Railroad Forums 

  • Should union pacific be made to allow Amtrak on the Tehachapi loop?

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1553398  by ExCon90
 
Demand would likely be very low. The freeway between Bakersfield and LA is fairly straight, with a significant grade, while the railroad goes around three sides of a square to avoid that. Most passengers would probably go for the time saving with the bus transfer -- the Santa Fe did very well with their twice-a-day Golden Gates in competition with SP back in the day. The bus transfer at Bakersfield was at trainside -- as I believe it still is today.
 #1553935  by John_Perkowski
 
Sure, if Amtrak pays the full cost of time on the line. It averages 40 trains per day. That’s 5 trains every three hours on track that has a 25 MPH speed limit.

Have fun.
 #1553957  by mtuandrew
 
I’m not sure UP could be made to allow Amtrak over Tehachapi. Amtrak’s right of access authorization hasn’t really been tested in court; I’m not sure it would hold up under the current Supremes. That’s a “let sleeping dogs lie” moment, until we have a US Department of Transportation willing to fight for that initiative and a US Department of Justice that can wholeheartedly argue that public access to Tehachapi supersedes Union Pacific’s right to use its property as it sees fit.

Also, what Col. Perkowski says. This is not a high-speed rail line, it isn’t that direct, and it is consistently running near capacity. California is better off running with its proposed high-speed line between Bakersfield and Palmdale, which cuts significant distance and time off what a San Joaquins train would take through the Tehachapi Loop. The route is by no means set in stone - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_of_ ... Speed_Rail for detail and links to the official CAHSR page.
 #1553963  by mtuandrew
 
amtrakowitz wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:58 am
railgeekteen wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:21 am It's kinda dumb that the San Joaquins can't reach LA, would really benefit CA's Amtrak network in many ways?
What is with "be made to"? You advocating government coercion?
Pretty sure railgeekteen thinks Amtrak can still preempt its way onto any part of any American railroad, at least if they bought into NRPC. That isn’t the case anymore, not clearly.
 #1553977  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Geekteen, under RPSA70, while much has been amended by subsequent enacted legislation, Amtrak never had the right to force its way on to any road's ROW. The Act simply states the road must "negotiate in good faith" and that the Surf Board (today) will hear disputes arising from such.

Considering the topography, it should not be any wonder that the ATSF only operated through trains such as the San Francisco Chief "over the hill" and that their local trsins, the "Golden Gates" had the same bus arrangement as Amtrak has today.
 #1554002  by charlesriverbranch
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:18 pm Considering the topography, it should not be any wonder that the ATSF only operated through trains such as the San Francisco Chief "over the hill" and that their local trsins, the "Golden Gates" had the same bus arrangement as Amtrak has today.
This may be a stupid question, but if this was a Santa Fe line, why is it Union Pacific and not BNSF that gets the call?
 #1554009  by ExCon90
 
The history is complicated, but in the 20th century the SP owned LA-Bakersfield-Oakland and the ATSF had trackage rights from Mojave, where their line from Barstow joined, to Bakersfield, from where they had their own line to the Bay Area. Successor BNSF thus has the same rights over successor UP.
 #1554020  by STrRedWolf
 
electricron wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 1:49 am Whether the 25 mph speed limit is true or not, have you ever ridden on a train crawling so slowly for hours?
MARC Penn Line when signal power died between Baltimore and Odenton. The entire territory became manual block territory at 15 MPH. A half-hour trip added another hour.

By comparison, the equally sized Horseshoe Curve has a speed limit of 30 MPH freight, 44 MPH passenger (but I think the Pennsylvanian slows down to 30 anyway for historical significance).

If I remember the article out of Trains, one end of the loop is single track. In my eye that's an unforgivable sin -- it should be double track at a minimum, including freight.

With the train traffic on it to boot... no, it's not worth it.
 #1554037  by WhartonAndNorthern
 
You need to have the state pay to double track the line and then you can run passenger trains. Of course the state is focused on building (or not building ) HSR so doubletracking the loop would detract and distract from that effort.
I wish that the first segment of HSR wasn't train to nowhere but instead an attempt to bridge this gap.
 #1554041  by STrRedWolf
 
WhartonAndNorthern wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:24 am You need to have the state pay to double track the line and then you can run passenger trains. Of course the state is focused on building (or not building ) HSR so doubletracking the loop would detract and distract from that effort.
I wish that the first segment of HSR wasn't train to nowhere but instead an attempt to bridge this gap.
Well, it already is double-tracked but one end is not.