Any missing trains today (Oct 1)?

[Guest]

Sorry Ontario is a province in Canada not a state. :blink: Boy you must have flunked out in Geography!

I thought Canada was the 51st state of the US? :giggle:

So, that makes Canada the 51st Province? :blink:

 

[Eric S]

I thought Illinois was rail-friendly? How could they not have an agreement?

I think one could consider CA, IL, and NY to be rail-friendly (generally) and yet agreements have not been reached (for CA, I believe 2 of the 3 corridors do not have agreements yet). Difficult, protracted negotiations do not necessarily imply un-rail-friendliness (so to speak).

 

[MikefromCrete]

Maple Leaf would be an interesting case study. It goes through two states, though one is in another country. It may be difficult to make this one an exclusively New York sponsored train. Does Canada pay for any part of it, or does Amtrak pay Canada?

The Canadian portion of the trip is a VIA train.

 

[Anderson]

I thought Illinois was rail-friendly? How could they not have an agreement?

IL and CA being locked up doesn't surprise me now that I think about it. My guess is that both states are having a go with Amtrak over capital charges...unlike a number of other states, they're in the process of acquiring their own equipment to replace the remnants of Amtrak's cars (and starting the process of replacing locomotives) on their routes. As such, they're likely arguing (and not without merit IMHO) that they shouldn't be forking over full replacement-level costs for cars that are basically going to be back in Amtrak's hands in a few years when (albeit by way of mixed state/federal funding) they've already forked over for new cars. IIRC, IL is the biggest buyer of these cars (they're planning to operate five routes with them) and CA is second (MI being third).

The other possible hangup in CA's case may be accounting on the "California Cars" versus Superliners and/or Amfleets. It's possible that they're fighting over what charges apply where.

 

[MikefromCrete]

I thought Illinois was rail-friendly? How could they not have an agreement?

The big problem seems to be that the Illinois sponsored routes run on the same lines as Amtrak long distance trains, so the hurdle is probably cost allocation.

 

[Anderson]

I thought Illinois was rail-friendly? How could they not have an agreement?

The big problem seems to be that the Illinois sponsored routes run on the same lines as Amtrak long distance trains, so the hurdle is probably cost allocation.

Good call on this; hadn't actually thought about that, but I've seen footnotes in a few press releases showing the total ridership on those routes in addition to the LD and corridor trains being listed separately. There may be some level of fighting over elements of this in CA, as the Starlight shares a lot of territory with other trains. New York would fall in this category as well (the LSL serves almost all of the Empire Corridor), and it's possible there's some overhanging element of squabbling over the Ethan Allen as well (not to mention that I can see fighting over capital charges on the Maple Leaf).

 

[jis]

The last time I talked to someone in the know about New York, I got the impression that there was no disagreement on operating charges. The big hangup was capital. They have had a lot of past practice in divvying up operating charges between subsidized and non-subsidized trains, so it does not surprise me that they came to a quick agreement on the operating charges.

 

[user 1215]

Maple Leaf would be an interesting case study. It goes through two states, though one is in another country. It may be difficult to make this one an exclusively New York sponsored train. Does Canada pay for any part of it, or does Amtrak pay Canada?

The Canadian portion of the trip is a VIA train.

Well, yes it is. However it is Amtrak Equipment and it has to get there. Via will not run it by itself, I don't think.

Maple Leaf would be an interesting case study. It goes through two states, though one is in another country. It may be difficult to make this one an exclusively New York sponsored train. Does Canada pay for any part of it, or does Amtrak pay Canada?

Sorry Ontario is a province in Canada not a state. :blink: Boy you must have flunked out in Geography!

I thought Canada was the 51st state of the US? :giggle:

Now now now... A distinction without a difference in light of the current conversation.

 

[jis]

Maple Leaf would be an interesting case study. It goes through two states, though one is in another country. It may be difficult to make this one an exclusively New York sponsored train. Does Canada pay for any part of it, or does Amtrak pay Canada?

The Canadian portion of the trip is a VIA train.

Well, yes it is. However it is Amtrak Equipment and it has to get there. Via will not run it by itself, I don't think.

But then again GO might run it. Anyway, it is a Canadian problem and has no bearing on PRIIA 209 or New York funding.
VIA could choose to discontinue it anyway and let GO run the NFS service even if New York continues to run its train to NFL or NFS. The Canadian section could become a GO operation as an Amtrak run through. Almost anything is possible given the direction VIA is heading.

So no, as far as PRIIA related negotiations are concerned, the Maple Leaf does not present a case that is any more interesting than any other New York train as far as New York or Amtrak is concerned.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

[

New Hampshire is a weird one. It's been freeloading on Massachusetts and Maine. I believe that Massachusetts and Maine are continuing to let it freeload. The PRIIA rules on cost allocation do NOT require that all of the involved states on a route pay for the train, nor do they require that costs be allocated fairly between multiple states on a route.

Maine has agreed to pay for the Downeaster through NH. That only leaves a short stretch of the Vermonter in NH, which I'd guess/think VT would pay for rather than having the Vermonter end in Bellows Falls to the south and White River Jct. to the north.

 

[battalion51]

Is there a provision for states that don't want to pay for service to just have their state bypassed from service. For example the Vermonter could just bypass Claremont (i.e. not stop). But in some cases the stop in another state may better serve the residents from the neighboring state.

 

[Anderson]

Is there a provision for states that don't want to pay for service to just have their state bypassed from service. For example the Vermonter could just bypass Claremont (i.e. not stop). But in some cases the stop in another state may better serve the residents from the neighboring state.

It could do so, but it's very likely that the incremental revenue from intermediate stops would make skipping them, in many cases, more of a rhetorical exercise than anything.

 

[afigg]

Good call on this; hadn't actually thought about that, but I've seen footnotes in a few press releases showing the total ridership on those routes in addition to the LD and corridor trains being listed separately.

When you think about the routes, almost all the state corridor routes are shared or share stations with LD trains. The Downeaster is the only corridor service that does not at some point. The MI trains overlap with the CL and LSL, the Ethan Allen overlaps with the LSL, VA & NC have multiple LD routes. Since most states have signed, they have worked out a cost allocation formula.

What NY, IL, and CA for the Surfliner & San Joaquin have in common are multiple services, multiple daily frequencies, a lot of equipment making for more complex negotiations. More to haggle over.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

It was at Trains News Wire where I read that NY is kicking in $800,000 for the Ethan Allen, while VT's agreed to tony up $2,000,000 for the Vermonter, though no mention if they are covering the Vermonter in NH.

If I could spell, I'd be dangerous... or maybe I'm dangerous because I can't spell...

 

[Bob Dylan]

Good call on this; hadn't actually thought about that, but I've seen footnotes in a few press releases showing the total ridership on those routes in addition to the LD and corridor trains being listed separately.

When you think about the routes, almost all the state corridor routes are shared or share stations with LD trains. The Downeaster is the only corridor service that does not at some point. The MI trains overlap with the CL and LSL, the Ethan Allen overlaps with the LSL, VA & NC have multiple LD routes. Since most states have signed, they have worked out a cost allocation formula.

What NY, IL, and CA for the Surfliner & San Joaquin have in common are multiple services, multiple daily frequencies, a lot of equipment making for more complex negotiations. More to haggle over.

Don't forget the Heartland Flyer from FTW-OKC which is funded by Oklahoma and Texas and doesnt Share Tracks with a LD Train except @ the FTW Station where the Eagles Call!!

 

[The Davy Crockett]

From Albany, NY's timesunion.com: Amtrak, state close to a deal

From the article:

"We believe we're getting close," an Amtrak official said late Tuesday afternoon.

A New York State Department of Transportation spokesman echoed that view.

"We are very close to an agreement; I can't put an exact time frame on it, but we are confident that an agreement will soon be in place and there will be no impact to service," said DOT spokesman Beau Duffy.

 

[jis]

That's about exactly what they said six weeks back too. So that is not really much of a news.

 

[Bob Dylan]

To paraphrase Bill Clinton: "It depends on what your Definition of "Soon" is!?" h34r:

 

[battalion51]

Could you define the word, "Alone?"

 

[SubwayNut]

Yet again the Times Union didn't get permission to get photos from the platforms at ALB, more shots of travelers in the overpass boarding areas and trains viewed from public areas.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

That's about exactly what they said six weeks back too. So that is not really much of a news.

I disagree. Like Indiana, the fact that they are still negotiating and that these negotiations are ongoing, and in the right direction, unlike the budget mess in DC, is at least some "much of a news."

BTW, Trains felt that this article was newsworthy enough to include it at its News Wire yesterday evening.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

The Albany Times Union is reporting that Amtrak and NY have reached an agreement.

 

[jis]

Now that is news and good one at that

Looks like someone in New York earned their keep. The net amount appears to be a couple of million less than what they were fearing it might be. Perhaps ridership and revenue gains played a role. Last year the Adirondack also happened to turn out to be over-funded. Maybe now there is some hope for food on the Albany trains!

 

[Anderson]

So this presumably leaves IN and IL?

Edit: And CA-Surfliner+CA-San Joaquin, too, IIRC.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Now that is news and good one at that

Looks like someone in New York earned their keep. The net amount appears to be a couple of million less than what they were fearing it might be. Perhaps ridership and revenue gains played a role. Last year the Adirondack also happened to turn out to be over-funded. Maybe now there is some hope for food on the Albany trains!

Agreed! :hi:

And as Anderson alludes to, where does the next domino fall? :unsure: