No more charters & special moves: 3/28/18 Memo fr Anderson

[Seaboard92]

I see an Amtrak Tip Toe Through The Tulips is an allowed exceptions. There are specials running in May. Additionally, there are trains assisting a tournament involving the PGA.

I see quite a bit of forthcoming private car movements being confirmed.

However, I did see a long time charter group asking for a long, drawn out move involving a special movement, another railroad and various reverse moves or complete run arounds on said territory. A counter proposal was made to eliminate some of those moves and the charter group didn't think it could work. So, that particular charter did not operate. A few months ago, the railroad may have bitten the bullet. This is why I suggested taking our time and seeing how things evolve on a case by case basis. A lot of it will be determined by the impact on operations.

I think I know exactly which group that is too. Sounds like things are getting ever better for the industry I've devoted some years to. Hopefully things will keep getting better. Despite the fact I'm quitting as soon as I can find a better gig.

I guess this means you've abandoned plans to get your own PV?

Nope I'm still in the market. It's about to be a buyers market so I'm all in. I have other uses for a PV mainly being my mobile home without the stigma that comes from it. As much as I travel and am on the road it would be nice to take my home with me. Best of both worlds.

 

[Skyline]

Maybe the PV owners should start looking into running their cars only on tourist railroads (compatible gauge of course). That would be a more "natural" fit than regular Amtrak service. There could be a win-win here if smart minds combine.

 

[Seaboard92]

Or we can do what I've been doing and meeting on the hill. One operator has some serious heavyweight pulling for him. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post the pictures of the meeting. But I think we shall see some improvements.

 

[Thirdrail7]

I think it still has the potential to be successful if it is deemed worthy of the effort. In past years, the Autumn Express often sold out easily for two days. While it only operated in the Northeast, a similar operation in California or Florida would have the same scenery every season, while some mountainous and far northern routes could be advertised for their snowy scenery. Although it may not be as popular as the Autumn trains, I think they could sell out at least one day a year this way.

But a similar operation in Florida or California would require deadheading equipment there and back, taking it out of service for a week or more. In theory, the Northeast train could operate with minimal equipment shifting (though, for some unknown reason, the first year they ran it they decided to deadhead those godawful Horizon cars from Chicago to run it, but later on it was just Amfleets), and the weekend schedule has lower equipment needs than weekdays anyway. I can’t speak to equipment maintenance and inspection needs, but in basic numbers, the Autumn Express is basically two regional consists joined together (plus a couple special cars such as the 9800, and whatever else they have laying around).

Florida doesn’t have any spare equipment other than what’s needed to protect the Silvers (which don’t have a weekday/weekend variation in schedules, so you can’t just use an idle consist or two) and California doesn’t have enough (and the equipment is mostly California-owned or leased, so Amtrak can’t just use it as they want). In fact, I think Capitol Corridor is the only non-Northeast route that runs less service on weekends than weekdays (well, there’s the early morning Hiawatha that doesn’t run on Sundays). Even routes that have weekend vs weekday schedules run essentially the same service, just in different time slots. So, there might not even be any spare equipment to do this in California either, even if Caltrans was agreeable to it.

They deadheaded the horizon fleet because they were headed east for Thanksgiving. After the special, the Amfleets headed west for another special. That is the point that most people seem to miss. The Autumn Express operates since the equipment is gathered for other specials that are running around the same time period. To gather the equipment and remove it from daily use for a one off special is EXACTLY what our new CEO wishes to avoid. Using it on three specials in close proximity has a bit more merit.

 

[CHvision]

http://www.dearingrailroad.com/index.html

Dearing is back on track

 

[Ryan]

You have a colon at the end of your link that breaks it.

 

[PRR 60]

You have a colon at the end of your link that breaks it.

Fixed it. Good catch!

 

[Seaboard92]

Amtrak has just posted their guidelines for private cars and charters. I'm not at my computer so hopefully someone else can link to it.

It isn't as bad as we thought but it still needs work. Hopefully we can still get some changes.

 

[cpotisch]

Amtrak has just posted their guidelines for private cars and charters. I'm not at my computer so hopefully someone else can link to it.

It isn't as bad as we thought but it still needs work. Hopefully we can still get some changes.

Fingers crossed.

 

[CHvision]

*Fixing the error of the article: Dearing PV

Guidelines

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/Amtrak-Private-Car-Guidelines-041818.pdf

 

[Ryan]

The staff already fixed it in your first post.

 

[seat38a]

Well looks like special trains to Santa Barbara our gone. Only Surfliner trains that private cars are allowed on are 562 and 565 which are LA-SAN train. These two trains have the train consist sitting over night in LA and SD so makes sense.

 

[CHvision]

The staff already fixed it in your first post.

I saw the edit and gave a check mark,

(The colon was suppose to be by Dearing but made a typo out of it)

Thanks

 

[jis]

There is one bit of possible ambiguity that needs to be clarified.

The Amtrak document says that cars can only be added or removed at those designated stations. There are certain possibilities of doing a round trip where the car is neither adde3d, not removed at the away destination. Are those going to be allowed?

For example, if a car is attached at Emeryville to a train to Bakersfield, and it just stays with the consist at Bakersfield and returns to Emeryville on the same consist, is that allowed, even though Bakersfield is not listed as an originating/terminating point?

Strict reading would suggest this is not allowed. Logic does not dictate that such restriction makes much sense.

maybe it is time for the West Virginia Congressman and Senator to do a little more squeezing of appropriate body part(s) to get a WV location added to the car add/drop list.

BTW, the Charter Train Guidelines specifically excludes Amtrak specials, so at least in theory things like the Autumn Express are not covered by these Guidelines.

 

[Seaboard92]

There is one bit of possible ambiguity that needs to be clarified.

The Amtrak document says that cars can only be added or removed at those designated stations. There are certain possibilities of doing a round trip where the car is neither adde3d, not removed at the away destination. Are those going to be allowed?

For example, if a car is attached at Emeryville to a train to Bakersfield, and it just stays with the consist at Bakersfield and returns to Emeryville on the same consist, is that allowed, even though Bakersfield is not listed as an originating/terminating point?

Strict reading would suggest this is not allowed. Logic does not dictate that such restriction makes much sense.

maybe it is time for the West Virginia Congressman and Senator to do a little more squeezing of appropriate body part(s) to get a WV location added to the car add/drop list.

BTW, the Charter Train Guidelines specifically excludes Amtrak specials, so at least in theory things like the Autumn Express are not covered by these Guidelines.

It also doesn't cover Oregon and I can tell you those congressmen are quite perturbed about it. Anderson likely will be on really thin ice congressionally speaking.

 

[jis]

Portland OR for 27, 28 almost seems like an omission error.

BTW, even at Seattle, I am almost certain that they will not attach/detach PVs to the Talgos, even though one could come to believe that they might from that table. The only relevant trains there are 7, 8, 11, 14.

The only other possibility in Oregon is 11/14, which will probably hit head on into the no inconvenience to regular passengers clause in some way or the other.

At the end of the day, if the folks on the Hill put in a list of additional places, where PVs must be handled, in the next Appropriation for Amtrak, there will be much more clarity about what is and what isn't. All that can be done then is to adjust schedules to minimize inconvenience to everyone.

Of course, we will see how all this plays out. Amtrak has very little leverage as long as it critically depends on direct subsidies from the legislature. The situation with F&B shows what can happen.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

The fact that St. Paul remains shows you that Amtrak at least looked at where regular private customers are. Huge win for the 261 group.

 

[Trogdor]

For example, if a car is attached at Emeryville to a train to Bakersfield, and it just stays with the consist at Bakersfield and returns to Emeryville on the same consist, is that allowed, even though Bakersfield is not listed as an originating/terminating point?

Strict reading would suggest this is not allowed. Logic does not dictate that such restriction makes much sense.

Logic would suggest not allowing PVs on the San Joaquin if they can’t get added/removed as Bakersfield, unless they have MU cables to allow running mid-consist. Otherwise the engineer wouldn’t be able to run the train in one direction.

 

[jis]

For example, if a car is attached at Emeryville to a train to Bakersfield, and it just stays with the consist at Bakersfield and returns to Emeryville on the same consist, is that allowed, even though Bakersfield is not listed as an originating/terminating point?

Strict reading would suggest this is not allowed. Logic does not dictate that such restriction makes much sense.

Logic would suggest not allowing PVs on the San Joaquin if they can’t get added/removed as Bakersfield, unless they have MU cables to allow running mid-consist. Otherwise the engineer wouldn’t be able to run the train in one direction.

It is always true that the cars must have the capability to operate in the train to which they are to be attached without disrupting the train. So clearly only cars that are adequately equipped would be usable. Since they do allow PVs on the 6xx Keystones, which are push pull too (like the San Joaquins) I suspect that there are several PVs that are equipped with pass through control cable connectors. Otherwise they would not have mentioned the 6xxs as OK for PVs.

 

[Seaboard92]

Braddock Inn has a pass thru MU. Any if the former commuter cars from MARC do. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if more owners tried to get the capability. As far as on the hill the republicans are more agitated by the charter problems, and private car problems. While the democrats are trying not to rock the boat.

The only major democratic support is coming from West Virginia and potentially Oregon if Senator Merkeley signs on.

 

[TinCan782]

Didn't see this link posted with the others above...people are always asking "how much"

Addendum No. 6 to Private Car Tariff

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/Private-Car-Tariff-Rates-Addendum-6-050118.pdf

 

[seat38a]

The fact that St. Paul remains shows you that Amtrak at least looked at where regular private customers are. Huge win for the 261 group.

7, 8 (pickup if train is on time)

So if the train is late then the PV is SOL???

 

[Thirdrail7]

There is one bit of possible ambiguity that needs to be clarified.

The Amtrak document says that cars can only be added or removed at those designated stations. There are certain possibilities of doing a round trip where the car is neither adde3d, not removed at the away destination. Are those going to be allowed?

For example, if a car is attached at Emeryville to a train to Bakersfield, and it just stays with the consist at Bakersfield and returns to Emeryville on the same consist, is that allowed, even though Bakersfield is not listed as an originating/terminating point?

Strict reading would suggest this is not allowed. Logic does not dictate that such restriction makes much sense.

That is operationally different Jis. This is what I often refer to when I differentiate "initial terminal" versus "turnaround point/turnaround service". In your example, Bakersfield is a turnaround point and they would look at it on a case by case basis to see it would interfere with any turns. Since the trip would actually be EMY-EMY, it likely wouldn't be an issue.

Portland OR for 27, 28 almost seems like an omission error.

BTW, even at Seattle, I am almost certain that they will not attach/detach PVs to the Talgos, even though one could come to believe that they might from that table. The only relevant trains there are 7, 8, 11, 14.

The only other possibility in Oregon is 11/14, which will probably hit head on into the no inconvenience to regular passengers clause in some way or the other.

At the end of the day, if the folks on the Hill put in a list of additional places, where PVs must be handled, in the next Appropriation for Amtrak, there will be much more clarity about what is and what isn't. All that can be done then is to adjust schedules to minimize inconvenience to everyone.

Of course, we will see how all this plays out. Amtrak has very little leverage as long as it critically depends on direct subsidies from the legislature. The situation with FB shows what can happen.

I'm not sure Por is an omission. They may want the flexibility to run the trains in reverse order. If you had a private car in the mix, it would delay the train.

Didn't see this link posted with the others above...people are always asking "how much"

Addendum No. 6 to Private Car Tariff

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/Private-Car-Tariff-Rates-Addendum-6-050118.pdf

Look at those rates. One of the things that struck me about the memo was the statement that Amtrak would only repair cars that were in a consist. While I can understand the liability of not wanting a private car in your shop (you scratched my paint, the wheel true is out of spec), it's not like Amtrak didn't charge them for every turn of the wrench, shift of plug.

Are you telling me these repairs didn't generate revenue?

The fact that St. Paul remains shows you that Amtrak at least looked at where regular private customers are. Huge win for the 261 group.

7, 8 (pickup if train is on time)

So if the train is late then the PV is SOL???

It seems like it. They'll probably put words summarizing that position in the operating agreement. If you sign it, you know what you're in for.

 

[CHvision]

LA Rail will continue to use private cars on Amtrak for their trips. However, changes are made with route/station adjustments.

 

[seat38a]

LA Rail will continue to use private cars on Amtrak for their trips. However, changes are made with route/station adjustments.

But how are they going to operate the Santa Barbara Wine train when? Not sure how this can be adjusted when the only Surfliner trains PV's are allowed originate and terminate in LA and SD.