California Railpac News for July

[RTOlson]

I agree -- the Coast Line has several single-track areas that likely limit rail traffic somewhat.

One of the articles I found last night mentioned that UP wanted two sidings added before CalTrain could extend south. I don't know where that project is right now.

I know UP's relationship with Amtrak and passenger rail hasn't exactly been a walk in the park, but the relationship can work and it has worked along the Capitol Corridor. I would hope that this relationship could expand north to Redding and east to Reno (as well as along the Coast Line), but I guess those are works in progress.

 

[DET63]

What was Southern Pacific's relationship with Amtrak like prior to its merger with Union Pacific? Much of the CS route in California is former SP territory.

 

[jackal]

Certainly the reports I see of movements along the Coast Line aren't representative of a highly-trafficked line--a few mixed manifests and empty stack trains are the bulk of the traffic.

I'm no fan of UP... but there's only so much you can stuff down a small pipe.

Yeah, but surely it can handle more than the current 10-12 trains per day (2 Starlights, 4 Surfliners, and maybe 4-6 freights with a couple of locals mixed in).

I agree -- the Coast Line has several single-track areas that likely limit rail traffic somewhat.
One of the articles I found last night mentioned that UP wanted two sidings added before CalTrain could extend south. I don't know where that project is right now.

I know UP's relationship with Amtrak and passenger rail hasn't exactly been a walk in the park, but the relationship can work and it has worked along the Capitol Corridor. I would hope that this relationship could expand north to Redding and east to Reno (as well as along the Coast Line), but I guess those are works in progress.

Amtrak California pays UP a premium for that usage, and therefore UP gladly obliges the use of their tracks.

They're less obliging when paying the minimum amount that regular Amtrak pays. So it becomes a question of cost vs. benefit--should Amtrak pay more than they currently do to get better treatment? Would it set a bad precedent for Amtrak (suddenly they're committed to spending more nationwide, thereby greatly increasing their costs)?

 

[AlanB]

I agree -- the Coast Line has several single-track areas that likely limit rail traffic somewhat.
One of the articles I found last night mentioned that UP wanted two sidings added before CalTrain could extend south. I don't know where that project is right now.

I know UP's relationship with Amtrak and passenger rail hasn't exactly been a walk in the park, but the relationship can work and it has worked along the Capitol Corridor. I would hope that this relationship could expand north to Redding and east to Reno (as well as along the Coast Line), but I guess those are works in progress.

Amtrak California pays UP a premium for that usage, and therefore UP gladly obliges the use of their tracks.

They're less obliging when paying the minimum amount that regular Amtrak pays. So it becomes a question of cost vs. benefit--should Amtrak pay more than they currently do to get better treatment? Would it set a bad precedent for Amtrak (suddenly they're committed to spending more nationwide, thereby greatly increasing their costs)?

Amtrak is only obligated to pay more for passenger routes that didn't exist at the time of the take over from the freight RR's. So agreeing to pay more for a new route doesn't obligate them to pay more for say the CZ.

 

[jackal]

I agree -- the Coast Line has several single-track areas that likely limit rail traffic somewhat.
One of the articles I found last night mentioned that UP wanted two sidings added before CalTrain could extend south. I don't know where that project is right now.

I know UP's relationship with Amtrak and passenger rail hasn't exactly been a walk in the park, but the relationship can work and it has worked along the Capitol Corridor. I would hope that this relationship could expand north to Redding and east to Reno (as well as along the Coast Line), but I guess those are works in progress.

Amtrak California pays UP a premium for that usage, and therefore UP gladly obliges the use of their tracks.

They're less obliging when paying the minimum amount that regular Amtrak pays. So it becomes a question of cost vs. benefit--should Amtrak pay more than they currently do to get better treatment? Would it set a bad precedent for Amtrak (suddenly they're committed to spending more nationwide, thereby greatly increasing their costs)?

Amtrak is only obligated to pay more for passenger routes that didn't exist at the time of the take over from the freight RR's. So agreeing to pay more for a new route doesn't obligate them to pay more for say the CZ.

No, but it would send a message that Amtrak is willing to pay more for better service...meaning the railroads who are getting paid the legal minimum will be more likely run Amtrak poorly in hopes they'd then increase the payments to them. It undercuts the other argument Amtrak and the STB has been trying to make, that Amtrak should be given priority even at the minimum payment levels.

 

[RTOlson]

For many of these Northern California routes, we're not even to the point of discussing increased payments. IIRC, Union Pacific doesn't currently want to enter discussions about expanding passenger service along specific routes (such as from Sacramento to Redding).

 

[sechs]

One of the articles I found last night mentioned that UP wanted two sidings added before CalTrain could extend south. I don't know where that project is right now.

South to where? Caltrain already runs to Gilroy during commute hours.

 

[sechs]

Amtrak California pays UP a premium for that usage, and therefore UP gladly obliges the use of their tracks.

I'm not sure what UP is being paid for the Capitol Corridor service, but, given a choice between playing with the state and having them simply condemn the tracks, the choice is easy.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I agree -- the Coast Line has several single-track areas that likely limit rail traffic somewhat.
One of the articles I found last night mentioned that UP wanted two sidings added before CalTrain could extend south. I don't know where that project is right now.

I know UP's relationship with Amtrak and passenger rail hasn't exactly been a walk in the park, but the relationship can work and it has worked along the Capitol Corridor. I would hope that this relationship could expand north to Redding and east to Reno (as well as along the Coast Line), but I guess those are works in progress.

Amtrak California pays UP a premium for that usage, and therefore UP gladly obliges the use of their tracks.

They're less obliging when paying the minimum amount that regular Amtrak pays. So it becomes a question of cost vs. benefit--should Amtrak pay more than they currently do to get better treatment? Would it set a bad precedent for Amtrak (suddenly they're committed to spending more nationwide, thereby greatly increasing their costs)?

Amtrak is only obligated to pay more for passenger routes that didn't exist at the time of the take over from the freight RR's. So agreeing to pay more for a new route doesn't obligate them to pay more for say the CZ.

No, but it would send a message that Amtrak is willing to pay more for better service...meaning the railroads who are getting paid the legal minimum will be more likely run Amtrak poorly in hopes they'd then increase the payments to them. It undercuts the other argument Amtrak and the STB has been trying to make, that Amtrak should be given priority even at the minimum payment levels.

Better, the STB should send a message that if people run Amtrak train's poorly, a 500% refund of trackage charges will be assessed for on time performance below 95%. For every 5% below 95% the percentage of refund is squared, and charges handled pro-rata. Watch how fast Amtrak will find its train's on time.

 

[sechs]

No, but it would send a message that Amtrak is willing to pay more for better service...

I'll backtrack us to point out that Amtrak doesn't have the agreement for the Capitol Corridor; the CCJPA does.
Perhaps this is more of a model of how Amtrak's relationships with its hosts should work, not how they can or will work.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak California pays UP a premium for that usage, and therefore UP gladly obliges the use of their tracks.

I'm not sure what UP is being paid for the Capitol Corridor service, but, given a choice between playing with the state and having them simply condemn the tracks, the choice is easy.

The state cannot condemn the tracks, as they fall under Federal juridisction. The state doesn't even have the right to inspect the tracks, much less condemn them, only the Fed does.

I suppose that the state could try and take such a case to a Federal court, assuming that they could find some standing to do so, but I rather doubt that they'd have much of a chance of winning.

 

[tp49]

For many of these Northern California routes, we're not even to the point of discussing increased payments. IIRC, Union Pacific doesn't currently want to enter discussions about expanding passenger service along specific routes (such as from Sacramento to Redding).

Is there honestly a market for additional service between Sacramento and Redding? I wouldn't think the population heading in that direction would dictate a need.

 

[tp49]

Amtrak California pays UP a premium for that usage, and therefore UP gladly obliges the use of their tracks.

I'm not sure what UP is being paid for the Capitol Corridor service, but, given a choice between playing with the state and having them simply condemn the tracks, the choice is easy.

The state cannot condemn the tracks, as they fall under Federal juridisction. The state doesn't even have the right to inspect the tracks, much less condemn them, only the Fed does.

I suppose that the state could try and take such a case to a Federal court, assuming that they could find some standing to do so, but I rather doubt that they'd have much of a chance of winning.

I found an interesting webpage from the DOT on the subject. It can be found here. It appears to be a responses from a question posed by the State of Illinois.

As pertains to California:

CALIFORNIANo. The question of Authority is an interesting one though. Since we do not propose to interfere with Interstate Transportation then I don't think the State Transportation Board (STB) would get involved. The RR could always make an argument before the STB, and it would take some time (Months) to resolve.

The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) only gets involved in reviewing the Safety of the alterations / improvements / new construction at road / RR intersections, not on the right to take.

You are correct that the CPUC does not have prescriptive jurisdiction over takings. Interesting questions indeed. With respect to the STB, the current trend is to restrict the formerly expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, but the contection is moving very slowly: a RR could probably argue successfully that interstate commerce is implicated.

In plain english what this is saying is if the state tried to condemn raliroad property the railroad would argue that the state action was in violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution as this could be viewed as a substantial interference with interstate commerce. Interesting read to see how the states handle this situation.

 

[RTOlson]

South to where? Caltrain already runs to Gilroy during commute hours.

Caltrain has plans to extend south to Monterey County with a Salinas terminus (and possibly include a Hollister spur and weekend service to Santa Cruz), according to this Wikipedia summary.

There's more information on the Transportation Agency for Monterey County Web site.

Apparently Caltrain has trackage rights from San Jose to Gilroy. I don't know what the deal is south of that point.

Is there honestly a market for additional service between Sacramento and Redding? I wouldn't think the population heading in that direction would dictate a need.

There aren't any megacities on the route, but Caltrans had some interesting figures. Until the recent real-estate bust, it was considered a rapidly growing area (especially the cities of Yuba City-Marysville, about 50 miles outside of SAC). The Chico urban area has about 100,000 and the Redding urban area has about 85,000.

In addition to growing population, Sacramento-Redding was a fairly popular route. In its California State Rail Plan, Caltrans states the route is the second busiest "California-dedicated" Thruway route after Bakersfield-Los Angeles with five daily round-trips serving 104,000 passengers in 2005-06 (it's now four daily round-trips due to cutbacks). Coast Starlight also had 13,176 passengers at Chico and Redding in that year.

BFD-LAX served 249,266 passengers in 2005-06. Although Caltrans doesn't appear to count it as part of Amtrak California operations, the EMY-SF route served 250,372 passengers in ’05-06 (based on the number of pax starting and ending their trip in San Francisco).

Subsequently, Caltrans has identified the Sacramento-Redding route as one of three routes where it can expand intercity service by 2018. It is third on the list in terms of when Caltrans believes it can implement it -- after San Francisco-SLO-Los Angeles via Coast Line and Sacramento-Reno. (The report also looks at other potential services, including high-speed rail.)

Caltrans proposed to have one train roundtrip daily between Sacramento and Redding by 2016. It would compliment the existing motorcoach routes (and the overnight Coast Starlight runs).

Unfortunately, future study has been put off for now.

The Department had planned a further study on this Route in 2005, which was deferred due to the UP’s decision not to consider operation of new passenger trains at this time.

As for why, the pre-recession report states why UP isn't considering the Sacramento-Reno passenger route -- the company made a business decision to focus on addressing increased freight demand.

That's what I found and it got me hoping for a daytime SAC-RDD train, but the report is frank in discussing some of the hurdles.

 

[sechs]

In plain english what this is saying is if the state tried to condemn raliroad property the railroad would argue that the state action was in violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution as this could be viewed as a substantial interference with interstate commerce. Interesting read to see how the states handle this situation.

Really, this would simply lead to an agreement (or judgment) as to how the state should treat freight on any lines it takes.
We can see how well this kind of thing has worked for Amtrak, however.

 

[sechs]

South to where? Caltrain already runs to Gilroy during commute hours.

Caltrain has plans to extend south to Monterey County with a Salinas terminus (and possibly include a Hollister spur and weekend service to Santa Cruz), according to this Wikipedia summary.

There's more information on the Transportation Agency for Monterey County Web site.

Apparently Caltrain has trackage rights from San Jose to Gilroy. I don't know what the deal is south of that point.

It's confusing that you used the term "extension" when I've seen no plan for the Salinas service that goes beyond San Jose.
We don't call the Dunbarton rail plan an extension of Caltrain east, even though its route plans to intertwine with Caltrain in a far more serious way.

 

[RTOlson]

I was perplexed at your confusion about an "extension," but I think I got your point -- it's not easily found as part of Caltrain's current capital projects. I see some media accounts (and Wikipedia) mentioning Caltrain and south of Gilroy, but it seems like it's a third-party project.

I think it's interesting that I can't seem to find similar information browsing directly on the Caltrain Web site. However, this Google search of Caltrain.com comes up with stuff, such as this tidbit from a Feb. 2007 board meeting:

There has been increased media coverage on rail service to Monterey County from Gilroy. Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) first needs to authorize an agreement with Union Pacific and then Caltrain. Caltrain will only agree to operations on the right of way if the service is revenue neutral and will not interfere with regular Caltrain service.

The project is also discussed in several Caltrain strategic documents (referring to it and others as third-party projects). Here is a grab from 2004-2023 plan:

Please note that Caltrain refers to these third-party projects as extensions. I don't want to get into an utterly precedented discussion about what words mean, but I think there's some room for flexibility about what is considered an extension (especially when the agency itself uses the term).

 

[jackal]

No, but it would send a message that Amtrak is willing to pay more for better service...

I'll backtrack us to point out that Amtrak doesn't have the agreement for the Capitol Corridor; the CCJPA does.
Perhaps this is more of a model of how Amtrak's relationships with its hosts should work, not how they can or will work.

Indeed. I was referring to a more general increase in Amtrak service, such as an extension of Amtrak service up the coast from L.A. (i.e. the Coast Daylight), that is not under the CCJPA.

If Amtrak proper (not the CCJPA, Amtrak California, or any other local subdivision of Amtrak or state governments) opts to pay more for track usage, it would set an expensive precedent. Perhaps not a bad precedent--just an expensive one.

 

[sechs]

Please note that Caltrain refers to these third-party projects as extensions. I don't want to get into an utterly precedented discussion about what words mean, but I think there's some room for flexibility about what is considered an extension (especially when the agency itself uses the term).

Extensions from Caltrain or, perhaps by Caltrain, but not extensions of Caltrain.

 

[DET63]

Sacramento-Redding considerations:

1. Isn't the line single-track almost all of the way? If so, would double-tracking it make it more attractive for additional passenger rail service?
   
2. Chico State is in Chico (duh!). Would starting a weekend service attract enough college students to build up a ridership base in a Sacramento-Redding corridor?
   
3. Would a Redding-Chico-Marysville/Yuba City to Sacramento service have convenient connections to San Joaquin and/or Capitol Corridor services, as well as to the CZ (especially to trains going to and coming from the east)?
   

 

[RTOlson]

Extensions from Caltrain or, perhaps by Caltrain, but not extensions of Caltrain.

Huh, I must be slow because I just realized what you might be talking about. Are you saying that these extensions aren't extensions from the current Caltrain route and service because it hasn't been discussed about how Caltrain might integrate them into the system if they should happen? Are you suggesting the possibility that a northbound Salinas train would terminate in San Jose where passengers would have to transfer to a proper Caltrain train (and similarly for any Dumbarton route)?

If that's the case, I guess I can see it making some sense, especially given the big electrification kick that Caltrain's on. I was thinking they would be integrated into the rest of the service so you could go from East Bay or Salinas directly into San Francisco, but maybe that's not in the cards.

If and when Caltrain goes to EMUs, I was thinking that it was going to free up a lot of locos and coaches. I was initially thinking that any usable rolling stock would be sold, but perhaps they could be used on these routes.

Sacramento-Redding considerations:

1. Isn't the line single-track almost all of the way? If so, would double-tracking it make it more attractive for additional passenger rail service?
   
2. Chico State is in Chico (duh!). Would starting a weekend service attract enough college students to build up a ridership base in a Sacramento-Redding corridor?
   
3. Would a Redding-Chico-Marysville/Yuba City to Sacramento service have convenient connections to San Joaquin and/or Capitol Corridor services, as well as to the CZ (especially to trains going to and coming from the east)?

You raise some interesting points.

1. Yes, it is single track for a great distance. Double-tracking would probably make it more appealing for passenger service, but that's an expensive option. I think we would see more sidings first (and there is a lot of flat ag land to possibly accommodate sidings).

2. Yes, Chico State is in Chico. Caltrans states it is one of the factors suggesting that there might be enough demand in increased train service on the route. It's also interesting that Redding has had more train passengers than Chico, but Chico has had more passengers overall (which logically must be due to Thruway service).

The station is fairly close to the university too. I think there's potential there (especially after riding back a very crowded bus back to Chico after Thanksgiving 2007).

I don't know about a weekend service because daily service seems more convenient. Does Amtrak do this in other parts of the country? I know there are a couple of weekend stops (like Old Town San Diego).

3. I would hope that any Redding-SAC train would have convenient connections to both Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins. In terms of how the service would be extended, I've thought about the possibility of extending one of the SAC-BFD San Joaquins or having Capitol Corridor run daily up to Redding (kinda like its one or two daily trips out to Auburn). I can also see problems with those routings.

I would hope for a convenient connection to California Zephyr, but I think there are limits to what a single daily train can do. Caltrans states the Thruway bus runs would supplement the train by running at different times during the day.

Right now, there's a 6:20 a.m. Thruway from Redding to Sacramento (with a 7:55 a.m. Chico stop) that arrives an hour before eastbound Zephyr's 11:09 a.m. SAC stop. I was thinking that it is too close to the Starlight run, but it's really about 4 hours apart. Although it's an early start from Redding, it does get people to the Bay Area at midday.

The westbound Zephyr arrives in SAC at 3:13 p.m. and a 6:30 p.m. bus takes passengers north. I guess the bus could be supplanted by a train.

 

[sechs]

Are you saying that these extensions aren't extensions from the current Caltrain route and service because it hasn't been discussed about how Caltrain might integrate them into the system if they should happen? Are you suggesting the possibility that a northbound Salinas train would terminate in San Jose where passengers would have to transfer to a proper Caltrain train (and similarly for any Dumbarton route)?
If that's the case, I guess I can see it making some sense, especially given the big electrification kick that Caltrain's on. I was thinking they would be integrated into the rest of the service so you could go from East Bay or Salinas directly into San Francisco, but maybe that's not in the cards.

At last check, the Dumbarton rail service would terminate at San Francisco or San Jose (or both) by necessity. There's no place else to park the trains. I recall reading about the possibility of trains stopping at Redwood City (the first station north of Redwood Jct.), and then expressing into the city. There are other options there, but the trains have to end up some place where they can be either stored during the day used for Peninsula service.

As for the Salinas service, I think that the issues are length and ridership. The trip from Salinas to San Jose would already be long, and the possibility of problems with it arriving on time high. Furthurmore, the number of riders going appreciably north of San Jose is not expected to be high; most of these people would be commuting to jobs in Silicon Valley.

Don't get me started on electrification. The high-speed rail NIMBYs may slow that down considerably more than the economy does.