daveklepperBNSF may regard running a 1st class suburban service as worth it for free advertising for the excellence of their railroad, but that is their decision.
Ohhhh, I am pretty confident that is not why BNSF is still doing this. I suspect it has more to do with their contract has not reached expiration yet.
daveklepper I understand your point of view, but hauling suburban passengers is not the business UP wants, and a whole management structure, independent of the railroad as a whole, is required to manage that operation. Coach cleaning, ticket collecting and pass checking, a whole business that looses money under the contract, and it is perfectly understandable why they want out. BNSF may regard running a 1st class suburban service as worth it for free advertising for the excellence of their railroad, but that is their decision. I'll leave it up to the STB or courts to decide. There are arguments on both sides. And no railroad management can tell the investors to GTH and stay on as the management.
I understand your point of view, but hauling suburban passengers is not the business UP wants, and a whole management structure, independent of the railroad as a whole, is required to manage that operation. Coach cleaning, ticket collecting and pass checking, a whole business that looses money under the contract, and it is perfectly understandable why they want out.
BNSF may regard running a 1st class suburban service as worth it for free advertising for the excellence of their railroad, but that is their decision.
I'll leave it up to the STB or courts to decide. There are arguments on both sides.
And no railroad management can tell the investors to GTH and stay on as the management.
I'm sure the contract UP has doesn't lose them a lot of money. All those other things are probably figured into it. UP may not be making money, but I doubt they are losing a lot of money, either.
They do have to carry more employees' on their books than they would if they could jettison the commuter operations. If anything, it's some of those costs that aren't covered by the contract.
Dave, you have the same affliction that Fred Frailey had. That BNSF can do no wrong. While they certainly do better than UP, they still act in many ways like the rest of the class one bunch. They are doing certain facets of PSR. It just seems like they haven't gone to the extreme of telling certain lines of business to take a hike. Yet. BNSF, from what I've read from guys who work there, feel the same way towards their employees as do UP, NS, and CSX. Maybe also KCS, CP, and CN.
And you can tell some investors to GTH. As long as it's the ones who don't control 51% of the voting shares.
Jeff
Amtrak took over the ATSF services early in the game. The initial foray into running passengers over ATSF by a local commuter agency was a mess. It took a decade and several former ATSF and UP managers to clean it up. (The locals had a bad habit of breaking agreements of previous regimes when they did not suit the new regime's politics.... Only thing I saw that was worse was what NM did.
BaltACD Did ATSF even have any commuter services in California before it became a part of BNSF? I think not.
Did ATSF even have any commuter services in California before it became a part of BNSF? I think not.
+1. Thanks, McFarlane!
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Thanks again, Falcon. Let's hope the two parties can settle. I wonder if the UP would like to see some reductions in Metra service, particularly in non-rush hour periods? And a shorter rush hour segment? I don't commute anymore, but I think that could be managed without much impact on riders on the UP West line. All UP wants to do is dump the employees. They do not care about current levels of service and in the future agreement UP would retain ownership and dispatching on all the lines. They do not want to carry the extra employees involved in train movement, ticket sales, maintenence or whatever and want METRA to take on the employees. Their public reasoning is that brings the contract in line with other contracts they have external to Illinois. My feeling is they projected out into the future the pension, health care, etc of the employees and figured out they were probably getting soaked financially by the METRA contract. It reads like via the challenge that METRA can't afford the costs of the employees without a fare or subsidy increase. Just my read based on METRA stalling the transfer. So potentially bad news for METRA and it's costs if UP wins the case and I predict UP will win the case just by showing the contracts in other states and how they are different in just that one area. UP has a strong case for showing Metra is shifting it's costs to UP.
charlie hebdo Thanks again, Falcon. Let's hope the two parties can settle. I wonder if the UP would like to see some reductions in Metra service, particularly in non-rush hour periods? And a shorter rush hour segment? I don't commute anymore, but I think that could be managed without much impact on riders on the UP West line.
All UP wants to do is dump the employees. They do not care about current levels of service and in the future agreement UP would retain ownership and dispatching on all the lines. They do not want to carry the extra employees involved in train movement, ticket sales, maintenence or whatever and want METRA to take on the employees. Their public reasoning is that brings the contract in line with other contracts they have external to Illinois. My feeling is they projected out into the future the pension, health care, etc of the employees and figured out they were probably getting soaked financially by the METRA contract. It reads like via the challenge that METRA can't afford the costs of the employees without a fare or subsidy increase. Just my read based on METRA stalling the transfer.
So potentially bad news for METRA and it's costs if UP wins the case and I predict UP will win the case just by showing the contracts in other states and how they are different in just that one area. UP has a strong case for showing Metra is shifting it's costs to UP.
Doesn't matter what kind of contracts the UP has elsewhere around the system. METRA has a precedent with the purchase of service contract with BNSF...from what I've read the UP and BNSF agreements are practically identical(maybe not money wise, but in all other aspects). That's the only argument METRA needs to make in court, there's already a precedent for the existing contract with UP. UP is just listening to Wall Street to much, nothing more, nothing less. Run the damn railroad and tell Wall Street to shut up.
Here's a new development. UP has not complied with its contractual obligation to check for tickets and collect fares for months.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-chicago-metra-up-fare-collection-20200825-y5qy3asonnh7hmr6ecrbszqnv4-story.html
charlie hebdoYou really don't understand the situation and you are misreading what I wrote ... Jeff Hergert understands the reasons.
Be interesting to see how it comes out, though.
OM: You really don't understand the situation and you are misreading what I wrote. The UP didn't spend millions on the line out to Elburn to turn over to Metra at any price. The North and Northwest lines are not as valued for freight. Metra is fine with UP running trains but if UP won't, they aren't going to have a third party operate.
Jeff Hergert understands the reasons.
UP already gives commuter trains priority. There are curfews during peak commuter times when they hold out trains.
I think the big reason UP wants out is that they want to reduce their employment numbers. If Metra took over, UP could get rid of a lot of employees. Employees who cost money beyond direct costs that any Metra contract may cover. Also, employees who may mainly work the scoots, but still vote on union contracts on the freight side.
charlie hebdoHow do you know what UP is paid?
Why would Metra hire an outside agency to run trains and staff operations? They own and run some lines now.
UP would never sell their West line, since it carries the bulk of UP traffic from the west coast.
Personally I think you'd be looking at a model for government acquisition of railroad line infrastructure, just as you've advocated on a more fully national scale, and perhaps a case could be made for extensive Federal participation in acquisition (it is, after all, intimately related to interstate commerce on a grand scale although being nominally intrastate for commuter purposes.) Of course, I can hear the screaming starting now about where the Government money would come from...
How do you know what UP is paid? Why would Metra hire an outside agency to run trains and staff operations? They own and run some lines now. UP would never sell their West line, since it carries the bulk of UP traffic from the west coast.
This is at least presented as a short-term continuity of service thing. STB has apparently tried to punt on 'timely' ruling on the underlying issue now being asserted -- that UP has a continued common-carrier duty to provide commuter service on the parts of C&NW it took over, regardless of any subsequent deregulation or the formation of METRA to assist with continuing or improving commuter service. One sees the usual suspects lining up for where-you-stand-is-where-you-sit but I think there is unlikely to be much to come out of the 'new' on a faster scale than the present court and regulator actions already in process.
Expect whatever injunctions assure 'continuity of service' under some operator or another ... probably in my opinion by enforcing the status quo as that's the easiest 'dumb thing for judges to compel'. Then see it stretched out as everyone strives to get the most they can for as little ... aside from legal fees, the baksheesh that makes our current excuse for an economy and society run as it does.
I don't think METRA, or Chicago, or Illinois May have the wherewithal to actually "buy" the line from UP, even assuming UP would sell for some achievable price in return for the well-demonstrated hassle of running 'trackage rights only' around a heavily-trafficked and perhaps slipshod-scheduled transit service. I do think where this is going is selection of an entity like Keolis to run the transit functions -- including employing those ticket agents back -- but the absence of such a solution in this present popcorn show clearly says it can't be done for the el cheapo funds UP is now getting to provide it.
Unions and passenger groups join in supporting Metra's position against UP.
https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/08/19-unions-passenger-groups-offer-support-to-metra-in-dispute-with-up
To my knowledge (which may not be entirely accurate) here is the situation on the former ATSF line between LA and San Diego:
1. Amtrak provides "Surfliner" intercity service between LA and San Diego. It is well patronized - one of Amtrak's success stories.
2. Metrolink (an LA commuter agency) provides commuter service between LA and Oceanside.
2. Another commuter agency (the name escapes me) provides "Coaster" commuter service between SD and Oceanside
I don't know the current underlying ownership interests on the LA-SD line. But I vaguely recall that all or part of it was sold to a government agency some time ago. Someone else may have more info on this.
Last I checked LA Metrolink was provided by Herzog rail contracting.
BaltACDWhile the LA - SD corridor had frequent service in the ATSF days - looking at the schedules I have seen, I would not consider it as being commuter in nature.
Totally agree that is a corridor, it skips past a lot of station stops if your riding Amtrak.
blue streak 1Was the AT&SF LAX - San Diego ever considered commuter service ? How is the ownership of that line now divided ?
While the LA - SD corridor had frequent service in the ATSF days - looking at the schedules I have seen, I would not consider it as being commuter in nature.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Back to the thread
https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/08/07-stb-defers-decision-in-metra-union-pacific-dispute
Was the AT&SF LAX - San Diego ever considered commuter service ? How is the ownership of that line now divided ?
Electroliner 1935 Who provides the commuter operations on the UP and BNSF tracks in California?
Who provides the commuter operations on the UP and BNSF tracks in California?
On most (maybe all) of the former SP commuter routes in California, the commuter authorities own the railroad - UP is tenant. This is a legacy arrangement UP inherited from SP. SP sold the lines as part of its desparate efforts to raise cash to stay afloat, and UP inherited these arrangements when it merged with SP. UP would never have sold segments of important freight lines to a commuter authority. Anyone in UP who seriously suggested such a thing would likely have spent the rest of their careers tossing tacos in Calexico, NM.
The California situation is different than the Chicago area, In California, the commuter services on lines used by UP freights are mostly provided by commuter authorities which own the lines (due to SP's strategy of sellng lines to commuter authorities to stay afloat as previously described). In these cases UP is the tenant,
In contast, in Chicago, UP owns and controls the UP lines used for commuter serice. In its purchase of service agreement (PSA) with Metra, UP has contractually agreed to provide specified commuter services to Metra fpr a specified period. Absent court or STB intervention, any contractual obliigation UP might have would not survive the expiration of the PSA.
I have no knowledge of how California commuter operations on BNSF are structured. But I doubt that BNSF has sold any strategically important freight lines to any California commter authorities.
Falcon48 If I were a senior UP executive (I wasn't), I would have gotten out of running the commuter service a long time ago. You have no idea of how much management attention has to be paid to this service, not to mention the support services UP has to provide (for example, UP lawyers and claims personnel have to handle all of the personal injury and property damage claims the commuter service generates). It is far in excess of the support Amtrak gets from its host railroads UP isn't in the passenger service business - this is Metra's business. The proper way for it to be structured is for Metra to be treated as a trackage rights tenant responsible for its own services and everything that entails. To my knowledge, UP isn't deferring track maintenance on the commuter lines. They are in excellent condition.
If I were a senior UP executive (I wasn't), I would have gotten out of running the commuter service a long time ago. You have no idea of how much management attention has to be paid to this service, not to mention the support services UP has to provide (for example, UP lawyers and claims personnel have to handle all of the personal injury and property damage claims the commuter service generates). It is far in excess of the support Amtrak gets from its host railroads
UP isn't in the passenger service business - this is Metra's business. The proper way for it to be structured is for Metra to be treated as a trackage rights tenant responsible for its own services and everything that entails.
To my knowledge, UP isn't deferring track maintenance on the commuter lines. They are in excellent condition.
I neglected to mention the most visible example of a "trackage rights tenant" relationship between a passenger provider and a freight railroad - Amtrak. Where Amtrak runs its passenger trains over a freight railroad, its relationship with the owning railroad is essentially that of a trackage rights tenant. The owning frieght railroad has nothing to do with the marketing, crewing, ticketing or other support services for the Amtrak trains. True, the underlying agreement may have standards for the host railroad's dispatching and other such matters, but so do many freight railroad trackage rights arrangements.
With respect to BNSF's purchase of service reationship with Metra, that is also historical (like UP's) I think they are watching what happens with UP. If UP is successful in divesting itself of responsibility for running their commuter service, I predict BNSF will be next, when its current PSA expires. I'm sure Metra realizes this.
Metra owns the rolling stock on the BNSF Metra line.BNSF owns and dispatches the RoW. Trains are operated by BNSF under a purchase of service agreement dating back to BN.
The difference between BNSF and UP might be:
UP has a real public relations team with its steam program and more.
BNSF may regard a high-class commuter service as good public relation with a public that it wishes to reach, and the labeling of the equipment with whatever losses are involved in the provision of the service and the payments received, are considered an advertising-public-relations expense.
Also, one line instead of several.
blue streak 1 The problem of wall street's only looking at a RR's operating ratio is why IMHO UP wants to dump the service. If UP is making say 5% profit on the commuter service that causes the OR to get higher. So even though UP is adding to the profit per share that figure is being ignored by wall street. As has been posted elsewhere chasing a lower OR makes it very tempting for a RR to defer track maintenance.
The problem of wall street's only looking at a RR's operating ratio is why IMHO UP wants to dump the service. If UP is making say 5% profit on the commuter service that causes the OR to get higher. So even though UP is adding to the profit per share that figure is being ignored by wall street.
As has been posted elsewhere chasing a lower OR makes it very tempting for a RR to defer track maintenance.
If I had to guess, UP inherited this from C&NW and C&NW wanted to run this like a subsidiary operation and charge for it's full cost plus reasonable profit (5-7%). I think what happened over time was health care costs and pension benefits and costs escalated faster than what they could do with the contract price and now UP views it as a major financial hit unless they restructure it to be UP not carrying the cost of the employees.
Also, I think UP is fortunate that the old Northwestern Station in downtown Chicago was already taken care of instead of tranferred over to UP. That would have been another financial albatross for UP to deal with.
Also, I think BNSF should do the same. While it is nostalgic to see Chicago Rail Commutter Cars labled BNSF RAILWAY or in some cases still BURLINGTON. I think they are in the same boat as UP and need to transition all that stuff over to METRA.
I take UP's position in this case. And Metra already has the management and supervisory strucure, not something starting from scratch for them.
A very different situation would be when a primarily-bus transit system adds a commuter operation on one railroad line.
Definitely no deferred maintenance on UP West. In fact, I see some track crew vehicles weekly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.