# 750 million dollar Sunset



## bretton88 (Sep 7, 2010)

So, in deeply soul-crushing news, Frank Fraily has obtained the demands UP is wanting for a daily Sunset Limited. 400 million for track upgrades LAX -SAS. And probably 350 million for upgrades SAS-NOL. That's rediculous! It probably stops any hope of a daily Sunset in my lifetime, and I'm 22! Here's the article:

750 million $ sunset


----------



## George Harris (Sep 7, 2010)

Consider this the starting point for negotiations. West of El Paso, the line was well on the way to full double track before the traffic dropped. As it is, there is full double track between Tucson adn El Paso, over Beaumont Hill and frequent passing track for the resto of it. Between El Paso and Sierra Blanca, double track would be needed if traffic rebounds, with or without a daily Sunset. As to $350 million mostly in the Houston area, if you believe that I have soem Golden Gate Bridge stock you would probably be interested in buying.


----------



## Donctor (Sep 7, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> So, in deeply soul-crushing news, Frank Fraily has obtained the demands UP is wanting for a daily Sunset Limited. 400 million for track upgrades LAX -SAS. And probably 350 million for upgrades SAS-NOL. That's rediculous! It probably stops any hope of a daily Sunset in my lifetime, and I'm 22! Here's the article:
> 
> 750 million $ sunset


I do believe this has been the case, and Amtrak has been attempting to negotiate. The daily Eagle will likely get implemented only after this goes to some form of litigation, assuming it does. Again, no one knows for certain.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 7, 2010)

Does Amtrak has any legal authority to just force a daily sunset onto the UP? I know the STB is fairly Amtrak friendly and is probably where this will end up. UP may not like it, but how much worse is an always late daily sunset versus an always late tri-weekly sunset?


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 7, 2010)

The train is not "always late." For the current fiscal year, the Sunset Limited has the second-best on-time performance of any long-distance train (behind the Coast Starlight). Granted, that's with the massive amounts of fat in the schedule (some of which was recently removed on the westbound train). Double-tracking should help tremendously when the train returns to a leaner schedule.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 7, 2010)

I know, I was just saying if Amtrak forces the issue, UP will probably make it late again. Techically, Amtrak has the power to sieze the line, but can't afford it/ won't do it. But there is a nuclear option.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 7, 2010)

Amtrak does not have the power to seize the line.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 7, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> Amtrak does not have the power to seize the line.


Amtrak's got thousands of volts flying through its wires. :lol: Of course that won't help much in this case.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 7, 2010)

Wonder if Joe Boardman will tell UP "Send us the bill" like they did for BNSF on the SWC Raton route! This is outrageous, :angry2: Joe Biden needs to call up UP and tell them that Amtrak is not CHASE Bank or BP!!! :help:


----------



## had8ley (Sep 8, 2010)

SICK !!! :help: :help: :help:Kinda had the feeling that it would never come to pass. This just pours two tons of concrete on a daily Eagle.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 8, 2010)

The railroad that had Bush in their back pocket and hosted Dick Cheney as a board member is setting up impossible barriers to Amtrak? Are any of you actually surprised by this? None of this is by accident and nothing will ever change until we stop voting for macho idiots and spineless intellectuals.


----------



## Karl1459 (Sep 8, 2010)

Seems to me the critical parameter UP used to find the 750M figure was "NO DELAYS TO AMTRAK OR FREIGHT" using the high point 2007 freight traffic data. UP seems to be saying that with the 750M they will more or less be able to "guarantee" on time service, barring derailments, weather related etc.

This sets the ground rules for negotiations... More capital $$ = less delays. Less capital = more delays. Amtrak and UP can now sit down and determine what level of delay is cost effective (by not spending capital) Capital cost vs Avoided Capital cost + freight delay costs (UP) + passenger delay costs (Amtrak) to arrive at the optimal achievable level of service vs cost. Is UP considering the operating cost savings from having no freight delays and paying their portion or asking Amtrak to do it all.

Or increment this... What is needed to prevent delays at the average between 2007 and 2010 traffic levels. Do this now. What is a part reasonable UP business plan to have in place in the next 30 years anyway and find a way for Amtrak to help fund those improvements now but recapture some of the investment, an UP cost saving (if any) later.

Ask ourselves how many posts have decried the policies of Congress which basically asked the early Amtrak administration the question of how much will it cost to run an effective passenger railroad, then gave Amtrak "half" that. UP sounds like they are giving an honest (though likely worst case, highest cost) estimate of what it will take to do the job. Do we really want to advocate to only give them "half"?


----------



## henryj (Sep 8, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> So, in deeply soul-crushing news, Frank Fraily has obtained the demands UP is wanting for a daily Sunset Limited. 400 million for track upgrades LAX -SAS. And probably 350 million for upgrades SAS-NOL. That's rediculous! It probably stops any hope of a daily Sunset in my lifetime, and I'm 22! Here's the article:
> 
> 750 million $ sunset


Well the 'government' is getting involved increasingly on many routes such as the Crescent corridor on NS and the East Coast corridor to Florida on the CSX and a lot of other routes as well. UP just wants in on the action. Amtrak and California are looking at having to pick up the tab for the Coast Starlight route also as UP no longer uses it. Also, Houston to New Orleans is identified as a future high speed corridor and as such it would need lots of work. Having said all that, I think this kills a daily Sunset for the forseable future. Not said in the article is that this route once had four passenger trains a day between El Paso and LA and was mostly single track. There were two between El Paso and New Orleans.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 8, 2010)

I guess it is a valid point that nowhere has it been said Amtrak has to pay for ALL of it. UP has said what the total cost of upgrades to the line will need to be. Maybe Amtrak only has to pay a smaller portion if that and they're negotiating what that is.


----------



## MikeM (Sep 8, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> Wonder if Joe Boardman will tell UP "Send us the bill" like they did for BNSF on the SWC Raton route! This is outrageous, :angry2: Joe Biden needs to call up UP and tell them that Amtrak is not CHASE Bank or BP!!! :help:


From what I can see, if Amtrak said to send them the bill for SWC trackwork, apparently the bill hasn't cleared. I haven't seen anything to indicate there's any work underway to replace the worn rail on the BNSF Kansas lines that were recently downgraded from 79 to 60 mph. Unless there's something buried in the new infrastructure bill (hard to imagine, particularly with Kansas being deep Republican), I really am betting that we'll see a SWC reroute in the next few years.

Anyhow, how much does new welded rail cost per mile? Not to mention rebuilding grade crossings, tie replacement, surfacing, and ballast? Can't be too cheap, if the railroad doesn't want you on the line, then Amtrak really has to pay up or shut up under the current rules. The only real leverage Amtrak could indirectly effect is to shunt funds from projects railroads want (like traffic relief spending in major terminals like Chicago and LA) into Amtrak routes. That'd be fun, but improbable to watch.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 8, 2010)

Karl1459 said:


> This sets the ground rules for negotiations... More capital $$ = less delays. Less capital = more delays. Amtrak and UP can now sit down and determine what level of delay is cost effective (by not spending capital) Capital cost vs Avoided Capital cost + freight delay costs (UP) + passenger delay costs (Amtrak) to arrive at the optimal achievable level of service vs cost. Is UP considering the operating cost savings from having no freight delays and paying their portion or asking Amtrak to do it all.


Only this story is new, along with in theory the release of the amount of money that UP is demanding. They've been "negotiating" for months and from what I've heard, they aren't getting anywhere. UP at least so far isn't budging off the idea that Amtrak will pay to complete all the double tracking not already done. And frankly, based upon the amount now being talked about, I have to wonder if they didn't add is something to help cover the double tracking that UP has already done.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 8, 2010)

When we look at the upgrades that NS and KCS have done on the Meridian - Shreveport line, NS put in something like $300 million and KCS put in the line plus work already done. The line is 313 miles from end to end. Thus we have somewhere above one million per mile just to get the line in good condition for freight. There were some sidings added, but very little in teh way of second main. When youlook at tehse numbers, this suggests that about one million per mile would be reasonable to get the ex Santa Fe line across Kansas back up to 90 mph service, assuming the ATS is still in place. If not, 79 mph. Considering that it is truly likely that UP is wanting the double tracking finished through all the gaps between Sierra Blanca, Texas and Los Angeles, the amount is not unreasonable. If you want to go back through Phoenix, add about another $400 million, given that about all that is reusable on that section is the right of way.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 8, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Considering that it is truly likely that UP is wanting the double tracking finished through all the gaps between Sierra Blanca, Texas and Los Angeles, the amount is not unreasonable.


You could say that defunding and disbanding Amtrak is a perfectly _reasonable_ position as well. But I don't understand why anyone at this forum would defend it or agree with it. Unless it was being replaced with a new mandate. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you think Amtrak should be doing here. Should they attempt to pay a "reasonable" but likely impossible fee or should they just keep downgrading and rerouting until the network has been shrunk to the point that it can be funded at levels that don't make them a target of politicians looking to score points with freight carriers?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Sep 8, 2010)

750 million just to run one train daily in each direction. The train is allready running on these tracks three times a week. 750 million just to run it the other four days an week.

Some congress member should call them out on this one. What an joke.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 8, 2010)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> 750 million just to run it the other four days an week. Some congress member should call them out on this one.


Agreed, but which member would that be? Here's a list of members of congress who have been paid during the 2010 cycle to help ensure they see things UP's way. The amounts may not seem huge at first but they're often in the form of regular contributions that are combined with those of many other like-minded companies in order to reach sums that individuals like us could never hope to counter. Over the last couple decades UP contributed $130,000 to John McCain alone. And we all know how much McCain _loves_ Amtrak by his voting record and his attacks.

Akin, Todd (R-MO)	House	$1,000

Altmire, Jason (D-PA)	House	$7,000

Arcuri, Michael (D-NY)	House	$3,000

Baca, Joe (D-CA)	House	$4,000

Bachmann, Michele (R-MN)	House	$2,000

Bachus, Spencer (R-AL)	House	$4,000

Baird, Brian (D-WA)	House	$2,000

Barrasso, John A (R-WY)	Senate	$1,000

Barrow, John (D-GA)	House	$2,000

Barton, Joe (R-TX)	House	$2,500

Bass, Karen (D-CA)	House	$2,000

Becerra, Xavier (D-CA)	House	$7,000

Begich, Mark (D-AK)	Senate	$5,000

Bennet, Michael F (D-CO)	Senate	$38,000

Bennett, Robert F (R-UT)	Senate	$3,000

Berkley, Shelley (D-NV)	House	$4,500

Berman, Howard L (D-CA)	House	$2,500

Biggert, Judy (R-IL)	House	$1,000

Bilbray, Brian P (R-CA)	House	$1,000

Bishop, Rob (R-UT)	House	$1,000

Bishop, Timothy H (D-NY)	House	$2,000

Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR)	House	$10,000

Blunt, Roy (R-MO)	House	$5,000

Boccieri, John A (D-OH)	House	$4,000

Boehner, John (R-OH)	House	$5,000

Bono Mack, Mary (R-CA)	House	$3,000

Boozman, John (R-AR)	House	$5,000

Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA)	House	$3,500

Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)	Senate	$2,500

Boyd, Allen (D-FL)	House	$2,000

Brady, Kevin (R-TX)	House	$9,000

Brown, Corrine (D-FL)	House	$19,200

Brown, Henry (R-SC)	House	$2,000

Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL)	House	$1,000

Burns, Tim (R-PA)	House	$500

Burr, Richard (R-NC)	Senate	$6,000

Buyer, Steve (R-IN)	House	$5,000

Calvert, Ken (R-CA)	House	$2,000

Camp, Dave (R-MI)	House	$9,000

Cantor, Eric (R-VA)	House	$10,000

Cao, Joseph (R-LA)	House	$2,000

Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV)	House	$4,500

Capuano, Michael E (D-MA)	House	$3,500

Carnahan, Russ (D-MO)	House	$10,000

Carney, Chris (D-PA)	House	$5,000

Carper, Tom (D-DE)	Senate	$5,000

Carter, John (R-TX)	House	$2,000

Cassidy, Bill (R-LA)	House	$1,000

Castle, Michael N (R-DE)	House	$2,500

Cedillo, Gilbert (D-CA)	House	$1,000

Chaffetz, Jason (R-UT)	House	$1,000

Chandler, Ben (D-KY)	House	$2,000

Chu, Judy (D-CA)	House	$2,000

Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO)	House	$2,000

Clyburn, James E (D-SC)	House	$7,000

Coble, Howard (R-NC)	House	$4,000

Coburn, Tom (R-OK)	Senate	$10,000

Coffman, Mike (R-CO)	House	$2,000

Cohen, Stephen Ira (D-TN)	House	$5,000

Cole, Tom (R-OK)	House	$2,000

Conaway, Mike (R-TX)	House	$1,000

Conrad, Kent (D-ND)	Senate	$5,000

Cooper, Jim (D-TN)	House	$2,500

Corker, Bob (R-TN)	Senate	$5,000

Costa, Jim (D-CA)	House	$2,000

Costello, Jerry F (D-IL)	House	$10,000

Crapo, Mike (R-ID)	Senate	$10,000

Crowley, Joseph (D-NY)	House	$2,000

Cuellar, Henry (D-TX)	House	$3,000

Culberson, John (R-TX)	House	$3,000

Cummings, Elijah E (D-MD)	House	$5,000

Davis, Danny K (D-IL)	House	$2,000

Davis, Geoff (R-KY)	House	$1,000

DeFazio, Peter (D-OR)	House	$10,000

DeMint, James W (R-SC)	Senate	$4,000

Denham, Jeff (R-CA)	House	$1,000

Dent, Charlie (R-PA)	House	$4,000

Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL)	House	$7,000

Dreier, David (R-CA)	House	$2,400

Duncan, John J (Jimmy) Jr (R-TN)	House	$5,000

Edwards, Chet (D-TX)	House	$5,000

Ehlers, Vernon J (R-MI)	House	$1,000

Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN)	House	$2,000

Emerson, Jo Ann (R-MO)	House	$3,000

Ensign, John (R-NV)	Senate	$1,000

Feingold, Russ (D-WI)	Senate	$250

Filner, Bob (D-CA)	House	$3,000

Fiorina, Carly (R-CA)	Senate	$250

Fortenberry, Jeffrey Lane (R-NE)	House	$4,250

Fritchey, John A (D-IL)	House	$2,500

Geoghegan, Thomas Howard (D-IL)	House	$1,500

Gerlach, Jim (R-PA)	House	$2,000

Gohmert, Louis B Jr (R-TX)	House	$1,000

Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX)	House	$2,500

Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA)	House	$1,000

Granger, Kay (R-TX)	House	$4,000

Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)	Senate	$6,000

Graves, Sam (R-MO)	House	$10,000

Grayson, Trey (R-KY)	Senate	$5,000

Green, Gene (D-TX)	House	$5,500

Griffith, Parker (R-AL)	House	$2,000

Guthrie, Steven Brett (R-KY)	House	$4,000

Hall, Ralph M (R-TX)	House	$1,000

Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL)	House	$5,000

Hare, Phil (D-IL)	House	$3,000

Harper, Gregg (R-MS)	House	$1,000

Hastings, Doc (R-WA)	House	$2,000

Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT)	Senate	$5,000

Heinrich, Martin (D-NM)	House	$3,000

Heller, Dean (R-NV)	House	$5,500

Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX)	House	$1,000

Herger, Wally (R-CA)	House	$3,000

Hoeven, John (R-ND)	Senate	$2,500

Holden, Tim (D-PA)	House	$3,000

Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD)	House	$7,500

Issa, Darrell (R-CA)	House	$1,000

Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX)	House	$1,000

Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS)	House	$1,000

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-TX)	House	$5,000

Johnson, Hank (D-GA)	House	$3,000

Johnson, Sam (R-TX)	House	$3,000

Johnson, Timothy V (R-IL)	House	$3,000

King, Pete (R-NY)	House	$1,000

King, Steven A (R-IA)	House	$4,000

Kirk, Mark (R-IL)	House	$5,000

Kirkpatrick, Ann (D-AZ)	House	$1,000

Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)	Senate	$1,000

Larsen, Rick (D-WA)	House	$10,000

Latham, Tom (R-IA)	House	$3,000

LaTourette, Steven C (R-OH)	House	$9,000

Latta, Robert E (R-OH)	House	$3,000

Lautenberg, Frank R (D-NJ)	Senate	$5,000

Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)	Senate	$2,000

Lee, Barbara (D-CA)	House	$1,500

Lewis, Jerry (R-CA)	House	$1,000

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)	Senate	$13,000

Lipinski, Daniel (D-IL)	House	$5,000

Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA)	House	$1,000

Lucas, Frank D (R-OK)	House	$3,000

Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO)	House	$2,000

Lujan, Ben R (D-NM)	House	$3,000

Lummis, Cynthia Marie (R-WY)	House	$3,000

Lungren, Dan (R-CA)	House	$10,000

Mack, Connie (R-FL)	House	$1,000

Manzullo, Don (R-IL)	House	$2,500

Marchant, Kenny (R-TX)	House	$3,000

Markey, Betsy (D-CO)	House	$6,000

Matheson, Jim (D-UT)	House	$7,500

Matsui, Doris O (D-CA)	House	$5,000

McCain, John (R-AZ)	Senate	$11,000

McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA)	House	$5,500

McCaul, Michael (R-TX)	House	$2,000

McClintock, Tom (R-CA)	House	$1,000

McGovern, James P (D-MA)	House	$7,000

McHenry, Patrick (R-NC)	House	$1,000

McKeon, Howard P (Buck) (R-CA)	House	$2,000

McMahon, Michael E (D-NY)	House	$4,000

McMorris Rodgers, Cathy (R-WA)	House	$3,000

McNerney, Jerry (D-CA)	House	$3,000

Meek, Kendrick B (D-FL)	House	$11,000

Merkley, Jeff (D-OR)	Senate	$8,500

Mica, John L (R-FL)	House	$10,000

Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD)	Senate	$6,000

Miller, Candice S (R-MI)	House	$7,000

Miller, Gary (R-CA)	House	$2,500

Minnick, Walt (D-ID)	House	$4,000

Mitchell, Harry E (D-AZ)	House	$4,500

Moise, Rudolph (D-FL)	House	$250

Moore, Dennis (D-KS)	House	$1,000

Moran, Jerry (R-KS)	House	$7,000

Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)	Senate	$5,000

Murray, Patty (D-WA)	Senate	$8,000

Myrick, Sue (R-NC)	House	$1,200

Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY)	House	$3,000

Napolitano, Grace (D-CA)	House	$4,000

Neal, Richard E (D-MA)	House	$10,000

Nelson, Ben (D-NE)	Senate	$1,000

Nelson, Bill (D-FL)	Senate	$3,000

Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX)	House	$2,000

Norton, Jane (R-CO)	Senate	$1,000

Nunes, Devin Gerald (R-CA)	House	$1,000

Nye, Glenn (D-VA)	House	$2,000

Oberstar, James L (D-MN)	House	$2,000

Olson, Pete (R-TX)	House	$10,500

Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX)	House	$3,500

Pastor, Ed (D-AZ)	House	$3,000

Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA)	House	$10,000

Petri, Tom (R-WI)	House	$10,000

Poe, Ted (R-TX)	House	$1,000

Portman, Rob (R-OH)	Senate	$2,100

Quigley, Mike (D-IL)	House	$3,000

Radanovich, George (R-CA)	House	$2,000

Rahall, Nick (D-WV)	House	$10,000

Rangel, Charles B (D-NY)	House	$2,500

Reichert, Dave (R-WA)	House	$3,000

Reid, Harry (D-NV)	Senate	$6,000

Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX)	House	$1,000

Richardson, Laura (D-CA)	House	$5,000

Risch, James E (R-ID)	Senate	$1,000

Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX)	House	$2,000

Rogers, Hal (R-KY)	House	$4,500

Rooney, Tom (R-FL)	House	$1,000

Roskam, Peter (R-IL)	House	$5,000

Ross, Mike (D-AR)	House	$2,000

Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D-CA)	House	$4,250

Rush, Bobby L (D-IL)	House	$2,000

Ryan, Paul (R-WI)	House	$2,500

Salazar, John (D-CO)	House	$6,000

Salazar, Ken (D-CO)	Senate	$250

Sanchez, Linda (D-CA)	House	$4,500

Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA)	House	$2,000

Scalise, Steve (R-LA)	House	$4,400

Schauer, Mark (D-MI)	House	$4,000

Schiff, Adam (D-CA)	House	$2,500

Schmidt, Jean (R-OH)	House	$1,000

Schock, Aaron (R-IL)	House	$8,000

Schrader, Kurt (D-OR)	House	$3,000

Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL)	House	$3,000

Schumer, Charles E (D-NY)	Senate	$10,000

Scott, Robert C (D-VA)	House	$2,500

Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI)	House	$1,000

Sessions, Pete (R-TX)	House	$2,500

Shadegg, John (R-AZ)	House	$3,000

Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)	Senate	$3,500

Sherman, Brad (D-CA)	House	$1,000

Shimkus, John M (R-IL)	House	$4,000

Shuler, Heath (D-NC)	House	$5,000

Shuster, Bill (R-PA)	House	$10,000

Simpson, Mike (R-ID)	House	$4,500

Sires, Albio (D-NJ)	House	$4,000

Smith, Adam (D-WA)	House	$2,000

Smith, Adrian (R-NE)	House	$8,000

Smith, Lamar (R-TX)	House	$2,000

Snowe, Olympia J (R-ME)	Senate	$5,000

Specter, Arlen (D-PA)	Senate	$5,000

Speier, Jackie (D-CA)	House	$2,500

Sullivan, John (R-OK)	House	$2,000

Teague, Harry (D-NM)	House	$5,500

Terry, Lee (R-NE)	House	$11,200

Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS)	House	$9,000

Thompson, Mike (D-CA)	House	$1,500

Thune, John (R-SD)	Senate	$8,000

Tiahrt, Todd (R-KS)	House	$750

Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH)	House	$5,400

Titus, Dina (D-NV)	House	$5,500

Udall, Tom (D-NM)	Senate	$5,000

Walden, Greg (R-OR)	House	$2,500

Watt, Melvin L (D-NC)	House	$5,000

Webb, James (D-VA)	Senate	$5,000

Westmoreland, Lynn A (R-GA)	House	$3,000

Wexler, Robert (D-FL)	House	$3,000

White, Thomas M (D-NE)	House	$500

Whitfield, Ed (R-KY)	House	$4,000

Wicker, Roger (R-MS)	Senate	$2,000

Wills, Robbie (D-AR)	House	$2,000

Wu, David (D-OR)	House	$2,000

Wyden, Ron (D-OR)	Senate	$10,000

Yarmuth, John A (D-KY)	House	$3,000


----------



## City of Miami (Sep 8, 2010)

In the book Waiting for the Train which I read this summer, the UP representative said in his interview that UP simply doesn't care about Amtrak. Then he repeated "You people are not listening..... WE DON'T CARE!!"


----------



## AlanB (Sep 8, 2010)

City of Miami said:


> In the book Waiting for the Train which I read this summer, the UP representative said in his interview that UP simply doesn't care about Amtrak. Then he repeated "You people are not listening..... WE DON'T CARE!!"


They're caring a bit more about Amtrak these days, after nearly getting hauled into court over the CS & CZ delays and now the new laws that will let the FRA punish them if they delay Amtrak too much.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 8, 2010)

AlanB said:


> ...and now the new laws that will let the FRA punish them if they delay Amtrak too much.



Ironically, these new regulations regarding on-time performance are likely to make Amtrak's life more difficult, as host railroads become more reluctant to allow Amtrak to add service or remove schedule padding without boatloads of extra cash to build more infrastructure. Not to say that they would welcome said changes with open arms in the absence of such regulations. However, these new rules give them a very convenient excuse to say no to everything.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 8, 2010)

daxomni said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that it is truly likely that UP is wanting the double tracking finished through all the gaps between Sierra Blanca, Texas and Los Angeles, the amount is not unreasonable.
> ...


Try re-reading what I said. I did not say that it was reasonable for UP to try to squeeze the whole thing out of Amtrak. What I said, is that when you look at what UP is wanting to do, the amount is reasonaable. How the cost is divied up between the two is a whole nother issue. If this work were being done with the entire bundle of processes and procedures that go into the feds doing anything, it would cost 5 to 10 times as much.

The $40 billion number being bounced around for the California High Speed is not because it would cost $100 million per mile to build a double track railroad if it were being doen by UP ro BNSF, even electrified, over the SF to LA distance, but because of all the processes and procedures you have to go through to satisfy all the bureauracies that get themselves involved anytime they smell Feddy bucks or even Cali bucks.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 8, 2010)

AlanB said:


> They're caring a bit more about Amtrak these days, after nearly getting hauled into court over the CS & CZ delays and now the new laws that will let the FRA punish them if they delay Amtrak too much.


Maybe UP _should_ care, but to the best of my understanding those new legal remedies have yet to be tested and until UP is taken to court and _loses_ or is otherwise fined or penalized in a substantially painful manner we must accept that these potential legal remedies remain unproven instruments at this time. Perhaps the threat of a fine is enough to push UP into permanent compliance, but I sincerely doubt it. Indeed if I were a board member at UP I'd be ready and willing to challenge Amtrak's legal status at each and every opportunity. UP staff are not fond of Amtrak as it is and any proposed expansion will be greeted with ever more resistance. If you don't believe me all you have to do is ask them. They don't exactly hide how they feel about Amtrak or the regulations that allow them to keep operating.



George Harris said:


> If this work were being done with the entire bundle of processes and procedures that go into the feds doing anything, it would cost 5 to 10 times as much.


The exorbitant prices involved in any large government project can't be entirely explained by bureaucracy alone. Much of what increases the costs for our government and for us are the businesses and individuals who willingly fleece our public coffers. Again, this isn't any sort of secret. This is what government contractors will gleefully tell you over lunch, even those with security clearance. It's a big joke and everyone's in on it. Well, except for our perpetually naive voters I guess.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 8, 2010)

Ask Guilford what happens if you push Amtrak too far. Amtrak used emminent domain on them to gain access to the tracks they needed for Vermonter service. It went all the way to the supreme court, where the court upheld Amtraks right to emminent domain on any railroads property. The court also upheld amtraks ability to transfer (seizing the tracks in order to sell to another rail operator more willing to allow the trains) the tracks. This is amtraks big stick to use against any railway and has precedent in the supreme court which is a powerful legal protection. As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.


----------



## Donctor (Sep 9, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > ...and now the new laws that will let the FRA punish them if they delay Amtrak too much.
> ...


And make incentives absolutely useless (though, to be fair, they already are in certain cases).


----------



## Donctor (Sep 9, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> Ask Guilford what happens if you push Amtrak too far. Amtrak used emminent domain on them to gain access to the tracks they needed for Vermonter service. It went all the way to the supreme court, where the court upheld Amtraks right to emminent domain on any railroads property. The court also upheld amtraks ability to transfer (seizing the tracks in order to sell to another rail operator more willing to allow the trains) the tracks. This is amtraks big stick to use against any railway and has precedent in the supreme court which is a powerful legal protection. As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.


Amtrak would probably win the case, but they'd lose favor with the hosts. (That probably only applies to BNSF, as Amtrak is already on UP's "bad side," whatever that means.)


----------



## AlanB (Sep 9, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > They're caring a bit more about Amtrak these days, after nearly getting hauled into court over the CS & CZ delays and now the new laws that will let the FRA punish them if they delay Amtrak too much.
> ...


UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court. When confronted with a very stern letter regarding the many slow orders on the tracks used by the CZ & the CS a few years back that threatened legal action, and before the new remedies, UP showed up at the table to talk with Amtrak and a deal was worked out. That deal included putting in some temporary padding to help keep the CZ on time while they fixed the tracks. Over a period of 2 or 3 years, that padding was gradually removed and I believe that it is now fully out of the current TT, although I won't swear to that.

So no, UP isn't going to be challenging Amtrak on everything. They've already proven that.

Now in the case of the Daily Sunset, that I could see UP letting that go to court, especially as noted by Trogdor that UP could get fined if they don't keep Amtrak on time. But again, UP won't be challenging Amtrak on everything as they've already been hit over the head once with just the threat of legal action.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 9, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.


Are we talking about _National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp._ in 1992? If so you might want to revist that assumption.

William Rehnquist

Byron White

Harry Blackmun

John P. Stevens

Sandra Day O'Connor

Antonin Scalia

David Souter

Anthony Kennedy

Clarence Thomas

Considering that Thomas dissented we're basically we're left with _one single justice_ from that opinion. That's not much of a buffer seeing how little the Roberts Court reveres stare decisis.



AlanB said:


> UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court.


I see what you mean in that occasionally UP has backed down in the past. However, every time UP tells Amtrak to sit on the side and wait for a freight to pass or tells Amtrak they need to pony up millions for rail improvements is that not a challenge? And if Amtrak doesn't push back legally then why would UP take it to court if they already have what they want? For many years Amtrak was willing to sit on the siding and twiddle their thumbs and there was nothing for UP to gain from initiating a court battle themselves. It's true that Amtrak has received some new potential remedies that may or may not impact future operations. However, we're also in a major slump for freight traffic that has taken much of the pressure off. From what I understand UP can also receive some compensation from Amtrak for improved on-time performance that is usually ignored but can be appealing in times of low freight volume. The _real_ battle for Amtrak's future probably won't start until after freight traffic fully recovers and the mid-term elections have swept one of the most anti-government legislatures we've ever had into power. When those conditions are met we'll see who _really_ holds the power, and I sincerely doubt it will be Amtrak.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 9, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court.
> ...


I'm not sure that challenge is the correct word, but yes in general I agree, UP will try to push things as far as they can. That's a given!

The only time that UP doesn't push the envelope is when they feel that they are being properly compensated for allowing passenger service on their tracks, like in the case of Amtrak California, where the state is paying for improvements and I believe more than the standard Amtrak rate for passenger service on the UP tracks.

As for why Amtrak stood idly by while UP parked Amtrak in sidings; in my mind I see two major reasons. One, Amtrak was afraid of challenging them for a number of years for fear that it would make things even worse. Second, neither Amtrak nor the FRA really had a leg to stand on in terms of challenging UP.

In fact, the threatened lawsuit that I mentioned wasn't about parking Amtrak in the sidings. The lawsuit was over the fact that the contract has specifics about how many slow orders can be on a track and for how long. Please don't quote me 100% on that as I'm not sure of the exact particulars. But the point was, UP had too many slow orders and was in violation of the contract. And that is the technicality that Amtrak seized upon when they threatened UP with court action. And all indications are that UP would have lost any court battle, hence the reason that they quickly caved and negotiated temporary schedule changes that lengthened running times. But unlike what was done to the Sunset 10 years ago, those additions to the running times were temporary and certain bench marks had to be met. Then over the course of I believe 3 years, all that extra time would eventually be taken back out in predetermined increments over a specified period of time.


----------



## Mackensen (Sep 9, 2010)

daxomni said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.
> ...


Getting very, very off-topic but Scalia is still on the court. Also, that was an administrative law case which didn't break down on traditional lines and is much less likely to get reversed.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 9, 2010)

Mackensen said:


> Getting very, very off-topic but Scalia is still on the court. Also, that was an administrative law case which didn't break down on traditional lines and is much less likely to get reversed.


You're absolutely right; my apologies for that rather glaring mistake. Hopefully you're also right about it not being overturned, but the Roberts Court has ignored precedent before and I wouldn't put it past them in the future.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 9, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Mackensen said:
> 
> 
> > Getting very, very off-topic but Scalia is still on the court. Also, that was an administrative law case which didn't break down on traditional lines and is much less likely to get reversed.
> ...


More hopeful on that too is that traditional conservatives like Scalia and Rehnquist(I know he's not on the court but he was a model conservative) voted in favor of Amtrak. Ironically, since Amtrak is an administrative entity (thus deals with purely legal issues), It makes it less prone to breaking down on traditional lines, unlike say moral issues. There's a lot less gray area to interpret. More importantly is the hope that Amtrak would never need to use such drastic measures. It took 20 years for Guilford (now Pan-Am) to come to good terms with Amtrak again after the Vermonter incident, it would probably guarantee UP would never cooperate with Amtrak again and would definitely make other railroads look at Amtrak as much more than a minor nuisance.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 9, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> It took 20 years for Guilford (now Pan-Am) to come to good terms with Amtrak again after the Vermonter incident, it would probably guarantee UP would never cooperate with Amtrak again and would definitely make other railroads look at Amtrak as much more than a minor nuisance.


Given all that has gone on between Guilford and Amtrak / Massachusetts I would hardly call their realationship as cooperative at any time, before, during or since the Vermonter issue. Notice that the train still does not use Guilford rails at any point on its route. As to the Downeaster, the freight traffic on that route is so low that delaying the trains would require planning on the part of Guilford.


----------



## had8ley (Sep 9, 2010)

George Harris said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > It took 20 years for Guilford (now Pan-Am) to come to good terms with Amtrak again after the Vermonter incident, it would probably guarantee UP would never cooperate with Amtrak again and would definitely make other railroads look at Amtrak as much more than a minor nuisance.
> ...


Just to add gas to the fire Guilford held up the potential upper speed limit of 79 mph on the Downeaster for years !!! :angry2:


----------



## AlanB (Sep 9, 2010)

had8ley said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Well Guilford, now PanAm, fought that speed for quite some time yes. However IIRC, it was within the first year, if not the first 6 months of operation that they lost their final appeal and they had to raise the speed limit.


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> ...Well Guilford, now PanAm, fought that speed for quite some time yes. However IIRC, it was within the first year, if not the first 6 months of operation that they lost their final appeal and they had to raise the speed limit.


Guilford did not lose the case. Although several intermediate rulings by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) went against Guilford (and Guilford appealed the STB rulings in Federal Court), the case was finally settled amicably, and Amtrak was notably not a party to the settlement.

Guilford and the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) reached a settlement on June 2, 2004 that allowed the speed to be increased to 79mph on selected portions of the route (ultimately about 30 miles) in exchange for the NNEPRA funding $5.5 million of additional improvements to the trackbed and rail. The speed increase in most of the selected locations did not occur until the improvements were made. In other locations, the speed limit remained 60mph.

The settlement was reached about two and a half years after the December 15, 2001 start of Downeaster service. During that two and a half year period, the speed limit on the route was 60mph.


----------



## stntylr (Sep 10, 2010)

UP has already gotten Lone Star Rail to agree to build a whole new ROW between San Antonio and Austin at a cost of 1 billion dollars so why not try to get some more money.


----------



## The Chief (Sep 10, 2010)

*UnPac* spent $42 mil 1Q 2010 on *Arizona* track/ROW improvements, over 24 miles of CWR, according to _Forbes_.

And the UP also opposes, this year, sharing ROW with *Calif High-Speed Rail Authority* in San Jose area, according to _San Jose Biz Journal_.

*daxomni* posted earlier in this thread the list of UP Congressional political contributions in 2010 cycle. I broke the big list down to *Sunset*-*Eagle* rail states and found:

105 total Reps/Senators from Illinois, Misery, er, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona, California receiving UP money

27 from Texas Eagle-Only States

52 from Sunset Limited-Only States

26 from combined Eagle-Sunset States (Texas)

The 105 received $356,300. Some of them may be interested in hearing about the UP shakedown. I saw my guy's name so I can contact him. He's pretty much an *Amtrak* hater though (Joe _Linus_ Barton)


----------



## George Harris (Sep 11, 2010)

Union Pacific is loudly opposed to having the California High Speed Rail even close to its right of way anywhere in the state.

The San Antonio to Austin rebuild is a plan and nothing more. It is also not between these two points, but a freight bypass of these points and every point in between. The objective being to allow frequent passenger service between SA and Austin. Unless something has happened very recently, this is of no more significance than any of the other multitudinous rail plans that have gone no where so far.


----------



## Mark (Sep 11, 2010)

One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.


----------



## stntylr (Sep 12, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Union Pacific is loudly opposed to having the California High Speed Rail even close to its right of way anywhere in the state.
> 
> The San Antonio to Austin rebuild is a plan and nothing more. It is also not between these two points, but a freight bypass of these points and every point in between. The objective being to allow frequent passenger service between SA and Austin. Unless something has happened very recently, this is of no more significance than any of the other multitudinous rail plans that have gone no where so far.


I do have to point out that Lone Star Rail has started the Engineering studies and the final environmental impact report. Plus they have already secured 200 miliion dollars from the state toward the project.

Here's what the web site says

"Lone Star Rail District launched preliminary engineering and environmental impact studies (PE/EIS) for the LSTAR service in January 2010. These studies, required under federal law, represent the final planning stage for the project. Once the PE/EIS is completed and approved, the district is authorized to begin final design and construction. The PE/EIS process is expected to take 18 to 24 months and will also include planning work on the LSTAR’s proposed 15 station locations and facilities."

I know it's just a plan but it sounds like a pretty well developed plan to me.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 12, 2010)

Mark said:


> One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.


Why not?


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 12, 2010)

Mark said:


> One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.


Sunset Limited on-time rate for FY 2010 YTD (10/09 to 6/10): 88.5%, the second best performance of any Amtrak LD (first is the Coast Starlight @ 90.7% on-time).


----------



## had8ley (Sep 12, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> > One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.
> ...


I would have to totally agree with Mark.One would have to understand the mind set in the "Bunker" in Omaha which serves as the dispatching center for the UPRR. Not many people get into it and not too many want to go back. h34r:


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 12, 2010)

What I can say, having been in the "bunker" is that UP is trying to change that mindset. They have signs everywhere that say: "Do Not Delay Amtrak." The dispatchers now have to tell their supervisors when and why they delayed Amtrak. It's no longer permissible to put Amtrak into the hole unless absolutly necessary (i.e. single track areas where a freight might have not cleared it yet). UP has decided to treat existing service with respect now.


----------



## had8ley (Sep 13, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> What I can say, having been in the "bunker" is that UP is trying to change that mindset. They have signs everywhere that say: "Do Not Delay Amtrak." The dispatchers now have to tell their supervisors when and why they delayed Amtrak. It's no longer permissible to put Amtrak into the hole unless absolutly necessary (i.e. single track areas where a freight might have not cleared it yet). UP has decided to treat existing service with respect now.


Knowing the UP they probably charged Amtrak $750 a piece for the signs... h34r:


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 13, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> What I can say, having been in the "bunker" is that UP is trying to change that mindset. They have signs everywhere that say: "Do Not Delay Amtrak." The dispatchers now have to tell their supervisors when and why they delayed Amtrak. It's no longer permissible to put Amtrak into the hole unless absolutly necessary (i.e. single track areas where a freight might have not cleared it yet). UP has decided to treat existing service with respect now.


This is what should have been UP policy from the early 1970's on. Since it has not been, I would suggest the government side with Amtrak repeatedly for the _next_ forty years to make up for UP's debilitating scheduling. Only then can we say the playing field has been evened.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 13, 2010)

I have a question. How was the OTP for the trains on UP track like the Desert Wind before the Southern Pacific merger? Was the UP always this hostile? Or was is a result of the Southern Pacific merger? I know the SP was always hostile to passenger trains.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 13, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> I have a question. How was the OTP for the trains on UP track like the Desert Wind before the Southern Pacific merger? Was the UP always this hostile? Or was is a result of the Southern Pacific merger? I know the SP was always hostile to passenger trains.


Maybe this is another one of these "turn off the sound and watch the action moments."

Let's just say that there is NO Amtrak service on the original (pre merger-mania) Union Pacific. All passenger service currently on UP is on lines that were either Missouri Pacific, Denver and Rio Grande Western, or Southern Pacific. Anybody please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 13, 2010)

George Harris said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question. How was the OTP for the trains on UP track like the Desert Wind before the Southern Pacific merger? Was the UP always this hostile? Or was is a result of the Southern Pacific merger? I know the SP was always hostile to passenger trains.
> ...


The _Desert Wind_ (between Los Angeles area and Salt Lake City area) and _Pioneer_ (between Denver area and Portland area) did run on UP lines, right?

But, as far as current Amtrak service, yeah, I cannot think of any on pre-1980s/1990s mergers Union Pacific trackage.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 13, 2010)

I see what you're saying but I'm not sure it matters which fallen flag the opposition originally came from. It's all UP now and has been for many years. In name, policy, and staff. It is my position that Amtrak cannot truly succeed, let alone thrive, in its current form and will require shorter schedules with increased frequency that can compete effectively with cars and buses. Right now our vehicular speed limits are slowly increasing while Amtrak's speeds are slowly decreasing. UP's past attitude toward expansion (and swallowing up corporate subsidies whole) implies to me that they will likely not be negotiating in good faith now or in the future. However, I don't expect much in the way of obvious change from UP's current holding pattern until after the midterm elections. As they get to know the new congress and size up their strengths and weaknesses I think you'll eventually see more resistance heading Amtrak's way. If there is a large swing toward the right and Obama is eventually replaced with a TP-approved candidate I would expect a corresponding swing toward anti-Amtrak sentiment funded by many sources beyond freight railroads, including airlines and car makers.


----------



## jis (Sep 13, 2010)

Eric S said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


But remember that Amtrak had nothing on D&RGW initially, and the _San Francisco Zephyr_ (not _California Zephyr_ which started when Amtrak moved to D&RGW) ran on the _Overland Route_ between Denver and Ogden, and that was always UP. So strictly speaking NO Amtrak service on UP pre-merger is incorrect. Any of the trains that are running today AFAICT did not run on UP back then unless you consider the _California Zephyr_ to be a latter day incarnation of the _San Francisco Zephyr_.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 14, 2010)

jis said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


The SFZ ran via the UP Overland Route from Amtrak's inception in 1971 until 1983, when the D&RGW finally signed an Amtrak contract. The Desert Wind and Pioneer both ran on UP from their start in the early 1980s until their discontinuance in 1997. The pre-merger UP hosted their share of Amtrak trains. My recollection is they ran all these trains well at the time. No horrendous delays, reasonably good dispatching. One strong memory is that UP's track in that era was superb, the UP sections always had a notably smooth ride.

SP in the years immediately before the UP merger was not particularly hostile to Amtrak, and ran Amtrak's trains pretty well, after some dust-ups in the 70's and early 80's. The real UP management change came in the previous big "Mop up" (MoPac, UP, WP) merger in the early 80's, when the Missouri Pacific management wound up dominating the merged UP. The MoPac management WAS somewhat hostile to Amtrak, and the pre-merger MoPac had NOT hosted much in the way of Amtrak services (the "Inter-American"/"Texas Eagle" and the Mules were the exceptions, and those were late additions, not in the original system). But UP still ran their Amtrak services pretty well after the Mop Up merger, even so.

UP's horrible handling of Amtrak is a relatively recent phenomenom. It really started happening during and after the post-merger meltdown when a lot of the former SP basically froze up when UP imposed some of their operating practices on a former SP system that had been operating on spit and bailing wire for some time. For some reason, when they recovered from that debacle, their Amtrak handling never did.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 14, 2010)

Actually, UP still hasn't recovered from that debacle. That's one of the reasons Warren Buffet gave for aquiring BNSF instead of UP. And before we let BNSF off the hook, I believe they want 450 million dollars for an extended Heartland Flyer. And they're supposed to be a supportive railroad.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 14, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> And before we let BNSF off the hook, I believe they want 450 million dollars for an extended Heartland Flyer. And they're supposed to be a supportive railroad.


Supportive? Really? I thought they were merely _non-combative_.


----------



## MikeM (Sep 14, 2010)

daxomni said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > And before we let BNSF off the hook, I believe they want 450 million dollars for an extended Heartland Flyer. And they're supposed to be a supportive railroad.
> ...


BNSF does, for the most part, run their trains on time on the former Santa Fe trackage, although that hasn't been the truth lately with speed downgrades on the Kansas lines. The California Zephyr and Empire Builder haven't been as much on time, although in the case of the CZ I think much of the blame goes to Uncle Pete for turning the train over to BN late in Denver.

Back to the earlier question about UP hating passenger trains... When I was much younger in the 70's, it seemed like UP did do a decent job running Amtrak trains over the system. However, their commitment to maintaining their stations and other passenger infrastructure wasn't so hot, as they were perfectly willing to tear down or displace Amtrak stations with minimal notice. I'll defer to others on the board, but it seems to me like the merger with Missouri Pacific undermined what goodwill there was towards Amtrak, as MP historically hated passenger trains. But then again UP has always been a cocky operation, with a management team that saw themselves as "special", even when their performance didn't justify the self-love. Witness the meltdown in SP operations, where management blew off the wisdom of SP managers who knew how to operate their aging / overutilized system, and in the process froze up the whole southwestern rail map.

I'll be curious to see how things unfold, but I think at some point if the government is going to make high speed rail work, it'll need to do some major eminent domain suits to gain control of real estate, and I wouldn't even rule out some moves to take select right of way then resell to more cooperative carriers. I'd bet that the very restrictive FRA guidelines for government investment in passenger rail infrastructure were driven in large part by anticipating how UP would take the money then forget to run the trains as committed.


----------



## PaulM (Sep 14, 2010)

AlanB said:


> UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court. When confronted with a very stern letter regarding the many slow orders on the tracks used by the CZ & the CS a few years back that threatened legal action, and before the new remedies, UP showed up at the table to talk with Amtrak and a deal was worked out. That deal included putting in some temporary padding to help keep the CZ on time while they fixed the tracks. Over a period of 2 or 3 years, that padding was gradually removed and I believe that it is now fully out of the current TT, although I won't swear to that.


I thought sure that track work would be finished by now; but the the following comes from the current CZ timetable:



> California Zephyr schedules may change due to ongoing Union Pacific Railroad track work. Contact Amtrak for updated schedule information.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 14, 2010)

I've always said, there's the nuclear option for Amtrak if a railroad is really uncooperative, California could always commit to Amtrak running their trains in exchange for Amtrak excersizing emminent domain on UP ROW. Amtrak should take advantage of that option when positioning themselves to run high speed operations, since states can't seize railroad property.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 14, 2010)

MikeM said:


> although in the case of the CZ I think much of the blame goes to Uncle Pete for turning the train over to BN late in Denver.


Actually, in the case of the Zephyr, most of the blame goes to the fact that, during the worst point in the summer, BNSF had as much as 90 minutes worth of slow orders on the route through Iowa and Nebraska. UP has actually been running their part of the train pretty much on time.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 14, 2010)

When I said no Amtrak trains on UP, I meant currently. I am well aware of the original use of the Overland route, in fact have been on it in the first year of Amtrak.. the speed limit was 90 mph at the time. Ditto that the Deser Wind and Pioneer were on UP rails. Notice tha they are all gone now.

Agreee that MoPac was very anti-passenger. Note the current Eagle. It ottk leagal action or the threat thereof to get MoPac to run the train any faster than their freight speed limits when it first got started. Also, the pre Amtrak version would likely have lasted to Amtrak if MoPac had had a more positive attitude toward passengers in the 1960's. It was an impressively long train in the late 50's early 60's. Sometime in here they began the death by a thousand cuts process


----------



## henryj (Sep 14, 2010)

George Harris said:


> When I said no Amtrak trains on UP, I meant currently. I am well aware of the original use of the Overland route, in fact have been on it in the first year of Amtrak.. the speed limit was 90 mph at the time. Ditto that the Deser Wind and Pioneer were on UP rails. Notice tha they are all gone now.
> 
> Agreee that MoPac was very anti-passenger. Note the current Eagle. It ottk leagal action or the threat thereof to get MoPac to run the train any faster than their freight speed limits when it first got started. Also, the pre Amtrak version would likely have lasted to Amtrak if MoPac had had a more positive attitude toward passengers in the 1960's. It was an impressively long train in the late 50's early 60's. Sometime in here they began the death by a thousand cuts process


Actually George my memory of MoPac is just the opposite. They remained very pro-passenger into the 60's, only giving up when it was obvious the hand writing was on the wall. The exact opposite of the SP for instance.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 14, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> And before we let BNSF off the hook, I believe they want 450 million dollars for an extended Heartland Flyer. And they're supposed to be a supportive railroad.


But that's for a line that currently doesn't see passenger service and for a line that may or may not have needed PTC to be installed if Amtrak doesn't run there.

Additionally, that $450M isn't all going to BNSF. That amount includes money for stations and it includes money for the cars that will need to be brought for the service.

It's also important to note that amount is for but one of the 4 plans that were considered. I believe that they've narrowed things down to 2 plans now.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 14, 2010)

PaulM said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court. When confronted with a very stern letter regarding the many slow orders on the tracks used by the CZ & the CS a few years back that threatened legal action, and before the new remedies, UP showed up at the table to talk with Amtrak and a deal was worked out. That deal included putting in some temporary padding to help keep the CZ on time while they fixed the tracks. Over a period of 2 or 3 years, that padding was gradually removed and I believe that it is now fully out of the current TT, although I won't swear to that.
> ...


Most of the worst sections were indeed fixed back when time was added into the schedule. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that not every slow section was fixed back then. Even if it were, new problems develop over time, so there will always be track work on any route. And in the case of the CZ, for most of the run that work has to happen in the summer, as laying/fixing track with a foot of snow on it isn't exactly practical.


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 15, 2010)

bretton88 said:


> I've always said, there's the nuclear option for Amtrak if a railroad is really uncooperative, California could always commit to Amtrak running their trains in exchange for Amtrak excersizing emminent domain on UP ROW. Amtrak should take advantage of that option when positioning themselves to run high speed operations, since states can't seize railroad property.


Condemnation is a bad option for Amtrak.

Property acquired through eminent domain is not simply seized in a Fidel Castro sense. The taker in an eminent domain transaction still has to pay the owner for the property. That payment is fair market value, and that would include the value of future lost revenue for the owner. The payment required for completing a condemnation is determined by a legal process, and is not simply a number that the taker makes up. The condemnation several years ago of the Guilford property was of a line that was little used and poorly maintained. The determined property value was not that high. The California lines are well maintained and heavily used. The fair market value to take those lines would be very, very high.

The use of existing railroad property for passenger trains - either Amtrak or future high-speed trains - assumes that the lines will use the freight railroad rights-of-way at a relatively minimal cost. That financial assumption goes out the window if they have to acquire the property through eminent domain and actually pay fair market value for the rights-of-way.


----------



## jis (Sep 15, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> The use of existing railroad property for passenger trains - either Amtrak or future high-speed trains - assumes that the lines will use the freight railroad rights-of-way at a relatively minimal cost. That financial assumption goes out the window if they have to acquire the property through eminent domain and actually pay fair market value for the rights-of-way.


I think that all those in the US who believe that true high speed rail will run on any existing active RoW are smoking something potent. Such has not happened anywhere else. What is it that would make the US different? I believe that the likes of CSX and UP are correct in their protests regarding use of their active RoWs for true HSR.

The issue of using existing RoW for 125mph service is in a gray area that ought to be discussed with a level head, and general rules and best practices for such agreed upon. Given the propensity of freight trains to topple over on certain railroads it would probably stand to reason to keep even 125mph 30' away from such occasional unguided missiles, as has been suggested by at least one of the frequent purveyors of such missiles.

OTOH a disused RoW like the old Petersburg VA to Raleigh NC via Norlina is fair game and could be quite effectively used for an HSR corridor. A similar model could be used on segments where there currently are multiple parallel lines like Buffalo to Cleveland, where the freights could be consolidated into one RoW and the other used exclusively for HSR. Yes, this will require agreement among several freight railroads and will cost more. But Idon't see anything else to be really practical.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 15, 2010)

jis said:


> I think that all those in the US who believe that true high speed rail will run on any existing active RoW are smoking something potent.


Regardless if it makes sense or not, there is simply no money to build a whole other right of way. Which I suppose may simply mean the US will never have true high speed rail.



jis said:


> Such has not happened anywhere else. What is it that would make the US different?


The same thing that always makes us different. Lots of self-centered politicians from vastly different states all vying for the most pork with the least oversight in a zero-sum budget game. We've somehow managed to build a national government that is virtually guaranteed to be both wasteful and impotent. Within this absurd framework we are forced to rely on the few clunky tools still available to us. Namely, those ancient agreements that allow passenger service to run on freight networks. It's not that we _want_ everything to run on the same rails, we just know nothing better is ever going to come along.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 15, 2010)

I guess it depends on your definition of "true high-speed rail". From what I can tell, most (if not all) plans for 150-220 mph high-speed rail in this country assumed that, at the very least, dedicated passenger tracks would be built (if not all-new rights of way altogether).

In Europe, there are some examples of fast freight trains operating on the same track as what might be called "higher-speed rail" (US term) passenger trains. SNCF actually has TGV freight trains that carry mail. Some other European railroads have faster freight trains (operating 90 mph or so) mixing in with passenger trains in the 120-130 mph range. Off the top of my head, I can't remember the details, but I attended a railroad operations conference a couple of months ago where an SNCF official described this practice. So, it does happen somewhere in the world.

Of course, I wouldn't assume that this includes 150-car fully-loaded coal trains, or your mixed freight that some US lines see, but it would be possible to have high-priority freight loaded onto freight cars capable of upwards of 100 mph, which would mix reasonably well with passenger trains under 150 mph.


----------



## had8ley (Sep 16, 2010)

17,000 ton, 8,000 plus foot long manifest or unit trains just don't mix with high speed pax trains. Money talks in this situation and the Class 1's are going to balk every step of the way.Freight equals profits. Pax trains equals headaches and regulation. If you were CEO of a class 1 which way would you go?


----------



## MikeM (Sep 16, 2010)

had8ley said:


> 17,000 ton, 8,000 plus foot long manifest or unit trains just don't mix with high speed pax trains. Money talks in this situation and the Class 1's are going to balk every step of the way.Freight equals profits. Pax trains equals headaches and regulation. If you were CEO of a class 1 which way would you go?


Totally agree if we're talking high speed rail, over 100mph. Not only would scheduling be a massive challenge, imagine the disaster if a high speed train somehow or other sideswiped a freight train at those speeds. Not a pretty picture. I do think you could share a right of way corridor, however, provided sufficient distance between tracks to prevent problems. The main problem would be if there are businesses served on the side of the ROW which the HSR tracks sit. This could require some extra tracks and signaling, which would be the responsibility of the HSR agency.

However... for conventional passenger rail, I don't think it should be an impossibility to share freight lines with passenger trains. Freight lines do rely on community good will, and for most people, passenger trains are the only visible good thing about railroad lines. Omit those, and all you have is a weedy / trashy right of way, grade crossing delays, and loud horns. It seems to me at least that hosting a daily passenger train could partially offset some of the NIMBY attitudes that exist towards freight railrosds these days.


----------



## mfastx (Sep 16, 2010)

750 million dollars is nothing. Hell, the federal government pours billions and billions on Houston highway construction, it shouldn't be any problem for them, right?

This country is so backwards when it comes to rail.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 16, 2010)

had8ley said:


> 17,000 ton, 8,000 plus foot long manifest or unit trains just don't mix with high speed pax trains. Money talks in this situation and the Class 1's are going to balk every step of the way.Freight equals profits. Pax trains equals headaches and regulation. If you were CEO of a class 1 which way would you go?


The above is one of many reasons why equating our railroad system with that of Europe's when it comes to operating a realtively fast pasenger service on tracks carrying any significant volume of freight is just plain wrong. A few years ago I read a piece of a study done in one European country about running freight trains of 2,000 tons. You have got to be kidding. That issues was passend in this country something like a century ago.


----------



## had8ley (Sep 17, 2010)

George Harris said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > 17,000 ton, 8,000 plus foot long manifest or unit trains just don't mix with high speed pax trains. Money talks in this situation and the Class 1's are going to balk every step of the way.Freight equals profits. Pax trains equals headaches and regulation. If you were CEO of a class 1 which way would you go?
> ...


Yes George, I've seen European _through _freights that weren't much longer than a holiday section of a 1950's varnish train. One other thing I would like to add; the amount of incentive money for good OTP is chump change for someone like the UP. Delay a UPS hot shot and you've got to refund the entire shipping cost. Money talks while pax rust to the rails !


----------



## jis (Sep 17, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> I guess it depends on your definition of "true high-speed rail". From what I can tell, most (if not all) plans for 150-220 mph high-speed rail in this country assumed that, at the very least, dedicated passenger tracks would be built (if not all-new rights of way altogether).


My definition is 150mph+. And my point is it is unlikely that any such line will be built on existing RoWs that are in active use otherwise.



> In Europe, there are some examples of fast freight trains operating on the same track as what might be called "higher-speed rail" (US term) passenger trains. SNCF actually has TGV freight trains that carry mail. Some other European railroads have faster freight trains (operating 90 mph or so) mixing in with passenger trains in the 120-130 mph range. Off the top of my head, I can't remember the details, but I attended a railroad operations conference a couple of months ago where an SNCF official described this practice. So, it does happen somewhere in the world.


Referring to the Le Poste Yellow TGVs as freight trains is misleading. The European freights that run at 90mph are very different and much lighter than freight trains we are talking about in the context of US freight. Of course there is potential for developing a class of freight service at 90 - 125mph which does not exist today, given the availability of higher speed infrastructure. But that has little to do with not causing harm to the currently profitable freight service in the US.



> Of course, I wouldn't assume that this includes 150-car fully-loaded coal trains, or your mixed freight that some US lines see, but it would be possible to have high-priority freight loaded onto freight cars capable of upwards of 100 mph, which would mix reasonably well with passenger trains under 150 mph.


True. But the freight railroads have to convince themselves that there is a business case for such and actually step upto it. Alternatively, additional players have to find it attractive enough to step upto it. The current problem is that the freight railroads are not convinced that there is sufficient business for them in that niche to make it worth their while.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 17, 2010)

mfastx said:


> This country is so backwards when it comes to rail.


Compared to what?


----------



## jis (Sep 17, 2010)

George Harris said:


> mfastx said:
> 
> 
> > This country is so backwards when it comes to rail.
> ...


I think a blanket statement about rail of this nature is not sustainable upon analysis. If it is restricted to high speed passenger rail, I think the statement becomes much more sustainable.


----------



## mfastx (Sep 17, 2010)

George Harris said:


> mfastx said:
> 
> 
> > This country is so backwards when it comes to rail.
> ...


Sorry, should have been more specific. This country is so backwards when it comes to _passenger_ rail, compared with other developed nations.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 17, 2010)

mfastx said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > mfastx said:
> ...


Like Mexico, Canada, and Brazil?


----------



## mfastx (Sep 18, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Like Mexico, Canada, and Brazil?


LOL seriously? Most, if not all, of Europe, and East Asia have way more developed passenger rail systems than the US. BTW, Brazil is getting high speed rail also, probably before any more US lines are built.

Are you really trying to say that most developed nations don't have better passenger rail systems than the US? Why did you even post that? We'll be lucky to get ANY new high speed rail running in this country, especially if Republicans take control of congress.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 18, 2010)

mfastx said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Like Mexico, Canada, and Brazil?
> ...


I'd wait until the dirt starts moving and the concrete starts getting poured before counting Brazil in the High Speed country list. The US does not have a patent on making big plans that come to nothing.

There is a lot more to East Asia than South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China. Also, the HSR in China is simply an extension of a significant railroad building operation that has been going on in China for the last 20 years or so, and their system is still very small compared to the population and size of country. They are very good at bragging on themselves, and we are very good at swallowing what they say without analysis.

Europe: Yes, maybe. Don't forget, they are taxed through the nose so this stuff can happen.

Funny, how no one has mentioned the huge volume of pasengers and passenger trains that operate in India, either.


----------



## had8ley (Sep 18, 2010)

George Harris said:


> mfastx said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Are there any plans in the oven for HSR in Dubai that you know of? They have done everything else, including those tall buildings, just thought it might be HSR time.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 18, 2010)

mfastx said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Like Mexico, Canada, and Brazil?
> ...


Europe? Sure. China? Sure. But to suggest that the U.S. is in last place among what you term "developed" nations, in which I would include Brazil (no significant inter-city rail of any kind currently operated), Mexico (All real rail transportation- tourist trains don't count!- dissolved a decade ago), and Canada (A skeletal system even more skeletal than Amtrak is). Developed does not mean wealthy, it means having a functioning technical and industrial base- and all of them do. Amtrak, combined with our various regional services, are superior to any of them.

Sure, we're behind. But not behind everybody. Sweeping statements like that make the stating person sound like a bloody fool, irrespective of how close to reality they may be.

In California, Chicago, the Pacific Northwest, and the BosWash megalopolis, we have functional corridor transportation systems, complete with supporting regional rail and intra-city public transit. That is more than ANY of the other countries on that list have. Canada might be argued as having a corridor between the areas surrounding Montreal and Toronto, but a half dozen round trips a day between two of the biggest cities in that country does not to me a functioning transit system make.

Think of it this way: Canada has 6 round trips between Toronto and Montreal each day. We have half that... between Savannah and New York, a comparable distance to Montreal-Halifax... which Canada can't even serve every day. We have seven between New York and Richmond. Dozens between New York and Washington.

I advocate for better rail service in this country. I give my time and energy to it, I read statements into the public record, and rally for increasing the number of members of the coalition I work with. I am the first person to tell you we need more trains. But I am the last to tell you we don't have a fairly decent rail system already.

China can do better than us? Or course China can do better than us. During the thirty some-odd years we have been eating at our industrial base, destroying our own economy, and generally being a bunch of children bickering amongst ourselves... China has turned themselves from a backward country into the worlds industrial powerhouse. Sure they make screw-ups. But we make so much effort not to ever screw up or step on our NIMBY neighbors toes, that we never get anywhere. They know where they are going- forward. We sit around debating not only which direction is forward, but whether we really want to be there.

We're not the back end of the world. Its just that Chinese happen to be the vanguard. And India isn't too far behind. We just don't have the confidence in our selves to recognize we aren't the best. 7


----------



## mfastx (Sep 19, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> But I am the last to tell you we don't have a fairly decent rail system already.


I agree with most of your post, but this sentence depends on what your definition of "fairly decent" is. I would catagorize our naitonal rail system as "okay," but I don't know about fairly decent. If we, as a country, are having so much trouble increasing a rail line serving many major cities to a daily service, we have a LOT of work to do. We have excellent rail service along the NEC, as good as any other country IMO. But if the majority of the country is served by trains that don't even own the tracks they ride on, it's not goint to be a very reliable, or good, service.

For example, Houston to New Orleans should not be a nine hour train trip. That is ridiculous. Yes, I am overly critical of our rail system, but it's because I CARE. Our rail system will never improve if people think it's already good enough.

BTW, I never said that the US was "last" place. I simply stated that the US is behind MOST developed nations in terms of our rail system. I believe that is a fair assesment.


----------

