How to double capacity of U.S. railroads (without even building a single mile of new track)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

Clearly the BNSF did not think the traffic was "good money" for them. Your third party logistic outfit probably used some sort of standard cost estimation program. I suspect it grossly underestimated terminal costs, which as I tried to illustrate dominate the economics of this move.

If you were running the terminals at the Port, and were anywhere near capacity, you would sure want to be paid well for your lifts. Remember you are competing for space with transcontinental traffic. Not taking low paying short haul business to keep capacity for the transcontinental traffic makes all kinds of sense to me. When you are capacity constrained, you must be very careful about what business you handle. I suspect that and the drays is what killed your deal, not the line haul costs. How much detail did your logistics outfit share and did you sit in on talks with railroad?

"Thank you" to the several others who corrected your misstatements about crew issues. I could have but wanted to concentrate on more basic issues.

Mac

Mac,

The third part company I refer to also runs other short haul lanes with BNSF. It is shortsighted to say they underestimated terminal costs since they have current experience with those issues. Also, the ports supported the plan so I don't think terminal space was an issue at the time.

[Anonymous]

VerM,

1. Why would rerouting Amtrak from Stevens Pass to Stampede Pass require "another set of equipment it doesn't have." You are using the same equipment. You can also separate the Portland leg at Pasco rather than Spokane. Wouldn't the latter free up equipment?

2. You also state, "Also, the problems the UP is having in Portland have nothing to do with capacity along the "I-5"." It is 134 miles from Vancouver to Tacoma. If it is taking 6.5 hours for this run, that's about 20 miles an hour over water level trackage. Clearly, that slow of a transit time suggests congestion on that line. However, you will note that the real congestion for UP is in the Gorge, and the gist of my point is that the Stampede Pass reroute would free up some capacity on this line for Puget Sound bound/origin UP trains. You do give a reluctant aknowledgement of that point. Perhaps a better example is the one pointed out regarding Cajon Pass, where BNSF is exploring adding trackage while the parallel UP line has extra capacity.

3. You also state, "The Empire Builder, as an example, is a small part of the 45 or so trains a day that move on the Hi-Line across Montana, so one would have to wonder whether it's that big of a deal to get rid of it to BNSF (which, as I said earlier, benefits BNSF by providing crew transportation in all weather where there is no parallel public transportation)." Doesn't the Hi-Line parallel U.S. highway 2? If having Amtrak to provide crew transportation is that much of an asset to BNSF, wouldn't BNSF want Amtrak on it's half dozen or so other lines through Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas? You are mistaking PR for bottom line results. What is really interesting is your opposition to moving the Empire Builder to the I-90 corridor through Montana, which hits most of the population centers in Montana. Wouldn't that increase online ridership? And speaking of Amtrak.....

4. ....you state lastly, "And, let's not forget the original topic of your post: "How to double capacity of U.S. railroads without even building a single mile of new track". Well, if one of the ways was to eliminate some of the trains (Amtrak) so that others can operate, I for one, hardly consider that as exceptionally creative. Unlike you evidently, I believe we need passenger trains." On that last point, you are correct in my stance. I and most people in this nation do not believe we need passenger trains. If Amtrak were to be discontinued tommorrow, it would not register even a blip on the economy or social well being of the nation outside the NEC. Rather, my position is to take the Amtrak funding and instead of the government running passenger trains, offer that money as a subsidy for private rail passenger ventures for maybe 10 years as seed money, with the Amtrak agency responsible for allowing passenger ventures to take over Amtrak's former access rights. That is the only way to see if there is the possiblity of a private rail passenger service being self sustaining over time.

As for the original topic of this post, my intent was not to be confrontational, but to parlay ideas and see what others could offer regarding capacity improvements sans new trackage. I notice you have not offered any such suggestions.

BTW, regarding your Montana Rail Tours conundrum, one of the stated reasons they have cancelled the 2005 season is that they do not have direct access to air passengers, presumably in Spokane. As you know, the company had to terninate their trains in Sandpoint on the west end of MRL tracks. If they could directly access the Spokane terminal, would they have had a better chance of making it? If so, then wouldn't the concept of open access be of benefit to them? Also, should they be entitled to a portion of Amtrak funds?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

Other than possibly Amtrak, I would say that 300+ mile crew districts are certainly no the norm. A closer figure would be 200-250 miles for and interdivisional run.
Dave H.

Dave,

For the record, it is 248 miles by rail from Tacoma to Pasco. If 200-250 is the norm for crew districts, then BNSF's record of needing two crew districts over the Stampede line would suggest underperformance. I will acknowledge that Stampede has 2.2% grades and more curvature than other PNW lines.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

The Ports will support your proposal as a reflex action because they think it is in their interest. Their support tells you nothing of terminal issues. The Ports are not running the terminals.

Somebody in the Port of Tacoma would know the capacity situation in Tacoma since it is their facility on the Muni. BNSF operates SIG in Seattle. Going to Tacoma you have to use the Muni to get to the IM terminal(s). I am not familiar with operational details there but I really doubt that the muni will work for free.

Your answer is long on generalities and short on fact which confirms my point that you do not have the information, data, or facts to support your conclusion that open access is the solution to your problem. You have not convinced me you know what the problem really was.

If you are familiar with railroad's general statements they admit that short haul intermodal does not work for moves of less that 500-800 miles. I believe the reason for that is that it takes that much of the rail's linehaul advantage to overcome the costs of terminals and drays, which are major cost components that the trucker does not have.

The BNSF is not stupid. They would not turn down profitable business, so I can only conclude your move was not profitable regardless of what your third party told you. BNSF is disciplined enough not to do dumb stuff like take business that does not pay.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

The Ports will support your proposal as a reflex action because they think it is in their interest. Their support tells you nothing of terminal issues. The Ports are not running the terminals.

Somebody in the Port of Tacoma would know the capacity situation in Tacoma since it is their facility on the Muni. BNSF operates SIG in Seattle. Going to Tacoma you have to use the Muni to get to the IM terminal(s). I am not familiar with operational details there but I really doubt that the muni will work for free.

Your answer is long on generalities and short on fact which confirms my point that you do not have the information, data, or facts to support your conclusion that open access is the solution to your problem. You have not convinced me you know what the problem really was.

If you are familiar with railroad's general statements they admit that short haul intermodal does not work for moves of less that 500-800 miles. I believe the reason for that is that it takes that much of the rail's linehaul advantage to overcome the costs of terminals and drays, which are major cost components that the trucker does not have.

The BNSF is not stupid. They would not turn down profitable business, so I can only conclude your move was not profitable regardless of what your third party told you. BNSF is disciplined enough not to do dumb stuff like take business that does not pay.

Mac

Mac, could you contact me via email please? Thanks.

[VerMontanan]

Futuremodal stated:
"1. Why would rerouting Amtrak from Stevens Pass to Stampede Pass require "another set of equipment it doesn't have." You are using the same equipment. You can also separate the Portland leg at Pasco rather than Spokane. Wouldn't the latter free up equipment?"

As I explained earlier, rerouting the Empire Builder from Stevens Pass to Stampede Pass would require another set of equipment on the Seattle leg because of the increased running time. Even if the track was upgraded to passenger train speeds and a continuous ABS system (which it does not now currently have) installed, the Stampede Pass route would require 2 hours additional running time in each direction. So, the westbound train would arrive Seattle about 2 hours later and have to leave 2 hours earlier. Since turnaround time is only a bit over 6 hours currently, this would reduce turnaround time to just a bit over 2 hours, which is not feasible. Of course, the train's schedule could be changed, but that would eliminate connections at Chicago and Portland. The Empire Builder, as currently scheduled, is delicately timed to make all eastern connections in Chicago, the Coast Starlight in Portland, and provide a same-day turnaround in Seattle and Portland. Something would have to give if the train was operated over Stampede Pass. If all the connections were maintained, an additional set of equipment would be required on the Seattle section, very simple. As for separating the train at Pasco instead of Spokane freeing up equipment: It would run Spokane to Portland on the same route in the same amount of time with splitting the train in Pasco taking the identical amount of time than it would in Spokane. How in the world could this free up equipment?

Futuremodal continued"
"2. You also state, "Also, the problems the UP is having in Portland have nothing to do with capacity along the "I-5"." It is 134 miles from Vancouver to Tacoma. If it is taking 6.5 hours for this run, that's about 20 miles an hour over water level trackage. Clearly, that slow of a transit time suggests congestion on that line. However, you will note that the real congestion for UP is in the Gorge, and the gist of my point is that the Stampede Pass reroute would free up some capacity on this line for Puget Sound bound/origin UP trains. You do give a reluctant aknowledgement of that point. Perhaps a better example is the one pointed out regarding Cajon Pass, where BNSF is exploring adding trackage while the parallel UP line has extra capacity. "

Sorry, but mentioning the terminal time in Portland was only to point out that this is a problem on the UP. Therefore, you supposition that UP trains could be on duty at Tacoma or Seattle and then make the run to Hinkle or someplace east via Stampede Pass with one crew is flawed because logic would dictate that how the trains operate would have nothing to do with terminal issues, especially at Tacoma and Seattle. The Portland scenario was just an example of UP's lengthly ITD problems (and similar problems are the norm at Seattle and Tacoma now).

Futuremodal continues:
"3. You also state, "The Empire Builder, as an example, is a small part of the 45 or so trains a day that move on the Hi-Line across Montana, so one would have to wonder whether it's that big of a deal to get rid of it to BNSF (which, as I said earlier, benefits BNSF by providing crew transportation in all weather where there is no parallel public transportation)." Doesn't the Hi-Line parallel U.S. highway 2? If having Amtrak to provide crew transportation is that much of an asset to BNSF, wouldn't BNSF want Amtrak on it's half dozen or so other lines through Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas? You are mistaking PR for bottom line results. What is really interesting is your opposition to moving the Empire Builder to the I-90 corridor through Montana, which hits most of the population centers in Montana. Wouldn't that increase online ridership?"

Well, this certainly displays your ignorance about the unique characteristics of the Empire Builder and its route. The Empire Builder serves the least on line population of any long distance train that Amtrak operates, yet in FY2004, the Empire Builder finished as Amtrak's single most ridden train. Now, if population was the deciding factor in determining ridership as you suggest, then why isn't the Empire Builder the least-ridden train in America? Well, because of lack of transportation alternatives. That's why more people (in 2003) boarded the Amtrak in Whitefi***han they did Albuquerque or Salt Lake City and why more people boarded Amtrak in Minot than they did in Omaha, and why more people boarded Amtrak in Shelby (population 3,000) than in the state capital cities of Lincoln, Nebraska and Topeka, Kansas COMBINED! So, I guess I would need proof that a rerouted Empire Builder would carry more passengers on another route than it does on its current route that exceeds all others. And, there is a bit of history behind this, too. One can go all the way back to 1947 when the streamlined version of the Empire Builder was launched and see that rail passenger service on along the ex-GN route (mostly used by today's Empire Builder, too) was superior to that of the NP. That equated to increased ridership throughout the 1950s and 1960s that was one of the reasons that in 1971, the ex-GN route was chosen as the sole remaining route for a Chicago-to-Seattle passenger train at the time of the creation of Amtrak. And as for your point about parallel highway 2: Oh...what is your point? No intercity bus service along its route (except between Cut Bank and Shelby ) all the way from Wenatchee, Washington to Minot, North Dakota. And because of no other transportation (buses are often used for crew deadheading), yes, BNSF does rely on Amtrak for crew movements on this line proportionally more than anywhere else on the system. And, as a native of that area, I can testify to the fact that two-lane US 2 is closed over Marias Pass much more often than is I-90 to the south (and of course, there is more emphasis placed on keeping interstate highways open, as opposed to two-lane roads, such as US 2).

Futuremodal continues:
"4. ....you state lastly, "And, let's not forget the original topic of your post: "How to double capacity of U.S. railroads without even building a single mile of new track". Well, if one of the ways was to eliminate some of the trains (Amtrak) so that others can operate, I for one, hardly consider that as exceptionally creative. Unlike you evidently, I believe we need passenger trains." On that last point, you are correct in my stance. I and most people in this nation do not believe we need passenger trains. If Amtrak were to be discontinued tommorrow, it would not register even a blip on the economy or social well being of the nation outside the NEC. Rather, my position is to take the Amtrak funding and instead of the government running passenger trains, offer that money as a subsidy for private rail passenger ventures for maybe 10 years as seed money, with the Amtrak agency responsible for allowing passenger ventures to take over Amtrak's former access rights. That is the only way to see if there is the possiblity of a private rail passenger service being self sustaining over time. "

Actually, you are incorrect (again) here. Polls routinely state that between 70 and 80 percent of Americans favor a nationwide rail passenger service. Privatizing passenger rail service sounds good to the uninformed, and it's interesting that no other intercity rail passenger service in the world performs without subsidy. Also, expecting it to be self-sustaining ignores that passenger rail has not benefited from the fantastic subsidies received by airlines and highways over the years. As for Amtrak disappearing and not being noticed outside the Northeast Corridor, this is only partially true because America has invested in airways and highways at the expense of railroads for the past 50 years. Just because we chose to ignore this mode of transportation and it is for that reason that it now handles a relatively small portion of intercity travel doesn't mean that it's right that we scrap it all together. Maybe we should right the wrong instead! And, for the record, California and Washington are also heavily dependent on passenger trains, and are hundreds of other communities nationwide facing declining air and bus service...and, perhaps the biggest outcry if intercity trains would be eliminated would be from along the Empire Builder route, where the train is so needed and used. It's no wonder that, on June 11, 2004, when the Empire Builder celebrated its 75th anniversary (the second-longest continuously operated passenger train in America), thousands of people (including Senators, Governors, other elected officials, and the president of Amtrak) turned out at scores of celebrations all along the route to show appreciation for this, the most successful and needed train in America.

Futuremodal continues:
"As for the original topic of this post, my intent was not to be confrontational, but to parlay ideas and see what others could offer regarding capacity improvements sans new trackage. I notice you have not offered any such suggestions."

No, I haven't, nor have I given it any specific thought. But I think it's also important to challenge suggestions like yours that are without merit, such as eliminating Amtrak, or sending it a route that would make the service completely useless. That some freight trains could be rerouted or whatever is always open to speculation. But your numerous posts about the Empire Builder prove that you are completely ignorant about any of the characteristics of the train, and your flippant comments about Amtrak trains running 8-10 hours late "being the norm," and that "so what if it adds 6 to 8 hours to the schedule" really erodes your credibility. I just think that if you're going to propose eliminating a service, you should first know something about it, and you should have stated your desire to eliminate Amtrak right from the start (that would have been the honest thing to do) rather than propose a bunch of bizarre routing changes that would have no benefit.

Futuremodal continues:
"BTW, regarding your Montana Rail Tours conundrum, one of the stated reasons they have cancelled the 2005 season is that they do not have direct access to air passengers, presumably in Spokane. As you know, the company had to terninate their trains in Sandpoint on the west end of MRL tracks. If they could directly access the Spokane terminal, would they have had a better chance of making it? If so, then wouldn't the concept of open access be of benefit to them? Also, should they be entitled to a portion of Amtrak funds?"

This is the first I have heard that the Montana Rail Tours trains were canceled due to lack of access to Spokane and its airport. Such has not been mentioned in their press releases, but only that they seek a larger population base for their service and that costs such as insurance are rising too quickly. In their past season of operation, many of their tours originated in Spokane anyway, with a bus bridge to the train at Sandpoint. If you look at the tours they offer, most of the include large sections of bus operations. For instance, access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton is via bus from Livingston, and of course Glacier National Park (which was also on one or more of their tours) is even further away from the MRL line. Based on this, it just seems unlikely that originating from or terminating in Spokane would be a make-or-break situation for them, since they employ buses freely at other points. And, I don't know if the concept of open access is relevant here. I would have to know the reason that they terminate the trains at Sandpoint. I can't imagine that BNSF would have any particular reason for NOT allowing them to run from Sandpoint to Spokane...if they paid for doing so (after all, MRL crews run Missoula to Spokane now). Perhaps it is the cost of the station facilities in Spokane (their facility in Sandpoint/Kootenai is minimal). I don't know, but would welcome anyone that knows for sure why the service terminated at Sandpoint. As for BNSF, they seem more than happy to run American Orient Express trains (which are run by Amtrak crews) over to the MRL as well as MRL officer specials between Spokane and Sandpoint. And, when the SP&S 700 and SP 4449 ventured to Montana in over the past couple of years to pull special MRT tour trains on the MRL, they ran on BNSF, and I saw nothing to indicate that their was any specific problem with BNSF handling these locomotives. As for Montana Rockies Rail Tours receiving Amtrak funds: No problem, after all, it's not etched in stone that Amtrak has to be the sole provider of intercity passenger service in this country. But if they received money to do so, then they would have to provide true intercity service which they do not do now.

[arbfbe]

There are several reasons MRRT chose Sandpoint. Primarily, BN was not as excusion friendly as they are now. BN had to support AMTK sponsored excursions but then AMTK had no agreements with MRL. MRRT would have had to share revenues with yet another 'partner' if AMTK came aboard for the BN segment. MRRT also had no history at that time as they do now. Land and trackage for the equipment storage, maintenance and switching were readily available on the MRL where there would be far less vandalism than Spokane. There would be no payments to BN other than deadheading of equipment between Portland and Sandpoint. Using Sandpoint as a base would avoid the Spokane - Yardley - Sandpoint massive cluster that could add hours to the trip at the beginning end or the trailing end.

MRRT still has a contract to operate trains on the MRL through 2006. While it is not likely they will operate any trains in 2005 account the lateness to advertise and organize any trips before the summer season there are still plans to operate a full travel season in 2006 in celebration of the final year of the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial. Let's hope that can still happen. It would be a reason for you to come back and ride, eh, Mark?

Alan