posted
At another site, Mr. Hillside Station notes a Bob Johnston article regarding Sunset's operational problems appearing in December TRAINS. For myself, this has always been their 'steam, snow, and "shiver my timbers" issue that often gets filed with little more than a cursory review.
While I certainly agree that "Amtrak-Cheerleader-in-Chief" Bob Johnston's piece regarding the Sunset is an interesting read, it really does not break any new ground. Rather I find new insight is contained within the Fred Frailey column in same issue.
Mr. Frailey's key point is first addressed in Mr. Johnston's article, while of course '"Union Pacific has invested almost a billion dollars on Sunset Route capacity since 1997....Amtrak's existing trains use that capacity and Amtrak is not paying for its share today" sounds like perfect "spokesmanese", because it is, nevertheless addresses the point that Mr. Frailey makes regarding the $400M laundry list of infrastructure improvements UP would expect Amtrak to pony up should there be a Daily Eagle/Sunset. Mr Frailey notes.."Now here comes Amtrak, wanting to run a top priority train that would soak up like a sponge the capacity UP is creating with its own capital. One ranking railroad executive of my acquaintance says adding Amtrak trains without paying for appropriate capacity amounts to government confiscation of his railroad's assets..."
Drawing from Mr. Frailey's earlier thoughts in the column, yet using my own words, it was one thing almost forty years ago to as good as instantly resurrect both the North Coast Limited and the Commodore Vanderbilt; and not even "more of a thing' to resurrect the City of Portland, Aztec Eagle, Montrealer, and Pocahantas. but that was then and the industry was awash with excess capacity. To my best recollection, my MILW ran "two a day' Milw-Mpls plus assorted "patrols' and "work' - and this was over a double tracked line. No wonder when the North Coast Hiawatha was inaugurated, my road's reaction was simply "put 'er on, Charlie Schiffer (MILW Treasurer during my day) will be happy to see his bank balance go up"; just make sure you send us our advance".
Of course, it is something else today - and both Messrs. Frailey and Johnston seem to hold roads' infrastructure bills are reasonable (unless Amtrak is prepared to accept some kind of 'we'll get you over the road when can" type of service) and likely have poured cold water over any of the proposals for increased Long Distance service.
Somehow, I think those here who hold that railroads have a "social obligation' to efficiently handle additional Amtrak trains, even if such adversely affects freight operations, will disagree with these thoughts held by Mr. Frailey and of course myself.
disclaimer; author holds positions UNP KSU NSC (which presently are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best performing securities in my portfolio - DD is #1)
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess we will never resolve how much additional Amtrak trains will cost UP in lost efficiencies on their mainline. No doubt the number is between zero and the $400M UP is asking. Even if UP/Amtrak agree on a number half that, it still is clearly not something Amtrak can afford.
I still think Amtrak is trying to spread their LD network too thin given the dollars available. I would much prefer better and more frequent service on fewer lines.
As I have noted before, Amtrak has a former high speed transcon line that is little used at their disposal. For 'pocket change', compared to the Sunset route upgrades, Amtrak could bring the BNSF Raton line back to 79mph. Then run two a day Chicago to KC, Albuquerque (connecting NM funded service to El Paso) and onto Flagstaff (might call the second train the 'Arizona Limited'). At Flagstaff the AZL would take a left turn and run down the interesting, if circuitous, line to Phoenix and onto Tuscon.
How would Amtrak pay for the additional miles? Have the 'AZL' also carry the Texas Eagle cars to KC where it would use the route on the much discussed Heartland Flyer line to Dallas, then onto Ft. Worth, Austin, and San Antonio. The Sunset would, well, sunset. If Texas was interested they could fund corridor service: San Antonio-Houston and Houston-Dallas/Ft. Worth (if NC can do it, certainly the great state of Texas can). As CA, NC, WA, and ME have shown, state supported trains can be more attractive, with often better service than Amtrak has on many of their short distance trains.
The Crescent would split in Meridian with a section going on the route that almost happened through Jackson (CONO connection), Shreveport, east Texas into Dallas (wasn't the name going to be the Crescent Star?).
Politicians might howl, at least until next Tuesday. Better for Amtrak to have an aggressive plan to make sense of their operation than have someone do it for them. This would result in lot fewer miles on the UP and a lot more on BNSF. Maybe both UP and Mr. Buffet would like that.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I've noticed since Mr Buffett took over the BNSF is there's a bit more accountability to the bottom line.
BSNF Division is not maintaining the historic Santa Fe for 1 Amtrak movement/direction/day. For Amtrak to get that track maintained at standard, they're going to have to pay. Period. They are the only user of at speed capability on that line.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the huge jump in traffic on the ex-ICRR line between Meridian and Shreveport, at teh very least, KCS would be wanting some additional sidings or sections of double track. They have already spent something above $300 million bringing the glorified branch line it was uncer ICRR up to mainline standards just to adequately move the traffic they now have.
As to $400 million: much as I would like to see a daily Sunset, to me it would make much more sense to spend it on the BNSF line across Kansas and Colorado used by the Southwest Chief. in the past this was a 100 mph line. It is only track conditions and revitallization of the necessary signal work needed to make that pollible again.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting coinage, that "pollible". Presumably a portmanteau of "politically" and "possible"?
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example of Amtrak throwing out unrealistic plans that have no chance of coming to reality. Personally I don't care what they do to the Sunset after abandoning the Florida service on that route.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I agree with GBN...this would equal government confiscation of private property. As I've said before, I feel the freight lines owe some historical respect to passenger service but they don't owe Amtrak carte blanche.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Mr. Turner, the quote is attributable to the Fred Frailey TRAINS column, but obviously I hold those sentiments - as I have through the entire Amtrak era.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really think the railroads better rethink the whole "Hijack of private property" position concerning Amtrak or anything else. They could well find it countered by, if you proclaim that you do not have to serve a public purpose, then you have no rights to cross roads without stopping, or use any of the other special rights and privledges that you have traditionally been given.
The downside potential of this position is far greater than the upside. Even with the successfully decided preemption of local and state ordinances on teh grounds of interstate commerce, there are still many ways that state and local entities could make their corporate lives miserable.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This opinon is just that; opinion. Backed by not one scintilla of factual knowledge. That said, here's the opinion: It seems the class 1 railroads, current and 'fallen flag' did a Pontius Pilate when they washed their hands of the passenger traffic side of their business. In so doing got a win/win. They no longer had to make believe they operated passenger trians and could walk away pretty much free and clear. Not have to worry about what to do with all the rolling stock they or anyone else had no use for. Kind of like owning a tavern at the advent of Prohibition. Nice property but no demand. With the advent of Amtrak the now divested operators with not a heck of lot of business on the freight side either, were happy to foist the loss leader onto Amtrak with a subtle laugh up their respective sleeves. Now some half century later, even with the recession, they have almost as much business as they can handle and don't want to be reminded of the "debt" they owe the operator of the poor relation, i.e. Amtrak for taking a big problem off their hands. For what it's worth (not very much if anything) I beleive the surviving class 1's STILL "OWE" Amtrak and should be accountable to providing support for it's continuation and IMPROVEMENT. There...I feel better now. At least until I'm inundated with facts to confuse me more than I usually am. Best regards, Rodger
Posts: 112 | From: Merrimac, MA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rodger, I guess what you're driving at is that Pontius Pilate and the Class I's were both done in by the same thing...the phenomenon known as resurrection!
Since a whole religion is based on that phenomenon, maybe there's hope for Amtrak yet.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trust me, they don't have a debt. The Interstate Commerce Commission would have terminated all the rail service west of the Mississippi by 1990. The losses on the bottom line, even under the ICC formulas, would have made that inevitable.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm taking a Sunset trip Dec 1-5 to Phoenix. I booked it 2 weeks ago and the only reasonable rooms available were my #14 going and #20 coming back (#10 is available but undesirable). I plan on calling again tomorrow morning to see if anything has opened up.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Amtrak's day one, was the Sunset a daily service on the SP? I seem to think so. If so, then Amtrak's position could be that they are merely seeking to reclaim capacity that the freight railroad was obligated to give them.
Posts: 41 | From: South Dakota | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
ICC negotiated a settlement with SP in October 1970: Sleepers and food service on the Sunset in exchange for tri-weekly service.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rodger, there is no debt whatever; rather we are looking at a situation where an industry was desiring relief from a money losing service no longer central to its Raison d'ętre. However, in hindsight the industry's managers made a bad decision to join up with Amtrak.
Although several roads, principally ATSF and SCL gave considered thought to staying out, the industry took a unified front and chose to join up, with only three carriers of note, CRIP, DRGW, and SRY choosing not to join. The "strongs" such as UP, BN, and the previously mentioned ATSF and SCL could have stayed out and continued to operate their existing passenger trains without imperiling their financial health and placing their bets that after the five year moratorium under RPSA '70 expired, they could get them off. The Interstate Commerce Commission was becoming more amenable to train discontinuances as the industry's health deteriorated. While no question whatever the day that the Staggers deregulation became effective during 1980, they would have all been "gone', I for one do not think it would have been that long.
Amtrak was "sold" to the industry as a 'face saving' ruse; they would spruce up some cars, do some marketing, but quickly conclude it was hopeless and then an orderly discontinuance of all services, i.e. those covered by the Carter Cuts - the first phase of this orderly discontinuance - would have been the first, away from the Corridor would have begun.
No one foresaw that politicians would even care.
So here we are forty years later and the LD's still roll with no end in sight. Had the managers ever envisioned a possibility of Long Distance trains operating over their roads today, they would have stayed out.
What is in place today, I believe, is a 'detente'; Amtrak, we will run your trains under your existing remuneration schedule, but you will not make any serious initiatives for more service and you will accept that we will move 'em over the road as our traffic conditions allow. This is simply a position of expediency; why rock a boat filled with possible 'rereg" initiatives, the 2000 pound gorilla represented by Positive Train Control, and a host of other needless environmental regulations, and not out of any sense of obligation to the hobbyists (railfans and other excursionists), environmentalists, and disabled (an unwillingness or inability to drive or fly represents a disability) that to a great extent comprise the universe of Long Distance rail passengers.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gilbert, I like your analysis; I think it's spot on except for one little detail: Amtrak offered to pay the railroads money to allow Amtrak's trains to use the ROW. As you point out, at the time of Amtrak's formation the railroads were in a decline and that extra revenue from Amtrak was no small deal.
As an aside, I looked at buying the Vermont Central in the early 1990's. In those days Amtrak ran a train from Washington to Montreal over the Vermont Central tracks from New London up to Montreal. The Amtrak payment to do that was a significant boost to VC's revenue.
Now that railroads are experiencing a resurgence in freight traffic, it's no wonder that they are not as dependent on Amtrak's payments. But once upon a time they needed them. Memories are short.
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: an unwillingness or inability to drive or fly represents a disability
Gil, I thought I knew you better than that. When did you become a doctor, and where would I find that disability in the DSM? That is just a remarkably preposterous statement.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, in a society in which 99% of passenger miles traveled are mostly by auto (90% is the number I've heard) and the rest, for all intent and purpose, are by air, a person who cannot fully utilize either is disabled - DSM manual notwithstanding.
Severe disability, not really - just don't travel (maybe live in Manhattan) is a ready solution. If the quite common condition amongst elderly persons that they cannot safely drive at night prevails, just plan your day so that your errands requiring an auto are done during daylight hours. If an older person with deteriorating vision must, in order to make ends meet, hold a job and they cannot hold one requiring commutation (mass transit presumed impractical) to or from it after dark, then that sure sounds like a disability to me.
But any implication that there is an obligation on both the part of the government and the Class I railroad industry to subsidize a system of passenger transport that is hardly used by the population as a whole is equally preposterous.
Mr Black, I'm sure there are Class II's holding Amtrak contracts that are perfectly happy to have them around. I'm sure there was happiness in the Treasurer's office on my road when the wire advice for Amtrak's advance (yup, Amtrak pays up a month in advance) showed up Monday May 3, 1971. I once learned that on the SP, that Amtrak advance meant they were able to meet a payroll.
Finally, lest anyone wonder, as one youngster did elsewhere, if you hate (passenger) trains so much, why do you participate at these forums where we are trying to get more trains? The reason is simply I like to ride trains every so often and especially if they can meet a travel need. I guess it is a case that even though I cannot find any justification whatever for maintaining Long Distance trains, nor can I, absent established need, find same for the existing 'Seniors Ride Free" Illinois mass transit program, in both cases, "they're there"; and I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN, while I understand your point, I think many of those that take the train rather than drive are rational rather than disabled. Why subject yourself to the likes of I-95 if you don't have to? Especially true if a car is not needed at destination, as is the case for most northeastern cities (and also Charleston/Savannah if you're in tourist mode).
While the Palmetto that I frequent is a shorter route LD than most, I can assure you those riding it are doing it for basic transportation, not some joy ride or because they're infirmed or aged. I think the same is true for those in coach on most LD trains - but maybe not sleeping car passengers.
But then, whose to say those 'excursionists' amongst us is not just as valid a reason to travel as someone on a business trip. The real question, though, is Amtrak providing that alternate transportation as efficiently as possible in these tough economic times. I think not.
Imagine an Amtrak (and its bottom line) if it was operated in the manner of Southwest Airlines or a cruise line: a non-union labor force (except pilots -train crew?), state or local funding of airports (train stations), superior customer service, and hotel (sleeper) service managed by the likes of Marriott or Hilton. Would it cost more in first class?, sure. But then you get what you pay for - a trip on the Canadian will now set you back around $5K for two in a bedroom.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Palmland, I wholly concur that the shorter distance the average ride on a train (operator notwithstanding), and the greater of frequency over a route, the more will its population fall away from the excursionist/environmentalist/disabled universe I note.
My noting of average ride distance is more relevant than a train's end point distance. After all, Boston-Newport News is not really 'short distance', but who away from a hobbyist is going to ride 67 or 95 end to end?.
Finally, even though I realize there are motorists out there that in the case of the Interstate highway you note, get the route marker and speed limit signs confused (bettcha a cop has heard that one), not everyone considers driving some kind of endurance contest as it is often portrayed at the various rail forums; same applicable to air travel.
Two disclaimers: 1) author is 100% in favor of enhanced rail passenger service through population centers where the presence of this service means more costly ($$$ and environment) transportation infrastructure can be minimized and ideally over railroad lines that are publicly owned.
2) author holds long positions KSU NSC UNP
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
