Amtrak no longer allowing standing passengers on unreserved trains?

[Anderson]

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.

Maybe not even that.  I would honestly wonder whether at that point, CT and VT might not just decide that they're done with Amtrak and look at running into GCT on that line.  Finding a third party operator to bid on running that train (or 1-2x additional day trains) doesn't seem absurd anymore, especially after Amtrak's PTC dance last year.  I guess it would all come down to the question of through traffic, but even then a transfer at STM or NHV isn't absurd to contemplate. 

 

[Thirdrail7]

That's outright bizarre.  Specified consist lengths in the contracts!  (And *seven cars* for Empire Service!) Well, that does sort of explain what's going on... I mean, this provision must not be present itn the Michigan contracts, since they chop and change the consists there all the time.  I could see specifying "cafe, business class, minimum of two coaches" or something, but specifying *seven* -- why would Amtrak have agreed to put that in a contract?

Specified in the contracts, eh?  Then Amtrak should say that... seems to me the contract also specifies that they're going to honor commuter tickets, however.

I'm glad a version of the contract is listed. Now, you'll have a better idea of what occurs for future threads. While terms of the agreements vary, they generally contain things like this:

In the event that the Service may, from time to time, be fully utilized by the traveling
public, the States may request that Amtrak provide additional rail passenger equipment to
support the Service. Amtrak shall endeavor to provide additional rail passenger service
equipment from itsavailable resources commensurate with the funding requirements of
the Agreed 209 Methodology. Except in an operational exigency, Amtrak will not
modify the consist size set forth in Appendix IA without the States' prior written
approval.

Sure, that states can seek more equipment...but they have to PAY for it. If Amtrak decides to give it to them, that is always nice. However, they are not required to if it will impact their service lines. Additionally, if you look at Appendix 1A, you'll see the minimum agreed upon consist. These exists in most operating agreements.  This why I have preached that contrary to popular opinion, you can't just "take this car" or "grab this car from" or "swap this car for this car because I think it would work for this." There are often procedures and penalties.  An example is if Amtrak didn't have a provision for subbing an additional diesel for a cab car. Any additional fuel costs would fall directly on Amtrak's shoulders.

In the aforementioned Empire service example, Amtrak couldn't remove a split club from a set of their equipment and add it to another service without consulting NYS first. NYS who would have to consent. If NYS didn't consent, the car would have to stay until another operating agreement is reached.

 

 

 

[Thirdrail7]

Maybe not even that.  I would honestly wonder whether at that point, CT and VT might not just decide that they're done with Amtrak and look at running into GCT on that line.  Finding a third party operator to bid on running that train (or 1-2x additional day trains) doesn't seem absurd anymore, especially after Amtrak's PTC dance last year.  I guess it would all come down to the question of through traffic, but even then a transfer at STM or NHV isn't absurd to contemplate. 

What good does running to GCT accomplish when they would still have to operate on the Amtrak SPG line or the NHB line?

The more this develops, the more it really looks like CT is attempting to cover its tracks by pushing standing conditions on Amtrak instead of lengthening the consists.  If you know there are trains with standing conditions (meaning you underestimated the potential of the line or failed to manipulate equipment properly) add to the consists.

Clearly, they don't want to pay for it.

 

[jis]

I hasten to add that I very much doubt any of what Anderson says (and what I say in the message he responded to) will happen. What will happen is more cars will be found by CT to add to trains. This they have to find anyway. What they were trying to do is solve a problem by trying to trick Amtrak into giving them a freebie few more cars using the now popular technique of creating “fake news”. Possibly they will find a way to pay the rent for some more cars.

 

[user 14106]

What good does running to GCT accomplish when they would still have to operate on the Amtrak SPG line or the NHB line?
The more this develops, the more it really looks like CT is attempting to cover its tracks by pushing standing conditions on Amtrak instead of lengthening the consists.  If you know there are trains with standing conditions (meaning you underestimated the potential of the line or failed to manipulate equipment properly) add to the consists.
Clearly, they don't want to pay for it.

Is standing not allowed at all or just in vestibules?

 

[Anderson]

What good does running to GCT accomplish when they would still have to operate on the Amtrak SPG line or the NHB line?

The more this develops, the more it really looks like CT is attempting to cover its tracks by pushing standing conditions on Amtrak instead of lengthening the consists.  If you know there are trains with standing conditions (meaning you underestimated the potential of the line or failed to manipulate equipment properly) add to the consists.

Clearly, they don't want to pay for it.

This was under the presumption that Amtrak would be "losing" the Shuttles.  Whether that would result in some sort of transfer of the tracks themselves or not is probably an open question (my guess is "yes, but not immediately").  My presumption is that Amtrak would try to refuse to accommodate the train(s) south of NYP (they might be able to be forced into NYP, but I can't see Amtrak "playing well" with an outside contractor running trains south of there).  GCT isn't an ideal move,

The benefit, at that point, would be that CT (and MA and VT) are completely divorced from Amtrak on this operation (save for those shared stops along the MNRR portion of the NEC).

And...NHB line?  I know that MNRR has the line from NRO-NHV.  I am unclear at the ownership/control situation tracking from GCT to NRO (my impression was/is that MNRR controls its side of the approach there).

 

[railiner]

Metro North operates the entire line from GCT to NHV.   They own the line within New York State, and Connecticut owns the trackage within Connecticut.

Amtrak is a 'tenant' from NRO to NHV.

 

[user 14106]

An announcement was made today: https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=607248

Amtrak reservations on the two biggest problem trains 474 and 475 will now be capped to guarantee space for up to 72 CTrail passengers.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Well it’s movement. Just not sure how it solves the problem.  Seem ridership is too high for the amount of trains, and seats available.  People were likely gaming the system by buying Amtrak tickets. (Make sure they had a seat). So how does this capping of the tickets solved the capacity issue?

 

[Thirdrail7]

An announcement was made today: https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=607248

Amtrak reservations on the two biggest problem trains 474 and 475 will now be capped to guarantee space for up to 72 CTrail passengers.

I wonder how much they had to fork over for this. While it is still probably cheaper than leasing equipment, it is still limiting ridership on the line.

 

[user 14106]

I wonder how much they had to fork over for this. While it is still probably cheaper than leasing equipment, it is still limiting ridership on the line.

72 seems high. It would seem the smarter move would be to adjust it based on demand....if they don't get 72 CTrail passengers then those seats will be empty....With the number 72 it sounds like they basically limited Amtrak reservations to one full car. This sounds like a temporary measure until the equipment problem can be resolved...CTDOT does not have enough equipment to add anything - they cannot even yet restore full Shore Line East service as the article also mentions.

 

[Thirdrail7]

72 seems high. It would seem the smarter move would be to adjust it based on demand....if they don't get 72 CTrail passengers then those seats will be empty....With the number 72 it sounds like they basically limited Amtrak reservations to one full car.

That's what they did. However, adjusting the inventory "upon demand" is problematic when Amtrak passengers can make reservations 11 months in advance and you don't have a full comparative commuter history.

This sounds like a temporary measure until the equipment problem can be resolved...CTDOT does not have enough equipment to add anything - they cannot even yet restore full Shore Line East service as the article also mentions.

****cough cough Marc Cars cough cough****

 

[user 14106]

****cough cough Marc Cars cough cough****

It certainly sounds like the Marc Cars are the way to go! I wonder if that has been suggested to CDOT...

 

[neroden]

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).

 

See section 3(b).  To really know what's going on with the ticketing, we need to know every tarriff proposal which has been sent by CDOT to Amtrak, and which ones Amtrak responded to (since non-response is considered acceptance).  That's one heck of a weird clause.  If CDOT proposed an "all tickets are equal" tarriff and Amtrak accepted it, CDOT is on solid ground.

3(d), which Amtrak is leaning on when claiming "safety" concerns, is also phrased really weirdly, and I would have trouble interpreting its legal meaning.  First it says that Amtrak may unliaterally make changes which are necessary for safety, environmental, operational, or legal reasons.  Then it says "Amtrak and the states agree that said changes shall result from temporary and/or emergency conditions."  Which is a really weird way of putting it.  Does it mean that Amtrak can only do this for temporary/emergency conditions, or does it mean that the States stipulate that they will treat any such action as if it resulted from temporary/emergency conditions?

Section 1(c) seems to be the one where CDOT can request assignment of additional equipment or service (or less), and Amtrak is required to tell CDOT whether that is feasible, how much it will cost and when they can implement it.  We don't know whether this has been invoked.

Section 1(d) fixes the consist sizes to what they were in 2014 (as noted in appendix I A), unless the States and Amtrak agree to change it.  I don't know which trains are the overfull trains, but it would be interesting to compare that with the required 2014-era consists.  It *also* says that if the trains are full, the state can ask Amtrak to assign more equipment and

Amtrak shall endeavor to provide additional rail passenger serivce equipment from its available resources commensurate with the funding requirements of the Agreed 209 Methodology

I take this to mean that if the trains are full and CT requests longer consists, Amtrak *must* find the extra equipment, provided CT pays for it according to the standard "209" pricing.  (I.e., if the train is full and CT pays for more cars, they have to take that equipment away from the NEC -- no choice.)

Anyway, this gives more information, but absolutely does not give enough information to tell what the situation between CT and Amtrak actually is.  We don't know which clauses CT  has invoked or whether they have made the offer to pay for additional cars; we don't know what the active tarriff agreements between CT and Amtrak are; we don't even know what's in the renewed/modified contract.

There are definitely clauses in here which could put CT 100% in the right and Amtrak 100% in the wrong... or vice versa.  Depending on which of these clauses has been invoked so far, and in what manner.

 

[neroden]

An announcement was made today: https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=607248

Amtrak reservations on the two biggest problem trains 474 and 475 will now be capped to guarantee space for up to 72 CTrail passengers.

I note that train 474 doesn't even exist in the published version of the contract which specifies consists.  We really do not know the full sitaution here.

 

[Ryan]

I take this to mean that if the trains are full and CT requests longer consists, Amtrak *must* find the extra equipment, provided CT pays for it according to the standard "209" pricing.  (I.e., if the train is full and CT pays for more cars, they have to take that equipment away from the NEC -- no choice.)

That's not what the contract says.  With emphasis added:  "Amtrak shall endeavor to provide additional rail passenger serivce [sic] equipment from its available resources commensurate with the funding requirements of the Agreed 209 Methodology".

They have to try.  They don't actually have to provide anything.  They can look at their available equipment and say "sorry, we don't have it".  If they do provide it, then CT has to pay for them (which again, get your hands on the MARC cars already).

 

[user 14106]

I note that train 474 doesn't even exist in the published version of the contract which specifies consists.  We really do not know the full sitaution here.

474 did not exist at the time of that contract - 474 was added to the schedule on June 9th of this year as part of the expansion of the corridor.

 

[daybeers]

Would writing to any representatives suggesting the lease of MARC cars make any difference?

 

[Anderson]

That's not what the contract says.  With emphasis added:  "Amtrak shall endeavor to provide additional rail passenger serivce [sic] equipment from its available resources commensurate with the funding requirements of the Agreed 209 Methodology".

They have to try.  They don't actually have to provide anything.  They can look at their available equipment and say "sorry, we don't have it".  If they do provide it, then CT has to pay for them (which again, get your hands on the MARC cars already).

And of course, if they check their inventory and then tell Connecticut that it will be $2m/yr for each additional car they dig up, CT probably has the ability to pass.

I agree with MARC cars.  I also think that there's some other equipment out there that could be acquired (as discussed before), but almost regardless of what is put into service, CT clearly needs to find some equipment (whether it is RDCs/DMUs or generic cars).  They might seriously want to look at just flat-out re-equipping the Shuttles rather than playing a version of the Match Game with Amfleets, Metroliners, and other cars.

 

[cpotisch]

Would writing to any representatives suggesting the lease of MARC cars make any difference?

I really doubt it. I would be shocked if they haven't already thought of that, and I doubt that the lease commuter equipment to relieve over-capacity Shuttles is something your average congressman or senator wants on their mind. I mean, I don't think there would be any harm in it, but it's probably not worth the trouble.

 

[cpotisch]

(whether it is RDCs/DMUs or generic cars)

Are there any easily accessible, rail- and passenger-worthy RDCs out there that could be used here? There aren't any RDCs left in regular service anywhere, right?

 

[jebr]

I really doubt it. I would be shocked if they haven't already thought of that, and I doubt that the lease commuter equipment to relieve over-capacity Shuttles is something your average congressman or senator wants on their mind. I mean, I don't think there would be any harm in it, but it's probably not worth the trouble.

Eh, it probably wouldn't hurt to mention it to a state representative/senator. The districts are typically a lot smaller, and issues like this are a lot closer to home and important to them. I wouldn't go overboard with it, but an email expressing frustration with the crowding of the Shuttles and noting that you've heard the potential for using MARC rail cars wouldn't hurt, especially if the state rep that represents them serves on the committee that oversees transporation/CTRail. (I also wouldn't write a federal representative with the suggestion, since they're not really in the position to make that decision and typically have a lot more issues that they're working on.)

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Are there any easily accessible, rail- and passenger-worthy RDCs out there that could be used here? There aren't any RDCs left in regular service anywhere, right?

The Dallas Ft Worth TRE had RDC that have been sold to a Vermont company.  Not sure the status but some of them should be amost serviceable.  A inspection or two away from service.

Plenty of option just need some money.

 

[VTTrain]

The Dallas Ft Worth TRE had RDC that have been sold to a Vermont company.  

I believe that it is this Vermont company.

https://www.allearthrail.com/

 

[Anderson]

And those were precisely the cars I was thinking of.  I think they have a dozen or so.  Even a temporary (2-3 year) lease of part of the equipment pool while the rest of the equipment is sorted out would seem to be something that they'd probably dive at (since cash is cash and the cars are otherwise just sitting around while I don't see these guys getting service up and running next week).

I think I recall musing that if Amtrak up and decided not to run the Vermonter due to PTC issues or somesuch (as was threatened), Vermont should attempt to grab these and run the train without Amtrak (since a dozen RDCs would be more than enough to run a GCT/NHV-St. Alban's train once a day).