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.

Florida by Amtrak

In the Fourth Quarter 2019 issue of Passenger Train Journal, Kevin McKinney took a look at the inverse relationship between Amtrak's presence in Florida and the state's population over the past half century. Going even further, the Sunshine State's rapid growth since the dawn of the 20th century should make one weep over how whittled down passenger service has become.

Even when the Seaboard Coast Line reluctantly handed its trains over to Amtrak, the combined Atlantic Coast Line and Seaboard Air Line entity had more than enough options for travelers. McKinney did a good job in describing the planning of which routes to incorporate into Amtrak. The more I think about it, the more likely that my alternative scenario would have happened had SCL management not been so concerned about ordering new equipment.

Cross-Florida service is something that the FDOT should be responsible for and reminds me of the free ride certain Midwest and Northeastern states were getting prior to PRIIA. Why no one in Congress has moved to rescind ex-congressman Mica's food service provision baffles me (maybe they'll address it in the next rail re-authorization bill but I doubt it).

Advertising has been absent outside the Northeast Corridor for years

The lack of advertising and the failure to recognize winter peak season tells me that Amtrak is has long blown off the state and that it merely tolerates what it already has. The reduced consists speak for themselves

Florida's population has tripled since Amtrak was formed while the the national operator has not only decreased its footprint but is now being lapped by Virgin's Brightline, which has 32 trains even though it's still a glorified commuter route until the Orlando Airport extension is completed. Other metro areas in the state have taken a look at Sunrail and Tri-Rail and are exploring their own commuter systems, and it's up to the folks in Tallahassee to get it together. If the executive and legislative branches do in fact patch everything together by using the Sunrail model and cut Amtrak out of the picture, it may be game over for Amtrak's share.

To be in decline in a booming market is certainly not an impressive feat. To actually be making service less appealing instead of finding ways to improve and grow the business suggests it is time to officially redefine the mission of what a national rail passenger carrier should be, finance it properly, and find management--or a new organization--capable of running a high-quality, growth-oriented business.

Indeed.Amtrak turns 50 next spring and there should be some very hard questions over what a national rail carrier should look like (hint: new operators with new approaches to grow the market). Florida is untapped potential and it's being taken advantage of by Brightline, not 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.

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.

Phillips vs Boardman

Everybody seems to have an opinion on the November Trains Magazine article but the M.O. from various message boards have painted columnist Don Phillips as "bitter" because the Amtrak president wouldn't grant him an interview.
But the facts are this:

1. Joseph Boardman has done very little to advance the long distance trains. During a 2011 congressional hearing, he threw those routes under the proverbial bus (no pun intended).
2. Instead of embracing a bill to relieve Amtrak of its biggest albatross, he "rallied the troops" by denouncing a plan to transfer the Northeast Corridor from Amtrak to another government entity as "privatization." Over three years later, Boardman's now whining about how the Hudson River Tunnels only have 20 years left when he could have easily embraced Jayanti's proposal.
3. None of the recommendations as mandated by PRIIA to improve long distance trains have been followed. This shouldn't have happened, especially with someone of Brian Rosenwald's stature trying to follow the '08 law.
4. Boardman's unwillingness to call the host railroads' bluff was way beyond disturbing. Seven hundred fifty million dollars to operate a daily Sunset Limited? Stalled negotiations with CSX over a daily Cardinal? "Never mind" seemed to be Boardman's M.O. A true leader would have been front and center, and had that failed, I would have then taken my case to the STB.
5. Sure he ordered new equipment for the eastern long distance trains, but what about their western counterparts?
6. A true leader would have never allowed himself to be caught flat-footed the way Boardman was in 2009 when European and Asian operators--public and private--openly expressed interest to operate high speed trains here.
7. As a followup, where were Amtrak's expansion plans when other operators began expressing interest in running trains during Stimulus Mania and in 2011 when a group representing Amtrak's commuter competitors was formed to take on "America's Railroad?" The feasibility studies for three long distance routes and the stillborn 3C corridor service were all examples of Amtrak management discouraging restoring or implementing service.

Let's Rescue the Northeast Corridor

Fred Frailey hit the nail on the head about the Northeast Corridor in the May issue of Trains Magazine: The answer is in front of us! I will now dissect Frailey's best quotes.

Acquiring the Boston-Washington railroad in 1976 saddled Amtrak with a monster...Revenues fund only a small part of the line's capital needs and Congress punts ever year. The result? The line is steadily deteriorating.

When it comes to lack of congressional funding, what does one expect? Congress's refusal only demonstrates that a new way is needed to fund passenger rail infrastructure--pronto. 

The Ford Administration did a real disservice to passenger rail by not letting the USDOT own the 457-mile line. Given how much of a financial money pit the NEC is, now is the time to let Amtrak worry about running the trains while letting someone else fix the tracks and replace obsolete bridges and tunnels.

Investment banker Ignacio Jayanti, formerly of J.P. Morgan and now president of Corsair Capital, a private equity firm, outlined the essential elements of this approach in 2011 before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. As he explained it, Congress would divide Amtrak into two government-owned parts.

This proposal is exactly what Amtrak needed in 2011--and still needs today--but the main problem was that the issue was muddied from the very beginning as the vast majority of the rail community yelled "privatization" at any idea that would have stripped Amtrak of owning the corridor. Even though Rep. Mica did propose a fully privatized Northeast Corridor, no one really paid attention to Jayanti's common sense compromise. 

Enabling legislation would mandate the Surface Transportation Board to award a 50-year lease to a company to manage the infrastructure. It would be financed by $2.5 billion of capital that the management company would raise a $25 billion RRIF loan, a low-interest program administered by the Federal Railroad Administration.

Everyone is always complaining about the decrepit state of Amtrak's crown jewel but yet they either have no solutions or want those same unwilling feds to give the national operator hundreds of billions. A government-owned infrastructure company will be able to solve the problems with various Northeastern tunnels like the ones in Baltimore.

Just over a month ago, Amtrak's own boss said that the Hudson River tunnels had up to 20 years left. If we want to be a great nation once again, now is the time to be proactive rather than reactive. Europeans on the British Isles and the continent have handled the separation of infrastructure quite well, and it's time that the northeastern United States follows suit before it has a major disaster on its hands not unlike the Twin Cities seven years ago.

Instead of arguing of whether to build a tunnel through Penn Station or a so-called "tunnel to Macy's basement," the rail community has to have an honest discussion of NEC funding because Amtrak's 38-year ownership has been its #1 detriment, and given the politics in New Jersey (with New Jersey Transit proposing a dead-end tunnel to Manhattan [maybe as George Warrington's way of getting back at Amtrak] and Governor Christie cancelling plans to build said tunnel four summers ago), letting another federal government organization would eventually lead to better rail service and give the nation the high speed service everybody desires at a much lower cost.

If this is such a great idea, you're probably thinking, why hasn't Congress embraced it? The reason, I suspect, is that people hate change. Amtrak likes to control the NEC. Unions feel comfortable with the status quo. Politicians don't want to stick their necks out.

Frailey is spot on again. Amtrak and its various advocates have the harebrained mindset that if it doesn't own the NEC, then the company won't be a real railroad. When it comes to any rail reform, the unions have shown to be not only complacent but also impeding progress because Jayanti's idea would result in everybody in keeping their jobs should the separation go into effect. I'd also argue that both Amtrak and the new infrastructure owner would add jobs since the railroad and the NEC owner would need newer people to help the experienced workers at both entities.

As the 457-mile line slowly crumbles, it's time that someone on Capitol Hill or from the White House steps up to revive the Jayanti proposal before Amtrak's opponents legislate the agency out of existence--or there is a total meltdown on the NEC.

Unlocking Land Value to Fund Passenger Rail

In the April issue of Railway Age, Parallel Infrastructure CEO Frank Chechile brought up the Passenger Rail Working Group presenting to Congress a plan for a national intercity system all the way back in 2007. The fact that there was a committee should be a sign to all passenger rail critics that there is a bright future for rail--in spite of the heavy price tag.

It only makes sense because neither Congress nor the White House has the stomach to raise the gas tax from 18.4 cents/gallon where it's been for almost 21 years. The highway infrastructure is crumbling and yet Congress fiddles while Rome burns. Meanwhile, the friendly skies became the unfriendly skies years ago as going to the airport now equals hassle for most people--not to mention, the loss of many amenities on flights.

Since Washington is unreliable in terms of funding, rail operators will have to be very creative. Train stations and their surrounding areas will be the key to passenger rail's success moving forward. All Aboard Florida is already taking a page out of the Japanese playbook with its plans for its Miami station.

Now, there will be some people in the rail community who will bemoan train stations resembling malls, but Washington Union Station is an extreme example of a facility that isn't thought of as a train station first. Whether anyone knows it or not, it has been intimated that one of the reasons why the original Penn Station in New York City fell in 1963 was due to a lack of non-rail uses.

By finding multiple uses for train stations, future rail operators can safeguard themselves against the next downturn in passenger rail--decades, maybe a century, from now.

Dreams of Passenger Rail's Future

The title is from the December 2013 edition of Railfan & Railroad Magazine's Capitol Lines column written by Wes Vernon. The column was based on last year's Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads Conference where four panelists involved in the railroad industry gave their visions on the future of passenger rail in America. 

The panelists were railroad attorney John Heffner, All Aboard Florida's Gene Skoropowksi (formerly of California's Capitol Corridor), Iowa Pacific's Ed Ellis, and Amtrak VP for Governments and Corporate Communications Joe McHugh.

"More cohesion instead of the piecemeal routings here and there. The entire picture is likely less monolithic or under one entity known as Amtrak." (Heffner) 

Vernon interjected by suggesting that Amtrak remains "the 'spine' of intercity operations." Even with the failed attempt to leverage intercity and commuter rail back towards an Amtrak monopoly, "business as usual" can no longer be considered good enough for travelers.

Regarding PRIIA, Vernon looked at the possibility of states looking to private operators if they can't find alternative public funding, which in turn could lead Amtrak to using more of its equipment on longer routes. 

Once those PRIIA extensions that were signed last year expire, the states should make a serious effort to talk to other operators to reduce the cost of running their corridors. As far as the equipment goes, I have been a huge advocate of Amtrak keeping its equipment in the event states look elsewhere so that it can spread to other parts of the country.

Heffner says that there is no end to potential nationwide expansion, possibly a combination of Amtrak and non-Amtrak operators, some under contract to state or regional government agencies. It may be freight railroads, perhaps short lines or regionals deciding to just run their own passenger service. (Vernon)

There can be no end to expansion because America still has a skeletal system and other various other entities could be the key to reviving the national network.

The dream scenario leaves Amtrak as (again) the operator of most, if not all, long-distance trains. On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak would remain the only operator other than the commuter lines. (Vernon)

A dream for who? Maybe that's a True Believer's dream scenario but as long as the current people (board and management alike) continue to run Amtrak, this is much closer to my Nightmare Scenario. President/CEO Joe Boardman and various board members have done nothing to advance long-distance trains. If anything, they're either willing to keep the status quo or see the long-distance network shrink by inaction. 

When Amtrak gets fresh blood who just won't have a dismissive attitude about expansion (i.e., always citing high costs and passing on adding routes) and is willing to consider Western passengers' needs by ordering new equipment, then will I believe that "America's Railroad" is committed to the nation as opposed to just one region.

Speaking of that one region, the NEC states' political bloc will likely use their clout to keep out anyone who may want to take on Amtrak.

Vernon cited how the shortlines are trying to get into the passenger business due to limited expansion opportunities for freight in the future.

The shortlines are proactive while the big boy railroads are reactive. The Class I railroads are focused on their specific needs and have to be goaded into dealing with passenger service (see Amtrak throwing in the towel on talking to CSX about converting the Cardinal to daily service as just one example).

The shortlines could also play the role of saviors when it comes to routes/segments/towns that are abandoned by Amtrak.

A Macro View of Amtrak's Equipment Issues

From a March 25 Trains Magazine News Wire story: 

WASHINGTON - The long-distance passenger train appears to face a junction between continued federal operation and some form of state or regional operation. Rumors now abound about the long-distance train, as well as when-or if-Amtrak will order any new bi-level long-distance passenger cars to replace or supplement the aging Superliner fleet.
Much of Amtrak's current long-distance car fleet is soldiering on well into its third decade of service. The original orders of Amfleet and Superliner cars were designed and delivered in the late 1970s. The second batch of Amfleet II cars came in the early 1980s and the Superliner II cars arrive in the mid-1990s. Amtrak's newest long-distance passenger cars are the single-level Viewliner sleeping cars, delivered throughout 1996.
Derailments have thinned the passenger car fleet, particularly the Superliners, limiting Amtrak's capacity. With its current fleet, Amtrak is often unable to add enough cars to meet demand at peak travel periods, especially with sleeping cars.
Steven Kulm, Amtrak's director of media relations, tells Trains News Wire,"While we continue to work on an updated fleet plan, we don't presently have a target date for its release." Kulm adds, "This is, in part, because the updated plan is being written to better align with the Amtrak Strategic Plan with a focus on the needs of the new business lines and the long-distance business line, in particular, still in development.
Kulm continues, "In addition, [President Joe] Boardman has long argued long distance trains are a particular responsibility of the federal government and we are eager to see how Congress addresses long-distance equipment capitalization in the reauthorization. So, with no present funding, an updated fleet plan awaiting specific input from the long distance business line, and pending reauthorization, a date for ordering new bi-level long distance cars has not been identified."
Other Amtrak sources have estimated that an updated five-year plan will be out yet this spring. Any order of any new long-distance equipment, particularly bi-level, is much less certain.

Is it not Amtrak’s responsibility to rebuild the cars that they already have? Don't get me wrong, Amtrak needs new equipment, but, they also need to rebuild the cars that have been taken out of service and expand its routes. If the agency would just restore its existing fleet, then, it would solve its problems with equipment shortages and route frequencies.

As of last year, at least 23 Superliners had been scrapped, with at least another dozen sitting around and waiting to be scrapped. Meanwhile, Amtrak listed 429 active and 50 out of service Superliner cars (at least half of which will never be restored) on January 1 this year. This is an outrage! In the past, Amtrak management has said in the past that it wouldn't give its older equipment to other operators. To make matters even worse, the leadership out of D.C. made no effort to help the western long distance trains by failing to budget any money for those routes while it ordered new Viewliners for the eastern overnight routes and new equipment for the Northeast Corridor. 

Amtrak is essentially letting the long distance network shrink by inaction. Evidence is as follows: Boardman not disputing Union Pacific's high cost to make the Sunset Limited daily, other studies that come with hefty price tags to restore service, and being passive with other host railroads when it comes to improving service as part of PRIIA-mandated studies.

Random thoughts #11

1. Rosenberg (population 31,754) and Seguin (25,943) are the only two towns capable of supporting train service between Houston and San Antonio. Both were flag stops when Southern Pacific operated the Sunset and could support small stations since their populations have grown, and it's also a plus that Rosenberg is a suburb of Houston. These stops would be more for TXDOT service since Amtrak's westbound Sunset Limited passes by these two towns in the evening and may not even be the operator of a future Texas Triangle system. The other thing is that the private company that is proposing its own vision for the Texas Triangle would detour between Houston and San Antonio via Hempstead and Austin (pg. 22).

2. In the March issue of Trains Magazine, Don Phillips covered Pullman Palace Car Company's efforts to relaunch Southern California-Las Vegas train service. The following quote was very interesting: 

The refrigerator car service is to begin first, coordinated with the opening of a terminal for handling it: Railport Las Vegas, which is to have the capacity to handle sixty refrigerator cars daily, to capture a large part of the food and beverage needs of the city, now on trucks. The passenger service is to begin later, if...and here is the kicker...other planned operators cannot reach a financial deal on their services. Thus far two private proposals are the only "active" ones. 

This tells me that the PPCC people know something that we the public don't, and frankly, it would make sense given recent developments in the L.A.-L.V. market. First, Virgin Trains has been rather quiet on this route--and the whole U.S. market for that matter--in recent months. Second, the longshot Desert Lightning's website no longer works. Third, Amtrak only proposed--not committing to--restoring the Desert Wind in its 2010 PRIIA report (pg. 21). The major problems for the national carrier are equipment and money--or lack thereof.  

Therefore, this leaves the two other active operators: the Las Vegas Railway Express Inc. (aka, the X-Train) and Xpresswest. Both of these companies have run into their own problems in the last couple of months. Paul Druce covered the Vegas X-Train's major issues (the owners have to raise a lot of money by year's end; unrealistic expectations [I am being kind since Druce calls the X-Train "fraudulent"]) over a month ago.

When it comes to XpressWest, the feds have taken forever to decide whether the operator should even receive an FRA loan. Failed vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and Senator Jeff Sessions played the "it costs too much" card last month when it urged outgoing Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to turn down the request.

Therefore, out of the six potential Los Angeles area-Las Vegas operators, PPCC has the brightest future and may be the only one operating five years from now.

The Year In Review Part 2

3. Three months ago, the FRA finally got around to enforcing Section 214 of PRIIA after two years of inaction. The 2008 law mandated that the federal agency enact the portion that would allow other carriers to operate up to two routes in place of Amtrak ONE YEAR after passage. What happened in 2009? My guess is that the agency likely got caught up in High Speed Rail Stimulus Mania. Even that should have been of no excuse because the FRA needed to follow the law if only to test out private operation of long-distance routes. The problem is that no one else in Washington--Reps Mica and Shuster excepted--seemed to pay any attention likely due to the Pilot Program being all about the "slow" (read, overnight) trains.


Last week, the FRA issued a final set of rules that will go into effect on February 13. Among the entities making written inquires were the AIPRO (and its members separately), First Group (Greyhound's parent company and operator of trains in Britain) and a group representing Class II and Class III railroads. 


Even the reliably pro-Amtrak Trains Magazine discussed the Pilot Program in the Commentary section of its January 2012 issue. Fred Frailey quoted a Bloomberg article that stated that Veolia wants all three California corridors and two Chicago Hub routes. 


First thing, I gave this warning to the rail community to not forget about the long-distance trains when all the focus was on which states would get ARRA money for HSR. The feds delayed that process right around the time when they should have shifted their focus to implementing the Alternate Passenger Rail Service Pilot Program. Now, high speed rail is in shambles and who knows what is upon the overnight trains even though Amtrak's president has said nothing will happen to the National System.


Second, the Class I railroads are conspicuous in their absence from last Wednesday's rulemaking report. No interest, huh? Well, that won't stop other entities from tearing down the wall that is the current monopoly on intercity rail. Stan Feinsod's idea of independent operators running trains on rights of way based on the commuter rail model has merit and could come in handy if and when these companies outbid Amtrak for new and existing routes. A potential example would include parts of the Southeast where Amtrak runs trains but states could contract new routes to other companies where CSX or Norfolk Southern would handle the trains in a timely manner in return for proper compensation. The money would also take into account a state wanting to add frequencies if a route proves to be popular among riders.


Third, the FRA has to persuade Congress to extend the test period since it ends in October 2013. Given that things have gotten so bad in D.C. that everything has to be negotiated. In less than two years' time, the next Congress may just come to the realization that while it wants to minimize Amtrak's involvement, it will have to let other companies play a role in passenger rail. Since the FRA failed to do its job, it is imperative that Congress extend the deadline so other companies can show America that long-distance trains can be handled properly in private hands (the FRA's snail pace has discouraged some operators from participating because of the shortened window). 


Fourth, on the idea that a private entity would use Amtrak's equipment should not frighten anyone because such a move should be temporary. Once new rail car manufacturers pop up, the private entity would give the equipment back to Amtrak since it would be set up as a borrowing.


Finally, Congress should clarify the the Pilot Program and set up separate long-distance and corridor Pilot Programs that would provide open bidding for private competitors and Amtrak so there is no confusion and that a more realistic timeline is implemented.

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.

Of State Corridors and Amtrak

The February issue of Trains Magazine featured an article on California's success with intercity rail. However, the thing that I paid the closest attention to was the line that states have until October 2013 to pay Amtrak for their corridors by agreeing on a single formula or they risk losing those trains.
Given the current dire situation most states have with their budgets, several state legislatures have threatened to end funding for certain state-supported routes. For now, nothing has happened, but suppose that the economy doesn't get better in 32 months, what would the Amtrak system look like? Furthermore, would the states even care enough to keep these conventional, 79 mph services running, or will have most of them jumped on the high speed rail bandwagon? If the bulk of the states choose the latter, they risk stopping the upcoming passenger rail renaissance dead in its tracks (for the lack of a better term).
Back in 2003, the Missouri legislature came very close to handing its trains over to Herzog. Now, if Herzog were running the Missouri River Runner trains today, it might have been able to not only have a better working relationship with Union Pacific, but, it could have also been able to add frequencies between St. Louis and Kansas City!
I really hope that President Obama encourages competition for not only the fast trains but also the conventional speed trains--regardless of whether they're long distance trains or short runs. So, I would like to see him persuade the companies currently bidding for HSR corridors to operate some of these corridors in the event that Amtrak cuts off ties with a state in the fall of '13. Such a goodwill gesture could potentially put an end to the annual begfests that we all read about in a handful of states. After all, if passenger rail is going to prosper, we can't have certain states taking the hostile view that rail service is expendable.