENATORS,REPRESENATIVES,STATE MODOT OFFICIALS AND AMTRAK PERSONS WHO WILL BE PRESENT.AS IT STOOD SAT WE HAVE OVER 35 "HEAVEY HITTERS" CPMOING IN.THE MAIN THRUST WILL BE TO GET DAYLIGHT SERVICE ACROSS KANSAS INTO OKLA,ALSO KANSAS CITYT,MO TO DENVER,CO ETC.I, HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED TO SPEAK FOR MODOT AS THEY CANT GET ANYONE FREE TO SEND UP,MFROM JEGFFERSON CITY,SO THE DIRECTOR OF RAIL SERVICES ASKED ME TO REPRESENT MODOT -RAIL. MO WOULD ONLY BE INVOLVED AT THYE PRESENT TME AS ORGIN AND DESTINATION OF THE KANSAS TRAINS FROM KANSAS CITY,MO.
HOPE YOU CAN STILL GET IN AND FOR THEAT MATTER ANYONE WHO IS IN KANSAS CITY SAT SHULD REALLY ATTEND IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE.
al-in-chgo wrote: A question that aligns with "Regional Rail" has entered my head, not for the first time. If "regional rail" is a separate and distinct category of passenger service, generally longer than commuter and shorter than Intercity, it is right for Amtrak to maintain its monopoly on operating such trains? As I understand it now, Amtrak handles intercity and metro- or state-controlled agencies operate commuter; yet there is a growing trend, at least in states like North Carolina, for regional rail to grow quickly. Generally such transport is longer than a commuter run (suburb to downtown, usually) but smaller than LD or Intercity (connecting two metropolises). It seems to work best in situations where there exists a swarm of interconnecting small-to-medium sized cities -- where it is succeeding, in other words -- Central California and Piedmont NC. Now it looks as though NC is on the way to expand its service and create its own Corridor of service, largely with track that is or was NS -- Raleigh - Salisbury - Charlotte, for example. Amtrak has a monopoly on such service; in essence anything not strictly commuter is to be handled by Amtrak. This is by default, but IIRC it's also hardwired into original Railpax legislation. There are some overlapping questions I have: Is it "fair" for Amtrak to have this monopoly-by-default? Notice that where commuter operations are already in place, Amtrak does not go into what might be called regional rail except for its traditional intercity, corridor and LD services. Example: NEC. With one cross-platform change in Trenton, one can travel the roughly hundred miles from Philly to New York in pretty good time, and for about one-third the money, by taking SEPTA, changing, and then NJT the rest of the way. This grandfathering-in does not exist in North Carolina. In your opinions, is it cost-effective for Amtrak to handle regional runs? After all, they have monopoly-by-default and so are not under competitive pressure to operate at peak efficiency. Basically states pay Amtrak to run Amtrak's motive power and coaches, frequently over track that a non-Amtrak governmental authority, most of the rest of the time over Class I trackage. Does it matter if the Regional Rail goes interstate? I'm very interested to hear your opinions, North Carolinians especially.
A question that aligns with "Regional Rail" has entered my head, not for the first time. If "regional rail" is a separate and distinct category of passenger service, generally longer than commuter and shorter than Intercity, it is right for Amtrak to maintain its monopoly on operating such trains?
As I understand it now, Amtrak handles intercity and metro- or state-controlled agencies operate commuter; yet there is a growing trend, at least in states like North Carolina, for regional rail to grow quickly. Generally such transport is longer than a commuter run (suburb to downtown, usually) but smaller than LD or Intercity (connecting two metropolises). It seems to work best in situations where there exists a swarm of interconnecting small-to-medium sized cities -- where it is succeeding, in other words -- Central California and Piedmont NC.
Now it looks as though NC is on the way to expand its service and create its own Corridor of service, largely with track that is or was NS -- Raleigh - Salisbury - Charlotte, for example. Amtrak has a monopoly on such service; in essence anything not strictly commuter is to be handled by Amtrak. This is by default, but IIRC it's also hardwired into original Railpax legislation.
There are some overlapping questions I have:
Is it "fair" for Amtrak to have this monopoly-by-default? Notice that where commuter operations are already in place, Amtrak does not go into what might be called regional rail except for its traditional intercity, corridor and LD services. Example: NEC. With one cross-platform change in Trenton, one can travel the roughly hundred miles from Philly to New York in pretty good time, and for about one-third the money, by taking SEPTA, changing, and then NJT the rest of the way. This grandfathering-in does not exist in North Carolina.
In your opinions, is it cost-effective for Amtrak to handle regional runs? After all, they have monopoly-by-default and so are not under competitive pressure to operate at peak efficiency. Basically states pay Amtrak to run Amtrak's motive power and coaches, frequently over track that a non-Amtrak governmental authority, most of the rest of the time over Class I trackage.
Does it matter if the Regional Rail goes interstate?
I'm very interested to hear your opinions, North Carolinians especially.
I think the Federal Goverment should support Amtrak to have transportation to the states. In order for the State to receive funding.The Federal goverment should match dollar by dollar in order to make sure there's balance in the system. Plus, the goverment should back up Amtrak in order for them get priority in the Regional track system.
If we let the Regional Railroads to run the system it will run like 50's.. Loosing money.
Prairietype wrote: oltmannd wrote: Mr. Toy wrote: oltmannd wrote:The problem is these "regional" operations are really more "single state" operations. In at least two cases I can think of, there is significant friction generated when more than one state is involved - Cascades and Downeaster service. NH doesn't chip in even a nickel for the Downeaster and Oregon is only half-heartedly committed to the Cascades. That's largely a political problem. It has no bearing on Amtrak's ability or lack of ability to serve these systems, which is the topic of discussion. Oregon's half-hearted support of the Cascades is due to the fact that it is an economically poor state, so compared to Washington they have few resources to put into the train.But that illustrates a larger problem. Multi-state agreements are very difficult to achieve without some sort of federal coordination. Those who argue for multi-state compacts (as the Bush/Mineta circus act did a few years ago) don't understand the complexities of making agreements among multiple state legislatures, each with their own budget problems. If the Bush/Mineta plan had been implemented, California would have had to to coordinate with 17 other states to keep just four existing interstate routes running. Is Amtrak able to "run the trains"? Sure. That's not much of a question, really. But, you really nailed it well with your "larger problem" statement. The Cascades might be the only true multi-state service, and that's mostly WA driving it and OR riding on their coat-tails. (Wisc and IL on the Milwaukee-Chicago svc might be another?) NH is getting a "free ride" on Maine's money for the Northeasters. NY, PA, NC, IL and CA are pretty much doing their own thing. If there is going to be any real regional service, Amtrak is going to have to be the leader, not just the service provider. The Fed DOT has done a reasonable job of defining some interstate corridors for development, but without some substantial Fed subsidy ala highways, no group of states is going to decide to spend their discretionary capital on a pass rail project when $1 will get them $4 from the Feds for a highway project. Lautenburg-Lott S-294 Title III
oltmannd wrote: Mr. Toy wrote: oltmannd wrote:The problem is these "regional" operations are really more "single state" operations. In at least two cases I can think of, there is significant friction generated when more than one state is involved - Cascades and Downeaster service. NH doesn't chip in even a nickel for the Downeaster and Oregon is only half-heartedly committed to the Cascades. That's largely a political problem. It has no bearing on Amtrak's ability or lack of ability to serve these systems, which is the topic of discussion. Oregon's half-hearted support of the Cascades is due to the fact that it is an economically poor state, so compared to Washington they have few resources to put into the train.But that illustrates a larger problem. Multi-state agreements are very difficult to achieve without some sort of federal coordination. Those who argue for multi-state compacts (as the Bush/Mineta circus act did a few years ago) don't understand the complexities of making agreements among multiple state legislatures, each with their own budget problems. If the Bush/Mineta plan had been implemented, California would have had to to coordinate with 17 other states to keep just four existing interstate routes running. Is Amtrak able to "run the trains"? Sure. That's not much of a question, really. But, you really nailed it well with your "larger problem" statement. The Cascades might be the only true multi-state service, and that's mostly WA driving it and OR riding on their coat-tails. (Wisc and IL on the Milwaukee-Chicago svc might be another?) NH is getting a "free ride" on Maine's money for the Northeasters. NY, PA, NC, IL and CA are pretty much doing their own thing. If there is going to be any real regional service, Amtrak is going to have to be the leader, not just the service provider. The Fed DOT has done a reasonable job of defining some interstate corridors for development, but without some substantial Fed subsidy ala highways, no group of states is going to decide to spend their discretionary capital on a pass rail project when $1 will get them $4 from the Feds for a highway project.
Mr. Toy wrote: oltmannd wrote:The problem is these "regional" operations are really more "single state" operations. In at least two cases I can think of, there is significant friction generated when more than one state is involved - Cascades and Downeaster service. NH doesn't chip in even a nickel for the Downeaster and Oregon is only half-heartedly committed to the Cascades. That's largely a political problem. It has no bearing on Amtrak's ability or lack of ability to serve these systems, which is the topic of discussion. Oregon's half-hearted support of the Cascades is due to the fact that it is an economically poor state, so compared to Washington they have few resources to put into the train.But that illustrates a larger problem. Multi-state agreements are very difficult to achieve without some sort of federal coordination. Those who argue for multi-state compacts (as the Bush/Mineta circus act did a few years ago) don't understand the complexities of making agreements among multiple state legislatures, each with their own budget problems. If the Bush/Mineta plan had been implemented, California would have had to to coordinate with 17 other states to keep just four existing interstate routes running.
oltmannd wrote:The problem is these "regional" operations are really more "single state" operations. In at least two cases I can think of, there is significant friction generated when more than one state is involved - Cascades and Downeaster service. NH doesn't chip in even a nickel for the Downeaster and Oregon is only half-heartedly committed to the Cascades.
The problem is these "regional" operations are really more "single state" operations. In at least two cases I can think of, there is significant friction generated when more than one state is involved - Cascades and Downeaster service. NH doesn't chip in even a nickel for the Downeaster and Oregon is only half-heartedly committed to the Cascades.
That's largely a political problem. It has no bearing on Amtrak's ability or lack of ability to serve these systems, which is the topic of discussion.
Oregon's half-hearted support of the Cascades is due to the fact that it is an economically poor state, so compared to Washington they have few resources to put into the train.
But that illustrates a larger problem. Multi-state agreements are very difficult to achieve without some sort of federal coordination. Those who argue for multi-state compacts (as the Bush/Mineta circus act did a few years ago) don't understand the complexities of making agreements among multiple state legislatures, each with their own budget problems. If the Bush/Mineta plan had been implemented, California would have had to to coordinate with 17 other states to keep just four existing interstate routes running.
Is Amtrak able to "run the trains"? Sure. That's not much of a question, really. But, you really nailed it well with your "larger problem" statement. The Cascades might be the only true multi-state service, and that's mostly WA driving it and OR riding on their coat-tails. (Wisc and IL on the Milwaukee-Chicago svc might be another?) NH is getting a "free ride" on Maine's money for the Northeasters. NY, PA, NC, IL and CA are pretty much doing their own thing.
If there is going to be any real regional service, Amtrak is going to have to be the leader, not just the service provider. The Fed DOT has done a reasonable job of defining some interstate corridors for development, but without some substantial Fed subsidy ala highways, no group of states is going to decide to spend their discretionary capital on a pass rail project when $1 will get them $4 from the Feds for a highway project.
Lautenburg-Lott S-294 Title III
....if the House will appropriate....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
PRARIE TYPE,AL IN CHIACO AND ALL WHO ARE INTERESTED IN REGIONAL RAIL CONCEPT.
IF YOU ARE IN OR NEAR TJHE KANSAS CITY,MO AREA OIN SATURDAY DECEMBER 8,2007 PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND THE OPEN PUBLIC FORUM STARTING AT 10.30 AMFOR ALL.NORTHERN FLYER ALLIANCE IS THE HOST FORTHIS PUBLIC MEETING.THERE IS NO CHARGE FOR ANYONE TO ATTEND.
ALSO FOR YOUR INFO AT 9.OO AM NORTHERN FLYER WILL BE TALKING WITH THE SENATORS,REPRESENSATIVES AND OTHER TRANSIT OFFICIALS.YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO SIT IN ON THIS BUT THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT UNTIL 10.30 AM
GRAND AVE,MO CONTACT IF NECESSARY 816+-347-9364
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Mr. Toy wrote: Amtrak is already doing regional rail all over the country. The California corridors and Caltrain are all Amtrak operated. The Cascades is Amtrak operated. The Midwest corridor services are Amtrak operated. The Downeaster is Amtrak operated. And of course the NEC......States have little or no experience with actual railroad operations, outside of dedicated commuter lines. The host railroads know that. The host railroads trust Amtrak's expertise in running a railroad. That's why these state funded programs contract to Amtrak.As California is now planning expansions in new areas, UP and BNSF are telling the state "Submit your proposal through Amtrak." Amtrak is a respected mediator between the states and the Class Is.
Amtrak is already doing regional rail all over the country. The California corridors and Caltrain are all Amtrak operated. The Cascades is Amtrak operated. The Midwest corridor services are Amtrak operated. The Downeaster is Amtrak operated. And of course the NEC......
States have little or no experience with actual railroad operations, outside of dedicated commuter lines. The host railroads know that. The host railroads trust Amtrak's expertise in running a railroad. That's why these state funded programs contract to Amtrak.
As California is now planning expansions in new areas, UP and BNSF are telling the state "Submit your proposal through Amtrak." Amtrak is a respected mediator between the states and the Class Is.
In it's current makeup, I don't think Amtrak is set up for "regional rail". Amtrak would have to go back to the Business Unit idea. perhaps with up to 40 different bureaus.
It would be easier for the states to set up some sort of intra-state agency to run the trains. AFAIK 20-50% of the capital comes from state/local sources. Seems to me it would make sense for the states/locals to operate the services & Stations in their location. The chief purpose for Amtrak would be the central ticketing & coordination of services. In some states, the commuter agencies like Metra have no authority to operate outside of the 6 county region. It may take some legislation to make it possible to do so, with more arguments over new tax support.
HI AL,SURE AM SORRY HAT YOU WONT MAKE IT DOWN TO K.C.FOR THENORTHERN ALLIANCE MEETING ON DEC8TH. AS TO WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT IS AMTRAK UP TO IT FOR REGIONAL RAIL SVE.IM SURE WITH THE LATEST PASSAGE OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE AND PROBABLY IN THE HOUSE AS THE DEMS ARE ALL FOR IT AS WELL OF ABOUT HAFLF OF THE REP.WHETHER PRES BUSGH SIGNS IT OR NOT WILL BE THE BIG QUESTION.
AS I UNDESTAND IT THE MAIN THRUST OF THE KC MEETING WILL BE TO ESTABLISH DAYLIGHT SVC ORGINATING IN KANSAS CITY TO WICHITA AND ON TO OKLAHOMA CITY.THE ONLY DRAWBACK THAT I CAN SEE,AMTRAK WONT BE ABLE TO SELL THIS AS A THRU TRAIN SINCE THE ONLY TRAIN FROM CHI TOWN ARRIVES IN KC LATE AT NITE.IM SURE IF ANY PASSENGERS WANTED TOGO TO WICHITA,OKA CITY,DLS-FT WORTH THEY WOULDNT WANT TO SIT UP IN UNIONSTATION ALL NIGHT FOR THE DAYLIGHT TRAIN.AMTRAK WOULD HAVE T FIND EQUIPTMENT OR PRIVATE CAR OWNERS OF WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL IN THIS AREA MIGHT MAKE SOME KIND OF LEASE ARRANGEENT,STILL YOU HAVE TO HAVE MOTIVE POWER.
AMTRAK CAN DO THE JOB IF GIOVEN THE RIGHT COOPERATION INALL STATES.
GRAND AVE
matthewsaggie wrote: al-in-chgo wrote:"It may all be well and good for Amtrak to run trains, it may be the State of North Carolina's wish that they do so. I must wonder aloud, though, how the incredibly equipment-starved Amtrak is able to do this? Does the contracting public agency pay for its own rolling stock, or have Amtrak buy it in their name so that it stays in, say, N. Carolina and doesn't belong to some national pool? I really don't know." There are 10 cars in the Carolinain pool that Amtrak has committed to keep together, barring inspections and maintenance. We usually have the same cars nearly every day. The Piedmont cars, and the locomotives are owned and maintained by the state of NC (Herzog) and are only operated by Amtrak crews.
al-in-chgo wrote:
"It may all be well and good for Amtrak to run trains, it may be the State of North Carolina's wish that they do so. I must wonder aloud, though, how the incredibly equipment-starved Amtrak is able to do this? Does the contracting public agency pay for its own rolling stock, or have Amtrak buy it in their name so that it stays in, say, N. Carolina and doesn't belong to some national pool? I really don't know."
There are 10 cars in the Carolinain pool that Amtrak has committed to keep together, barring inspections and maintenance. We usually have the same cars nearly every day.
The Piedmont cars, and the locomotives are owned and maintained by the state of NC (Herzog) and are only operated by Amtrak crews.
Not so sure Amtrak is equipment starved. They have quite a bit of equipment out of service - on purpose - some of it wreck damage awaiting repair, but most of it in order to save inspection costs.
NC has leverage that most states do not as they hold title to the NCRR - which is part of NS's ex-SOU mainline. The city of Cincinnati might have similar leverage w.r.t. the CNO&TP should they care to exercise it.....
n012944 wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: North Carolinian here........The only problem I have with our trains is that as soon as they move from NS tracks, they seem to go to the bottom of the priority list for track usage.The Carolinian regularly sits stationary near the Virginia line for as much as an hour watching all the freight trains go by. The owner gives their own trains priority.I've often wondered if perhaps the rail infrastructure should be owned and maintained by the government, like roads and airways are, with railroads paying a toll or tax to use the rails. It should foster healthy competition. Anyone who can afford to buy an engine could start a railroad. How many trucking companies would we have if each company had to build and maintain their own roads?Incidentally, I used to ride the train from Upstate New York to Chicago.Is that "other" host railroad by any chance CSX?? - a. s. It is .... lolAs a railroad dispatcher, the trains that pay my salary will get priority. Amtrak does not pay my salary.
Phoebe Vet wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: North Carolinian here........The only problem I have with our trains is that as soon as they move from NS tracks, they seem to go to the bottom of the priority list for track usage.The Carolinian regularly sits stationary near the Virginia line for as much as an hour watching all the freight trains go by. The owner gives their own trains priority.I've often wondered if perhaps the rail infrastructure should be owned and maintained by the government, like roads and airways are, with railroads paying a toll or tax to use the rails. It should foster healthy competition. Anyone who can afford to buy an engine could start a railroad. How many trucking companies would we have if each company had to build and maintain their own roads?Incidentally, I used to ride the train from Upstate New York to Chicago.Is that "other" host railroad by any chance CSX?? - a. s. It is .... lol
al-in-chgo wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: North Carolinian here........The only problem I have with our trains is that as soon as they move from NS tracks, they seem to go to the bottom of the priority list for track usage.The Carolinian regularly sits stationary near the Virginia line for as much as an hour watching all the freight trains go by. The owner gives their own trains priority.I've often wondered if perhaps the rail infrastructure should be owned and maintained by the government, like roads and airways are, with railroads paying a toll or tax to use the rails. It should foster healthy competition. Anyone who can afford to buy an engine could start a railroad. How many trucking companies would we have if each company had to build and maintain their own roads?Incidentally, I used to ride the train from Upstate New York to Chicago.Is that "other" host railroad by any chance CSX?? - a. s.
Phoebe Vet wrote: North Carolinian here........The only problem I have with our trains is that as soon as they move from NS tracks, they seem to go to the bottom of the priority list for track usage.The Carolinian regularly sits stationary near the Virginia line for as much as an hour watching all the freight trains go by. The owner gives their own trains priority.I've often wondered if perhaps the rail infrastructure should be owned and maintained by the government, like roads and airways are, with railroads paying a toll or tax to use the rails. It should foster healthy competition. Anyone who can afford to buy an engine could start a railroad. How many trucking companies would we have if each company had to build and maintain their own roads?Incidentally, I used to ride the train from Upstate New York to Chicago.
North Carolinian here........
The only problem I have with our trains is that as soon as they move from NS tracks, they seem to go to the bottom of the priority list for track usage.
The Carolinian regularly sits stationary near the Virginia line for as much as an hour watching all the freight trains go by. The owner gives their own trains priority.
I've often wondered if perhaps the rail infrastructure should be owned and maintained by the government, like roads and airways are, with railroads paying a toll or tax to use the rails. It should foster healthy competition. Anyone who can afford to buy an engine could start a railroad. How many trucking companies would we have if each company had to build and maintain their own roads?
Incidentally, I used to ride the train from Upstate New York to Chicago.
It is .... lol
As a railroad dispatcher, the trains that pay my salary will get priority. Amtrak does not pay my salary.
An "expensive model collector"
Prairietype wrote: Grand Ave wrote:AL,JUST A QUICK NOTE.JUST GOT OFF THE INTERNET WITH NORTHERN ALLIANCE,AND YOU HAVE APPARENTLY HIT THE PROVEBERIAL NAIL ON THE HEAD.HE TELLS ME THAT KS DOT CANNOT SET THE RTE FOR WHICH ITS TRAINS ARE TO RUN ,THAT AMTRAK AND THE FEDERAL ORGANAZATION THAT OVERSEES PASSENGER RAIL THRU EVERY STATE.NORTHERN IS TRYING TO GET SOME LOCAL SERVICE ACROSS WITH KANSAS TO CONNECT WITH THE SOUTHWEST XCHIEF SO THERE ARE MORE OPTIONS.SO THATS THE WAY IT IS OUT HERE FOR NOW,ARE YOU COMING DOWN FOR THE DEC8TH MEETING IN KC.? REGARDS,FRANK PASSER,GFRAND AVE,MO, LEES SUMMIT Is it really true that the Kansas Department of Transportation wouldn't negotiate a route proposal with Amtrak? It would seem to me that this would be kind of a three way thing, you know, between Amtrak the State of Kansas and a railroad.If the public started lobbying the State of Kansas for passenger train train service like Oklahoma and Missouri have, it would seem to me that the Kansas House of Representatives handle the first step of passing a bill. This, I think, would be based on a feasibility study by Amtrak that could would have to be requested by the KDOT. If, for example, the best route is determined to follow the Southwest Chief corridor, but let's say during the daytime, then KDOT would have to explore this with Burlington Northern Santa Fe. If BNSF is agreeable to running two mor trains over their system each day, and the State is willing to pay, then it could actually happen. based on what Missouri pays for their train and what Oklahoma pays for theirs, it probably wouldn't cost all that much, at least not so much as to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The ridership over this connection would probably show a general increase over the entire system and for each train as well, but only if it runs during the daytime. Or phone up NC DOT and see how they did it!
Grand Ave wrote:AL,JUST A QUICK NOTE.JUST GOT OFF THE INTERNET WITH NORTHERN ALLIANCE,AND YOU HAVE APPARENTLY HIT THE PROVEBERIAL NAIL ON THE HEAD.HE TELLS ME THAT KS DOT CANNOT SET THE RTE FOR WHICH ITS TRAINS ARE TO RUN ,THAT AMTRAK AND THE FEDERAL ORGANAZATION THAT OVERSEES PASSENGER RAIL THRU EVERY STATE.NORTHERN IS TRYING TO GET SOME LOCAL SERVICE ACROSS WITH KANSAS TO CONNECT WITH THE SOUTHWEST XCHIEF SO THERE ARE MORE OPTIONS.SO THATS THE WAY IT IS OUT HERE FOR NOW,ARE YOU COMING DOWN FOR THE DEC8TH MEETING IN KC.? REGARDS,FRANK PASSER,GFRAND AVE,MO, LEES SUMMIT
Is it really true that the Kansas Department of Transportation wouldn't negotiate a route proposal with Amtrak? It would seem to me that this would be kind of a three way thing, you know, between Amtrak the State of Kansas and a railroad.
If the public started lobbying the State of Kansas for passenger train train service like Oklahoma and Missouri have, it would seem to me that the Kansas House of Representatives handle the first step of passing a bill. This, I think, would be based on a feasibility study by Amtrak that could would have to be requested by the KDOT. If, for example, the best route is determined to follow the Southwest Chief corridor, but let's say during the daytime, then KDOT would have to explore this with Burlington Northern Santa Fe. If BNSF is agreeable to running two mor trains over their system each day, and the State is willing to pay, then it could actually happen. based on what Missouri pays for their train and what Oklahoma pays for theirs, it probably wouldn't cost all that much, at least not so much as to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The ridership over this connection would probably show a general increase over the entire system and for each train as well, but only if it runs during the daytime.
Or phone up NC DOT and see how they did it!
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
JT22CW wrote: Remember, SEPTA defines their commuter rail operation as "regional rail". Philly and New York are approximately 94 miles apart; this is commuter rail distance. The Long Island Rail Road's service to Montauk is approximately 120 miles long. The planned Lackawanna Cutoff line from New York to Scranton PA is to be 133 miles long and operated by NJ Transit, so that torpedoes the notion that Amtrak has a "monopoly by default". FYI, the operator of most of the northeast commuter rail services prior to 1981 was Conrail.BTW, it's not true that states unilaterally support Amtrak monetarily. Nor are Amtrak the sole choice; states can and do contract the private railroads for passenger service operation (surely you would be aware of that Al, what with the UP and BNSF operations of Metra trains; there are also CSX's operation of MARC trains off the Penn Line, and much as I hate to refer to it, Connex's operation of MBTA commuter rail in Boston).Your argument that Amtrak is not under pressure to operate efficiently is not true. They have more pressure on them than commuter railroads to do so; this is reflected in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and more stringently so in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act.
Remember, SEPTA defines their commuter rail operation as "regional rail". Philly and New York are approximately 94 miles apart; this is commuter rail distance. The Long Island Rail Road's service to Montauk is approximately 120 miles long. The planned Lackawanna Cutoff line from New York to Scranton PA is to be 133 miles long and operated by NJ Transit, so that torpedoes the notion that Amtrak has a "monopoly by default". FYI, the operator of most of the northeast commuter rail services prior to 1981 was Conrail.
BTW, it's not true that states unilaterally support Amtrak monetarily. Nor are Amtrak the sole choice; states can and do contract the private railroads for passenger service operation (surely you would be aware of that Al, what with the UP and BNSF operations of Metra trains; there are also CSX's operation of MARC trains off the Penn Line, and much as I hate to refer to it, Connex's operation of MBTA commuter rail in Boston).
Your argument that Amtrak is not under pressure to operate efficiently is not true. They have more pressure on them than commuter railroads to do so; this is reflected in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and more stringently so in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act.
I do realize that not all states fund Amtrak unlilaterlly or at all, and I never meant to imply otherwise. It is only those states that wish Amtrak service beyond Amtrak's defined routes that have to pay (all or most if the cost) themselves. NC, I have been told, is paying Amtrak a goodly purse to operate the Carolinian and the Piedmont; as my Amtrak timetable puts it: "The Carolinian and the Piedmont are financed primarily through funds made available through the North Carolina State Department of Transportation"; and if that's the way to do it, fine with me. It seems to be working.
At any rate, whether there is a lot of choice I'm not sure. Under the Urban Mass Transit Act of (I think) 1970, private, for-profit carriers cannot operate commuter or commuter-like service. Thus all the fuss to make sure Amtrak is "quasi"-governmental, meaning of course it's quasi-private as well. And all local and/or regional commuter agencies are just that -- public agencies. In other words, NS couldn't set up its own regional trains on its own track even if it wanted to. Unless Amtrak should permit the formation of a new NCRail along the lines of Metra or NJT, I don't see that happening because the state has no prior legacy of commuter and/or long-distance commuter and/or regional passenger rail service.
GOOD MORNING,AL IN CHCGO. INTERESDTING,YOUR THOUGHT ON THIS ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDWEST WHERE OUR MUTUAL FRIENDS AT NORTHERN ALIANCE IS TRYING TO GET MORE REGIONAL SERVICEIN KANSAS,OKLA,NEB,IA,MO, ETC.I WOULD THINK THE SAME IDEOOGY WILL HAVE TO APPLY AS IN NORTH CAROLINA.I HAVE AN OLDER BROTHER WHO LIVES ABOUT 25 MILES FROM RALEIGH.WHILE HE DOESNT SAY ANYTHING IM RATHER SURE HE WOULD LOVE BETTER REGIONAL SERVICE ACROSS STATE LINES.AS IT IS NOW HE HAS 2 TRAINS N AND S BUT NEITHER OF THEM HELP HIM IF HE WANTS TO COME OUT HERE TO THE MIDWEST.ONLY A CHANGE IN WASHINGTON AND CHICAGO CAN GET HIM THERE OFTEN WITH MAJOR DELAYS IN CONNECTIONS.
IF NORTHERN ALLIANCE CAN GET SOMETHING TOLLING AS MY CONTACT IN WICHITA SAYS GET KSDOT OFF ITS "BUTTS" YOU JUST MIGHT SEE THE SAME THING IN THE WEST.IM RATHER SURE HAT ILL DOT WITH ALL ITS TRAINS OPERATING WITHIN ITS BORDERS WOULD RATHER HAVE A MORE SAY IN HOW THE TRAINS ARE OPERATED.IE CHICAGO-STLOUIS,YOU CANT GET AN OVERNIGHT FRON CHIMTOWN TO ANY OF MTHE DOWNSTATE POINTS,YOU GET THE IDEA/.
ANYWAY I SURE HOPR YOU GET DOWN TO K.C. TO THE MEETING.TIME HAS CHANGED TO START AT 10.30 AM,BUT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME DOWN OVERNIGHT AND STAY AT THE HOTEL TO BE ON TIME SAT.ALSO YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO CHI UNTILSUNDAY AS THE LAST TRAIN THAT LEAVES KC AT4.OO PM DOESNT MAKE ANY CONNECTIONS TO CHIACO AT ST.LOUIS, E MAIL AT MY HOME EMAIL ADDRESS (frankdpasser@yahoo.com)
regards,grand ave,mo
al-in-chgo wrote: If "regional rail" is a separate and distinct category of passenger service, generally longer than commuter and shorter than Intercity, it is right for Amtrak to maintain its monopoly on operating such trains?
It's not so much a matter of "right and wrong" as a matter of practicality. Under current federal law, only Amtrak has the legal right of access to privately owned railroad tracks at preferred rates. And the host railroads have made it very clear they want to keep it that way. Whenever the subject of competition has come up, they have all stated loud and clear that they will deal with Amtrak and only Amtrak.
There are two major reasons for their position. First, they don't want to be caught in the middle of competing interests of different passenger operators. Second, they know that Amtrak's crews are highly qualfied to operate safely on their systems.
There also are very few qualified passenger rail operators at this point. The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Agency expressed concern that if Amtrak, their contract operator, was ever dissolved, they would be very hard pressed to find an alternative operator that UP would deem qualified to operate on their tracks.
There is nothing to stop a competing operator from making a proposal, but there is also nothing to stop the host railroads from saying no.
Competition would be nice, but in the current business and political climate, one must ask if it is doable.
It is also important to remember that while there are no competing passenger operators, that does not mean Amtrak has no competition. The competition just flies planes and builds roads.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.