North Carolina NCDOT-Amtrak Carolinian Service

I just figured someone in the NC legislature didn't want to allocate even $1m/year to operations.

mtuandrew wrote:I just figured someone in the NC legislature didn't want to allocate even $1m/year to operations.

Why pay for something when you can get someone else to pay for it? Congress was able to blackmail the states to pay for the routes, including North Carolina for the Carolinian. Now North Carolina wants to turn it around. I'm not against it in this case.

New Rochelle, Stamford, Bridgeport and New Haven represent about 1,250,000 Amtrak rides per year. That's nearly equal to Boston, a lot of potential revenue for adding 75 miles to the route.

This whole discussion rests on the usual misconceptions about the 750 mile rule.

The rule applies only to existing long distance routes. Amtrak is under no obligation to pick up the tap for new routes - no bill is automatically passed on because North Carolina and Connecticut make some funny deal, even if Amtrak should agree to run it. Which they are not obliged to do either.

Furthermore Amtrak really isn't allowed to start any new LD routes without an act of congress unless it runs between two existing LD endpoints (essentially a rule created to allow Amtrak to reroute existing trains but a few routes like a revived Broadway Limited seems to be allowed to). Neihter New Haven or Charlotte are so today. So even if Amtrak wanted, it probably couldn't, unless congress ok'd it. As the train is loosing very little money congress might, or it might not...

Look at the proposed Gulf Coast service. Amtrak probably could get away with financing it on its own dime, because it formally is a restart of a suspended route. But it won't. Amtrak has made very clear that additional funding has to be found for at least the avoidable costs, either from congress or from state/city sources to restart the train - 750 miles or not.

So the only consequence of the 750 mile rule is that Amtrak is not tied to the PRIIA financing model for any new routes longer than that. This means that a model like the Gulf Coast one which doesn't cover any overhead, like the state subsidies on the shorter routes have to do, might have a chance and even get through congress if it needs so due to the endpoint rule, as it wouldn't have any negative impact on Amtrak's overall finances. But someone - states or cities - will have to cough up something to cover any above the rail loss to make it happen, plus off course any needed track upgrades. The money won't flow automatically from Amtrak.

If the Carolinian is "profitable", it seems to me as though it should be given to the private sector to run.

For the Charlotte airport, I was thinking that a Lynx-style platform (at most), with perhaps a shelter like the airport has for remote parking, and connections to the airport terminal via a shuttle bus, would be a good idea.

Train stations--including the proposed uptown one--don't need to be grandiose. Just build a platform and a waiting room at most.

Extending the carolinian to nhv would extend the last train from philly to new haven from 6 to 7 pm which is a pretty big deal if you don't work near the station (it can be hard to get there by 6 pm).
As for priia, routes that don't lose money on an operating basis are technically exempt. With enough capital improvements there are a few routes that might meet that criteria
I'm not sure I see the logic in "giving it to the private sector" simply because it makes money, kind of goes against Congress mandate that Amtrak turn a profit or lose less money

SouthernRailway wrote:If the Carolinian is "profitable", it seems to me as though it should be given to the private sector to run.

Having lived in the UK for the past year I gotta say that strategy produces some decidedly mixed results.

If the Carolinian- or any Amtrak train- is really profitable, someone in the private sector would want to operate it for his or her own account. I've never seen anyone propose that for the Carolinian, which to me indicates that it's not actually profitable, except under Amtrak's screwy accounting system.

Having lived in the Carolinas in the 1970s and remembering the Southern Crescent, I'd say that private-sector operation can be a good thing. I like having government do things only if the private sector cannot, and operating a profitable business is something that the private sector certainly can do.

Back to the topic at hand...

If Amtrak doesn't cover the costs as a brand-new LD train, might the early morning NHV traffic to NYP and points south ridership be enough to tip the Carolinian into the black? That's a win for NC reducing overall costs, a win for CT's travelers and more employment at the New Haven Coach Yard, and a modest win for Amtrak if the train can make a buck over what the PRIIA agreement would pay.

mtuandrew wrote:If Amtrak doesn't cover the costs as a brand-new LD train, might the early morning NHV traffic to NYP and points south ridership be enough to tip the Carolinian into the black? That's a win for NC reducing overall costs, a win for CT's travelers and more employment at the New Haven Coach Yard, and a modest win for Amtrak if the train can make a buck over what the PRIIA agreement would pay.

setting aside "screwy accounting," the carolinian conceivably could make an operating profit when its equipment is pooled with other services and capital cost is not taken into account (which it isn't). this is why SR's proposal does not make sense IMO and if I'm Amtrak, I bend them over the barrel for access to the corridor just as a private railroad would do to them. private operation makes more sense on routes like the FEC where the entire operation is private. this all hints to the screw direction Amtrak gets, they are supposed to make money and then as soon as they report it, someone wants to skim the cream.

other countries experience says that infrastructure investment, public infrastructure investment, is still important. perhaps of uncle sam were willing to zero our railroad's tax liability if they run passenger trains things could change.

I'm pretty sure that it'd have to originate at Springfield for crew and equipment rotations (NHV can't turn trains, but SPG originates a Lynchburger on the weekends).

Also please see trainviews' post upthread: if the Carolinian gets longer, some state must pay for it

But here are some thoughts in its favor:
1) Early trains keep surprising. Norfolk's train starts at 5am and still is cash-positive
2) Virginia's NEC trains are cash positive, and many start/terminate in Boston (long operating days pay off if you stay in densely-populated areas), whule the Lynchburger does SPG on the weekend.
3) There are strong connections between CT and NC: Beyond the fact that lots of people from CT migrated/retired to NC, there's also nice "Knowledge Corridor" connections to insurance, banking, science and education in both Research Triangle and in Winston-Salem-Greensboro. Recall that what was surprising for the Virginian services was how strong the North-of-PHL demand turned out to be.

Arlington wrote:I'm pretty sure that it'd have to originate at Springfield for crew and equipment rotations (NHV can't turn trains, but SPG originates a Lynchburger on the weekends).

Could it then run along the LSL line to BOS? It's not running on Shore Line East and its capacity limitations.

trainviews wrote:This whole discussion rests on the usual misconceptions about the 750 mile rule.

This was my initial reaction. But would North Carolina's legislature really start working on this project without having a state attorney review the PRIIA and tell them it doesn't work that way? Perhaps they've found another loophole?

I've never read PRIIA and I suspect few of us here have. We all operate on the "rule of thumb" that we hear from other guys. Perhaps its time for a review.

And here's a better idea than NHV: Run it all the way to Atlanta. That would both make the train over 750 miles and capture a very strong endpoint. Rather than feed the need for NEC passengers which are already too much of the ridership, going all the way to Atlanta captures a stronger southern endpoint, perhaps balancing loadings on the south and north ends.

Tadman wrote:But would North Carolina's legislature really start working on this project without having a state attorney review the PRIIA and tell them it doesn't work that way? Perhaps they've found another loophole?

I've never read PRIIA and I suspect few of us here have. We all operate on the "rule of thumb" that we hear from other guys. Perhaps its time for a review.

I hadn't read it either until this thread; We probably should have known better than to take word of mouth on the internet over such matters, because there is a surprising amount of erroneous information which gets posted to rail discussion groups. I've only had a chance to skim the document so far, but there are definitely some things I want to look back over.