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.

How the Dutch Model Could Work Here

The Background

Applying the Dutch Model to Each Amtrak Business Unit

The Northeast Corridor

The NEC is the U.S. equivalent of the Main Line Network. The logistics and politics would at very best require major compromises. Under the Dutch Model, Amtrak would keep the service via a no-bid contract but in exchange for that exclusivity, track and infrastructure would be transferred to a new USDOT entity--nullifying any false claims of the NEC being "privatized" once and for all.

That infrastructure company would be responsible for restoring the 457-mile route back to acceptable shape, leaving Amtrak to exclusively focus on running trains (let's face it, the 1976 decision to burden Amtrak with NEC ownership has been a bane on passenger rail). 

State-Supported Routes

For routes under 750 miles, the tender system will be used and applied to individual states, multistate compacts and California's Joint Powers Authorities. These routes would be put up for bid for contracts ranging anywhere from five to 10 years, and the commuter rail model could also be worth a look.

This would allow these entities more freedom to explore other companies who could expand and vastly improve service in ways that are currently unimaginable. The West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition is currently doing a version of competitive bidding with its proposed Eau Claire-Twin Cities service which last saw passenger service six decades ago.

If enough states use the tender system, innovations from the most ambitious of these companies could largely render the Amtrak Connects US plan obsolete outside of Virginia (has a 30-year contract), Illinois (home to the Chicago Hub), Michigan (only place outside of the NEC where Amtrak has track rights) and parts of Southern California (Pacific Surfliners and future Coachella Valley and Las Vegas routes).

Long-Distance Routes

The overnight trains should be handled via the open access model. In addition to the FRA's Long Distance Service Study being utilized, other companies would run overnight service on the track via intense negotiations and assuming full responsibility. 

Two potential examples are Dreamstar Lines and the Southeast Passenger Rail Initiative. The former plans to launch an overnight route between Los Angeles and San Francisco (in the mold of the SP's Lark route) while the latter is a rail advocacy group pushing for the Nightjet model, which would provide express or semi-express services throughout the Southeast.

The King of Passenger Trains

Background: This three-part series (1 2 3) is a good place to look 

Part 1: Starting things up

After a half century, the time has come to hit the reset button and start over because the Amtrak experiment has only resulted in mediocrity with passenger rail.  I would split the intercity into two categories--regional and overnight. The former would be run by the companies that also handle commuter routes while letting new companies run the overnight services.

I would rely on experienced people in the travel industry and implement the best aspects. My main focus would be on long distance trains and leave the shorter runs to multistate pacts. Since the overnight trains are in need of an overhaul, I would revert back to sleeping cars' roots as hotels on wheels as a way of luring travelers.

Speaking of night trains, luring executives from Europe or Asia would be a good idea since they're miles ahead of us at this point.

Part 2: The Matrix

The matrix theory connects passengers to previously unimaginable destinations. For my hypothetical rail company, I will use the Crescent's original route via Montgomery and Mobile as my sample service.  Atlanta would be a matrix point as it would be a transfer point for regional routes to Savannah, Chattanooga and Nashville. The current Crescent route would also be used as the Gulf Coast Corridor for daytime travel between Atlanta and New Orleans, a New York-Fort Worth overnight route and a transcontinental Atlanta-Dallas-Los Angeles service.

Part 3: Operations

The trains would be daily and would run every six to eight hours. My Crescent Group would have the namesake train as a premium train alongside a second frequency, and I would also own the Fort Worth service and L.A. transcon as a way of diversifying.

Instead of the depersonalization that has been a main part of the Amtrak Era, stations would be staffed with people who actually know a thing or two about train travel. When it comes to the future of train stations, the Brightline model--which resembles the airline model--is the best way to go.

The statement about host railroads' stance on infrequent trains goes against everything I've seen on message boards.

Revolting Against Amtrak Part II

Is Amtrak the only state option?

To answer the article in the April edition of Trains Magazine: It shouldn't be.

Testifying at a U.S. House of Representatives rail subcommittee hearing on Amtrak operations, [Stacey] Mortenson said she found it "absolutely astonishing" when Amtrak officials told her in a meeting "that service cuts or reducing the number of railcars would not necessarily same us any money."

But yet at certain times, bean counters in Washington go ahead and cut service under the guise of "saving money" anyway.
For all of the flak, NCDOT gets from some rail activists for using refurbished pre-Amtrak era equipment, it looks as if it made a smart move since it only pays Amtrak for Carolinian equipment. For instance, look at all of the trouble the Midwestern states went through with Nippon-Sharyo's double-decker equipment.
Bob Johnston pointed out that advertising and corridor-specific marketing among other things have fallen off a cliff since the late '90s. Here in North Carolina, advertising for the Piedmont and Carolinian are handled by NCDOT, and the only Amtrak presence came in the form of radio ads in the mid '10s.
Amtrak may have the statutory right of access to the host railroads' tracks but if the states had done their homework in the early '10s, they could have dumped Amtrak, used the commuter rail model for AIPRO operators and saved themselves a lot of money. The refusal by the states to consider AIPRO operators means that these DOTs shot themselves in the foot in regards to expansion and using their imagination.

It must be pointed out the reason why the Hoosier State failed was because it was the only corridor route that had less than daily service, Indiana officials were half-hearted with their support--the cities and universities along the route did most of the heavy lifting--and the trains stopped at unmarketable times.

Bennett Levin pointed out to Trains Magazine that Amtrak's liability advantage was eradicated after the Train #188 derailment five years ago when the cap was raised from $250 million for only Amtrak to $294 million for all passenger carriers.

In any case, heightened scrutiny of Amtrak's costs an responsiveness will clearly be a contentious element of upcoming re-authorization discussions.

Congress needs to keep the pressure up on Amtrak because it has gotten away with saddling states with high cost, low revenue studies that all but guarantee no expansion of existing services and no new routes. On top of that, the other states need to stand up to bureaucrats in D.C. who know nothing about their needs and only care about the 457 miles between Washington and Boston.

Bennett Levin's Visit to Pennsylvania Legislators

In the First Quarter issue in Passenger Train Journal, Kevin McKinney analyzed Levin's testimony in the Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee at the end of last year.

[Levin] adds that "SEPTA gives Amtrak attributable to the Harrisburg Line is not being used by Amtrak on the Harrisburg Line, but is being used by Amtrak for other purposes."

Is it any wonder why Levin wants SEPTA to run the trains? A slight variation should result in a new PENN RAIL running the trains instead.

Levin also pointed out just how out of touch the Amtrak Board is with the people who are on it and have no railroading experience. It's worth noting that both Levin and Mortenson told the legislative bodies in question that Amtrak's accounting is absolutely opaque.

Levin is right in that "Amtrak is running on auto-pilot" and the states "are getting shortchanged." The former is due to "America's Railroad" getting all of that PRIIA money from the states and feeling no need to improve the state-supported routes without needless studies.

Revolting Against Amtrak

Two months ago, Stacey Mortenson of the San Joaquin JPA spilled the beans to Congress on how Amtrak overcharges state-supported routes--namely, her San Joaquin service. I'm pretty sure that Herzog would do a much better job operating the San Joaquins than Amtrak. Also, the SJ JPA plans on rerouting the trains to serve multiple parts of Sacramento. I really hope that Mortenson can pull off the transfer and even if this just a negotiating ploy, it would further show Amtrak's Northeastern-centric managment and board that California's JPAs are not fooling around--after all, the state's three JPAs were the only agencies that refused to go along with Amtrak Corporate's boneheaded moves to eliminate discounts in 2018.

Last month, a rail advocate told a Pennsylvania House committee that the commonwealth could do a better and cheaper job operating intercity rail than Amtrak. Whatever happens in Harrisburg, it's mandatory that there is at the very least a restoration of a second frequency between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

Despite Richard Anderson's bluster, this is the clearest sign that Amtrak's "valued state partners" are getting fed up with an agency that only cares about the Northeast Corridor and is only interested in shaking down the states for money while refusing to expand or provide new equipment.

That said, the states should have rebelled against Amtrak during the Section 209 fight seven years ago. California needed to be the guinea pig for private operators getting into corridor service, not Indiana. A state with three distinct corridors would have made it much more appealing to other state DOTs to ditch Amtrak instead of the only state to have a less than daily corridor service.

The dustup with the San Joaquins and Pennsylvania may very well prove what Amtrak critic M.E. Singer has said about PRIIA: That the 2008 law is the problem an may need to be repealed or reformed.

Outside of the box thinking is needed now more than ever because a continued reliance on Amtrak instead of turning to AIPRO members or Virgin Trains will squash any hopes of a passenger rail renaissance. States with limited or no corridor service need to pay attention to what's happening on both coasts so they can know what to avoid if they want to expand their routes.

A wasted decade

Around this time a decade ago, the passenger rail community was gearing up for President Obama's announcement of high speed rail funding and it looked like a renaissance was upon us. Rather than the sky being the limit, here's what actually happened:

• The infamous Tea Party backlash that resulted in Wisconsin (Hiawatha extension to Madison), Ohio (3C Route) and Florida (Express HSR Tampa-Orlando-Miami route) returning their stimulus money to the feds
• A trade group composed of Amtrak's commuter competitors being formed but ignored by the press and blacked out among most rail activists
• A failed attempt by Senators Dick Durbin and Harry Reid to drive private operators out of the commuter business
• A successful power play by Joe Boardman, the NEC congressional slate and NARP that kept the Northeast Corridor from being rehabbed based on a clever yet deceitful PR campaign
• The Hoosier State being eliminated
• The loss of the Silver Star diner
• No advocacy for the long distance routes from the people who matter the most
• Congress passing another rail reform bill but failing to enforce competition provisions
• Amtrak stripping ticketing and checked baggage from numerous stations throughout the country
• An ex-airline executive currently runs Amtrak and has alienated almost everyone with his moves

The status quo has prevailed and there has been little progress in the 10 years since. The vast majority of rail advocates have exposed themselves as little more than a bunch of Amtrak shills. As far as NARP, its name change is pretty much an indication that it is taking a step backward.

Colorado news

State House Speaker opposes Front Range Rail

If Becker is betting the future of transportation on autonomous vehicles, she is deluding herself. Furthermore, if anyone in the Colorado legislature is looking to Anderson et al to come to the rescue, then, they need to look at how the Boardman Administration dragged out the Southwest Chief issue.

Inside the box thinking is going to render intercity rail in Colorado stillborn.

A private operator wants to complete RTD's B Line

Given the route's issues, it wouldn't hurt at all to let Rocky Mountain Rail try it out.

The end of the Hoosier State

Amidst much scrutiny, the final Hoosier State left Chicago on June 30. In late April, the Indiana General Assembly slashed $3 million a year (total $6 million until 2021) set aside for Trains #850 and #851 following Governor Eric Holcomb's own exclusion of the train route in his budget.

Thus ends a six-year debacle that started when Indiana balked at PRIIA Section 209 requirements. I will analyze the big players' roles starting with...

...Amtrak

• Management reportedly told ex-CEO Joseph Boardman to not pursue CSX on making the Cardinal daily
• Responsible for Section 209 in the first place
• Delayed handing the Hoosier State over to Corridor Capital
• Offered free amenities when Corridor Capital was yanked and then rescinded them after five months
• Briefly provided Business Class after IPH pulled out

Indiana

• Was the only state to hold out of Section 209 payments
• Conducted a bidding process for the Hoosier State
• Passed on Herzog, who wanted to operate the train in favor of contracting out the route while keeping Amtrak crews
• Almost sabotaged the route before partial private service even began
• Made no effort to upgrade the route to daily
• State officials at best merely tolerated the route while it was the cities who exhibited far more interest in it
• Imposed onerous requirements that made it impossible for IPH to operate the Hoosier State at a profit

Corridor Capital

• Had the cars to operate the route
• Maybe not much the expertise
• Had to deal with a saboteur

Iowa Pacific

• Had the equipment and made good use of it on the Hoosier State
• Also made the best of its limited situation
• Ran out of money in 2017

D.C.

• The FRA attempted to classify states as rail carriers in early 2015
• Congress had the power to enforce PRIIA and FAST Act provisions encouraging private sector competition but did nothing

Railfans

• Most of them hated the idea of anyone other than Amtrak even touching this route from the beginning
• Rejoiced when Corridor Capital was booted and when IPH handed the Hoosier State back to Amtrak

The final verdicts
Thumbs down to Amtrak: If it wanted to, it could have made either the Cardinal or the Hoosier State daily. That it made such a fuss about keeping the train when others made bids on it says a lot about management and its culture. Yet another part of the country has been ceded to a startup bus company.

Thumbs down to the state of Indiana: Misstep after misstep led to the route's demise and state officials botching things. It is worth noting that all alternatives to Chicago-Indianapolis are either circuitous or they no longer exist.

Thumbs in the middle to Corridor Capital: It never got to prove itself. Hopefully that changes with the planned Eau Claire-Twin Cities route.

Thumbs up to Iowa Pacific: It was able make the best out of a bad situation. Unlike middle mangers in D.C. and Chicago, you can't deny the passion that Ed Ellis had for providing more than decent services on the Hoosier State.

Thumbs down to D.C. politicians: First, the executive branch under Obama cooked up a harebrained idea of making states rail carriers. If the intention was to prevent the states from selecting AIPRO members or any other non-Amtrak operator, then, mission accomplished. The attempted power play just set passenger rail back another 5-10 years when we couldn't afford to waste any more time.

Next, the legislative branch. Congress has no excuses because it has heard from enough experts so it needed to make sure that anyone bidding on existing Amtrak routes had a fair shake. Instead, state departments are more scared and even more risk averse all because our so-called leaders were willing to sit on their hands while a previously tolerated status quo could now lead to intercity rail crumbling from within.

Thumbs down to railfans: Their attitude over the nation's only non-daily corridor service vindicates everything I said  5 1/2 years ago.

Tackling the Headlines 100: The Finale

NOTE: The Hoosier State situation will be covered in a future article

Sweden and Night Trains
The Scandinavian country is doing something that was endangered just four years ago: Entering the European overnight market. This is an example of the government backing up its green agenda.

The funding portion would be like the government seeking an alternative operator to run a long distance route.

Amtrak's strategy
Over the last three months or so, Amtrak has made it clear that it doesn't really care about its originally mandated mission to provide a national system, and its leaders are emphasizing corridors instead. 

Given that Charlotte-Atlanta is on the railroad's radar, it should be clear that Amtrak is on the defensive since Virgin Trains already announced its plans for the same route six months ago. A few years ago, this route was complexly off the radar of "America's Railroad" and it was little more than a long-term thing planned by NCDOT and GADOT.

The thing is, Amtrak's record with the corridors it currently has is mostly lacking and the railroad has taken next to no initiative so this idea of focusing on corridors is typical of a reactive organization. When Richard Branson took over Brightline and announced its plans to develop corridors and even challenge Amtrak in its backyard, it was reminiscent of Joe Boardman's response to foreign entities submitting their bids to operate high speed rail a decade ago. 

Boardman got a reprieve as the 2010 elections curtailed HSR fever but Richard Anderson is unlikely to be as lucky because of how unpopular he already is among the rail public for his passenger-hostile approach. 

Detroit studies the obvious
A decade after members of the City Council recommended demolishing MCS, the Motor City's leaders are studying restoring passenger service to its crown jewel. However, it doesn't necessarily have to have Amtrak trains stopping there. A Chicago-Toronto HSR route could be set up either privately or like Eurostar.

Toledo may be taking rail into its own hands
A consultant has clearly been paying attention to Florida when he was tasked with tackling the feasibility of a Toledo-Ann Arbor/Detroit route. Linking Toledo with Southeast Michigan will be something that requires innovative thinking because the historical default partners are completely unreliable

The Ohio DOT is likely to continue putting highways above passenger rail even if the new governor isn't as bad on the latter as his predecessor. Meanwhile, Amtrak would give this T-shaped route the same treatment that it gave the 3C Route that it studied a decade ago. Also, any feasibility study done by Amtrak will result in exorbitant costs.

Clearing up the CAHSR mess
Whatever the new governor's motives, at least someone from the Authority clarified what's going on in Sacramento.

The future of UK rail franchising
Great Britain's rail operators want an independent body overseeing the network. If the railroads get their way on commuter routes, then it would be like the German model in a way--and it'd allow them to focus on intercity routes. I mean what's good for the goose (London) is good for the gander (Liverpool, Manchester, etc.), right?

Virgin being forced out in Britain
It looks like Sir Branson may flourish here while unraveling on his side of the Atlantic. His and Stagecoach's joint bid was disqualified over pension issues. Obviously a complex issue and it would be a shame if an innovative operator were driven out of its homeland.

2018 Midterms and Rail

Here are my rapid fire responses to the midterms and their impact on passenger rail.

West Coast
CA: The incoming governor may shift which segments of CAHSR get built next. When it comes to the main opponents of the project, two out of the three are gone—Valadao and Denham lost their House races but McCarthy will become the new House Minority Leader.

Southwest
NM: Here’s to hoping that Michelle Lujan Grisham is vastly more pro-rail than her predecessor.

Midwest
MN: Maybe the second Chicago-Twin Cities frequency will accelerate now.
WI: Governor No Train is finally ousted and he lost based on a rule that he created that prevented a recount by a certain margin. Serves him right.
IA: Kim Reynolds holding onto the governor’s mansion and soon to be serving a full term means that a Quad Cities-Omaha extension will be off the table for at least another four years.
IL: Once the Quad Cities route gets up and running, the question is which route will be next on the agenda. The Black Hawk revival? Rockford service? Something else?
OH: Oh dear, Mike DeWine had the most ambiguous position out of the four gubernatorial candidates in regards to transit needs, which may mean the status quo in Columbus.

Southeast
AL: Earlier this year, Kay Ivey passed on providing money to reviving the Mobile-New Orleans Gulf Coast Limited route. That seemed to conclude a spat between the governor and the Southern Rail Commission but a couple of weeks later, advocates pressed forward with building a new station in Mobile. Ivey got elected to a full term but is less inclined to even support any type of passenger rail than her predecessor, who at least explored the possibility of a PPP before an impeachment threat forced him to step down.
GA: As to what the new governor will do in advancing passenger rail, your guess is as good as mine. If anything, Georgians may be better off hoping that Sir Richard’s venture serves the Atlanta-Charlotte market in the interim.
FL: It will be up to the public to push Ron DeSantis to implement a statewide rail system to connect Floridians. Over the past six or so years, region after region has expressed its interest in reviving rail service in some capacity. Now is the time to not only provide a system but to also prove that a state can develop on without Amtrak. Don’t just leave everything to Brightline/Virgin.
NC: Roy Cooper can now veto rail-unfriendly legislation, which would be a sigh of relief for mass transit.

Northeast
CT: We shall see if the new governor is more open to funding the Housatonic and New England Central routes now that the Hartford Line is finally up and running. 
MA: Conversely, we’ll also see if Charlie Baker and the legislature are able to produce any new routes in the Bay State.
ME: Hopefully, the Pine Tree State will move out of its neutral position and develop more routes.

Tackling the Headlines 88

More Nippon-Sharyo Woes
Additional layoffs and a hard pressing deadline without any cars to show.

Take: How did the Midwestern states not have a viable backup plan?

Iowa Pacific to Cede the Hoosier State
In a really shocking turn of events, IPH will hand the Hoosier back over to Amtrak on March 1. There are rumors that IPH is facing extreme financial difficulties that may bankrupt it--and it canceled an overnight excursion in upstate New York--but I won't speculate on that until the source confirms or denies them. 

Take #1: All of this could have been avoided if INDOT had selected either Corridor Capital or Herzog. The former had available cars while the latter offered to operate the train, not just being a vendor while Amtrak crews still operated the train.

Take #2: This is really regrettable and I really hope that this doesn't dampen any other states seeking to use private operators.

Take #3: I see that some of the jackals are already gloating over the demise of Iowa Pacific as if it's supposed to be the example of keeping private operators out of the intercity market. You guys are just disgusting! Way to support increased passenger rail, guys!

Take #4: Indiana needs to mandate an increase of frequencies when it rebids this train. There is no excuse for Trains #850 and #851 to still be quadweekly with nothing on the horizon (no pun intended).

The Obama Legacy on Rail & the Next Four Years

Looking Back
In a matter of days, the POTUS who was the friendliest towards Amtrak will be leaving office and along with will be carrier's #1 fan, Vice President Biden. The stimulus funding was a much needed boost, but it should have only been the beginning as passenger rail has been underfunded and undermined for decades. In retrospect, all of the HSR portion of the stimulus money should have been allocated to California, and on the Amtrak front, Obama should have appointed Biden to assist the rail company.

Two other things about the Obama Administration that I lament are: 1) overcompensation and 2) Buy America. When I talk about overcompensation, I'm talking about Obama being too friendly towards Amtrak to the point that he awarded 97.4 percent of the stimulus projects to the national carrier. The competition portions in PRIIA should have been enforced. As for Buy America, the FRA has been the biggest barrier to moving forward by forcing commuter and intercity carriers to adhere to those provisions and to build heavy railcars. This country needs more railcar manufacturers so we don't end up with fiascoes like Nippon-Sharyo's Midwestern car order. I just don't think the way the current path is the way for diverse railcars.

Looking Ahead
Rail advocates may be fretting the next four years since Congress and the White House are in the hands of the same party that has historically shown hostility towards Amtrak. 

If some of their fears come to pass, then, most of them should take a look in the mirror because they didn't take my Grand Bargain advice after the collapse of the Florida HSR project and two Midwestern governors returning stimulus money to the White House (as well as Rick Scott). 

As far as being advocates for all rail carriers is concerned, what I've seen from most of these people isn't promising so far. Other than some praise for Brightline, the attitude towards other non-Amtrak carriers has ranged from skepticism to outright hostility. Their silence (and NARP's support) towards a 2012 Senate measure that would have driven other companies out of the U.S. market is an indicator that they should not be picking sides unless they want to be on the outside looking in whenever the rail renaissance happens.

On the other hand, a Congress and president who have far less faith in government's role could be a boon for independent operators. For starters, the True Believers have to get used to the fact that Amtrak is not going get anywhere close to a quarter of the $117 billion it says it needs for a brand new Northeast Corridor.

Some Consistency Please
In any case, the Trump Administration and Congress need to get the message that the passenger rail model as it's currently set up is broken and needs to be fixed because this stasis that has been in place since 1971 cannot continue. 
Consider what former Amtrak Reform Council Board member Bruce Chapman once said: 

The Bush folks knew we needed reform, but couldn’t deliver it, and wouldn’t fund the transition to a public-private partnership. The Obama people are prepared to spend plenty, but not to reform the system.

The previous president realized that the passenger rail model was broken beyond repair but was unwilling to fix it beyond talking about privatizing Amtrak. The current president spent tens of billions of stimulus and TIGER grant money so Amtrak could basically get a facelift (the CAHSR project and future NECR conventional service being the only non-Amtrak intercity routes to be funded) while paying no attention to Virgin or JR East on the HSR front nor to AIPRO members on the conventional rail front.

The bottom line is that we now need leadership in Washington to realize that both the public and private sectors are needed to boost passenger rail to the next level--from surviving to thriving, from just Amtrak to a number of different operators providing their special spin on service. Like I have said in the past, there are some routes that would be better off operated by someone other than Amtrak.

Trump, Shuster, and company need to realize that a separation of operations from infrastructure can be done while Amtrak apologists need to realize that efforts like AIRNet-21 will result in a separate public owner of infrastructure along the NEC, which would allow Amtrak to run its trains without worrying about the costs of tracks and bridges along the 457-mile route.

Addendum: Updated Gulf Coast Schedule

2	Gulf Wind	1
23:00	New Orleans	0:35
0:53	Biloxi1	22:31
2:18	Mobile	21:27
11:00	Tallahassee	15:32
13:50 14:10	Jacksonville-Marietta	12:32 12:12
14:35	Jacksonville-Naval Air Station	11:47
17:55	Orlando-LYNX Central	8:28
18:08	Orlando-Sand Lake Rd.	8:15
21:44	West Palm Beach-S. Tamarind Ave.2	4:47
23:49	Miami Airport2	3:05

Notes

1. This excludes future planned New Orleans-Mobile routes that extend to Birmingham as well as local services
2. No local passengers between West Palm Beach and Miami

A twist to Gulf Coast service

Here's something no one's thought about: Extend the Gulf Coast Service to Miami.

That move alone would take it out of the PRIIA 750 mile requirement by making the route 1,033 miles long. A Tampa extension is doable but at 787 miles long, it's barely outside of the area where the four states would have to fund the route.

As I have said before, Amtrak would not operate this version of the route. Instead, it would be in the hands of an independent operator because it would be able to run the route at a lower cost and out of pride rather than the reluctance that has emanated from Massachusetts Avenue ever since PRIIA mandated the company to study restoring the missing link between New Orleans and Orlando. This would not preclude local routes from being operated by Amtrak in partnership with the Southern Rail Commission or regional service by Corridor Capital.

When it comes to Florida, I have the train stopping in two different locations in Jacksonville--the Marietta neighborhood in the west side of town and the Naval Air Station in the southwest portion--in order to avoid backup moves at Union Terminal. However, the Gulf Wind will be complemented by two Jacksonville-Pensacola roundtrips that will stop at the historic terminal as well as the Marietta stop. In Orlando, the trains will call the LYNX Central and Sand Lake locations home. For its eastern terminus, the Miami Airport will host the trains, which would really turn that station into an intercity hub for trains in addition to intrastate Florida service.

Tackling the Headlines 85

Politico's coverage of the FRA's Pilot Program hearing

Take: On the private companies' concern that the FRA is rigging the process in Amtrak's favor, it would not surprise me if it is.The FRA has been nothing but vague to this point and has gone out of its way to impose arbitrary barriers on non-Amtrak operators.

TTD to FRA: Amtrak, Not Private Entities, Should Run National Passenger Rail System

TTD Secretary-Treasurer Larry Willis, appearing at the Agency’s public hearing, emphasized that Amtrak and its experienced employees are in the best position to provide inter-city passenger rail - “not private entities that seek to turn a profit by lowering labor costs or cutting and eroding service.”

Take # 1: Tell that to the folks in Britain and continental Europe.

“The idea that a private entity can come in and provide more efficient service at a lower cost than Amtrak simply because it is a private entity is a myth,” Willis said. “Too often, private sector business models in the rail industry contemplate downgrading existing service, avoiding obligations under rail labor statutes, or undercutting collective bargaining agreements. The FRA must ensure that the pilot program shuts the door to this misguided model.”

Take #2: Somebody ought to tell Mr. Willis that Amtrak has already done that with the downgrades to the Silver Star and the City of New Orleans so for him to accuse other operators of downgrading service is laughable and is deflecting Amtrak's deficiencies. For instance after Amtrak lost the Virginia Railway Express contract, it was Keolis that added special events for VRE's riders.

Take #3: As I said in early 2014,

If [the unions] are opposed to non-Amtrak operators, then they are in effect opposed to more jobs.

That is the bottom line. It's Willis and Ed Wytkind who are depriving others of jobs, not the AIPRO members or Ed Ellis, and they are doing so because they are afraid of having to adjust to a world of multiple operators who may in due time provide superior service to Amtrak.

Fragmenting Long-Distance Passenger Trains?

Railfan & Railroad, August

NEC a different matter 

• Not only is the NEC huge but the region but the region's congressional delegation would block any effort by AIPRO members to compete against Amtrak
• Maybe when the folks in D.C. get serious about infrastructure, then, we'll see Amtrak face competition in its home region. Until then, I wish the LEO Express people good luck because they'll need it
• By avoiding the NEC, Chambers is sticking to what he knows since the bulk of the AIPRO's commuter contracts are outside of Amtrak-friendly Northeast and Chicagoland territories

Opaque

• By opening the overnight routes up to competition, we'd finally be able to find out the truth about the financial condition of the routes

Cutting a deal?

• By capping the subsidy at 90 percent, the FAST Act is actually doing all potential Amtrak competitors a favor because these newcomers will be hungry and eager to demonstrate that the long distance train of the future is better off without Amtrak

Amtrak--another shot at the target

• "America's Railroad" may get the chance to counterbid but it'd be wise to figure out just which three routes it can do without

Role of Class Is

• As far as the major railroads go, Sections 209 & 214 of PRIIA as well as Section 205 of the FAST Act supersede their long-held Amtrak-only stance
• If the major railroads (continue) flout(ing) the laws, then Congress will have to play hardball: Allow non-Amtrak operators who fairly get contracts for state-supported or overnight routes on your rails or you'll be in charge of every intercity route outside of the Northeast--and in the process, reducing Amtrak to an NEC-only entity

Who bids?

• To me, it's simple: A partnership between independent and Class I railroads--shades of my rail consortium

Another thorny complaint

• Vernon discusses how the major railroads have griped about how Amtrak has never paid them market rates for access on their tracks. As it turns out, a fellow AIPRO member Stan Feinsod advocated a scenario in which other operators would use the commuter model in order to access freight tracks
• In the event the AIPRO is able to see its vision happen, then perhaps we could actually see some of its members revive and actively push for the restoration of service along routs Amtrak abandoned

High mountains to climb

• As far as the RRIF loan scenario goes, whatever it takes

The New Passenger Paradigm

Railway Age, July

Initial takeaway: Rail activists would be keen to read and reread the first sentence on what really led to the creation of Amtrak so they can stop spewing their defeatist nonsense whenever someone tries to propose out of the box ways to expand passenger travel in this country.

Third paragraph: Herzog was prescient and took notes before anyone on Capitol Hill even drafted PRIIA. Even though the AIPRO is small, it should say something that its members have the bulk of commuter rail contracts when a couple of decades ago, Amtrak had a near monopoly outside of the Northeast and Chicago.

Fourth paragraph: This expert nails it: The status quo cannot be maintained after 45 years when multiple operators have expressed interest in running intercity trains.

Fifth paragraph: The New Passenger Paradigm matches up with the late Gil Carmichael's Interstate II and my rail highway concepts.

Sixth paragraph: Based on what Mr. Chambers is saying, all that's needed is for the feds to actually enforce the laws and end the stasis once and for all. After all, when the time came to enforce the Pilot Program in accordance to PRIIA guidelines, the FRA waited a full two years to do so and by that time, there were too many loose ends that the old program just withered away despite immense interest. Another thing is to make sure that the feds do not play favorites--i.e., rig the process to maintain Amtrak's near monopoly (the 2012 near miss comes to mind).

Second column: Regarding the push for new legislation, somebody has to do it because the resident rent seekers sure won't. When it comes to Section 301 not being enforced, one can only look at the executive branch and ask: What happened, President Obama, USDOT, FRA? Was it in any way retaliation to some states returning stimulus money? Was the lack of enforcement actually stimulus related?

If the feds had followed the German model, we would already have: 1) states having greater flexibility to select operators and set their own standards and 2) Amtrak having a surplus amount of equipment due to it experiencing the same type of contract losses of its intercity routes that it's had with its commuter service. The next president and Congress would be very wise to adopt AIPRO's statutes. The second proposed statute would be an excellent way to make money. JR West does this now and Brightline and Housatonic plan on turning their station areas into prime real estate.

Tackling the Headlines 82

Long distance competition at last?
On Wednesday, the FRA finally complied with Section 205 of the FAST Act and set the standards for bidding on long distance routes

TL;DR analysis: For once, the FRA is following the law on time. I want to see what the Ed Ellises and the AIPROs of the world do with overnight routes. 

Full analysis: Go to Tumblr.

More destaffings
Recently, Amtrak has been turning staffed stations into unstaffed stations. Now, Homewood, IL and Wolf Point, MT have been added.  

Take #1: I seriously wonder if Joe Boardman has enacted some kind of a scorched earth policy on his way out. The rash of destaffings and stripping the Silver Star of its dining cars come to mind as possible ways the lame duck Amtrak president is getting back at a lot of people. The latter act is also justification for the FRA's actions a couple of days ago.

Take #2: I am also getting tired of know it all railfans justifying small towns and suburban locations losing agents. Not everybody has access to technology and not everyone wants to handle computers. That mentality is exactly why so-called "flyover country" is in open rebellion against city folks. Instead of reducing staffed stations, a responsible company would be adding staffed stations.

Alabama rising?
Earlier this month, news broke that Corridor Capital was planning a regional rail system for Alabama and two other states and headquarters in Montgomery. As it turned out, Alabama media ran with this story big time. However, last Friday's NARP's newsletter poured cold water on exactly who was backing Corridor Capital's efforts. The Southern Rail Commission not only denied supporting CorrCap but also decided to stress how it was working with Amtrak among others.

Take #1: I had to reread the stories from the Alabama press and not once did I ever get any idea that CorrCap was even mentioned as an operator.

Take #2: A comment on the Trains Magazine page on the SRC's disavowal of CorrCap says it all: "So I guess if you are a private sector entity seeking improved passenger rail service the politicians don't want you." When I said that advocacy groups needed to adapt to a post-monopoly era rather than going all in with Amtrak, I didn't think that I'd have to also apply this to the states but given this development and Minnesota picking Amtrak to run the Northern Lights Express even though the planned second Chicago-Twin Cities frequency won't serve Minneapolis, I guess I have to.

Take #3: I wonder if NARP got into the SRC's ear and told them to distance themselves from Corridor Capital given how attached to Amtrak NARP really is.

Take #4: There is no excuse for the New Orleans-Orlando route to still be "suspended" after 10 1/2 years! If someone else can come along and get something going, that group should be commended not ridiculed the way CorrCap is now.

Take #5: Going back to Mr. Norton's comments in the Trains article, he's right on. The Floridian (1971-79), Gulf Breeze (1990-95), and the Gulf Coast Limited (1984-85 & 96-97) have all come and gone. If an entrepreneur is trying to provide a service that is absent and the only thing the current operator is doing is subjecting states to endless feasibility studies, sooner or later, the public will have to go with the person who is thinking outside of the box.

St. Louis Union Station excursions
Links can be found here, here, and here.

Take: Until non-Amtrak operators are allowed to run overnight trains and America gets serious about European-style high speed rail, this might be as good as it gets. But at least, Union Station is finally being used for its original purpose 38 years after Amtrak left.

Winter Magazine Rants and Raves

Iron and Fire: Iowa Pacific's Ed Ellis (4th Quarter 2015)
The Passenger Train Journal article covered a slew of topics with Ellis but largely talked about the Hoosier State.The author of the PTJ article seemed to lament the fact that Iowa Pacific and Amtrak managed to just coexist rather than cooperate when it comes to the Hoosier State and the Cardinal. The testings and cancellations of the Hoosier State were just two things covered. The major thing that I paid attention to was how Amtrak handled itself on November 23. The westbound Cardinal lost more than 5 1/2 hours in Indianapolis due to a locomotive that ran out of fuel. Amtrak said that the loco wasn't properly fueled in D.C. when #51 switched from electric to diesel but rather than loaning an engine from IP, it decided to wait for a CSX engine. Since IP equipment was attached to #51, the Hoosier State for that evening out of Chicago was also affected While Ellis may not see IP as a rival to Amtrak, someone at Amtrak's headquarters in D.C. surely does--even if it isn't the outgoing CEO himself.

Towards the end of the article, the planned Rutland-Burlington service in Vermont was mentioned and Ellis told PTJ that he was keeping a close eye just in case that state puts the operation of the route up for bidding. It would be water cooler material if Vermont contracts trains service to not one but two operators.

Finally, Ellis is right on by saying that the focus on high speed rail "is totally misplaced" and that there should be hourly service.

Maine Eastern Finale (Railfan & Railroad, February)
As it turns out, the circumstances surrounding the demise of the Maine Eastern excursions are even worse than I feared. ME DOT spokesman Ted Talbot told the Portland Press Herald that the state had no interest in subsidizing any new passenger service. 

So rather than either extending the Downeaster to Rockland or the DOT dropping the ball, the state went out of its way to curtail summer service to an area not served by Amtrak. Paul LePage is even worse than Scott Walker because at least the latter wants to add frequencies between Chicago and Milwaukee. The Pine Tree State's Tea Party executive isn't even interested in expanding the Downeaster by either mileage or frequency. It may very well turn out to be a blown opportunity because if a Democrat succeeds LePage in three years,the new governor may only be focused on extending Downeaster service to Rockland and Augusta and pay no attention what I proposed almost four years ago.