Amtrak says it will not run trains on routes without PTC

It really ain’t quite over until the proverbial fat lady sings. [emoji57]

I never would have thought this way a year ago but now I think the franchise idea is the way to go with this management team and their destructive ideas in place. Give a 3-5 year contract to a private company and have Amtrak lease the equipment for a dollar a year. Specifically deduct Amtraks appropriation the amount of the contract. When Amtrak sees $$$ and equipment going away maybe the Board will wake up and fire Anderson and Gardner.

If the franchise train runs well maybe weve found Amtraks next ceo as a by product of the experiment.

Franchise with Amtrak equipment. They would have thin wheels, No AC, and the pipes burst from a deep freeze. Add in some bed bugs and you will have what Amtrak thinks is ready to roll equipment for your Franchise.

I am too warming to rebidding on the Southwest Chief route, but you know Amtrak will go from 100 million needed to 2 million needed in a heart beat. Not into the accounting books are cleaned up will this idea have leg to stand on.

Amtrakfflyer said:

I never would have thought this way a year ago but now I think the franchise idea is the way to go with this management team and their destructive ideas in place. Give a 3-5 year contract to a private company and have Amtrak lease the equipment for a dollar a year. Specifically deduct Amtraks appropriation the amount of the contract. When Amtrak sees $$$ and equipment going away maybe the Board will wake up and fire Anderson and Gardner.

If the franchise train runs well maybe weve found Amtraks next ceo as a by product of the experiment.

Click to expand...

I kind-of liked the idea when it was first floated out there a few years ago. I think a reasonable balance would be to turn to them and say that any LD route which triggers certain conditions gets put out for franchise on conditions along those lines for 3-5 years.

I am reminded of how if you take the difference between the "Boardman Chart" losses (that graph he presented to Congress about 4-5 years back) and the "fully allocated" losses on some LD routes, on a 15-20 year franchise (I do think you'd need to have longer franchises, though I can see a case for requiring Amtrak to make their equipment available until new stuff can be ordered and built) the difference in costs would be enough to fully equip new trains on the line.

Edit: If Amtrak were to suddenly reverse course on the SWC after franchising got seriously floated, I think the local senators would be inclined to tell Amtrak what stop to get off at. This affair sort-of reminds me of Indiana...IN asked Amtrak for decent service (I think they wanted a BC car and some form of OBS) and Amtrak blew them off for a decade or two. Then PRIIA 209 hit and suddenly Indiana was taking bids...and when it became clear that IN was actually prepared to issue a contract to another vendor, Boardman went trotting out there saying "Hey, tell us what you want!"

Just-Thinking-51 said:

Franchise with Amtrak equipment. They would have thin wheels, No AC, and the pipes burst from a deep freeze. Add in some bed bugs and you will have what Amtrak thinks is ready to roll equipment for your Franchise.

Click to expand...

Agreed - the big problem with forcing Amtrak to lease equipment is they will hand over all the broken down problem cars to the private franchise- a win win as it becomes someone else's problem.

If you want to avoid that problem, you give the franchisee the ability to get the cars fixed on their own and then charge Amtrak for most costs above and beyond the "norm" in terms of maintenance. Of course, this might end up being a good way to get some cars fixed up properly (especially if they get a team that can do it for less than it would, practically speaking, cost Amtrak to do...).

Sneaky tricks aside, if you give the franchisee a semi-fixed set of cars (they only "wander" outside of this batch of cars if there's a bad order or something) and the contractual ability to inspect them a certain amount of time before the lease begins (and the ability to demand a set of repairs) you'd avoid that particular pitfall.

(Now, if you want to see some drama, franchise out all the Superliner LD trains to different operators and have a half-dozen cars go bad at once in the winter in Chicago and watch them fight over who gets the car that's known for having a "touchy" heater...)

The longer-term handling of this would probably be a model like the "Pullman pool" wherein operators would have "their" cars but the equipment would be compatible and they would all have the ability to shuffle some around seasonally (something that we lost with the Superliners).

TRE has informed DART and the FW Metro that it will be seeking a continuance to Jan 1, 2020 to get PCT on the Dallas to FW route that Amtrak currently uses for the TE.

I wonder if that will affect the Eagle? Maybe a bus bridge? Go back to the UP line? Or just use it anyway?

Well, unless Anderson wants to back off from what he said during his testimony to Congress, segments that get FRA alternative schedule approval would be fine for Amtrak operation. It is the Exempt thing where he wants to do this SMS thing or bullcrap around them, somewhat inconsistently I might add.

I was told by several Amtrak employees that the Texas Eagle is now underr the same Spotlight by the Flyboys as the Southsest Chief due to the Black Holes in Arkansas and Missouri that don't have PTC.

Time to consider rerouting the Eagles on the old Texas Chief/Lone Star Route through Oklahoma and Texas????

Yeah. St. Louis - Kansas City - Oklahoma City - Fort Worth

jis said:

Yeah. St. Louis - Kansas City - Oklahoma City - Fort Worth

Click to expand...

So does that mean the TE would be running the route of the River Runner and Heartland Flyer?

That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.

Actually Kansas City to Fort Worth would be the route of the Amtrak Lone Star/SantaFe Texas Chief. Heartland Flyer is a just a segment of it.

jis said:

That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.

Actually Kansas City to Fort Worth would be the route of the Amtrak Lone Star/SantaFe Texas Chief. Heartland Flyer is a just a segment of it.

Click to expand...

This!!!
And much better than a STL-LRK Bus Bridge or No Eagle @ all! My Dream is a Daily Eagle CHI-LAX on the Chief/LoneStar Route with the long talked about Stub Train between NOL and SAS becoming a Reality!!)

Bob Dylan said:

jis said:

That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.

Actually Kansas City to Fort Worth would be the route of the Amtrak Lone Star/SantaFe Texas Chief. Heartland Flyer is a just a segment of it.

Click to expand...

This!!!
And much better than a STL-LRK Bus Bridge or No Eagle @ all! My Dream is a Daily Eagle CHI-LAX on the Chief/LoneStar Route with the long talked about Stub Train between NOL and SAS becoming a Reality!!)

Click to expand...

A better service plan would be to revive the Lone Star CHI-HOS, with a section Temple-SAS. This would be concurrent with a reroute of the TE over the former Texas & Pacific via Abilene and Midland, TX. This would drastically improve running times of the TE and bring service into more of West Texas. The revived Lone Star would follow the same route between FTW and SAS that the TE currently uses and would be timed to connect with the rerouted TE at FTW. In addition, the TE would have its DAL-HOS section revived. This would maximize direct rail travel opportunities within Texas and between Texas and several major cities in nearby and distant including Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, College Station/Bryan, Abilene, Midland/Odessa, Little Rock, St Louis, Oklahoma City, Wichita, Kansas City, and Chicago, as well as various smaller towns. Travel between a few non-direct city pairs (Like OKC-ELP or STL-SAS) can be done with the well-timed transfer at FTW.

Hey...no one mentioned running from St. Louis to Oklahoma City via Joplin and Tulsa....might as well throw that one into the mix....

Well maybe not quite thru Joplin, but close...looking at the old map...

railiner said:

Hey...no one mentioned running from St. Louis to Oklahoma City via Joplin and Tulsa....might as well throw that one into the mix....

Well maybe not quite thru Joplin, but close...looking at the old map...

Click to expand...

A STL-OKC route on the old Frisco would go through Springfield, not Joplin. The closest it would get to Joplin is Neosho, MO. Btw, a good name for the route would be the Ozark Range Runner. This would keep with the "runner" theme of the Missouri's passenger train names and would fit the area the train would run through. It would have to be funded by OK and MO - both states currently fund a passenger rail line, though Oklahoma has been considering pulling its subsidy for the HF.

jis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe Bob Johnston didn't quite dot all his i's and cross all his t's but I'll say one thing. He put Anderson and Amtrak on the defensive. Who knows? Johnston's hunch might be right; it's just that he did not have the "proof" to back up his claims.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

jis said:

That is what Bob is dreaming about. Not clear that anything like that will happen.

Actually Kansas City to Fort Worth would be the route of the Amtrak Lone Star/SantaFe Texas Chief. Heartland Flyer is a just a segment of it.

Click to expand...

Not that any of this is necessarily practical, but it strikes me that a reroute simply running via the Chief's route CHI-KCY and then along the proposed extended Flyer's route KCY-FTW would make sense. The main downside here would be losing Dallas proper (as well as cutting STL out of the LD network), and losing rail service to Arkansas wouldn't be a plus either.

fredmcain said:

jis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe Bob Johnston didn't quite dot all his i's and cross all his t's but I'll say one thing. He put Anderson and Amtrak on the defensive. Who knows? Johnston's hunch might be right; it's just that he did not have the "proof" to back up his claims.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

Click to expand...

I think when Amtrak officials may or may not have committed perjury but at least began grossly misleading Congress (yes, there's a difference...watch Yes, Minister for more details) and potentially engaging in improper lobbying (I am very much not sure where the lines are here), the high road went from somewhere you want to be to being somewhere you're vulnerable to an IED attack.

Anthony V said:

railiner said:

Hey...no one mentioned running from St. Louis to Oklahoma City via Joplin and Tulsa....might as well throw that one into the mix....

Well maybe not quite thru Joplin, but close...looking at the old map...

Click to expand...

A STL-OKC route on the old Frisco would go through Springfield, not Joplin. The closest it would get to Joplin is Neosho, MO. Btw, a good name for the route would be the Ozark Range Runner. This would keep with the "runner" theme of the Missouri's passenger train names and would fit the area the train would run through. It would have to be funded by OK and MO - both states currently fund a passenger rail line, though Oklahoma has been considering pulling its subsidy for the HF.

Click to expand...

What kind of shape is the former Frisco line in, as far as hosting a passenger train? Top speed? PTC?

This is what happens when years of congressional ignoring of rail infrastructure go unanswered. I mean honestly hasn’t Amtrak been in debt since it formed, and only makes real profit from the NEC and some other corridor routes?

No true profits on any part of its operation as is the case with most passenger transit systems. Airlines wouldnt be profitable either if the government didnt provide ATC, TSA, Airport grants or for smaller cities similar to Amtraks LD trains, EAS subsidies. As a first world nation its just a part of doing business for the public good.

Roads aren't profitable either (in fact, they cost several billion dollars in subsidies in the US every year just for the bigger highways; nobody's ever added up the smaller roads). This is fine, but railroads need to get similar money.

Dispersed how? As a function of ridership? The billions spent on roads service hundreds of millions annually, not barely just a million that Amtrak spends a billion on. Per rider, sneak is probably more highly subsidized than any other form.

neroden said:

Roads aren't profitable either (in fact, they cost several billion dollars in subsidies in the US every year just for the bigger highways; nobody's ever added up the smaller roads). This is fine, but railroads need to get similar money.

Click to expand...

jis said:

It really ain’t quite over until the proverbial fat lady sings. [emoji57]

Click to expand...

JIS,

I have a question for you since you seem to be pretty familiar with the PTC mandate and how it is to be applied. It's a question I have asked before on other forums but never really got what I thought was a 100% satisfactory answer.

What would happen on the rails if PTC were to "crash" or if there was some kind of an outage even at the local level? That is not an unreasonable assumption to make, is it? I mean everything made by man can act up.

So, what would they do? Would the trains have to stop and wait 'till it comes back online? Or, is there a provision for this like there is when there is a conventional signal outage whereas trains may operate at restricted speed? Just what are the provisions for an outage?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain