Amtrak no longer allowing standing passengers on unreserved trains?

[VTTrain]

Fine, you did. I personally understood that abbreviation just fine, as was also apparently the case for 1@Just-Thinking-51[/USER], and I imagine plenty other members who are also familiar with the order. Either way, he clarified in post #71, so I don't think this is worth continued discussion.

Then why are you discussing it?

 

[rspenmoll]

I apologize for having made an essentially duplicate, possibly condescending  post and of course PVD wasn't intentionally trying to confuse anyone. I made an ill advised posting because I tend to almost irrationally obsess over things like this, which resulted in me thinking it was important to try to  ensure that PVD was aware that the confusion was the result of an error on my part and not his. This was poor judgment on my part, and I realize I made things even worse through the way I worded my response. It was never my intention to convey antagonism or blame on anyone, though I see how my posts might have been interrupted that way.

 

[bretton88]

The issue with standing room only Amtrak equipment is that amfleets are not suitability set up for standing room. What would the result be for these standing room passengers if the train had an accident? The truth is since this is a ConnDot service, ConnDot needs to pony up the money for the increased capacity.

 

[PVD]

I think we all need to relax and take a deep breath and put this all behind us.... All of us are here to discuss something we are interested in, and the typed word often does not convey things well. It is far too easy in a typed conversation to mistake someone's style or manner of conveying things as something other than intended. Tomorrow I will take 281 to Syracuse for a hockey meeting. I could fly, drive at a reimbursement of around 50 cents a mile + tolls, or take the train, someone else is paying so it's not the money, its the relaxation......

 

[AG1]

redacted

 

[neroden]

The important thing to remember is that a state governor with the legislature behind him/her doesn't need to "posture".  It doesn't even matter what the contract says... Tick off Connecticut and Amtrak is in a world of pain. CT has unbelievable amounts of leverage.  They own a hunk of the NEC.

You may remember that MA senators forced CSX to sell its rail lines to the state, at a price much closer to the state offer than to CSX's original demands.  You may recall that Congressmen forced Amtrak to allow pets, to carry guns, and to keep operating the Southwest Chief.  If Amtrak desires to lose control of the Springfield line, it may achieve this.  If not, they need to start a charm offensive and get some more cars over to CT.

 

[railiner]

.  If Amtrak desires to lose control of the Springfield line, it may achieve this. 

I wonder about that...maybe they do?   Maybe they would be better off overall, being a 'tenant'?  Not sure....

And perhaps the same could be said about the Keystone line...convey it to SEPTA or PennDOT?

 

[jis]

Like the Clockers were handed over to NJT. It could happen.

For the Connecticut Valley Amtrak simply keeps the Vermonter and maybe one more through train and disposes off the rest to Connecticut and let the do whatever they wish.

 

[user 14106]

Like the Clockers were handed over to NJT. It could happen.  For the Connecticut Valley Amtrak simply keeps the Vermonter and maybe one more through train and disposes off the rest to Connecticut and let the do whatever they wish.

I have written letters to MassDOT and CTDOT urging not to go that route. First off we are talking three particular trains in the afternoon where this occurs and it doesn’t occur all the time - the worst has been during peak travel times. Now that we are thru the holiday season hopefully there will be a bit of a reprieve barring any equipment problems which will provide time to find a solution. As an Amtrak rider I am happy with the service offered here. I would be extremely unhappy if they went this route. While I support the commuter rail, I do not support the line becoming exclusively commuter rail with only a couple intercity train options. A commuter rail connection to Amtrak in new haven isn’t the same as a guaranteed Amtrak ticket. Such a decision would likely severely reduce my rail travel. I think CT would be making a mistake by completely disregarding Amtrak customers to solve the problems experienced by some of the ctrail riders. Their ridership contains a decent amount of intercity customers. If they go this route they will lose many of those.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Oh, but it does.

There's no legal or contract requirement for consist lengths on the fully-reserved Northeast Regionals.  Move some cars over to the Connecticut line, *as required by contract*, and raise the prices on the Regionals to reflect the reduced supply of seats.  That appears to be their legal obligation, if I've been informed correctly about all the contracts.

I just want to clarify that if the operating agreement calls for "X" amount of equipment or seats, the legal obligation is fulfilled once that equipment if provided. That is what a contract is. Anything else must be negotiated and under PRIIA, the state  and Amtrak would have to add it based upon the methodology set up by the contract. In toher words, if you want more equipment, this is the cost.

So, that is is up to CT. I believe this is something to consider:

Article about this.  And IMO the important thing to note is the mood at the Connecticut state government:

https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-amtrak-new-haven-springfield-20181228-xpycq4yn6vfzvkvhsorileu2ri-story.html

Amtrak is making enemies here.  Graham Claytor would have done what it took to get the state government back on his side.

Perception is key and this is one of the things the current regime as not adept at handling. They are not getting ahead of the narrative, even when they are 100% correct.  However, since this place isn't being run by a group of politicians, things are a bit different. He continues to shrug off the media and even some of the usual political interference. It hasn't necessarily helped in various circles but it hasn't hurt in other circles. This of course leads to the reality of CT's posturing:

.

It all depends on what that agreement says. I'd be truly surprised if the agreement didn't have a clause that allowed Amtrak to refuse boarding for safety reasons. Amtrak could argue this applies if the train has no seating left and they believe it's unsafe to let on standees (or standees above a certain number.) At that point, it depends on whether the agreement says that Amtrak will operate trains with x capacity or x number of coach cars (with x capacity) or if the agreement states that Amtrak must operate with enough capacity to handle demand. My guess is that it's the former; if that's the case, Amtrak probably is honoring the contract despite CT's posturing.

This is the bottom line. Basically, the operating agreement will prevail and they generally written as jebr noted in his first scenario. That means it is up to CT to obtain more equipment or Amtrak will have to fork it over on its own dime. If they do that, what happens to OTHER states that may say the same thing?

Hey, we want more cars.

Hey, we want more capacity.

Hey, we want you to foot the bill just like you did for CT.

That kind of defeats the purpose of PRIIA setting up the methodology for costs, doesn't it?

The important thing to remember is that a state governor with the legislature behind him/her doesn't need to "posture".  It doesn't even matter what the contract says... Tick off Connecticut and Amtrak is in a world of pain. CT has unbelievable amounts of leverage.  They own a hunk of the NEC.

You may remember that MA senators forced CSX to sell its rail lines to the state, at a price much closer to the state offer than to CSX's original demands.  You may recall that Congressmen forced Amtrak to allow pets, to carry guns, and to keep operating the Southwest Chief.  If Amtrak desires to lose control of the Springfield line, it may achieve this.  If not, they need to start a charm offensive and get some more cars over to CT.

This is probably the biggest non issue and if it became one, consider: All of a sudden, Amtrak (and the federal government) is no longer responsible for a HUGE piece of COSTLY infrastructure. The costs are now borne by the state or some subcontracted, private entity....something quite a few entities would no doubt like to see and others have pushed for.

At a time when they want the states to assume more costs for the NEC, I suspect CT would have buyer's remorse if they pursued such an idea.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Like the Clockers were handed over to NJT. It could happen.

For the Connecticut Valley Amtrak simply keeps the Vermonter and maybe one more through train and disposes off the rest to Connecticut and let the do whatever they wish.

The clockers weren't really handed over to NJT. The ywer erun at the behest of NJT, because they had an equipment shortage on the line. They also cross honored NJT monthly passes on a few other trains that weren't clockers (the Patriot comes to mind). As equipment became tight on Amtrak, necessitating leasing equipment to meet the requirements of the operating agreement and NJT's ALP 46s and additional coaches came online, NJT finally had enough equipment for the service.

 

[jis]

Are the NHV -SPG shuttles still funded by Amtrak or are they PRIIA funded by CT? If the latter then they are run by Amtrak for CT, no? I just assumed the latter.

 

[rspenmoll]

The clockers weren't really handed over to NJT. The ywer erun at the behest of NJT, because they had an equipment shortage on the line. They also cross honored NJT monthly passes on a few other trains that weren't clockers (the Patriot comes to mind). As equipment became tight on Amtrak, necessitating leasing equipment to meet the requirements of the operating agreement and NJT's ALP 46s and additional coaches came online, NJT finally had enough equipment for the service.

New Jersey Transit did take over operations on the Atlantic City Line from Amtrak though.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Are the NHV -SPG shuttles still funded by Amtrak or are they PRIIA funded by CT? If the latter then they are run by Amtrak for CT, no? I just assumed the latter.

The shuttles are stat supported services, paid for with funds contributed by CT and SPG...and that is something that everyone except Lordsigma seems to neglect. I'm not versed on the methodology or the operating agreement but the state of Massachusetts must be considered when this line is discussed. I'm willing to bet they would be most displeased if their passengers were routinely bumped or failed to connect due to CT Rails passengers. They may also balk at additional costs coming out of their pocket to add equipment..

New Jersey Transit did take over operations on the Atlantic City Line from Amtrak though.

Actually, NJTRO was present on the ACY line in tandem with Amtrak. They operated Atlantic City to Lindenwold , where passengers could transfer to PATCO. When Amtrak ceased ACY service, they leased the line to NJTRO, which extended their charter to operate into PHL.

Not exactly a  take over.

 

[rspenmoll]

The shuttles are stat supported services, paid for with funds contributed by CT and SPG...and that is something that everyone except Lordsigma seems to neglect. I'm not versed on the methodology or the operating agreement but the state of Massachusetts must be considered when this line is discussed. I'm willing to bet they would be most displeased if their passengers were routinely bumped or failed to connect due to CT Rails passengers. They may also balk at additional costs coming out of their pocket to add equipment..

Actually, NJTRO was present on the ACY line in tandem with Amtrak. They operated Atlantic City to Lindenwold , where passengers could transfer to PATCO. When Amtrak ceased ACY service, they leased the line to NJTRO, which extended their charter to operate into PHL.

Not exactly a  take over.

I didn't realize that. I stand corrected.

 

[jis]

The shuttles are stat supported services, paid for with funds contributed by CT and SPG...and that is something that everyone except Lordsigma seems to neglect. I'm not versed on the methodology or the operating agreement but the state of Massachusetts must be considered when this line is discussed. I'm willing to bet they would be most displeased if their passengers were routinely bumped or failed to connect due to CT Rails passengers. They may also balk at additional costs coming out of their pocket to add equipment.

Actually it would not surprise me if it is discovered that Amtrak is surreptitiously trying to dump the entire shuttle thing into CT's lap, and hence is not worried about how the various arms of CT government postures on this, and let CT and MA figure it out between themselves. I think you are correct in surmising that at the end of the day CT will have a severe buyer's remorse if that were to materialize.

The major overloading problem is apparently between NHV and Hartford, and MA has no reason to pony up to solve that problem anyway.

 

[railiner]

I suspect that Amtrak may wish to only own the "core" of the NEC, from Boston to Washington, including the parts now owned by Ct. and Ma., and spin off the Keystone and SPG line to the states....JMHO....

 

[user 14106]

Actually it would not surprise me if it is discovered that Amtrak is surreptitiously trying to dump the entire shuttle thing into CT's lap, and hence is not worried about how the various arms of CT government postures on this, and let CT and MA figure it out between themselves. I think you are correct in surmising that at the end of the day CT will have a severe buyer's remorse if that were to materialize. The major overloading problem is apparently between NHV and Hartford, and MA has no reason to pony up to solve that problem anyway.

If were true then the current Amtrak management needs to go. In that case it would almost seem the management is determined to disassemble Amtrak. Misguided if you ask me if their priority is the NEC why cut services that directly feed into it?

 

[neroden]

Actually it would not surprise me if it is discovered that Amtrak is surreptitiously trying to dump the entire shuttle thing into CT's lap,

For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at that either.

and hence is not worried about how the various arms of CT government postures on this, and let CT and MA figure it out between themselves. I think you are correct in surmising that at the end of the day CT will have a severe buyer's remorse if that were to materialize.

I doubt it.  CT has been having trouble finding the funding for its major rail line upgrades, but they've found it.  The general consensus among the states has been that Amtrak overcharges them for services -- even after the PRIIA renegotiations, though the view of the states was that the overcharging was much worse before that.

Michigan doesn't regret owning its part of the Michigan Line, and they have real budget problems.  Massachusetts is positively eager to own rail lines, and hasn't regretted a single purchase.  Why would Connecticut regret buying and controlling the property which it already paid a large amount to upgrade?  They don't really like being blackmailed into buying it, any more than Michigan liked being blackmailed into buying their line from NS, but they'll be happy if they do buy it.

The state which will have non-buyer's remorse is Virginia, which keeps paying to upgrade lines owned by someone else, while obtaining no equity in the upgrades.

The major overloading problem is apparently between NHV and Hartford, and MA has no reason to pony up to solve that problem anyway.

But they'd probably pitch in to buy the line anyway, frankly, and they'd probably help out with a joint order of coaches, locomotives, or DMUs. (MA has to buy a bunch soonish anyway.)

 

[neroden]

I suspect that Amtrak may wish to only own the "core" of the NEC, from Boston to Washington, including the parts now owned by Ct. and Ma., and spin off the Keystone and SPG line to the states....JMHO....

IMO, Amtrak will never get the parts owned by CT and MA (or New York for that matter).  They may even be trying to get Metro-North to make an offer on the NY-New Rochelle line, judging by recent behavior.

 

[railiner]

.  They may even be trying to get Metro-North to make an offer on the NY-New Rochelle line, judging by recent behavior.

You may have a point there...not having to maintain the Hell Gate Bridge, which may be the largest and costliest structure Amtrak owns, could be very beneficial.... :unsure:

 

[user 14106]

http://www.wnpr.org/post/connecticut-cannot-make-amtrak-adopt-one-ticket-any-train-policy

Included in that email is the contract.

 

[bretton88]

http://www.wnpr.org/post/connecticut-cannot-make-amtrak-adopt-one-ticket-any-train-policy
 
Included in that email is the contract.

Sounds like ConnDoT made some assumptions that turned out to not be correct or they need a better contract negotiator.

 

[user 14106]

Note the term of this contract finished in 2016 don’t know if they modified it for ctrail. I wonder if the article realizes that

 

[rspenmoll]

Note the term of this contract finished in 2016 don’t know if they modified it for ctrail. I wonder if the article realizes that

I got in touch with the author of the story on Twitter, and he clarified that the current contract, which wasn't uploaded by WNPR on the website for some reason, simply incorporates the previous contract by reference and then mentions changes to the terms of the contract from the previous version, and that the amendments listed for the current contact do not contain the "one ticket, any train" clause that Connecticut has said it does. (the two links collectively contain the full exchange).