Amtrak: Leave it to the goverment to take all the little poorly managed, money losing railroad companies and turn into one big tax payer headache. Seems like more cities losing service while the price tag for keeping Amtrak afloat increases. Very sad to say the least.
Airline,
Your grasp of history is deeply flawed. By the late 1960's most railroads had figured out they were loosing money on passenger trains and made strenuous, if only partially successful, efforts to eliminate them. Most knowledgeable observers figured that since the post office had just knocked the last prop, the mail traffic and its associated revenue, out from under the trains, the railroads would get rid of them in a few years.
Passenger train advocates could not stand that prospect and conned Congress into creating Amtrak. The railroads had to give ATK equipment in value equal to their two most recent years of passenger losses, had imposed on them a duty to maintain the track to current speed standards, and were required by law to charge ATK far below market rates for access to the rail system.
The one execption to this was to former PRR/NH Northeast Corridor which was conveyed in total to ATK.
The railroads were loosing money on passenger service due to government holding fares down and building highways and airports with the express purpose of diverting passengers off the trains. Only the government could convince itself that it could cut off half the trains on day one, loose "only" $40 million the first year and soon become profitable.
It was a bone head idea then, and except for the NEC where there are positive externalities that may justify suport for serious infrastructure investment, which has not happened, it is bone headed today.
If you want to solve the passenger train problem kill ATK.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNMThe one execption to this was to former PRR/NH Northeast Corridor which was conveyed in total to ATK.
Fact check: Not until 1976 and even then or now, not in totality.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm MidlandMike BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative. That is disputable.
MidlandMike BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative.
That is disputable.
Fred Frailey's blog attracts many knowledgeable RR industry posters, and I don't remember any big dispute regarding that Amtrak would have to pay big time for Transcon access. The entire sentence you partially quoted was " Amtrak has the alternative to maintain the track themselves, so BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative." Amtrak is trying to develope a stable source of funding for maintaining the present SWC route, including contributions from the three states and even BNSF. And I don't see Amtrak giving any indication that they have an expectation of access to the Transcon.
MidlandMike schlimm MidlandMike BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative. That is disputable. Fred Frailey's blog attracts many knowledgeable RR industry posters, and I don't remember any big dispute regarding that Amtrak would have to pay big time for Transcon access. The entire sentence you partially quoted was " Amtrak has the alternative to maintain the track themselves, so BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative." Amtrak is trying to develope a stable source of funding for maintaining the present SWC route, including contributions from the three states and even BNSF. And I don't see Amtrak giving any indication that they have an expectation of access to the Transcon.
That is your and/or Frailey's interpretation. The Rail Passenger Service Act seems to be the legal basis. A court may need to decide.
MidlandMikeFred Frailey's blog attracts many knowledgeable RR industry posters, and I don't remember any big dispute regarding that Amtrak would have to pay big time for Transcon access. The entire sentence you partially quoted was " Amtrak has the alternative to maintain the track themselves, so BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative." Amtrak is trying to develope a stable source of funding for maintaining the present SWC route, including contributions from the three states and even BNSF. And I don't see Amtrak giving any indication that they have an expectation of access to the Transcon.
Because Amtrak has not made a legal challenge does not mean it has no grounds to challenge. I am not sure what the extent is of BNSF opposition but BNSF policies forcing an abandonment of a Passenger Train would be a PR issue for the company and I have my doubts that if there was a challenge BNSF would stick by it's current position........if that is it's current position and not just bluster.
I really do not see these capacity concerns everyone is talking about on what is largely a double track CTC railroad. They are nowhere near capacity for what most railroaders would say is capacity for double track CTC. Additionally, BNSF is funding capacity improvements for the line on it's own currently without Amtrak's help and plans to continue to do so. So as the years pass the capacity issue will fade if there is one even to begin with. All BNSF is doing is lengthening passing sidings where they are single track so they can run longer trains. If they were adding a third track in places, I might buy into their capacity complaint but they are not doing that.
The one legal precedent we know of is CSX's abandoment of the "S" line from Petersburg - Norlina, NC. Some one will have to fill in allthe legal ins and outs.
CMStPnPI really do not see these capacity concerns everyone is talking about on what is largely a double track CTC railroad. They are nowhere near capacity for what most railroaders would say is capacity for double track CTC.
Isn't the situation much more related to high speed for Amtrak trains than to "capacity" if operated at or close to one-speed optimized for freight?
Throws a wrench into both permissible trains in the window that should be reserved in front of an Amtrak train and into whatever meets the Amtrak train will have to make if going around a slower train.
I think it's been discussed whether 'fleeting' faster service in conjunction with a required Amtrak train is something cost-justified for BNSF in that service, or in potential lanes including some of the affected BNSF traffic. I still think that represents a good 'excuse' to run things like Z trains on a faster overall schedule on otherwise congested routes, but I have no firsthand experience how that might actually work in practice.
Question. I have noted on Amtrak's Track-a-Train monitor that trains 3 & 4 frequently are operating at 90 mph which I believe means that ATS is operational over much of the Transcon. How much of the route through Clovis does not have ATS? Is it still operational Between Albuquerque & KC on the existing SW Chief route even though the track is not up to the speed it allows?
schlimm MidlandMike Fred Frailey's blog attracts many knowledgeable RR industry posters, and I don't remember any big dispute regarding that Amtrak would have to pay big time for Transcon access... That is your and/or Frailey's interpretation. The Rail Passenger Service Act seems to be the legal basis. A court may need to decide.
MidlandMike Fred Frailey's blog attracts many knowledgeable RR industry posters, and I don't remember any big dispute regarding that Amtrak would have to pay big time for Transcon access...
Fred Frailey's blog attracts many knowledgeable RR industry posters, and I don't remember any big dispute regarding that Amtrak would have to pay big time for Transcon access...
If the law specifically had a provision that would require such an alternative routing, then BNSF would not have made their eye popping demand. As you say, the court would have to decide, if there was something in the intent of the law that could be interpreted to give Amtrak relief. I doubt it will ever come to that. Amtrak is still working with the affected states and BNSF to maintain the present SWC route, and BNSF has already upgraded parts of the Kansas section. If that does not pan out, then Amtrak will negotiate a reasonable deal with BNSF for Southern Transcon access. Somewhat less than BNSF's high-ball deal first announced, but above Amtrak's legislated rate. Failing that, I doubt that Amtrak would want to go to court. BNSF has nothing to lose, and the burden is on Amtrak to prove their case. Also, Amtrak risks getting into an existential conflict about their usual trackage access rates being confiscatory.
CMStPnP Because Amtrak has not made a legal challenge does not mean it has no grounds to challenge. I am not sure what the extent is of BNSF opposition but BNSF policies forcing an abandonment of a Passenger Train would be a PR issue for the company and I have my doubts that if there was a challenge BNSF would stick by it's current position........if that is it's current position and not just bluster. ...
...
For my thoughts on a court challange, please see my previous post.
IIRC after 25 years railroads are no longer obligated to maintain their Amtrak routes for passenger train speeds. We are long past that time, and Amtrak is paying a number of RRs for extra maintainence. If Amtrak does not pay to maintain the SWC route, then it is Amtrak's fault, and not a BNSF policy forcing them into abandonment. And yes I think BNSF added some bluster, but beyond the bluster, I believe they are stating their basic position, that Amtrak will have to pay more for Southern Transcon access.
MidlandMike CMStPnP Because Amtrak has not made a legal challenge does not mean it has no grounds to challenge. I am not sure what the extent is of BNSF opposition but BNSF policies forcing an abandonment of a Passenger Train would be a PR issue for the company and I have my doubts that if there was a challenge BNSF would stick by it's current position........if that is it's current position and not just bluster. ... For my thoughts on a court challange, please see my previous post. IIRC after 25 years railroads are no longer obligated to maintain their Amtrak routes for passenger train speeds. We are long past that time, and Amtrak is paying a number of RRs for extra maintainence. If Amtrak does not pay to maintain the SWC route, then it is Amtrak's fault, and not a BNSF policy forcing them into abandonment. And yes I think BNSF added some bluster, but beyond the bluster, I believe they are stating their basic position, that Amtrak will have to pay more for Southern Transcon access.
What you say could well prove to be true, even if challenged in court, though not sure what legislation contains the 25-year limit. Do you know? If BNSF prevails, look for more maneuvers to push Amtrak out, one way or another (the Empire Builder fiasco) on other routes. And the end result could be the end of Amtrak service on several other non-Amtrak-owned routes on which the freight rails no longer wish to act as host for incompatible passenger services.
Electroliner 1935 Question. I have noted on Amtrak's Track-a-Train monitor that trains 3 & 4 frequently are operating at 90 mph which I believe means that ATS is operational over much of the Transcon. How much of the route through Clovis does not have ATS? Is it still operational Between Albuquerque & KC on the existing SW Chief route even though the track is not up to the speed it allows?
Rail distance is approx the same and I believe BNSF guaranteed 79 mph running for the reroute to the Transcon. It's 11 mph difference, not a huge difference and I was not aware Amtrak was doing 90 mph on any part of BNSF between KC and ABQ......that would mean of course their locomotives are ATS equipped.....which I am not sure they are....there isn't a BNSF pilot locomotive. I guess I am not really sure how ATS works.
Most of the Freight trains on that transcon line do 65-70 mph (there are YOUTUBE Videos of the trains being raced in cars by the local idiots, just do a search and watch them...of course it depends on the honesty of the guy making the video if the speed he calls out is reality). So I do not see one Amtrak train each way impacting their schedules that severely.
MidlandMikeFor my thoughts on a court challange, please see my previous post. IIRC after 25 years railroads are no longer obligated to maintain their Amtrak routes for passenger train speeds. We are long past that time, and Amtrak is paying a number of RRs for extra maintainence. If Amtrak does not pay to maintain the SWC route, then it is Amtrak's fault, and not a BNSF policy forcing them into abandonment. And yes I think BNSF added some bluster, but beyond the bluster, I believe they are stating their basic position, that Amtrak will have to pay more for Southern Transcon access.
Back to your original post which you said was from Trains. First BNSF was not enthusiastic about the reroute (which I really don't see why they would care). And 2 that it would cost an additional $100 million to use the reroute even though it is a current Amtrak detour route. Both statements together I find hard to believe.
If I was to get an additional $100 million as a CEO I would be doing cartwheels in the hallway. Regardless of if Trains printed it, I still think it is mostly bluster. On the court challenge I am aware Amtrak has to negotiate to use routes. They have negotiated to use the current route and the landlord is closing it (this is pretty much a landlord vs tenant relationship). For that same landlord to say, we will charge you the same as before but oh there is a $100 million surcharge for you switching routes because we can't handle the current train (even though it is a past Amtrak detour route) I cannot see a judge accepting that rationale.
I think BNSF needs a better business case than that. Granted they are a private company and it is a private line but in order to charge that magnitude of money for just a reroute (not a service expansion), they really need to show how it hurts them without the $100 million being paid......that making of a business case I think is where the stated pricetag falls apart.
BTW, Amtrak LD Locomotives that operate West out of Chicago are restricted via Governor to no more than 83 mph at which point the brakes engage automatically, an alarm starts to sound at 81-82 mph. Empire Builder locos are so equipped (also another YOUTUBE ride in the cab video). So for the BNSF SWC locos to do 90 mph, they would need to be special apart from the fleet or pool......unless it is just the EB that is setup this way.
Also here is a YOUTUBE video, speed on the Texas transcon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VAWPi6anVY
I know that a while back, on the coast surfliners between LA & SD, we were doing 90 as the train had a former metroliner as a cab car (before the California cars) and I was with the engineer and we did 90. There was also a distintive singing from the wheels at that speed. and as I stated, the Amtrak track-a-train indicates 90 MPH speeds west of ABQ. My query is to what other portions of the BNSF still have ATS?
I also note that this YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4UgarjFC_A shows what looks like a cab signal operation on the Pacific Surfliner. Can anyone confirm this?
CMStPnP BTW, Amtrak LD Locomotives that operate West out of Chicago are restricted via Governor to no more than 83 mph at which point the brakes engage automatically, an alarm starts to sound at 81-82 mph. Empire Builder locos are so equipped (also another YOUTUBE ride in the cab video). So for the BNSF SWC locos to do 90 mph, they would need to be special apart from the fleet or pool......unless it is just the EB that is setup this way. Also here is a YOUTUBE video, speed on the Texas transcon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VAWPi6anVY
Back in the day, the GN used locomotives geared for their puropses and the ATSF used locomotives geared for their purposes - with the territory traversed, there is no need for the locomotives to be geared the same. I suspect Amtrak also has different gearing on the locomotives assigned to the EB & the SWC.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The latest ETT that I have for the Southwest Chief's route across Kansas that I have is the AT&SF's #4, of 4/10/94. It shows ATS in use from Holliday (through Topeka) to N.R. Jct. (junction with the main line,--with a maximum passenger speed of 79 mph.
The ATS starts again at West Hutch (mp 219.2), and goes to Trinidad (mp 635.8)--with a maximum speed of 90 mph for passenger trains.
There is also ATS between Ft. Madison (mp 234.3) and W.B. Jct. (mp 388.7), between C.A.Jct. (mp 418.2 and East Sibley (mp 424.9)--and the maximum speed for passengers trains is 90 mph, except from Bridge (mp 425.0) the maximum speed is 79 mph. The instructions for the sub give the impression that for the 0.1 mile from East Sibley to Bridge a passenger trin may run at 90 mph even though there is nothing greater than CTC on the line.
Someone who has access to a later ETT will be able to inform us of any change in the above information.
Johnny
schlimm What you say could well prove to be true, even if challenged in court, though not sure what legislation contains the 25-year limit. Do you know? If BNSF prevails, look for more maneuvers to push Amtrak out, one way or another (the Empire Builder fiasco) on other routes. And the end result could be the end of Amtrak service on several other non-Amtrak-owned routes on which the freight rails no longer wish to act as host for incompatible passenger services.
I have seen the 25 year rule stated more than once, by people who were around at Amtrak's beginning. I assumed it was in the original enebling legislation that created Amtrak, but I guess I was not paying attention to exactly which law it was in. Nevertheless, the 25 year rule is evident by the fact of a number of places where ATK has to pay for extra maintenance on downgraded freight lines (eg, SWC, Wolverine, Carolina).
I think the SWC case is unique, in that there are no freights on 300 miles of the route and only the SWC passenger train. It is hard to imagine another case that could use this as a pattern. (But I suppose someone may try.)
Electroliner 1935 I know that a while back, on the coast surfliners between LA & SD, we were doing 90 as the train had a former metroliner as a cab car (before the California cars) and I was with the engineer and we did 90. There was also a distintive singing from the wheels at that speed. and as I stated, the Amtrak track-a-train indicates 90 MPH speeds west of ABQ. My query is to what other portions of the BNSF still have ATS? I also note that this YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4UgarjFC_A shows what looks like a cab signal operation on the Pacific Surfliner. Can anyone confirm this?
The PTC implementation may have something that looks like a cab signal, but this is a WAG on my part. The ATS inductors still look like they are being actively maintained.
Surfliners still run at 90 MPH, especially on the stretch through Camp Pendleton. As for the converted metroliner cab cars, my recollection is that they were very prone to flat spots on their wheels.
- Erik
CMStPnP Back to your original post which you said was from Trains. First BNSF was not enthusiastic about the reroute (which I really don't see why they would care). And 2 that it would cost an additional $100 million to use the reroute even though it is a current Amtrak detour route. Both statements together I find hard to believe. If I was to get an additional $100 million as a CEO I would be doing cartwheels in the hallway. Regardless of if Trains printed it, I still think it is mostly bluster. On the court challenge I am aware Amtrak has to negotiate to use routes. They have negotiated to use the current route and the landlord is closing it (this is pretty much a landlord vs tenant relationship). For that same landlord to say, we will charge you the same as before but oh there is a $100 million surcharge for you switching routes because we can't handle the current train (even though it is a past Amtrak detour route) I cannot see a judge accepting that rationale. I think BNSF needs a better business case than that. Granted they are a private company and it is a private line but in order to charge that magnitude of money for just a reroute (not a service expansion), they really need to show how it hurts them without the $100 million being paid......that making of a business case I think is where the stated pricetag falls apart.
BNSF might not be excited about the SWC on its Southern Transcon, however, it was their prefered alternative to keeping the Raton route on the books. Some of their bluster may have been a reaction to New Mexico backing out of its commitment to buy the NM trackage.
The original Amtrak legislation gave them rights to existing passenger routes at cut rate access charges, so any negotiations concerning routes were probably largely one sided. BNSF is offering to move the train to the Transcon so ATK doesn't have to pay to maintain the Raton route, but in a stuning bit of salesmanship, they are asking for approximatly the same money that ATK would have to spend for upkeep on the present route. Amtrak does not have to move, they can continue to pay the total upkeep on the parts of the route where they are the only traffic. If they want to move, they will have to negotiate in the real world, apparently without the sweet deal of legacy route. The fact that they occasionally use the alternate route in an emergency does not establish rights of permanency. I think Amtrak realizes this, and is working to get the 3 states to help maintain the present route.
MidlandMikeI have seen the 25 year rule stated more than once, by people who were around at Amtrak's beginning. I assumed it was in the original enebling legislation that created Amtrak, but I guess I was not paying attention to exactly which law it was in. Nevertheless, the 25 year rule is evident by the fact of a number of places where ATK has to pay for extra maintenance on downgraded freight lines (eg, SWC, Wolverine, Carolina).
I just reviewed the original 1971 law and there is no mention of 25 in reference to anything, much less a 25-year rule. Later legislation may say something but that will require some more digging.
MidlandMikeI think the SWC case is unique, in that there are no freights on 300 miles of the route and only the SWC passenger train. It is hard to imagine another case that could use this as a pattern. (But I suppose someone may try.)
So how did Amtrak work out the Phoenix Line abandonment and route relocation with SP? Why was that different?
THANKS. So in 2021 we will see new contract negotiations?
CMStPnP So how did Amtrak work out the Phoenix Line abandonment and route relocation with SP? Why was that different?
Fair question. The big difference is the Phoenix bypass was only 170 miles, vs., 750 reroute for the SWC. The Phoenix reroute happened in May 1996, about the time of the 25 year access renegoations, and the UP/SP merger. Maybe UP thought it was only a minor reroute, and at that time they had bigger problems to deal with.
From TRAINSNEWSwire of this date: September 03,2015
FTA:"...The city of Garden City, Kan., formally accepted its $12.5 million TIGER grant during a meeting of the city council on Aug. 25. Garden City led the grant application joined by the Kansas Department of Transportation, BNSF Railway, local governments in southwest Kansas and southeast Colorado, and the Southwest Chief Coalition..."
Further stated in the article: "...Matching funds pledged by the partners make a total of $21.8 million to spend upgrading 50 miles of jointed rail to continuous welded rail, The Garden City Telegram reports. BNSF, which owned the tracks, had said that without outside assistance it would downgrade the line to freight speeds after its contract with Amtrak expires at the end of this year... " There is a total of 158 miles of bolted track between Hutchinson, Kan. and Animas Jct., Colo..."
Any progress on this line towards speeding up the Track Speed and conditions of the line would seem to be very good news, but $21 million dollars to upgrade approximately 50 miles of railroad as part of a 150 mile line seems to be helpful, but does it resolve the issues already noted in the path of the continuing service of the Southwest Chief west of Newton,Kansas?
Not sure where the State of Colorado is in this scheme of continuing the SWC service, and the line over Raton Pass into New Mexico? Any information as to where the State of New mexico is going to come down on it?
Can anyone provide additional information?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.