Amtrak says it will not run trains on routes without PTC

[Seaboard92]

Bill Maher had a segment in the midpoint of his show entitled "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true."

Well I don't know it for a fact that Anderson and Gardner are terrible for Amtrak's future, I just know it's true.

Love or hate trains magazine at least they are taking a step to fight this garbage. Sure it might not be the most factual at times especially in "he said, she said" spats like anything concerning the Gardner Anderson regime. But the fact that it warranted a response from Amtrak should tell you somethings up.

It means that someone isn't overly happy about the attention the issues have just gotten because it could potentially cause problems for the regime. As it generates news stories in towns along the routes mentioned, and people call their congressmen. Which means Anderson and Gardner will have some explaining to do.

So love it or hate it at least Trains Magazine is on the right side of things as far as fighting for the trains. Now journalistically could be an issue with it. But at least they are fighting for OUR trains.

#saveourtrainsfireanderson

#saveamtrakfireanderson

#sendgardnerbacktothegarden

#maketrainsgreatagain

Disclosure: I sell photos to trains magazine, and will have a few guest columns in the near future.

 

[jis]

The Amtrak response was caused by RPA asking for a response. Who knows what they would have done on their own?

It was inappropriate of Trains from a journalistic point of view to not ask for Amtrak's comment before sending it out on the wire too.

If we keep condoning bad behavior because someone is putatively on our side, then we are being no different from the other side.

 

[west point]

As we posted on another thread. Maybe this Amtrak;s knee jerk reaction to RPA's letter criticizing Amtrak's accounting ? Keeps some limelight onto the accounting question ?

 

[jis]

As we posted on another thread. Maybe this Amtrak;s knee jerk reaction to RPA's letter criticizing Amtrak's accounting ? Keeps some limelight onto the accounting question ?

And as I posted on the other thread, they have nothing to do with each other. This PTC/SWC thing started many months before even the first internal draft of the accounting thing was put together within RPA.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

They sent this letter in the last couple of months, with the deadline looming in December. You seriously believe that with denial of all exemptions any of these segments will actually have any service on them past December? Even with all the additional appropriations now none of these segments would meet the extension criteria, so those will have to be changed too. They are just being silly at this point. If they had done this two years back that would be something else. Alternatively they could do this together with extending everything by two more years. But absent that Sorry. You are not making much sense.

The letter says they do not support providing permanent waivers for services that are modified into last minute exception territory due primarily or exclusively to lack of necessary funding. Limited duration exceptions setup for the purpose of finding and securing additional funding past the deadline are not excluded, at least according to my reading. As explained in the letter the current PTC mandate is bigger than Amtrak, has been advocated for over a half century, and US railroads and related parties resisted change and dragged their feet for decades. Now they're using the current deadline as leverage to obtain permanent exceptions. Nothing is written in stone until the very last horse is traded so both sides are making a last ditch effort to nudge the end game in their desired direction. Nothing about this seems all that crazy to me.

 

[jis]

My point is that these guys ought to have done this a couple of years back, including providing the funding. Any funding that is provided through the 2018 or 2019 appropriation is too late to have any material effect in meeting the December deadline for anything. It is their own dilly-dallying that got us here. They should have thought about it earlier. In the bigger scheme of things it is a reasonable request, but not at the point of time when they came around to do so. And I agree, it has nothing to do with Amtrak specifically.

My complaint is that Congress has generally handled this whole affair poorly and in the process caused half the problems that people have faced. Of course it is also entirely possible that their inherent incompetence was used by clever manipulators in the industry to lead them down a garden path to a corner. But nothing prevented them fro appropriating adequate funds to actually do a better job of implementing their grand plan, which they ignored until past the 11th hour.

And we won't even go into the business of the clashes between the FCC, EPA and FRA regarding licensing of bandwidth and tower construction. That is a whole another large can of worms, fortunately mostly behind us. It was the primary cause of the last round of extension of the deadline, not gratuitous dilly-dallying by the big bad freight railroads.

 

[bretton88]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

 

[lordsigma]

So, if the Democrats had their way, those 8 trains would be history even without the Amtrak shenanigans. Sigh.... Politicians! They need to learn when to stop grandstanding and get real.

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/House-Democrats-warn-FRA-against-PTC-exemptions--55023

So maybe the Obama appointees are doing the Democrats bidding? Anything is possible these days.

interesting to see Capuano from mass on there as one of the signatories. I wonder if he realizes this would kill the Downeaster, Vermonter, and planned knowledge corridor expansion. Although he’s from the Boston area so probably doesn’t care about the latter two. [emoji2]

 

[lordsigma]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?

 

[Seaboard92]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?

FRA Class I track is 15 mph passenger

Class II track is 30 mph passenger.

Now between Class I railroads like CSX and Class twos like Pan Am I'm not sure.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?

FRA Class I track is 15 mph passenger
Class II track is 30 mph passenger.

Now between Class I railroads like CSX and Class twos like Pan Am I'm not sure.

The distinction between Class I, II, and III railroads is based on annual revenue, but the specific numbers change every year due to inflation.

 

[bretton88]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?

FRA Class I track is 15 mph passenger

Class II track is 30 mph passenger.

Now between Class I railroads like CSX and Class twos like Pan Am I'm not sure.

I believe the exemption is based upon number of passenger trains, which is 6 maximum. The downeaster currently runs 5.

 

[lordsigma]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?

FRA Class I track is 15 mph passenger

Class II track is 30 mph passenger.

Now between Class I railroads like CSX and Class twos like Pan Am I'm not sure.

Thanks for info. As an aside one thing I've always found interesting about Pan Am (formerly Guilford) is how it splits its assets up into subsidiaries named after former railroads that overtime formed the current company although the entire company does business as Pan Am. The "Boston and Maine" contains the railroad line property itself while "Springfield Terminal" is operations (train crews, dispatch, etc.) I believe Maine Central owns the rolling stock. I know one of the reasons is that way back when Springfield Terminal historically had the most beneficial agreements with the unions among the former carriers so since then they have put all the union employees under Springfield Terminal. Is that sort of practice common for freight railroads or is that really a Pan Am thing?

 

[fredmcain]

Bill Maher had a segment in the midpoint of his show entitled "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true."

Well I don't know it for a fact that Anderson and Gardner are terrible for Amtrak's future, I just know it's true.

Love or hate trains magazine at least they are taking a step to fight this garbage. Sure it might not be the most factual at times especially in "he said, she said" spats like anything concerning the Gardner Anderson regime. But the fact that it warranted a response from Amtrak should tell you somethings up.

It means that someone isn't overly happy about the attention the issues have just gotten because it could potentially cause problems for the regime. As it generates news stories in towns along the routes mentioned, and people call their congressmen. Which means Anderson and Gardner will have some explaining to do.

So love it or hate it at least Trains Magazine is on the right side of things as far as fighting for the trains. Now journalistically could be an issue with it. But at least they are fighting for OUR trains.

#saveourtrainsfireanderson

#saveamtrakfireanderson

#sendgardnerbacktothegarden

#maketrainsgreatagain

Disclosure: I sell photos to trains magazine, and will have a few guest columns in the near future.

Seaboard,

Great points! I have a hard time disagreeing with you !

Regards,

FMC

 

[MikefromCrete]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?

FRA Class I track is 15 mph passenger
Class II track is 30 mph passenger.

Now between Class I railroads like CSX and Class twos like Pan Am I'm not sure.

The distinction between Class I, II, and III railroads is based on annual revenue, but the specific numbers change every year due to inflation.

This is correct. The Class I, II and III distinctions are based on revenue. Track rank is different.

 

[jis]

Track Classes in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Track_classes

Railroad Classes in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_classes

 

[cpotisch]

There is an interesting observation in this saga. 2 more trips on the Downeasters will be really expensive because it will trigger the PTC requirement. I wonder if Maine should start to figure out how to make PTC happen on that line anyways. I'm also not sure if freight is included in the ptc count.

is there a certain number or statistic that differentiates a class II from a class I?

FRA Class I track is 15 mph passenger
Class II track is 30 mph passenger.

Now between Class I railroads like CSX and Class twos like Pan Am I'm not sure.

The distinction between Class I, II, and III railroads is based on annual revenue, but the specific numbers change every year due to inflation.

Looks like these are the current figures:

What are Class I, Class II, and Class III freight railroads?


[SIZE=12pt]Class I Railroad – a freight railroad with an operating revenue exceeding $457.9 million. Seven Class I freight railroads operate in the United States: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, CSX Transportation, Grand Trunk Corporation, Kansas City Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad. Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway are also considered Class I due to their significant trackage in the United States.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Class II Railroad – often called a “regional railroad.” Class II railroads have operating revenues between $36.6 million and $457.9 million.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Class III Railroad – often called a “short line railroad.” Class III railroads have operating revenues of $36.6 million or less.[/SIZE]

 

[keelhauled]

I bet the Soy Transportation Board is thrilled that you're plagiarizing their content.

 

[jis]

Railroads don't have to be a "freight railroad" for the Class specification. Amtrak is as much a Class I railroad as any. The only criteria is commercial annual revenue (and I believe actually owning and operating trackage), at least as far as the AAR classification goes. There may be other classifications with other criteria.

For example this FRA document clearly talks about Class I Freight Railroad and Class Passenger Railroad:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=2ahUKEwj9rbnLypLdAhUBGKwKHcANChgQFjAPegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fra.dot.gov%2FElib%2FDocument%2F92&usg=AOvVaw1mIVhYKlF8avWtVjPvvbcl

This railroad classification is used across North America, not just in the US. So VIA is also a Class I railroad, though not in US. And of course Ferromex is a Class I railroad though not in the US.

 

[lordsigma]

Anderson was quoted as being interested in, earlier this year, something I think he termed an "experiential" train. I took that to mean a higher-end transcon train like the Canadian. But he obviously has no use for a daily connected long distance network. At best, under his "leadership," we might wind up with a weekly or twice-weekly "City of Everywhere" train with the rolling stock and amenities most of us dream about.

If anything I would interpret his comment to mean he is willing to let a couple of the more popular long distance trains continue to exist as is and the others he would like to eliminate/break up into no-frills corridors.

The SWC is the experiment if they succeed with implementing the bus bridge. The fact that they also plan to remove the sleepers, dining, and baggage from the whole route as part of this show that this is more about experimenting with a new service model that Amtrak's executive team is interested in than about safety/PTC.

 

[jis]

I think he is trying to avoid becoming responsible for funding and maintaining a bunch of trackage in a state which itself is unwilling to participate to any significant extent in it.

I find it hard to believe that PTC is the real reason when one of their options under consideration includes a run upto La Junta from the East over some Exempt trackage. Cynically speaking that would be an attempt to keep the Colorado folks dreams of running a train to Pueblo alive while avoiding the mess in New Mexico and across the pass.

 

[lordsigma]

I think he is trying to avoid becoming responsible for funding and maintaining a bunch of trackage in a state which itself is unwilling to participate to any significant extent in it.

I find it hard to believe that PTC is the real reason when one of their options under consideration includes a run upto La Junta from the East over some Exempt trackage. Cynically speaking that would be an attempt to keep the Colorado folks dreams of running a train to Pueblo alive while avoiding the mess in New Mexico and across the pass.

I hope you are right and that there aren't ulterior motives, but I remain skeptical. The problems with this this particular stretch of track that has to be addressed gives them a legitimate justification to make these changes. But I do think the proposed amenity cuts show that they are also eager to test this as a "contemporary service model" that could be employed on other current LD routes. If the bill passed and funding is granted to address this problem without a bus bridge they will be robbed of this experiment. Certainly the SWC has a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed, but between the proposed amenity cuts and the fact that Amtrak continually cites that the line doesn't make a profit as a justification for using this bus bridge model hint that this is something Amtrak management is eager to try out and that there is more to this than this route's unique problems.

 

[jis]

Well the motive is ulterior. The question is how wide does the wing of said motive spread. And we have no way of knowing that. Why use the PTC ruse when the real reason is something else, if that is the case?

 

[B&Ofan]

Whatever the motivations I'm glad I booked my trip on the CZ and CONO for this September / October.

 

[Anderson]

Well the motive is ulterior. The question is how wide does the wing of said motive spread. And we have no way of knowing that. Why use the PTC ruse when the real reason is something else, if that is the case?

Probably because a straight "train-off in an attempt to reduce losses" would have triggered even more outrage (especially alongside the record appropriation Amtrak got). I think the attempt was to deflect that angle onto a safety concern (and I continue to contend that Anderson, who I will agree is not a fool, has been easily manipulated by certain people due to differences between passenger rail and airlines). Some part of me wonders if the train-off proposal might have been done under the "attempt to reduce losses" banner if Amtrak had gotten a starvation appropriation, but when Congress decided to "make it rain" in March that totally screwed with a bunch of plans.

There's also been real issue of handling this in the worst way possible. Ideally, what you do is approach the relevant DOTs and legislatures ahead of their legislative session(s) and discuss your needs/requirements, with an eye towards working out a deal (and with a reasonably realistic set of conditions out on the table at the start of the process). In this case, Amtrak started this dog-and-pony show after the legislature broke for the season and since then has engaged in quite a game regarding the actual costs for the needed work and upkeep (e.g. I've seen $50m and $100m as costs for the work in question), to say nothing of their statements trying to downplay the train's circumstances, often in a misleading way (e.g. discussing the train's "lousy" load factor when the train regularly sells out in various segments in-season). You also have Amtrak management going back-and-forth as to whether they are "PTC-or-bust" or would be willing to accept alternatives (I have seen the word "perjury" used more than once as a result of this).

Edit: I think there's a real risk that a "straight train-off" scenario might have resulted in Congress considering something such as simply requiring Amtrak to turn around and lease equipment to a third party, provide operating crews, etc. and franchise the train out. Phrased another way: "You don't want to run this train? Fine, you won't run this train, and you're not getting the equipment to use elsewhere either."