FRA issues proposed rules bidding out Long Distance Routes

Allouette: Are there not significant and historic trackage rights for the Portland-Seattle traffice between the then UP, SP, and NP???

UP has some of its own trackage, and some rights on BNSF at various points between Portland and Seattle. For Amtrak's purposes the host railroad between Portland and Seattle is BNSF. The former GN/NP/UP pool trains were replaced in 1971 by a pair of BN trains plus the then tri-weekly "Cascade" extension which was also operated by BN. SP ended at Portland.

STrRedWolf wrote:Is it limited to a track-holding company, or can it be an operations company? Remember, Bombardier runs MARC service over two CSX lines into DC, and Keolis runs MBTA service over MBTA rail.

Federal Register Notice in pertinent part:
Eligible petitioner means one of the following entities, other than Amtrak, that has submitted a petition to FRA under § 269.7:
(1) A rail carrier or rail carriers that own the infrastructure over which Amtrak operates a long-distance route, or another rail carrier that has a written agreement with a rail carrier or rail carriers that own such infrastructure;
(2) A State, group of States, or State-supported joint powers authority or other sub-State governance entity responsible for providing intercity rail passenger transportation with a written agreement with the rail carrier or rail carriers that own the infrastructure over which Amtrak operates a long-distance route and that host or would host the intercity rail passenger transportation; or
(3) A State, group of States, or State-supported joint powers authority or other sub-State governance entity responsible for providing intercity rail passenger transportation and a rail carrier with a written agreement with another rail carrier or rail carriers that own the infrastructure over which Amtrak operates a long-distance route and that host or would host the intercity rail passenger transportation.

Wouldn't the Crescent be the perfect train for this, since it runs on only Norfolk Southern tracks? I don't see NS taking the train back, though, since it would have to buy lots of equipment for it, which would jack up the costs. Using 1980s Amfleet IIs, which are probably fully depreciated, probably saves Amtrak a lot of money compared to using newer equipment.

LD Routes in total:

West/Midwest:

• Coast Starlight: UP from LAX to PDX, BNSF (UP rights) PDX to SEA
• Empire Builder: BNSF from SEA/PDX to MSP, CP (Metra) from MSP to CHI
• California Zephyr: UP from OAK to DEN, BNSF from DEN to CHI
• Southwest Chief: BNSF from LAX to CHI
• Sunset Limited: UP from LAX to HOU, BNSF from HOU to NOL
• Texas Eagle: UP from LAX to SAN to CHI
• City of New Orleans: CN from NOL to CHI

Midwest/East:

• Lake Shore Limited: AMTK/MNRR (CSX) from NYP to SDY, CSX (MBTA/AMTK) from BOS to SDY to CLE, NS from CLE to CHI
• Capitol Limited: CSX from WAS to PGH, NS from PGH to CHI
• Pennsylvanian: AMTK from NYP to HAR, NS from HAR to CHI
• Cardinal: AMTK from NYP to WAS, (CSX from WAS to ALX/Van Dorn Yard - I don't think NS retains its rights), NS from ALX to Orange, BB/CSX from Orange to Dolton, CN/UP/Metra/Amtrak from Dolton to CHI
• Crescent: AMTK from NYP to WAS, CSX from WAS to ALX, NS from Van Dorn to NOL
• Carolinian/Piedmont: AMTK from NYP to WAS, CSX from WAS to SSM, NCRR (NS) from SSM to CLT
• Silver Meteor and Palmetto: AMTK from NYP to WAS, CSX from WAS to SSM, NCRR (NS) from SSM to RGH, CSX from RGH to SAV to MIA
• Silver Star: AMTK from NYP to WAS, CSX from WAS to SAV/MIA

Did I miss anything?

With that list, the only single-company trains would be the Southwest Chief (BNSF), the Texas Eagle CHI-SAN-LAX (UP), and the City of New Orleans (CN.) With existing trackage rights, you can add the California Zephyr DEN to OAK (BNSF rights on UP), the Sunset Limited BMT to NOL (UP rights on BNSF), and the Coast Starlight from PDX to SEA (UP rights on BNSF.)

Of course, Col. Perkowski is right to question Class 1 interest in the Flying Pig Express.

mtuandrew wrote:LD Routes in total:
West/Midwest:
[*]Texas Eagle: UP from LAX to SAN to CHI

Did I miss anything?

With that list, the only single-company trains would be the Southwest Chief (BNSF), the Texas Eagle CHI-SAN-LAX (UP), and the City of New Orleans (CN.) With existing trackage rights, you can add the California Zephyr DEN to OAK (BNSF rights on UP), the Sunset Limited BMT to NOL (UP rights on BNSF), and the Coast Starlight from PDX to SEA (UP rights on BNSF.)

The Texas Eagle list above is wrong, between Ft. Worth and Temple it runs on BNSF tracks, and between Ft. Worth and Dallas it runs on TRE tacks. So it is not ran on just a single railroad tracks.

Can an entity bid on a new train on an existing route? (ie. a second NYP - CHI train)

Or is this FRA decision limited to existing service?

Just limited to existing service...although

The Sunset East route has never been terminated, merely suspended.
So, I suppose that the State of Florida could offer to run the service for 90% of Amtrak's losses on the thrice per week route in the last full year of service.

The ONLY people I could see bidding are the landlord railroads. If it helps subsidize upkeep, so much the better.

I don't see anyone bidding on taking over long-distance routes. That provision in the FAST Act only exists to satisfy the egos of Republicans in Congress who think that private companies can do anything better and cheaper than the government can, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Nobody actually lobbied them for it.

On top of everything else, I cannot see Mr Buffett's managers risking a monopoly or a trust charge by going in with UP any deeper than they already do.

In other words, don't count on 1-2, 5-6, or 11-14 going private by those two companies, above and beyond the business plans.

MBTA3247 wrote:I don't see anyone bidding on taking over long-distance routes. That provision in the FAST Act only exists to satisfy the egos of Republicans in Congress who think that private companies can do anything better and cheaper than the government can, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Nobody actually lobbied them for it.

So what if nobody is ready to bid for, and if nobody lobbied for it? Amtrak now is on notice that it has to run its long-distance trains about as efficiently as a private operator could, or lose them, so these FRA rules really just are a way to make Amtrak behave.

SouthernRailway wrote: So what if nobody is ready to bid for, and if nobody lobbied for it? Amtrak now is on notice that it has to run its long-distance trains about as efficiently as a private operator could, or lose them, so these FRA rules really just are a way to make Amtrak behave.

Maybe we'll see a more courteous service with more smiles from <more> Amtrak employees now.
But I will be surprised if someone wished to take over an existing service. –

jstolberg wrote:Just limited to existing service...although

The Sunset East route has never been terminated, merely suspended.
So, I suppose that the State of Florida could offer to run the service for 90% of Amtrak's losses on the thrice per week route in the last full year of service.

Wasn't it? I could have sworn that Amtrak officially canceled Sunset East after a dispute with the states and CSX, and that the cancellation was approved by either FRA or STB. Of course, Amtrak still retains access rights over CSX from its organic act (RPSA '70), since L&N and ACL both bought in.

Speaking of CSX, I can make an educated guess that they have no interest in running LDs. They got out of BAL-WAS service relatively recently (for MARC's acct) and have not shown interest in bidding on the service since. This is significant because it was the longest-running passenger service in the country with one provider, and CSX had a great deal of pride in that. If economics trumped pride in that service, I expect no more bids elsewhere.