2 Capital Corridor trains to Reno has been on the agenda for years, and Nevada is willing to pay it's share, so that isn't the actual issue. It's that in 2009 (I forget the exact year, but it was just after the recession started ending), the UP stopped cooperating. They even stopped a study that was in progress and refused to proceed further. The CCJPA recently even has said there's still no change in that stance by the UP.
Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT
- Thread starter Amtrakfflyer
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
Which is why you'd need both states to pressure them. They'll give for something, everyone has a price. Like the potential of a triple track in the mountains.
TiBike
OBS Chief
This is why the CZ needs to be on the table. Replacing a long, randomly performing CZ with one Capitol Corridor round trip a day – a shorter and more reliable train – should be a no-brainer, and replacing it with two Capitol Corridor runs a day might even pencil out for UP, particularly if it means cutting back on Reno-SLC-Denver traffic. Throw in Caltrans' demonstrated willingness to spend money on track upgrades, and you have the basis for a win-win solution and a successful negotiation. California's experience with UP proves that money talks and BS walks.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
Why would the Zephyr have to be replaced? Whatever track improvements that would be needed to get 4 trains each way from Reno to Sac would more than likely add enough capacity to for the Zephyr. As for traffic further east, I don't see how one train per direction makes a huge difference to UP when they own both routes through to Utah. As for the getting it done, deciding what upgrades Nevada will pay for is the bigger issue. I know one of the reasons why talks broke down was who is paying for the track upgrades between Truckee and the stateline.
At least in the (partial) defense of the Wisconsin situation, Walker killed what was at that point a Chicago-Madison train (primarily within Wisconsin, to boot) that had a general hope of eventual extension to Minneapolis at some indefinite point in the future; additionally, it was part of an explicit campaign promise (albeit one most of us rather strongly disagree with), and he did it at a point when there was no visible path to funding the rest of the route.
By the way, on the Sunset? While it has the lowest ridership in the LD system most years, that ridership isn't terrible considering that it only runs 3x weekly. The daily ridership is roughly on par with a number of the eastern LD trains, and (again) that's with the "sandbagging" of running 3x weekly.
cpotisch
Engineer
Union Pacific is pretty notorious for being extremely resistant to Amtrak adding any frequencies on their tracks, even when the capacity is there. I wouldn’t be so sure that they’ll be totally onboard here. Look at what happened to the proposed daily TE to LAX.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2005
- Messages
- 980
I’m sure UP would change their tune if a person high up had a face to face with them and played hardball. Perhaps a coalition of congressional representative stakeholders. Either way to have more corridors and reliable LDT’s the freights need to be called out.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
The original point was adding a few Capitol Corridor trains between Sac and Reno for the exchange of killing the Zephyr from Reno to Salt Lake. Which 1 train per direction doesn't mean much given the UP bought out the Western Pacific and Southern Pacific who used to own the lines in that area.
UP does play hardball and we still have a fairly functional Capitol Corridor. Its just a matter of what do they want to add the promised 4 trains and will Nevada agree to paying their share. This is also why the feds should have a little bit of a say in this and why Amtrak needs a consistent revenue stream like the Highways of the FAA.
cpotisch
Engineer
That still means increased frequency on the line, which is likely enough to get UP angry and greedy. And I don’t think it makes sense to shorten a flagship LD route like the CZ. It’s a 52 hour ride offering a dining car (at least for now), a Sightseer Lounge, and sleepers, so I really doubt many people would be too keen about having to transfer to a corridor train (especially one using California and Surfliner cars) for the final several hours of their journey.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
Yeah that is my point. California has a decent enough relationship with the railroads and any upgrades that would enable 4 extra trains each way would enable the Zephyr to be preserved and probably add some freight capacity over the sierras. I don't know why TiBike implied killing the Zephyr (a federal train) in favor of expanding the Capitol Corridor (a state train).
TiBike
OBS Chief
Tracks, equipment and money are limited. Yeah, sure, if UP wants to add additional passenger train runs to Reno and Amtrak or Caltrans/JPAs have extra rolling stock and extra money, then just add more trains. But that's not the case. UP wants to limit the impact of passenger trains on its own operation, Amtrak (at least its management) wants to put its resources into services that have higher passenger loads and lower costs and Caltrans (and the JPAs) wants to spend its budget effectively. I doubt Caltrans cares about the CZ, except to the extent its unreliability impacts Capitol Corridor operations, but changing the CZ – break it up into a daily Bay Area to Reno corridor service and a less than daily Reno - SLC - Denver tourist service, for example – would help all three organisations meet their goals.
Anderson's testimony was vague regarding details, but the overall strategy was clear: redesign Amtrak service to meet the needs of the 21st century, rather than trying to preserve the ragged remnants of the 20th. He's right.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
And my and maybe cpotisch point is that the California can already wrangle with the railways, a expanded Capitol Corridor could happen if Nevada agrees to it and they both pressure the UP. Ergo, the Zephyr isn't all to relevant to expanding the Capitol Corridor if California, Nevada and UP agree to an expansion plan. And this plan might happen anyways regardless of what happens on the federal level since at this point, Amtrak needs California more than California needs Amtrak.
TiBike
OBS Chief
Lot of "ifs" there. Put the CZ on the table and the ifs are easier to solve. You'll get further sooner if all three parties – UP, Amtrak and Caltrans/JPAs – gain something from the deal. Any solution that requires strong arming even one of the parties (and you propose to strong arm two) leaves us where we are now. Which is what a lot of people on this board, but not so many in the real world, want.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
Expanding the Capitol Corridor is more a when/where than an if.
Nevada is very fond of the Zephyr, being that it is presently their only rail route. Their state rail plan calls for adding more stations and looking into expanding train service. And California is more than capable of holding its own and getting what it wants so long as the political will exists in Sacramento.
So you are advocating Amtrak eliminating service to some communities just so a state can add service in the hopes that netting up to 3 trips instead of 4 is somehow going to entice UP to the table when they are likely after money for capacity expansion. Eliminating one train doesn't make sense in doing this.
Also, I am willing to bet Nevada would give the UP a large property tax break to upgrade their tracks in Nevada. Promise the legislature jobs and they will do almost anything for a large company. They basically gave Tesla tax breaks totaling 20 years of Washoe County School District's budget. Manufacturing isn't even one of Nevada's big industries, logistics is and rail upgrades would be a far easier sell to desperate legislators.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's not forget that over the decades SP added and then removed a second track over Donner Pass. The ROW for the second track is still there; if CA, NV and the UP somehow divided up the costs rail could be relaid. (Of course that would mean clearing two tracks in the winter!) The question in my mind would be whether UP is capacity constrained over the Sierra Nevada so that they'd like to have the track back; my guess is "no."
In general, I think there's a demand for sleeper service even in a corridor. I know I'd love to have one back on 66/67. So why not have, say, an Empire Service train with a Viewliner II "compartment car" ("Get your work done in the privacy of your very own space!") which just happens to continue to Chicago? Similarly, an Empire Service train overnight NYP - BUF which became a day train to the west?
In general, I think there's a demand for sleeper service even in a corridor. I know I'd love to have one back on 66/67. So why not have, say, an Empire Service train with a Viewliner II "compartment car" ("Get your work done in the privacy of your very own space!") which just happens to continue to Chicago? Similarly, an Empire Service train overnight NYP - BUF which became a day train to the west?
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
Well for some quick numbers, UP owns 1085 miles of track in Nevada, assuming the cost to double track is ~2 million per mile, that's about $2.2 billion in investments. Nevada could be convinced to give them a break to bring the overall cost of that down or at least reduce the impact of property taxes on that level of investment. This would include the part the Capitol Corridor would use from the border into Sparks. The issue then is making sure there is double tracking entirely from Auburn to the border and extra sidings. So add in about 250 miles at ~$3 million per mile and we got $750 million in costs to distribute between the California and the UP.
This also could be tied with starting trains up to Redding or south of San Jose to Salinas if the state really wants to play hardball.
This also could be tied with starting trains up to Redding or south of San Jose to Salinas if the state really wants to play hardball.
750 million (which is the starting point) is a lot of money for 2 daily trains. Not to mention these would just be extensions of existing frequencies. Any new frequencies and you're adding even more dollars.
"Trading" the Zephyr for an Capitol Corridor extension also assumes that UP actually would want to get the Zephyr off the tracks from Reno to Denver - a big if. There'd also be enemies gained in Utah and Colorado; I'd imagine Colorado in particular would put up a fight for the Zephyr to remain daily. This is also the only corridor I'm aware of where Greyhound has pushed their passengers onto Amtrak, which means Amtrak is truly the only option for the cities between Salt Lake City and Reno, along with anyone making a connection to northern California (the only bus connections would either be up through Portland or down through Los Angeles.) All to expand a train that the states have to fund anyways?
Seems like an easy way for Anderson and his team to make even more enemies in Congress than they already have.
Seems like an easy way for Anderson and his team to make even more enemies in Congress than they already have.
Last edited by a moderator:
TiBike
OBS Chief
Who's going to play hardball? And why? The state's approach is to upgrade UP's track until UP is happy with it. That's what's holding up the Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas and the Surfliner extension to the Bay Area. I don't know what Nevada is doing, but if there's any real interest in upgrading train service on the I-80 corridor then that's another argument for putting the Zephyr on the table. It serves two towns between Reno and SLC, in the middle of the night. Even a bus bridge would be an improvement.
Actually, the eastbound hours for Winnemucca and Elko are quite reasonable (7:08 and 9:31 PM) and westbound at Winnemucca is borderline (5:40 AM).
On the NEC business class is 2x2 seating with legroom comparable to an amfleet2 and curtains in the windows, which are helpful for blocking sun glare at certain times of the day. They are definitely a step above Amfleet 1 NEC coach service, especially when said NEC coaches are sold out.
I've ridden BC on the Palmetto, and have been satisfied even though the Palmetto BC is not much different from the Amfleet 2 coaches, mainly because the BC car is much less crowded than the coaches and I've always been able to get a seat pair to myself for the whole trip. Plus, I get a 25% AGR TQP bonus for riding BC.
TiBike
OBS Chief
Some times are workable, some are not, and that's not even taking all the bypassed towns into consideration. If the State of Nevada wants to provide a useful passenger transportation service between Reno and SLC, the Zephyr won't do it. I don't know if that's a priority for Nevada, but if it is, breaking up the Zephyr into corridor segments would make perfect sense.
sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
Its $750 million under the assumption that nothing from Roseville to the stateline is double tracked, which isn't true. That is $750 million that needs to be addressed, not directly paid for. given that UP would also be facing increased property taxes, which they might want differed, or breaks in other places. The point is that is the number that would need to be worked out. Also take into consideration that this would also include upgrades into the suburbs east of Sacramento, which is presently looking into starting commuter services.
The state. The state that has set up and expanded its rail services. California, one of the only states to tell the federal government "hold my beer, I'm going to out do you".
And Nevada would beg to differ with you with its eastern towns being of no interest. Utah would argue with you with its state being of no interest. A bus bridge might be fine with you, but I am not going to pay $300 for a train trip across the country if a third of it is comparable to Greyhound or more likely, incapable of being booked. What you are asking for doesn't make any amount of sense. Small towns liking Amtrak is why it keeps getting money to keep trains like the Zephyr going.
Last edited by a moderator:
TiBike
OBS Chief
California has not expanded rail service by playing hardball. The Capitol Corridor used to have a terrible on time performance record. Maybe there were unpleasant conversations with UP – I don't know – but the problem wasn't solved until Caltrans started paying to upgrade track. Same in southern California – cash bought track and cooperation.
I didn't say Nevada and Utah were uninterested in the Zephyr route or the communities along it. I assume it's high enough, but I don't know where it ranks on the cosmic list of concerns. If they are concerned – no reason to think they're not – then the Zephyr as currently configured is only of interest as long as it's the only option.
You're basically making my argument: yes, serving small towns is part of Amtrak's mission and a source of political support. Corridor-type service will serve more of them, and with transportation service that actually meets more of their needs. Keep in mind, Amtrak trains only reach a tiny fraction of the small towns in the U.S., and when it's via long distance trains it's not optimised to meet their needs, except by happenstance. The whole point is for Amtrak to stop worrying about providing subsidised train trips across the country for people with time on their hands, and start providing a transportation service to people who need to get somewhere now.
How do we differentiate between a "corridor" train and a "long distance" train? To some extent, a long distance train is just a really long corridor, or a single trainset serving a lot of overlapping corridors. If on-time performance issues could be worked out, long-distance trains could become de facto corridor trains, just with a really long corridor. Sure, there's the problem of certain cities currently having service in the night, but breaking them up into corridors with the same funding won't fundamentally fix that issue. At best, it'll add time to anyone that wants to go somewhere beyond "their corridor," since they'll have to wait for the connecting corridor's train to run (assuming it runs at all.) You'd be better off running a second frequency and offsetting the schedule by 12ish hours, which would give those overnight communities daylight service.
For the Zephyr specifically, you could make the argument that running separate services CHI - DEN and DEN - EMY would make sense, especially once there's frequent service to nearby stations so someone going just a couple stops past DEN doesn't get stuck for 24 hours just because they missed their current once-a-day service. That's mainly because there's a lot of turnover in Denver, and so there may be more to be gained by running it as two separate operations with a connection for those who are going beyond Colorado on both ends.
But there's no rationale for simply chopping up any long-distance line into a bunch of corridors, especially if they're each timed to optimize daylight-serving hours. That'd force anyone who's going between corridors to find a place to sleep overnight every time they get into a new corridor, and that'll almost certainly kill ridership worse than the current situation, with strategic overnight segment placement and occasional delays.
For the Zephyr specifically, you could make the argument that running separate services CHI - DEN and DEN - EMY would make sense, especially once there's frequent service to nearby stations so someone going just a couple stops past DEN doesn't get stuck for 24 hours just because they missed their current once-a-day service. That's mainly because there's a lot of turnover in Denver, and so there may be more to be gained by running it as two separate operations with a connection for those who are going beyond Colorado on both ends.
But there's no rationale for simply chopping up any long-distance line into a bunch of corridors, especially if they're each timed to optimize daylight-serving hours. That'd force anyone who's going between corridors to find a place to sleep overnight every time they get into a new corridor, and that'll almost certainly kill ridership worse than the current situation, with strategic overnight segment placement and occasional delays.
