United Rail Passenger Alliance

Continuing our series on how Amtrak can help itself to become closer to self-sufficiency, we’re going to look at under-utilized routes along with five severely under-served major cities in Texas, and how each can be improved.

Remember the rules of this exercise; this is about upgrading existing routes, using as many existing stations and maintenance facilities as possible, and using existing motive power and rolling stock out of Amtrak’s current pool of active and stored equipment. Under these rules, while many new routes or extensions of current routes to areas not served make sense, they are also expensive and beyond consideration for this exercise; those considerations will be addressed at another time.

The majority of changes suggested here are targeted to cost about $11 million or less a year to operate, with income higher than expenses; in other words, each of these trains would make money because much of the infrastructure and other overhead costs are already in place and charged to the existing long distance routes. While these suggested trains would share those costs, the benefit is to both the existing routes and these changes; shared costs are always less than stand-alone costs, and more travel opportunities always provide higher ridership and higher revenue passenger miles. The typical train would consist of a locomotive, baggage car, premium coach, food service car, and four to five coaches, depending on demand.

In this issue, we will look at the Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, Heartland Flyer and service throughout Texas.

The populous Fort Worth-San Antonio section of the route, which also needs a second frequency, could be more cleverly served by a new San Antonio-Fort Worth-Oklahoma City train, a run of less than 12 hours and only 490 miles. The current, anemic Heartland Flyer, which is primarily paid for by the State of Oklahoma suffers from a short, stub end route, only one connecting train, and relatively high operating costs for the services provided. It takes just one train set to operate this service today; adding this route extension would require a total of two trainsets instead of one.

If the Heartland Flyer ran from San Antonio to Fort Worth to Oklahoma City, it would have a much better chance of success because of a larger city pair matrix. It should be noted this proposed train, with the exception of a 156 mile long piece of track from San Antonio to Temple, Texas would operate on Amtrak-friendly BNSF tracks.

That scenario is good, because it provides a better matrix for the Heartland Flyer (which ultimately could lead to lower costs billed to the State of Oklahoma because of higher revenue passenger miles), but, let’s take that scenario one bold step further.

It is just less than 200 miles, and about three to four hours (all on the BNSF) from Oklahoma City to Newton, Kansas, a stop on the Southwest Chief route. String together a route from San Antonio to Austin to Fort Worth to Oklahoma City to Newton, Kansas, and you have created a route of less than 700 miles and less than 16 hours running time, which fits perfectly into our $11 million model of operating a day train.

Here’s what we have accomplished by doing this:

• The Heartland Flyer would connect with not one, but three Amtrak long distance routes; the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles, the Sunset Limited from New Orleans (hopefully, back to Florida) to Los Angeles, and the Texas Eagle from Fort Worth to Chicago via Little Rock and St. Louis
• Provide second frequency service between San Antonio and Forth Worth.
• One small, stub end train with currently high operating costs and low revenue passenger miles and load factor has the potential to become a profitable, low cost train.The next consideration, beyond getting the Sunset Limited on a daily basis versus the horrid tri-weekly schedule it currently operates, is to rebuild business for Houston.

  Here are some startling numbers. In FY 2006, there were only 10,855 passengers in and out of the Houston Amtrak station. Houston is one of America’s largest metropolitan areas. In contrast, Longview, Texas, to the northeast of Houston, which is a small East Texas city, had 24,449 passengers pass through its Amtrak station. Houston is served by the Sunset Limited, and Longview is served by the Texas Eagle.

  In another life, Houston was the southern terminus for a section of the Texas Eagle, and the turn maintenance facility is still in place. Instead of breaking the Texas Eagle into two sections, how about creating a sister train for the Heartland Flyer, which would operate Newton, Kansas; Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Dallas, and down to Houston? It is a six hour run from Dallas to Houston, and add the proposed Heartland Flyer time from Newton to Dallas, and you will create a total running time of about 16 hours, and a route of 700 miles, again ideal for our $11 million model day train, using just two trainsets.

  This puts a second frequency between Newton and Dallas, and lower station and infrastructure costs for each train. Still, though, this leaves only one train operating in each direction between Dallas and Houston.

  To put a second train on the Dallas-Houston piece of track, lets create a train running in a Texas Triangle. Each morning, a train would depart from San Antonio and run north to Fort Worth, east to Dallas, south to Houston, and west back to San Antonio. A reverse train would also depart San Antonio each morning, in the opposite direction. We will leave it to others with more experience to figure out how to number these trains; whether they should carry a timetable designation of travel in a north, south, east, or west direction.

  The Texas Triangle would be about 750 route miles, and take a running time of approximately 18 hours for the full circuit. Theoretically, this would require just two trainsets, but the realities of late trains may require a backup set always ready to go in place of a late arriving train from the previous day. This ambitious project would most likely cost a bit more than $11 million a year, but not much more.

  Adding a Texas Triangle creates a robust route and passenger matrix that connects every major Texas city served today by Amtrak with frequent service, except El Paso. It provides not only good intrastate travel opportunities, but also strong connections to the long distance passenger system.

  The concept of the two Heartland Flyer extensions, combined with the Texas Triangle concept, provides direct service to San Antonio, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Houston all from the route of the Southwest Chief. Conversely, Sunset Limited route passengers are provided connections to such places as Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and Dallas and Forth Worth on an easy basis.

  Eventually, when new sleeping cars become available, a promising route would be Chicago-Kansas City-Tulsa-Oklahoma City-Forth Worth-Austin-San Antonio, or Fort Worth-Dallas-Houston (or both).

  What about El Paso? It sits all by itself in the extreme western tip of Texas. There isn’t much between El Paso and San Antonio, a distance of 605 route miles, taking about 12 hours to cover. Of all of the major Texas cities, El Paso has the smallest passenger count, at 9,195. If the Sunset Limited was made a daily train, El Paso counts would grow dramatically. However, considering the dual scenarios of bridge traffic and increased local service, it’s doubtful an El Paso to San Antonio to Houston run would generate a huge increase in traffic by itself. There’s a lot of nowhere in between El Paso and San Antonio.

  Two other scenarios would perhaps best serve the needs of travelers in and out of El Paso. First, eventually the Texas Eagle should be extended from San Antonio to Phoenix, Arizona. That’s a long run, which would require two more train sets for the Eagle. But, it would serve to provide a second service between San Antonio and Tucson, Arizona, and it would restore much needed train service to Phoenix from the east, where good tracks are still available. Second, El Paso has more in common with cities in New Mexico and Arizona than it does with Dallas or Houston, so expansion of El Paso services should be considered in a context of far western services instead of Texas services (those services will be addressed in a later edition of TWA).

  In a previous edition of TWA, we have addressed service between San Antonio and Houston and New Orleans with a day train running San Antonio to New Orleans; this is still a viable concept in concert with the Texas Triangle proposal.

  Eventually, Dallas needs to be connected directly to New Orleans and the east via Kansas City Southern routes through Baton Rouge and Meridian, Mississippi.

  The Sunset Limited still remains a shadow of itself without full service between New Orleans and Florida. Until that gap is filled in the system, and the Sunset is made daily, it will continue to look like a poor performing train, although statistically, it does well considering the level of service it provides.

Train 91(18) Delayed Richmond, VA

18 JUN 07/642 P-ET/Train 91(18) E/142-179 with 10 cars arrived Richmond [enroute to Miami].

Mechanical made repairs as listed below to equipment and train departed at 751 P-ET.

C/62033 — arrived with air conditioning and toilet problems. Circuit boards rebooted and car cooling. Retention tank was full and necessary to dump it. Car then had ‘valve open light’ with the valve closed.

Mechanical unable to repair and train departed with toilets not working.

Sleeper space closed down for sale. (AC problems also reported on 5/13 and 5/26 enroute and 6/18 at New York).

C/62003 — arrived with air conditioning problems. Mechanical reset faults and car cooling.

C/8507 — arrived with air conditioning not working to the cook area.

Mechanical found AC control switch bad order. Temporary repairs were made and cook area cooling. (AC problems also reported in the cook area on 6/11 and 6/12).

C/25008 — arrived with inoperative toilets. Retention tank was full and necessary to dump. Breakers reset and toilets working on departure.

Delay: 91(18) 59″

The interpretation of all of that is a long distance train, the southbound Silver Star, departed its terminal in New York City with cars that had not been properly serviced, including toilets not working because retention tanks were full, air conditioning not working in the middle of the summer (especially in the diner where cooking is done and in high revenue sleeping cars), and other problems. What is particularly disturbing is the person who wrote this report noted how many times previously the same problems had been identified on the same equipment, with no repairs completed, even though the New York City Amtrak coach yard, Sunnyside, is a complete maintenance facility, as is Hialeah, at Miami, where the train terminates. What repairs could be made enroute occurred at Richmond, Virginia, 334 miles and six hours into the trip. Richmond handles light turn maintenance for some Northeast Corridor trains which use Richmond as a southern terminus. There was a hint of a critical tone by the report writer as to why these problems had not been previously addressed.

Inquiring minds want to know why this train was ever let out of Sunnyside Yard and spotted in New York’s Penn Station to allow passengers to board.

Here are some thoughts that may help to correct problems such as those outlined above.

• Both a manager and a union crew chief need to sign off on every trainset released for service, stating it has been properly serviced and cleaned, and is roadworthy. There needs to be visible accountability for this.
• If a car is junk, or an engine hasn’t been repaired and checked out from a previous trip, then it needs to be withheld from service. Amtrak would be better off annulling carlines or trips than exposing people to the conditions described in that incident report.
• This is not a fall-back situation on the old chestnut of “Amtrak is living on a financial starvation diet.” There is absolutely no correlation between budgets and not dumping full toilet tanks. There is, however, a very strong correlation between management doing its job and making sure mechanical workers are fully performing their duties as necessary for the welfare and health of all passengers.
• One part of this that does reflect the budget is budgeting for priorities. What is more important, serving passenger today with healthy and reliable equipment, or replacing bridges and interlockings on the NEC?

  Just five days before the Star left New York with full sewage tanks, Continental Airlines was experiencing some waste water problems of its own, and these made the front page of many newspapers because it was such an infrequent experience.

  One of Continental’s trans-Atlantic jets took off from Amsterdam, heading for Newark, New Jersey. The jet carried 168 passengers (much less than the carrying capacity of the Silver Star), and only got as far west as Shannon, Ireland because of a problem with the lavatory. The plane, crew, and passengers all overnighted in Shannon while the broken lavatories were allegedly fixed. Oops! The problem wasn’t fixed, and sewage again overflowed from one of the toilets, and seeped into the cabin of the plane.

  When the plane finally landed in Newark, a full day late, it was determined someone had flushed latex gloves down the toilet.

  According to the Associated Press, a passenger told Seattle television station KING that sewage flowed into the aisles, only one restroom was partially working, and flight attendants kept serving meals, but told passengers not to each much.” Continental made public apologies for the problem, most likely caused by a passenger.

  Gosh, it’s tough to ever hear about Amtrak making apologies for malfunctioning equipment, especially when most of the problem is caused by Amtrak, and not by errant passengers. Maybe Continental has the right idea.

June 20, 2007

Amtrak, Union Pacific Reach Agreement for Passenger Train Performance Plan

California Zephyr Schedule Temporarily Changed to Account for Track Improvement Program in Utah and Nevada.

WASHINGTON — Amtrak and Union Pacific Railroad have reached an agreement on a performance plan to reduce passenger train delays attributed to track conditions. Under the agreement, Union Pacific will limit speed restrictions that can cause Amtrak trains to fall behind schedule on Union Pacific’s routes.

Union Pacific is the nation’s largest railroad and is one of the three biggest hosts of Amtrak service, including short-distance trains and parts of four overnight routes in the West, Pacific Northwest and Midwest.

Imposing temporary speed restrictions is a common railroad practice. Frequently called “slow orders,” these restrictions are put into effect when track conditions require reduced speeds and are then removed as normal track conditions are restored. On routes with heavy traffic, it is often difficult to make track improvements without affecting schedules.

“This agreement defines in detail the maximum number of minutes of ‘slow order’ delay allowable on each Amtrak route operated on Union Pacific, while Union Pacific makes track improvements that will increase service reliability and satisfaction in the long term,” said Paul Vilter, Amtrak Assistant Vice President, Host Railroads. “On-time performance is the single largest determinant of passenger satisfaction and these changes will make a real difference.”

“This agreement is instrumental in helping our crews complete the necessary track maintenance that will further enhance safe and timely railroad operations in these corridors as well as improved ride quality,” said Tom Mulligan, director of passenger train operations, Union Pacific Railroad.

“These track improvements are part of more than $1 billion Union Pacific is planning to spend in 2007 to maintain its track across the 32,400 mile system,” Mulligan added.

Amtrak corridor routes governed by this agreement with Union Pacific include the Amtrak Cascades (Oregon & Washington); Capitol Corridor Service, Pacific Surfliner Service and San Joaquin Service (California); Lincoln Service (Illinois) and Missouri Mules.

Union Pacific also hosts some or all of the routes of the California Zephyr (San Francisco Bay-Chicago), Coast Starlight (Los Angeles-Seattle), Sunset Limited (Los Angeles-New Orleans) and Texas Eagle (San Antonio-Chicago), which are also covered by this agreement.

California Zephyr Schedule Changes

In return for Union Pacific’s commitment to limit slow orders, and to allow more accurate passenger expectations and planning, Amtrak is making limited temporary schedule adjustments to the California Zephyr, starting June 21. The longer schedule will allow improved on-time performance before slow orders have been removed.

“During Union Pacific’s track work on the California Zephyr route, the time added to the schedule corresponds to the minutes of slow orders to be removed, and both will decrease as the work progresses, until we resume our current schedule when the slow orders have been removed,” Vilter said. “Throughout this time, Union Pacific has committed to use the extra time to significantly improve on-time performance.”

Some shortening of the schedule is possible later this year and incremental changes are expected through the end of 2009, as Union Pacific completes track work.

“Our schedule will immediately become more reliable and will continue to improve as Union Pacific finishes its work, largely between Reno and Salt Lake City,” Vilter added.

Amtrak Background

Seventy percent of the miles traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks owned by other railroads. Known as “host railroads,” they range from large publicly traded companies based in the U.S. or Canada, to railroads owned by state and local government agencies and small businesses. Amtrak pays these host railroads for use of their track and other resources required to operate Amtrak trains, with incentives for on-time performance. The three largest host railroads for Amtrak trains in the past fiscal year were:

BNSF Railway, 6.5 million train miles CSX Transportation, 5.5 million train miles Union Pacific Railroad, 5.4 million train miles

June 8, 2007

Amtrak/Army Partnership Builds Post-military Careers

Amtrak and U.S. Army Join Forces in “Partnership for Youth Success”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amtrak and the United States Army are joining forces to participate in the Partnership for Youth Success (PaYS) program which provides career opportunities to soldiers upon completion of their active duty service. The partnership launched today with a ceremonial signing in Washington Union Station.

Under the PaYS program, the Army will screen and select applicants to receive transportation related job training during their Army career, with the guarantee of an interview with Amtrak after completing their military service. The Army will provide formal skills and on-the-job training to eligible enlistees and Amtrak will conduct interviews and make job offers to qualified soldiers.

“These soldiers, who have served so admirably, should be given every opportunity to make a seamless transition from citizen to soldier to veteran to valued employee,” said William Crosbie, Amtrak chief operating officer. Amtrak is extremely proud to engaged in a partnership with the U.S. Army to make this transition as easy and rewarding as possible.”

The signing ceremony today was attended by Crosbie, Lorraine A. Green, vice president of human resources, and Lt. Col. Burl W. Randolph Jr., commander of the U.S. Army Baltimore Recruiting Battalion.