Let’s start with the ugly status of the Dining car removal from the Silver Star train, since it’s the hottest news. On January 28, just as this is being written, URPA learned that Amtrak employees were told the day before that the Star’s dining car is PERMANENTLY gone. As predicted here since this “experiment” was first announced last summer, there was no doubt it was going to be a permanent discontinuance.
Here we are, Christmastime 2015, and lo and behold the Amtrak long distance trains continue to roll and to some extent thrive despite the negative publicity that they are “money losers.” In recent posts this writer has talked about the positives that are being accomplished on the Coast Starlight, and the opposite effects that are creating heartburn on other trains like the east coast Silver Star which has lost its dining car. In this article we will look at the other western routes that operate in and out of Los Angeles headed east, and what the imminent retirement of CEO Joe Boardman can bring to the future.
Report and Commentary by Russ Jackson with Ralph James
Amtrak likes to tout its end points and the volume of traffic it gets between those departures and destinations on all of its routes, but while some passengers do that it is the intermediate station travel that fills up the trains. Can you imagine, as RailPAC President Paul Dyson says, if you could only travel between endpoints on the interstate highway system? Amtrak is usually surprised when someone wants to travel from, say, Paso Robles, CA, to Eugene, OR. They might not be able to collect as much money from that passenger, but they can still sell that seat on either side of those two locations. Here is an instance of that exact travel pair as reported to us by RailPAC member Ralph James. He recommended to a friend that he take the his Thanksgiving trip on the Coast Starlight from Paso Robles to Eugene. The friend was dreading the long drive. “With the necessary tinge of reservation,” Ralph says, “I suggested he look into Amtrak since his origin and destination were right at stops for the Starlight.” He did so, and sent Ralph a trip report of the first half of his trip, as an “assessment,” giving Amtrak numeric grades for what he experienced with comparisons to airline travel:
A well-informed source has told RailPAC that Pacific Parlour Car service will be missing from the Coast Starlight in the coming weeks because the FRA has some concerns about the glazing. Apparently one car has already been fixed and Amtrak is awaiting delivery of material for the rest of the fleet. Unfortunately we cannot offer a schedule of which dates may be affected but we’ll do our best to keep you informed.
As the Parlour Cars are cycled through the shops they will be temporarily replaced by Superliner lounge cars. We are assured there is no intent to end the service.
Napoleon used to say that he liked his generals to be lucky. Presumably he would not have employed the first CEOs of Metrolink, who suffered considerably from ill fortune, particularly the Glendale accident. But bad luck is only one small part of the picture that has brought about the near collapse of Metrolink. After 23 years in being, consider that: Metrolink’s daily patronage is a little over 40,000 trips, or 20,000 customers. The annual operating subsidy is about $6,000 per customer, soon to be increased by another $1,000 (see below), in a population base of about 15 million people.
Metrolink’s locomotive fleet has a high failure rate, and is being prematurely replaced with over $300 million of new locomotives, paid for by 1A High Speed Rail funds (!) and SCAQMD funds, the so-called Carl Moyer program. Metrolink’s peak hour oriented service pattern, with most locomotives enjoying a weekend off, allows for plenty of time for them to be properly maintained yet by their own admission key service and rebuild intervals have been ignored.
There are still severe operating constraints, limitations to capacity caused by lack of investment to remove bottlenecks. Operationally, small delays can expand to major disruption as trains wait for meets on single track sections. Key markets, such as between northern Los Angeles County and Orange County, cannot be addressed because of the time taken to reverse at LAUS.
Since the February Oxnard collision with a stray truck at a grade crossing there has been a cone of silence over the Rotem Cab Cars. At the SCRRA Board meeting of Friday 25th September 2015 the Board voted, with minimal public discussion, to authorize a lease of 40 freight locomotives for a year at a total net cost of $M19.125, or nearly $1,000 per customer. (Just before going to press this amount was increased to over $23M, but was referred back to the member agencies for their approval. They have to find the money.) These locomotives are to be placed on the train ahead of the cab car so that each train will have a Metrolink locomotive with only the HEP operative, the passenger cars including the cab car, and the freight locomotive providing the motive power. Such deliberations as there were, including any discussion as to where this extra money is to come from, was held in closed session under the rubric “anticipated litigation”. We await the NTSB decision on the results of the Oxnard accident, but has SCRRA been forewarned that the cab cars may be found to be inadequate protection for the engineer and passengers? Another theory is that this is a pretext for bringing in locomotives to make the trains more reliable as Metrolink’s own fleet is at a crisis point.
We await the NTSB report about Oxnard with interest. We also await the “anticipated litigation”. Who might sue whom? In the meanwhile operating people familiar with the situation are concerned about the additional difficulties these added locomotives might cause. In some instances, e.g. Lancaster, overnight train storage is so constrained that there is insufficient room to add a locomotive without reducing the number of cars, or storing one train elsewhere. This might require a deadhead move from Los Angeles, shortening trains, or the reduction of service. Furthermore, with two locomotives on each train, both requiring fuel and service, operations at the maintenance facilities become more complex and time consuming, with the likelihood of delays. There is also the issue of whether these freight locomotives, normally having a lower maximum speed, will be able to make passenger schedules.
To add insult to injury the Positive Train Control mandate has proven to be costly and technically complex to meet. I sometimes wonder if the politicians were told that the process would be no more than installing a “Garmin” in every cab, but clearly this is not the case. The area of the greatest long term concern is the turnaround time at terminals, especially LAUS. I have been told that 25 minutes is the minimum required to reverse a train, and indeed Amtrak now schedules 30 minute dwell time at LAUS for through Surfliner trains. The San Bernardino service seems to be the first to reflect this new reality. Billed as a “service enhancement” the number of peak hour morning trains is reduced from roughly 20 minute intervals to 30 minutes between L.A. bound trains.
The eastbound afternoon departures are similarly reduced, although there is at least a clockface rationale to the new offering. And when oh when will we get rid of this nonsense of trains that “may leave up to 5 minutes ahead of schedule”? As far as I know this absurdity is unique to Metrolink. Anyone know otherwise?
I’m hoping that the technical experts responsible for PTC will come up with a fix for this turnaround issue. With a captive fleet operating over limited track miles one would think that most of the data can be stored on board and all that would be required would be for the engineer to select a train number. Otherwise the possibility of adding service at LAUS must be almost zero until the run-through tracks are complete. In the meanwhile punctuality, whether caused by PTC problems, locomotive failures or other issues, has deteriorated. Today (10/2/15) I see 20, 30 and 45 minute delays on the Antelope Valley line. How long will the remaining customers stick with the service? Where do we go from here? We have to accept that Metrolink was built and implemented on the cheap. From the first day the system suffered from capacity constraints and bottlenecks that were an unfortunate fact of life in 1994, but by 2015 should have been fixed. These include the LAUS run through tracks, double track on the Ventura and Antelope Valley lines in the San Fernando Valley, the I-10 single track through Alhambra, and the BNSF Transcon from Redondo Junction to Fullerton and beyond. Instead of making incremental investments over time to permit more reliable and frequent service the counties, Los Angeles County in particular wasted two decades before Metro CEO Art Leahy initiated a program of investment. We are two to three years away from reaping the benefits from those expenditures.
Similarly we are at least two years from delivery of a significant number of the new EMD locomotives, and let’s hope that these units do not suffer from any reliability problems common with brand new equipment.
So how should Metrolink proceed during this 2 to 3 year period with the assets that are available? One of the alternatives suggested by the staff report on the proposed BNSF locomotive lease was to decline to increase the operating budget and not go ahead with the lease. Staff stated that this would result in a major reduction in trains run, up to 50%. As I commented to the Board, this alternative should be seriously considered.
Given the time taken to take delivery, prepare and deploy the BNSF locomotives, and given the ongoing issues with PTC, it may well be the most prudent action to curtail the current service to a level which can be reliably operated. With a Metrolink locomotive on each end of the train, additional cars could be added to the trains that do run, so that at least the number of seats available is not reduced by 50%. Furthermore the train sets that are available could work trains throughout the day, providing more travel opportunities.
Let’s take this a step further. What if service were abandoned completely on some lines with the remaining train sets deployed to all day service on a core system? This would most likely consist of the Antelope Valley, San Bernardino and IE-OC trains. A sensible bargain could be struck with the LOSSAN Board to contract for space on a reconfigured Surfliner service to provide basic commuter schedules on the Ventura and Orange County lines. Perhaps also NCTD could be induced to extend service from Oceanside to Fullerton.
This may seem like radical surgery. Indeed it is. Would the patient survive? There is a risk that Metrolink may lose the political support that it has if the daily passenger count goes down to 25,000 or less. On the other hand there would be considerable operating savings which should be devoted to locomotive maintenance and PTC installation and problem solving, as well as the ticket machines and revenue collection. By 2020 Metrolink will have a new fleet of locomotives, double track in the critical areas of the San Fernando Valley, LAUS run through tracks and other track improvements around the system, and PTC operating smoothly. That will be the time to relaunch the service, preferably with a new brand, to consist of all day, seven days a week through services between the Counties passing through Union Station, and providing cross platform transfers. By 2020 the local transit operators will have had time to plan connecting feeder buses and to integrate fare collection systems.
Can the SCRRA Board rise to the occasion and use this difficult period to take a bold step for the future? In 1994, after the Northridge earthquake, Metrolink seized the opportunity to prove that rail can be part of the solution to our mobility needs. Rather than band aid the present service and essentially continue the poor performance and mediocrity, let’s hope that there are those on the Board with the vision to turn Metrolink into true REGIONAL RAIL.
Every few weeks or so the Los Angeles Times publishes stories by Ralph Vartabedian which are highly speculative, thinly researched and critical of the California High Speed Rail Project. The worst time for the media is when the news is boring. So for as long as there has been stories, spinning a story has been common to create drama and attract attention. For this the Vartabedian’s sensational stories have been very successful. Here we see pack journalism at work, as other media outlets republish these Times stories and creates follow up stories on the same meme. This reminds me of when I’ve glanced at tabloid publications at the supermarket. I often see headlines proclaiming again that some famous person has only weeks to live. Yet many of these folks often are still very much alive years later.
The October 8, 2015 Los Angeles Times edition had the headline “California bullet train project is attracting interest — but not funding”.This story by Ralph Vartabedian implied that the companies planning to bid for work on the California High Speed Rail Project, had no wish to provide financing for the project. Yet central to the planning for this project is private financing. Yet it appears that in Mr. Vartabedian’s research, none of the potential bidders were asked directly about this in his story. Yet this question was brought up by Sacramento Bee reporter Ted Bizjak in his article “Siemens Aims to Make Sacramento a Hub for Bullet Train” of October 19, 2015. Mr. Bizjak reported “A recent request by the rail authority for private companies to declare their interest in partnering on the project and to offer ideas on how to build the system drew three dozen responses, including from Siemens, but none of the companies offered to bring in private financing, rail officials said. Michael Cahill, president of Siemens Industry Inc.’s mobility division, said his company didn’t propose private financing because the state’s request wasn’t specifically set up for a financial proposal. But, he said, Siemens could be interested in making a financing pitch at some point.”
The recent contacts and discussions with rail contractors and operators by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) may have already had an effect on the project. It is no secret that the operators of High Speed Rail services have wanted the initial service of High Speed Rail to serve Los Angeles from the start. Los Angeles is after the largest travel market in California and critical to ridership high enough to operate profitably. Yet current plans for the first segment of passenger service are from Merced to Burbank by 2022. Burbank is close but still 12 miles from downtown Los Angeles. Although not getting any media attention, it was recently discussed at the October Los Angeles Metro Board Meeting that the California High Speed Rail Authority had asked LA Metro to allow them to bring in High Speed Trains into Los Angeles Union Station by 2024, which is 5 years sooner than originally planned. Instead of using an underground station near LAUS as was being planned. The CHSRA now wants to bring their trains directly onto stations tracks in the middle of the station. This will be much cheaper than an underground station, quicker to build and have faster connections for passengers transferring by local trains and buses. The LA Metro Board approved the request to move directly into Union Station by the CHSRA.
The Los Angeles Times also had another recent Vartabedian story with the headline.”$68-billion California bullet train project likely to overshoot budget … Los Angeles Times–Oct 24, 2015“. This story assumes that the CHSRA is hiding costs that will sooner or later leave the taxpayer with massive debt. After the voters approved almost 10 billion dollars towards construction of High Speed Rail in late 2008, the estimated cost of the project did jumped from $32 Billion dollars to almost a $100 billion by 2011. It was at about this time that the Brown administration inherited the High Speed Rail Project. One of Governor Brown’s first acts was to appoint Dan Richard, his long time friend and adviser as Chair of the High Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Richard has done a great deal to turn the High Speed Rail Project around. One of his first challenges in 2011 was the 2012 Business Plan and getting the approval of the California High Speed Rail Peer Group which was created by the Legislature to advise it on High Speed Rail. This group is made up of experts in transportation, finance, construction, engineering and rail operations. This Group is made up of all unpaid volunteer professionals. The original Chair of this group was the widely respected Will Kempton, former head of Caltrans during the Schwarzenegger Administration. An original member of the Peer Review Group and current Chair is Louis Thompson. After a successful career at the Federal Rail Administration, he then moved to the World Bank to oversee rail development around the world. The Peer Review Group rejected the original CHSRA 2012 Business Plan. Under the direction of the Peer Review Group a largely rewritten Business Plan was adopted and is the basis of much of the current planning. The Peer Review Group was largely responsible for the current estimate of roughly $68 Billion dollars for the 520 route miles of High Speed Rail between Anaheim and San Francisco. Roughly half of this cost is to be paid with government funding and the rest privately financed to be serviced by revenues from the operation of High Speed Rail. Such Public,Private Partnerships are common around the world and are often used to build High Speed Rail. Future extensions to Sacramento and San Diego will depend on financing paid with revenue from the 520 miles of finished service.
Since the 2012 Business Plan, the High Speed Rail Authority has been able to stick to it’s original estimate of around $31 Billion dollars for the Initial 300 miles of construction between Merced and Burbank. This is almost all of the taxpayer’s money that is planned to be spent for California High Speed Rail. This is a fact usually ignored in the doomsday forecasts by High Speed Rail critics. Since the first major contracts have been signed and construction started, the bids so far have come in under budget.It is always difficult to estimate costs far into the future. But there are reasonable expectations that constructions costs shouldn’t spiral out of control in the near future. One of the major factors that in the last 40 to 50 years made long term cost estimates difficult has been inflation. But since 2008, despite many warnings to the contrary, inflation remains fairly low. In fact for many Central Banks the bigger fear remains the possibility of deflation. With this low level of inflation we continue to see historic low prime rates for borrowing money. This makes it a good time to borrow money at very low rates to build a great deal of major projects such as High Speed Rail. Another major driver of inflation is the cost of energy, particularly the cost of oil. Right now there is glut of oil. This is a result of lack of growing demand for oil around the world. We are also seeing renewable energy costs continue to go down, replacing the use of fossil fuels while keeping the cost of energy from rising.
Mr. Vartabedian can’t claim impartiality on the issue of California High Speed Rail. In one of his stories at the end of the 2014 Governor’s race he openly lamented that High Speed Rail hadn’t become a major political issue against Governor Brown. There has been a constant attempt by some Republican politicians to play partisan politics using the High Speed Rail project as a whipping boy. This hasn’t gotten these partisan politicians anywhere. Despite several calls to pass petitions to shut down the High Speed Rail Project, none have had enough signatures to even get on the ballot. The reality is that High Speed Rail is and always has been a non-partisan issue. Republican Governor Pete Wilson signed the legislation creating the California High Speed Rail Authority. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger placed the Prop 1A measure on the ballot in 2008 which gave voter approval for California High Speed Rail. Republican strongholds in the San Joaquin Valley such as Fresno, Merced and Visalia are major supporters of High Speed Rail. The same is true in conservative Palmdale. The California Chamber of Commerce supports High Speed Rail. The reason is simple, transportation is central to economic growth and local prosperity.
While there will always be uncertainties about the future, there rarely has been a better time to build than now. There are plenty of contractors looking for work and willing to bid low in efforts to find work. Energy costs and interest rates are at a historic low and major cost increases are not likely short of a major increase in demand. California is a big transportation market, and we need alternatives to the I-5 and 101 which will increasingly be subject to closures due to bad weather and traffic accidents. Many transportation experts around the world realize that California is a potential major High Speed Rail market. California is the key to major expansion of rail passenger service to most of the United States. Several countries are eager to see High Speed Rail service built in California and they want the contract for it. This will lead to one heck of a good deal from the competition for the final California High Speed Rail contract.
In a surprise move at the Los Angeles Metro Board Meeting on October 22, 2015, an agenda item was voted on and approved to make changes to the Southern California Regional Interconnector Project (SCRIP). Part of the change will coordinate SCRIP’s construction of run-through tracks at Union Station with the construction at the same time of a new concourse under the tracks at Union Station. Construction of both projects is expected to begin in 2017 through 2019 or so. This makes perfect sense. The surprising part of this agenda Item was the Metro Board also approved the construction of 2 platforms with 4 run-through tracks for the exclusive use for High Speed Trains at Los Angeles Union Station for use by 2024.
What is being planned for High Speed Rail at LAUS is for 2 of the most western platforms to be rebuilt for High Speed Rail which would include High Level Platforms which will be unusable by Metrolink or most Amtrak equipment in California. This will also include separate tracks from the rest of the station tracks for these 2 platforms which will be used exclusively for High Speed Passenger trains coming into and out of LAUS. The western platforms, the ones with the lowest numbers, are closest to what will be the light rail Blue Line from Long Beach to Azusa by 2024, the Red and Purple subway lines as well as a new bus station which will be alongside the future Blue Line platform. Talk about the best location. This will give High Speed Rail the shortest distance for transfers at LAUS from Metrorail, Metrolink, Amtrak and by bus.
Now the plans for run-through tracks at Union Station is to have 2 platforms with 4 tracks for High Speed Rail trains, 3 platforms and 6 tracks to be shared by Metrolink and Amtrak Surfliner trains and 2 platforms with 4 tracks which will remain stub-end tracks that can be used for long distance trains, equipment storage at the station and equipment displays. That makes 7 platforms and 14 tracks. The problem is although Union Station originally had 8 platforms and 16 tracks, where Platform 8 use to be is now used by a part of the LA Metro Headquarter’s building. Platform 1 is used by LA Metrorail for Light Rail service. So how to get 7 platforms with 14 tracks when you only have 6 platforms and 12 tracks available for intercity rail service?
On a LA Metro graphic for the October 22nd Board Meeting the final design for the SCRIP project shows Platforms 1, 2a, 3,4,5,6 and 7. When I went to school a long time ago that added up to 8 platforms. How did that happen? This graphic shows platform 2a next to platform 1 which is for Light Rail. What is being planned is to relocate the light rail tracks to the west at the station and build a new Platform 1. Platform 2a would in fact be a rebuilt Platform 1 which would be used along with Platform 2 for High Speed Rail trains.
In order to reach LAUS on the surface with High Speed Trains by 2024, it seems that the CAHSRA will likely also have to share and improve the tracks owned by Los Angeles County used by Metrolink’s Ventura County and Antelope Valley Lines at least as far as Burbank. If so, this will restrict the speeds on this track segment to “only” 110-120 miles per hour between Union Station and Bob Hope Airport. In the past all planning for High Speed Rail was for an all new straighter track alignment in and out of Union Station and a separate HSR station near Union Station. But sharing tracks and Union Station will save the CHSRA hundreds of millions of dollars and allow service to LAUS by 2024 and not 2029 as originally planned.
No doubt simplifying construction between Burbank and Los Angeles will allow more resources to be used for building a shorter tunnel between Burbank and Palmdale which will reduce the running times between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Could we also be seeing Los Angeles to Las Vegas High Speed Rail service by 2024?
It appears that in densely populated areas the CHSRA is looking to share more existing rights of way for some segments to reduce costs and avoid slow and costly environmental studies.This seems to be the case between Burbank to Los Angeles and on to Anaheim. Full double tracking and grade-separation or at the least upgraded grade level crossing barrier protection will be needed for high traffic levels and speeds up to 120 miles per hour. Similar shared track usage is planned between San Jose and San Francisco.
Can right of way sharing be used in other places to reduce costs and shorten construction time building more high speed service? Could we see use of existing rights of way for HSR in the San Gabriel Valley to the Inland Empire? This could be part of the route to San Diego on the I-15 freeway. Could this also be done using separate tracks between Merced and Sacramento to extend High Speed Rail from Merced to Sacramento?
This might be a good time to talk to the BNSF and UP about making deals to share rights of way.The railroads now are seeing a decline in traffic, particularly for coal and oil. The economy is also slowing down which is seen in declining freight traffic, particularly for the UP. The UP has been more cooperative in the last couple of years to California High Speed Rail construction than when Prop 1A passed in 2008 which started the High Speed Rail project. This cooperation can be seen in planning around Bakersfield to build a station and trackage alongside the UP right of way. This is more an acceptance of reality than enthusiasm on UP’s part.
Whenever a passenger is ready to travel by Amtrak, has a ticket in hand and is ready to go to the station to board the train the first anxiety is always whether the train will be on time or be running late (in many cases hours late). For this trip let’s get the on time performance out of the way by saying that Amtrak’s October 5 Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited we boarded in Ft. Worth was nearly on time all the way. There were no major delay incidents. Since it takes upwards of 45 to 50 minutes on a good travel day for us to reach the Ft. Worth station it was good to know the status, and while “Amtrak Julie” is the best source, so are Amtrak Status Maps and the other sources of information. We arrived at FTW just as the train was arriving from Dallas. Great timing. Bad track sections in Texas still need work, particularly Temple to Taylor.
This report will cover mostly the westbound trip. Veteran readers know this reporter and spouse have been traveling Amtrak long distance trains since 1971, traveled on the AT&SF before that, with reports like this one having appeared in RailPAC publications since 1990. Train travel is our preferred means of travel, for those of you first time readers, and while we don’t do it as often anymore, we enjoy seeing how Amtrak train travel changes or doesn’t change from trip to trip. Meeting interesting people on board is a pleasant experience, and on this trip we met a couple from Waco traveling on Amtrak for the first time and also going to Los Angeles.
On the Texas Eagle trains from Chicago, arrival in San Antonio is scheduled for approximately 10 PM. On our train a full sized Dining car replaced the usual Cafe-Diner. Off-season staffing is two employees upstairs and two downstairs in the galley. The LSA upstairs also waits tables. Only one half of the car was used, approximately the same size as the Cafe-Diner. When the call for dinner reservations came there were only going to be two seatings, at 5:00 and 5:30. When asked, the LSA crisply replied that there couldn’t be any after that “on days we go to San Antonio.” Perplexed, I did not continue the discussion. When we arrived for our 5:00 seating we were pleased to find us sitting across from the Waco folks, and were able to answer most of their questions. They were sharing a Roomette. We ordered dinner, and this writer swears the steak was the best one ever in all our trips. The service crew was excellent, but it still is curious why they thought they couldn’t have scheduled a few later seatings.
Usually on the Eagle there is conductor chatter on the PA, but this crew was nearly silent. Our sleeping car attendant was very cooperative and helpful. Our car, #32079, is one that has not been fully updated and has the old carpeted walls that now look quite shabby and dirty. One new touch is they now post the dining car and lounge car menus on the wall, which helped new travelers to make decisions before entering the Diner. Why did it take this long to do that simple “marketing” idea?
At breakfast on the Sunset Limited after leaving Del Rio, we found a new crew that was not quite as good as the one on the Eagle but still very competent. Breakfast was first-come-first-served, and the scrambled egg meals were excellent. Lunch and dinner would be by reservations, and there would be multiple seatings for both. We were pleased we could share breakfast with the Waco folks again, and anxiously awaited their comments about the long stay in San Antonio and the overnight ride west of SAS to Del Rio. When the Eagle cars are transferred to the Sunset Limited in SAS the noise and jolting can be quite annoying, and for those folks it definitely was, as the full speed travel and rough track nearly bounced them out of bed. They thought they might be able to upgrade to a Bedroom, after seeing ours, but changed their minds when told what it would cost.
The Eagle sleeper and coach are the last cars on the westbound Eagle and Sunset, but on the Eagle the diner is only steps away while on the Sunset in both directions the Eagle passengers must pass through three Coaches and the Lounge car to get there. For younger travelers that’s not a big deal, but older folks (ok, geezers) it can be a chore. There must be a better way to position the cars as they do on the eastbound train where out of San Antonio the Eagle sleeper is placed at the head end just behind the transition sleeper and just ahead of the Diner.
When we arrived in the Sunset’s Diner for lunch going west things fell apart quickly. We had neglected to tell the Waco folks when we were going, so we were seated at a table and waited for new folks to arrive to sit on the other side. A young couple from the Eagle Coach arrived, who had experienced what was quickly called the “rowdy car” overnight, and they were involved in a “spirited” (loud) discussion with all the crew. There are no crew members on board while the train waits for the Sunset connection in San Antonio, so the overnight stay in San Antonio had erupted into quite an uproar in their Coach, which they had joined into apparently, and there were accusations of theft and drunken behavior being shouted. This turn of events was not conducive to a pleasant lunch meal experience for us. The crew was not really helpful in calming things down, and we quickly left the car without finishing our cheeseburgers (the best thing on the menu by far). We chose not to go there for dinner, forfeiting that paid-for meal. Instead we ordered some snacks from the Lounge, which our attendant brought us. That in-car service is important, and all four attendants on our round trip cheerfully helped us. It seems these days that there is always one “rowdy car” on a train, but thankfully that was not the case on our return trip.
At Alpine, Texas, there was the usual “smoking” stop, as well as passenger boardings and a crew change. Out of curiosity we asked the new conductor standing on the platform (we had recovery time) if he thought there would be a daily train on this route instead of the tri-weekly as it is now. His laugh could have been heard in El Paso. “I’ve been here for 27 years,” he said, “I’ve heard it was going to happen all the time, with nothing happening.” That reply was not unexpected, of course. He went on, however, to say there is no equipment for daily service yet. That’s the company line and the employees are stuck with it.
The trip progressed nicely, without further major incidents, up to and including the early arrival at Los Angeles Union Station. Some Sunset Limiteds arrive as early as 4:30, but ours pulled in at 5:05. That has been a controversial situation, with Amtrak putting in writing that sleeping car passengers “are welcome to occupy their accommodations until 6:30.” Not so anymore. The crews are intent on going home, so Amtrak changed the rule by opening the Metropolitan Lounge at 5:00 in LAUS. We were told that we could take our time, but the trainset would be “going to the yard at5:30.” We had to wait until Hertz opened at 7:00, so we and the Waco folks trudged up to the Lounge.
Update: All this brings up the long distance service “experiment” taking place on the East Coast on the Silver Star, which has had its dining car removed and sleeping car fares reduced to see what the effect will be on ridership and revenues until January. NARP finally opposed this move, as did the rest of us, as it sets a dangerous precedent. NARP Chairman Bob Stewart reported that station agents have received many complaints, Lounge car attendants say they have had long lines for service, and some passengers reported they had purchased tickets at the old price but were not offered any adjustment. But, on the final day of the NARP annual fall meeting an Amtrak executive was asked how passengers on the Silver Star were responding to the no-dining-car experiment. He said it seemed clear that people were willing to give up dining car meals in exchange for lower fares. This writer has said all along that this is not an “experiment” but will be a permanent change as to do otherwise would mean Amtrak would have to admit they were wrong. In concrete? Oh, yes, and look for other long distance trains that only travel over one night to get the same treatment if this “experiment” is allowed to stand.
Andrew Selden writes that “The way Amtrak’s internal cost accounting works, it is impossible to know the results of this (Silver Star) ‘experiment’ in financial terms, because the financial results of everything they do are reported as allocations of category aggregates. Individual trains’ actual results are evaporated into averages and algorithms. Only months-later analysis of ridership on that one train reflecting re-purchase after a bad experience will show anything, and then only after those numbers have been normalized to the performance of similar trains with either normal or enhanced food service. Amtrak is too cheap to commission an expensive objective consumer survey.” Bye bye Dining Cars? Don’t be surprised.
Even the best plans can get derailed. I planned to catch a mid-afternoon train out of Oceanside on a recent Friday to see a friend and his wife off who were taking the Sunset to travel home after a California vacation. The plan was they would meet me at LAUS when I got off the train and we would wait for the Sunset at the First Class Lounge at Union Station since they had a sleeper as usual. Things started off well enough.I planned to take Metrolink Train 609 at 3:26 PM from Oceanside to Los Angeles arriving at 5:35 PM.I got to the Oceanside station a good 10 minutes before departure time. But the ticket machine by the platforms had a long line of people trying to buy Metrolink tickets. I went over to the ticket machine by the Amtrak ticket office. This ticket machine was also working and the line was shorter. But it was still taking about 10 minutes to wait in line and buy a ticket. I didn’t want stay to buy my ticket and run to the platform and hope to catch my train before it left. I ended up just before 3:26 PM buying a round trip ticket at the nearby Amtrak ticket office for the next Surfliner to Los Angeles.
Surfliner 583 leaves Oceanside at 3:41 PM, only 15 minutes after Metrolink 609. It is scheduled to arrive at Los Angeles at 5:40 PM only 5 minutes after Metrolink 609 arrived . Several of the people who were waiting to buy Metrolink tickets for the 609 missed their train. The afternoon schedule at Oceanside for Metrolink doesn’t make a lot of sense. The last morning Metrolink train out of Oceanside leaves for Riverside at 7:37 AM. The first afternoon Metrolink train, the 641 leaves Oceanside at 3:01 PM for Fullerton. Just 25 minutes after that, Metrolink 609 leaves Oceanside for Los Angeles. The next and last train, the 812 out of Oceanside when it leaves on time is at 4:27 PM for San Bernardino. That’s 3 trains in less than 90 minutes and then nothing again until the next morning. The 3:01 departure of the 641 connects at Laguna Niguel/ Mission Viejo with train 808 to San Bernardino. The 609 can connect with the 810 to San Bernardino with a 35 minute wait. But the 812 out of Oceanside doesn’t connect with any trains in Orange County going to Anaheim or Los Angeles.It seems odd to have so little service most of the day and then 3 trains so close together.
The trip on Amtak was a pleasant surprise. The 583 was almost 5 minutes early arriving in Oceanside. The train was clean, comfortable and the ride was smooth. The only problem was when the train got to the junction just outside of the Fullerton Station to the BNSF Southern Transcon mainline, We had to wait several minutes for a long container train headed east. This is not an isolated experience. It is not uncommon for passenger trains to be held at this junction because of freight trains. Freight trains are usually on the center track of the 3 tracks at Fullerton. Northbound passenger trains usually run on the east track and southbound passenger trains on west track at Fullerton. When a freight train is on the center track, this blocks northbound trains from crossing the center track to the east track. The solution to this which has been proposed since the 1980’s is to build a flyover to allow northbound trains to go over or under the center track and reach the east track. This will be needed as more and longer freight trains are run by the BNSF. This will be particularly true when High Speed Rail trains are running between Anaheim and Los Angeles in the next 14 years or so.
Because of the delay at Fullerton, we were 4 minutes late getting into Los Angeles Union Station. I was hoping to meet my friends as I got off the train. But I wasn’t surprised they weren’t there because they were driving a rental car going south to Los Angeles. This Friday the I-5 was shut down because of mudslides after a flash flood in northern Los Angeles County. All traffic from the I-5 was being detoured to the 101 along the coast. Traffic was terrible and my main concern for my friends was they might not reach Union Station on time to catch the Sunset that night.
I spent the first few hours walking or standing in the Station hoping my friends would find me. At 6 foot 3 and well over 200 pounds I usually stand out in a crowd. I could have caught the Surfliner 790 out of LAUS at 7:30 PM. But I decided to wait for the last train, the 796 leaving at 10:10 PM. I later learned that my friends arrived at Union Station a little after 6 PM and looked for me, but we missed each other. They then settled into the First Class Amtrak Lounge and sent me an email inviting me to come over and see them. I never got this email on my phone, but found it the next morning on my computer. One thing I noticed spending an evening at Union Station was how busy it was, even at night. With each train arrival there would be a new stream of people entering the waiting room. Plus there were people waiting for the trains leaving that night. Being a Sunset train departure night no doubt made this Friday night busier than non Sunset train nights. This activity made the wait more interesting. I was also watching the Arrival and Departure displays in the Waiting Room. Despite all the delays that day and night on the freeway, the Coast Starlight arrived early that night. But I couldn’t help noticing the train I was waiting for, the 796 was running late and getting later for its arrival in Los Angeles before proceeding to Oceanside and San Diego.
Sometime after 9 PM I finally decided to try to call my friends to find out what happened to them.I was afraid they were still stuck in traffic and might miss the Sunset. But I didn’t get an answer. By this time the 796 was about 90 minutes late. So it was looking like I would get home even later than I expected. Around 9:45 PM there was an announcement on the station PA which I didn’t catch the start of. But it was a departure notice for a train going to Oceanside and San Diego. But the Arrival and Departure Boards at the station didn’t confirm this. But I decided to find out what was going on. I walked down the length of the tunnel and didn’t see much. As I walked back towards the waiting room I noticed a group of people at the top of the ramp for platform 9B which was the platform for the 796. When I got up to the top of the platform there were plenty of people on the platform and a Surfliner trainset with all the doors closed and no one inside.
This had to be a fresh trainset pulled from the yard to carry passengers just from Los Angeles and San Diego. No doubt they annulled the 796 from Santa Barbara at Los Angeles and bused the passengers headed south of Los Angeles. After we left I remembered that this coming weekend the railroad south of Oceanside would be closed mostly for bridge repair and replacement work in San Diego County. If the 796 was late this night, it might not get to San Diego before the railroad was shut down. This would mean Amtrak would be a trainset short Monday Morning! It seemed like an eternity waiting for the crew to open the train doors to start boarding. While I was waiting for the doors to open I got a call back from my friends. He and his wife where settled in their sleeper. He told me a little about the problems getting to Los Angeles and trying to communicate with me. Before the Sunset departed at 10:00 PM I was finally able to board the 796. We left on time at 10:10 PM and I got to Oceanside on time just before midnight.
There are major changes coming in the near future to transportation, and this will impact rail passenger service as well. All forms of transportation are under pressure to save money, be more energy efficient and run more cleanly. Autos, truck and bus builders are looking for solutions to these problems. We may find that the solutions these other forms of transportation use could have an impact to the railroads much like when GM introduced the diesel locomotive in the 1930’s.
An example of what is coming is from a start up electric bus company named Proterra . It has built a prototype electric bus with enough range to run an entire day in service on a single charge. A major factor for this range is the fact that the bus is built largely with carbon fiber instead of steel. Carbon fiber is much stronger than steel, lighter than aluminum and doesn’t rust. Because of its costs its use has been limited largely to military aircraft and race cars. However as production increases which brings economies of scale, the price of carbon fiber is coming down. Carbon itself is one of the most common elements in the universe. The automaker BMW has built the world’s largest carbon fiber factory in South Carolina for use in its cars. BMW in now selling a lightweight electric car built with carbon fiber. BMW has announced that in the next 10 years it will phase out all of its gasoline engine cars and build only hybrids and electric cars.
Electric batteries continue to become lighter, hold more energy and cheaper. In 2013 the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that for electric cars to be cost competitive with gasoline cars, the cost of the battery on a kilowatt per hour (kWh) basis would have to be no more than $300 per kWh. The IEA predicted that this would happen around 2020. In 2013 the cost of an electric car battery came in at about $500 per kWh. General Motors’ new electric car, the Bolt going on sale in the 2017 model year will have a 200 mile range on a single charge and cost around $35,000. General Motors recently announced that the price of building its battery will cost $145 per kWh in 2017. By 2022 the price for it’s battery is expected to drop to $100 kWh.
Along with cars using less energy by using electricity to travel the same distance than using traditional fuels, the cost of using renewable energy to make electricity continues to go down. The electric utilities are making plans to expand their market by encouraging more customers to drive electric cars. By 2020 we could see a major turn around beginning in the auto and truck markets and declining use of fuels. Trucking companies are also under pressure to save money and reduce emissions. To do this prototype trucks funded by Walmart with much better aerodynamics and hybrid power are being tested. Such efforts have reduced fuel consumption by half for big rig trucks. This has included hybrid turbine electric powertrain. Turbine engines are very efficient run at a constant speed, They are also very clean and produce fewer emissions than diesel engines. Combined with batteries the turbine can keep the batteries charged and gives future trucks long range and excellent fuel economy.
So how could this effect future rail passenger equipment? We could see more MU trains built with strong light weight carbon fiber bodies, run with electric batteries. As a MU the batteries could be spread out on all of the cars along with powered trucks on each car. With lighter weight and improved traction such a train would have excellent acceleration and hill climbing ability. This means shorter running times. Such trains could also have pantographs. This would allow trains to use electrified segments of railroads to save battery power and to use electrified segments to accelerate which has the greatest power consumption for a train. This would allow trains to operated on heavily used main lines under catenary, but continue service on branch lines where it isn’t economical to electrify. Money can be saved by not electrifying entire railroads which can be expensive This would insure that the battery powered trains don’t run low on power. This not only save money on catenary, but avoids complaints from residents of building catenary in their neighborhoods.
So what about the locomotive of the future, for both passenger and freight trains? As battery cost continue to decline, it will become more economical to use batteries than a diesel engine. This is particularly true as the energy density of batteries improve. A battery powered locomotive would have lower operating costs and lower maintenance costs was well. How would an electric locomotive get charged on a long trip? One way would be to have short segments of catenary to allow trains to charge on the go. The best places for this would be at steep grades and where trains are most likely to accelerate. One major advantage of using batteries is that they can be charged using power from regenerating braking on the trains.
In some cases it might be better to use hybrid locomotives. This too can use turbine engines which burn very cleanly and efficiently to keep the batteries charged on locomotives. What fuels can we use to get the cleanest running with a turbine? Fuels made from algae, often called pond scum, have been used and proven to work running diesel and turbine engines. The problem so far is these experimental fuels cost more than conventional fuels. Progress is being made to lower the cost of algae fuels, so it may only be a matter of time before we see much greater use of these fuel. We may first see blends of both algae and conventional fuels. This would create a much cleaner burning fuel. Algae may replace ethanol in fuel as a better alternative to reduce emissions. This is particularly needed in the short run for diesel fuel.
What we can look forward too in the future on trains, is even cleaner, more economical and more reliable passenger and freight trains in the next 5 to 10 years.