# Amtrak says it will not run trains on routes without PTC



## merkelman06 (Aug 27, 2018)

See Trains News Wire article:

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/08/27-amtrak-says-it-will-not-run-trains-on-routes-without-ptc


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

Uh oh.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 27, 2018)

Sounds like Amtrak's board is just plain intent on killing those 8 trains, since the FRA has exempted those sections from having to have PTC installed.

jb


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 27, 2018)

Can FRA pull rank on Amtrak's board?

I can't see the Downeaster people putting up with this, not after the effort they put into starting that train from scratch. I'm hoping those resourceful New Englanders will come up with some good solutions the rest of the network can use as well!


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 27, 2018)

If my company just had several preventable accidents occur in short order like Amtrak had this year, you can bet they would resort to overkill to keep that from happening again. I work in the construction/transportation industry. What may seem like overkill is often in response to preventable accidents.

Look at it like this, in my industry we have OSHA minimum requirements for safety (think of the FRA minimum PTC requirements here). Good companies go beyond the minimum requirements in order to be safe. I have trouble faulting the Amtrak Board in this action considering what has happened this year.


----------



## saxman (Aug 27, 2018)

In the case of Vermont, they have a contract with Amtrak to run passenger trains and have done everything within the law to keep service on those lines. Vermont could have grounds to sue if Amtrak doesn't hold up their end of the deal.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 27, 2018)

Since it was Gardner who made this statement, changing the title from "Amtrak says..." to "Amtrak's Gardner says..." may be a bit more suitable. Alternatively, I believe that there's already a thread with a similar name, so merging it won't be a bad idea either. But I would agree that it is a "treasonous" development by riders, congressmen, and senators nationwide.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 27, 2018)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> Since it was Gardner who made this statement, changing the title from "Amtrak says..." to "Amtrak's Gardner says..." may be a bit more suitable. Alternatively, I believe that there's already a thread with a similar name, so merging it won't be a bad idea either. But I would agree that it is a "treasonous" development by riders, congressmen, and senators nationwide.


Gardner isn't saying this on his own volition. This is certainly a decision by the Board, as indicated by the rest of the article.


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 27, 2018)

Expect to congress to come up with more money.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> If my company just had several preventable accidents occur in short order like Amtrak had this year, you can bet they would resort to overkill to keep that from happening again. I work in the construction/transportation industry. What may seem like overkill is often in response to preventable accidents.
> 
> Look at it like this, in my industry we have OSHA minimum requirements for safety (think of the FRA minimum PTC requirements here). Good companies go beyond the minimum requirements in order to be safe. I have trouble faulting the Amtrak Board in this action considering what has happened this year.


Most of the accidents this year have been grade crossing incidents, which PTC really could not have avoided. The Cascades derailment to my knowledge is the only major crash this year (technically last year) that PTC would have prevented.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 27, 2018)

Disturbing to say the least. What should be done about this development, as the congress people involved do not represent my state and district? The congress should be informed about this.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 27, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > If my company just had several preventable accidents occur in short order like Amtrak had this year, you can bet they would resort to overkill to keep that from happening again. I work in the construction/transportation industry. What may seem like overkill is often in response to preventable accidents.
> ...


Forgetting the SC crash?


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 27, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > If my company just had several preventable accidents occur in short order like Amtrak had this year, you can bet they would resort to overkill to keep that from happening again. I work in the construction/transportation industry. What may seem like overkill is often in response to preventable accidents.
> ...


Don't forget the head on collision on CSX tracks too.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Remind me, how would PTC have stopped that?


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 27, 2018)

After reading the memo and the Trains article, this seems reminiscent of the Order 66 plot (Get in, diversion, excuses, purge).


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> After reading the memo and the Trains article, this seems reminiscent of the Order 66 plot (Get in, diversion, excuses, purge).


Ah, Order 66. One of the dumbest moments from the dumbest trilogy with the dumbest plot and logic I've ever seen. A lot of good parallels to Amtrak in 2018.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 27, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> If my company just had several preventable accidents occur in short order like Amtrak had this year, you can bet they would resort to overkill to keep that from happening again. I work in the construction/transportation industry. What may seem like overkill is often in response to preventable accidents. Look at it like this, in my industry we have OSHA minimum requirements for safety (think of the FRA minimum PTC requirements here). Good companies go beyond the minimum requirements in order to be safe. I have trouble faulting the Amtrak Board in this action considering what has happened this year.


Your post sounds logical at first but upon further consideration it's clear that you're resorting to low effort pendulum logic. Many of Amtrak's recent accidents and incidents would _not_ have been prevented via standard PTC. Most examples that _would_ have been prevented are already on the implementation schedule. Insisting on PTC for areas that see one passenger train per day is little more than emotional manipulation masquerading as rational policy making.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 27, 2018)

saxman said:


> In the case of Vermont, they have a contract with Amtrak to run passenger trains and have done everything within the law to keep service on those lines. Vermont could have grounds to sue if Amtrak doesn't hold up their end of the deal.


Also, AFAIK, the EA is the ONLY train on the stretch east of Whitehall. I have never seen another train there. (I live 20 miles away.)


----------



## tonys96 (Aug 27, 2018)

So, Congress requires PTC, so Amtrak says no PTC, no Amtrak, even though Congress made exceptions for these areas. That is the law, amtrak will ignore that law.

But the law requiring F&B to pay for itsrlf, Amtrak insists on following.

Hypocrisy, party of one?


----------



## amtrakpass (Aug 27, 2018)

So Amtrak basically proposes to eliminate the national network on Dec 31 and there are still people making apologies for the leadership and claiming to be passenger train supporters? If Amtrak announced they were closing the doors tommorow, would people still claim it would be more efficient and we just don't see the big picture?


----------



## tonys96 (Aug 27, 2018)

I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 27, 2018)

tonys96 said:


> So, Congress requires PTC, so Amtrak says no PTC, no Amtrak, even though Congress made exceptions for these areas. That is the law, amtrak will ignore that law.
> 
> But the law requiring F&B to pay for itsrlf, Amtrak insists on following.
> 
> Hypocrisy, party of one?


These routes aren't even required to have PTC. They are all, I believe, PTC exempt.


----------



## tonys96 (Aug 27, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > So, Congress requires PTC, so Amtrak says no PTC, no Amtrak, even though Congress made exceptions for these areas. That is the law, amtrak will ignore that law.
> ...


True, and I said that in my post.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 27, 2018)

AmtrakBlue said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Ironically, CSX had suspended the signal system IN ORDER TO DO WORK TO INSTALL PTC, when the crash occurred. So PTC would not have prevented this crash.

jb


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Aug 27, 2018)

I’m wondering, did Amtrak officials specifically mention these routes would be cut as of 12/31, or did the author just list the routes and route segments without PTC, assuming they would be cut?

Some of these non-PTC sections are quite short (Ethan Allen Express, CONO), and some would seemingly have relatively easy work-arounds (Texas Eagle, CONO, for example).


----------



## caravanman (Aug 27, 2018)

"So PTC would not have prevented this crash."

I expect that the systems in USA and the UK are different, but my understanding would be that the approaching Amtrak train would not obtain a clear (green) signal if another train was on the track section ahead. As the track was set for the freight train and the Amtrak train to collide, the PTC would have indicated a problem and stopped the Amtrak train in advance of the collision.

This is based on my understanding of how the UK systems work.

Ed.


----------



## CCC1007 (Aug 27, 2018)

caravanman said:


> "So PTC would not have prevented this crash."
> 
> I expect that the systems in USA and the UK are different, but my understanding would be that the approaching Amtrak train would not obtain a clear (green) signal if another train was on the track section ahead. As the track was set for the freight train and the Amtrak train to collide, the PTC would have indicated a problem and stopped the Amtrak train in advance of the collision.
> 
> ...


The signals were off to allow the cutover of the new electronics. The switch that was apparently reported lined for the main line wasn’t actually lined for the main.


----------



## caravanman (Aug 27, 2018)

I understand that, but the point is simply that *if PTC was there, in operation*, it would have prevented the collision.

Ed


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 27, 2018)

It seems as though Amtrak is forgetting that Metro North is not on pace to meet the 12/31 deadline IINM.. But it's the NEC.. It gets a "pass" cause it makes money...

The main issue for me is that the Railroad has operated for hundreds of years with no PTC. And put PTC in place and it gives Anderson and the Board a cop out to end Amtrak service.

#FireAnderson #MakeAmtrakGreatAgain


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2018)

caravanman said:


> I understand that, but the point is simply that *if PTC was there, in operation*, it would have prevented the collision.
> 
> Ed


Yes,

And under the rules Anderson is hinting at, there would have been no service run through a signal suspension, so there would have been no crash when signal suspension was in force.

Now if the bus used as a substitute crashed into something that is a different matter, and there has been a lengthy discussion of that and the relatively probability etc. in a different place already.



Acela150 said:


> It seems as though Amtrak is forgetting that Metro North is not on pace to meet the 12/31 deadline IINM.. But it's the NEC.. It gets a "pass" cause it makes money...


According to FRA's latest report, Metro North is not at risk of meeting the deadline. Quoting straight from FRA's latest press release on this matter:



> [SIZE=10pt]The nine at-risk railroads are: New Mexico Rail Runner Express (Rio Metro), Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit, Altamont Corridor Express, Maryland Area Regional Commuter, Trinity Railway Express, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and Central Florida Rail Corridor (SunRail). [/SIZE]


Of these as far as I am aware, both SFRTA and CFRC will be requesting alternate schedule, which they have to do before the end of September. I suspect now that Rio Metro got funding, they will probably be able to do so too. Incidentally CFRC is now fully funded for its PTC program. NJT will meet the requirements for alternate schedule, and will have hardware and training in place by deadline. Dunno about the rest of 'em.

I am still scratching my head to figure out what the exact rule is that they propose to follow. From the Trains article it would appear that it is all about segments that have obtained PTC exemption due to insufficient traffic.There is very little logic supporting such a position, but it has to be admitted that for many years there has been a lot of daylight between logic and Amtrak's actions on many issues.

Anderson in a statement several weeks back clearly stated that Amtrak will abide by any alternative schedule approved by the FRA for segments that are getting PTC installed, so this is not about segments that are getting alternative schedules approval from the FRA. Considering that Amtrak itself will most likely fail to complete all interoperability testing on all routes with most Class I railroads by Dec 31, it stands to reason that they have backed off on this part.

I am also wondering if that list of trains was provided by Amtrak or one put together by Trains and written up making it look like Amtrak said so, not that it matters a heck of a lot if the net final result is that.

BTW, Railway Age published the following Open Letter to Anderson, for what it may be worth...

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/open-letter-to-richard-anderson/


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Aug 27, 2018)

Or put together and provided by the Trump administration. Mulvaney specifically. Keep the calls, emails and letters coming in.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 27, 2018)

caravanman said:


> I understand that, but the point is simply that *if PTC was there, in operation*, it would have prevented the collision.
> 
> Ed


The existing CTC would have prevented the collision had it been in operation at the time, assuming the crew were following signal indications. It was being operated as dark territory at the time of the collision and the switch status was misreported.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 27, 2018)

The Railway Age letter that jis posted a link to in post #30 is well-written and clearly thought out. I think it's one of the best collection of sensible ideas I've seen lately, without excess emotion getting in the way.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler (Aug 27, 2018)

tonys96 said:


> I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.


This Apologists has no comments to your IMHO.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Aug 27, 2018)

The author should have put a note that reads “speculative” on the list of trains mentioned.

SWC situation is unfortunately different because of the Raton Pass issue. None of the other lines mentioned have that inherent problem, athough I think the Cardinal in its current form is clearly in danger.


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2018)

Maybe it was intentionally worded the way it was, since it would help sell a few more copies and stir up some bile


----------



## GBNorman (Aug 27, 2018)

Somehow, I'd like to think that Amtrak has now become wise to the ways of Washington, and have assurance that the record FY18 funding level and more of same for FY19 no longer depends on maintenance of the present LD system. The enabling Amtrak legislation, RPSA70, does call for a national system, but that Amtrak operates regional corridors on both coast as well as in between, satisfies the definition of a national system. While of course, this definition falls short of the interconnected system that has been the conventional wisdom, nowhere does the letter of RPSA70 call for that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 27, 2018)

Tennessee Traveler said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.
> ...


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 27, 2018)

Some of these routes are not without alternatives. Vermont and Maine could try to seek other operators for their service if Amtrak won't operate them. My only question is whether such alternative options exist.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Aug 27, 2018)

no news here : see : https://www.railwayage.com/news/ceo-amtrak-wont-run-trains-non-ptc-track/


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> Some of these routes are not without alternatives. Vermont and Maine could try to seek other operators for their service if Amtrak won't operate them. My only question is whether such alternative options exist.


While at it Vermont could also seek access to Albany Station and New York Penn Station using an operator other than Amtrak, and figure out how much insurance they will have to buy to use such access too..





Theoretically, I suppose the Downeaster folks could get MBTA to operate the Downeaster using MBTA equipment, since I doubt Amtrak would be in a mood to lease their equipment on those oh so PTC-unprotected tracks


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

tonys96 said:


> I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.


Death by a thousand small cuts, many big cuts, and this proposed round of absolutely massive train off cuts. I am so happy with Amtrak right now.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > So, Congress requires PTC, so Amtrak says no PTC, no Amtrak, even though Congress made exceptions for these areas. That is the law, amtrak will ignore that law.
> ...


Yep. That's what makes this so unbelievably infuriating.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

caravanman said:


> "So PTC would not have prevented this crash."
> 
> I expect that the systems in USA and the UK are different, but my understanding would be that the approaching Amtrak train would not obtain a clear (green) signal if another train was on the track section ahead. As the track was set for the freight train and the Amtrak train to collide, the PTC would have indicated a problem and stopped the Amtrak train in advance of the collision.
> 
> ...


Ah. Thank you.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

zephyr17 said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that, but the point is simply that *if PTC was there, in operation*, it would have prevented the collision.
> ...


PTC doesn't work in dark territory or signal suspensions?


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

Tennessee Traveler said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.
> ...


Sorry, what do you mean?


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > caravanman said:
> ...


PTC in most cases is an overlay on CTC or wherever other signal system is already in place anyway.


----------



## Palmland (Aug 27, 2018)

It appears the Trains Newswire report has been updated with a response from Amtrak:

‘Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari tells Trains News Wire, "where PTC is not implemented and operational, it is expected that nearly all carriers will qualify for an alternative PTC implementation schedule under law.

"For those carriers and routes operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption, Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for enhancing safety on a route-by-route basis to ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network.

"For those very limited routes where a host may not achieve an alternative schedule by year’s end, Amtrak will suspend service and may seek alternative modes of service until such routes come into compliance."’

So it sounds to me that it really is just about the SWC.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Aug 27, 2018)

Palmland said:


> It appears the Trains Newswire report has been updated with a response from Amtrak:
> 
> ‘Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari tells Trains News Wire, "where PTC is not implemented and operational, it is expected that nearly all carriers will qualify for an alternative PTC implementation schedule under law.
> 
> ...


That sounds reasonable to me.

Obviously, I’m not a fan of the entire SWC debacle, but hopefully this will put some fears to rest - for the time being.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 27, 2018)

The thing is the only part the SWC route that would not be under FRA exemption per current rules is Isleta-Lamy on NMRX. All the wailing by Amtrak about no PTC from wherever in Kansas (Dodge City? I know everything west of Newton is pretty lightly used, except Las Animas Jct-La Junta) to Lamy is an excuse, it all qualifies for an exemption. I still say they are trying to weaponize PTC and the SWC is a test case, and they didn't want to kick on the grants to otherwise keep the line maintained and improved to the point that BNSF has stated it would be willing to continue routine maintenance on it for 20 years (welded rail, modernized signalling). Not saying it is not a problem, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, but it is certainly not the few hundred miles that Amtrak has been saying need PTC.

BTW, that means if they were serious about PTC being the reason for the bus bridge, it would mean they couldn't actually run the western stub into Albuquerque as they couldn't get onto NMRX at Isleta. They'd have to run the bus bridge to Belen (where I understand the platform situation is not useful for a train on the Transcon), or something. Stick a asphalt pad at Dalies and run buses, like Williams Jct? Truncate it at Gallup? You want to kill ridership, that would absolutely do it even more effectively, cut off convenient access for one of the biggest cities, and biggest traffic points, on the route.

Honestly, this sounds kind of similar to someone else, Anderson announcing some BS, then some lower level minion else walking it back, saying that what he said is not what he really meant.

Now that NMRX has gotten at least some grant money from the Feds for PTC, maybe they'll get a PTC adoption plan together and be able to get an FRA extension.

NMRX is the ONLY PTC problem. The Raton, Glorietta, and Isleta subdivisions aren't.


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 27, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Palmland said:
> 
> 
> > It appears the Trains Newswire report has been updated with a response from Amtrak:
> ...



Amtrak: We're going to cancel the SWC.

Amfans: WHAT??? You can't do that!!!

Amtrak: Fine, then we're also going to cancel everything that doesn't have PTC.

Amfans: WHOOOOOAAAAAAHHHHHH, Hold on a second?!?!?!?!? You crazy buggers, you can't do that!!!!

Amtrak: Fine, then we'll just cancel the SWC.

Amfans: Okay, that's more reasonable!

Amtrak: *sotto voce* Suckers...


----------



## MikeM (Aug 27, 2018)

Palmland said:


> It appears the Trains Newswire report has been updated with a response from Amtrak:
> 
> ‘Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari tells Trains News Wire, "where PTC is not implemented and operational, it is expected that nearly all carriers will qualify for an alternative PTC implementation schedule under law.
> 
> ...


Before everyone gets their togas out of the closet for the beer bash, keep in mind only two weeks or so there was significant discussions coming out on several sites that Amtrak was questioning UP about rerouting the CZ through beautiful southern Wyoming in lieu of Colorado. I think the disclaimer by Amtrak's spokesperson is not that legitimate. Sorry if I sound like I'm paranoid, but it has to be pretty obvious at this point that Amtrak management hates LD trains and would dearly love to see as many of them die a early death as possible. We need to all stay alert, keep writing our congressional reps to ask them to investigate Amtrak financial reporting and management actions, and do something about the current management team in place.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 27, 2018)

JoeBas said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > Palmland said:
> ...


Best post of the week.


----------



## Skyline (Aug 27, 2018)

This is a manufactured crisis, with an airline guy making ultimatums about the operation of trains. Anderson created this crisis. He needs to resolve it by delaying implementation indefinitely, or he should be fired. Those Amtrak board members who are complicit, ditto.


----------



## lordsigma (Aug 27, 2018)

I have tried to have an open mind over the last few months, but it is becoming harder to not get disgusted with this current Amtrak regime. Whether this is really serious or if it is manipulation of Congress or conflicted communication within Amtrak it is getting ridiculous. It's hard not to conclude that this regime is trying to undermind their own organization to break it down. I know there are some on this (and other) boards who are in agreement with some of Anderson's positions and feel that the national network is inappropriate with modern air travel and I know that some railfans are also planefans and many when given a choice would say they are bigger fans of air when it comes to passenger travel and everyone has a right to their opinions on that. However as someone who has major problems with air travel to the point where I no longer fly, rail travel is an alternative to having to drive everywhere I want to go and there are others in that same category that either despise or can't fly for whatever reason. Yes its true, the world isn't going to end if Amtrak discontinues the LD network. It wouldn't even end if it folded altogether NEC and all. Air travel and other modes would easily take up the slack. The number of people that would be seriously really legitimately inconvenienced is small. But those of us that would be negatively effected do deserve a voice in this situation. Everyone has a right to their opinion on this and I respect the opinions of those that oppose Amtrak in its entirety or aspects of it for fiscal responsibility or other reasons, but I think the proper forum for this debate is at re-authorization time and I do not agree with all these moves by Amtrak's board and executives to try to force a change of Amtrak's mission even though their mission has been set by congress.


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 27, 2018)

MikeM said:


> Palmland said:
> 
> 
> > It appears the Trains Newswire report has been updated with a response from Amtrak:
> ...


I'm not so sure a Wyoming reroute would be bad for the Zephyr. You get a really nice Denver to SLC corridor train from that, in addition to the northern front range cities.


----------



## railiner (Aug 27, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> Some of these routes are not without alternatives. Vermont and Maine could try to seek other operators for their service if Amtrak won't operate them. My only question is whether such alternative options exist.


That's an interesting question...could a company like Pan Am Ry, take over (or even want to...I think, not), the operation of the Downeaster's, if Amtrak refused to run it?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 28, 2018)

railiner said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these routes are not without alternatives. Vermont and Maine could try to seek other operators for their service if Amtrak won't operate them. My only question is whether such alternative options exist.
> ...


Yes. BNSF operates the Northstar in Minnesota and one of the Metra Lines out of Chicago, Union Pacific operates 3 Metra Lines, Bombardier operates a couple of the MARC lines, etc.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Sorry, I'm a little confused. BNSF, Union Pacific, and Bombardier actually operate those respective trains with their own employees?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


Yes. A typical passenger would be unlikely to notice the difference, however. On the BNSF line in the Chicago area, some cars even have a BNSF logo next to the door and/or the railroad's name printed between the two levels of windows on the outside. BNSF locomotives can also be frequently seen switching in the Metra yard adjacent to the Amtrak yard. UP operates all of the lines out of Ogilvie Transportation Center (formerly Northwestern Station), and there are various signs of such throughout the station. While no rolling stock bears UP lettering or logos, UP locomotives are often present in and around the station switching. Crews on all four of these lines appear to be Metra employees, but are actually employed by the freight company.
Photo credit: http://subwaynut.com/chicago/metra/bnsf_railway/stone_avenue/index.php


----------



## keelhauled (Aug 28, 2018)

Hard to operate anything if you don't have the equipment, and neither Maine nor Vermont owns the rolling stock for their respective services.


----------



## lordsigma (Aug 28, 2018)

railiner said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these routes are not without alternatives. Vermont and Maine could try to seek other operators for their service if Amtrak won't operate them. My only question is whether such alternative options exist.
> ...


There's probably a couple alternatives that could work in some these instances. As an example involving the affected service closest to me, MassDOT could approach CTDOT about having its CTrail commuter operator replace Amtrak on their "knowledge corridor" service north of Springfield, MA. Expansion of this service was just announced a couple months ago with Amtrak as the operator so this would nix it as well as killing the existing Vermonter service. CTrail could probably run this pilot program the state is planning and restore afternoon service that was provided by the Vermonter. However it would probably take some time for CTDOT to be able to accommodate it as they'd probably need more rolling stock and would need to build a train layover facility somewhere in Mass (probably at Springfield.) And this setup wouldn't help Vermont.


----------



## fredmcain (Aug 28, 2018)

John Bobinyec said:


> Sounds like Amtrak's board is just plain intent on killing those 8 trains, since the FRA has exempted those sections from having to have PTC installed.
> 
> jb


J.B.,

I don’t pretend to know how all this is going to turn out – I don’t think any of us do – but I can say this: The Amtrak board has now succeeded in making even more political enemies and that quite possibly includes me.

Let me make this very clear: As an American I do not and will not support an Amtrak “system” that consists of a few widely-scattered corridors in diverse places. And why should I? I will _NEVER _use them without the rest of the LD system. I mean, it’s not even an option for me. If I can’t get to California on the train, why would I ride on a California corridor train?

The senate has just passed a huge Amtrak appropriation – possibly the biggest in Amtrak’s history. Although the House has yet to pass it, if we assume that they do, what the heck is Amtrak going to do with all that money if most of the system is gone? It makes no sense.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that Congress should completely “zero out” all federal funding if Amtrak goes ahead with this lame-brain scheme. They should get no more federal dollars, nichts, zip, nada!

As I have tried to suggest a couple of times on this group, the time may have finally come to find some other way to save these services – without Amtrak. I think I could still support an Amtrak “system” consisting of diverse corridors if they were all interconnected by a national system – run by someone else. That, in a way, was how the old Class 1 passenger trains operated. They at least made an effort to make connections.

Note, I posted the above lines on the Southwest Chief thread but felt like they'd be appropriate here, too.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain,

Topeka, IN, NARP member


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Aug 28, 2018)

Sorry but I don’t have a problem with Magliari’s response. Frankly I think Bob Johnston’s post was a “these trains are history” post. Time for the outrage to commence!

I’m writing my congressmen/women, I’m writing leaders at Amtrak, but I’m also not going to stop booking on these trains or just fall into a state of mass hysteria over a Trains magazine article that should have come with a disclaimer from the get go.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 28, 2018)

keelhauled said:


> Hard to operate anything if you don't have the equipment, and neither Maine nor Vermont owns the rolling stock for their respective services.


Im sure Ed Ellis is working up a quote for them! ;-)


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 28, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


For the Downeaster, though, there is the matter of procuring equipment. That won't be easy.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

I think equipment will be an issue for both the Downeaster and for the Vermont trains, and in addition access to relevant stations at the south end will potentially be in issue for the Vermont trains too. No easy solutions no matter how many examples people come up with of private operators operating passenger trains under contract


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 28, 2018)

Remember Baghdad Bob? That is about as much credibility as I give Amtrak PR.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

Apparently Downeaster already has an agreement with Amtrak to continue operating the Downeaster and there is no plan to install PTC since the segment is PTC Exempt

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/28/news/state/downeaster-train-service-not-in-jeopardy-going-into-2019-rail-authority-says/

So much for Trains Mag's list.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Aug 28, 2018)

Dont count an EEE type operation out of the question in the not so distant future. Its obvious Amtrak doesnt want to operate some (or any) of the LD trains.

Give the entire SWC subsidy to a private operator, and since the sleepers, coaches and diners are public property make Amtrak lease them out for a dollar year. Mandate the trains be allowed to run on the previous Amtrak routes. For 100 million someone could make it work especially without as much as I hate to say it, union wages.

The union isnt the problem its Mgmt but non union would help an upstart. Say what you want about EEE but his employees were excellent.

Adding on to this. If Amtrak actually saw money going somewhere else they might change their tune. I think Anderson is thinking he can cut the national network and still get 1.9 from congress.


----------



## fredmcain (Aug 28, 2018)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Dont count an EEE type operation out of the question in the not so distant future. Its obvious Amtrak doesnt want to operate some (or any) of the LD trains.
> 
> Give the entire SWC subsidy to a private operator, and since the sleepers, coaches and diners are public property make Amtrak lease them out for a dollar year. Mandate the trains be allowed to run on the previous Amtrak routes. For 100 million someone could make it work especially without as much as I hate to say it, union wages.
> 
> ...


Dear "Flyer",

I like your idea. What the heck? I know that a lot of passenger train supporters would not go along with this 'cause I think they view it as "high risk". So what? It appears to me that the current path we're on is high risk.

regards,

FMC


----------



## Maglev (Aug 28, 2018)

I just did a quick check on re-scheduling my January _Texas Eagle_ trip, and a Bedroom is $1,000 more on an alternate date in December. I guess I'll take my chances that this train is not canceled.

It is my general sense that there is diffuse but widespread support in Congress for Amtrak's long-distance network.


----------



## RPC (Aug 28, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> <snip/>
> 
> The senate has just passed a huge Amtrak appropriation – possibly the biggest in Amtrak’s history. Although the House has yet to pass it, if we assume that they do, what the heck is Amtrak going to do with all that money if most of the system is gone? It makes no sense.
> 
> ...


Just to comment on this particular statement: given that (per Thirdrail7) the NEC has a $40 billion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance, I don't think an LD-less Amtrak would have any trouble swallowing up a couple billion!

But, getting back to the matter at hand, has the present Amtrak management taken this into consideration? The money required to maintain the LD network is dwarfed by the infrastructure needs of the NEC, and I strongly doubt the average Congresscritter is going to support Amtrak if his/her district loses a train. The shiny new high-speed trainsets won't do any good if a Hudson tunnel floods or the Susquehanna bridge falls into the water. The historic "quid pro quo" has been that roughly half the subsidy goes to the NEC and half to the rest of Amtrak - I don't think I'd risk disturbing that.


----------



## Skyline (Aug 28, 2018)

Anderson was quoted as being interested in, earlier this year, something I think he termed an "experiential" train. I took that to mean a higher-end transcon train like the Canadian. But he obviously has no use for a daily connected long distance network. At best, under his "leadership," we might wind up with a weekly or twice-weekly "City of Everywhere" train with the rolling stock and amenities most of us dream about.

So that would mean several high-density corridors, unconnected, and a rolling amusement park for wealthy adults. And that's how this bunch thinks it will Make America Great Again.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

From RPA

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/amtrak-statement-refutes-trains-ptc-article/

Unfortunately, I think what just happened is that Trains Magazine just lost credibility as a source of news.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

RPC said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> > <snip/>
> ...


The matter at hand of this thread BTW is PTC and train operations or not, and not what Amtrak management wants to do with LD trains in particular, since "the matter at hand" was specifically mentioned.






However, the Congresscritters know exactly what they are voting how much for since they itemize NEC funding and National funding as two separate line items, and they fund National at a level almost twice that of NEC at the present time. The real problem is Amtrak accounting and how it allocates costs, but that is being discussed elsewhere.

Even if there is no LD service, the very significant growth sector in the National account will continue to get funded at relatively high levels to support State co-funded services on corridors. So just the demise of LD trains won;t cause all National funded trains to cease operations. It is also quite unlikely that LD trains will all cease to exist either.

Frankly I think it has just be a matter of faith among rail advocates about this historic quid pro quo. If push comes to shove another one will be found and things that need to be funded will get funded and things that are a bit of a "nice to have" will fall by the wayside. It is yet to be discovered how those buckets will get populated, but one can guess that things like the NEC will be in a bucket that will get funded no matter what.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

Skyline said:


> At best, under his "leadership," we might wind up with a weekly or twice-weekly "City of Everywhere" train with the rolling stock and amenities most of us dream about.


This seems pretty optimistic...


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> From RPA
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/amtrak-statement-refutes-trains-ptc-article/
> 
> Unfortunately, I think what just happened is that Trains Magazine just lost credibility as a source of news.


I don't see that at all. I think what happened here is Gardner got ahead of himself and "Said too much" of the plan too soon. Now the PR Flaks are walking that back.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 28, 2018)

Personally I could see other companies having a field day over this. If Amtrak fumbles the ball like they've been doing companies like Herzog, Bombardier, and a few others stand to gain.

I've said it before with the Southwest Chief grant money being rescinded by Amtrak. How is a state supposed to trust Anderson and Gardner's Amtrak if they so easily break agreements with states. So if I was the state of Vermont, Maine, California, North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, or Indiana I would be shopping for new operators for my trains.

Of course Amtrak would pull the same shenanigans again that they did with Iowa Pacific so that would make things difficult. But nothing a state DOT couldn't sort out in court.

So honestly Garnder and Anderson's leadership has made a non Amtrak future obtainable and starting to be more likely. If someone willing to play the long game knew they would have both men removed from office.

#saveamtrakfireanderson

#sendgardnerbacktohisgarden

#makeamtrakgreatagain


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> From RPA
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/amtrak-statement-refutes-trains-ptc-article/
> 
> Unfortunately, I think what just happened is that Trains Magazine just lost credibility as a source of news.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> From RPA
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/amtrak-statement-refutes-trains-ptc-article/
> 
> Unfortunately, I think what just happened is that Trains Magazine just lost credibility as a source of news.


I agree 100%.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

JoeBas said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > From RPA
> ...


That maybe so, but there is no direct evidence of that. It is based on ones feelings about Gardner.

Trains should have given Amtrak a chance to respond to the article before publishing it. That was their mistake.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 28, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > From RPA
> ...


Did they have that credibility prior to this?


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 28, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


They are railfans too, who just let their emotions and biases cloud a news story. In agreement, their credibility took a major hit.

And since the mag claims to support pax rail, nice way of ingratiating the Trains Mag staff to the Amtrak's management. Further feeding Amtrak's management thoughts that railfans are the lunatic fringe.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 28, 2018)

Sorry to disagree, but the Amtrak reply is lacking. Sure it disagrees with the Trains story, but the press release does not address the issues at hand. Amtrak still has routes with gaps in PTC. Amtrak is going to do what? We just dont know, and Amtrak is avoiding the issue.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 28, 2018)

> "For those carriers and routes operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption, Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for enhancing safety on a route-by-route basis to ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network.
> "For those very limited routes where a host may not achieve an alternative schedule by year’s end, Amtrak will suspend service and may seek alternative modes of service until such routes come into compliance."


While the original Trains article may have been drawing conclusions, the fact remains that 1) Amtrak is looking at possibly discontinuing service over PTC exempt or non-PTC lines and 2) the Southwest Chief faces a very real threat of bustitution. Hopefully the language in the Senate bill can nip both of these in the bud.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 28, 2018)

I never got the feeling that Trains magazine was all that interested in passenger rail--it seems more like a freight, short line, tourist line, etc., magazine, with a nodding pass to passenger rail in the one monthly column dedicated to it. I think perhaps the real fault was rushing something into print because the author had a deadline, instead of getting all the angles, including Amtrak's. A journalistic trend that has taken over, unfortunately, although I have usually found Bob Johnston a decent writer.

I prefer Passenger Train Journal for passenger news, but unfortunately they only publish quarterly, so can't always be up-to-date.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> > "For those carriers and routes operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption, Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for enhancing safety on a route-by-route basis to ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network.
> > "For those very limited routes where a host may not achieve an alternative schedule by year’s end, Amtrak will suspend service and may seek alternative modes of service until such routes come into compliance."
> 
> 
> While the original Trains article may have been drawing conclusions, the fact remains that 1) Amtrak is looking at possibly discontinuing service over PTC exempt or non-PTC lines and 2) the Southwest Chief faces a very real threat of bustitution. Hopefully the language in the Senate bill can nip both of these in the bud.


You do realize of course that operating a train on a segment that is not Exempt and has not achieved an FRA Alternative Schedule certification would be illegal on Jan 1. It is not something about which Amtrak has a choice.

The only open issue is how SMS is used to handle Exempt segments, or not, where Amtrak has the potential of applying discretion available to it in a negative way.

Actually the Southwest Chief has a double whammy before even we get to the PTC Exempt issue. It is under threat (a) NMRX possibly not getting Alternative Schedule certification, (b) Funding issues not getting resolved, and after that there is the Amtrak invented PTC Exempt issue, provided Amtrak SMS analysis says that Amtrak cannot trust its systems and employees to safely operate just two of their own trains in a day with absolutely no other traffic in a safe way. That would say an incredible amount about the failure of Amtrak's management more than anything else. I would be surprised if they actually go there. I think they will spend more time dicking around with the funding thing. But of course we will see.

Meanwhile it remains true that SWC is under greater threat at this time than any other train, and we need to keep hammering the relevant members of the various legislators involved.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 28, 2018)

Even if some company like Pan Am Ry could operate a train that Amtrak discontinued, the BIG question is would they want to? And incur the expenses of things like equipment, stations, employees, processing tickets, etc...?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 28, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


They certainly know how to generate a whole bunch of page views, though. Throw out some poorly sourced story and let the cash roll in.

That isn’t to say that we should all stand aside and pretend nothing is happening, but remain enhanced and realize that your lobbying efforts are infinitely more effective when grounded in reality.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

Now Boardman chimes in with not an exactly stellar safety record in his regime. But hey, who remembers that crap?





http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/08/28-boardman-weighs-in-on-amtraks-ptc-mandate

But the point about being able to operate without PTC quite safely specially with only two trains a day is on the mark.

Using the example of Palmetto was probably somewhat imprudent given that the type of human failure was a terrible indictment of Boardman's safety program.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> Now Boardman chimes in with not an exactly stellar safety record in his regime. But hey, who remembers that crap?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really linking another _Trains_ article?


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Now Boardman chimes in with not an exactly stellar safety record in his regime. But hey, who remembers that crap?
> ...


What Boardman said is of relevance I think, since this mess originates in his regime, and he has been trying hard to deflect as much as he can.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Fair enough.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> chrsjrcj said:
> 
> 
> > > "For those carriers and routes operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption, Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for enhancing safety on a route-by-route basis to ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network.
> ...


I’m fully aware and meant the PTC exempt routes that was mentioned in the Trains article.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

So, if the Democrats had their way, those 8 trains would be history even without the Amtrak shenanigans. Sigh.... Politicians! They need to learn when to stop grandstanding and get real.

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/House-Democrats-warn-FRA-against-PTC-exemptions--55023

So maybe the Obama appointees are doing the Democrats bidding? Anything is possible these days.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> So, if the Democrats had their way, those 8 trains would be history even without the Amtrak shenanigans. Sigh.... Politicians! They need to learn when to stop grandstanding and get real. https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/House-Democrats-warn-FRA-against-PTC-exemptions--55023 So maybe the Obama appointees are doing the Democrats bidding? Anything is possible these days.



According to my reading of the letter contained in your link, if the Democrats had their way most of the listed exceptions would be denied permanent waivers and instead funded with additional appropriations as necessary. Perhaps you meant to imply that from a bureaucratic standpoint these appropriations are unlikely, but that's not the same thing as having it the authors' way.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

They sent this letter in the last couple of months, with the deadline looming in December. You seriously believe that with denial of all exemptions any of these segments will actually have any service on them past December? Even with all the additional appropriations now none of these segments would meet the extension criteria, so those will have to be changed too.

They are just being silly at this point. If they had done this two years back that would be something else. Alternatively they could do this together with extending everything by two more years. But absent that Sorry. You are not making much sense.


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Skyline said:
> 
> 
> > At best, under his "leadership," we might wind up with a weekly or twice-weekly "City of Everywhere" train with the rolling stock and amenities most of us dream about.
> ...


That would dovetail nicely with his statement that there is a place of experiential trips by train in the USA.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 28, 2018)

It just occurred to me that, if the knowledgeable people here on AU are having differences of opinion and different viewpoints and understanding of all of this, then many lawmakers are probably clueless about it. In general, they probably know very little about trains, because they focus on other things that are "hot topics"--health care, etc.--and take time to learn about them instead.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 28, 2018)

Bill Maher had a segment in the midpoint of his show entitled "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true."

Well I don't know it for a fact that Anderson and Gardner are terrible for Amtrak's future, I just know it's true.

Love or hate trains magazine at least they are taking a step to fight this garbage. Sure it might not be the most factual at times especially in "he said, she said" spats like anything concerning the Gardner Anderson regime. But the fact that it warranted a response from Amtrak should tell you somethings up.

It means that someone isn't overly happy about the attention the issues have just gotten because it could potentially cause problems for the regime. As it generates news stories in towns along the routes mentioned, and people call their congressmen. Which means Anderson and Gardner will have some explaining to do.

So love it or hate it at least Trains Magazine is on the right side of things as far as fighting for the trains. Now journalistically could be an issue with it. But at least they are fighting for OUR trains.

#saveourtrainsfireanderson

#saveamtrakfireanderson

#sendgardnerbacktothegarden

#maketrainsgreatagain

Disclosure: I sell photos to trains magazine, and will have a few guest columns in the near future.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

The Amtrak response was caused by RPA asking for a response. Who knows what they would have done on their own?

It was inappropriate of Trains from a journalistic point of view to not ask for Amtrak's comment before sending it out on the wire too.

If we keep condoning bad behavior because someone is putatively on our side, then we are being no different from the other side.


----------



## west point (Aug 28, 2018)

As we posted on another thread. Maybe this Amtrak;s knee jerk reaction to RPA's letter criticizing Amtrak's accounting ? Keeps some limelight onto the accounting question ?


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

west point said:


> As we posted on another thread. Maybe this Amtrak;s knee jerk reaction to RPA's letter criticizing Amtrak's accounting ? Keeps some limelight onto the accounting question ?


And as I posted on the other thread, they have nothing to do with each other. This PTC/SWC thing started many months before even the first internal draft of the accounting thing was put together within RPA.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> They sent this letter in the last couple of months, with the deadline looming in December. You seriously believe that with denial of all exemptions any of these segments will actually have any service on them past December? Even with all the additional appropriations now none of these segments would meet the extension criteria, so those will have to be changed too. They are just being silly at this point. If they had done this two years back that would be something else. Alternatively they could do this together with extending everything by two more years. But absent that Sorry. You are not making much sense.


The letter says they do not support providing permanent waivers for services that are modified into last minute exception territory due primarily or exclusively to lack of necessary funding. Limited duration exceptions setup for the purpose of finding and securing additional funding past the deadline are not excluded, at least according to my reading. As explained in the letter the current PTC mandate is bigger than Amtrak, has been advocated for over a half century, and US railroads and related parties resisted change and dragged their feet for decades. Now they're using the current deadline as leverage to obtain permanent exceptions. Nothing is written in stone until the very last horse is traded so both sides are making a last ditch effort to nudge the end game in their desired direction. Nothing about this seems all that crazy to me.


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2018)

My point is that these guys ought to have done this a couple of years back, including providing the funding. Any funding that is provided through the 2018 or 2019 appropriation is too late to have any material effect in meeting the December deadline for anything. It is their own dilly-dallying that got us here. They should have thought about it earlier. In the bigger scheme of things it is a reasonable request, but not at the point of time when they came around to do so. And I agree, it has nothing to do with Amtrak specifically.

My complaint is that Congress has generally handled this whole affair poorly and in the process caused half the problems that people have faced. Of course it is also entirely possible that their inherent incompetence was used by clever manipulators in the industry to lead them down a garden path to a corner. But nothing prevented them fro appropriating adequate funds to actually do a better job of implementing their grand plan, which they ignored until past the 11th hour.

And we won't even go into the business of the clashes between the FCC, EPA and FRA regarding licensing of bandwidth and tower construction. That is a whole another large can of worms, fortunately mostly behind us. It was the primary cause of the last round of extension of the deadline, not gratuitous dilly-dallying by the big bad freight railroads.


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 28, 2018)

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.


----------



## lordsigma (Aug 28, 2018)

jis said:


> So, if the Democrats had their way, those 8 trains would be history even without the Amtrak shenanigans. Sigh.... Politicians! They need to learn when to stop grandstanding and get real.
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/House-Democrats-warn-FRA-against-PTC-exemptions--55023
> 
> So maybe the Obama appointees are doing the Democrats bidding? Anything is possible these days.


 interesting to see Capuano from mass on there as one of the signatories. I wonder if he realizes this would kill the Downeaster, Vermonter, and planned knowledge corridor expansion. Although he’s from the Boston area so probably doesn’t care about the latter two. [emoji2]


----------



## lordsigma (Aug 28, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.


is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 28, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.
> ...


FRA Class I track is 15 mph passenger

Class II track is 30 mph passenger.

Now between Class I railroads like CSX and Class twos like Pan Am I'm not sure.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 28, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


The distinction between Class I, II, and III railroads is based on annual revenue, but the specific numbers change every year due to inflation.


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 28, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


I believe the exemption is based upon number of passenger trains, which is 6 maximum. The downeaster currently runs 5.


----------



## lordsigma (Aug 28, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Thanks for info. As an aside one thing I've always found interesting about Pan Am (formerly Guilford) is how it splits its assets up into subsidiaries named after former railroads that overtime formed the current company although the entire company does business as Pan Am. The "Boston and Maine" contains the railroad line property itself while "Springfield Terminal" is operations (train crews, dispatch, etc.) I believe Maine Central owns the rolling stock. I know one of the reasons is that way back when Springfield Terminal historically had the most beneficial agreements with the unions among the former carriers so since then they have put all the union employees under Springfield Terminal. Is that sort of practice common for freight railroads or is that really a Pan Am thing?


----------



## fredmcain (Aug 29, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> Bill Maher had a segment in the midpoint of his show entitled "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true."
> 
> Well I don't know it for a fact that Anderson and Gardner are terrible for Amtrak's future, I just know it's true.
> 
> ...


Seaboard,

Great points! I have a hard time disagreeing with you !

Regards,

FMC


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 29, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > lordsigma said:
> ...


This is correct. The Class I, II and III distinctions are based on revenue. Track rank is different.


----------



## jis (Aug 29, 2018)

Track Classes in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Track_classes

Railroad Classes in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_classes


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 29, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > lordsigma said:
> ...


Looks like these are the current figures:



> What are Class I, Class II, and Class III freight railroads?
> 
> 
> [SIZE=12pt]Class I Railroad – a freight railroad with an operating revenue exceeding $457.9 million. Seven Class I freight railroads operate in the United States: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, CSX Transportation, Grand Trunk Corporation, Kansas City Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad. Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway are also considered Class I due to their significant trackage in the United States.[/SIZE]
> ...


----------



## keelhauled (Aug 29, 2018)

I bet the Soy Transportation Board is thrilled that you're plagiarizing their content.


----------



## jis (Aug 29, 2018)

Railroads don't have to be a "freight railroad" for the Class specification. Amtrak is as much a Class I railroad as any. The only criteria is commercial annual revenue (and I believe actually owning and operating trackage), at least as far as the AAR classification goes. There may be other classifications with other criteria.

For example this FRA document clearly talks about Class I Freight Railroad and Class Passenger Railroad:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=2ahUKEwj9rbnLypLdAhUBGKwKHcANChgQFjAPegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fra.dot.gov%2FElib%2FDocument%2F92&usg=AOvVaw1mIVhYKlF8avWtVjPvvbcl

This railroad classification is used across North America, not just in the US. So VIA is also a Class I railroad, though not in US. And of course Ferromex is a Class I railroad though not in the US.


----------



## lordsigma (Sep 3, 2018)

Skyline said:


> Anderson was quoted as being interested in, earlier this year, something I think he termed an "experiential" train. I took that to mean a higher-end transcon train like the Canadian. But he obviously has no use for a daily connected long distance network. At best, under his "leadership," we might wind up with a weekly or twice-weekly "City of Everywhere" train with the rolling stock and amenities most of us dream about.


If anything I would interpret his comment to mean he is willing to let a couple of the more popular long distance trains continue to exist as is and the others he would like to eliminate/break up into no-frills corridors.

The SWC is the experiment if they succeed with implementing the bus bridge. The fact that they also plan to remove the sleepers, dining, and baggage from the whole route as part of this show that this is more about experimenting with a new service model that Amtrak's executive team is interested in than about safety/PTC.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2018)

I think he is trying to avoid becoming responsible for funding and maintaining a bunch of trackage in a state which itself is unwilling to participate to any significant extent in it.

I find it hard to believe that PTC is the real reason when one of their options under consideration includes a run upto La Junta from the East over some Exempt trackage. Cynically speaking that would be an attempt to keep the Colorado folks dreams of running a train to Pueblo alive while avoiding the mess in New Mexico and across the pass.


----------



## lordsigma (Sep 3, 2018)

jis said:


> I think he is trying to avoid becoming responsible for funding and maintaining a bunch of trackage in a state which itself is unwilling to participate to any significant extent in it.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that PTC is the real reason when one of their options under consideration includes a run upto La Junta from the East over some Exempt trackage. Cynically speaking that would be an attempt to keep the Colorado folks dreams of running a train to Pueblo alive while avoiding the mess in New Mexico and across the pass.


I hope you are right and that there aren't ulterior motives, but I remain skeptical. The problems with this this particular stretch of track that has to be addressed gives them a legitimate justification to make these changes. But I do think the proposed amenity cuts show that they are also eager to test this as a "contemporary service model" that could be employed on other current LD routes. If the bill passed and funding is granted to address this problem without a bus bridge they will be robbed of this experiment. Certainly the SWC has a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed, but between the proposed amenity cuts and the fact that Amtrak continually cites that the line doesn't make a profit as a justification for using this bus bridge model hint that this is something Amtrak management is eager to try out and that there is more to this than this route's unique problems.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2018)

Well the motive is ulterior. The question is how wide does the wing of said motive spread. And we have no way of knowing that. Why use the PTC ruse when the real reason is something else, if that is the case?


----------



## B&Ofan (Sep 3, 2018)

Whatever the motivations I'm glad I booked my trip on the CZ and CONO for this September / October.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 4, 2018)

jis said:


> Well the motive is ulterior. The question is how wide does the wing of said motive spread. And we have no way of knowing that. Why use the PTC ruse when the real reason is something else, if that is the case?


Probably because a straight "train-off in an attempt to reduce losses" would have triggered even more outrage (especially alongside the record appropriation Amtrak got). I think the attempt was to deflect that angle onto a safety concern (and I continue to contend that Anderson, who I will agree is not a fool, has been easily manipulated by certain people due to differences between passenger rail and airlines). Some part of me wonders if the train-off proposal might have been done under the "attempt to reduce losses" banner if Amtrak had gotten a starvation appropriation, but when Congress decided to "make it rain" in March that totally screwed with a bunch of plans.

There's also been real issue of handling this in the worst way possible. Ideally, what you do is approach the relevant DOTs and legislatures ahead of their legislative session(s) and discuss your needs/requirements, with an eye towards working out a deal (and with a reasonably realistic set of conditions out on the table at the start of the process). In this case, Amtrak started this dog-and-pony show _after_ the legislature broke for the season and since then has engaged in quite a game regarding the actual costs for the needed work and upkeep (e.g. I've seen $50m and $100m as costs for the work in question), to say nothing of their statements trying to downplay the train's circumstances, often in a misleading way (e.g. discussing the train's "lousy" load factor when the train regularly sells out in various segments in-season). You also have Amtrak management going back-and-forth as to whether they are "PTC-or-bust" or would be willing to accept alternatives (I have seen the word "perjury" used more than once as a result of this).

Edit: I think there's a real risk that a "straight train-off" scenario might have resulted in Congress considering something such as simply requiring Amtrak to turn around and lease equipment to a third party, provide operating crews, etc. and franchise the train out. Phrased another way: "You don't want to run this train? Fine, _you_ won't run this train, and you're not getting the equipment to use elsewhere either."


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2018)

It really ain’t quite over until the proverbial fat lady sings. [emoji57]


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Sep 4, 2018)

I never would have thought this way a year ago but now I think the franchise idea is the way to go with this management team and their destructive ideas in place. Give a 3-5 year contract to a private company and have Amtrak lease the equipment for a dollar a year. Specifically deduct Amtraks appropriation the amount of the contract. When Amtrak sees $$$ and equipment going away maybe the Board will wake up and fire Anderson and Gardner.

If the franchise train runs well maybe weve found Amtraks next ceo as a by product of the experiment.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Sep 4, 2018)

Franchise with Amtrak equipment. They would have thin wheels, No AC, and the pipes burst from a deep freeze. Add in some bed bugs and you will have what Amtrak thinks is ready to roll equipment for your Franchise.

I am too warming to rebidding on the Southwest Chief route, but you know Amtrak will go from 100 million needed to 2 million needed in a heart beat. Not into the accounting books are cleaned up will this idea have leg to stand on.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 4, 2018)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I never would have thought this way a year ago but now I think the franchise idea is the way to go with this management team and their destructive ideas in place. Give a 3-5 year contract to a private company and have Amtrak lease the equipment for a dollar a year. Specifically deduct Amtraks appropriation the amount of the contract. When Amtrak sees $$$ and equipment going away maybe the Board will wake up and fire Anderson and Gardner.
> 
> If the franchise train runs well maybe weve found Amtraks next ceo as a by product of the experiment.


I kind-of liked the idea when it was first floated out there a few years ago. I think a reasonable balance would be to turn to them and say that any LD route which triggers certain conditions gets put out for franchise on conditions along those lines for 3-5 years.

I am reminded of how if you take the difference between the "Boardman Chart" losses (that graph he presented to Congress about 4-5 years back) and the "fully allocated" losses on some LD routes, on a 15-20 year franchise (I do think you'd need to have longer franchises, though I can see a case for requiring Amtrak to make their equipment available until new stuff can be ordered and built) the difference in costs would be enough to fully equip new trains on the line.

Edit: If Amtrak were to suddenly reverse course on the SWC after franchising got seriously floated, I think the local senators would be inclined to tell Amtrak what stop to get off at. This affair sort-of reminds me of Indiana...IN asked Amtrak for decent service (I think they wanted a BC car and some form of OBS) and Amtrak blew them off for a decade or two. Then PRIIA 209 hit and suddenly Indiana was taking bids...and when it became clear that IN was actually prepared to issue a contract to another vendor, Boardman went trotting out there saying "Hey, tell us what you want!"


----------



## lordsigma (Sep 4, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Franchise with Amtrak equipment. They would have thin wheels, No AC, and the pipes burst from a deep freeze. Add in some bed bugs and you will have what Amtrak thinks is ready to roll equipment for your Franchise.


Agreed - the big problem with forcing Amtrak to lease equipment is they will hand over all the broken down problem cars to the private franchise- a win win as it becomes someone else's problem.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 4, 2018)

If you want to avoid that problem, you give the franchisee the ability to get the cars fixed on their own and then charge Amtrak for most costs above and beyond the "norm" in terms of maintenance. Of course, this might end up being a good way to get some cars fixed up properly (especially if they get a team that can do it for less than it would, practically speaking, cost Amtrak to do...).

Sneaky tricks aside, if you give the franchisee a semi-fixed set of cars (they only "wander" outside of this batch of cars if there's a bad order or something) and the contractual ability to inspect them a certain amount of time before the lease begins (and the ability to demand a set of repairs) you'd avoid that particular pitfall.

(Now, if you want to see some drama, franchise out all the Superliner LD trains to different operators and have a half-dozen cars go bad at once in the winter in Chicago and watch them fight over who gets the car that's known for having a "touchy" heater...)

The longer-term handling of this would probably be a model like the "Pullman pool" wherein operators would have "their" cars but the equipment would be compatible and they would all have the ability to shuffle some around seasonally (something that we lost with the Superliners).


----------



## tonys96 (Sep 6, 2018)

TRE has informed DART and the FW Metro that it will be seeking a continuance to Jan 1, 2020 to get PCT on the Dallas to FW route that Amtrak currently uses for the TE.

I wonder if that will affect the Eagle? Maybe a bus bridge? Go back to the UP line? Or just use it anyway?


----------



## jis (Sep 6, 2018)

Well, unless Anderson wants to back off from what he said during his testimony to Congress, segments that get FRA alternative schedule approval would be fine for Amtrak operation. It is the Exempt thing where he wants to do this SMS thing or bullcrap around them, somewhat inconsistently I might add.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 6, 2018)

I was told by several Amtrak employees that the Texas Eagle is now underr the same Spotlight by the Flyboys as the Southsest Chief due to the Black Holes in Arkansas and Missouri that don't have PTC.

Time to consider rerouting the Eagles on the old Texas Chief/Lone Star Route through Oklahoma and Texas????


----------



## jis (Sep 6, 2018)

Yeah. St. Louis - Kansas City - Oklahoma City - Fort Worth


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 6, 2018)

jis said:


> Yeah. St. Louis - Kansas City - Oklahoma City - Fort Worth


So does that mean the TE would be running the route of the River Runner and Heartland Flyer?


----------



## jis (Sep 6, 2018)

That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.

Actually Kansas City to Fort Worth would be the route of the Amtrak Lone Star/SantaFe Texas Chief. Heartland Flyer is a just a segment of it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 6, 2018)

jis said:


> That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.
> 
> Actually Kansas City to Fort Worth would be the route of the Amtrak Lone Star/SantaFe Texas Chief. Heartland Flyer is a just a segment of it.


This!!!
And much better than a STL-LRK Bus Bridge or No Eagle @ all! My Dream is a Daily Eagle CHI-LAX on the Chief/LoneStar Route with the long talked about Stub Train between NOL and SAS becoming a Reality!!)


----------



## Anthony V (Sep 6, 2018)

Bob Dylan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.
> ...


A better service plan would be to revive the Lone Star CHI-HOS, with a section Temple-SAS. This would be concurrent with a reroute of the TE over the former Texas & Pacific via Abilene and Midland, TX. This would drastically improve running times of the TE and bring service into more of West Texas. The revived Lone Star would follow the same route between FTW and SAS that the TE currently uses and would be timed to connect with the rerouted TE at FTW. In addition, the TE would have its DAL-HOS section revived. This would maximize direct rail travel opportunities within Texas and between Texas and several major cities in nearby and distant including Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, College Station/Bryan, Abilene, Midland/Odessa, Little Rock, St Louis, Oklahoma City, Wichita, Kansas City, and Chicago, as well as various smaller towns. Travel between a few non-direct city pairs (Like OKC-ELP or STL-SAS) can be done with the well-timed transfer at FTW.


----------



## railiner (Sep 6, 2018)

Hey...no one mentioned running from St. Louis to Oklahoma City via Joplin and Tulsa....might as well throw that one into the mix....






Well maybe not quite thru Joplin, but close...looking at the old map...


----------



## Anthony V (Sep 7, 2018)

railiner said:


> Hey...no one mentioned running from St. Louis to Oklahoma City via Joplin and Tulsa....might as well throw that one into the mix....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A STL-OKC route on the old Frisco would go through Springfield, not Joplin. The closest it would get to Joplin is Neosho, MO. Btw, a good name for the route would be the _Ozark Range Runner_. This would keep with the "runner" theme of the Missouri's passenger train names and would fit the area the train would run through. It would have to be funded by OK and MO - both states currently fund a passenger rail line, though Oklahoma has been considering pulling its subsidy for the HF.


----------



## fredmcain (Sep 7, 2018)

jis said:


> The Amtrak response was caused by RPA asking for a response. Who knows what they would have done on their own?
> 
> It was inappropriate of Trains from a journalistic point of view to not ask for Amtrak's comment before sending it out on the wire too.
> 
> If we keep condoning bad behavior because someone is putatively on our side, then we are being no different from the other side.


Well, maybe Bob Johnston didn't quite dot all his i's and cross all his t's but I'll say one thing. He put Anderson and Amtrak on the defensive. Who knows? Johnston's hunch might be right; it's just that he did not have the "proof" to back up his claims.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## Anderson (Sep 7, 2018)

jis said:


> That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.
> 
> Actually Kansas City to Fort Worth would be the route of the Amtrak Lone Star/SantaFe Texas Chief. Heartland Flyer is a just a segment of it.


Not that any of this is necessarily practical, but it strikes me that a reroute simply running via the Chief's route CHI-KCY and then along the proposed extended Flyer's route KCY-FTW would make sense. The main downside here would be losing Dallas proper (as well as cutting STL out of the LD network), and losing rail service to Arkansas wouldn't be a plus either.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 7, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The Amtrak response was caused by RPA asking for a response. Who knows what they would have done on their own?
> ...


I think when Amtrak officials may or may not have committed perjury but at least began grossly misleading Congress (yes, there's a difference...watch Yes, Minister for more details) and potentially engaging in improper lobbying (I am very much not sure where the lines are here), the high road went from somewhere you want to be to being somewhere you're vulnerable to an IED attack.


----------



## railiner (Sep 7, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...no one mentioned running from St. Louis to Oklahoma City via Joplin and Tulsa....might as well throw that one into the mix....
> ...


What kind of shape is the former Frisco line in, as far as hosting a passenger train? Top speed? PTC?


----------



## P42 AC/DC (Sep 8, 2018)

This is what happens when years of congressional ignoring of rail infrastructure go unanswered. I mean honestly hasn’t Amtrak been in debt since it formed, and only makes real profit from the NEC and some other corridor routes?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Sep 8, 2018)

No true profits on any part of its operation as is the case with most passenger transit systems. Airlines wouldnt be profitable either if the government didnt provide ATC, TSA, Airport grants or for smaller cities similar to Amtraks LD trains, EAS subsidies. As a first world nation its just a part of doing business for the public good.


----------



## neroden (Sep 10, 2018)

Roads aren't profitable either (in fact, they cost several billion dollars in subsidies in the US every year just for the bigger highways; nobody's ever added up the smaller roads). This is fine, but railroads need to get similar money.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 10, 2018)

Dispersed how? As a function of ridership? The billions spent on roads service hundreds of millions annually, not barely just a million that Amtrak spends a billion on. Per rider, sneak is probably more highly subsidized than any other form.



neroden said:


> Roads aren't profitable either (in fact, they cost several billion dollars in subsidies in the US every year just for the bigger highways; nobody's ever added up the smaller roads). This is fine, but railroads need to get similar money.


----------



## fredmcain (Sep 13, 2018)

jis said:


> It really ain’t quite over until the proverbial fat lady sings. [emoji57]


JIS,

I have a question for you since you seem to be pretty familiar with the PTC mandate and how it is to be applied. It's a question I have asked before on other forums but never really got what I thought was a 100% satisfactory answer.

What would happen on the rails if PTC were to "crash" or if there was some kind of an outage even at the local level? That is not an unreasonable assumption to make, is it? I mean everything made by man can act up.

So, what would they do? Would the trains have to stop and wait 'till it comes back online? Or, is there a provision for this like there is when there is a conventional signal outage whereas trains may operate at restricted speed? Just what are the provisions for an outage?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 13, 2018)

We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.


----------



## fredmcain (Sep 13, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.


Well, I would imagine that, too, but do we know that for sure?

Regards,

FMC


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 13, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.
> ...


There's no indication that this wouldn't be the case, so I would say we do know this for sure.


----------



## RPC (Sep 13, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> What would happen on the rails if PTC were to "crash" or if there was some kind of an outage even at the local level? That is not an unreasonable assumption to make, is it? I mean everything made by man can act up.
> 
> So, what would they do? Would the trains have to stop and wait 'till it comes back online? Or, is there a provision for this like there is when there is a conventional signal outage whereas trains may operate at restricted speed? Just what are the provisions for an outage?
> 
> ...


I'm not Jishnu, but I can report that while waiting for my my son's train (on SEPTA,) it was delayed by a dead PTC transponder and had to proceed at 20MPH until it reached the next transponder. So procedures are in place for loss of PTC.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 13, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.


That is not true, it doesn't "automatically" drop to dark territory rules. It "automatically" drops to having to move at restricted speed (able to stop within half range of vision), and having to receive dispatcher permission to move past each dark absolute signal ("flagging signals").

The CTC territory can be changed to unsignalled territory rules by issuing a general order. This is really only done for planned maintenance, as was the case in the recent wreck on CSX.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 13, 2018)

RPC said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> > What would happen on the rails if PTC were to "crash" or if there was some kind of an outage even at the local level? That is not an unreasonable assumption to make, is it? I mean everything made by man can act up.
> ...


Sounds similar to rules when CTC fails ("proceed at restricted speed").


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 13, 2018)

zephyr17 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.
> ...


When a signal is found dead or otherwise inoperable it is read as being the most restrictive indication possible. Since that interpretation will seize up the affected areas dark rules are implemented as a workaround. CSX has suffered numerous situations where environmental damage and power outages have left the signaling system inoperable for extended periods. In order to keep their railroad operating they used dark territory rules to maintain service. The new post-PTC rules will likely be even more restrictive than before, especially with regard to HZMT, but otherwise the overall workaround process should be similar. If there was no sanctioned workaround for priority freight moves during scheduled maintenance and unscheduled disruptions then the major railroads and industry lobbying groups would have fought tooth and nail until an exception was made.


----------



## jis (Sep 13, 2018)

Just remember full PTC can fail without the underlying signaling system failing, e.g. ACSES fails without enforced cab signal failing. The rules for such would be specific to the PTC technology in use and the failure mode. No single answer fitting all situations possibly.


----------



## railiner (Sep 13, 2018)

While there are the legal remedies for working around signal and PTC failures, the question is...how would Anderson accept that? Would he insist that it is not 'safe' to operate, until full PTC is restored? Just throwing that out there...I have no idea what's his take on that.....


----------



## jis (Sep 14, 2018)

According to Amtrak mere absence of PTC won’t cause trains not to run come Jan 1 ...

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/


----------



## Triley (Sep 14, 2018)

jis said:


> According to Amtrak mere absence of PTC won’t cause trains not to run come Jan 1 ...
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/


But no body wanted to believe trains would still be moving on the 1st of 2019...


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Sep 14, 2018)

Amtrak didnt say trains would run. More to the efffect of current routes will be maintained. SWC with a bus will still cover CHI-LAX. This isnt over yet. Expect Anderson to double down. Sending Scott Napersak to Congress was a calculated move as well. Anderson and Gardner burned all their credibility and made news with their horrible tone deaf handling of the SWC stakeholders meeting in June.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Sep 14, 2018)

Sorry but to me it sure sounds like the trains will be running post-1/1. Again, the SWC is in a different situation. I hope some deal can be reached so that line can remain intact. But there won’t be massive train offs.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Sep 14, 2018)

Agreed but expect more funny business. All stakeholders need to stay vigilant.


----------



## jis (Sep 14, 2018)

There will be some hysterical moaning that will go on distracting from the serious work that is needed to protect and enhance the system. Indeed maybe the likes of Anderson are counting on such. Using Agent Provocateurs to discredit people you wish to ignore is a well known technique.


----------



## fredmcain (Sep 14, 2018)

Well, group, am I beginning to sense some back-pedalling on the part of Amtrak's management? See here:

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Amtrak-to-seek-PTC-extension-will-operate-current-routes-after-Jan-1--55612 

Or if that does not work for you try here: *https://tinyurl.com/y945qltd. *

Many, many, many thanks to all of you who have written letters and complained either to the Amtrak board or you Congressman. *BUT* it ain't quite over yet so I'm still holding my breath on this one.

Best regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 14, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Sorry but to me it sure sounds like the trains will be running post-1/1. Again, the SWC is in a different situation. I hope some deal can be reached so that line can remain intact. But there won’t be massive train offs.


It seems that way, but we still shouldn't get cocky or overly confident that these routes are definitely safe. Things can still go unexpectedly and it's best to be wary of that.


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 14, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> Well, group, am I beginning to sense some back-pedalling on the part of Amtrak's management? See here:
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Amtrak-to-seek-PTC-extension-will-operate-current-routes-after-Jan-1--55612
> 
> ...


Yeah, that first one doesn't work. I don't know why extraneous characters keep ending up in your links, but I would just use tinyurl for now.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 14, 2018)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Amtrak didnt say trains would run. More to the efffect of current routes will be maintained. SWC with a bus will still cover CHI-LAX. This isnt over yet. Expect Anderson to double down. Sending Scott Napersak to Congress was a calculated move as well. Anderson and Gardner burned all their credibility and made news with their horrible tone deaf handling of the SWC stakeholders meeting in June.


I read it the same way you did. In Scot Naparstek's own words he says...



Scot Naparstek (Amtrak COO) said:


> While this risk analysis process and mitigation plan development is still underway, let me be clear that *Amtraks goal is to continue to operate all of our services over all of our current routes* come January 1, 2019. Exactly how we accomplish this will vary across our network, based on the specifics of each route, but I want to assure the Committee that, at this time, we believe we will have strategies in place that will permit us to continue operations until operational PTC or PTC-equivalency is achieved for all of our network.


Link: https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2018-09-13_-_naparstek_testimony.pdf



NativeSon5859 said:


> Sorry but to me it sure sounds like the trains will be running post-1/1. Again, the SWC is in a different situation. I hope some deal can be reached so that line can remain intact. But there wont be massive train offs.


You're sorry that "the trains" will be running and that "train offs" won't be massive? Good thing we dodged that straw man I guess.


----------



## bretton88 (Sep 14, 2018)

This really isn't very different from what Amtrak has been saying before, just more specific. Amtrak has always said they will do a safety management system on non PTC routes, not necessarily train-offs. So not much difference in that. The only change here is a possible back tracking on the SWC.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 31, 2018)

zephyr17 said:


> All the wailing by Amtrak about no PTC from wherever in Kansas (Dodge City? I know everything west of Newton is pretty lightly used, except Las Animas Jct-La Junta) to Lamy is an excuse, it all qualifies for an exemption. I still say they are trying to weaponize PTC and the SWC is a test case, and they didn't want to kick on the grants to otherwise keep the line maintained and improved to the point that BNSF has stated it would be willing to continue routine maintenance on it for 20 years (welded rail, modernized signalling). Not saying it is not a problem, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, but it is certainly not the few hundred miles that Amtrak has been saying need PTC.


Well, it looks like track maintenance will be the excuse since the feds are offering to pony up funds for PTC. I posted this in the SWC News thread but it may fit here as well.

FRA: PTC round two grants total $46.3 million

https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/fra-ptc-round-two-grants-total-46-3-million/?RAchannel=safety



> The awards will fund many aspects of PTC system implementation for intercity passenger or commuter rail and freight rail transportation, including back office PTC systems; wayside, communications, and onboard PTC system equipment; personnel training; PTC system testing; and interoperability.
> 
> FRA awarded grants in the approximate amounts below to the following programs and entities:
> 
> ...


----------

