Passenger Trains > CSX Executive says 'No-Go' to Gulf Coast passenger trains

CSX VP of Psgr. operations sends a letter to the New Orleans newspaper explaining why returning passenger service to the Gulf Coast is not a good idea... http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/07/gulf_coast_rail_service.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/17 18:21 by Molino.

A better title would be "Asst. VP AGAINST passenger operation".

Why is getting decent passenger rail service in this country have to be such a struggle.

CSX has no real options. If Amtrak wants to bring back the Sunset Ltd. or other services, CSX can bargain, but will ultimately have to start the service. Naturally every freight railroad will claim that their route is overburdened, slow, inadequate signaling, etc. Typical smokescreens.

Amtrak may have really backed itself into a corner on this one. While the service was never actually discontinued, it has been nearly 12 years since the last train. A court may look upon that as indifference, complicating a return.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CSX has no real options. If Amtrak wants to bring
> back the Sunset Ltd. or other services, CSX can
> bargain, but will ultimately have to start the
> service. Naturally every freight railroad will
> claim that their route is overburdened, slow,
> inadequate signaling, etc. Typical smokescreens.

I'm not so sure about that. Amtrak's legal right to demand access expired in1996. Access now has to be negotiated, and the host railroad can demand pretty much whatever capital investment it wants.

Dave

I get a bit confused about this, as STB's Springfield Terminal (Guilford) decision was in 1998, where access was forced and NRPC prevailed on 115#/Yd rail at 79 mph correct? The STB's decision went all the way to the US Court of Appeals.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D65E7E68C2D35B8B85256F82006D2612/$file/03-1086a.pdf

Also, isn't PTC only required after 2-3 train pairs a day? Further, there are far less than 17 commonly used navigable channels.

I'm pretty sure the Downeaster case was about terms of operation under an access agreement that was previously negotiated, rather then the actual access itself.

Dave

This is round 1, lots more to follow.

But it lays out areas where $ will be at risk.

Posted from Android

>
> Also, isn't PTC only required after 2-3 train
> pairs a day? Further, there are far less than 17
> commonly used navigable channels.


I'm not where I have access to the regulation, but I'm pretty certain that there is both a maximum number of passenger trains AND a limit on freight gross tons which is exceeded on this line. There is also a provision that PTC must be installed before the commencement of any new passenger service. I can't verify that 17 is the correct number of navigable streams, but it is close. Many of the bayous are classified as navigable for a short distance upstream from the Gulf. Whether they are "commonly used" or not is immaterial as long as the Government defines them as navigable

Face it, Amtrak blew it when CSX said that the line was again open after the massive hurricane damage was repaired and Amtrak did nothing.

Gordon

Round 1? I've lost count of how many studies, and dog and pony shows (including a Boardman/Feinberg special train junket) have occurred.

It's hard to imagine a passenger rail service that's been subject to such intensive and repeated study, to so little effect.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

CSX has the only direct route between Jacksonville and New Orleans. Pre-Amtrak the Seaboard Air Line and L&N provided reliable service for on the GULF WIND between these points. SAL and L&N have never bothered to install a signal system between Tallahassee, FL and Flomaton, AL (point where the dark line from Pensacola intersects with the former L&N main line).
There is a market for freight between the southwest and southeast. KCS and NS recognized this when they partnered a few years ago to put signals on the KCS between Meridian and Shreveport (Meridian speedway) and have started some runthru intermodal and symbol freights over this corridor. What a shame that CSX does not recognize the potential or developing their more direct route for freight (which would include signal and drawbridge upgrades) instead of continuing to fight re-establishment of passenger service and keeping freight service at the miserable status quo.
Andy

Dcmcrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Round 1? I've lost count of how many studies, and
> dog and pony shows (including a Boardman/Feinberg
> special train junket) have occurred.
>
> It's hard to imagine a passenger rail service
> that's been subject to such intensive and repeated
> study, to so little effect.

CSX is saying that these issues are serious and will require $$ to resolve. If Amtrak is interested in restoring service, here is CSX's opening bid.

Posted from Android

The 80% OT target is mere obfuscation. CSX clearly doesn't deliver 80% on the Silvers, the Carolinian, or the Palmetto -- and the heavens have not collapsed. Who pays for PTC is a real issue, on the other hand.

Note that there have been some traffic changes on CSX... downgrading the ex-ACL Montgomery-Dothan-Thomasville-Waycross to local trains has pushed traffic onto the Florida panhandle.

We've heard this from CSX before, including a $2 billion (not a typo) demand. And they've raised the OTP issue before. There's really nothing new in this letter to the Times-Picayune.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dcmcrider Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Round 1? I've lost count of how many studies,
> and
> > dog and pony shows (including a
> Boardman/Feinberg
> > special train junket) have occurred.
> >
> > It's hard to imagine a passenger rail service
> > that's been subject to such intensive and
> repeated
> > study, to so little effect.
>
> CSX is saying that these issues are serious and
> will require $$ to resolve. If Amtrak is
> interested in restoring service, here is CSX's
> opening bid.
>
> Posted from Android

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

Can Amtrak and the states declare eminent domain on for the public good; or appeal to the STB in meantime establish a thruway service

If the states involved were serious about getting service, I would think they would call CSX bluff. Start with service to Mobile while these issues were negotiated. The line to Mobile is signaled territory that with the high volume of traffic and much of it Haz Mat would be getting PTC and fewer drawbridges involved.

Such as a service could probably be done with existing CONO equipment on an extended schedule. Get something started then go from there!

"The Federal Railroad Administration is expected soon to report to Congress on the potential for new, twice-daily passenger rail service between New Orleans and Orlando, mostly on CSX's tracks."

Are they really looking at twice a day (on a route that is more than just daylight and evening)? And this would have to round about via Jacksonville.

Yes, find a shorter starter corridor to begin with.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The Federal Railroad Administration is expected
> soon to report to Congress on the potential for
> new, twice-daily passenger rail service between
> New Orleans and Orlando, mostly on CSX's tracks."
>
> Are they really looking at twice a day (on a route
> that is more than just daylight and evening)?

...or do they mean one each way?

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...or do they mean one each way?
>
>

Thanks TAW,

you probably are right.

The orgional plans were for the Sunset to go to Orlando  and a corridor trains NO & Mobile.  So two each way for the NO-Mobile portion.