BNSF may well be interested in the Moffet Line. They were granted trackage rights on it as a condition of the UP-SP merger and they use them.
God works in mysterious ways!California Zephyr at most faces a reversion to the route of the original Amtrak San Francisco Zephyr, but with a visit the Salt Lake City instead of running via Ogden. It is not facing discontinuance, just a bit of ridership hit perhaps.
What I am wondering is, why the BN wasn't given the opportunity to buy the old D&RGW as well as former WP routes, as a condition of the UP-SP merger from the beginning, unless the BN felt it was more advantageous to simply be granted trackage rights? And if so, perhaps they still feel that way...of course, if the UP downgrades the line, they may be forced to reconsider....BNSF may well be interested in the Moffet Line. They were granted trackage rights on it as a condition of the UP-SP merger and they use them.
The Moffat Route and Raton pass line have something in common: They were both important due to coal traffic. The three or four mines on the Raton Pass line were closed years ago. I think they might've been rather expensive to operate underground mines. The coal traffic on the old DRG&W Moffat route was more significant but probably suffered at least in part by Obama's so-called "war on coal" but some of that traffic might be coming back now so I wouldn't write this line off too soon.What I am wondering is, why the BN wasn't given the opportunity to buy the old D&RGW as well as former WP routes, as a condition of the UP-SP merger from the beginning, unless the BN felt it was more advantageous to simply be granted trackage rights? And if so, perhaps they still feel that way...of course, if the UP downgrades the line, they may be forced to reconsider....BNSF may well be interested in the Moffet Line. They were granted trackage rights on it as a condition of the UP-SP merger and they use them.
You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
I believe the Colorado mines produce metallurgical (steel making) coal, so may be viable until they play out.Pretty much agree on most points. Although I think the economics of coal are now problematical domestically due to cheap natural gas, regardless of the environmental and political side (which is a rabbit hole I do not want to open up). So I doubt coal traffic will be a solution here, which is undoubtedly factoring into UP's thinking.
Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.e
You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because CONGRESS instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the Chief, Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
-FMC
Good to know, thanks.I believe the Colorado mines produce metallurgical (steel making) coal, so may be viable until they play out.Pretty much agree on most points. Although I think the economics of coal are now problematical domestically due to cheap natural gas, regardless of the environmental and political side (which is a rabbit hole I do not want to open up). So I doubt coal traffic will be a solution here, which is undoubtedly factoring into UP's thinking.
Considering that MRL runs a train called the “gas local” twice a day, as well as unit oil trains, it is a good bet that PTC is being installed, especially since I have directly observed that they are installing new signals with PTC equipment.Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.e
You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because CONGRESS instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the Chief, Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
-FMC
I think the return to Phoenix, as unlikely as it is anyway, is particularly a case in point. The West Phoenix line needs to be completely rebuilt to be put back into service. In order to make that significant investment, UP would have to be planning to run enough traffic to exceed that traffic density exemption. So unless the line would require PTC for UPs own use, irrespective of passenger service, like moving HazMat, they wouldn't add it. Of course, the other possibility is for the State of Arizona to buy it for passenger service, which seems even more unlikely than UP wanting to resume operating the line, remote as that is.
As to the North Coast Hiawatha, the key link there would be MRL. I don't know if they are installing PTC, but they might have to. I think they run HazMat loads.
On the brighter side, there are huge swaths of lines that do not host passenger service but which have or are having PTC installed for freight purposes.
Speaking of the exemptions, even with the amendment, the Southwest Chief isn't completely in the clear. What about NMRX? NMRX is going to run the full allowed schedule of passenger service without PTC (4 a day) without a slot for the Southwest Chief. So there is still the question of what is going to happen Lamy-Albuquerque? A shorter bus bridge? A crash program with some of the $50 million to install PTC on NMRX (time is pretty short to get that done by 1/1/19 if they started this minute)? A waiver from the FRA (I can just see how happy Anderson would be to request it)? Sue NMRX for one of the slots?
Now that would be a "win-win" for the BNSF....might justify making the Cheyenne to Ogden Overland Route into a four track mainline....sort of a rail version of I-80.I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
Honestly, since Fox News hasn't mentioned it, he probably doesn't even know it's in there.What about The Prez signing off on it? Any problems possible, there? Hope not...he did claim to be "for restoring infrastructure"....![]()
Promises Made, PROMISES NOT KEPT!
It should be noted that not all LD trains are the same. If one looks at the star's ridership it was the perfect train to drop the diner on because they offer another similar train with the diner and the Star is the less popular train for northeast to Florida overnight riders - it has a much stronger shorter distance ridership. The Meteor on the other hand being the more direct route to Florida carries a lot more sleeper passengers and has a larger percentage of long distance riders (both in coach and sleeper) - Northeast to Orlando being the most popular trip on the train - so I would think the service drop on that train would have a bigger impact.Well based on the condition of the windows on the last few Amtrak trains I've ridden... it doesn't seem that Amtrak is too concerned with keeping things clean. Restrooms have always been hit or miss on the trains too so I hope they aren't paying too much to keep them clean.Why is that reasonable? F&B is an ancillary service to increase ridership and farebox recovery, not a self standing or core service provided by Amtrak. Should toilet service also be accounted for separately?Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.
The whole F&B thing I can see both ways... i think there is room for a middle ground with no table service, but an LSA and a chef on board the train preparing a few hot items. But as it was, Amtrak was losing alot of money on food service employees that are not really necessary.
Did the Silver Star lose riders when they dropped the diner?
Did the City of New Orleans lose riders when they dropped the regular diner menu?
I thought I read somewhere that the NM Rail Runner was granted or was asking for an exemption due to the line having ATS still active on it. If so, the Chief shouldn't have a problem on that section, unless RA's no PTC no Amtrak kicks in.Considering that MRL runs a train called the “gas local” twice a day, as well as unit oil trains, it is a good bet that PTC is being installed, especially since I have directly observed that they are installing new signals with PTC equipment.Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.e
You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because CONGRESS instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the Chief, Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
-FMC
I think the return to Phoenix, as unlikely as it is anyway, is particularly a case in point. The West Phoenix line needs to be completely rebuilt to be put back into service. In order to make that significant investment, UP would have to be planning to run enough traffic to exceed that traffic density exemption. So unless the line would require PTC for UPs own use, irrespective of passenger service, like moving HazMat, they wouldn't add it. Of course, the other possibility is for the State of Arizona to buy it for passenger service, which seems even more unlikely than UP wanting to resume operating the line, remote as that is.
As to the North Coast Hiawatha, the key link there would be MRL. I don't know if they are installing PTC, but they might have to. I think they run HazMat loads.
On the brighter side, there are huge swaths of lines that do not host passenger service but which have or are having PTC installed for freight purposes.
Speaking of the exemptions, even with the amendment, the Southwest Chief isn't completely in the clear. What about NMRX? NMRX is going to run the full allowed schedule of passenger service without PTC (4 a day) without a slot for the Southwest Chief. So there is still the question of what is going to happen Lamy-Albuquerque? A shorter bus bridge? A crash program with some of the $50 million to install PTC on NMRX (time is pretty short to get that done by 1/1/19 if they started this minute)? A waiver from the FRA (I can just see how happy Anderson would be to request it)? Sue NMRX for one of the slots?
The problem is the twofold in Railrunner territory: ATS is not installed in the new build portions of the commuter line yet, Railrunner would do that upon approval of the waiver from the FRA (which is not a given). The second problem, is that the proposed exemption has a maximum number of trains in it, which are all going to be Railrunner trains. So I am not sure what the status of that is, and how Amtrak will work around that.I thought I read somewhere that the NM Rail Runner was granted or was asking for an exemption due to the line having ATS still active on it. If so, the Chief shouldn't have a problem on that section, unless RA's no PTC no Amtrak kicks in.Considering that MRL runs a train called the “gas local” twice a day, as well as unit oil trains, it is a good bet that PTC is being installed, especially since I have directly observed that they are installing new signals with PTC equipment.Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.e
You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because CONGRESS instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the Chief, Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
-FMC
I think the return to Phoenix, as unlikely as it is anyway, is particularly a case in point. The West Phoenix line needs to be completely rebuilt to be put back into service. In order to make that significant investment, UP would have to be planning to run enough traffic to exceed that traffic density exemption. So unless the line would require PTC for UPs own use, irrespective of passenger service, like moving HazMat, they wouldn't add it. Of course, the other possibility is for the State of Arizona to buy it for passenger service, which seems even more unlikely than UP wanting to resume operating the line, remote as that is.
As to the North Coast Hiawatha, the key link there would be MRL. I don't know if they are installing PTC, but they might have to. I think they run HazMat loads.
On the brighter side, there are huge swaths of lines that do not host passenger service but which have or are having PTC installed for freight purposes.
Speaking of the exemptions, even with the amendment, the Southwest Chief isn't completely in the clear. What about NMRX? NMRX is going to run the full allowed schedule of passenger service without PTC (4 a day) without a slot for the Southwest Chief. So there is still the question of what is going to happen Lamy-Albuquerque? A shorter bus bridge? A crash program with some of the $50 million to install PTC on NMRX (time is pretty short to get that done by 1/1/19 if they started this minute)? A waiver from the FRA (I can just see how happy Anderson would be to request it)? Sue NMRX for one of the slots?
Yeah, that seemed like an incredibly stupid move.I have to wonder about Anderson's credibility on Capitol Hill. To me it looks like he managed to antagonize the Senate, not a good move for an Amtrak president.
Enter your email address to join: