posted
The link, below, is to a video presentation by Mr. James McCommons ("Waiting on a Train"). The lecture is entitled, "Passenger Rail in the US- Past, Present, and Future". It runs about 33 min.
The material presented maybe kind of "old hat" to forum folk, but I still found it interesting. The sound quality isn't the best.
Richard
ColdRain&Snow Member # 15381
posted
Hey, thanks Yukon! I got this book soon after it came out and have liked it ever since. Funny enough, I pulled it out last night and reread a few chapters as a primer for my Empire Builder trip that I just started. I will drift off to sleep tonight on #8 reading some more as I brought it along with me.
Every time I'm riding in UPRR country on a train that's been stuffed in the hole, I think about JM's story of the UP exec talking to Griff Hubbard down in Longhorn Texas:
"You know, Griff, you just don't get it. Amtrak doesn't get it. And maybe you guys will never get it, but we just don't care -- that attitude is instilled in the people running this railroad. It will take a full generation to run it out, and it may just pass on the next generation. You need to understand this...if you're right to the minute on time and an a** in every seat, we don't care. If you're nine hours late and nobody is on the train, we don't care. If you have an engine failure and are stuck, we don't care. If you bring a few million to the table in incentives, we don't care. We're a $3 billion company, it means nothing to us.
So no matter what Amtrak does. No matter what you do, we don't care. WE DON'T CARE."
Thank God I'm in BNSF country for the next few days. That being said however, I dunno how our timekeeping will end up across the Hi-Line tomorrow as we traverse the myriad of track work in our path. Here's to hoping that BNSF cares!
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I must say that when I prepared to watch Prof. McCommons' lecture, I was getting ready for something along the lines of views expressed by Albert Runte in his book "Allies Of The Earth".
I was pleasantly surprised to watch an informative lecture directed towards "the man from Mars" (what sci-fi flick ever depicted him as an IQ 50 doofus?). As Mr. Yukon noted, there is "nothing there" for those well informed on passenger railroading affairs such as is the body of this forum, but for a "man from Mars" layman, there is much to learn and I would hope the lecture gets circulation outside of the passenger rail community.
Now to expand my line of thought to include the comment made immediately by Mr. ColdRain that was prompted by Prof. McCommon's book. Lest we forget that, while a bi-lateral contract not subject to public disclosure, the Amtrak/UP contract has been estimated to be in the range of $130M annum. UP 2012 Total Railway Operating Revenues (intentionally capitalized; technical term) are likely to be in the range of $20B. Therefore, the Amtrak/UP contract represents 13/2000 of ROR, or "sixty five one hundredth of one percent". As a UP stakeholder myself (long position UNP), and with so many crucial issues confronting the industry today (coal, PANAMAX, Bakken Crude, "rereg"; just to name four of such), if my management that was hired by a Board of Directors I elected to protect my interests of enhancing shareholder value (hardly to "give my railroad" to a bunch of inconsequential passenger trains providing little if any economic value) directed any more than one percent (I'll round in that favor) of their collective time to UP passenger train affairs, I'd want 'em, to use the term from Mr. Mayo's homeland, "sacked".
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
I'd forgotten about that "Waiting On a Train" book -- I purchased it when it came out, but now I can't find my copy -- it must have gotten lost or misplaced when I moved earlier this year.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
ColdRain&Snow's post made me go back to the McCommons book, to the chapter, "Longview, Texas". The UP executive, making the "we don't care" remark started his career at the Missouri Pacific Railroad (MoPAC). According to the book, back in 1978 Amtrak sued MoPAC for purposely delaying the "Inter-American", a train that ran between Chicago and Loredo. A lot of enmity developed beteen MoPAC and Amtrak, thereafter.
However, another book chapter was when McCommons went to BNSF headquarters in Fort Worth.
McCommons talked with a Mr. D.J. Mitchell, who grew up with Burlington Northern before BNSF.
Mr. Mitchell, when asked why Amtrak trains have such a good on-time performance on BNSF tracks, Mitchell replied, (because) "we care". Mitchell said BNSF looks at all custormers, coal, grain, industry,(and also assuming Amtrak) as derserving good treatment. "We are flat-out different than that other guy" (meaning UP).
Richard
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Seems to me that businesses, like societies, are ultimately judged at least in part on how they treat the little guy, not merely their powerful stockholders.
But what do I know? I'm just an ordinary Joe.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
OK Mr. Kisor, I respect your immediate comment, but I still hold that it is unreasonable, in view of the reported bargain basement rates Amtrak pays for their access, to expect any Class I road to plan their operations AROUND Amtrak's requirements, but rather plan their operations around the recognition of "it's there" and move them over the road as expediently as possible once the "bread and butter" was accommodated. Even if I know some railfans (not whack jobs; my personal friends) who hold some roads such as UP deliberately delay Amtrak in the hope it will go away, I do not "buy into" that one.
The Class I industry is not on a mission to "kill Amtrak" , I think the industry is in Kubler-Ross Phase V - Acceptance regarding such. Sure, the industry made a bad choice when they like lemmings signed up on the strength that it would be all over in five years - and of course immediate financial relief. They should have been more mindful of the ways of politicians where once they get their claws into a program, especially a cheap one that nevertheless has high visibility, it's pretty darned hard to get them out.
One must wonder to what extent did the "strongs", the UP's ATSF's and the BN's who would have gotten "bang for the buck" (as distinct from SRY and D&RGW who would have not gotten same "bang") argued at industry conclaves to stay out and otherwise operate the trains for the statutory five years in which case they would have likely gotten them off (they WOULD have gotten them off during 1980 under Staggers, but a successful "dereg" initiative was hardly a sure bet during 1970). Of course the "weaks" such as my MILW and SP wanted (and needed) relief right away. PC of course was a "ward of the state", so what did it matter what their management thought.
As I've reported here in the past, SCL gave considered thought to staying out, contending they had an out of pocket profit on their existing trains. ATSF did not commit to signing up until the eleventh hour as they were concerned about the conditions - and to what extent Amtrak would pay for such - under which they would access CUS.
ColdRain&Snow Member # 15381
posted
There are a few excerpts from page 88 that I found to be interesting:
Former FRA Administrator Gil Carmichael asserts, "My argument with the freight railroads is they have forgotten the covenant made when they talked the federal government into taking over the passenger trains. They promised the American people, 'We will give you priority on our routes.' Railroads like the Union Pacific don't remember that covenant at all. It's best they did."
Yet, I found the subsequent quote made by an unnamed freight exec to be quite reasonable as well:
"The Class Is and the AAR really ought to shut up and quit complaining about running a couple passenger trains a day on these routes. The freights are making enough money now that Amtrak doesn't greatly affect their bottom lines. The whining just pisses off the public and the politicians. But, in the future, if Amtrak, the states, and the federal government wants to put a bunch more passenger trains out there, those costs will have to be addressed. Ramping up passenger service shouldn't happen on the backs of the freight railroads."
However -- When UP tells Amtrak that a daily Sunset will require three quarters of a billion dollars, the message is clear: AMTRAK CAN GO POUND SAND!
And so the affliction of historical amnesia continues in Omaha. Covenants? What covenants? Who in the hell is this silver nuisance on our railroad? They want to run 4 more trains a week on the Sunset Route? The nerve! We'll just give them a figure that says FO without having to utter the words.
Sorry, but that's not "Building America" which UP so proudly likes to pontificate about in its branding. If UP were a more progressive company, they would drop their contempt for passenger rail service and show a little more respect to the fine people of this America they purport to be building. I'm not holding my breath.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. ColdRain, there is a cultural point that I think should be considered if there is in fact abhorence of passenger trains at Omaha - and that is the "traditional" UP was to have been passenger train free on A-Day.
It wasn't; starting with the eleventh hour reroute of the California Zephyr and followed with incursions over the LA&SL (Desert Wind) and the OSL (Pioneer).
There is some possibility (does one care to "do the math" on this one?) that the SP lines are hosting more passenger train miles Today than they were on A-Day Eve.
The MP lines were to have had only "one a day" StL KC service. They not only have that but also The Eagle running the length of what was their road.
Even the KATY - passenger train free since the early 60's hosts a portion of The Eagle (San Marcos). Likewise, the WP became so during 1970, but now hosts the Zephyr for some portion through Nevada.
Only the C&NW became intercity passenger train free on A-Day - and remains so to this day.
In short, what to advocates must appear "obstinance" on the part of UP with matters as resististing a Daily Sunset and their indifference to doing much more than "getting 'em over the road" (at out of our hair), is simply a company drawing a line in the sand against any further incursions.
"Give in on the Sunset, and what will they next come sniffing around for; service on the Overland Route???".
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Sure - why not Denver - Los Angeles via Cheyenne, Ogden, SLC and Las Vegas?
TBlack Member # 181
posted
Dear GBN, I, too, owned UNP (bought at $40 sold at $60). I'm not sure I'm reading your numbers correctly, but I'm reading that Amtrak pays Union Pacific $130,000,000 per year. That may be a small sum in the overall revenue of the company, but how many other single customers does UP have that pay them that kind of $$? It may be that Amtrak is one of their largest customers. Ordinarily, companies pay attention to their large customers. Could it be that in this case UP "doesn't care" because they figure they've got a captive customer?
V/R, TB
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Mr. N:
The UP is getting paid for letting these trains run on their tracks. If they think the pay is insufficient, they can either renegotiate better or get over it.
Yes they do appear to be doing their best to run a good business, but some of the things they do tend to be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
The Eagle is on ex-MKT tracks between Temple and Taylor, Texas. The piece between San Marcos and Austin is due to the ex MoPac and the ex MKT being operated as paired tracks.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: The UP is getting paid for letting these trains run on their tracks. If they think the pay is insufficient, they can either renegotiate better or get over it.
That, Mr. Harris, is of course the "crux" of the issue. Again, "we don't know" insomuch as rates of remuneration under the existing Amtrak/UP operating contract are part of a bi-lateral agreement and are not subject to public disclosure. However there is enough "authoritative hearsay" out there to suggest those rates are very low.
If Amtrak were to pay to a road the opportunity cost of a high priority (identified as a "Z" on many roads) container train, then it would be a whole new ball game - and Amtrak would have contractual rights to expect the kind of performance that the advocacy community seems to espouse with the continual recitation of "the law" that "passenger trains have priority".
posted ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)