Relationship of Metra and the host railroads

In another forum here, BNSF and UP operation of commuter rail in the Chicago area was touted as an example of (profit-making) freight railroads taking the responsibility for "running passenger trains."

I realize I don't know what the relationship is between Metra and BNSF and UP, and the Wikipedia article on Metra doesn't say much beyond "under contract" for 4 of the 11 lines.

To what extent do BNSF and UP take responsibility (and the risk) for running a commuter service, and to what extent do they just run trains when and where Metra tells them? Who owns the rolling stock and the commuter-specific infrastructure (stations, etc.)?

If this is something that has been discussed before, could someone point me to the thread(s)?

Thanks!

All four lines under BNSF and UP are operated under purchase of service. Metra provides the equipment while the host road provides crews to operate trains when and how Metra dictactes. Most, if not all equipment, is owned by Metra. At one time, BN owned a fleet of 25 legacy locomotives, former CB&Q E9s, but they're long gone and replaced by Metra F40s. Some of the cars on the BNSF line are original CB&Q cars (700 series) and have been owned by CB&Q, BN, Metra, and I believe BNSF under a sales/leaseback scheme. They're lettered BNSF or Burlington Route and are not the only rolling stock on the BNSF route. Both class Is provide their own switch engines despite the fact Metra owns yard goats as well. UP supplies a UPY MP15 usually to shuttle sets between Western Ave yard and CPT and/or shunt CPT, while BNSF usually has an end-cab switcher or older geep working at 14th street.

Clear as mud?

Tadman wrote:All four lines under BNSF and UP are operated under purchase of service. ....

Clear as mud?

Actually, it's quite clear, and quite what I had expected. The railroads get paid for moving trains around (predictable income for predictable work), and Metra deals with the headaches, the risks, and the scrounging for money to cover the difference between costs and revenues.

Thanks for the info!

But as far as Canadian National ("North America's Railway") is concerned, it's NON MERCI.

amm in ny wrote:In another forum here, BNSF and UP operation of commuter rail in the Chicago area was touted as an example of (profit-making) freight railroads taking the responsibility for "running passenger trains."

Am I reading that as a compliment for those two railroads doing more than others?

amm in ny wrote:To what extent do BNSF and UP take responsibility (and the risk) for running a commuter service, and to what extent do they just run trains when and where Metra tells them?

I believe that is the key of the underlying question. Does BNSF and UP have skin in the game (investing in passenger service) or are they just doing what they are paid to do under a contract? I suppose some compliment is in order for accepting the contract and not just allowing Metra on their rails under some trackage rights agreement. But the apparent compliment that a profitable railroad is doing something unprofitable as a public service that others are unwilling to do. They are being paid for that service ... and it is all part of their profitable operations - taxpayer supported passenger service.

Right, BNSF and UP are paid by Metra to operate the services, so I presume there's not losing money on the deal. When Metra first started there was a movement for a public purchase of all the commuter rail lines, but the then BN and C&NW didn't want to sell their lines so as not to mess up their freight entrances into Chicago (C&NW could have sold the North and Northwest Lines without a lot of trouble, but it may have been all or nothing deal). The easiest thing for Metra to do was to contract out the services to BN and C&NW.
Eventually Metra gained control of the Milwaukee and Rock Island routes through bankruptcy of those companies, bought the IC's electric operations (which are completely separate from any freight service) outright.
The Southwest Service operates on a combination of Amtrak/Norfolk Southern trackage rights, Metra-owned trackage and a Metra lease of Norfolk Southern tracks.
Heritage Corridor and North Central Service operate on trackage rights agreements with CN.
Except for the UP and BNSF, all other Metra services use Metra operating employees. All lines use Metra owned equipment.
Metra m of w and signal crews maintain Electric District, Southwest, Rock Island and Milwaukee Routes. UP, BNSF and CN maintain their routes
Metra dispatches Electric, Southwest and Rock Island, but I believe Milwaukee (now Canadian Pacific) maintained dispatching rights when those lines were sold to Metra.
UP, BNSF and CN dispatch trains over their lines.
Now is that clear?

justalurker66 wrote:

amm in ny wrote:In another forum here, BNSF and UP operation of commuter rail in the Chicago area was touted as an example of (profit-making) freight railroads taking the responsibility for "running passenger trains."

Am I reading that as a compliment for those two railroads doing more than others?

The context is an Amtrak forum thread in which one poster is claiming that Amtrak's job could be done better (I'm not clear in what sense) by the freight railroads, assuming they were given full responsibility plus a subsidy (details unspecified.)

In one of his follow-up posts, the proposer seemed to be saying that BNSF and UP in Chicago were examples of where this sort of arrangement was working.

(If I sound a bit vague, it's because I could never get the proposer to commit to anything. The details kept wiggling around.)

My point of view was that contracting with a freight railroad to move train X from point A to point B (=model A) might be workable, but asking them to make the investments, decide what trains to run, and assume any losses (=model B) would not. So I wanted to know which model Chicago was an example of. It sounds like Chicago has what I've called "model A."

amm in ny wrote:My point of view was that contracting with a freight railroad to move train X from point A to point B (=model A) might be workable, but asking them to make the investments, decide what trains to run, and assume any losses (=model B) would not. So I wanted to know which model Chicago was an example of. It sounds like Chicago has what I've called "model A."

"Model A" sounds right. The freight railroads nearly went out of business running passenger trains. I doubt many would want to get in to that business again. The purchase of services arrangement works in Chicago but I doubt it would work on a larger scale with multiple railroads involved. The current "Trackage Rights" arrangement is probably the best for non-commuter trains (or the reverse where the passenger line owns the rails and a freight railroad has trackage rights).