# Short Overnight Routes?



## NY Penn (Nov 22, 2015)

Currently, basically none of the Amtrak LD routes are suitable for a quick overnight run between endpoints. The westbound CL comes close, leaving WAS around 4pm and arriving at CHI before 9am, but aside from that the present LD network doesn't fit this travel market. Some routes have convenient schedules for overnights between intermediate cities, but the cities are usually smaller and the OTP poor.

It seems that this market is too significant to be neglecting. There are plenty of business people who'd prefer to go to the train station after work, get on the train, and wake up at their destination instead of dealing with the hassles of flying. Even leaving aside the business market, many current Amtrak riders would prefer to not spend an entire day traveling if they could do so at night.

With a decent cafe car menu (like on the Acela?) the train wouldn't even need the dining car whose costs often kill the finances of the current LD trains. A sleeper or two, a few coaches, and a cafe are all the train would really need. There are plenty of large city pairs 8-14 hours apart that would be perfect for such quick overnight trains. (San Fran - LA, NY - Toronto/Montreal, CHI - Toronto, San Antonio - Dallas, CHI - Twin Cities, etc etc etc)

Has there been a study, running the numbers on this type of service? It seems like it would be fairly profitable.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 22, 2015)

I like your line of thinking NYPenn. I'd imagine the reason not to do it is you get almost no intermediate point traffic. If there are other options for those passengers outside the graveyard shift it would work well. I think San Fran-LA would be a perfect starting point. PHL-PGH is just a bit under 8 hrs but would also work (All Aboard Ohio has proposed overnight between the two cities but extended to CHI-NYP). Maybe Florida to NOL along the SL East route (not sure how long that is).

Of course with the hours involved chances are they would be under 750 miles which would require state funding (not sure how Canada would fit into the equation). Plus, Amtrak is a bit short on sleepers at the moment.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 22, 2015)

I can't speak for out west, but there was an overnight proposal between PHL-CHI and daily overnight service existed between NYP-MTR. TWO-NYP featured overnight service on Sunday. They were both cut due to costs. There is talk of resurrecting the Montreal route, but track improvements are still needed.

However, as Phill Fan mentioned, the vast majority of these types of service would likely fall under the corridor markets.


----------



## west point (Nov 22, 2015)

Some one had to remind us and will pass this along. The US constitution says the federal government is responsible for interstate commerce. That IMO includes all transportation, communications, etc. That includes roads, ighways, rails, telephone. As well includes manufacturing except local, agriculture.


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 22, 2015)

Once the routes become longer with the ideal overnight becoming just a portion of the run, costs dramatically increase because a dining car will likely be justified. OTP will obviously decrease, hurting ridership. Businesspeople especially care about punctuality.

That leaves the majority of these routes as sub-750 mile runs. San Fran to LA would obviously have to be funded by California, and that stands a reasonable chance of happening because the state would benefit. San Antonio to Dallas would be similar, but there's virtually no chance of having the Texas legislature fund a new Amtrak route as I understand it. Perhaps most of the routes, if they are predicted to be profitable above-the-rail, could have a Lynchburger-esque financial agreement with the states (they agree to fund deficits, but there shouldn't be any). Canada would probably not be a part of the funding, just like it doesn't fund the present Amtrak routes north of the border.

Obviously, rolling stock might be an issue. Since each train would only need two sets there shouldn't be much of a problem finding one sleeper for each train, at least to start.

Can someone link the reports that were done on the subject?


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 22, 2015)

San Francisco to LAX actually had a overnight train running up until 1968. It ran down the current SP surf line. Then there was a second train the Owl along the inland route via Bakersfield both owned by the same railroad. I'll check the other routes to see what they used to have. I could see that route being a good route but run to the Caltrain station not emeryville


----------



## jis (Nov 22, 2015)

west point said:


> Some one had to remind us and will pass this along. The US constitution says the federal government is responsible for interstate commerce. That IMO includes all transportation, communications, etc. That includes roads, ighways, rails, telephone. As well includes manufacturing except local, agriculture.


Quick! Nationalize all industry other than agriculture! 

But seriously, the Commerce Clause says nothing like what is being implied. It simply says: [Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3] "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

It is only about regulation, not execution. And it is about having the power to do so, not that they will necessarily do what someone's specific agenda may be.

And what does all this have to do with overnight routes anyway?


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 22, 2015)

NY-MTR had the Montrealer till 1995. That service had a lot of issues due to track repair. But now it should be fine. That saying this was a segment of the New York Nightmare on the other thread. I see this being a popular route especially with the ski traffic, and business traffic if we could get the timings right.

NYC-TWO I can't find record anywhere of an overnight train. But I can see that the market might be there. The business travel market is there I suppose. And it would make a good section of the New York Nightmare. Honestly another option for this seeing equipment with Amtrak is always an issue is to have VIA provide the cars. And Amtrak provide the staffing.


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> San Francisco to LAX actually had a overnight train running up until 1968. It ran down the current SP surf line. Then there was a second train the Owl along the inland route via Bakersfield both owned by the same railroad. I'll check the other routes to see what they used to have. I could see that route being a good route but run to the Caltrain station not emeryville


Weren't there a bunch of lines? Of course there was The Starlight. However, it wasn't at the current 4th and King Caltrain station, but the 3rd and Townsend station.

http://www.american-rails.com/starlight.html

There was The Lark (9 PM - 8:30 AM):

http://www.american-rails.com/lark.html

The Owl required a ferry ride from San Francisco.

http://www.american-rails.com/owl.html


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 22, 2015)

The Starlight and the Lark were combined in the 1950s so it is one train in my books. The ATSF might have had something but with a bus connection from Bakersfield.


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> The Starlight and the Lark were combined in the 1950s so it is one train in my books. The ATSF might have had something but with a bus connection from Bakersfield.


What I found was the Golden Gate. If you went end to end it would include three buses and two trains. It also wasn't overnight. I'm guessing waking up passengers in the middle of the night to transfer to/from a bus wouldn't have worked very well.

http://www.american-rails.com/gld-gte.html


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 22, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> NYC-TWO I can't find record anywhere of an overnight train. But I can see that the market might be there. The business travel market is there I suppose. And it would make a good section of the New York Nightmare. Honestly another option for this seeing equipment with Amtrak is always an issue is to have VIA provide the cars. And Amtrak provide the staffing.


In 1994 there was the once-weekly Niagara Rainbow, Friday nights leaving NYP and Sunday nights leaving Toronto. It didn't appear to last long.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0010


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

BCL said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > The Starlight and the Lark were combined in the 1950s so it is one train in my books. The ATSF might have had something but with a bus connection from Bakersfield.
> ...


I'm trying to find out more about ATSF's The Saint and The Angel. The endpoints were San Diego and San Francisco, even though The Angel was obviously referring to Los Angeles.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 22, 2015)

BCL said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > San Francisco to LAX actually had a overnight train running up until 1968. It ran down the current SP surf line. Then there was a second train the Owl along the inland route via Bakersfield both owned by the same railroad. I'll check the other routes to see what they used to have. I could see that route being a good route but run to the Caltrain station not emeryville
> ...


Spirit of California 1982 (timetables.org): http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19820425&item=0049

In 2015, I used a Thruway Bus from San Jose to Santa Barbara to the LA area. I believe the bus got into Santa Barbara early so we had to wait about an hour in the station for the train.


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Spirit of California 1982 (timetables.org): http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19820425&item=0049
> 
> In 2015, I used a Thruway Bus from San Jose to Santa Barbara to the LA area. I believe the bus got into Santa Barbara early so we had to wait about an hour in the station for the train.


I booked the reverse for friends of the family in 2014, although that wasn't overnight. They took the Surfliner from Irvine and transferred at Santa Barbara to a bus. It was a half hour late into Emeryville and the station was already closed.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 22, 2015)

Just for background, but (lacking hard data due to the passage of time and going on anecdotes as a result) the Spirit of California fell victim to three issues. One was purely political (Brown decided he wanted to be Senator and so the Dems lost the Governor's mansion and the Republican who was elected decided to do some "legacy slashing"), but the other two were more complex. The second was a bad over-estimate on ridership (IIRC the estimate was 180k/yr and the train never got over about 85k/yr); this was at least partly, I suspect, a side-effect of the other issue, which was that the train consistently had more coach space and less sleeper space than the routing would seem to have merited. The result was empty coaches north of SBA and regularly sold-out sleepers.


----------



## NS VIA Fan (Nov 22, 2015)

VIA tried this as recently as 10 years ago: The _Enterprise_ between Montreal and Toronto and this is one market where you'd think it would work. It was extensively promoted and discounts offered: sleeper one-way and return the next afternoon in business (first) class but it just didn't catch on. Sleeping in a moving train is just not in the mind-set today when a quick flight will have you home in your own bed. I rode several times.....you'd have a few passengers in sleepers connecting to the Canadian on days it ran.....and there were always a good crowd in the coaches on Friday and Sunday nights.


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

I've been on a similar train in Australia - the Sydney/Melbourne Express as someone noted. It was a pretty nice ride, although I've noted the one difficulty we had with the equipment (and one particular railroad employee).


----------



## Anderson (Nov 22, 2015)

NS VIA Fan said:


> VIA tried this as recently as 10 years ago: The _Enterprise_ between Montreal and Toronto and this is one market where you'd think it would work. It was extensively promoted and discounts offered: sleeper one-way and return the next afternoon in business (first) class but it just didn't catch on. Sleeping in a moving train is just not in the mind-set today when a quick flight will have you home in your own bed. I rode several times.....you'd have a few passengers in sleepers connecting to the Canadian on days it ran.....and there were always a good crowd in the coaches on Friday and Sunday nights.


The Enterprise had a problem in the form of being an 8-10 hour trip on a 5-hour run. It's one thing to stuff an extra hour in somewhere to facilitate smooth connections or favorable times (e.g. 66/67 on the NEC); it is entirely another to pad a schedule out horridly. No small part of the problem, I suspect, was the fact that you can make a comfortable evening trip TWO-MTR (trains 668/669 do this quite admirably, departing at about 1800 and arriving around 2300) and it might be feasible (equipment and whatnot permitting) to run a super-early train on the route as well. Likewise, I think there's a case for doing a set-out (e.g. if you were willing to allow occupation at a given hour but the train didn't leave until it "needed to") which probably would have worked a bit better...but TWO-MTR is just too _short _to make this sort of trip work.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 22, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Just for background, but (lacking hard data due to the passage of time and going on anecdotes as a result) the Spirit of California fell victim to three issues. One was purely political (Brown decided he wanted to be Senator and so the Dems lost the Governor's mansion and the Republican who was elected decided to do some "legacy slashing"), but the other two were more complex. The second was a bad over-estimate on ridership (IIRC the estimate was 180k/yr and the train never got over about 85k/yr); this was at least partly, I suspect, a side-effect of the other issue, which was that the train consistently had more coach space and less sleeper space than the routing would seem to have merited. The result was empty coaches north of SBA and regularly sold-out sleepers.


----------



## NS VIA Fan (Nov 22, 2015)

The Enterprise was to have originally run via Ottawa (as several trains do now) and that would have accounted for the longer schedule. But CN wouldn’t allow it.....something to do with crossing over at Coteau to the Alexendria Sub which I could never understand as daytime Ottawa trains do this.

It was also timed to provide a Kingston > Toronto and Brockville > Montreal morning commuter schedule.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 22, 2015)

I had instinctively wondered why it didn't run via Ottawa...and presumed it was something like that. Doing so would at least reduce the amount of stuffing (I don't think we can really call it padding) in the schedule. It does, btw, look like they ran it on the same schedule as the surviving commuter-oriented train on that route.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 22, 2015)

I too ride the Enterprise several times and also wondered about the layover during the night instead of running it via Ottawa!

Thanks for the info!

I really enjoyed this train, what happened to the equipment, is it used on the corridor or any other VIA train,?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 22, 2015)

Bob Dylan said:


> I too ride the Enterprise several times and also wondered about the layover during the night instead of running it via Ottawa!
> 
> Thanks for the info!
> 
> I really enjoyed this train, what happened to the equipment, is it used on the corridor or any other VIA train,?


Well, 6x weekly there's a morning train covering the western end of the route; the Rens probably went to the Ocean.


----------



## neroden (Nov 22, 2015)

Short overnight trains? Well, my first thought is the Montrealer; there's already very little intermediate traffic Montreal-NYP on the Adirondack.

My second thought is to make some of the East Coast-Chicago trains faster.

My third thought is #66/67.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 22, 2015)

Short overnight trains are a nice thought, but the invention of the jet airplane spelled their doom. Why should a businessman spend a night on a train when he can get to his destination in an hour or two on a plane and eliminate any overnights away from home? Fast, daytime trains in the 400-500 mile range are the future of passenger railroading. Everything else is just a quaint remnant of earlier times.


----------



## NS VIA Fan (Nov 22, 2015)

neroden said:


> Short overnight trains? Well, my first thought is the Montrealer.......


Ahhh.....the Montrealer! If it could return with the atmosphere it had in the ’70 and ’80. The “Le Pub” car filled with skiers out of Penn Station on a Friday evening......and on Sunday evening returning, the sleepers filled with those same skiers...hoping to get some rest before work on Monday.

It certainly had the reputation of a party train!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 22, 2015)

MikefromCrete said:


> Short overnight trains are a nice thought, but the invention of the jet airplane spelled their doom. Why should a businessman spend a night on a train when he can get to his destination in an hour or two on a plane and eliminate any overnights away from home? Fast, daytime trains in the 400-500 mile range are the future of passenger railroading. Everything else is just a quaint remnant of earlier times.


People don't want to fly. And if you had to go 400-500 miles on a train, you'd rather an overnight than lose a whole day. The day train is more useful for intermediate traffic but if there isn't that much anyway, the overnight does make more sense. I doubt I would use Amtrak from PHL to PGH as a day train but probably would if it was overnight.


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Short overnight trains are a nice thought, but the invention of the jet airplane spelled their doom. Why should a businessman spend a night on a train when he can get to his destination in an hour or two on a plane and eliminate any overnights away from home? Fast, daytime trains in the 400-500 mile range are the future of passenger railroading. Everything else is just a quaint remnant of earlier times.
> ...


What? Obviously there are people who fly (and the numbers bear that out), and fly these routes rather than take a train. The Los Angeles-San Francisco air corridor is the second busiest in the US. If there's anything that's going to substitute for medium-length air travel, it's going to be high-speed rail.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 22, 2015)

BCL said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


OK I should have said there are people who don't want to fly.


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 22, 2015)

Amtrak has been catering to the "afraid / really don't want to fly" crowd for a while now, and their inability to profit suggests that that's not working very well for them. On the other hand, there is a significant group of people who don't enjoy the hassle of security, getting to the airport hours early, etc., but don't take the train because of the enormous time expenditure. If these "short overnight" trains existed, I believe many people from the latter group would at least try Amtrak.

Regarding the Spirit of California, that report posted above looks pretty damning. With rising air/car fuel costs, increasing rail ridership, and cost cuts from the absence of a diner car, though, I think SF-LA is worth another try for an overnight.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 22, 2015)

NY Penn said:


> Regarding the Spirit of California, that report posted above looks pretty damning. With rising air/car fuel costs, increasing rail ridership, and cost cuts from the absence of a diner car, though, I think SF-LA is worth another try for an overnight.


Eh, not really. Going to be hardly any intermediate traffic thanks to the poor hours and end-point travel is going to be extremely limited in competition with CAHSR as well as flying. And for those who want to cite business travel and early morning meetings: Travel time is compensable in the state of California, which would make it quite an expensive train trip indeed.


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

Paulus said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the Spirit of California, that report posted above looks pretty damning. With rising air/car fuel costs, increasing rail ridership, and cost cuts from the absence of a diner car, though, I think SF-LA is worth another try for an overnight.
> ...


Whenever I've traveled on company business I was salaried. I was under the impression that most people on business travel are salaried. I'm not sure how many employers would allow someone to take something like a SF-LA train until there's HSR.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 22, 2015)

Personally I think that abandoning the idea of an overnight LA-SF train because of CAHSR is silly. After all, the time it would take to get such a train running is, unlike the timeframe for CAHSR, measured in years rather than decades.


----------



## BCL (Nov 22, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> Personally I think that abandoning the idea of an overnight LA-SF train because of CAHSR is silly. After all, the time it would take to get such a train running is, unlike the timeframe for CAHSR, measured in years rather than decades.


Amtrak sure isn't going to do it. If one really wants to do it, there's the 4768/768 combination, and that's available right now.

If there's going to be any issue, it would be whether or not Caltrain will play ball. The 4th and King Station is used as a de facto storage yard. It would probably also require state funding, and there's all the spending already done on HSR.


----------



## TiBike (Nov 22, 2015)

Easy way to do an overnight run from the Bay Area is just have the Zephyr make a left turn and carry on through to LA. The state priority now is a Coast Daylight, which would be an extension of the Surfliner to SF, leaving 3-4 hours earlier than the Starlight.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 23, 2015)

TiBike said:


> Easy way to do an overnight run from the Bay Area is just have the Zephyr make a left turn and carry on through to LA. The state priority now is a Coast Daylight, which would be an extension of the Surfliner to SF, leaving 3-4 hours earlier than the Starlight.


Easy but problematic. As it is, the Zephyr is the longest straight standalone train in the system in terms of hours in transit; throwing another leg on would invite further delays. This isn't to say that the idea doesn't have merit...it assuredly does, since it would allow Amtrak to consolidate LD ops on the West Coast into LA and Seattle, leaving Emeryville/Oakland as a strictly California base.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 23, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> Personally I think that abandoning the idea of an overnight LA-SF train because of CAHSR is silly. After all, the time it would take to get such a train running is, unlike the timeframe for CAHSR, measured in years rather than decades.


Given that the Daylight has taken decades, that's not necessarily so.


----------



## jis (Nov 23, 2015)

For CalDOT, the only outfit that can make the San Fran - LA overnight service happen, there are several other more pressing projects that need funding improvement before it plunges into the complexities of running a Sleeper train and what not. That is why we may wait quite a while more.


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 23, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> The Starlight and the Lark were combined in the 1950s so it is one train in my books. The ATSF might have had something but with a bus connection from Bakersfield.


Actually, the Starlight kept running for a relatively short while after they added coaches to the Lark, the trains weren't combined. They weren't one train, the Starlight was an independent train for its entire existence.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 23, 2015)

Philly you're going to love this one. There was a crack all Pullman train from NYP-PHL-PGH. The Pittsburger it ran up until 1964. Even though I don't believe it was all Pullman at that point in time. It catered to the steel company executives that we're headed to and from New York. You're probably right on that Zephyr. I follow east coast trains, so west coast ones are out of my sphere of knowledge.


----------



## afigg (Nov 23, 2015)

jis said:


> For CalDOT, the only outfit that can make the San Fran - LA overnight service happen, there are several other more pressing projects that need funding improvement before it plunges into the complexities of running a Sleeper train and what not. That is why we may wait quite a while more.


With the HSR line under construction, I can't see CalTrans pursuing or having any interest in leasing equipment and starting up an overnight SF-LA service with sleeper cars. Once a LA to SF HSR line opens with a circa 3 hour trip time, it will very quickly kill any end to end LA <-> SF market for a overnight sleeper service. Why make the investment and effort, given how long it takes to get anything started?(see Coast Daylight)

A Coast Daylight can survive or even add an additional (daytime) frequency as it provides service to the towns on the coast between LA and SF and becomes a feeder line to the HSR system to those traveling to stops on the HSR system & for that matter, the expanding transit systems in the Bay Area and LA.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 23, 2015)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > For CalDOT, the only outfit that can make the San Fran - LA overnight service happen, there are several other more pressing projects that need funding improvement before it plunges into the complexities of running a Sleeper train and what not. That is why we may wait quite a while more.
> ...


It's a question of timeframe. If CAHSR takes 20-30 years to happen, there would be enough time to buy the equipment, get a good service life out of it, and then drop the route (and perhaps sell the equipment to Amtrak or a third-party operator) after 20 years of operation and flip the slots to some sort of additional daytime service.


----------



## BCL (Nov 23, 2015)

afigg said:


> A Coast Daylight can survive or even add an additional (daytime) frequency as it provides service to the towns on the coast between LA and SF and becomes a feeder line to the HSR system to those traveling to stops on the HSR system & for that matter, the expanding transit systems in the Bay Area and LA.


Of course what would make the most sense would be if UP would just allow two slots for the Tehachapi Loop for the San Joaquin. We know they'll never do it though.


----------



## neroden (Nov 23, 2015)

BCL said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > A Coast Daylight can survive or even add an additional (daytime) frequency as it provides service to the towns on the coast between LA and SF and becomes a feeder line to the HSR system to those traveling to stops on the HSR system & for that matter, the expanding transit systems in the Bay Area and LA.
> ...


They don't actually have the right or ability to keep passenger trains off that route (or any other route). I assume they have a business case for whatever astronomical amount they would charge for it, though. And frankly? It's slow.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 23, 2015)

Anderson said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


CAHSR isn't going to take that long to build up and fat chance convincing the state to spend $100M or more for a train that historically was a miserable failure and which has no reason for existence with HSR in the mix. Even with the idea of flipping to an additional Daylight slot, let's not forget that, in addition to CAHSR, California has three existing routes with large capital desires (some of which would provide a more immediate use for the coastal communities like the Salinas Capitol Corridor extension) and at least two more additional routes which have been long studied and which would rather get meaningful rail service (Sacramento-Redding and Coachella Valley-Los Angeles).

Quite frankly, I'm hard pressed to think of any rail project in the state which would have a lower priority or utility than a resurrected Spirit of California and I'm getting tired of seeing this foamer dream being constantly raised.


----------



## BCL (Nov 24, 2015)

neroden said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > afigg said:
> ...


Everything I've read about it is that BNSF gets special permission to use it and that UP specifically doesn't allow for Amtrak to use it. I don't know if it would require some sort of agreement or whatnot, but Amtrak doesn't get to use it unless there's track work on the coast line.


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 24, 2015)

Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996. They can refuse to allow access or charge whatever they deem necessary to make "improvements" to provide access, see UP's $800M demand to make the Sunset daily. That would not have been permissible while the original legislation was in effect. Now, UP can bar Amtrak from Tehachapi if it wants to, and it does. In general, that is a major reason why it is so difficult to resume service on a line once it has been lost.

BTW, BNSF has a trackage rights agreement with UP that is long-standing and dates from the late 1800s or early 1900s between SP and AT&SF. BNSF does not need "special permission" to operate over Tehachapi. The trackage rights were negotiated as part of the transfer of the line between Mojave and Needles from the SP to the Santa Fe. I understand now there is more BNSF traffic over Tehachapi than UP.


----------



## BCL (Nov 24, 2015)

I found an image of a postcard. I think the caption is self-explanatory.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2015)

zephyr17 said:


> Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996. They can refuse to allow access or charge whatever they deem necessary to make "improvements" to provide access, see UP's $800M demand to make the Sunset daily. That would not have been permissible while the original legislation was in effect. Now, UP can bar Amtrak from Tehachapi if it wants to, and it does. In general, that is a major reason why it is so difficult to resume service on a line once it has been lost.
> 
> BTW, BNSF has a trackage rights agreement with UP that is long-standing and dates from the late 1800s or early 1900s between SP and AT&SF. BNSF does not need "special permission" to operate over Tehachapi. The trackage rights were negotiated as part of the transfer of the line between Mojave and Needles from the SP to the Santa Fe. I understand now there is more BNSF traffic over Tehachapi than UP.


I bet that the State of California, if it really wanted it could get access for its trains on Tehachapi. They have enough leverage with UP and BNSF to make such things happen. But for now it is not clear that such access worth the number of chits they will have to cash in for it.


----------



## BCL (Nov 24, 2015)

jis said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996. They can refuse to allow access or charge whatever they deem necessary to make "improvements" to provide access, see UP's $800M demand to make the Sunset daily. That would not have been permissible while the original legislation was in effect. Now, UP can bar Amtrak from Tehachapi if it wants to, and it does. In general, that is a major reason why it is so difficult to resume service on a line once it has been lost.
> ...


They keep on talking about it. It's in the latest California Rail Plan.

http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_Copy_2013_CSRP.pdf

UPRR Mojave Subdivision, Kern Junction to Mojave (Tehachapi Trade Corridor) (1)

UPRR as owner and BNSF as tenant operate on this primary freight corridor through the Tehachapi Mountains. Seventy percent of the freight volume transported over this corridor originates in the Central Valley.

BNSF has been concerned about capacity constraints and their impact on future freight growth, because its trains that operate over this route tend to be more service-sensitive. BNSF routes intermodal trains from the Port of Oakland and northern California over the Tehachapi Mountains to connect with their TRANSCON mainline in Barstow. As such, this location has also been identified as a constraint to growth of rail services to the Port of Oakland. The route through the mountains includes steep grades, extreme track curvature, and a single track through the majority of the corridor. Train volumes on this line are high, and are projected to approximately double, which will exacerbate existing capacity issues.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2012 Kern County Infrastructure Report Card, the Tehachapi Trade Corridor has a rating of “At Capacity,” indicating no room to serve increases in traffic. Improvements on this route have been approved to receive support under California’s TCIF, and will include double-tracking, siding extensions, and signal system upgrades. Additional information on this project is provided in Chapter 9, Freight Investment Program.

Of course it's more than just the Tehachapi Loop. However, it looks like the state might chip in some funds because the freight traffic is limited due to this chokepoint.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 24, 2015)

With that route I'm sure if the state wanted the service the state could get it. Look at North Carolina for example they are putting millions of dollars into the NS north south main line to add a few extra trains. NS benefits big time from the private public partnership. NS has to deal with a handful of trains, and the rest of the time it helps speed up their trains, and add capacity for them. So I could see if the state wanted it, the railroads could be sold on the idea.


----------



## BCL (Nov 24, 2015)

Man - this is bringing back memories of all the companies I dealt with during my part time job at a shipping company in San Francisco. It was a who's who of companies that have merged and where the names disappeared. I remember names like ATSF, Burlington Northern, Contrail, Denver Rio Grande, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, and Southern Pacific.

My various jobs included tracking containers and processing vendor invoices. It was interesting making calls to automated systems via phone; there was no tracking via internet. The most interesting thing I did was hand deliver a check to Southern Pacific at the San Francisco headquarters at One Market.


----------



## afigg (Nov 24, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> With that route I'm sure if the state wanted the service the state could get it. Look at North Carolina for example they are putting millions of dollars into the NS north south main line to add a few extra trains. NS benefits big time from the private public partnership. NS has to deal with a handful of trains, and the rest of the time it helps speed up their trains, and add capacity for them. So I could see if the state wanted it, the railroads could be sold on the idea.


You need to take a look at the terrain in the Tehachaphi mountains. Fairly steep in change of elevation from the San Joaquin Valley to the Mojave desert floor with the mountain range in between. Makes for expensive projects to add tracks to the winding route through the mountains.

The Bakersfield to the Mojave desert segment through the Tehachapi mountains is going to be perhaps the biggest engineering challenge and possibly the most expensive segment for the CA HSR system to build. I don't have the Bakersfield to Palmdale EIS and alternative documents in front of me, but IIRC, the alternatives include 10 to 15+ miles of tunnels with up to 6% sustained grades through those mountains. An HSR EMU trainset can handle 6% grades; mile long freight trains? not so much.


----------



## jis (Nov 25, 2015)

Just to give you some perspective on the 6% grade, for the Hudson Tunnels Amtrak and NJT were having a huge argument for having a grade greater than 2%, with NJT opposing it. Finally Amtrak won thus reducing the cost of the project by some..


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 25, 2015)

MikefromCrete said:


> Short overnight trains are a nice thought, but the invention of the jet airplane spelled their doom. Why should a businessman spend a night on a train when he can get to his destination in an hour or two on a plane and eliminate any overnights away from home? Fast, daytime trains in the 400-500 mile range are the future of passenger railroading. Everything else is just a quaint remnant of earlier times.


Even the shortest flight takes a minimum of 4-5 hours door-to-door, especially during busy travel periods when security lines are backed out the door. (I missed a flight last summer when I arrived at the airport 1 and a half hours ahead of flight time. By the time I got through security and ran up to the gate, I could see my plane pushing back. So from now on, I'm arriving 2 hours early.)

So you want a full workday out of town, eh? Arrive at 8 AM means you have to be out of the house by 4 AM, which means you need to get up at least a half hour early. Then you work all day, and it's 4:30 (but who works only an 8 hour day nowadays, plus it might be a good idea to have a couple of drinks with your colleagues, and may get dinner, etc. So you might not be ready to leave until 6:30 or 7:30, so you're not home until close to midnight. I don't know about others, but a full workday out of town for me means at least one night in a hotel, if only to preserve my sanity.

I've done WAS-Anne Arbor (MI) overnight trips on 29/30 to/from Toledo with the Thruway Bus connection to Ann Arbor. Works fine, I was in Anne Arbor by 8:30 AM, and the bus came around 8 PM, so I had enough time for a full day in town. Of course, coming back on 30 didn't get me in DC until lunch time, but one can work on the train, so it's not all a negative.

The main problem with this route is the lack of schedule reliability.


----------



## jis (Nov 25, 2015)

To some extent it depends on whether one likes to sleep on a train or not. If there are late evening flights available my general preference is to fly late evening, overnight in hotel and arrive fresh for work. And as it turns out, it is cheaper than Amtrak sleeper overall too.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 26, 2015)

jis said:


> To some extent it depends on whether one likes to sleep on a train or not. If there are late evening flights available my general preference is to fly late evening, overnight in hotel and arrive fresh for work. And as it turns out, it is cheaper than Amtrak sleeper overall too.


On the one hand I like sleeping on the train; on the other hand, I'll note that it sort of depends on the market. In some of the insanely expensive hotel markets (SFO is the most glaring, but there are some others...NYC, LAX, etc. which aren't far behind at the last minute) the value proposition flips (or you have to stay well outside the city center). Of course, there are also plenty of markets where the hotels are super-cheap.


----------



## BCL (Nov 26, 2015)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > To some extent it depends on whether one likes to sleep on a train or not. If there are late evening flights available my general preference is to fly late evening, overnight in hotel and arrive fresh for work. And as it turns out, it is cheaper than Amtrak sleeper overall too.
> ...


San Francisco does have an issue with geography. I'm guessing that a lot of people don't associate it with trains as one would of NYC, Chicago, or even Los Angeles. Train station settings in movies or TV might have a little something to do with the public consciousness.


----------



## neroden (Nov 26, 2015)

zephyr17 said:


> Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996.


This is just false; I'm not sure who's been spreading this false rumor, but I'd like you to stop spreading the rumor, because it's a lie.

I've gone through the law with someone who actually knows it. All railroads -- including those which didn't join Amtrak -- are required to allow Amtrak access to ANY LINE WHATSOEVER, including lines which didn't have passenger service in 1970.

The catch, of course, is *how much the railroad can charge for access*, which is nearly unregulated now. The *rate regulation* on lines which had passenger service in 1970 is what expired in 1996 (or possibly earlier). Basically the private railroads can put up prohibitive go-away prices, like UP asking for $750 million dollars for the daily Sunset Limited. Amtrak *can* go to the STB to dispute the charges, but Amtrak doesn't want to do that except in extreme cases, since the Class Is are well known for sabotaging Amtrak dispatching in an hard-to-prove manner. And there is no clear, objective rule regarding how much the Class I can charge in such a case.

The other thing which ended in 1996 or before was the quality-of-service guarantee. Amtrak still has a legislated right of priority at junctions, but the Class Is have no obligation to maintain the track to any standards; if it's 10 mph track, they can say "Sure, Amtrak may run on this at 10 mph, and we'll charge a billion dollars for it".

The right of access is granted to Amtrak by current law, and only to Amtrak -- not to any other commuter rail or passenger rail operators. The class Is can outright refuse other operators access. But for Amtrak, they are required by law to grant Amtrak access -- but not at any particular price. They could just demand, like Dr. Evil, "ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS". ;-)

The only other issue which is related to the original 1970 act is that railroads which agreed to join Amtrak were relieved of all their obligations to provide intercity passenger service themselves -- including obligations imposed locally and not by the federal government. (Railroads in the Northeast had their obligations to provide commuter service removed later, in 1983. Many other railroads had their state & local passenger service obligations removed by bankruptcy courts.) Railroads which *didn't* join Amtrak were *not* relieved of their passenger service obligation, and may still have an obligation to provide passenger service themselves (not via Amtrak) if it's required by state law, or by their charters, or by the conditions of easements (since it's not required by the federal government). I don't think a case has ever been filed over this; it would be hard to find an example, and there may not be any examples.


----------



## Carolina Special (Nov 27, 2015)

Do the charges for access to Amtrak from the freight railroads have to be periodically renegotiated (likely upwards) every few years? Or do these rates apply until Amtrak wants to change the service, such as with the daily Sunset example?


----------



## BCL (Nov 27, 2015)

Carolina Special said:


> Do the charges for access to Amtrak from the freight railroads have to be periodically renegotiated (likely upwards) every few years? Or do these rates apply until Amtrak wants to change the service, such as with the daily Sunset example?





> https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/AMTRAK%20Access%20Fees%20(Final%20redacted3).pdf
> 
> While Amtrak does make track usage payments to owning freight railroads, it does not pay an "access fee" for such use. The Railroad Passenger Service Act of 1970 grants Amtrak priority access to freight railroads' rights-of-ways and requires that Amtrak compensate owning freight railroads only for the incremental cost (rather than a negotiated market cost) associated with accommodating intercity passenger services over their tracks.


----------



## BCL (Nov 27, 2015)

The law is as follows, although I'm not sure if it's still in effect:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf

*SEC. 402. FACILITY AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS.*

(a) The Corporation may contract with railroads or with regional transportation agencies for the use of tracks and other facilities and the provision of services on such terms and conditions as the parties may agree. In the event of a failure to agree, the Interstate Commerce Commission shall, if it finds that doing so is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, order the provision of services or the use of tracks or facilities of the railroad by the Corporation, on such terms and for such compensation as the Commission may fix as just and reasonable, and the rights of the Corporation to such services or to the use of tracks or facilities of the railroad or agency under such order or under an order issued under subsection (b) of this section shall be conditioned upon payment by the Corporation of the compensation fixed by the Commission. If the amount of compensation fixed is not duly and promptly paid, the railroad or agency entitled thereto may bring an action against the Corporation to recover the amount properly owed.

(b) To facilitate the initiation of operations by the Corporation within the basic system, the Commission shall, upon application by the Corporation, require a railroad to make immediately available tracks and other facilities. The Commission shall thereafter promptly pro- ceed to fix such terms and conditions as are just and reasonable.

So it's not quite so cut and dry that a railroad can bar Amtrak from using its tracks. They're supposed to come to a reasonable agreement (yeah right).


----------



## BCL (Nov 27, 2015)

OK - to add on, Section 402 was modified by Congress in 1973, but so far I can't find anything that shows the complete law. The amendments are as follows:

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/93/146.pdf

Well - it looks like this part was repealed and replaced with a different law (49 USC 24308).

§ 24308. Use of facilities and providing services to Amtrak

(a) General Authority.—(1) Amtrak may make an agreement with a rail carrier or regional transportation authority to use facilities of, and have services provided by, the carrier or authority under terms on which the parties agree. The terms shall include a penalty for untimely performance.

(2) (A) If the parties cannot agree and if the Surface Transportation Board finds it necessary to carry out this part, the Board shall—
(i) order that the facilities be made available and the services provided to Amtrak; and
(ii) prescribe reasonable terms and compensation for using the facilities and providing the services.
(B) When prescribing reasonable compensation under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Board shall consider quality of service as a major factor when determining whether, and the extent to which, the amount of compensation shall be greater than the incremental costs of using the facilities and providing the services.
(C ) The Board shall decide the dispute not later than 90 days after Amtrak submits the dispute to the Board.

(3) Amtrak’s right to use the facilities or have the services provided is conditioned on payment of the compensation. If the compensation is not paid promptly, the rail carrier or authority entitled to it may bring an action against Amtrak to recover the amount owed.

(4) Amtrak shall seek immediate and appropriate legal remedies to enforce its contract rights when track maintenance on a route over which Amtrak operates falls below the contractual standard.

(b) Operating During Emergencies.— To facilitate operation by Amtrak during an emergency, the Board, on application by Amtrak, shall require a rail carrier to provide facilities immediately during the emergency. The Board then shall promptly prescribe reasonable terms, including indemnification of the carrier by Amtrak against personal injury risk to which the carrier may be exposed. The rail carrier shall provide the facilities for the duration of the emergency.

(c ) Preference Over Freight Transportation.— Except in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this subsection. A rail carrier affected by this subsection may apply to the Board for relief. If the Board, after an opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of title 5, decides that preference for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation materially will lessen the quality of freight transportation provided to shippers, the Board shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on reasonable terms.


----------



## BCL (Nov 27, 2015)

zephyr17 said:


> Railroads are no longer required to allow Amtrak access to any line that had passenger service in 1970. That ability was lost with the expiration of the original 1970 act in 1996. They can refuse to allow access or charge whatever they deem necessary to make "improvements" to provide access, see UP's $800M demand to make the Sunset daily. That would not have been permissible while the original legislation was in effect. Now, UP can bar Amtrak from Tehachapi if it wants to, and it does. In general, that is a major reason why it is so difficult to resume service on a line once it has been lost.


I had a look at the current law, and it looks like the terms were changed in 1994 with a large omnibus transportation bill. Back then they mentioned the ICC as the agency that could make the decision. Somewhere that was changed to the STB, although I can't quite find out where.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1758rs/pdf/BILLS-103hr1758rs.pdf

This is what I found about your example:



> http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2010/09/03/is-a-daily-quot-sunset-limited-quot-worth-750-million.aspx
> 
> Here’s how I suspect this story will play out: His past behavior suggests that Amtrak President Joe Boardman has no stomach whatsoever for confrontion. So don’t count on his negotiating with UP’s chief executive, Jim Young. Odds are that Amtrak will take this to the Surface Transportation Board for adjudication. The STB will take a sword and cut the baby in half, ruling that Amtrak must make some capital improvements but nowhere near the $750 million. And about the time the Obama girls graduate from college, you and I will be able to enjoy daily service on the historic Sunset Limited.


I suppose the big deal is that "quality of service" (I think this means for the host railroad) is factored if it goes to the STB for a decision on reasonable compensation. I guess UP was claiming that it would cost them $750 million - minus whatever incremental cost there would have been for maintenance or improvements needed for the additional passenger service.

What I gather this means for the Tehachapi Loop is that UP could possibly get compensation for a reduced quality of theirs and BNSF's service. However, California is looking to spend to improve this rail corridor - primarily to help with the current freight congestion. So perhaps after that happens, Amtrak won't necessarily be on the hook.


----------



## neroden (Nov 28, 2015)

Yeah, officially the host railroads are supposed to charge "reasonable rates" for access, but there's no definition of "reasonable", which makes it an obnoxious fight. UP would certainly say that $750 million for upgrades plus whatever for operations was a "reasonable rate".

Boardman doesn't want to get into that kind of fight, because the Class Is have the ability to retaliate in an illegal but hard-to-prove manner by sabotaging dispatching.


----------



## neroden (Nov 28, 2015)

BCL said:


> I had a look at the current law, and it looks like the terms were changed in 1994 with a large omnibus transportation bill. Back then they mentioned the ICC as the agency that could make the decision. Somewhere that was changed to the STB, although I can't quite find out where.


There's a law called the ICC Termination Act. After removing a bunch of the powers of the ICC, it has a clause which replaces all remaining references to the ICC with references to the STB. The STB is basically the ICC under another name, with fewer powers; I think it even inherited the same commissioners, though I don't remember for sure.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 28, 2015)

The other issue is what comprises "incremental" improvements needed? On a horridly under-utilized branch line I suspect the answer is "How fast do you want your train to actually be able to go?" (e.g. if you're happy with a train that can only do 39 MPH...you might need your head examined but you could probably run a service for next to nothing; almost all of the improvements in the NCH report, for example, had to do with runtimes and not pure access issues) On a packed mainline where a 79-90 MPH passenger train is going to be "bumping into" mineral trains capped at 50 MPH all over the place, the answer may be not too far off of "just build yourself a spare track in the ROW and we'll let you onto the mainline for a few passing moves or if there's somewhere the extra track is truly impractical" (this is where NS is with an additional Pennsylvanian and about where UP was on the Daily Sunset).

I guess the question is, in various cases, what the freights would demand if an Amtrak train was to be run as a super-high priority intermodal (e.g. same operating speeds except to make up for a station stop or other delay)? That's a lot slower than Amtrak can manage right now, but at the same time the Amtrak train wouldn't be tearing a massive rip in a string diagram. I know this is undesirable and I consider the question to be an intellectual exercise and nothing more, but it comes to mind all the same.


----------



## BCL (Nov 28, 2015)

I looked over the law again, and I believe I misinterpreted what "quality of service" meant. It likely means the expected service that Amtrak receives.

There are also a lot of references to the RPSA of 1970 as well as amendments of 1973. However, it looks like it was scrapped in 1994 and replaced with language that was effectively the same language.


----------

