Amtrak Expansion Plan

[gokeefe]

The MILW Treasurer once remarked to me, that on May 5, 1971, when the wire from Amtrak paying for an estimated month of service showed up on time, it meant one less payroll he need worry about making.

Mr. Norman,

Would you say that as a consequence of Amtrak's creation the MILW remained solvent longer than would have otherwise been expected?

That's an interesting angle which I don't believe has been mentioned before.

[Gilbert B Norman]

I'll buy that, Mr. O'Keefe; maybe by a year, but not much more.

Likely inevitable since May 16, 1909, when my Father turned three months old!

[mtuandrew]

Messrs. Norman and O’Keefe, what about the formation of Chicago RTD? I’m not aware of when they purchased the MILW line north of Chicago Union Station, but am aware that by the 1970s they were funding equipment purchases like the F40Cs.

[Tadman]

I bet that was a huge deal to take the commuter trains off Milwaukee's books. Since the 1970's, Metra has not only invested in track and equipment, but rationalized all commuter services to better serve suburban rush hour riders at the expense of other riders. At one time, the service we think of as commuter trains were really just frequent locals. That means just as many stops in the city where duplicate CTA service was offered, plenty of mid-day service, and even baggage and express for items like milk and newspapers.

It's a well known case where CNW cut a deal with Chicago - the city would not oppose the railroad dropping most inner city stops for commuter trains if the railroad would buy new gallery cars and keep a few stops like Clybourn and Ravenswood. Evidently these inner city stops were not big money operations.

The really smart railroads either avoided commuter service, like Santa Fe, or they kept a low profile like GM&O or Wabash.

Bringing it back to Amtrak expansion, it's ironic that Amtrak wants revenues from operating commuter lines after the legacy carriers fought for decades to get out of commuter operations. Even Conrail fought to get out of commuter despite a subsidy and UP is now in a lawsuit with Metra to get out of the POS contract.

[ExCon90]

One of the main reasons Conrail wanted out of the commuter business as a contract operator was that they were consistently getting stiffed by some cash-strapped commuter agencies who knew perfectly well that Conrail couldn't "put them on cash" and shut the service down if they didn't pay. The only way out was to get a law passed forbidding Conrail to operate as a contract carrier (NERSA was the result); the word at the time was that the Conrail attorney who shepherded the change through Congress got a standing ovation from the Conrail board when the Act took effect. If Metra has been a "prompt pay" I think we have to look at some other reason for UP's wishing to end the arrangement. (Does anybody know whether Metra has been a chronic "slow pay" with the UP?)

[eolesen]

I haven't heard anything about Metra being a slow-pay, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the root cause behind the lawsuit.

Both BNSF and UP have as part of their Purchase of Service agreements a clause where they keep all revenue from ticket sales at outstations and onboard sales. In the case of the UP, it also included sales at Olgilvie (the old CNW downtown terminal). Metra would then make up the difference on the POS payments, but at least BNSF and UP had cash coming in to soften the blow of waiting on Metra to pay-up.

About three years ago, digital ticketing was rolled out, and <shocker> adoption was very swift. Cash has all but been eliminated onboard, and being able to buy a monthly, ten-ride or weekend pass on your smartphone has killed off demand for ticket agents (unionized) at the 20 or so stations which were still staffed. Since then, they've been actively closing outlying ticket offices as agents leave or retire.

My guess.... UP's not seeing cash coming in at the same level, and they're having to carry a larger chunk of the float for expenses and salaries.

[MACTRAXX]

Messrs. Norman and O’Keefe, what about the formation of Chicago RTD? I’m not aware of when they purchased the MILW line north of Chicago Union Station, but am aware that by the 1970s they were funding equipment purchases like the F40Cs.

I bet that was a huge deal to take the commuter trains off Milwaukee's books. Since the 1970's, Metra has not only invested in track and equipment, but rationalized all commuter services to better serve suburban rush hour riders at the expense of other riders. At one time, the service we think of as commuter trains were really just frequent locals. That means just as many stops in the city where duplicate CTA service was offered, plenty of mid-day service, and even baggage and express for items like milk and newspapers.

It's a well known case where CNW cut a deal with Chicago - the city would not oppose the railroad dropping most inner city stops for commuter trains if the railroad would buy new gallery cars and keep a few stops like Clybourn and Ravenswood. Evidently these inner city stops were not big money operations.

The really smart railroads either avoided commuter service, like Santa Fe, or they kept a low profile like GM&O or Wabash.

Bringing it back to Amtrak expansion, it's ironic that Amtrak wants revenues from operating commuter lines after the legacy carriers fought for decades to get out of commuter operations. Even Conrail fought to get out of commuter despite a subsidy and UP is now in a lawsuit with Metra to get out of the POS contract.

Andrew and Tad: What you both are describing was the formation of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA for short) in Chicagoland during the second half of
the 1970s decade. Beginning in 1977 as example the RTA began to place in service
F40 locomotives along with a fleet of Budd-built gallery cars. RTA also began to fund
track work and station improvements.

Before the RTA there were Chicago area suburban mass transit districts subsidizing services:

The Chicago South Suburban Mass Transit District was responsible for the acquiring
the Highliner MU fleet back in 1971-72 and subsidy to the Illinois Central Electric
commuter service.

The West Suburban Mass Transit District subsidized BN operations and owned the E9 locomotive fleet.

The North West Suburban Mass Transit District purchased 13 F40C locomotives and
36 gallery cars for primarily the Milwaukee Road West Line. NWSMTD took title to
62 other former Milwaukee Road commuter cars.

The North Suburban Mass Transit District (NORTRAN) contributed subsidy to the
Milwaukee Road North Line and owned two F40C locomotives. They took title to
7 former MILW F9 locomotives. For a time NORTRAN ran its own bus operation.

https://www.chicagorailfan.com/rosmtd.html
https://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Nor ... orporation

In the early 1980s the RTA formed the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation to take direct control of railroad operations. The first was the bankrupt
Rock Island Railroad services and than the two Milwaukee Road routes. NIRC was a
direct predecessor to what would be named the Metropolitan Rail (Metra) System.

https://metrarail.com/about-metra/our-history

EC90 mentions the exit of Conrail from passenger service in 1982 - SEPTA was the weakest financially of their commuter rail contract operations. An indication to how
the relationship between SEPTA and Conrail may have been was the omission of any
mention of Conrail in SEPTA public timetables issued from July 1981 through 1982.
Example: Public timetables noted that they were operated by Conrail under contract.
This was shortened to "Operated under contract for SEPTA"

Amtrak would end up with only the Maryland DOT subsidized Baltimore-Washington
service on the NEC (today's MARC Penn Line) being directly operated by Amtrak
under the name "AMDOT" service used in 1983-84 until MARC was created.

From 1987 until 2003 Amtrak operated the MBTA commuter service under contract.
That was of a similar circumstance then to today's UP/Metra operation.

MACTRAXX

[BandA]

Massachusetts is also studying an east-west corridor that could go on the list. All of the six alternatives run between Springfield and Boston with some also extending the service to Pittsfield. No decisions have been made on who would operate it or how.

This is a tricky one too but I will admit that getting all of these communities to join the MBTA would be nearly impossible. That means "more likely than not" that Amtrak will be the operator.

How do Amtrak (actual costs and billed prices) compare to MBTA/Keolis? How do other Commuter Rail operators costs compare? The states should pick the operator with the lowest cost.

Springfield-Boston will probably be operated by MBTA/Keolis, with Amtrak restarting Inland Regionals. As for funding, Massachusetts will probably do something "creative"....

[Rockingham Racer]

Just a note: Springfield to Boston is longer than Milwaukee to Chicago. I doubt the T will go any further west than Worcester.

[eolesen]

Penn to Montauk is 120 miles, and that's all LIRR. No reason that a 90-100 mile trip can't use commuter service equipment.

As for funding, there's no reason they'd have to join MBTA if the state funds the extension and subsidizes it.

[mtuandrew]

Penn to Montauk is 120 miles, and that's all LIRR. No reason that a 90-100 mile trip can't use commuter service equipment.

South Bend to Chicago is about 100 miles too. Most of the traffic is west of Michigan City, but still.

As for funding, there's no reason they'd have to join MBTA if the state funds the extension and subsidizes it.

MBTA may not want to deal with it either. It makes the most sense to me as a 5x-daily Amtrak route, but that’s up to the Commonwealth.

[rcthompson04]

Penn to Montauk is 120 miles, and that's all LIRR. No reason that a 90-100 mile trip can't use commuter service equipment.

South Bend to Chicago is about 100 miles too. Most of the traffic is west of Michigan City, but still.

As for funding, there's no reason they'd have to join MBTA if the state funds the extension and subsidizes it.

MBTA may not want to deal with it either. It makes the most sense to me as a 5x-daily Amtrak route, but that’s up to the Commonwealth.

I think the best parallel to the situation in Massachusetts is the Keystone Service in Pennsylvania. Amtrak handles everything outside of SEPTA's operating area for transit except a few stations. Such a breakdown might work in Massachusetts as well. It protects the extended rail from being dragged into the disputes of a regional transit authority.

[Tadman]

Penn to Montauk is 120 miles, and that's all LIRR. No reason that a 90-100 mile trip can't use commuter service equipment.

South Bend to Chicago is about 100 miles too. Most of the traffic is west of Michigan City, but still.

And somehow my favorite little railroad, which is quite friendly and open with riders and fans, found the most uncomfortable seats in 1982 and has kept using them until the 2008 order for the 300's. Riding the South Shore cars all the way to South Bend is painful on the behind, even when Metra had reasonably competent seats just over the border. It seems like one of those "we dont' actually ride the trains" moments.

[Tadman]

(Does anybody know whether Metra has been a chronic "slow pay" with the UP?)

I have no evidence in either direction, but Illinois is a chronic slow pay to their vendors at the state level. Do a little internet search and you'll find this is a chronic issue.

https://www.blogarama.com/personal-fina ... e-illinois

I hadn't considered this and perhaps we have arrived at the root of the problem. If so, it's amazing how foolish Illinois has been to marginalize such a reliable partner that has been with them for so long.

[ryanch]

Tadman,

Whatever you think of higher taxes or the efficiency of government spending, the slow-pay status of Illinois was entirely a creation of the stand-off between the Madigan Dem legislature and Republican Gov. Rauner, who left office in January. That article from March is out-dated now that Illinois has a Dem governor. The state has cut its payments backlog in half, and has seen its credit rating improve.
https://www.nprillinois.org/post/illino ... oller-says

I'd be willing to bet the same would be true if we'd elected a GOP legislature, only they'd have done it by reducing spending. It was the standoff that was killing us.