Passenger Trains > BLET: BNSF wants Amtrak to pay for Chief track improvmt

BNSF wants Amtrak to pay for Southwest Chief track improvements
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
A division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Jan. 18, 2011

> LA JUNTA, Colo. — According to the La Junta Tribune Democrat, the Otero County Commissioners heard a report on Monday
> concerning the state of the controversy regarding Amtrak and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
>
> At least two sections of BNSF track are falling into disrepair, sufficient for slow freights but not necessarily for passenger trains,
> which ordinarily travel on a higher-speed track. The sections are between La Junta and Eads and between La Junta and Trinidad.
> The very popular Southwest Chief follows this route for Amtrak.
>
> BNSF wants Amtrak to supply $200 million over the next 10 years to fix the tracks, with $94 million up front.

http://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=34068

NOTE: BLET referenced the La Junta Tribune Democrat as the source for this story. Apparently the Tribune Democrat article is this one:

http://www.lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/news/x58619661/Otero-County-Commissioners-back-Amtrak-and-BNSF



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/12 09:07 by GenePoon.

Why does this not surprise me

Is this just the tip of the iceberg? Who is going to maintain West of Trinadad up to Rail Runner territory? Will BNSF lets speeds fall east of Eads, possibly all of the way to Newton? Saddling the SW Chief will all of these costs in a time when grants are reduced will change the SW Chief rank in LDT financial performance. Maybe this would be a good time to re-evaluate the whole Western LDT network.

Unless there is a political repeat of the Devils lake sutuation, decision will be made to send 3 & 4 via Amarillo.

Passing "resolutions" doesn't accomplish anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/12 10:02 by joemvcnj.

I find it amusing that the big corporations, presumably led by quite conservative people, have no trouble acting like welfare "clients" when they smell money.

However, there is an added cost to the RRs to operate Amtrak, including higher MofW costs. What we need to discuss is the logical price point. California DOT pays the UP for high quality track in the amount of one complete surfacing gang that is dedicated to the Capital Corridor route (Sacramento to Oakland + San Jose). This seems fair. The UP asking for $700m to make track improvements for the Sunset Ltd. is not reasonable in my opinion.

Comments?

Wasn't it just last year the UP wanted $700M for a daily Sunset? Does Amtrak try to agressively negotiate with the RR's, or do they just roll over? I believe the SWC ia one of the original routes taken over in 1970. Where does it say in the original host RR agreements they can just let a line go to hell as a way to run Amtrak off? Graham Claytor would have taken them to the canvas .

The upshot of the whole situation is that Amtrak will have to pay its own way, or move the
Southwest Chief. Even if taken as an "added cost for passenger operation" issue, what is
the Amtrak share of usage between, say, Trinidad and Lamy?

ONE HUNDRED PER CENT.

Amtrak will have to pay ALL of that maintenance cost and I do not see that as unfair.

The only recourse Amtrak might have is if BNSF could be convinced to sell at scrap value, since
they are saying that without Amtrak there would be no traffic on the line at all. But after such a
sale, Amtrak would STILL be on the hook for maintenance, and who says Amtrak MofW people
can do the work just as well, at any less cost than BNSF's?

As for the original 1971 contracts and the original route authorization legislation...they're lapsed, dead,
and gone. That's how Amtrak wanted it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/12 10:25 by GenePoon.

< The UP asking for $700m to make track improvements for the Sunset Ltd. is not reasonable in my opinion. >

IMO, the right number is $0.

They don't need passing sidings on Tuesday and Thursday, but need them on Monday & Wednesday ?
No they do not.

The track will deteriorate so much faster under the weight of a 9 car passenger train 14 times per week rather than 6 ?
No it will not.

"...BNSF wants Amtrak to supply $200 million over the next 10 years to fix the tracks, with $94 million up front...."

With the record-breaking ridership oft-mentioned on here it should be no problem finding that money in ticket revenue.

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it amusing that the big corporations,
> presumably led by quite conservative people, have
> no trouble acting like welfare "clients" when they
> smell money.
>
> However, there is an added cost to the RRs to
> operate Amtrak, including higher MofW costs. What
> we need to discuss is the logical price point.
> California DOT pays the UP for high quality track
> in the amount of one complete surfacing gang that
> is dedicated to the Capital Corridor route
> (Sacramento to Oakland + San Jose). This seems
> fair. The UP asking for $700m to make track
> improvements for the Sunset Ltd. is not reasonable
> in my opinion.
>
> Comments?


Well, Warren Buffet is actually rather liberally-minded, with the suggestion that he wouldn't mind paying more in taxes.

But the basic point is a good one. The dedicated surfacing gang has helped substantially in the case of the Capitol Corridor in terms of maintaining high levels of on time performance. The modest expenditure can easily be justified given the density of service over a relatively short number of track miles. It's been a good investment. It also shows why short distance corridors make more sense than single daily trains (or triweekly) over long stretches of track, where service is so limited that Amtrak can hardly justify any additional expenditure.

Meanwhile, Amtrak, by failing to challenge UP's demand for $700 million for Sunset improvements, risks that type of demand becoming more commonplace and perhaps being viewed as reasonable. Certainly, it makes no sense to start negotiations with UP to bring that amount down when Amtrak is not prepared to spend any amount (at least at this time) for a daily Sunset. But back in 1980, when SP demanded fairly huge amounts to accommodate the Sacramento-Los Angeles overnight train, Amtrak and Caltrans took SP to arbitration, and won the right to operate the train without any capital expenditure. That sent a strong message. Here, the message from the Sunset situation is different: if the railroad just announces some incredibly high sum, Amtrak will be scared away. Result: the maximum service we can expect on the Sunset is triweekly, possibly declining to zero at some future date, but never getting better. The sad thing is that Amtrak had already secured the right to run a fourth weekly service a few years ago, and then dropped it.

As i see it.Goodbye to Raton Pass from ABQ NM La Junta CO Dodge City KS and on to Topeka KS.And hello to Belen NM Clovas NM Amarillo TX and Witchita KS.From how things are going at Amtrak right now they just don't have the money to shell out to maintain these tracks the way the railroads wants them to.The Donald Rumsfeld saying commes to mind.We have to live with the Amtrak we have and not the Amtrak we want.There is no magical formula to raise that kind of money anymore.We the taxpayers are just plain tapped out.Sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/12 10:58 by msdgbar.

You couldn't say it better any other way!

Juan Cornejo
Hacienda Heights, CA

Luckily for Amtrak, the old ATSF "Southern Route" is a good alternative.

Assuming the BNSF has offered Amtrak the Southern Route, its probably in much better condition with greater population (my guess). And the boyscout business at Raton will have to be bused from Clovis maybe--their bused now from the Raton Station to the Boyscout Ranch--just means a longer bus ride.

Its always a tough choice for Amtrak when a freight railroad downgrades a line; but unlike the UP, the BNSF seems to have good relations with Amtrak. So, the situation should work out without much harm to Amtrak.

Joe

What is a shame is the same towns that Greyhound/TNM&O abandoned will also get abandoned by Amtrak.
ABQ and Santa Fe will also be sloppier to get to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/12 11:55 by joemvcnj.

msdgbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As i see it.Goodbye to Raton Pass from ABQ NM La
> Junta CO Dodge City KS and on to Topeka KS.And
> hello to Belen NM Clovas NM Amarillo TX and
> Witchita KS.From how things are going at Amtrak
> right now they just don't have the money to shell
> out to maintain these tracks the way the railroads
> wants them to.The Donald Rumsfeld saying commes to
> mind.We have to live with the Amtrak we have and
> not the Amtrak we want.There is no magical formula
> to raise that kind of money anymore.We the
> taxpayers are just plain tapped out.Sorry.


How much would BNSF want for the reroute?

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> < The UP asking for $700m to make track
> improvements for the Sunset Ltd. is not reasonable
> in my opinion. >
>
> IMO, the right number is $0.
>
> They don't need passing sidings on Tuesday and
> Thursday, but need them on Monday & Wednesday ?
> No they do not.
>
> The track will deteriorate so much faster under
> the weight of a 9 car passenger train 14 times per
> week rather than 6 ?
> No it will not.

You do track work on days that Amtrak does not run, you also do your inspections. What days to the locals work? So yes, it is very possible that you would need more sidings if the train ran every day. There is much more than what you have posted, so yes Amtrak should be paying more if they want to run more traffic. I am sure I will be flamed, as most people here seem to think that the railroads should just give their mains to Amtrak, so hourly service can run between Dallas and Santa Fe...

Like I said before move the Chief Now to Southern Route. BNSF said before Amtrak will have time slot of Southern Main it time people. Amtrak doesn't have 200 Million to give BNSF for the repairs and money to maintain the track every year for one train a day,also UP Railroad wants 700 Million from Amtrak for the Sunset Limited to Daily. Also this Year 2012 Congress shorted Amtrak 64 Million for 2012 year. Amtrak doesn't have that kind of Money to give to UP or BNSF.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is a shame is the same towns that
> Greyhound/TNM&O abandoned will also get abandoned
> by Amtrak.
> ABQ and Santa Fe will also be sloppier to get to.

Did Greyhound abandon these towns due to a lack of passengers wishing to take the bus?

If the routes were profitable for Greyhound, which presumably has a lower cost of business than Amtrak, I doubt the Dingy Dog would have dropped them.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Will BNSF lets speeds fall east of
> Eads, possibly all of the way to Newton? Saddling
> the SW Chief will all of these costs in a time
> when grants are reduced will change the SW Chief
> rank in LDT financial performance.


Speed is down to 60mph (passenger) last I knew in most of western Kansas already due to track condition.
Mike

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fair. The UP asking for $700m to make track
> improvements for the Sunset Ltd. is not reasonable
> in my opinion.

I don't think it is fair. UP train counts vary by at least a dozen day to day in a week and week to week between years. They aren't requiring themselves $700 million to run that traffic. If UP can accomodate amtrak 3 days a week each way without issue, it should be able to do the other 4 too.

Its not like we are talking an additional frequency, or restarting the North Coast Hiawatha on a 2000 mile line with no power turnouts.