Other People's Rail: Amtrak, commuter rail, rapid transit news & views outside New England

Am I making this up, or is there some law/regulation/de-facto standard that says interstate rail must be operated by Amtrak, outside of some exceptions (such as Rhode Island subsidizing MBTA service). I could have sworn I read something like this at some point, but can't find anything about it.

Here's how I think about it based on 2008 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and subsequent tweaks.

MOSTLY ABOUT TRACKAGE RIGHTS

- Amtrak is still the de jure repository of all rights to operate passenger rail on the Freight Railroads on the routes it received as the price of the Freight railroads no longer having to subsidize passenger service. It has a monopoly on that portfolio, but the rights in the portfolio are not exclusive and can overlap with commuter lines who also have specific rights within specific regions on tracks they don't own (e.g. Chicago Metra on BN & UP and MARC's Brunswick line on CSX).

- The practical effect is that any "new" service requires either Amtrak's old rights or that the State sponsor negotiate new rights. Amtrak can't just say "give me a new/restored slot" As we've seen with Amtrak's attempts to restore Gulf Coast service, even having rights is no guarantee that the Freights will allow/deliver the kind of speed and dispatching that passenger demand. Those have to be renegotiated by either the State (brandishing the "carrot" of upgrade $$$, which Virginia and Vermont have used, and which MA will have to pony up for the Inland Route) or Amtrak (brandishing the "stick" of going to the STB to force service, which the RRs fight with sand in the regulatory gears (again, see the Gulf Coast restoration)).

- Last I checked, Freight train interference is still the #1 cause of Amtrak delays. Sometimes its really blatant: Fed/State paid for a passenger bypass around CSX's Acca Yards, and then CSX parked freight trains on the bypass, forcing the State to add a second track to the bypass.

- It is not tied to intra/inter state legally. Basically, it all is a Federal "interstate commerce" question if you're operating on a Railroad, and whether your particilar train crosses a state line or not. Commuter services that were never turned over to Amtrak by the Freights are all separate deals and have long operated across state lines (Eg Chicago UP-N route which runs to Kenosha Wi, Maryland MARC Camden & Brunswick lines in and out of DC & WV on CSX,

- It is tied to where the trackage rights came from. If a state (such as North Carolina, Mass, or CT ) happen to own their track (the NCRR, MBTA, or MNRR), or you happen to BE the private railroad (like Brightline), then you don't need Amtrak's help ON THOSE SEGMENTS.

WHAT PRIIA CHANGED

- Unbundling. With 2008's PRIIA, Amtrak's portfolio of trackage rights was separated from its equipment, crews, and terminals, ending its ability create a near-monopoly on trains & crews by tying them to its trackage rights.. States and other sponsors no longer had to negotiate a package deal. If they could put together train & crew they could then lease only Amtrak's rights.

- Standardized Price List. Amtrak had to formulate specific, nationally standardized prices at which states could rent its equipment or rent its crews (it could no longer lever its trackage rights to make states overpay for equiment, nor could it cut crazy money-losing deals for historic or political reasons. E.g., Indiana let the Hoosier State (CHI-IND) end its 3xrather than pay the standard rate. North Carolina chose to buy its own fleet but have Amtrak crew it (and NC had to buy/partner on the economics of the NC-to-DC segment that the Carolinian operates over (on CSX) because it was easier for NC to get the rights via Amtrak than have to negotiate with CSX over track in Virginia)

- Self-Funding of Equipment. The PRIIA equipment rates had to be true replacement cost (they couldn't just bill out old fully-depreciated trains) such that Amtrak could buy replacement fleets "like a business" rather than separately keep going back to congress after the states had worn out its trains in service.

EXAMPLES

- Virginia found that given high NEC ticket prices, it paid to rent Amtrak NER crew & equipment and extend NER service, requiring very little state subsidy. National-average replacement costs have worked very well for them, but/and they ended up having to lavish a lot of $ on CSX (Richmond's Acca Yards) Norfolk Southern (Lynchburg, then Roanoke, now Blacksburg) for upgrades to smooth the way (even though they were using Amtrak's rights, the RRs could negotiate the new frequencies)

- North Carolina will retire its fleet and switch to the Amtrak national pool as a better way of getting new trains (their attempt to buy and re-hab the old Ringling Brothers circus train having failed and having found Amtrak's buying power better when shopping for new)
 
Last edited:
A week ago, TransitMatters did an AMA on Reddit. One of the replies mentioned a link to this Twitter thread, which compares transit in London to Boston, and especially Canary Wharf to Seaport.

It was quite an insightful read. Despite both areas having striking similarities - new business districts at a waterfront next to CBD - the differences in transit planning were night and day. Canary Wharf has a 70% transit share, and an entire extensive LRT system designed just for it, along with multiple other rapid transit lines. For Seaport, 31% take transit, while 53% drive. And the only option we have there is... The Silver "Line".

The Twitter thread claims it was largely due to political will and the underlying mindset of city planning. I have to agree. Unfortunately, Seaport was designed with cars as the priority, not transit riders.
 
A week ago, TransitMatters did an AMA on Reddit. One of the replies mentioned a link to this Twitter thread, which compares transit in London to Boston, and especially Canary Wharf to Seaport.

It was quite an insightful read. Despite both areas having striking similarities - new business districts at a waterfront next to CBD - the differences in transit planning were night and day. Canary Wharf has a 70% transit share, and an entire extensive LRT system designed just for it, along with multiple other rapid transit lines. For Seaport, 31% take transit, while 53% drive. And the only option we have there is... The Silver "Line".

The Twitter thread claims it was largely due to political will and the underlying mindset of city planning. I have to agree. Unfortunately, Seaport was designed with cars as the priority, not transit riders.
I really admire Jarred Johnson and the work he does. And I agree with his overall point. But my initial reaction (which, to be clear, I intend to interrogate by looking at the numbers more closely and so may change my mind about) is that the Seaport - Docklands comparison is a poor one. In no particular order:
  • Docklands are bigger than the Seaport geographically, and the winding Thames creates a more complex geography than in the Seaport
  • Docklands I suspect have more jobs than the Seaport (and likely greater density)
  • Docklands are further removed from the historical CBDs and existing transport hubs
  • London’s area and populace (ie the potential sources for Docklands commuters) are (I think) at least an order of magnitude greater than Boston’s
I think Johnson is right for the wrong reasons. Absolutely transit was prioritized much more strongly in the Docklands redevelopment than in the Seaport. Absolutely London has a greater political will to build transit than Boston. But... also I think part of my objection here is that London had to use transit to redevelop the Docklands -- because of London's size and complexity, it just wouldn't have been possible to get enough people in and out of Canary Wharf daily without using transit. The political will rises in large part (though not in whole) out of necessity.

Given that, I don't find London to be a particularly useful model for Boston. There are too many things that are different. I'm more engaged by his comparisons to smaller cities like Seattle and Vancouver.
 
I really admire Jarred Johnson and the work he does. And I agree with his overall point. But my initial reaction (which, to be clear, I intend to interrogate by looking at the numbers more closely and so may change my mind about) is that the Seaport - Docklands comparison is a poor one. In no particular order:
  • Docklands are bigger than the Seaport geographically, and the winding Thames creates a more complex geography than in the Seaport
  • Docklands I suspect have more jobs than the Seaport (and likely greater density)
  • Docklands are further removed from the historical CBDs and existing transport hubs
  • London’s area and populace (ie the potential sources for Docklands commuters) are (I think) at least an order of magnitude greater than Boston’s
I think Johnson is right for the wrong reasons. Absolutely transit was prioritized much more strongly in the Docklands redevelopment than in the Seaport. Absolutely London has a greater political will to build transit than Boston. But... also I think part of my objection here is that London had to use transit to redevelop the Docklands -- because of London's size and complexity, it just wouldn't have been possible to get enough people in and out of Canary Wharf daily without using transit. The political will rises in large part (though not in whole) out of necessity.

Given that, I don't find London to be a particularly useful model for Boston. There are too many things that are different. I'm more engaged by his comparisons to smaller cities like Seattle and Vancouver.

A more apt comparison to the Seaport may be the DC SW waterfront (Navy Yard, the Wharf).
 
A more apt comparison to the Seaport may be the DC SW waterfront (Navy Yard, the Wharf).
HafenCity in Hamburg is a great parallel to the Seaport. They built a new underground heavy rail line (U4) to serve the area with 2 stations with excellent connectivity to the overall U-Bahn and S-Bahn network.
 
Last edited:
HafenCity in Hamburg is a great parallel to the Seaport. They build a new underground heavy rail line (U4) to serve the area with 2 stations with excellent connectivity to the overall U-Bahn and S-Bahn network.

Agreed, about the same density. Here is the project for the terminal at the new U4
 
In terms of DC, I was more less referring to the SW waterfront connections directly to DCA via the yellow line and then to metro center via the red and yellow lines. Like Hafencity, the DC waterfront is also serviced by two heavy rail stations (Waterfront, Navy Yard-Ballpark), granted they were built 30 years ago as part of a comprehensive metro plan despite the area not being developed in earnest until the last 20 years +/- .

Who knows if that would happen today.
1690313894489.png
1690313894489.png
 
During this comparison, it can't be ignored that the seaport came to be because of the TWT extension of i-90. Considering the attitudes of the time, I think we're lucky to even have the Transitway in existence as a piece of infrastructure. The European examples seem to revolve around a major transit extension, while the Seaport revolves around a major highway extension.
 
During this comparison, it can't be ignored that the seaport came to be because of the TWT extension of i-90. Considering the attitudes of the time, I think we're lucky to even have the Transitway in existence as a piece of infrastructure. The European examples seem to revolve around a major transit extension, while the Seaport revolves around a major highway extension.
Actually the transit extension into HafenCity Hamburg was quite controversial, and it didn't happen until HafenCity was basically near completion. So it was a major TBM project. At least the transitway happened before the Seaport was built out.
 
Thats exactly what I picture for the fairmount line just with overhead catenary.

That or the Aventra cars from the london overground/elizabeth line, having those for the entire commuter rail line/regional rail would be phenomenal.
 
These look nice:

Thanks for this — I see the article says EMUs for the Hartford Line, but isn’t that line still diesel-only? I’d love if they’d convert to electric (those idling diesel engines are so loud and smelly).
 
Thanks for this — I see the article says EMUs for the Hartford Line, but isn’t that line still diesel-only? I’d love if they’d convert to electric (those idling diesel engines are so loud and smelly).
It sounds like these trains are just based off the Alstom Adessia platform (a European EMU, also closely related to the Aventra, the train used on London Overground/Elizabeth Line). ConnDOT said they'll be used on the Harford Line and New Haven Line branches (Danbury, Waterbury, and New Canaan Lines - which are push-pull diesel operated with a third-rail contact shoe for use in Grand Central). I don't see why these cars can't be outfitted with overhead power though, since they're unpowered cars based on an EMU train.
 
Thanks for this — I see the article says EMUs for the Hartford Line, but isn’t that line still diesel-only? I’d love if they’d convert to electric (those idling diesel engines are so loud and smelly).
I believe that these, while based on an EMU design, are unpowered trailers and cab cars for push-pull operation. Apparently these are going to be custom built for ConnDOT to meet FRA regs since I don't think Alstom has sold any of these domestically since everyone else has been buying Siemens Ventures... Which seems less than wise for a fleet of 60 cars.

Apparently, ConnDOT has bought 6 dual-modes - presumably identical to the future Metro-North ALC42Es as I believe they took options at that time - but those may be available for incremental electrification?

 
Personally, I imagine something more subway-esque like the E233-2000, especially on the Fairmont line (and really anything inside 128 doing 5-15 minute headways).
 
It's good to see CT investing in new equipment, but it's also a bit of a missed opportunity. After Fairmount here in Boston and possibly the Empire route from NYC to Albany, I'd say the Hartford Line is the best candidate in the nation for stringing up the wires and running some EMUs. Unlike the T, CDOT is pretty good about high-level platforms and all-door boarding. Electrification is therefore the biggest barrier to turning the Hartford Line into frequent regional rail.

Given the age of the equipment currently running on the line, it was probably inevitable that a new set of push-pull equipment would be needed. But it's still frustrating that CT has no plans to electrify a route that is such a slam dunk.
 
The New Haven-Springfield Line has always had wider stop spacing: in its current form the line only has 7 intermediate stations in 62 miles. Even if all proposed stations are built (Enfield, West Hartford, Newington Junction, North Haven, Hamden), it'll be 12 for an average station spacing of 4.8 miles. (Compare to 2.0 miles on the New Haven Line east of Mount Vernon.) That's wide enough that the performance difference between electric loco-hauled and EMU isn't nearly as substantial as even most MBTA lines, which have under-3-mile spacing (and much less than that inside 128).
 
I believe that these, while based on an EMU design, are unpowered trailers and cab cars for push-pull operation. Apparently these are going to be custom built for ConnDOT to meet FRA regs since I don't think Alstom has sold any of these domestically since everyone else has been buying Siemens Ventures... Which seems less than wise for a fleet of 60 cars.

Apparently, ConnDOT has bought 6 dual-modes - presumably identical to the future Metro-North ALC42Es as I believe they took options at that time - but those may be available for incremental electrification?

Per the Rep-Am, the order includes an option for 300 additional cars, so hopefully they wont end up being unicorns.
 
I believe that these, while based on an EMU design, are unpowered trailers and cab cars for push-pull operation. Apparently these are going to be custom built for ConnDOT to meet FRA regs since I don't think Alstom has sold any of these domestically since everyone else has been buying Siemens Ventures... Which seems less than wise for a fleet of 60 cars.
There hasn't been a single-level push-pull coach purchase in North America in 21 years, since Alstom's disappointing Comet V design was sold to NJ Transit and Metro-North. So there were no current product lines to be had for commuter rail. The Siemens Venture/Airo would've required some adaptations for commuter service since the Brightline, VIA Rail, and Amtrak orders are all for semi-permanently coupled trainsets of them and not individual cars. Therefore anything ConnDOT buys is going to be a first-time imported adaptation.

Interesting that they're doing 2 x 2 seating. All the MBB's, Mafersas, and Bombardier Shoreliners that they're replacing are 3 x 2. That's fine for the modest loading on the Hartford Line and Danbury + Waterbury branches. What's not-so-nice is that these appear to only have 2 sets of end doors, unlike the Shoreliner III & IV cars which have extra center doors. One step forward on fast boarding/alighting with the 2 x 2 seating, two steps back by deleting a set of doors.

Apparently, ConnDOT has bought 6 dual-modes - presumably identical to the future Metro-North ALC42Es as I believe they took options at that time - but those may be available for incremental electrification?

No. The ALC-42E's that Metro-North are buying have the same third-rail pickups as the GE Genesis P32AC-DM's they're replacing, so they're only good on branch schedules that run into Grand Central or Penn. They'd run in diesel mode on the New Haven Line because there's no pantographs.

Per the Rep-Am, the order includes an option for 300 additional cars, so hopefully they wont end up being unicorns.
ConnDOT has no use for 300 cars, so the options are probably for Metro-North's Shoreliner replacements on the Upper Hudson/Harlem Lines. Although MNRR was long thought to be looking at bi-levels for that procurement owing to the pre-COVID capacity crunch at current train/platform lengths. They'd be pushing that capacity crunch bigtime going to 2 x 2 seating and needing to lengthen consists. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It was thought that they'd be looking at Alstom/Bombardier MultiLevels, since that make has undergone successful clearance testing in Grand Central.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top