Decision by board sets stage for 'Southwest Chief' bus bridge, puts seven other trains at risk
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/08/27-amtrak-says-it-will-not-run-trains-on-routes-without-ptc
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
I think it is absolutely rediculous to require PTC on tracks that see one train a day each way. I question Delta Donald's competence for his job, based on his insistance for the Southwest Chief Raton Pass route where it is not shared with commuter and/or freight trains. I have other reasons to question his competence, but this issue is what has made my questioning his compentence public.
At the same time, it should not be Rocket Science, but straight-forward engineering to develop a low-cost compatible alternative to wiereless-radio-based and overlay PTC for low-density lines that are already ABS equipped, including the Southwest Chief's line. The would mean a transmiter at each block signal that would let the track circuit talk to the regular PTC eqipment on the locomotive. This would be supplimented by clock-controlled relays, as Southern had on Saluda Grade, to insure speed limits at any dangerous curves and/or grades are not exceeded.
At the same time, passenger train advocates in Maine ahould begin working on a plan where Maine can contribute to have Massachusett's MBTA take over the Downeastern Service, much as it does for Providence, R. I. commuterss, with its NEC ervice runing as far southw est as Kingston (or is it Westerly now?) R. I.
Since MBTA does not provide food or dring service, this could be provided by a caterer, using rolling food, drink, magazine, and newspaper aisle carts.
Having MBTA take over the "Downeasters" may not be possible. It would depend on the wording of the statute that created the agency. The service to Providence is obviously a commuter operation, not so with service to Maine.
You are correct that a change in its governg statute may be required. But one was also required to operate out of State.
And some in New Hampshire are organizing a push for MBTA service to Nashua, Manchester, and Concord, possibly even as far as Plymouth.
Bravo to Bob Johnston for his reporting on the Raton meeting. Marc Magliari's attempt on behalf of Amtrak to neuter this, by siting their still unreleased Safety Management Study (SMS) process, falls apart with a simple reading of Pages 7 and 8 of the Power Point presented by Amtrak VP Gardner at Raton. Referring on both pages to the PTC exempt track segments (Dodge City to Trinidad--which has some PTC and some PTC exempt track--and Trinidad to Lamy, which is fully PTC exempted), Amtrak says unambiguously,
"This segment has been granted an FRA Mainline Track Exclusion (MTEA) previously and Amtrak is undertaking a risk assessment to evaluate safety conditions and risk mitigation alternatives for interim operations after January 1, 2019 prior to the installation of PTC.
"Amtrak will require PTC for this segment for long term operation."
And there it is--regardless of FRA PTC exemption, Amtrak insists on a PTC installation it knows to be unfunded, unrequired and unneeded, based on a full FRA review process. How can they possibly insist on such measures here and not do so, as Bob notes, on other routes? Indeed the SOUTHWEST CHIEF line has the least risk based on other traffic of any of the threatened routes, with the 219 miles from Trinidad to Lamy seeing no service other than the SWC.
Amtrak is using PTC to trigger a funding crisis that can be used to justify major service reductions. It well knows that the funding does not exist to install universal PTC and that the FRA's review process has clearly denoted where it is NOT required.
Of course in an ideal world we would want not only PTC, but also Automatic Train Control everywhere, but the perfect is as always the enemy of the possible. The rail mode remains astonishingly safe if the Code of Operating Practice is followed. What Amtrak is doing here is to weaponize PTC to force changes to its network that could never be otherwise approved.
Today the DOWNEASTER operating authority put out a highly optimistic press release echoing Magliari's talking points. All will be well, based on the SMS study, they proclaim. They would do well to read the full text of the Raton slides. Do they have the near-term money to install comprehensive PTC from Haverhill, Ma 111 miles to Brunswick. ME? Because that is what Amtrak is requiring on the SOUTHWEST CHIEF route, despite, and even after, the (unknown/unreleased) SMS study is implemented.
Vermont seems equally convinced all will be well based on the (also unknown/unreleased) results of the SMS study. We had better be right, or over $100,000,000 invested in upgrades to both the VERMONTER and ETHAN ALLEN routes will have been wasted. We too have no funding for PTC. Indeed we have extensive "dark territory" on both routes and were apparently recently told the cost of PTC on our lines could approach $300m! We too would profit from reading what Amtrak projected would have to happen, even after the SMS report, on the SWC route--full PTC or nothing ultimately.
If there is to be nationwide PTC it is absolutely clear there will need to be Federal funding for low traffic routes. I will gladly embrace that funding if provided, but remind again that FRA PTC exemption meant it was judged NOT to be required on lines like the VERMONTER and the SOUTHWEST CHIEF.
Perhaps the most eloquent proof of Amtrak's intentions on the SOUTHWEST CHIEF route is its conclusion on Page 3 of the report
"We now have data that validates our initial alternative scenarios and confirms that a bus-bridge option represents the best alternative for preserving service and access over this route while avoiding the necessary large capital investments in 2019 and the future".
The 550 mile long bus bridge is "best"! Yet when we get to the costs to implement this monstrosity they adnit it drops patronage and increases losses. Meanwhile by releasing their promised $3m match they trigger a $25m Tiger Nine grant for track work on the line and they finally acknowledge in the PPT the additional $50m the Senate has directed to the route (and which I believe they are lobbying in DC to delete!). Yes this must appear in the Conference Report with the House next month, but there is no indication in the PPT that Amtrak is working to retain it.
The bus-bridge, by their own estimates, drops ridership from 363,000 to as low as 238,900. They propose to still run the stub trains to the bus-bridge overnight CHI/DOD and ABQ/LAX, but with no diner or sleepers. Their "fast bus", by originating in La Junta, still takes six hours 36 minutes (really optimistic--especially in the winter). The all stops version of the bus (realistically scheduled for mountain passes, two lane segments, going in/out of towns, rest/meal stops and handling luggage) by actually going to every station (and thus preserving service) takes 10 hours, 45 minutes. Both scenarios have the same end point train times in Chicago and Los Angeles--so why deny service to Garden City, Lamar, Las Vegas and Lamy?
But fine- tuning the bus schedule is worthless. No one will accept a 550 mile bus-bridge for more than the first few weeks after the train-off, when ambushed riders may have no choice. The very short "long term" consequence, as Amtrak knows, will be service if at all only Chicago to Kansas City (which the states of Illinois, Iowa and Missouri would be required to fully support, by being under 750 miles) and possibly a rump SWC from Los Angeles to Albuquerque. Amtrak knows this perfectly well. The bus-bridge is literally a bridge too far!
The Congress must direct Amtrak to observe Federal regulations and continue service over lines properly exempted from PTC.
Carl Fowler
Deggesty wrote in the "Boardman weighs in Amtrak's on PTC mandate" thread.
From a response to the Newswire article:
https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/amtrak-statement-refutes-trains-ptc-article/
I think it fits here as well.Regards, Volker
I actually see the logic behind the move.....
1. What happens when FRA lifts it's waiver for the PTC track, who pays for PTC implementation then?
2. If there was an accident on these non-PTC lines I think the trial lawyers would have a field day with the accident liability judgement and that expectation in itself would raise Amtraks insurance premium.
So I think Amtrak is forcing a resolution of both issues as they seem to make Amtrak unusally nervous. If Amtrak does end up pulling the plug, they are going to drive up the costs of running their other trains the way they do their cost allocation accounting. Labor severance alone will be very costly.
BTW, Amtrak Board Members per Congressional rules cannot be appointed from one political party and there are protections as well that a single POTUS cannot appoint more than a few board members without consultation and approval from Congress........so this board position was made in a bipartisan fashion. I find it rather strange to see the board take such a strong position on anything to tell you the truth. Trump has only appointed 2 of 8 current Amtrak board members, one was a CPA and the other was an avowed Railfan or so he said to the press. It is a mystery to me why out of the blue the Amtrak board just suddenly decided to get tough on an issue.
This nothing more and nothing less than a Amtrak extortion attempt to have somebody - besides Amtrak - pay for PTC installation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Can we wonder if this is an attempt by Amtrak to divert attention away from other problems ? This was a back burner item that Amtrak has had for a while.
EDIT from another site the RPA letter about accounting.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.