Random thoughts #17

1. As an appendix to my last post: The open access model would also apply to any operator who wants to take on Amtrak in its most favorable region, the NEC.
2. What was notable in Wisconsin was which funded route Senator Baldwin omitted--namely, the West Central Wisconsin route. It's almost like these elected officials only recognize Amtrak as a legitmate operator even though they themselves signed off on legislation that makes it easier for other operators to get federal funding for routes.
3. Improving the existing Cascades vs investing in the ultra HSR Cascadia Rail service is a good problem to have on the other side of the country.
4. Competition for Channel Tunnel service is coming.
5. AMLO is trying to reverse a gigantic mistake that was made by the Mexican government almost three decades ago when NdeM was privatized and then curtailed passenger service.
6. It would be so ironic if the Fort Worth-Dallas section of high speed rail turned a wheel before the Dallas-Houston one given all of the focus on the latter until last month.
7. Operators like SEPTA and METRA are sending the wrong message in closing their ticket windows and incovniencing their passengers who may walk up at the last minute.

Cascades #501 Crash & PTC

Last month's crash in Lakewood, WA has sparked a rash of overreactions nationally and a bunch of unnecessary "I-told-you-sos" from locals.

Let's Get Something Out of the Way

First off, the reroute was not a mistake, it was something that the state thought out in advance. As scenic as the Point Defiance route was, it was also single track.

Second, the blame for what happened last month can be attributed of a deficient safety culture inside Amtrak.

The PTC Bug

Certain members of Congress have urged the UDSOT to make December 31 a hard deadline for all railroads to install Positive Train Control (under the 2015 law, extensions to the end of 2020 will only be granted under certain circumstances).

I find this to be a bit of pretentious grandstanding by Congress since it created the problem by overreacting to another tragedy! For those unaware, the tragedy that sparked PTC in the first place was the Chatsworth disaster in 2008. The problem with the way it was implemented was that Congress told every railroad that it not only had to install the device but that said railroads would have to pay out of their own pockets. That demand reflects just how much of an anti-government attitude Washington has had since 1981. If Congress had taken the lead, it would have footed the bill instead.

Tackling the Headlines 76

Tri-Rail rolls out service at Miami International Airport transit hub
Take: It's now up to Amtrak once the road work is complete.

Dallas’ new streetcar begins service between downtown, Oak Cliff
Take: Perhaps, the folks in the nation's capital ought to be taking notes on how it should properly plan a streetcar.

Railroad losing $1 million plus annually on Warren County line 
Take: The story points out how the tracks were unused for three decades and that Iowa Pacific had to rebuild them for Saratoga & North Creek. How anyone on message boards be gloating about S&NC unable to make a profit is upsetting to this writer.

Senate Bill Targeting Bullet Train Project Advances
Take: Chalking this one to ignorance and the Lone Star State's anti-auto alternatives attitude.

Portland-Eugene Cascades Service May Disappear
Take: If Oregon can't figure this one out, then passenger service just may be doomed.

Tackling the Headlines 62

East-west Amtrak corridor promoted in Illinois
Take: This is looking like a Plan B since Iowa is totally uncooperative with extending the route across its state. Maybe, when Terry Branstad is sent to the retirement home, the Iowa DOT can return to Earth and provide the funds to produce a route that is not necessarily operated by Amtrak and doesn't necessarily stop at Union Station in Chicago.

Black Hawk update
Take: So, is Canadian National trying to replace Union Pacific as the most passenger hostile Class I railroad? Anyway, it's better to get part of a route working than to end up with with a situation like Ohio.

Indiana puts the Hoosier State up for bid...
Take #1: So, it begins. If Amtrak loses this route, then, this will be a ripple effect across the nation as other states look more closely at their budgets, with the goal of saving money by selecting the operator who will provide them the most service for the smallest amount.

Take #2: My official take and what it could mean for Amtrak can be found here.

Take #3: Assuming that all of the hurdles with the tracks and all six hosts are overcome, the new operator could extend one frequency to Cincinnati with a second one to follow shortly thereafter and another to Louisville for a total of four Chicago-Indianapolis frequencies plus the Cardinal.

Take #4: The only thing I don't like is the extremely short timespan that other companies have to submit bids. However, if a competent operator steps up, then the April 29 deadline will be moot.

...and Oregon and Washington State could be next
Take: If this happens, then Amtrak management should very, very worried because the Cascades' southern neighbor could follow.

Talgo shifts its focus where?
Take: Even Michigan is interested in making Wisconsin look foolish. Enjoy those leftover Horizon Cars, Scott Walker.

Chief fight moves to Congress 
Take: Now is the time for the innovators and D.C. pols to step up and provide a real workable solution.

Vermont House OKs Ethan Allen rail extension
Take: This move is the right one. Rather than rerouting an existing train, Vermonters will get an extra option to travel to New York City.

Tackling the Headlines 17

Second Vancouver, BC Cascades roundtrip to continue indefinitely
This is pretty much breaking news.


Take: It is really nice to see the Canadian government actually care about cross-border train service for once. Transit advocates should keep the pressure on them and U.S. Customs to make cross-border travel less of a hassle.


Arizona rail plan under attack
An editorial expresses skepticism about a rail plan the AZ Transportation Board approved in March.


Take: The newspaper is right to be skeptical about most of the routes being built on a separate right of way rather than on existing rails but the state needs to have a working rail system in place. For starters, the state needs to take possession of the dormant SP line that traverses through Phoenix for service to L.A. Then, it needs to provide intercity rail service to the rest of the state.


Can someone give Florida a wake-up call?
The Sunshine State's Transportation Vision plan is...just lacking.


Take: Other than throwing a bone to Tri-Rail, there is nothing that even pertains to rail. It is truly highway-centric. I just hope a more forward-thinking official is in power in Tallahassee four years from now. Maybe by then, FL will have a real vision plan that provides Floridians a rail option.

Tackling the Headlines 16

Washington State goes to work
This fall, work will begin to build bypass tracks along congested stretches of the Cascades route between Seattle and Portland. The move would allow Amtrak to avoid a single-track bottleneck between Tacoma and Olympia-Lacey. 


Take: Kudos to Washington State's DOT and BNSF.


It may be baby steps, but it's something
After a few delays, the Saratoga & North Creek Railway is finally up and running. Revenue service began on July 21. The 56-mile route has five flag stops between the endpoints. The Saratoga Springs station now houses two intercity rail operators as it's also home to Amtrak (the predecessor was an excursion operator that only ran trains between Corinth and North Creek).


Take: Even though SNCR owner Iowa Pacific recently took Amtrak to court over the Ski Train controversy, the connections between SNCR trains and the New York-Rutland, VT Ethan Allen Express are definitely a positive gesture.


SNCR is already looking ahead
I caught this blurb from Iowa Pacific president Ed Ellis:

We will run additional trains for ridership demand, or if one or more units of government will pay for additional trains. As you may know, New York State DOT is paying for a second track on the CP at Ballston Spa (about two miles, connects two long sidings yielding maybe five miles of double track) and between Albany and Schenectady. It’s no secret they would like to have two more pairs of trains between Albany and Saratoga. We would be willing to consider operating trains such as those under contract, and would be willing to add whatever qualifications and insurance that would be necessary to do so. That could also yield a year-round operation to North Creek.

Take: Let the speculation begin. Assuming that Mr. Ellis deems such an extension financially feasible, things could get really interesting in the Empire State. Suppose the state actually hands a contract to SNCR for one or both roundtrips, what kind of impact would that have on Amtrak? It would technically be in Amtrak president Joe Boardman's backyard but it wouldn't be that damaging unless the company has long-term plans to either add Adirondack or Ethan Allen Express roundtrips.


Now, if SNCR wins the Saratoga Springs-Albany contract, there could be some difficulties with the extension. But if it happens, what's to prevent the shortline railroad to extend it even further southward to NYC? The only thing is that Iowa Pacific would have to buy electric engines and switch in the capital city so the train could comply with NYC regulations. 


When it comes to the stations, the train could stop in Albany instead of the current Rensselaer station served by Amtrak, but where? Union Station was moved from its original location and tracks and its old site removed to make way for an I-787 ramp. As a result, no tracks are at its current location. Central Warehouse was badly damaged by fire last year and might be costly to rebuild and replace. The ultimate solution may be a proposed transit center in downtown Albany. If SNCR wants to call the Big Apple home, Grand Central Terminal would be a better fit than Penn Station because of overcrowding.

Oregon's Next Step

Out west, an alternative known as the Oregon Electric Line is being promoted by Beaver State officials. Under this plan, the Cascades would shift its Portland-Eugene routing westward to rails currently operated by the Portland & Western, and frequencies would triple from two to six between the two cities. However, advocacy group AORTA strongly disagrees with the alignment and wants ORDOT to keep the Cascades on the Union Pacific route.

The state wants to move the train onto the Class III railroad because the former Southern Pacific route is near capacity. It is worth pointing out that Union Pacific is studying ways to double track the 124-mile line. Meanwhile, AORTA contends that the move is unnecessary, lets the state DOT know that the Capitols in CA have over a 90% on time performance rate, correctly points out that there is no signaling on the P&W route, and that Oregon City, which opened its station in 2004, would lose Cascades service (and perhaps only be available for afternoon rush hour travelers via the Coast Starlight) while Salem would be forced to build a new station.

In the March issue of Trains Magazine, freelance writer Scott Lothes said that upgrades on either route would require "substantial investment," which, according to state officials in Salem, would be billions of dollars. The options to deal with this are many, ranging from the aforementioned two to letting P&W run the Cascades, to splitting up the Portland-Eugene roundtrips so that up to three of them utilize the shortline route. I don't know whether Oregon is a frequent participant in the economic incentives game, but, regardless, I suggest this for the state: Give some incentives to the Portland & Western and its parent company to upgrade the tracks and signalize the the line. Maybe, tapping the railroad or some other independent operator to run standalone Portland-Eugene service would engender some "friendly competition." Also, the OE route could once again live up to its name as "Oregon Electric" as it becomes upgraded to Express HSR while the improved UP line would remain in place as Regional HSR.

Station Issues Part 3: Amtrak vs Other Operators

Given the potential for there to be three operators between Chicago and St. Louis, station conflicts will arise. At the north end, Union Station is an overcrowded mess. Meanwhile at the other end, Amtrak has partial ownership of Gateway Station (the city of St. Louis is the other owner). As Gene Poon pointed out, eight years ago when the Missouri legislature was pondering handing its trains over to Herzog, Amtrak threatened to keep Missouri-based trains out of Kansas City Union Station and a temporary St. Louis trailer, and it would have refused to recognize the MO trains as connections to Amtrak trains (go down to the eighth posting). Eventually, the Show Me State caved, and all seems to be well between the state and Amtrak now.

Until Florida Governor Rick Scott scuttled his state’s HSR project over two months ago, Amtrak and SNCF were on the same team bidding to operate the route. Now that FL is out of the high speed sweepstakes, all bets are off concerning the two carriers’ cooperation. So, it would not surprise me if upon operation of the two proposed Chicago-St. Louis Express routes, Amtrak decided to keep SNCF and the third operator out of Chicago Union and St. Louis Gateway Stations. When it comes to the Windy City, that would not be such a big deal because 1) SNCF has already proposed O'Hare Airport as a stop and 2) there are other options for intercity service. Even though those are my preference for other operators, a joint MWHSR/Siemens study has proposed its own alternatives for HSR stations in that city which are infinitely better than what MWHSR proposed early last year. In St. Louis, the French operator has already stated a preference for that city's Union Station. Not only can STLUS host SNCF routes, but it can host the other Chicago Express route and a future St. Louis-Kansas City Express route. While it would take some work, restoring the facility for train use should be no problem at all.

Meanwhile out in the Pacific Northwest, there's the possibility that Oregon could reroute the Cascades off of the  Union Pacific route and onto the Oregon Electric route between Portland and Eugene or that another operator could use the latter line and compete against the Cascades. The real sticking point would be Portland Union Station. Fortunately, that city owns the facility so it controls who can use Union Station.

Tackling the Headlines 7

Washington State beats Washington, D.C.
After the standoff, WSDOT prevailed over the FRA. Hopefully, this is the beginning of reasonable liability guidelines.

Good news, bad news in North Carolina
The former is that the Old North State is no longer battling the feds. An agreement will allow for track improvements and additional trains among other things. However, there are now Republican legislators in the General Assembly who want to prohibit those funds from being used. This should and will get vetoed, and it should be pointed out to these highway-loving politicians that it costs more to build a bridge than it will to build a credible rail system.

Amtrak's increased focus on the Northeast Corridor
Recently, Amtrak president Joseph Boardman let it be known that his company will be primarily focused on the NEC. At least now, management is openly admitting it rather than leading the rest of the nation on. If the carrier is going to shift its focus to the area where it owns the most tracks and is the most successful, then it will have to change its focus on being a national carrier.

Here's what I mean: As long as Amtrak is going to primarily focus on the line between Washington and Boston, then it will have to give up many other routes. As it is now, the company is already looking to the future where it envisions an Express route roughly parallel to its existing line. This would also mean that by 2040, only the host railroads, Rail Consortium, and PPPs would be "national" entities as Amtrak would basically be a bi-coastal company with several Chicago Hub routes and a few overnight routes while private entities and transit agencies would fill the remaining void.

Tackling the Headlines 5

The FRA's overbearing
The Federal Railroad Administration first attempted to demonstrate its manhood by threatening to impose excruciating penalties on host railroads in the future if passenger trains get delayed, following much needed upgrades. Now, it's getting into conflicts with states. Here in the Southeast and over in the Northwest, the sticking point is that the hosts will practically lose the right to use their own tracks once Amtrak service expands.

North Carolina's DOT has already reached agreements with Norfolk Southern and North Carolina Railroad to make sure that passenger service enhancements protect freight operations while Virginia has done the same thing with CSX. Instead of green-lighting the deals, the federal agency rejected both agreements by claiming that they weren't strict enough. The two Class Is don't want to be subject to punitive sanctions for delays due to expanded freight service that they'll likely see in the coming years.

On the other side of the country, Washington wants to add tracks, upgrade signals, and get a new trainset. That state and BNSF had already agreed on service standards like how long of a delay is acceptable, only to have the feds reject the agreement for--you guessed it--not being harsh enough on Warren Buffett's railroad. The FRA and Amtrak want delay reports filed by Amtrak conductors to be the file of record in the Evergreen State. WSDOT and BNSF want to use the Class I's delay reporting data. A billion dollars of HSR grants is on the line as the two sides continue to be deadlocked.

All three states have historically had good relationships with Amtrak, so, this has to feel like a punch in the gut at best and a stab in the back at worst. I am reminded of what went on in central Florida over a year ago with SunRail as the national carrier used liability concerns to hold up the 61-mile line for almost all of 2010. If the feds dig in their heels, it is not outside the realm of possibility to see NC, VA and WA reconsider their relationships with Amtrak and turn to other operators who may be more than happy to set a foothold in America.

No gray areas (part 2)

• Following a much-criticized Amtrak report on the Pioneer, Seattle-based Cascadia Center does its own analysis in September 2009. The reaction to the independent report? Mostly skepticism or silence from the bulk of the rail community
• Representatives John Mica and Bill Shuster point out the lack of competition and are met with derision from railfans
• URPA constantly brings up the matrix theory as a way of promoting rail travel and is virtually ignored
• At the end of 2009, a letter circulates among more than 30 state passenger rail associations. In it, the letter called for Amtrak to end its complacency in the wake of the Obama Administration's friendly tone toward passenger rail. At the time, less than six associations had signed the letter. I doubt that the number has increased significantly in the last 14 months

What these four stories have in common is that the bulk of the rail community have failed miserably to think outside of the box. NARP was skeptical because Cascadia tapped Union Pacific as the potential operator. What NARP failed to take into consideration was that a possible partnership with the host and Cascadia could actually lead to someone else operating the train in the same manner that the late Ski Train was (Cascadia doing a partnership with UP where a third company like Keolis operates the train but the host gets compensated). When it comes to equipment issues, it's a problem that could easily be corrected by the independent operator placing an order to U.S. Railcar when the time is right.

Seventy-six of the 78 grant winners listed Amtrak as the operator--in other words, every non-Express HSR route will be operated by Amtrak, not exactly promoting the spirit of competition. While the two congressmen were talking about the Northeast Corridor, other companies should have been given the right to bid openly on existing and new routes that are in the 79-110 MPH range. While there should be public involvement in the planning of rail routes, private operators should play a role in running passenger trains. Yet, talk to most railfans, and the reaction is mostly fear or outright opposition to the idea. If the de facto monopoly remains in place, then it and the lack of action on the letter will show that most of these advocacy groups have a blind allegiance to Amtrak.

In a time in which companies from France and Japan have already drafted proposals oh how they'd run trains around densely populated segments, the mindset to back Amtrak no matter what does nothing to advance the future of passenger rail travel. Bottom line: there is no reason why the FRA should have given 97.4% of the stimulus money to Amtrak when it ruled that the carrier's main line (the NEC) was ineligible for that $8.5 billion for HSR!

On URPA, I'll just say this: There have been times that I have disagreed with the tone and diction of some of their contributors, but the company is usually spot on and its businesslike approach to intercity rail is sorely needed in the overall discussion when most advocates are in a perpetual pledge drive mindset (ala PBS and NPR). Just like the Republicans on one side of the aisle, the rail community is in danger of drifting in a direction where it only contains ironclad ideas that leave no room for compromise.