Amtrak update

[brianusa]

Some may remember a topic concerning an Amtrak crash in Washington state where it was found that the lack of ATC was responsible and the Engineer was also fired.  Amtrak will soon start running trains from Tacoma to Nisqually  Junct. on the main line to Portland after a long hiatus, instead of the water level route which will be used to expedite freight trains in this crowded corridor.  The local citizenry are not enamoured with the idea of having 80 mph running literally in their back yards and inevitably there will be the same repeated complaints as last time.  There already have been successful tests on the route.

         Brian.

[dave1905]

If the residents object to the fast trains, maybe they should put a 150 car freight going 25 mph on those tracks, I'm sure they would like that better.

[davknigh]

Funny thing, maybe it’s just me, but if I bought a home with railway tracks running through the bottom of my yard I’d expect to hear the odd train. I’d probably even check to see what the timetable was like and whether it was a branch line or a main line before making the offer for the house,  because in both Canada and the USA the rail line was probably there first.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[roundhouse]

Will miss the scenery on the water level route but will be good to see improvements in the services as it will allow a more frequent service when things get back to normal and the new Amtrak station is a little bit more central in Tacoma. Will look forward to doing this new route once we are able to travel across the pond again.

[Johann Marsbar]

The new Tacoma station was still a building site when I was there at the end of May 2017, though within a few days of this photo they had opened up the interior of the main building for public use...

 

 

The Sounder trains were still using the platform, despite all the barriers everywhere!

 

[roundhouse]

Sounder platforms in Tacoma back in 2015 before the new Amtrak building was commenced.

[Mike Storey]

I have been following the funding issue for Amtrak for many years now, but I am baffled by what is going on right now.

 

The Appropriations Committee approved a $10 billion settlement for Amtrak, which included operational and capital expenditure, for FY 2021, in July 2020. The Trump admin then approved an additional $1.5 billion Covid related additional funding to keep routes open (or was it not signed???). But now, Biden's Covid Relief Package also seems to include $1.3 billion additional funding, to allow similar, with the provision that no service cuts are allowed whatsoever.

 

This is all good news, but I do not understand the ecstasy that has greeted the latest funding compared to the previous. I am no Trump supporter, far from it, but I would appreciate help in understanding the different reactions. I completely understand the optimism surrounding a future infrastructure bill that may well include many new Amtrak schemes, including high speed routes, but not this. I attach a link to one of the many sources I have used.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/amtrak-service-stimulus/2021/03/10/e69a0f16-81e0-11eb-9ca6-54e187ee4939_story.html

[mdvle]

Will look further, but the immediate point is that it is to fund the full restoration of the long distance services to daily levels - there was a fear that the 3/day/per week service as the result of Covid would be the first step in outright cancelling those routes.

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

I have been following the funding issue for Amtrak for many years now, but I am baffled by what is going on right now.

 

The US system is interesting, and confusing to those who don't pay attention regardless of whether they are American or foreigners.

 

For example (and I am not an American), searching hasn't revealed any simple source regarding Amtrak funding during the last 12 months.

 

But the key point (for those unaware) is that the US President is not all powerful - Congress (made up of the House and the Senate) control the budget.  Thus Trump was in many ways merely a distraction as he did not participate in the usual budget negotiations the historically happen between a President and Congress.

 

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

The Appropriations Committee approved a $10 billion settlement for Amtrak, which included operational and capital expenditure, for FY 2021, in July 2020.

 

Yes, but...

 

1) Amtrak's FY 2021 is October 2020 to September 2021 (which I believe co-insides with the US government financial year).

 

2) that approval was only the first in a convoluted process to get funding - that Committee then proceeds through the House, and then the Senate either considers the house version or their own version, lots of messy negotiating and other stuff, and eventually (hopefully) both the House and the Senate come up with a budget that goes to the President for him/her to sign/veto.

 

To put it another way, the Appropriations Committee's decision is not binding.

 

That said, I believe Amtrak eventually got the $2b operational part of that (no idea on the capital side) - but that is roughly the same amount of money they get every year.

 

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

The Trump admin then approved an additional $1.5 billion Covid related additional funding to keep routes open (or was it not signed???).

 

Congress created another Covid bill late last year and rolled it into the FY2021 funding bill in December.

 

In that bill Amtrak got an additional $1b.

 

This bill is the bill that Trump initially refused to sign because he didn't feel that the "Trump Cheques" were for a large enough amount, though he eventually caved 2 days before a government shutdown would have happened on December 27th.

 

But as noted it really wasn't a Trump bill, it was a Congressional bill.

 

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

But now, Biden's Covid Relief Package also seems to include $1.3 billion additional funding, to allow similar, with the provision that no service cuts are allowed whatsoever.

 

In FY 2018 and FY 2019 Amtrak's operating revenue was $3.2b (tickets sales/track access charges to the commuter agencies on the NEC**), with 2020 supposed to be $3.5b.  Added to that is the roughly $2b from the US Government, giving Amtrak a roughly $5.2b yearly budget.

 

Those numbers are out the window - by September 2020 Amtrak's costs had returned to normal yet their ticket/track access revenues were still down by at least 50% (see chart, p5, of *)

 

And there is (so far) no indication that those revenues are going to return to normal anytime soon - yet Amtrak still (like many) has the additional costs of the extra cleaning/PPE/etc that Covid has created.

 

Hence the ongoing need for emergency funding.

 

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

This is all good news, but I do not understand the ecstasy that has greeted the latest funding compared to the previous. I am no Trump supporter, far from it, but I would appreciate help in understanding the different reactions. I completely understand the optimism surrounding a future infrastructure bill that may well include many new Amtrak schemes, including high speed routes, but not this. I attach a link to one of the many sources I have used.

 

As per my first reply, the happiness is because the long distance services are being restored to daily service - but in a way that increases Amtrak's costs because it is unlikely the passenger numbers justify a daily service (though it does make it more convenient for those who need it).

 

As for a future infrastructure bill - I wouldn't count on it.

 

 

* - https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45942/7

 

** - apparently much of Amtrak's improved financial performance has been increased fees paid by the commuter railroads to use the NEC, thus effectively being a different source (state level) of government funding.

[Siberian Snooper]

I hope that this comes to fruition and I can look forward to my postponed trip next year.

 

 

[mdvle]

Quote

After more than five years of data-driven and federally-led studies, Amtrak has initiated a process before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) to require CSX Transportation (CSX) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) to permit the operation of two daily Amtrak trains between New Orleans and Mobile starting in 2022. Under STB procedures, CSX and NS will be required to provide Amtrak access to their railroads for this service or prove to the public why they cannot successfully host these trains in accordance with the law.

 

Full Amtrak statement - https://media.amtrak.com/2021/03/amtrak-seeks-to-begin-gulf-coast-service/

[Mike Storey]

On 16/03/2021 at 01:18, mdvle said:

 

That said, I believe Amtrak eventually got the $2b operational part of that (no idea on the capital side) - but that is roughly the same amount of money they get every year.

 

 

Congress created another Covid bill late last year and rolled it into the FY2021 funding bill in December.

 

In that bill Amtrak got an additional $1b.

 

This bill is the bill that Trump initially refused to sign because he didn't feel that the "Trump Cheques" were for a large enough amount, though he eventually caved 2 days before a government shutdown would have happened on December 27th.

 

But as noted it really wasn't a Trump bill, it was a Congressional bill.

 

 

In FY 2018 and FY 2019 Amtrak's operating revenue was $3.2b (tickets sales/track access charges to the commuter agencies on the NEC**), with 2020 supposed to be $3.5b.  Added to that is the roughly $2b from the US Government, giving Amtrak a roughly $5.2b yearly budget.

 

Those numbers are out the window - by September 2020 Amtrak's costs had returned to normal yet their ticket/track access revenues were still down by at least 50% (see chart, p5, of *)

 

And there is (so far) no indication that those revenues are going to return to normal anytime soon - yet Amtrak still (like many) has the additional costs of the extra cleaning/PPE/etc that Covid has created.

 

 

 

As for a future infrastructure bill - I wouldn't count on it.

 

 

Quite so, which is why I still do not understand it. If Amtrak's non-subsidy revenue was halved, to say $1.6 billion, then they were short by $1.6 billion. They got £1 billion in late 2020, so they needed a further $0.6 billion, but they got another $1.3 billion. I am not sure they would need an extra $0.7 billion for extra cleaning etc. But, I do see, from another source, that part of that included some new/renewed infrastructure, such as bridges and one extension, so I am beginning to see part of it.

 

On the infrastructure bill, why would you not count on it? It has some cross-party support, it was a major part of the Dems campaign promises, and the only obstacle I can see is the debate about the size and extent, even by some Democrats. But Biden is seriously pro-rail, and pro-climate, so I would imagine a great deal of arm-twisting will happen to retain most of the Amtrak and State-specific proposals.

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Quite so, which is why I still do not understand it. If Amtrak's non-subsidy revenue was halved, to say $1.6 billion, then they were short by $1.6 billion. They got £1 billion in late 2020, so they needed a further $0.6 billion, but they got another $1.3 billion. I am not sure they would need an extra $0.7 billion for extra cleaning etc. But, I do see, from another source, that part of that included some new/renewed infrastructure, such as bridges and one extension, so I am beginning to see part of it.

 

At a guess, given the nature of the process - Amtrak goes to Congress to request funding and Congress then debates it - it may partially be a case of asking for more than you need in case you don't get the full amount.  It may also be a recognition that passenger numbers may remain low for a while with people preferring the private car but Congress in the future may not be so generous as Covid fades and the economy improves in general.

 

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

On the infrastructure bill, why would you not count on it? It has some cross-party support, it was a major part of the Dems campaign promises, and the only obstacle I can see is the debate about the size and extent, even by some Democrats. But Biden is seriously pro-rail, and pro-climate, so I would imagine a great deal of arm-twisting will happen to retain most of the Amtrak and State-specific proposals.

 

Infrastructure was a major Trump campaign promise too.

 

It all comes down to the Senate - much of the cross-party support tends to be in the House where the Democrats already have a reasonable majority anyway.  The Senate Republicans have a history of being against government spending on infrastructure (being much more extremist as a group than their House counterparts), and in particular against things like acknowledging climate change is real and that fossil fuels are bad.  With the Senate being 48/2/50 (Democrats/Independents/Republicans), and at least 2 of the Senate Democrats are more old style Republicans given the States they represent, it will be a tough job to get enough votes to pass anything significant - though I really hope I am wrong.

[Mike Storey]

Having got much of what they wanted, for the post-Covid deal, Amtrak are now getting seriously ambitious. I just wonder how realistic this plan is?

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/policy/amtrak-urges-stronger-regulation-of-freight-railroad-access-as-it-sets-out-75bn-expansion-plan/59214.article?utm_source=RGInewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Story 2&utm_campaign=RGInewsletter- 20210604

 

[Siberian Snooper]

Just getting back to a pre-covid timetable was a big step forward in my book, if they can squeeze any more out of the situation, so much the better.

 

I'm looking forward to a 2nd bite of transcontinental Amtrak travel, the icing on the cake would be an improvement in the catering, but I won't be holding my breath on that one.

 

 

[mdvle]

That Amtrak set of ideas has been floating around for a couple of months now - one proposal is to re-connect Detroit and Toronto.

 

Good idea given the US Government is in a spending mood to try and take advantage, but I suspect they will get nowhere near what they want - the Republican counter offer is about half and isn't Amtrak only

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/amtrak-seeks-75b-federal-funds-expand-rail-network/story?id=77943897

 

[NickBrad]

One thing I learn from the whole Amtrak saga is to be grateful for what we have in the UK. It's far from perfect, but so much better than what the US faces with government lack of visoin and funding for passenger rail.

[mdvle]

8 hours ago, NickBrad said:

One thing I learn from the whole Amtrak saga is to be grateful for what we have in the UK. It's far from perfect, but so much better than what the US faces with government lack of visoin and funding for passenger rail.

 

I'm not going to try and claim that the US is great, but simply looking at Amtrak presents a very distorted view of the situation when comparing to the UK.

 

A lot of passenger rail in the US (and Canada) is the responsibility of the intermediate level of government - the States / Provinces - for both the commuter stuff and some longer distance stuff.

 

So California has invested significantly, both with services like the Surfliner and in the commuter stuff around LA and SF (with the SF operation current electrifying and going with bi-level European EMU's)

 

And one can even find surprising investments in areas that would seem to be against commuter stuff, like Texas - like TexRail with it's Stadler Flirt DMU service.

[Edwin_m]

51 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

I'm not going to try and claim that the US is great, but simply looking at Amtrak presents a very distorted view of the situation when comparing to the UK.

 

A lot of passenger rail in the US (and Canada) is the responsibility of the intermediate level of government - the States / Provinces - for both the commuter stuff and some longer distance stuff.

 

So California has invested significantly, both with services like the Surfliner and in the commuter stuff around LA and SF (with the SF operation current electrifying and going with bi-level European EMU's)

 

And one can even find surprising investments in areas that would seem to be against commuter stuff, like Texas - like TexRail with it's Stadler Flirt DMU service.

However just looking at a map of cities with "commuter rail" gives an unrealistically rosy view.  Many of those commuter routes are just that, a couple of trains in peak hour on a couple of routes where they have been persuaded (no doubt involving handover of many $$$) to allow paths at that time of day.  This results in some terrible economics, incurring most of the costs of an all-day operation but much less revenue, and also being pretty irrelevant to most of the people living within the potential catchment.  See for example https://humantransit.org/2021/04/us-commuter-rail-what-it-is-and-what-it-could-be.html. 

[NickBrad]

There are pockets of successful passenger rail travel in the US, I myself would love to go ride the Piedmont service for example in NC, but overall, service is just a fraction of what could be if the freight operators didn't have control of the tracks.

[Lovemymodelling]

It would be great to take advantage of this offer at the moment 

 

https://www.southernliving.com/travel/amtrak-us-rail-pass-discount

[dave1905]

On 11/06/2021 at 15:56, NickBrad said:

There are pockets of successful passenger rail travel in the US, I myself would love to go ride the Piedmont service for example in NC, but overall, service is just a fraction of what could be if the freight operators didn't have control of the tracks.

 

Just to be clear, the "freight operators" OWN the tracks.  Its their property, just like any business owns the property the plant or business sits on or farmer can own his fields.  The railroads owns the right of way they own the signals, they own the entire physical plant.  The reason they control it is because they own it. 

 

I used to manage territories over which Amtrak operated and in a 250 mile stretch, an 5 car Amtrak would have to meet or pass over 2 dozen 8000+ ft trains each time they ran.  We would have to start putting trains in sidings up to 125 miles in advance of Amtrak to give it a chance of not having excessive waits on meets and even then there were a lot of 2 on 1 meets (Amtrak meets 2 freights at one siding).

 

The "freight operators" used to offer passenger service, but it lost so much money the only way the government could preserve it was to nationalize the passenger operations.

 

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, dave1905 said:

 

Just to be clear, the "freight operators" OWN the tracks.  Its their property, just like any business owns the property the plant or business sits on or farmer can own his fields.  The railroads owns the right of way they own the signals, they own the entire physical plant.  The reason they control it is because they own it. 

 

I used to manage territories over which Amtrak operated and in a 250 mile stretch, an 5 car Amtrak would have to meet or pass over 2 dozen 8000+ ft trains each time they ran.  We would have to start putting trains in sidings up to 125 miles in advance of Amtrak to give it a chance of not having excessive waits on meets and even then there were a lot of 2 on 1 meets (Amtrak meets 2 freights at one siding).

 

The "freight operators" used to offer passenger service, but it lost so much money the only way the government could preserve it was to nationalize the passenger operations.

 

 

I am sure that what you say is true.

 

However, all freight line owners (bar the Shorts I believe) have a legal obligation to facilitate the reasonable operation of passenger trains, and indeed, preference. That was the law passed in 1973, which many freight operators have consistently ignored. The fact that they have failed to adequately invest in infrastructure capable of dealing with both the surge in demand for freight and in the demands for passenger operation (pre-Covid) is no excuse whatsoever. The profits from freight operation have far exceeded anyone's expectations compared to forty years ago, but all the investment has gone in to traction and freight cars (plus some logistics and computerisation and automation of signalling and certain operations). Practically none has gone into increasing track capacity to assist passenger operations.

 

The Rail Passenger Fairness Act, now being sponsored through Congress, will allow Amtrak to sue those freight companies who fail to meet the requirements of the law, something I find it hard to believe they were not allowed to do, thus far.

 

If successful, either the freight companies play ball, or they face the penalty, and some huge legal fees. I predict that one or two will choose to fight this, on a matter of "principle", for which read profits and shareholder benefit. They will have no interest at all in the loss to taxpayers currently estimated at around $378m per year, in delays and equipment issues caused by this farce. Amtrak's OIG reported that 60% of all delays to Amtrak's services were being caused by the preference given to freight trains. Amtrak's last reported Operating Loss was $171m (2018). (Source Global Railway Review 30/04/21).

[dave1905]

Railroads are required to maintain their track to meet certain standards, they are under no obligation to improve facilities to grow the passenger service.  If Amtrak wants to add sidings, or lengthen sidings to reduce delays, they can certainly negotiate with the railroad for Amtrak to make improvements to increase their business.

 

One of the reasons railroads are slow to invent in physical plant improvements is shown by the coal train operations.  The UP and BNSF spent billions of dollars to build a huge infrastructure to support coal trains and over 5-10 year period about 50% of the coal train business melted away, leaving them with a HUGE infrastructure to handle a medium business volume.

 

Passenger rail has never been a profit center, even in the days before the interstate highways, it was a money loser,   

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

The Rail Passenger Fairness Act, now being sponsored through Congress, will allow Amtrak to sue those freight companies who fail to meet the requirements of the law, something I find it hard to believe they were not allowed to do, thus far.

 

If successful, either the freight companies play ball, or they face the penalty, and some huge legal fees. 

 and once again the solution provides no incentive to cooperate, only penalties for noncompliance.

 

At one point Amtrak wanted to use "unimpeded run time" as the standard against which performance was to be measured.  Unimpeded run time says what the schedule would be is Amtrak was the only train on the railroad (not even opposing Amtrak's) and there were no slow orders of any kind.  Obviously that creates a schedule which is entirely unachievable.  It also creates a Catch-22 situation where if you don't maintain the railroad you fail and if you slow down the railroad to maintain the track, you fail.

 

The Northeast Corridor that Amtrak owns and operates has less than 90% on time performance .  They can't even get 100% on time performance on lines THEY have control over.   When they can run at 100% on time on a multiple track, fully CTC, totally grade separated route, then talk to the freight railroads about running trains on single track, mixed service routes.

 

In 2019, nationwide, Amtrak caused delays were 30,000 hours and other railroad caused delay hours were 53,000 hours.  Yes the other railroad's were more, but over 1/3 the delay hours was self inflicted.

 

(delay hours taken from the US DOT statistics)

Edited June 16, 2021 by dave1905

[Edwin_m]

Many of the Class 1's run high priority freight which must be reliable to meet customer deadlines, and I assume is timetabled rather than arranged ad-hoc.  How does the punctuality of those compare with Amtrak on the same routes?