Compensation to host RR

[AmtrakPDX]

Does anyone have any idea how much Amtrak pays to use the tracks of the host RR. I'm guessing that part of the answer involves "a very complex formula". I was just hoping to find out for a full CZ, EB, CS or similar run. I'm guessing that with it being a Federal contract it might be part of the public record.

TIA

 

[had8ley]

In a recent conversation with Bruce Richardson he stated that the mileage charge was in the neighborhood of $5. This does not count incentives for OTP.

 

[Acela150]

Amtrak has to pay to use rails?? What a joke!

 

[wayman]

Amtrak has to pay to use rails?? What a joke!

Why a joke? The rails are not Amtrak's. The freight railroad is responsible for all maintenance (Amtrak is contributing to the wear-and-tear) and the freight railroad is giving a slot to Amtrak that they could otherwise be using themselves. Freight railroads charge each other for trackage rights too, and Amtrak charges the freight railroads quite a lot for passage over Amtrak rails (as I understand it, they make quite a bit of money around Chicago where they own some major interchanges). That's how things have always worked.

 

[Steve4031]

about 5 dollars a mile? Interesting. So to run the Zephyr to Denver, which is about 1000 miles from Chicago, would be 5,000 dollars. But then you have to account for the crew salaries, and other expenses for operation too.

 

[Mark]

Amtrak has to pay to use rails?? What a joke!

Why a joke? The rails are not Amtrak's. The freight railroad is responsible for all maintenance (Amtrak is contributing to the wear-and-tear) and the freight railroad is giving a slot to Amtrak that they could otherwise be using themselves. Freight railroads charge each other for trackage rights too, and Amtrak charges the freight railroads quite a lot for passage over Amtrak rails (as I understand it, they make quite a bit of money around Chicago where they own some major interchanges). That's how things have always worked.

Well, I could see it both ways. After all the freights literally begged the government to allow them to drop passenger service back in the 60s, that's, (more or less), how Amtrak came to be. The government decided correctly or not that some form of passenger rail service should be retained. The freights were allowed to "buy out" by providing equipment, crews and access to the newly formed Amtrak.

The wear and tear of one daily Amtrak train in each direction is negligible upon freight main lines which many if not most are maintained to 65-70mph for freight and 79 for passenger speeds regardless of whether Amtrak is on them or not.

However $5 per mile, if that is in fact the rate, is really peanuts when compared to what the Freights could make off of moving one of their own or another road's train. Amtrak is getting a bargain at that rate.

 

[AmtrakPDX]

The reason I originally asked...

We just finished a LD from west to east and back. I saw a lot of new surface next to our tracks be prepared for new track. I heard that the host RR gets extra $ when the Amtrak arrives early or on time. I got to wondering if the host RR bean counters saw this as enough of an incentive to move them closer to investing in new track to keep the Amtrak NOT off to the side.

But again, you'ld have to look at how many feet of track each on time allowance would buy...

 

[RTOlson]

I think we're talking about several different types of compensation:

- The per-mile compensation first enacted when Amtrak was formed in 1971. IIRC, this was part of the deal to get the railroads to "buy" into Amtrak -- the new service will relieve you of the cost of operating a passenger rail service AND Amtrak will pay you to use your tracks.

- Bonuses. IIRC, the current set of bonuses were enacted last year across the country for on-time performance. There are other bonuses in place, but they seem to be more regional. Capitol Corridor in Northern California, for instance, pays Union Pacific for meeting certain on-time performance benchmarks.

I don't know if Amtrak's bonuses and per-mile compensation would be enough to solely pay for track improvements (excluding specific track improvement deals struck with roads). However, I think the railroads could definitely factor it in, along with improved capacity and efficiency of their own trains.

 

[AlanB]

- Bonuses. IIRC, the current set of bonuses were enacted last year across the country for on-time performance. There are other bonuses in place, but they seem to be more regional. Capitol Corridor in Northern California, for instance, pays Union Pacific for meeting certain on-time performance benchmarks.

I'm not sure that Congress has had anything to do with bonuses at all. However, if if they did do something last year, it's certainly not the first year for them. Amtrak has been paying them out for a number of years now systemwide.

 

[George Harris]

The reason I originally asked...
We just finished a LD from west to east and back. I saw a lot of new surface next to our tracks be prepared for new track. I heard that the host RR gets extra $ when the Amtrak arrives early or on time. I got to wondering if the host RR bean counters saw this as enough of an incentive to move them closer to investing in new track to keep the Amtrak NOT off to the side.

But again, you'ld have to look at how many feet of track each on time allowance would buy...

New track is somewhere above One million per mile, not counting grading, drainage, moving existing utilities, bridges, etc. Say somewhere around $5 million in relatively easy to build terrain and no right of way costs. That is $1,000 per foot. (I may even be low.) It would take a heap of on-time payments to get much at that rate.

I am guessing that you are talking about the Sunset Limited west of El Paso. It had virtually congealed by the time UP decided to spend the big bucks to double track it. That work is now somewhere above 50% complete, but I understand that it has been paused due to the downturn in freight traffic. Same downturn having a lot to do with the vastly improved on-time performance that is happening generally.

How much the host RR prioritizes Amtrak has more to do with corporate attitude than to any effect positive or negative that Amtrak payments have on the bottom line. There ma be some exception in multi-train corridors, particularly such locations as North Carolina, Oakland to Sacramento, and the Central Valley of California where the state has committed to track imporvements to improve train speed and reliability.

 

[diesteldorf]

From what I understand, when Amtrak was 1st established, they were allowed to pay the freight railroads at a rate far less than what the railroads would normally charge. That was one of the conditions when Amtrak was created to allow the freight out of the passenger business. Now, the routes that were established at that time were allowed to pay the railroads at that predetermined rate for as long as they existed.

It gets complicated when routes are eliminated and try to be re-instated becasue my understanding is that the freights don't have to allow Amtrak to run new routes for the relative pittance that the pre-existing routes are able to run at.

That's one of the reasons that Amtrak hasn't officially killed the Sunset Limited to Florida since it would need to potentially pay the freight railroads more if it ever wanted to try and reinatate it.

It makes me wonder how difficult that would make it if Amtrak wanted to reinstate the Desert Wind or Three Rivers.

I'm know expert on this, so please feel free to correct me if I am a bit off.

 

[had8ley]

The reason I originally asked...
We just finished a LD from west to east and back. I saw a lot of new surface next to our tracks be prepared for new track. I heard that the host RR gets extra $ when the Amtrak arrives early or on time. I got to wondering if the host RR bean counters saw this as enough of an incentive to move them closer to investing in new track to keep the Amtrak NOT off to the side.

But again, you'ld have to look at how many feet of track each on time allowance would buy...

New track is somewhere above One million per mile, not counting grading, drainage, moving existing utilities, bridges, etc. Say somewhere around $5 million in relatively easy to build terrain and no right of way costs. That is $1,000 per foot. (I may even be low.) It would take a heap of on-time payments to get much at that rate.

I am guessing that you are talking about the Sunset Limited west of El Paso. It had virtually congealed by the time UP decided to spend the big bucks to double track it. That work is now somewhere above 50% complete, but I understand that it has been paused due to the downturn in freight traffic. Same downturn having a lot to do with the vastly improved on-time performance that is happening generally.

How much the host RR prioritizes Amtrak has more to do with corporate attitude than to any effect positive or negative that Amtrak payments have on the bottom line. There ma be some exception in multi-train corridors, particularly such locations as North Carolina, Oakland to Sacramento, and the Central Valley of California where the state has committed to track imporvements to improve train speed and reliability.

George;

I had heard from UP sources that there was some kind of riff (I think it had something to do with trackage in or around Phoenix) between the state of Arizona and the UP and this was part of the reason the double tracking didn't get completed before the serious down turn in biz. Know anything about it?

 

[George Harris]

had8ley:

The issues betwen UP and Arizona was as much between some of the online towns and UP as between the state and UP. I don't recall the detail now, because I was really not trying to keep up with the details. Some of the towns were trying to get UP to pay for overpasses at any road that had significant road traffic, and in some cases at all the roads, to the best of my recollection. There was also a certain amount of NIMBYism based on the thought that if the second track was built that somehow the number of trains would magically increase by a factor of two or more.

Since Pheonix is off on the now dead end loop off the main formerly used by the Sunset, the city had no interest at all in the whole issue.

I am inclined to believe that a major factor in the decision to close the Phoenix West line had to do with the following:

The line was originally built in the mid 1920's, and probably had been given no more than minimal maintenance since the mid 1960's at the latest. At that point, the rail was probably still the original, as 40 years for rail in a mostly straight and level railroad with moderate to light traffic density is barely broke in good. Likewise, if the tie condition was reasonably good when the SP began to lose interest in passenger service in the mid 1960's, another 30 years, even in a desert climate would be getting the line to the point where either a major tie and surface job was required or a 10 to 25 mph speed limit would have to be placed. Most of the material, track and signals was probably original 1920's construction with little more than minimal crosstie renewal since. Therefore, the rail and signal system had pretty well reached the point that it required major replacement work or abandonment. Given the minimal trafifc on the line and that freight for the most part could care less whehter it takes another day amd tje extra operating cost of the additional circuity was far less than the cost of keeping the line in usable condition, the decision was to put it out of service.

 

[the_traveler]

From what I understand, when Amtrak was 1st established, they were allowed to pay the freight railroads at a rate far less than what the railroads would normally charge. That was one of the conditions when Amtrak was created to allow the freight out of the passenger business. Now, the routes that were established at that time were allowed to pay the railroads at that predetermined rate for as long as they existed.
It gets complicated when routes are eliminated and try to be re-instated becasue my understanding is that the freights don't have to allow Amtrak to run new routes for the relative pittance that the pre-existing routes are able to run at.

That's one of the reasons that Amtrak hasn't officially killed the Sunset Limited to Florida since it would need to potentially pay the freight railroads more if it ever wanted to try and reinatate it.

I understand what you're saying - but for the SL it makes sense and it also doesn't make sense! :blink:

IIRC, the SL-west was in place on A-day, but the SL-east was not! The portion that was "temporarily suspended" was the SL-east!

I could be wrong about the SL-west.

 

[wayman]

I am inclined to believe that a major factor in the decision to close the Phoenix West line had to do with the following:
The line was originally built in the mid 1920's, and probably had been given no more than minimal maintenance since the mid 1960's at the latest. At that point, the rail was probably still the original, as 40 years for rail in a mostly straight and level railroad with moderate to light traffic density is barely broke in good. Likewise, if the tie condition was reasonably good when the SP began to lose interest in passenger service in the mid 1960's, another 30 years, even in a desert climate would be getting the line to the point where either a major tie and surface job was required or a 10 to 25 mph speed limit would have to be placed. Most of the material, track and signals was probably original 1920's construction with little more than minimal crosstie renewal since. Therefore, the rail and signal system had pretty well reached the point that it required major replacement work or abandonment. Given the minimal trafifc on the line and that freight for the most part could care less whehter it takes another day amd tje extra operating cost of the additional circuity was far less than the cost of keeping the line in usable condition, the decision was to put it out of service.

George,

I wonder if this has ever been explained so clearly and simply, either at Amtrak Unlimited or to the citizens of Arizona who wish Phoenix had service. Thank you!

(As you say, this is what you believe, and may not encompass all of UP's reasoning, but it's certainly extremely logical.)