posted
Let's try this one on for size; how say there be a Federal Appropriation specifically for operation of the Long Distance trains?
Presently, such is simply buried in the $1.3B that Amtrak can reasonably expect to get. While the actual amount that Amtrak would save being rid of 'em is deeply buried in the fog of bureaucracy, it certainly would place the House and Senate Committee members on record if they see a need to fund the "waste" they represent.
This would also allow those Members who wish to be on record to say "we support intercity service in the markets that matter"; we can do nicely without the "one a day at 0 dark 30", and we further respect that the lines over which those LD'S operate belong to investor owned companies. The Directors and the Managers they appoint have a fiduciary responsibility to the Shareholder/Owners to ensure the property they are entrusted with is used to "best advantage", for which intercity trains operating under their existing contractual remuneration could hardly be considered such.
Thoughts, slings and arrows?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the LD subsidy numbers are buried that deeply in the appropriation and Amtrak does publish the Monthly Performance Report that tracks LD (un)profitability.
Also, D. C. is known for its wheeling and dealing. If the LD appropriation is a separate bill, what's to stop Senators and Representatives from demanding more unprofitable routes be added, as a benefit for their own districts and states, in exchange for "YEA" votes on the existing network. A separate appropriation for LD routes might actually increase the number of money-losing routes.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I know what your objective is, GBN. Get rid of the LD's? That would be an obvious possible result: 'they cost that much, let's ax them". Or as Vincent suggests, 'let's ask your local congressman and see if he wants to offer his constituents a new train in your town'.
If this was done, my vote would have congress work a deal so that a private operator would have Amtrak access and liability coverage plus some administrative functions, like reservations. Then provide x dollars as an ongoing subsidy with incentives to reduce losses and improve service and see if any takers. I guess this would be somewhat similar to the various operators in UK. Any such legislation would have to handle Amtrak union wage guarantees so that the new operators could hire their own workers (and yes T&E crews would have to be covered by union agreement, but not so for on board service employees).
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Palmland's immediate thought raises this question (and I don't claim to know the answer to this one).
It is a pretty safe assumption that the employees of the European state owned railways that operate trains are all "unionized". Now there have been initiatives, such as in the UK, to have the operations of various trains contracted out to private sector operators - to what extent such operators have enhanced the quality of the service and to what extent they assume the risk of loss, I know not.
However, are all or some of these private sector employees involved with the operation of these ostensibly "private sector" trains covered by labor agreements?
Enquiring mind wants to know.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
RE Mr Norman's immediate question on the UK: Put simply, Network Rail owns, runs, and dispatches the track and signalling, while Train Operating Companies (TOCs) and Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) run the trains. It's akin to Union Pacific and Amtrak respectively, except Network Rail don't run any trains itself beyond engineering/maintenance trains. I think some maintenance is contracted out while some is done in-house by Network Rail.
Most, not all, employees whether NR/TOC/FOC are unionised.
Each TOC is required to provide X number of seats between points A and B, with service minimums, specific times for last trains of the day, etc. If a TOC doesn't deliver what it says it will deliver by the end of the franchise then it's kicked out at the next franchise renewal (5-7 years IIRC), though if none of its competitors offer a suitable bid then it could potentially stay in the game. If a TOC/FOC's train delays another train then it gets penalised financially. If a TOC runs a train with fewer carriages than planned, or cancels it partly or entirely, it is again penalised financially.
Fares are regulated and people complain they are still too high, but then subsidies are low and dropping. Some routes receive no subsidy at all. Ticketing is complex as you must be able to buy a ticket from A to B even if it involves multiple operators, so there are routing guides to determine which routes you can travel on that ticket, and the income from that ticket is shared proportionally between the operators. If you plan in advance you could get a £10 first class London to Birmingham ticket, or buy one last minute ("walk-up" fare) and end up paying full price, maybe £150 for standard class.
It's not perfect by any means but the fact TOCs have to meet certain standards or lose the franchise means things have, in my opinion at least, gotten better. Similar models exist in the Netherlands, Norway, and other countries.
One question back: when I went to BNSF's NOC in Fort Worth, TX, I was told that BNSF love Amtrak because BNSF receive financial bonuses if they run Amtrak on time - so they do try to run Amtrak on time. But does UP not receive these incentives, or are they lower, or what?
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems, to me, that our congress critters are getting a little nervous over the ability, now, of the NEC to not have to divvy out profits for the long distance trains ("you aren't going to cut off the LD train in MY state").
Rather than a separate appropriation pot, full of our increasingly worthless dollars, maybe we could bring into play Andrew Selden's concepts of a semi-private LD train. Amtrak could drive the train, but major corporate interests could run the innards, attendants, services, amenities, etc.
Instead of relying entirely on federal funding, there could be tax incentives across the board.
As the long distancers are run on a shoestring, it might mean the LD trains would have to consolidate some of their routes, with some of the runs eliminated which wouldn't please the critters. However, it could mean a much better LD train that might even please a Donald Trump.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress takes the path of least resistance. If a line item works in a mark-up session of the Appropriations Subcommittee (the subject matter experts on the agency in question), then they're going to say OK, and move on to the next.
Time is limited for mark-up. If the current format keeps 218 or 51 members happy, move along.
Any policy level changes will come out of Transportation Committee hearings at the next re-authorization.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
One question back: when I went to BNSF's NOC in Fort Worth, TX, I was told that BNSF love Amtrak because BNSF receive financial bonuses if they run Amtrak on time - so they do try to run Amtrak on time. But does UP not receive these incentives, or are they lower, or what?
Mr. Mayo, the contracts between Amtrak and each road are bi-lateral between the parties and are thus proprietary. Therefore, I have to question to what extent your source at BNSF can be considered reliable, even if he were speaking in good faith and to his best knowledge.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Therefore, I have to question to what extent your source at BNSF can be considered reliable, even if he were speaking in good faith and to his best knowledge.
At the time he was upper management showing me around on a personal tour, not sure now as I've lost tough. So yes, straight from the horse's mouth, not the WP or NYT or whatever it is you read. No figures, just statements.
If you read my question a little more carefully, you will note I did not ask for figures, just if they receive any or higher/lower. That information, without specifics, is often fairly public even if not meant to be public.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, please allow me to reiterate that Amtrak operating agreements are negotiated privately between the two parties, as distinct from rates of pay for various crafts which are negotiated nationally ("National handling", the Conference, the Committee are all terms I have heard for such).
We must recognize that whatever performance payments that exist between BNSF and Amtrak do not necessarily exist between Amtrak and UP. In their negotiations, UP may have held out for greater fixed payments possibly figuring "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" and in turn had to concede on performance payments.
There could well be performance payments within the Amtrak-UP Agreement; there could even be differing payments, such as greater ones applicable to the California Corridor services than to the LD's. But on the other hand, UP management has simply decided that "we will get Amtrak over the road when we can, but we are simply not giving up our road for them" - and possibly losing greater performance payments from a large shipper.
But in no way do I wish to infer that any road is intentionally delaying Amtrak trains, even if in some passenger train advocacy circles that is a popular thought to hold. We should not forget that on A-Day, track capacity was, when compared with today, infinite and otherwise a non issue. This is why there was the proliferation of politically inspired Long Distance routes that found their way into the System during the 70's and into the '80's. But as their political sponsors left office, those routes, save PDX-SPK, have either evaporated or represented a reroute of a previous "basic system' service. With them gone, the roads are understandably taking a hard stand against any of them being restored.
Finally Mr. Mayo, I thank you for your concise, authoritative, description of operating arrangements existing today in the UK, and likely elsewhere on the Continent. For example, I did get the impression when "over there" during July '14, that there are some mainline passenger services within Germany that are privately operated. But beyond that statement, I defer to others more properly informed.
disclaimer: author holds long positions CSX UNP (no longer holds BNI NSC KSU)
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The below said, Amtrak chose to retain routings which otherwise would be candidates for sale to a shortline (see the historic ATSF from Las Vegas, NM to Hutchinson, KS...). BNSF has let Amtrak know in no uncertain terms the track is no longer worth maintaining at 80-90MPH capability. Rather than considering a re-route, Amtrak chose to use what is now lesser trackage.
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: ...
But in no way do I wish to infer that any road is intentionally delaying Amtrak trains, even if in some passenger train advocacy circles that is a popular thought to hold.
...
disclaimer: author holds long positions CSX UNP (no longer holds BNI NSC KSU)
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: But in no way do I wish to infer that any road is intentionally delaying Amtrak trains, even if in some passenger train advocacy circles that is a popular thought to hold.
On that I agree: logically one cannot hold everything back to give Amtrak a clear road because there is only so much track space to hold such trains back on, plus 10 delayed freights for one on-time passenger train simply makes no financial sense.
The problem that a lot of people have is that they only see the immediate picture: a passenger train stood at a red signal, while some time later a slow freight trundles past. To them that is a travesty. But they only see a tiny fragment of the big picture, even if they hear radio conversations as well. The dispatcher (signaller in the UK) knows what's coming for miles around, knows how many trains he has to handle, knows crew requirements, even how regular trains handle in terms of speed/acceleration, and has to juggle all of that together. The train enthusiast just sees that stopped passenger train and a red signal. No different in the UK either.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BNSF's tracks in the Pacific Northwest have been upgraded and significantly improved because of BNSF's willingness to host AmtrakCascades and Sounder services. The infrastructure improvements that have allowed more passenger services have also been very beneficial for BNSF's freight operations. BNSF hasn't just benefitted from the track usage fees, they've also benefitted from having the state and federal governments paying for some serious track upgrades. Contrast the situation in WA (BNSF tracks) with the situation in OR (UP tracks). Infrastructure improvements have been almost non-existent in OR and any improvements have been paid for by UP out of their own pocket. WSDOT and Sound Transit have spent over a billion dollars on improving BNSF tracks in western WA while UP has received pretty close to zero from government sources.
UP has also missed significant opportunities to leverage federal money for improvements in CA, too. The Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains still have to fight through major congestion around the Bay Area. And that congestion also slows down UP freight movements. The Surfliners did receive some money for improvements between SD and LA, but that's BNSF trackage.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
San Diego to Fullerton is no longer BNSF, and has not been for a long time. Fullerton in most of the way to LA still is BNSF.
The agreements between California and the railroad for the Capitol Corridor in general predate takeover of Southern Pacific by Union Pacific. (The saying of some of the SP employees, "Yes it is a merger of equals. UP gets to keep their first name and we gets to keep our last name.")
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always wonder what Amtrak would look like in CA if UP had taken over SP before the expansion agreements were signed with Amtrak. Would Sacramento to Oakland be once a day?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
