Shippers vs. Amtrak

[andrewjw]

What government land did they use? I thought they built and operate mostly on private ROW.

[mtuandrew]

What government land did they use? I thought they built and operate mostly on private ROW.

Depends - is the turnpike authority privately- or publicly-owned? If public, it may be receiving a hidden subsidy, if private no. (Though the airport’s land is public, and I don’t know the payment structure that Brightline has arranged with the Orlando airport authority.)

[SouthernRailway]

Brightline has been able to use tax-advantaged bonds and I think governments have paid for some crossings and maybe are offering funds for more stations that governments want. That’s it.

Has Brightline been charged fair market value for the use of government land? If not, that’s another subsidy.

What government land?

For stations that government wants it to build?

Brightline runs on a private right of way and the stations that it wanted are all in its own buildings on its own land. Real estate using its own investments and own property is key.

[mtuandrew]

What government land?

For stations that government wants it to build?

Brightline runs on a private right of way and the stations that it wanted are all in its own buildings on its own land. Real estate using its own investments and own property is key.

Per my last post:

Depends - is the turnpike authority privately- or publicly-owned? If public, it may be receiving a hidden subsidy, if private no. (Though the airport’s land is public, and I don’t know the payment structure that Brightline has arranged with the Orlando airport authority.)

Brightline isn’t exactly cogent to our conversation topic here, but it does illustrate a different model in which government solely acts as a facilitator rather than an operator.

[edbear]

I would like to comment on some of the statements made here. Railroads did not invent eminent domain. It was probably some king who wanted to expand the palace grounds and get rid of some unsightly slums. In Massachusetts eminent domain was given to the private turnpike companies which were organized to open up the interior of the state, starting in the 1790s, 4 decades before any steam railroad began running. The big ones, Boston-Worcester, Newburyport, Fitchburg, Concord, Norfolk-Bristol all had it too. Conditions were attached. The canal companies, Middlesex, Blackstone, New Haven & Northampton did. And the canals also were allowed to tap natural lakes and rivers for water sources. Electric high tension lines and gas pipelines used eminent domain. Local electric, landline telephone lines, cable tv and gas lines and private water utilities use easements granted by a city or town. By the way, eminent domain takings have to be paid for at current values. It does not matter how much or if anything was paid when the property owner got it. As far as land grants. Railroads paid by having to provide significantly reduced passenger fares and freight rates for Federal government business until the late 1940s. Land grants spurred the development of the interior of the country by having railroads open it up. The big government public works projects of the early nineteenth century were boondoggles. Michigan built a railroad and wound up divesting it as it was a public sinkhole. Pennsylvania sank millions into a canal system that failed. The National Road, I think U. S. 40, was completed from the East Coast to the Mississippi over the course of about 40 years just about the same time as railroads, started 20 or more years later, linked the same points.

[ExCon90]

As to the famous land grants, it's hardly ever mentioned that any land in question that was more than a half-day's trip by horse and wagon from a navigable waterway was worthless for anything but subsistence farming until the railroad was built. Any value gained by the land resulted solely from the existence of the railroad itself. The alternate sections not granted to the railroads gained equally in value.

Regarding a perceived obligation of the railroads to provide passenger service today, the railroads must compete with trucking companies, which are not required to provide bus service everywhere their trucks go--requiring the railroads to provide passenger service regardless of cost would seriously restrict the railroads' ability to compete with the trucks on cost, which they must do to survive.

[SouthernRailway]

The posts above are great.

The perspective that "private railroads need to incur costs that they aren't reimbursed for to handle Amtrak" is just really mind-boggling.

If people want fast, frequent and punctual Amtrak trains: pay for them. I'm willing to. But I'm not willing to use government to force private businesses to incur costs to operate a business that I, as a voter, want. There goes freedom, if that's what government can do.

[John_Perkowski]

Those favorable tariffs for the USG exist to this very day.

As for Amtrak, the freight roads are still proscribed by RPSA 70 and it’s successor acts to operate their own service. Why would they want to? Amtrak outside the corridor carries a pittance of the nations passenger traffic at a loss. The equipment is car for car older than the late HW era gear was when it was scrapped in the late 50s and 60s.

Outside the Corridor and Chicago service, Amtrak is redundant and no longer something which matters. Absent a sudden major long term petroleum shoertage grounding commercial aviation, it’s going to stay that way.

[ThirdRail7]

Those favorable tariffs for the USG exist to this very day.

As for Amtrak, the freight roads are still proscribed by RPSA 70 and it’s successor acts to operate their own service. Why would they want to? Amtrak outside the corridor carries a pittance of the nations passenger traffic at a loss. The equipment is car for car older than the late HW era gear was when it was scrapped in the late 50s and 60s.

Outside the Corridor and Chicago service, Amtrak is redundant and no longer something which matters. Absent a sudden major long term petroleum shoertage grounding commercial aviation, it’s going to stay that way.

Yes, because Virginia ridership isn't up and service isn't expanding, the Piedmonts aren't looking to expand, MASS didn't just pay to extend their SPG line to GFD, NYS didn't work with Amtrak to lease and upgrade another line........all because it doesn't matter.

The posts above are great.

The perspective that "private railroads need to incur costs that they aren't reimbursed for to handle Amtrak" is just really mind-boggling.

If people want fast, frequent and punctual Amtrak trains: pay for them. I'm willing to. But I'm not willing to use government to force private businesses to incur costs to operate a business that I, as a voter, want. There goes freedom, if that's what government can do.

And again, what are these incurred costs? How much extra does it cost to run an Amtrak versus a freight, particularly when your line already exists and when the various states have invested in the line?

A perfect example is $132 million dollars Virginia paid to get Amtrak trains through Acca Yard. Not only did this benefit Amtrak, but it also benefited the freight railroads as well. The Norfolk and Roanoke routes also received upgrades that benefit the host. The Piedmont Improvement plan wants to add more round trips to that line. The state has put up money and the FRA has put up millions to make improvements on the line.

All of this ultimately benefits the host.....who operates the trains but thanks to the agreement, bear no liability if things go wrong. That agreement probably isn't shared with private operators nor would the host of that territory want that liability on their shoulders....which is why you typically don't see freight bid passenger rail routes.

So, I've always wanted to see these costs that Amtrak is avoiding and if they are indeed shorting the host, they should pay up....and as long as things are equal, the freights should share the FULL liability if their actions or inactions cause injury.

[SouthernRailway]

Added costs that Class Is bear are (1) track maintenance costs to maintain track for high(er) passenger train speeds when maintaining track for lower freight train speeds would suffice, at less cost, and (2) delaying freight trains so that Amtrak can take priority.

[ThirdRail7]

So, let's look at this. I can't speak for every host since there are various operating agreements. However, I noticed that the litigation regarding the collision between Amtrak 91 and a freight train at an improperly lined switch yielded something that didn't seem to get posted on this board:

Tidbits of an operating agreement
A rare peek at an Amtrak-host railroad contract

While there are a lot of demands (which comes with costs), let's see what it says about speeds.

Track maintenance to passenger standards: CSX is required to maintain all of its lines used by Amtrak at the same level of utility (a measure that includes track classification and speed and “a reasonable degree of passenger comfort”) as they were at the start of the agreement, with limited exceptions. CSX must bear the entire cost of such maintenance, though Amtrak reimburses the freight carrier for the incremental cost that hosting its trains imposes on CSX. The host may adjust speeds at various locations as long as the overall ‘pure running time’ (scheduled time minus dwell times and padding) on that segment is not lengthened If CSX receives FRA approval to downgrade a track segment resulting in lengthening of Amtrak’s running time, Amtrak must pay for any adjustments necessary to maintain its previous higher speed.

CSX takes over a line that hosted passenger operations prior to their ownership and has posted track speeds. All they have to do is maintain to the level it was at the beginning of the agreement. If it is a Class 3 track, they have to keep it at Class 3. If it is Class 2 track, they have to keep it maintained to Class 2 standards....all of which helps their operation, as it makes the freight sp[eed higher.

Additionally, they CAN lower the track speed as long as the overall schedule is not lengthened.

Finally, the host CAN file to downgrade the track (Metro-North did this a few years ago and CSX has mentioned they would do this on certain routes, like the Peninsula Subdivision .) If the FRA approves, then it is up to AMTRAK to pay the costs.

So, there are mechanisms in place. The State of Maryland ate the costs of CSX maintaining the Old MAin Subdivision specifically to aid passenger operations on the Metropolitan Subdivision. It acts as a relief valve, which helps also helps the Capitol Limited.

These things benefit the hosts and they are receiving funds to that end.

Now, if everyone is saying what Amtrak is paying isn't enough to compensate, I'm reasonably sure the rest of the hosts have similar language. Additionally, hosts like BNSF take pretty good care of Amtrak as they look at the payments and incentives as revenue. If that is not enough, the host can file to downgrade the line and if they side with the hosts, Amtrak can pay for the additional maintenance or cease operations on the affected line. We've seen this done on the former route of the Montrealer, so the boo-hooing about the costs of maintaining the infrastructure to passenger standards likely come with a choice. If it benefits the host, it probably isn't an issue. If it doesn't, there is an option.

(2) delaying freight trains so that Amtrak can take priority.

that's a lot of the problem. The hosts aren't really delaying their trains, even though they are supposed to provide priority. Notice it doesn't say exclusive occupancy or without delay. From the agreement above:

CSX is obligated to move Amtrak trains efficiently: The freight carrier “shall make every reasonable effort … to deliver Amtrak trains to all scheduled passenger stops … by the scheduled time therefor” and “to avoid excessive delays and, consistent with safety, to make up delays” regardless of where they occur, as well as “to service, inspect, and perform running repairs as necessary” so that an Amtrak train may complete its trip over CSX lines.

If your train is in double track territory, which the State, Amtrak or even the host paid for and you refuse to operate the train around it, you're not living up to the agreement. Again, when you follow the same train from Manassas, Va to Toccoa, Ga and there are double-tracked sections, how much is it REALLY going to cost to get one train around another?

10 minutes? 20 minutes?

Then the train is gone since it is operating at a higher speed.

Now, if there is severe congestion and nothing can be done, that's too bad for Amtrak. If the hosts rationalize the lines and divert traffic which causes congestion, there is an option:

(c) Preference over freight transportation. --Except in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this subsection.  A rail carrier affected by this subsection may apply to the Board for relief.  If the Board, after an opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of title 5, decides that preference for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation materially will lessen the quality of freight transportation provided to shippers, the Board shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on reasonable terms.

The hosts can say "This isn't going to work and this is why."

Yet, they haven't done it, which means they don't really have an issue or they are choosing to ignore it.

[electricron]

Added costs that Class Is bear are (1) track maintenance costs to maintain track for high(er) passenger train speeds when maintaining track for lower freight train speeds would suffice, at less cost, and (2) delaying freight trains so that Amtrak can take priority.

The freight railroads and passenger transit agencies which Amtrak trains run over also include additional insurance costs, signaling costs, dispatcher labor costs, etc. It's more than just the two costs you wrote earlier. Trinity Metro had to double their insurance coverage costs and add another passing siding in Tarrant County including all the costs of laying steel tracks, turnouts or switches, signals, lawyers, consultants, and construction workers so the Texas Eagle can run two trains a day on Trinity Railway Express tracks between downtown Fort Worth and downtown Dallas in lieu of remaining on Union Pacific tracks. Over time, the additional insurance costs every year will far outweigh the costs of building the extra passing siding and additional maintenance caused by the Texas Eagle trains on TRE tracks. The TRE is a passenger train service which was already maintaining the tracks to a higher standard than what most freight trains need, yet hosting Amtrak trains costs them more every year than not hosting Amtrak.

[ThirdRail7]

The freight railroads and passenger transit agencies which Amtrak trains run over also include additional insurance costs, signaling costs, dispatcher labor costs, etc. It's more than just the two costs you wrote earlier. Trinity Metro had to double their insurance coverage costs and add another passing siding in Tarrant County including all the costs of laying steel tracks, turnouts or switches, signals, lawyers, consultants, and construction workers so the Texas Eagle can run two trains a day on Trinity Railway Express tracks between downtown Fort Worth and downtown Dallas in lieu of remaining on Union Pacific tracks. Over time, the additional insurance costs every year will far outweigh the costs of building the extra passing siding and additional maintenance caused by the Texas Eagle trains on TRE tracks. The TRE is a passenger train service which was already maintaining the tracks to a higher standard than what most freight trains need, yet hosting Amtrak trains costs them more every year than not hosting Amtrak.

The railroads already have to pay for most of that (and typically, Amtrak is self-insured on freight tracks) so I'm curious as to how you know that Amtrak (or some other entity) isn't assuming the incremental costs of, say the additional maintainers or dispatchers?

Unless something has changed, examples are VRE contributing to the costs of the NS and CSX passenger desks and the dispatchers that control the lines and LIRR and Amtrak both contributing to the costs of the PSCC costs. As I think about it, NJT contributes to some of the costs of maintainers at key interlockings at rush hour., since it benefits their trains.

I'm not saying Amtrak does or does not contribute since I honestly don't know. I'm just asking you how do you know that these costs have not been passed on.

[ExCon90]

In the language regarding delivering Amtrak trains to all scheduled passenger stops by the scheduled time therefor I don't see a corresponding requirement for Amtrak to deliver its trains at origin or an interchange point at the scheduled time, and what happens if the train is late out of its origin or its locomotive fails en route (requiring a request for assistance from a nearby freight locomotive). Normally the freight railroad works with Amtrak to schedule the hot freight trains right behind Amtrak; if Amtrak is an hour late showing up, should the freight trains be delayed to wait for it? In the Acca examples cited above, if Amtrak is late out of Washington according to the schedule worked out with CSX, does CSX still have a responsibility to stab its freight trains to allow the straggler to overtake?

As to any reluctance by the freight railroads to seek waivers or exceptions from a Government bureaucracy, bitter experience with the Interstate Commerce Commission has bred a reluctance to ask the Government for relief, because the answer, when it comes, becomes the law of the land and may not be what either party hoped for. As long as the Government hasn't gotten involved, the possibility remains that something can be worked out between the parties.

[mtuandrew]

If there was ever a time for major freight lines to ask for Federal government relief re: Amtrak, this would be it. There has never been a Department of Transportation as friendly to business as there is today (before the 1960s it may have been friendlier, but would have been a different department) and there’s a good chance that there won’t be an administrator as friendly to business for a while after 2020.

Makes me wonder if Anderson is trying to get ahead of the curve by announcing LD cuts, taking some trains off (and paying more for others) as a bargaining tool to keep the Class Is from hobbling all of the LDs.