How much are Class I and II railroads paid by Amtrak?

Tadman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 9:52 pm Many major commuter operators bought a large portion of their trackage from bankrupt estates that no longer needed to run freights all the way downtown, so there isn't a lot of evidence to study. Of the five major commuter cities in the US (Boston, NY, Philly, Chicago, and LA) probably half or more are now operator-owned.

MARC operates on CSX, NJT has some short segments on Conrail (Lehigh Valley Line/RVL and ACL on Delair Bridge), MBTA/MassDOT now owns the Worcester Line outright from CSX and SEPTA's West Trenton Line was recently seperated from CSX.

In the Toronto (GTA) region, Metrolinx owns all GO Transit lines except Milton (a main CPR corridor).

One anomaly is the Port Jervis Line: NS owned, MNCR leased and maintained, with trains operated under a joint NJT/MNCR through service contract with NJT crews.

As late as 2008, Metro-North's Hudson and Harlem lines (and GCT) were owned by...Penn Central (by then part of the American Premier Underwriters group).

https://www.railwayage.com/wp-content/u ... Report.pdf is a report from a study about how to increase freight services on the CA-owned Los Angeles to San Diego route and extend the Coaster services south of the current southern terminus. Its an interesting illustration of the complexities of scheduling freight and two different types of passenger services together.

GWoodle wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 7:06 pm So if it costs $1Mil per mile and Amtrak pays $5 becomes a pittance. Even for a short line operator may like to have Amtrak but can't afford to keep it.

Mr. Woodle alliterates to an interesting point. The several Class II (Short Line) roads, such as the CV, Rutland, C&O in Virginia (somebody knows their present day names, but I don't without research) successors, are happy to have Amtrak. Under the formula - at least when I was in the industry and "in the know", Amtrak paid their proportion of the total cost to maintain a particular segment of road. This means, if such still prevails today but is all sealed up within a bilateral agreement not open to public review, that a Short Line hosting a "one a day" Amtrak and a "one a day" of their own, could have Amtrak paying 50% of the cost of any particular segment. By contrast, the BNSF Chicago Sub by my house with about 140 trains a day, of which eight are Amtrak, means that Amtrak is paying a "farthing" of the total maintenance cost of this very busy segment of road.

The predicate for the above-titled thread is this:

What are the COSTS associated with Amtrak use of lines owned/operated by the Class I and Class II Railroads?

The history of Amtrak's initial use (pursuant to governing Contracts written between 1971 and 1996) was based upon the use of Amtrak's "SFGT" model (Speed-Factored Gross Tonnage), which, in effect, generated a significant cross-subsidy for Amtrak. In the course of Amtrak's early years these underpayments were generally tolerated as part of the bargain related to the disposition of the Industry's intercity passenger service obligations and the burden of losses carried by those obligations.

Conrail and Amtrak were unable to resolve this matter and jointly applied to the ICC (Finance Docket 32467) for a ruling, which was rendered on December 29, 1995 which was the ICC's final day of business. As Amtrak's initial 25-year Contracts were due to lapse in early 1996, there was a degree of urgency attached.

Conrail introduced Zeta-Tech's WSAC model (Weighted System Average Costs), which the ICC accepted and imposed in its decision. Since that time the science of cost apportionment has improved exponentially.

Notwithstanding, it remains a matter of fact that the Class I and II railroads are insufficiently compensated for Amtrak's use of their lines.

I would highly recommend a search: "Amtrak speed factored gross tonnage history". This will lead to a link to an unpublished FRA document of 118 pages, which I believe to be a worthy introduction to the applicable factors and equities of this important and complex subject.

Defer to Mr. Carey, as his knowledge of the matter greatly exceeds mine.

I left the industry during '81, whereas Mr. Carey appears to have stayed in such for a full career.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 6:28 amThe several Class II (Short Line) roads, such as the CV, Rutland

These two in particular have gotten their track substantially upgraded on the sections Amtrak runs on, which in turn helps their freight move faster as well. Even better for them that "someone else" paid for said upgrades.

I believe I read somewhere a while back that the CLP (Rutland-Whitehall) was 10mph or worse until the track was fixed and the Ethan Allen came along.

Does JB Hunt provide their own locomotives, or are they paying for things that Amtrak isn't asking for?

Also, does traffic create wear on the track, and if so, is paying per-train addressing the relevant costs, or is tonnage a more appropriate metric, or cars a good proxy, since no one wants to weigh every loaded car in a freight train?

Even if these questions have answers that favor Amtrak, I understand that the fee is still low. But I'm trying to understand the economics of it.

JB Hunt is a trucking firm, not a railroad...

Any and all traffic, loaded or empty, would create wear on the tracks, heavier loads more so. Especially if a given route sees a high train frequency.

NHV 669 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:45 am

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 6:28 amThe several Class II (Short Line) roads, such as the CV, Rutland

These two in particular have gotten their track substantially upgraded on the sections Amtrak runs on, which in turn helps their freight move faster as well. Even better for them that "someone else" paid for said upgrades.

I believe I read somewhere a while back that the CLP (Rutland-Whitehall) was 10mph or worse until the track was fixed and the Ethan Allen came along.

There are still sections of 10mph around Rutland yard I believe. Have not made a trip that way in ten years or more. Never felt super comfortable running up there. Anyway there is a section of 60mph parallel with RT7 on old welded rail the VTR bought from Amtrak. At least it was there when I was qualified. I can not speak to anything going north to Burlington haven't a clue.

ryanwc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 12:03 pm Does JB Hunt provide their own locomotives, or are they paying for things that Amtrak isn't asking for?

These are all very good questions and I really respect your thirst to understand the issues.

First, JB Hunt does not have their own power. The big four US roads know this is a very important revenue stream and do their best to make sure the assigned power is in top shape as it is worth big money to reach the destination on time. At times they have experimented with specialized power such as the four-motor six-axle power at BNSF and the GP60's used by SP decades ago. Really the only time private power is used was a few coal operations in the 1970's that felt Penn Central was overcharging them for power so they bought their own entire trains. Penn Central was also power-short as they didnt' have the budget to do adequate maintenance, so a lot of power sat in a dead line. The other time is Amtrak.

I've argued this before, Amtrak doesn't pay market rates (as I think a lot of us agree her) and doesn't do adequate maintenance on their power. If they leased power from the Freights and used HEP generators in baggage cars, the freights would be financially incentivized to provide a pair of SD70's in good shape. Even if the nominal lease payments on those motors weren't profitable, it's nice not to have a dead P42 tying up a single track main and blocking intermodals and coal trains. Since there is a big surplus of power right now, it would make sense.

Consider the practical side of an agreement like that: UP agrees to provide two motors full of fuel to move the Zephyr. If there is a problem that requires a 2 hour stop in the desert, the VP of intermodal traffic realizes he is losing money on his super-lucrative JB Hunt, UPS, or Schneider business. He calls Little Rock and says "hey you jerks, don't put anymore junkyard specials on the passenger trains, they are killing me".

Also, does traffic create wear on the track, and if so, is paying per-train addressing the relevant costs, or is tonnage a more appropriate metric, or cars a good proxy, since no one wants to weigh every loaded car in a freight train?

The track slots are the real cost here. A passenger train moves fast and probably takes up the space required to run 2 intermodal trains or four mixed freights. That's a lot of revenue lost, and its why UP wants big money to go daily on the Sunset. It's also why I'm philosophically against a daily Sunset. Billions spent so an extra 200 people per week can take the train is crazy. This is why I advocate for a Tucson-Phoenix 3x/day corridor train with perhaps a daily connection to Los Angeles. I-10 is awful between these cities, you also have multiple huge universities, air force base, and lots of retirees that don't like to drive. Whatever it takes to upgrade that 120 mile segment is worth 400-500 riders per day. Frankly I think its a Brightline project before it's an Amtrak project.

So something like the Illinois double-tracking project eliminates a big part of the cost to the freights, because their trains can keep running?

I was surprised to realize a couple weeks ago that much of Chicago-St. Louis remains single track, with alternating double- and single-track segments of similar length. But maybe that's enough -- like an old 2-lane highway with just enough third lane and Pass with Care zones to avoid big back-ups behind that slow-moving semi.

Does UP continue to provide power on the Metra line whose operations were handed over to Metra recently?

EDITED -a map of the Chicago-STL double track is here. South of Joliet, the double track segments may be a little shorter than single. They're regular though, with 14 double and 14 single alternating, giving an average of maybe 9 miles single before hitting an 8-mile double-track section to allow for passage. The longest single-track sections are just south of Bloomington and north of Carlinville.
https://www.hsrail.org/st-louis-corridor/

To follow Mr. Dunville's immediate, I think there is a new "player in town" with the clout to make the two Uncles (Pete and Warren) listen up.

Observed an Eastbound BNSF Container yesterday (I was on foot and on the desired side of the ROW) which in addition to JBH's, there were quite a number of AZNU's, or otherwise Steel Blue with a big smile.

The agreements may differ with different carriers too. There's definitely a performance incentive program with BNSF and their internal policy lately seems to be to keep Amtrak moving so they can cash in on the performance incentives offered by Amtrak to the extent possible.

I'm all for the class 1 carriers getting a fair and just compensation and if what's currently being paid isn't fair that's one thing. But I am also not for the taxpayers and passengers subsidizing roads' PSR and cost cutting practices where Amtrak trains have been operating for 50 years. Obviously the roads have the right to operate the business the way they wish but that does not remove their obligations regarding Amtrak nor should Amtrak have to subsidize for existing services these business decisions and desires to tighten margins. Obviously newly proposed services affecting capacity are a different story and it's obviously on Amtrak/the states/the feds to fund capacity upgrades to add new services and appropriately compensate the roads.

ryanwc wrote:
Does UP continue to provide power on the Metra line whose operations were handed over to Metra recently?

UP has never provided the power, but they have maintained what Metra assigns to them.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

On my railroad hot trains don't exist anymore, I'm pretty sure that the northbound loaded Tropicana traffic travels in regular freight trains and even UPS trains are subject to trip optimizer constantly running well below track speed.

The trains are taking longer to get to any given point due to trip optimizer, and the dispatchers know this, but there is nothing that they can do since its operating policy. They know that if the train could do track speed from this siding to that siding they wouldn't have to hold Amtrak back at a further siding for example.

But the freight train won't do track speed due to trip optimizer and Amtrak gets held way back no matter how much they are paying for priority. The railroad will still collect the fee though.

If anything, most Class 1's are ripping off Amtrak now a days, in fact it's kind of criminal in my opinion.