Amtrak Surplus Auctions

[Seaboard92]

I had a friend who bought his private car for three grand at a surplus auction. And with the recent retirements of heritage fleets disposal. I'm wondering if any of these will land there. I'm in the market for some cars for my charters. Better to own them and cut the middle man out of the equation

 

[A Voice]

It has been reported that Amtrak has already begun scrapping Heritage baggage cars, without offering any parts or cars for sale, apparently despite interested (or potentially interested) parties.

Such a waste.

 

[Chaz]

Gene Poon at TO posted that Amtrak refused to sell the old cars. It is now 3 pages! From Sept 24:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3850444

 

[neroden]

That's bizarre. I understand Amtrak wanting to scrap the bodies of the baggage cars -- they are not fit for service, they would require massive work just to bring them up to museum condition, and Amtrak never wants to see them again -- but I can't understand why Amtrak won't sell the PARTS. People will pay far more than scrap value for the parts, and honestly probably more than the car is worth in one piece. Once the body is torched, Amtrak is at no risk of having these show up as private cars or being asked to move them -- why not get extra cash by selling the parts?

I mean, I wouldn't keep the parts around for a long time if nobody buys them quickly, but if they sell in the first six months, that's cash in Amtrak's pocket, and if not, they can always be melted down later!

 

[R30A]

I believe the trucks have been sold from those cars. I doubt there was much else worth anything on them worth selling. IINM they were 1700 series cars, which have their own issues and liabilities which may make the desire to resell them rather small.

 

[neroden]

Good to hear the trucks are being sold. The trucks would have most of the viable parts. But I'd expect that there would also be a market for the diaphragms, battery boxes, electrical parts, parts from the decommissioned traps, parts from the coupler gear, grab handles... little parts. I may be wrong, but I've read that diaphragm parts for Budds are in short supply.

The 1700 series all have serious structural damage which is not repairable at any reasonable price, apparently. An effect of being converted from coaches -- a big hole cut in the side for the baggage door and then having much more weight put in them than they were built for. I understand Amtrak's desire to chop up the frames and bodies to prevent anyone from trying to use them in their damaged state, which could cause all kinds of headaches later.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

The 1700 series were never going to be preserved anyway, due to their condition. The other baggage cars might be better candidates. Hopefully Amtrak learns it's lesson not to convert coaches into baggage cars, although I've been wrong before. While we're on the subject, why did Amtrak convert those cars into baggage? They didn't have enough baggage cars at the time?

 

[lyke99]

The 1700s were converted to baggage cars during the Mail & Express era of the 1990s when Amtrak believed the "glide path to self-sufficiency" included carrying a lot of mail and packages.

 

[cirdan]

Why should Amtrak be afraid of these cars turning up as private varnish some years down the road?

Surely private varnish needs to be inspected and properly maintained and anybody attempting to restore one and then failing wouldn't get the car passed for use. Period.

Having said that, many a pretty dismal apology for a car has with sufficient love and care plus plenty of money and time been turned into something worthy of being proud of.

 

[Anderson]

As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.

It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.

 

[railiner]

As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.

It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.

That kind of reminds me of British Airways refusing to sell any of their retired Concorde's to Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic....they donated them to various museum's with the ironclad contract that they could not be sold to anyone that conceivably would return them to service...

 

[MikefromCrete]

As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.

It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.

These diners are really old with millions of miles on them. I don't think they would be of use to anybody but some museums for static display.

 

[Seaboard92]

I have a use for them. I need cars that can seat forty people ish for Christmas trains. Five to ten mile round trips. They meet my needs. Plus mainline football charters where I would be preparing good in them. And that would be all amtrak would see if them.

 

[Anderson]

As far as I can tell from Amtrak's statements in the fleet plan, they're afraid of a third-party operator putting together a competing fleet "on the cheap". Now, I've got my thoughts on that fear, but that and $2.00 will get me coffee in the cafe car...but the Heritage diners alone could be refurbished and equip a state-sponsored route somewhere.

It's a shame we couldn't put together a list of interested buyers and then leak that Amtrak had buyers willing to pay $X for cars and instead chose to scrap them for less.

These diners are really old with millions of miles on them. I don't think they would be of use to anybody but some museums for static display.

You know, all I have to say is that if someone is willing to pay Amtrak at least modestly above scrap value for it, why should Amtrak give a rat's ass why they want it? If the car will never meet Amtrak's PV standards, then let the would-be owner commit their own folly.

And railiner...thank you for, in one post, making British Airways an unacceptable airline for me to fly.

 

[Anderson]

Alright, I spoke with one of my Congressmen on the matter this afternoon. I've sent one of his aides an email (he's not on T&I but he's going to have his staff get up with another Congresscritter's staff...the other member being on T&I). Seaboard, if you could shoot me a PM I may need to put you in direct contact there.

 

[Ryan]

That's awesome, the one thing that can help Amtrak is more people from Congress asking questions and exercising questionable oversight.

 

[keelhauled]

I honestly never thought I'd see the day when someone advocated for *more* micromanagement of Amtrak operations.

 

[Anderson]

I honestly never thought I'd see the day when someone advocated for *more* micromanagement of Amtrak operations.

There's a lot I never thought I'd see before the last few months. All I can say is that Amtrak's dubious decisions never cease to astound me.

More to the point, this isn't an operational matter (where we've mostly complained about this sort of thing), it's acquisition and disposal of equipment. I do consider the two areas separate.

Finally, it falls under the banner of "dealing with third-party operators", somewhere I do want Amtrak to deal with a bit of micromanagement. From what I understand, Amtrak is infamous for refusing to confirm PV moves until the last minute and wildly changing cost estimates (I've heard a few cases of a fee going up by 50% out of nowhere). There have been a few cases where another operator wanted to run higher-frequency services and Amtrak nixed the idea for political reasons rather than operational ones (most obvious was the American Express situation back in the 80s).

While I can see Amtrak not wanting to assist in the rise of third-party operators, it's one of those few cases where they can truly cry me a river. While I understand where they are coming from, I am almost wholly unsympathetic to their position at this point. If a serious, worked-out bid came out for another company to take over one or more LD routes a la the Caledonian Sleeper operation (likely, as there, involving an equipment/operation subsidy), as long as the other company was willing to maintain or increase frequency, capacity, and amenities as well as keeping their train within the booking network (think IP's Hooiser State) the odds of me rushing to Amtrak's defense against them right now are quite negligible.

 

[jebr]

Honest question: do we know that 50-60 year old baggage cars are worth more than scrap value, and Amtrak is actively refusing to sell them to those interested parties?

I could see the logistics of scrapping it all, especially if the cost for scrap is comparable to selling them (there may be logistical issues for selling them to different parties instead of getting scrap value for them.) If there's truly parties that would pay significantly more than scrap for these baggage cars, and Amtrak is still scrapping them, then I could see some backlash, but all we have is rumors at this point (and around old baggage cars at that.)

 

[Anderson]

Honest question: do we know that 50-60 year old baggage cars are worth more than scrap value, and Amtrak is actively refusing to sell them to those interested parties?

I could see the logistics of scrapping it all, especially if the cost for scrap is comparable to selling them (there may be logistical issues for selling them to different parties instead of getting scrap value for them.) If there's truly parties that would pay significantly more than scrap for these baggage cars, and Amtrak is still scrapping them, then I could see some backlash, but all we have is rumors at this point (and around old baggage cars at that.)

As I think I indicated, if it's just junking the baggage cars and there's nobody who wants to refurb them and use them and is willing to pay more than scrap, that's fine. What would, at least to me, make more sense is Amtrak having some (publicly accessible) corner of their website where they list equipment that's to be scrapped (frankly, in most cases simply listing the equipment type and number would tell folks all they needed) and putting a minimum purchase price that is some amount above scrapping with the proviso that the buyer is responsible for transporting the cars away, etc. Feel free to require some sort of deposit to inspect the car(s) so as to avoid getting a bunch of railfans coming in (or to at least make some money off of them).

The issue is that Amtrak put blanket language in place regarding all of the Heritage equipment (that they don't want to operate the equipment after they dispose of it or somesuch) and so I believe that a presumption towards them disposing of stuff via scrapping is entirely fair.

 

[keelhauled]

The issue is that Amtrak put blanket language in place regarding all of the Heritage equipment (that they don't want to operate the equipment after they dispose of it or somesuch) and so I believe that a presumption towards them disposing of stuff via scrapping is entirely fair.

As quoted from the fleet plan from March 2012, Amtrak has determined that "from a cash return perspective, it may be more advantageous for Amtrak to sell retired equipment versus the value we receive when scrapping equipment" and "Amtrak has decided to store retired equipment and entertain the sale of equipment on a case-by-case basis."

Finally, it falls under the banner of "dealing with third-party operators", somewhere I do want Amtrak to deal with a bit of micromanagement. From what I understand, Amtrak is infamous for refusing to confirm PV moves until the last minute and wildly changing cost estimates (I've heard a few cases of a fee going up by 50% out of nowhere). There have been a few cases where another operator wanted to run higher-frequency services and Amtrak nixed the idea for political reasons rather than operational ones (most obvious was the American Express situation back in the 80s).

Uh huh. Perhaps if Amtrak was in the business of moving private cars I might care, but as far as I know they're supposed to be transporting paying passengers. If you're suggesting that their mission is supposed to be expanded to accommodate private varnish more often, then I think that is one of the most backwards ideas I have recently heard. Public money should not be used to support the movement of private railcars at the cost of public transportation. It shouldn't even be on the same level. If Amtrak is able to supply locomotives/transportation for private use without disrupting normal operations, fine, more revenue is always good, but it should be accommodated at Amtrak's leisure, and should never take priority over the business of moving people.

While I can see Amtrak not wanting to assist in the rise of third-party operators, it's one of those few cases where they can truly cry me a river. While I understand where they are coming from, I am almost wholly unsympathetic to their position at this point. If a serious, worked-out bid came out for another company to take over one or more LD routes a la the Caledonian Sleeper operation (likely, as there, involving an equipment/operation subsidy), as long as the other company was willing to maintain or increase frequency, capacity, and amenities as well as keeping their train within the booking network (think IP's Hooiser State) the odds of me rushing to Amtrak's defense against them right now are quite negligible.

I don't understand this. None of the Heritage cars can actually transport people without gutting and rebuilding the car. Considering one can google "passenger railcars for sale" and find dozens of cars for sale, it seems that anyone with a burning desire to try and build trainsets of vintage equipment has the ability to do so. The fact no one has seems to suggest that Amtrak is not the limiting factor.

 

[Seaboard92]

Honestly the baggage cars of the 17xx have no interest to me. Now some of the ones built as a bag car might have some. For storage or convert to a HEP car. I'm only after the diners. Two diners would help my football trains out as the plan is for one to operate as just a bar no food. And the other to be just good no drinks. And the Christmas trains. Just seating and prep space

 

[Anderson]

I'm not going to suggest that their primary mission should be hauling PV operations. However, I do believe that there are cases where Amtrak can facilitate such moves to significant advantage for themselves. The haulage fees might not be the sole reason for Amtrak to run a train, but so long as those fees more than offset any net expenses (e.g. additional fuel consumption) there's no good reason for Amtrak not to take steps to be as cooperative with such operators in running operations on otherwise regularly-scheduled trains. Moreover, at super-peak times when Amtrak can reasonably expect to outstrip their existing equipment capabilities (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) I see no reason that Amtrak shouldn't be aggressively courting such operators and working with AAPRCO and others to coordinate (and somehow give a listing of) extra capacity to deal with excess demand. Every thousand-mile car haul is worth around $2800 in revenue for Amtrak; I would presume that this rate is high enough to cover expected costs. [1]

So do I believe Amtrak's mission should cover this? As long as it can be done in a way which results in a net reduction in Amtrak's operating subsidy needs, hell yes. This isn't the mail/express boondoggle...this is something that Amtrak, to my knowledge, has more or less always done and has been more than happy to pocket the money from. Amtrak should price such moves so that they reduce Amtrak's subsidy needs and work to support and encourage such moves so as to maximize such reductions. At that point I don't think it's "supporting private car owners moving their cars around" so much as it is "cooperating with potential business partners to mutual profit". Amtrak's record on this front is a bit touch-and-go to put it mildly.

I'd also point out that if a third-party operator were able to profitably run a set of cars on the back of Train X, almost regardless of which train Train X happens to be, their ability to do so could (and should) be used to underline any mix of equipment/capacity shortages [2], demand for better classes of service [3], and so on. If Amtrak's fear is that someone might put together a business model to compete with them on those (per their accounting money-losing) LD routes, I'd argue that they are most assuredly going about dealing with that concern in absolutely the wrong way.

For what it is worth, there are also cases where Amtrak could seek to improve "through-ticketing" revenue. There is frankly no good reason that Saratoga and North Creek shouldn't be in the timetable (or any other co-located tourist train that goes somewhere) and/or available for through-ticketing (e.g. a ticket which is NYP-SAR on Amtrak and then SAR-North Creek on the Saratoga and North Creek). Long-term I'll grant that All Aboard Florida, Texas Central, and whatever form CAHSR ultimately takes may be a slightly different kettle of fish...but working to co-list services in exchange for nominal referral fees would seem to be worth it for both parties. My understanding is that Ed Ellis would absolutely LOVE this and that the hangup is on Amtrak's end.

This is to say nothing of potential partnerships between Amtrak and Greyhound...though in this particular case, things are getting better (Amtrak seems to slowly be adding more Greyhound buses to their Thruway network, for example). Even if it were simply a matter of cross-listing non-contracted connecting services going places Amtrak doesn't (e.g. Jefferson Lines from Osceola to Des Moines comes to mind) it would certainly help with major connectivity gaps in the system. Look over at Swadian's posts and see just how thin Greyhound's network is getting...and the two companies often only vaguely cover the same cities (e.g. Greyhound's Chicago-Denver service stops in Omaha as well, but their routing is basically the ex-Rock Island/Union Pacific routing rather than Amtrak's ex-CBQ routing) and in some cases, such as Atlanta-Florida, there is functionally no competition between the two (yes, you can book ATL-JAX on Amtrak, but you end up going in a rather "special" way to get from A to B which is going to run off most non-railfan travelers).

[1] http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/892/360/Private-Car-Tariff-Rates-Addendum-3.pdf

[2] Which are manifest throughout the system.

[3] Something which also stands out in many places. The fact that there is generally no "upgrade class" available beyond a highly mediocre "Business Class" even on some very-long-haul routes (and not even that on at least one route) seems to me to be facepalm-worthy. That the BC offering in question is usually a surcharge of about 25% versus coach pricing is actually rather stunning considering what "First" or "Business" on an airline will often fetch.

 

[keelhauled]

Indeed I agree that Amtrak is perfectly free to move private cars. My point is that this is (I would hope) a highly secondary aspect to their operation, and the thought of having close government control over it makes me uncomfortable. Sure, there are areas in which Amtrak could use more oversight, but of all the crosses to nail oneself to, supporting private car movement seems...minor.

I'm not going to suggest that their primary mission should be hauling PV operations. However, I do believe that there are cases where Amtrak can facilitate such moves to significant advantage for themselves. The haulage fees might not be the sole reason for Amtrak to run a train, but so long as those fees more than offset any net expenses (e.g. additional fuel consumption) there's no good reason for Amtrak not to take steps to be as cooperative with such operators in running operations on otherwise regularly-scheduled trains. Moreover, at super-peak times when Amtrak can reasonably expect to outstrip their existing equipment capabilities (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) I see no reason that Amtrak shouldn't be aggressively courting such operators and working with AAPRCO and others to coordinate (and somehow give a listing of) extra capacity to deal with excess demand. Every thousand-mile car haul is worth around $2800 in revenue for Amtrak; I would presume that this rate is high enough to cover expected costs. [1]

Are you saying that Amtrak should hire private equipment to add capacity? Despite the fact that private cars have less revenue space available, are unfamiliar to Amtrak crews, and don't fit into Amtrak service classes?

I'd also point out that if a third-party operator were able to profitably run a set of cars on the back of Train X, almost regardless of which train Train X happens to be, their ability to do so could (and should) be used to underline any mix of equipment/capacity shortages [2], demand for better classes of service [3], and so on. If Amtrak's fear is that someone might put together a business model to compete with them on those (per their accounting money-losing) LD routes, I'd argue that they are most assuredly going about dealing with that concern in absolutely the wrong way.

Is this not exactly what Iowa Pacific is doing on the CONO? And one-off runs on the CZ/to Florida?

For what it is worth, there are also cases where Amtrak could seek to improve "through-ticketing" revenue. There is frankly no good reason that Saratoga and North Creek shouldn't be in the timetable (or any other co-located tourist train that goes somewhere) and/or available for through-ticketing (e.g. a ticket which is NYP-SAR on Amtrak and then SAR-North Creek on the Saratoga and North Creek). Long-term I'll grant that All Aboard Florida, Texas Central, and whatever form CAHSR ultimately takes may be a slightly different kettle of fish...but working to co-list services in exchange for nominal referral fees would seem to be worth it for both parties. My understanding is that Ed Ellis would absolutely LOVE this and that the hangup is on Amtrak's end.

Yes, I completely agree with this. I doubt it would add too much revenue, but I would expect there to be some, and I can't see a downside to it.

 

[cirdan]

Honestly the baggage cars of the 17xx have no interest to me. Now some of the ones built as a bag car might have some. For storage or convert to a HEP car. I'm only after the diners. Two diners would help my football trains out as the plan is for one to operate as just a bar no food. And the other to be just good no drinks. And the Christmas trains. Just seating and prep space

Have you approached Amtrak about this.

If you are able to make a serious offer they might well be open to reconsidering their scrap policy?