PennDOT to pay 100% of Keystone

[fairviewroad]

Although, of course, it is a KEYSTONE train, which suggests it should serve just our state.

You mean like the California Zephyr just serves California, the Carolinian just serves the Carolinas (oops, I mean just one of them), the Hoosier

State just serves Indiana (thank goodness it doesn't go to Chicago...they'd have to change the name!), the Texas Eagle only serves Texas, the

Pennsylvanian only serves Pennsylvania, the Vermonter only serves Vermont, and the City of New Orleans only serves, well, the city of New

Orleans--making it the shortest route in the Amtrak system. :giggle:

IOW, I wouldn't read too much into the name.

SEPTA still uses tokens for the subway & trolley system, decades after other transit systems switched to magnetic strip or smart cards.

Your overall points are valid, but this comment only tells part of the story. SEPTA has used magnetic strip cards for fare payment (weekly

or monthly passes) for more than 20 years. While there are certainly many criticisms one could level at SEPTA, the fact that you can still

use tokens to pay your fare is hardly among the top complaints, IYAM.

 

[Acela150]

How crowded is the Pennsylvanian? It's kinda related to this.

Coach sells out on a daily basis.. Between PHL-PGH.. Only single seats are open for the taking at HAR. Which are usually full by departure.

 

[Anderson]

I'm not that familiar with the legacy world, but my assumption is that the Keystone would operate on non-NEC rail as its own entity and then on the NEC up to NYP, it would operate with an NEC crew. It would be Amtrak all the way, but from a logistics and financial standpoint, it would be separated at the NEC.

I believe this was common in the "old days" and even today with the freights when it comes to trackage rights, etc. The Keystone should be paid for 100% by Pennsylvania and the state should receive 100% of the revenue, less a fee for trackage into NYP on the NEC and Amtrak reservations. Ideally, all the employees should probably be state employees... That's another flame war, though.

Actually, I do have a counter here: Amtrak owns the HAR-PHL line, so you could at least argue that the whole thing should "dump" to Amtrak. Ditto NHV-SPG, and now ALB-NYP. I'm not speaking to the vailidity of the argument, but it's at least there.

At present it looks like it is certain that ALB-NYP will be NY State responsibility in the PRIIA 209 sense. It is not clear exactly how NHV-SPG and PHL-HAR will pan out (at least to me), but I suspect some arrangement within the PRIIA regime will be worked out. I have not read PRIIA 209 in detail and I don't know how NHV-SPG and PHL-HAR is characterized in it.

My ESPA friends tell me that NYP-ALB is considered part of the Empire Corridor which is definitely seen as NY State responsibility and NY and Amtrak are working on an agreement that goes into force next year and NY State has budgeted money to cover the cost of current service and then some. There are sticking points in the negotiations involving things like food service which NY State wants restored between NYP and ALB on ALB terminators.

BTW, Amtrak does not own any of NYP-ALB. As far as I understand it (and it could be wrong) POU-SDY (actually Hoffmans) has been leased to NY State for 25 years (starting Nov 5 2012) with a possible extension of another 15 years, and NY State has chosen Amtrak to Maintain and Operate it for them (sort of like the NEC in MA except for the lease part). I am not very clear about how the lease payments are contracted to flow, but will find out at the next ESPA meeting. Of course Spuyten Duyvil - POU is owned by MNRR and Amtrak is a tenant, and NYP - Spuyten Duyvil is owned and operated by Amtrak. So NYP-ALB is not at all like the other two.

From what I've seen, HAR-PHL is often lumped in with the rest of the NEC because of its ownership. NHV-SPG gets treated a bit differently. And fair point on NYP-ALB...I'd just heard "Amtrak got a lease!" rather than the "actual" story.

 

[jis]

From what I've seen, HAR-PHL is often lumped in with the rest of the NEC because of its ownership. NHV-SPG gets treated a bit differently. And fair point on NYP-ALB...I'd just heard "Amtrak got a lease!" rather than the "actual" story.

Yeah, NYP - SDY - Hoffmans is complicated. I just learned that Amtrak actually outright owns SDY to Hoffmans! The lease covers POU to SDY except Albany station where Amtrak apparently owns the trackage and maintenance shop. Of course the station building and structures is owned by CDTA.

 

[AlanB]

Between Philly and NYC, it could be re-routed to cover Reading, Allentown, and Bethlehem, using the existing Norfolk Southern track. Well, it would not be the only place in the Amtrak system where freight rails are used so such should be possible.

That would require an engine change from electric to diesel, or Amtrak would have run on the Keystone corridor with diesels at a maximum of 110 MPH.

Also, is there even a line left between there? I know that SEPTA's line from Quakertown north is no longer intact.

 

[jis]

Between Philly and NYC, it could be re-routed to cover Reading, Allentown, and Bethlehem, using the existing Norfolk Southern track. Well, it would not be the only place in the Amtrak system where freight rails are used so such should be possible.

That would require an engine change from electric to diesel, or Amtrak would have run on the Keystone corridor with diesels at a maximum of 110 MPH.

Also, is there even a line left between there? I know that SEPTA's line from Quakertown north is no longer intact.

A more pertinent question is why the heck would one do that, and who is going to ride such a train to where? It will soon earn the ridicule of the anti-Amtrak crowd as the most brain dead, round about, slow, circuitous route that one could dream up between Philadelphia and New York. And finally who is going to fund it? Amtrak won't because it is less than 750 miles. PA won't because if they could they would have that money spent on SEPTA first to address more immediate issues, and NJ certainly won't because all the studies so far show that there is not enough rail demand even to Philipsburg to sustain any reasonable service using NJT's models.

A better case can be made for routing a train or two from Harrisburg to New York via Reading, but I am quite certain that NS will first ask for the first and second born child and then some before they will allow any passenger train on their coveted west to NY/NJ freight corridor, and it will be next to impossible to justify meeting their demands.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Between Philly and NYC, it could be re-routed to cover Reading, Allentown, and Bethlehem, using the existing Norfolk Southern track. Well, it would not be the only place in the Amtrak system where freight rails are used so such should be possible.

That would require an engine change from electric to diesel, or Amtrak would have run on the Keystone corridor with diesels at a maximum of 110 MPH.

Also, is there even a line left between there? I know that SEPTA's line from Quakertown north is no longer intact.

A more pertinent question is why the heck would one do that, and who is going to ride such a train to where? It will soon earn the ridicule of the anti-Amtrak crowd as the most brain dead, round about, slow, circuitous route that one could dream up between Philadelphia and New York. And finally who is going to fund it? Amtrak won't because it is less than 750 miles. PA won't because if they could they would have that money spent on SEPTA first to address more immediate issues, and NJ certainly won't because all the studies so far show that there is not enough rail demand even to Philipsburg to sustain any reasonable service using NJT's models.

A better case can be made for routing a train or two from Harrisburg to New York via Reading, but I am quite certain that NS will first ask for the first and second born child and then some before they will allow any passenger train on their coveted west to NY/NJ freight corridor, and it will be next to impossible to justify meeting their demands.

Well, my point was that the route from Philly to NY for both the Keystone and Pennsylvanian services New Jersey, not Pennsylvania. It is just my thought that for these two routes, especially if they need to be funded by PennDOT, PA should come before NJ even if doing such, creates a "circuitous route". I mean, how does one get PennDOT to fund a train route that is servicing NJ?

I thought of suggesting routing either the Keystone or Pennsylvanian directly from Harrisburg to Reading, bypassing Philly, but I thought there would be a lot more objection to bypassing Philly than for backtracking a bit (distance wise, not track wise) when going from Philly to Reading. The Silver Star does worse servicing Tampa so there is precedent.

There have been suggestions for years to have service (only) from Allentown (Lehigh Valley) to NYC or to Philly. But those suggestions would require there be enough passengers from Allentown to fully support its operation. However, in contrast, if the Keystone or the Pennsylvanian were used, then passengers from Allentown would only be additional passengers to those that normally take these trains. It was mentioned that these trains are normally nearly full. So, it would be nearly full plus the one person from Allentown.

Yea, SEPTA is out. They don't have the charter, money, equipment, nor tracks anymore to support any such service. However, the Keystone and Pennsylvanian already have the equipment. The tracks I purposed using are indeed NS, but at least they already exist, and Amtrak has been successful in using freight company owned tracks for other routes (no?).

 

[Ryan]

Well, my point was that the route from Philly to NY for both the Keystone and Pennsylvanian services New Jersey, not Pennsylvania. It is just my thought that for these two routes, especially if they need to be funded by PennDOT, PA should come before NJ even if doing such, creates a "circuitous route". I mean, how does one get PennDOT to fund a train route that is servicing NJ?

The train isn't "servicing NJ", it's "allowing PA residents to get to NY in a reasonable amount of time".

So, it would be nearly full plus the one person from Allentown.

It wouldn't be nearly full if it was on that route, as the travel time would be ridiculously long".

Amtrak has been successful in using freight company owned tracks for other routes (no?).

As service levels that were in effect 40 years ago. Expansion onto new routes comes with much more resistance and a much higher price tag (see the UP's demands to host a daily Sunset Limited).

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Well, my point was that the route from Philly to NY for both the Keystone and Pennsylvanian services New Jersey, not Pennsylvania. It is just my thought that for these two routes, especially if they need to be funded by PennDOT, PA should come before NJ even if doing such, creates a "circuitous route". I mean, how does one get PennDOT to fund a train route that is servicing NJ?

The train isn't "servicing NJ", it's "allowing PA residents to get to NY in a reasonable amount of time".

I thought that was the purpose of the NE Regionals and Acela?

 

[jis]

Well, my point was that the route from Philly to NY for both the Keystone and Pennsylvanian services New Jersey, not Pennsylvania. It is just my thought that for these two routes, especially if they need to be funded by PennDOT, PA should come before NJ even if doing such, creates a "circuitous route". I mean, how does one get PennDOT to fund a train route that is servicing NJ?

PennDOT funds the train to carry Pennsylvania residents where they want/need to go. Keystones do not serve NJ for NJ residents it serves NJ and NY because Pennsylvania residents want to go there for jobs etc.

I thought of suggesting routing either the Keystone or Pennsylvanian directly from Harrisburg to Reading, bypassing Philly, but I thought there would be a lot more objection to bypassing Philly than for backtracking a bit (distance wise, not track wise) when going from Philly to Reading. The Silver Star does worse servicing Tampa so there is precedent.

Clearly you have not looked at a map, otherwise you would not think that it was a bit of backtracking, or perhaps your idea of a bit is different from mine.

There have been suggestions for years to have service (only) from Allentown (Lehigh Valley) to NYC or to Philly. But those suggestions would require there be enough passengers from Allentown to fully support its operation. However, in contrast, if the Keystone or the Pennsylvanian were used, then passengers from Allentown would only be additional passengers to those that normally take these trains. It was mentioned that these trains are normally nearly full. So, it would be nearly full plus the one person from Allentown.

Since no one in their right mind would use a train that takes four hours or more to get from Philly to NY, the same passenger load issues will remain if the train is routed the way you suggest.

Yea, SEPTA is out. They don't have the charter, money, equipment, nor tracks anymore to support any such service. However, the Keystone and Pennsylvanian already have the equipment. The tracks I purposed using are indeed NS, but at least they already exist, and Amtrak has been successful in using freight company owned tracks for other routes (no?).

Just because a track exists does not mean that it makes any sense to run the service that you propose. Yes, Pennsylvania could choose to introduce service from Allentown or Reading to Philly using one of the various possible routes. But that has and should not have anything to do with the routing of the Keystone Corridor trains.

 

[Ryan]

Well, my point was that the route from Philly to NY for both the Keystone and Pennsylvanian services New Jersey, not Pennsylvania. It is just my thought that for these two routes, especially if they need to be funded by PennDOT, PA should come before NJ even if doing such, creates a "circuitous route". I mean, how does one get PennDOT to fund a train route that is servicing NJ?

The train isn't "servicing NJ", it's "allowing PA residents to get to NY in a reasonable amount of time".

I thought that was the purpose of the NE Regionals and Acela?

When did they start running to Harrisburg?

 

[PRR 60]

The Keystones that also operate between Philadelphia and New York operate as Amtrak-funded trains for the NEC portion of the route. There is a cost-sharing formula used to proportion the expense of a Harrisburg - New York train between the state-supported operation and the Amtrak NEC operation. Similarly, there is a formula used to proportion the revenue for tickets that cover both the Pennsylvania and Amtrak portions between the state-supported operation and Amtrak NEC.

Now, whether the allocation of costs and revenue between PennDOT and Amtrak is fair to the state is another question. However, in theory, PennDOT does not pay for the NEC portion of the operation, and PennDOT is credited with the revenue for the non-NEC portion of the ridership including allocation of part of the revenue from through riders.

 

[PRR 60]

And, to elaborate on the allocation of costs and revenue of through trains between HAR and NYO, the methodologies used to assign costs and revenue will be a huge issue for PennDOT in it's negotiations with Amtrak. Should the state pay avoided costs only (the extra cost to operate a NYP-PHL train to and from HAR)? Should the state pay based on mileage (roughly 50-50)? For a HAR-NYP fare, should the state get credit for the HAR-PHL fare and Amtrak get the differential? If a train only needs two cars for the HAR-PHL leg, but needs four cars for the PHL-NYP leg, should the state pay for the operation of the two extra cars from HAR to PHL that, by ridership, are not needed by the state?

What seems like a clear-cut cost allocation process is really pretty messy with the Keystones. I can see things getting pretty heated between PennDOT and Amtrak over this issue. Lets just say that PennDOT has a healthy skepticism about Amtrak and they will look very, very closely at the costs and revenue that Amtrak wants to assign them for the Keystone operation.

 

[afigg]

Well, my point was that the route from Philly to NY for both the Keystone and Pennsylvanian services New Jersey, not Pennsylvania. It is just my thought that for these two routes, especially if they need to be funded by PennDOT, PA should come before NJ even if doing such, creates a "circuitous route". I mean, how does one get PennDOT to fund a train route that is servicing NJ?

I thought of suggesting routing either the Keystone or Pennsylvanian directly from Harrisburg to Reading, bypassing Philly, but I thought there would be a lot more objection to bypassing Philly than for backtracking a bit (distance wise, not track wise) when going from Philly to Reading. The Silver Star does worse servicing Tampa so there is precedent.

There have been suggestions for years to have service (only) from Allentown (Lehigh Valley) to NYC or to Philly. But those suggestions would require there be enough passengers from Allentown to fully support its operation. However, in contrast, if the Keystone or the Pennsylvanian were used, then passengers from Allentown would only be additional passengers to those that normally take these trains. It was mentioned that these trains are normally nearly full. So, it would be nearly full plus the one person from Allentown.

Why re-route Keystones or the Pennsylvanian? If service is someday restored to Allentown and Lehigh Valley, it would be a new train service with a different name. Don't think in terms of messing up 2 existing and established train services, but in terms of what would be the best viable route for a NEW service. Call the trains the Lehigh Valley.

Restoration of service from Allentown to Philly would probably be done by SEPTA as regional rail train, if SEPTA ever goes into expansion mode. Harrisburg to Allentown to Bethlehem to NJ to NYC? would probably be an Amtrak train with diesel locomotives. OTOH, that route could be one where a dual mode ALP-45DP could make sense, but that is getting off into the weeds. That route is discussed the PA State rail Plan as a possible future route. However, as jis points out, NS would have to cooperate. I don't think NS would want the first and second born child because where would they list them on the financial statements? :lol: No, NS would want a lot of money adding capacity to and fixing up their tracks for passenger train speeds and traffic. Hundreds of millions, if not a billion or more. It can wait.

The best strategy for PA and Amtrak is to continue to modernize the eastern Keystone corridor and upgrade/replace the stations to improve service. Improve service from Philly to Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Restore service to Scranton over the Lackawanna Cutoff, if the stars are ever aligned. Then look at restoring passenger service over the NS route to Allentown. If the Keystone is up to 2 million riders a year and businesses are relocating to be along the Keystone corridor, that should get the politicians and public in the Lehigh valley to start seriously advocating for restoration of passenger train service and willing to put money into it.

 

[afigg]

What seems like a clear-cut cost allocation process is really pretty messy with the Keystones. I can see things getting pretty heated between PennDOT and Amtrak over this issue. Lets just say that PennDOT has a healthy skepticism about Amtrak and they will look very, very closely at the costs and revenue that Amtrak wants to assign them for the Keystone operation.

The cost allocation formula and rules were agreed to by Amtrak and 25? states and approved by the STB. I expect there are a lot of fine details for Amtrak and PennDOT to hash out because, as you note, the complexity of splitting NEC and Keystone costs, but the basics are now apparently set.

PennDOT may not have that much to complain about. In the Route Performance tables in July 2012 monthly report, the total allocation costs show a significant shift for many trains from the July 2011 numbers to the July 2012 numbers. Some up, but the NEC associated trains and many single level eastern trains total costs went down for the same 10 month period. In July 2011 for October-July 2011 YTD, the total cost allocated to the Keystones is $40.9 million plus $0.8 million for OPEB's. In the July 2012 YTD table, the total allocated cost is $37.8 million plus $0.7 million for OPEB's. A $3.2 million drop while ticket revenue is up +11%.

I think in a few years if PennDOT and Amtrak can continue to improve and modernize the Keystone East corridor and stations, that the Keystones will be running above break even on total operating costs. Then PennDOT will only have to contribute to capital equipment charges and help pay for route improvement and bridge & catenary replacement projects.

 

[jis]

What seems like a clear-cut cost allocation process is really pretty messy with the Keystones. I can see things getting pretty heated between PennDOT and Amtrak over this issue. Lets just say that PennDOT has a healthy skepticism about Amtrak and they will look very, very closely at the costs and revenue that Amtrak wants to assign them for the Keystone operation.

The cost allocation formula and rules were agreed to by Amtrak and 25? states and approved by the STB.

28 States. Only Indiana of the original 29 did not sign on to the SWG formula which was later endorsed by the STB. Since Indiana has never paid for anything and has no intention for paying for anything going forward, they were duly ignored once they dropped off apparently. If they wish to sign on to the agreed upon formula in the future, they are of course free to do so.

The Keystones that also operate between Philadelphia and New York operate as Amtrak-funded trains for the NEC portion of the route. There is a cost-sharing formula used to proportion the expense of a Harrisburg - New York train between the state-supported operation and the Amtrak NEC operation. Similarly, there is a formula used to proportion the revenue for tickets that cover both the Pennsylvania and Amtrak portions between the state-supported operation and Amtrak NEC.

According to the current agreement between PennDoT and Amtrak, Pennsylvania gets a say in what stops it will or won't make in NJ. The scheduling is currently oriented towards taking PA residents to Newark and New York, rather than taking NJ residents anywhere, though the trains can incidentally be used by people who want to get from New York and Newark and Trenton to Philadelphia for cheaper than by Amtrak Regionals.

 

[fairviewroad]

I mean, how does one get PennDOT to fund a train route that is servicing NJ?

The train isn't "servicing NJ", it's "allowing PA residents to get to NY in a reasonable amount of time".

Indeed, virtually every Keystone train skips all the NJ stations other than Trenton and Newark.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

The problem is to reach NYC those areas would have to be electrified.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Since one of the main purposes of the Keystones is to get PA residents to NYC and NJ, ending them in PHL would be a bad idea because of the impact it would have on ridership. I know I read something that talked generally about what a significant hit ridership takes when there is a transfer - even if it is a dedicated cross-platform transfer. A one seat ride is a deal maker, or breaker, for many people.

 

[afigg]

Since one of the main purposes of the Keystones is to get PA residents to NYC and NJ, ending them in PHL would be a bad idea because of the impact it would have on ridership. I know I read something that talked generally about what a significant hit ridership takes when there is a transfer - even if it is a dedicated cross-platform transfer. A one seat ride is a deal maker, or breaker, for many people.

Another purpose of the Keystones is to enable NJ and NYC residents travel to the Main Line, Lancaster, Harrisburg for business trips, see family, spend tourist dollars in PA. A transfer at PHL would lose some of that direct travel business. The purpose of a transportation service in the eyes of a state agency is not only to benefit state residents, but to attract business and tourist money from outside the state.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

On a sidenote, would it be a good idea for SEPTA or NJT to start Philadelphia NYC route instead of just selling tix for transfer at Trenton?

 

[AlanB]

On a sidenote, would it be a good idea for SEPTA or NJT to start Philadelphia NYC route instead of just selling tix for transfer at Trenton?

While it might be a good idea, and I'm not really sure if it is, it is very unlikely to happen. NJT currently has a major yard just west of Trenton and just across the Delaware River. They offered to provide service on the PA side of the river and PA & SEPTA failed to reach an agreement with NJT to do so.

So I don't see much hope at this point of either agency ever allowing the other to operate in their territory, much less agreeing on who pays what for the service. Frankly I'm impressed that NJT can even sell through tickets.

 

[Nathanael]

At present it looks like it is certain that ALB-NYP will be NY State responsibility in the PRIIA 209 sense. It is not clear exactly how NHV-SPG and PHL-HAR will pan out (at least to me), but I suspect some arrangement within the PRIIA regime will be worked out. I have not read PRIIA 209 in detail and I don't know how NHV-SPG and PHL-HAR is characterized in it.

My ESPA friends tell me that NYP-ALB is considered part of the Empire Corridor which is definitely seen as NY State responsibility and NY and Amtrak are working on an agreement that goes into force next year and NY State has budgeted money to cover the cost of current service and then some.

When you say current service, this means the funding includes coverage for NY-Niagara Falls service and the "NY part" of the Maple Leaf? (Living in the Finger Lakes, I obviously care more about the trains which continue past Albany!)

There are sticking points in the negotiations involving things like food service which NY State wants restored between NYP and ALB on ALB terminators.
BTW, Amtrak does not own any of NYP-ALB. As far as I understand it (and it could be wrong) POU-SDY (actually Hoffmans) has been leased to NY State for 25 years (starting Nov 5 2012) with a possible extension of another 15 years, and NY State has chosen Amtrak to Maintain and Operate it for them (sort of like the NEC in MA except for the lease part). I am not very clear about how the lease payments are contracted to flow, but will find out at the next ESPA meeting. Of course Spuyten Duyvil - POU is owned by MNRR and Amtrak is a tenant,

Technically it's owned by American Premier Underwriters and leased by Metro-North for some huge number of years (>100) with an option to buy. (This is true of the entire Metro-North system within NY, including the disused ROW and including Grand Central.) NY seems to have a thing for leasing, for reasons I don't fully understand. When NY leases it seems to get all the incidents of ownership apart from having to pay a yearly fee, so it seems to work out fine.

and NYP - Spuyten Duyvil is owned and operated by Amtrak. So NYP-ALB is not at all like the other two.

 

[Anderson]

On a sidenote, would it be a good idea for SEPTA or NJT to start Philadelphia NYC route instead of just selling tix for transfer at Trenton?

While it might be a good idea, and I'm not really sure if it is, it is very unlikely to happen. NJT currently has a major yard just west of Trenton and just across the Delaware River. They offered to provide service on the PA side of the river and PA & SEPTA failed to reach an agreement with NJT to do so.

So I don't see much hope at this point of either agency ever allowing the other to operate in their territory, much less agreeing on who pays what for the service. Frankly I'm impressed that NJT can even sell through tickets.

It's a real pity, too...you'd think they could just do a "handoff" of a few trains at Trenton to enable medium-length trips that happen to cross the border.

 

[Nathanael]

And, to elaborate on the allocation of costs and revenue of through trains between HAR and NYO, the methodologies used to assign costs and revenue will be a huge issue for PennDOT in it's negotiations with Amtrak.

The methodology for *cost* assignment was settled by the STB ruling, *including* the split for through trains IIRC.

(Although the "capital charge" still hasn't been developed.)

The methodology for *revenue* assignment seems to be less settled; I think the STB ruling contains a methodology but it's still kind of vague. More significantly, it only applies to trains which have a "net cost" -- Virginia has the question of how to split Lynchburg profit, though I believe the deal is that that will first offset Virginia's costs for other trains, and then go into a sequestered fund for capital improvements within Virginia.