Passenger Trains > Tentative plan to keep Amtrak running in KS, MO

...but no details...
=========================

Tentative plan to keep Amtrak running in Kansas and Missouri
Houston Chronicle
July 6, 2015
by Margaret Stafford

> KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Amtrak routes across Kansas and Missouri
> could keep running under a tentative agreement reached in a dispute
> over federally required safety systems, officials said Monday.
>
> The rail passenger service had warned it might stop or reroute its
> Southwest Chief line through Kansas and to end its River Runner
> service between Kansas City and St. Louis because of disagreements
> over who would pay to install safety technology designed to prevent
> traffic accidents caused by human error. The disagreement centered
> on lines used to route trains through the Kansas City area.
>
> Details of the agreement are not final, but Amtrak said it's pleased
> that a tentative deal has been reached.
>
> "We appreciate the efforts of all involved to work together with the
> common goals of safety and compliance with federal law." Amtrak
> spokesman Marc Magliari said in a written statement...
>
> ...Kansas City Terminal Railway, a co-op of railroad companies whose
> trains pass through Kansas City, told Amtrak it could not afford the
> estimated $32 million to install the system on its tracks. Amtrak
> had contended it was required to pay the cooperative only
> incremental costs of the safety system.
>
> Amtrak Chief Operations Officer D.J. Stadtler told Missouri
> officials in a letter last year that the company cannot fund safety
> systems on state-supported routes, making Missouri responsible for
> costs for the system on the River Runner route. He said if the state
> didn't commit to the costs, Amtrak would end the route.
>
> Eric Curtit, administer of railroads for the Missouri Department of
> Transportation, said that with the tentative deal, he's hopeful the
> problem will be resolved this week.
>
> "I will say everything looks fabulous today compared to two weeks
> ago," Curtit said Monday.

Full story:

Tentative plan to keep Amtrak running in Kansas and Missouri

That's good to hear, someone was speculating a few weeks ago that on the 30TH of June Amtrak was gonna do the 180 day notice for 3 and 4!

The freight RRs sometimes pick rather stupid fights.
If I understand this, the question is whether to install PTC through the center of Kansas City, and the RRs see a loop-hole in the regulations that will let them continue to run freights (a lot of them) and therefore the only reason for PTC is because of Amtrak.  (Corrections requested.)
With only a tiny amount of imagination the RRs should be able to realize the message that this sends: it is legal to derail or collide slow freight trains in downtown.
They don't have to be hazardous material to be catastropic public impacts.
At least that is how the media and political leaders could react.
I say stop the bleeding, get one big variable out of the list of possible causes of very expensive (dollar, service quality, and regulatory) accidents.

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The freight RRs sometimes pick rather stupid
> fights.
> If I understand this, the question is whether to
> install PTC through the center of Kansas City, and
> the RRs see a loop-hole in the regulations that
> will let them continue to run freights (a lot of
> them) and therefore the only reason for PTC is
> because of Amtrak.  (Corrections requested.)

They use Watco's little Kaw River RR as a pawn in the game trying to avoid paying for the PTC thru Kansas City.

> With only a tiny amount of imagination the RRs
> should be able to realize the message that this
> sends: it is legal to derail or collide slow
> freight trains in downtown.
> They don't have to be hazardous material to be
> catastropic public impacts.
> At least that is how the media and political
> leaders could react.
> I say stop the bleeding, get one big variable out
> of the list of possible causes of very expensive
> (dollar, service quality, and regulatory)
> accidents.

Meanwhile, the news stories are all over the place confusing the public as to the possible discontinuance fo the SW Chief.  Very poor publicity!

Please cite a PTC preventable accident in recent memory that actually impacted a major urban area.  You know, like a toxic death cloud.

BTW, how the law is written is not a "loophole".  PTC is a financial albatross.  Class III railroads are exempt and the FRA has already granted waivers for the Cardinal and Vermonter where those trains run on the Buckingham Branch and NECR.  Moreover, complex terminal areas is where the chosen implementations have the most trouble.  Enjoy your delays.

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The freight RRs sometimes pick rather stupid
> fights.
> If I understand this, the question is whether to
> install PTC through the center of Kansas City, and
> the RRs see a loop-hole in the regulations that
> will let them continue to run freights (a lot of
> them) and therefore the only reason for PTC is
> because of Amtrak.  (Corrections requested.)
> With only a tiny amount of imagination the RRs
> should be able to realize the message that this
> sends: it is legal to derail or collide slow
> freight trains in downtown.
> They don't have to be hazardous material to be
> catastropic public impacts.
> At least that is how the media and political
> leaders could react.
> I say stop the bleeding, get one big variable out
> of the list of possible causes of very expensive
> (dollar, service quality, and regulatory)
> accidents.

Class III railroads functioning as bridge lines for Class I's with commensurate traffic levels IS an intentional loophole.
The KCT area is not a rinky dinky outfit like the NECR.

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please cite a PTC preventable accident in recent
> memory that actually impacted a major urban
> area.  You know, like a toxic death cloud.
>

Let's wait for one, maybe in your town so you can report to us on the situation. Do we have to actually blow up a town before something changes? 

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Let's wait for one, maybe in your town so you can
> report to us on the situation. Do we have to
> actually blow up a town before something
> changes?

But that's the way we do things here in 'Murica........

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The freight RRs sometimes pick rather stupid
> fights.
> If I understand this, the question is whether to
> install PTC through the center of Kansas City, and
> the RRs see a loop-hole in the regulations that
> will let them continue to run freights (a lot of
> them) and therefore the only reason for PTC is
> because of Amtrak.  (Corrections requested.)
> With only a tiny amount of imagination the RRs
> should be able to realize the message that this
> sends: it is legal to derail or collide slow
> freight trains in downtown.
> They don't have to be hazardous material to be
> catastropic public impacts.
> At least that is how the media and political
> leaders could react.
> I say stop the bleeding, get one big variable out
> of the list of possible causes of very expensive
> (dollar, service quality, and regulatory)
> accidents.

I agree with all of this except the "slow freight trains" part. Through downtown Kansas City the speed limit is 30 mph, and through most of the rest of the city it's 40. Those speeds are high enough to create quite a pile-up in a derailment.

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please cite a PTC preventable accident in recent
> memory that actually impacted a major urban
> area.  You know, like a toxic death cloud.
>
> BTW, how the law is written is not a "loophole". 
> PTC is a financial albatross.  Class III
> railroads are exempt and the FRA has already
> granted waivers for the Cardinal and Vermonter
> where those trains run on the Buckingham Branch
> and NECR.  Moreover, complex terminal areas is
> where the chosen implementations have the most
> trouble.  Enjoy your delays.

I don't know if PTC would have prevented Lac Magentic, but you don't need a major metropolitan area for multiple deaths. 

The Kansas City Terminal is in effect a class III in name, or on paper, only.  In reality it's a triple track, welded rail, 40 mph (probably could be higher), CTC, 100+ trains a day main line, used by a number of class I railroads, along with local switching moves, transfer runs and passenger trains.  If that line doesn't get PTC, it's basically showing that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law - in other words, PTC goes on some railroads and not others, irregardless of where they are. Or, we could say the most heavily used mainline in the nations number two railroad center is exempt just because of who owns it. Not having PTC on that line through the downtown area of a major city shows this law is a political thing, not a safety thing.

Yes, why show evidence of need when we can make a decision based on emotion instead!  That's the process that's brought us mass incarceration, the war on drugs, prohibition, sex ofender registeries and several wars. 

97% of rail accidents are not PTC preventable.  What will stop a poison gas cloud is not PTC, its beefier rail cars or, *gasp*, improved emergency responce and resiliancy.  Hey, guess what...the latter works for EVERY type of accident, not just the narrow few your expensive technical solution can fix.

I can't wait until some Amtrak or commuter service gets cancled because of this because then maybe people will learn that "safety" has non-trivial costs.

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mbrotzman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Please cite a PTC preventable accident in
> recent
> > memory that actually impacted a major urban
> > area.  You know, like a toxic death cloud.
> >
>
> Let's wait for one, maybe in your town so you can
> report to us on the situation. Do we have to
> actually blow up a town before something
> changes? 

> I don't know if PTC would have prevented Lac
> Magentic, but you don't need a major metropolitan
> area for multiple deaths. 

No, it would not have.  The brakes bled down and the train ran away.  PTC needs a functional braking system to work and could even lead to runaways on mountainous terrain.

>
> The Kansas City Terminal is in effect a class III
> in name, or on paper, only.  In reality it's a
> triple track, welded rail, 40 mph (probably could
> be higher), CTC, 100+ trains a day main line, used
> by a number of class I railroads, along with local
> switching moves, transfer runs and passenger
> trains.  If that line doesn't get PTC, it's
> basically showing that the letter of the law is
> more important than the spirit of the law - in
> other words, PTC goes on some railroads and not
> others, irregardless of where they are. Or, we
> could say the most heavily used mainline in the
> nations number two railroad center is exempt just
> because of who owns it. Not having PTC on that
> line through the downtown area of a major city
> shows this law is a political thing, not a safety
> thing.

It IS a political thing.  Most safety rules are political (or $$$) because screaming "think of the children" is the easiest way to get the sheeple to do what you want. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/15 09:50 by mbrotzman.

Thank you for asking a logical, legal question.
PTC preventable accidents in urban areas ....Metro North, Amtrak Franklin Jct., and Metrolink Chatsworth, (all multiple fatality).
No these were not Haz-mat trains but they were preventable tragedies. 
At Franklin Jct. the derailed locomotive got into freight tracks that could have had any commodity loads and at Chatsworth any freight in the consist of the "Leesdale" could have been flammable or hazardous.
I fear that the lawyers have taught us to think strictly in terms of what is legal when executive leadership is required to do the right thing.

It doesn't matter that some people died in accidents.  What matters is that the cost to prevent those deaths doesn't outweigh the benefits.  It is really worth spending $15 BILLION dollars (not counting recurring costs) to save an average of 5 people per year?  Do you know how much extra passenger rail service we could have gotten for that?

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for asking a logical, legal question.
> PTC preventable accidents in urban areas ....Metro
> North, Amtrak Franklin Jct., and Metrolink
> Chatsworth, (all multiple fatality).
> No these were not Haz-mat trains but they were
> preventable tragedies. 
> At Franklin Jct. the derailed locomotive got into
> freight tracks that could have had any commodity
> loads and at Chatsworth any freight in the consist
> of the "Leesdale" could have been flammable or
> hazardous.
> I fear that the lawyers have taught us to think
> strictly in terms of what is legal when executive
> leadership is required to do the right thing.

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't matter that some people died in
> accidents.  What matters is that the cost to
> prevent those deaths doesn't outweigh the
> benefits.  It is really worth spending $15
> BILLION dollars (not counting recurring costs) to
> save an average of 5 people per year?  Do you
> know how much extra passenger rail service we
> could have gotten for that?
>

So what you are saying is that money should not be spent on preventing casualities in the event of human error, as long as more trains  run.  Brilliant Thinking.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/15 22:06 by SP4360.

Tell that to the 8 victim's families of the North Philly wreck.
 

Looks like playing in the fast lane is right in someone's wheelhouse. 

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't matter that some people died in
> accidents. 

I am glad no one takes you too seriously when you come up with such gems. :P

At least we got past the insanity that Amtrak must pay for all of it, or vacate, because KCT can masquerade as a Class III.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least we got past the insanity that Amtrak must
> pay for all of it, or vacate, because KCT can
> masquerade as a Class III.

I thought we had no details.

But we have "Tentative plan to keep Amtrak running in Kansas and Missouri " . Doesn't sound like a bunch of train-offs.