Cost of running a train on a private railroad track.

[GP35]

How much does the private railroads charge Amtrak to run a train on its tracks?

 

[GP35]

No one knows? any estimates.

 

[MrFSS]

How much does the private railroads charge Amtrak to run a train on its tracks?

I think we have had this discussion in the past, but I don't find any info. Maybe someone knows.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

There's some government agency (possibly the FRA) that regulates trackage rights. That government agency might be able to get you copies of the documents with the details.

 

[PRR 60]

Amtrak's original access in 1971 expired after 25 years in 1996. Starting in 1996, Amtrak negotiated new contracts with each host railroad. Those contracts and subsequent revisions and renewals govern Amtrak's access and fees. That are not, to my knowledge, public documents.

Amtrak lumps the fees paid to the host railroads in the general expense category, "Train operation, including access fees". That category also includes things like expenses for "Food and beverage". In FY2007, Amtrak totals expenses for that category were $244 million. Since "Food and beverage" revenue was $85 million, and we know "Food and beverage" operated at a loss, it can be deduced that host railroad access fees were something like $150 million for the year.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

This lack of being able to figure out just what any one particular thing is costing or bringing in is one of the things addressed in the new bill, I believe. The idea is to eliminate the smoke-and-mirrors bookkeeping system. Why they would lump payments to freight roads for use of their trackage under the same category as food and beverage is completely beyond any attempt at logic. Maybe they figure that most of the food and beverage service happens while they are running on the freights' trackage, so that's the logical place to put it. Who knows.

 

[had8ley]

The idea is to eliminate the smoke-and-mirrors bookkeeping system.

Good golly; would they know how to operate without them?

 

[JIM LEATHERMAN]

On most class I roads, the fee ranges from .50 to $1.50/mile depending on the host RR and the geographic area. Your car must be Amtrak certified for use on their trains.

 

[GP35]

On most class I roads, the fee ranges from .50 to $1.50/mile depending on the host RR and the geographic area. Your car must be Amtrak certified for use on their trains.

.50 to $1.50/mile per coach or .50 to $1.50/mile per train? I thought it would be a lot more.

 

[meatpuff]

This lack of being able to figure out just what any one particular thing is costing or bringing in is one of the things addressed in the new bill, I believe. The idea is to eliminate the smoke-and-mirrors bookkeeping system.

There is no smoke nor mirrors. $92.4 million in FY 2007, from the bottom of page 38 of the annual report.

Amtrak is an arm of the federal government, so anybody who wants some other information they don't publish can submit a Freedom of Information Act request.

 

[daveyb99]

This discussion makes the liability discussion even more confusing. Why, if AMTRAK pays good money to run on other-owned tracks would AMTRAK be liable if something went wrong on those other-owned tracks.

That would be like driving on a toll road and if the bridge collapsed, you pay not the toll authority.

 

[PRR 60]

This discussion makes the liability discussion even more confusing. Why, if AMTRAK pays good money to run on other-owned tracks would AMTRAK be liable if something went wrong on those other-owned tracks.
That would be like driving on a toll road and if the bridge collapsed, you pay not the toll authority.

Because Amtrak would pay a lot more than $92.4 million if the liability for passenger operation fell to the host railroad. Assuming liability on a no-fault basis is a GREAT deal for Amtrak. They save more much money in access fees assuming no-fault liability than they pay out for the occasional accident.

 

[AlanB]

And consider that Amtrak collected $35.7 Million in 2007 for Freight access fees and something they call "Other". I don't know just how much of that $35.7 M came from other, but I'm betting that the bulk of the monies came from freight access. If Amtrak collected even say $30 M for freight access on the NEC and its Michigan owned tracks, that's 1/3rd of what Amtrak paid to the freight RR's. Yet Amtrak accesses many more miles of freight owned track, than the freights access Amtrak owned track. That alone should tell you how undervalued Amtrak's payments are to the freight RR's.

It's also not clear if that $92.4 M that Amtrak paid is just access fees or if that number includes the performance bonuses that Amtrak pays to freight Co's that keep Amtrak trains on time. If it does include those bonuses, then the disparity becomes even greater.

 

[GP35]

Could the cost difference between Amtrak and Freight be because freight trains are longer, slower, heavier, and far more destructive

to the tracks?

 

[AlanB]

Could the cost difference between Amtrak and Freight be because freight trains are longer, slower, heavier, and far more destructive to the tracks?

That is part of the difference, but it's not the only reason for the difference. Amtrak does not pay, at least up front, the full value of what they would be charged but for the past. Any commuter op running on freight train tracks pays far more to run on freight train tracks than does Amtrak.

 

[jis]

It's also not clear if that $92.4 M that Amtrak paid is just access fees or if that number includes the performance bonuses that Amtrak pays to freight Co's that keep Amtrak trains on time. If it does include those bonuses, then the disparity becomes even greater.

I suspect that it includes the bonuses since I can't find any other category that could possibly cover only the bonuses.

 

[JIM LEATHERMAN]

PER COACH.

 

[Guest]

i thought the difference was , amtrak pays the freights around $ 1 a train mile , whilst on the nec , the freights pay amtrak around $ 1 a car mile .