Second Lynchburg train considered

[George Harris]

If you own some of the track -- as North Carolina does -- you have a big stick to threaten them with if they act unreasonable. As NC discovered, you don't actually have to carry through on your threats, either; the class Is start behaving politely as soon as they realize the state has leverage over them.

Also, the current management of CSX may be friendly, but that's no guarantee of the behavior of future management. The Class Is are extremely arrogant and believe that they can ignore state law (even the laws which they actually are subject to legally) -- this is clear in many STB filings. What they can't ignore, ever, is state ownership of the rails they're running on.

North Carolina has owned this railroad since 1850 or thereabouts. They built it. The state was not bluffing. They were quite willing to carry out what they told NS they were going to do. Playing a bluff game with the major railroad companies is an act of stupidity. Don't say you are going to do what you really are not willing to do.

The general feel on the part of people on the railroad side of the equation is that the state and various other government agents are the arrogant ones, treating the railroads as if they (the agencies) were the owners rather than the railroad while demanding they pay taxes through the nose on their property. They fear, and a lot of it is experience based is that when someone comes in and says, "We are from the government and we are here to help you," it is a cause for fear if not outright panic. There is also a lack of enthusiasm about any of these wonderful schemes because they have seen so many that require time and money for imput from them and then end up to be nothing but hot air and a pile of reports.

 

[Anderson]

George,

I think you hit a second aspect of why VA and the Class Is get along well...VA hasn't tended to jerk them around and has followed through with investing in freight capacity as well. That seems to make for a solid long-term situation.

 

[MattW]

What was the story with North Carolina and Norfolk Southern? I don't think I ever heard about that one.

 

[Anderson]

MattW:
Long story short, there's a major line in NC that the state owns but leases to NS.

 

[MattW]

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. What was the situation that had the state actually using their leverage over NS for? Or has it just been a general state of things all along the way rather than a particular incident?

 

[neroden]

The general feel on the part of people on the railroad side of the equation is that the state and various other government agents are the arrogant ones, treating the railroads as if they (the agencies) were the owners rather than the railroad

Well, it's about time to fix that by buying the track so that the agencies are the owners.
The fact is that the government (either state or federal, depending) in a real sense owns all land in the US, except for land which still has Native American title (since they are separate nations). The rest of us have, at best, "fee simple estates" in the land, under Anglo-American law dating back to the feudal era. That's what "eminent domain" actually means: the underlying ownership of the land by the government (originally, the king). The rest of us derive our land titles from the government. Railroads frequently have even lesser title, often leases, or even mere easements. Federal railroad law has largely placed the underlying eminent domain right in the hands of the federal government -- or its agent, Amtrak -- rather than the state governments, but the legal principle did not change.

It's not arrogant for the government to remind private landowners who has the underlying and fundamental right to the land. It's arrogant for railroad CEOs to imagine that they have allodial or sovereign title the way Native American nations do. I was reading the STB filings in the LA air quality regulations case, and the behavior of the Class Is (and worse than the class Is, the AAR) in this case is frankly totally unacceptable; they have actually been called arrogant by elected officials *in the filings* at this point, and the elected officials are right.

There is also a lack of enthusiasm about any of these wonderful schemes because they have seen so many that require time and money for imput from them and then end up to be nothing but hot air and a pile of reports.

That's certainly true. As far as I can tell, a state or agency which isn't willing to buy track isn't generally serious about its plans. (Possible exceptions being Illinois and Virginia, and I'm not entirely sure about them.) While a state or agency which does buy track *is* serious, whether it's as big as California or as small as Maine. Not long ago, NY leased the Albany-Poughkeepsie track... after having been told repeatedly by advocates, "If you don't take control of that track, you're not serious".

This is one reason why I liked NS's attitude towards Michigan, which I'd characterize as "if you're serious, buy the track from us". Which Snyder's government proceeded to do.

Here's another thing to think about. 90 mph speed limits coming soon on the Piedmont. 70 mph speed limits on the RF&P. Why? Look at who owns the track. That's really all there is to it.

 

[neroden]

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. What was the situation that had the state actually using their leverage over NS for? Or has it just been a general state of things all along the way rather than a particular incident?

The North Carolina Railroad, which was owned 75% by the state, leased the railroad to a predecessor of Norfolk Southern for 99 years back in 1896, for a rate which did not keep up with inflation, and basically forgot about it. NS and its predecessors started acting, frankly, as if they owned the railroad.

When the lease expired in 1995, however, the state government actually noticed (I'd love to know who noticed) and said "Your lease is expired. This is our land now, and you have to negotiate a new lease with us". Norfolk Southern actually *fought the state in court* over this, despite not having a legal leg to stand on, until it lost. The state bought out the minority shareholders in 1998, resumed control in 1999 (NS had been operating without lease for 4 years) and then re-leased the track to NS.

The context is that North Carolina had started the Carolinian in 1990, and was trying to get the Piedmont service established. The service was originally funded to start in 1992, but NS demanded additional improvements in Charlotte before it was allowed to start in 1995. I did not have the impression that negotiations were entirely smooth in the mid-1990s, but since the state reclaimed the NCRR, negotiations have been *very* smooth.

 

[Anderson]

The speed limits are at least in part a function of track condition. Class 5 track vs. Class 4 track doesn't hold much advantage for CSX on the RF&P, so it would be up to the state government (or federal government) to pay for the improvements and at least some of the incremental maintenance. If I'm not mistaken, in VA CSX has indicated that they are open to 90 MPH operation...but there's a laundry list of improvements needed to make things work. The information on this goes back to about 1994/5.

Edit: Interestingly enough, it appears that VA is going to end up not terribly far this year from the 2014 ridership projections in that report. I'd need to check the numbers for the Meteor, Star, Palmetto, and Carolinian...but it looks like VA is roughly on track to come in between the "base" projection for 2014 and the "97-minute plus two trains" projection for 2014.

 

[neroden]

If I'm not mistaken, in VA CSX has indicated that they are open to 90 MPH operation...

Well, if they actually are (and I don't really believe it), that'll be something to remind CSX of the next time it pulls the "keep 90 mph trains miles away from our lines" stuff in NY.

 

[Anderson]

You may, in fact, want to raise that point. What struck me at one point is that I recall specifically that CSX was open to 90 MPH operation while NS wanted to keep VA to 79 MPH operation, and that I thought that odd considering that NS has generally been friendlier about passenger operations.

As to CSX funding the studies in part, here is the documentation indicating they are.

 

[jis]

Eventually, it might make sense for VA to try to strike a deal with CSX like NY State has in connection with the Hoffmans - POU portion of the Water Level Route. Though admittedly it will be a harder deal to strike given the enormous amount of freight traffic on that route. The money amounts involved will be larger. Afterall, the traffic mix between passenger and freight is yet to tilt towards passenger majority.

It is more important to get greater control of dispatching that worrying about who exactly owns the real estate, though of course owning the real estate does give greater leverage in negotiations.

 

[George Harris]

The general feel on the part of people on the railroad side of the equation is that the state and various other government agents are the arrogant ones, treating the railroads as if they (the agencies) were the owners rather than the railroad

Well, it's about time to fix that by buying the track so that the agencies are the owners.
The fact is that the government (either state or federal, depending) in a real sense owns all land in the US, except for land which still has Native American title (since they are separate nations). The rest of us have, at best, "fee simple estates" in the land, under Anglo-American law dating back to the feudal era. That's what "eminent domain" actually means: the underlying ownership of the land by the government (originally, the king). The rest of us derive our land titles from the government. Railroads frequently have even lesser title, often leases, or even mere easements. Federal railroad law has largely placed the underlying eminent domain right in the hands of the federal government -- or its agent, Amtrak -- rather than the state governments, but the legal principle did not change.

It's not arrogant for the government to remind private landowners who has the underlying and fundamental right to the land. It's arrogant for railroad CEOs to imagine that they have allodial or sovereign title the way Native American nations do. I was reading the STB filings in the LA air quality regulations case, and the behavior of the Class Is (and worse than the class Is, the AAR) in this case is frankly totally unacceptable; they have actually been called arrogant by elected officials *in the filings* at this point, and the elected officials are right.

This viewpoint on land ownership is the wildest thing about land ownership I have ever heard. I have never heard it before and I think it is dead wrong. Eminent domain is the taking of land for public benefit, with payment to the LAND OWNER of its full market value, and usually more, sometimes a lot more. For those states where the land WAS in public ownership, ti was transferred to private hands by land grants.

Since we are getting way off the subject with this whole detour into the basis of private ownership, I will say no more on the subject, but I am curious about the source of the concept you have presented here. There surely must be some source in the way of legal reference and/or court decisions for this viewpoint.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Actually, George, his legal theory is largely correct. However, as this country has evolved, that theory has been super ceded- to a point even in court- to the reality as it exists.

The government is not allowed to make unreasonable seizure except for the public good. Definitions of unreasonable and public good vary with the time. Theoretically the constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to allow what Neroden is talking about. The reality is that it won't be contemplated, and almost definately won't stand muster in federal court.

That being said, there was a town on the shore in a state south of New York and North of Delaware. I can't name the town but it was named for a CNJ branch that wasn't short. And in that town a mayor who may have received large sums of money seized large tracts of land and evicted hundreds of residential land owners using Eminent Domain at what was then fair market value so that a contractor could build a bunch of impressively ugly and badly built condos, apartments, and retail shops and sell it for an order of magnitude more than they paid.

 

[Anderson]

Eventually, it might make sense for VA to try to strike a deal with CSX like NY State has in connection with the Hoffmans - POU portion of the Water Level Route. Though admittedly it will be a harder deal to strike given the enormous amount of freight traffic on that route. The money amounts involved will be larger. Afterall, the traffic mix between passenger and freight is yet to tilt towards passenger majority.

It is more important to get greater control of dispatching that worrying about who exactly owns the real estate, though of course owning the real estate does give greater

What seems most likely to me, at least in the long run, is that you'll more or less get two tracks for passenger ops and two for freight ops north of Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania (with some agreements on when one of the tracks might end up being put into use for the other purpose, such as maintenance and peak demand hours). South of there you'll have something similar, though it might end up with three tracks being split between the two since you won't have VRE demand in the mix.

Dispatching is going to be a good question, since this will likely end up being something akin to two railroads acting within one ROW.

 

[George Harris]

That being said, there was a town on the shore in a state south of New York and North of Delaware. I can't name the town but it was named for a CNJ branch that wasn't short. And in that town a mayor who may have received large sums of money seized large tracts of land and evicted hundreds of residential land owners using Eminent Domain at what was then fair market value so that a contractor could build a bunch of impressively ugly and badly built condos, apartments, and retail shops and sell it for an order of magnitude more than they paid.

I remember that. Thougth, yes this something that could only happen in a place like New Jersey, Illinois, or Louisiana, in other words where everything in the government, courts in all, is in the hands of gangsters and just simple unaffiliated wealthy thieves and crooks. It was an extremely bad precendent. ED is in theory supposed to be taking for the greater public good, not to enrich a developer.

 

[edjbox]

Septa and CSX are planning to have separate tracks on the west Trenton line but same ROW. This could work in VA when the new parallel tracks are built

 

[afigg]

There is news on a proposed schedule for the second Regional to Lynchburg. News & Advance: State hopes to debut third passenger train in Lynchburg. Interpreting the statement, the Regional would run southbound from NYP in the morning, arriving LYH around 12:30 PM, layover in LYH for 4 hours, then depart northbound at around 4:30 PM. Excerpt:

The state hopes to debut the third daily passenger train through Lynchburg by 2017, Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said.

The train, as envisioned, would depart from the Kemper Street station at 4:30 p.m. and head to D.C. and New York before returning the next day at 12:30 p.m. It would be the city’s third daily passenger route after existing trains that depart locally at 6 a.m. and 7:30 a.m.

This would allow for day trips from WAS and the southern half of the NEC to Charlottesville and Lynchburg and late afternoon departures from LYH and CVS. Working the times backwards, a 12:30 PM arrival at LYH would be a circa 9 AM departure from WAS. The 4:30 PM departure from LYH would have a 8+ PM arrival at WAS.

Checking the current NEC schedule, on weekdays Regional #151 departing NYP at 4:40 AM, arriving WAS at 8:15 AM matches up to the southbound arrival at LYH circa 12:30 PM. The engine change at WAS would be taking place in the later stages of the morning rush hour, and then departing WAS around 9 AM. Northbound, on weekdays, a 4:30 PM departure from LYH, arriving WAS circa 8+ PM after the evening rush period, roughly matches up to Regional #198 which departs WAS at 9:05 PM, arrives NYP 12:30 AM.

By 2017, there should be some changes and jiggering to the NEC schedules and also somewhat faster trip times between WAS and LYH with the VA funded double track project at Nokesville possibly completed and $9 million spent on LYH to ALX speed improvements. So this is just an framework of a possible schedule, but I see it as a good one for more options for trips to and from LYH and CVS.

 

[jis]

I very much doubt that there will be any significant jiggering of schedules of Regionals in 2017 on the NEC, other than removing the extra time added to account for construction in NJ. Well maybe a minute or two less, but really nothing is changing for the Regionals speedwise.

 

[Palmland]

Sounds like it could also connect with 66/67 to Boston. But schedule would also work to continue on to Greensboro and connection with Piedmont service. There is an unused small yard next to station there that would work for servicing.

 

[edjbox]

I'm glad they have a afternoon train heading north, this is good for college students at Liberty and UVA

 

[afigg]

Sounds like it could also connect with 66/67 to Boston. But schedule would also work to continue on to Greensboro and connection with Piedmont service. There is an unused small yard next to station there that would work for servicing.

The current Lynchburg Regional already runs to/from BOS on weekdays and SPG on weekends. With the proposed 2nd train schedule, I can't see many people making a connection to 66/67 in the middle of the night. But it would allow someone to depart LYH, CVS late afternoon and get to BOS by morning if they needed to.

The Crescent take 2 hours and 9 minutes to get from LYH to Greensboro. The proposed layover time at LYH is 4 hours, which is probably close to the minimum that Amtrak would accept. The 4 hours provides a buffer for a late southbound train with some minimum time needed to turn the train around and do a quick servicing. If a corridor train is to run to Greensboro or Charlotte over the NS route, that requires a different schedule and subsidy support from NC.

 

[neroden]

This viewpoint on land ownership is the wildest thing about land ownership I have ever heard. I have never heard it before and I think it is dead wrong.

Well, you can believe what you like -- fools often choose to believe falsehoods -- but them's the facts. That's the way our legal system developed.
Study the history of English land law sometime. Eminent domain was part of the feudal system, and remained even when subinfeudation was eliminated.

You (as a private citizen, or a corporation, or whatever) do not really own land. Ever. You own what is technically known as an *estate* in land. The only person who owned the land outright ("allodial title") was the king, or the American equivalent, the government (sometimes state, sometimes federal, sometimes the native American sovereigh). All other titles in land were *granted* by the king (or other government), but were subject to reversion -- eminent domain.

Since we are getting way off the subject with this whole detour into the basis of private ownership, I will say no more on the subject, but I am curious about the source of the concept you have presented here. There surely must be some source in the way of legal reference and/or court decisions for this viewpoint.

Great, great masses of it. Do your own research into the history of land ownership under English and American law, it shows up pretty quickly. I'm not here to do your research for you, especially when it's so easy to do. Ever wondered where the phrase "eminent domain" comes from? That's a good starting point for learning the history.
The US has a specific clause (the "takings clause") in the Constitution requiring that fair compensation be paid when the underlying sovereign owner reclaims their land from the person who holds the estate in the land.

However, there are really no restrictions on when & why the sovereign owner can reclaim the land, because the sovereign owner is the underlying owner -- just like a landlord can usually break a lease with a tenant (even for bad reasons), but has to *compensate* the tenant financially.

 

[mlhughes0522]

If keep the 2nd trains just LYB-was with connections too Bos/NYP

And if they change it from weekday/weekend to daily schedule on this line will be good

Here some schedule ideas

Daily schedule

176 DP LYB 7:00a AR WAS 11:00a BOS 8:00p

145 DP Was 7:00a AR LYB 11:00a

156 DP LYB 3:00p AR WAS 8:00p connection 198 to NYP DP 9:05p was

171 DP Bos 7:00a dp WAS 5:00p LYB 9:00p

 

[George Harris]

Actually, George, his legal theory is largely correct. However, as this country has evolved, that theory has been super ceded- to a point even in court- to the reality as it exists.

The government is not allowed to make unreasonable seizure except for the public good. Definitions of unreasonable and public good vary with the time. Theoretically the constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to allow what Neroden is talking about. The reality is that it won't be contemplated, and almost definately won't stand muster in federal court.

That being said, there was a town on the shore in a state south of New York and North of Delaware. I can't name the town but it was named for a CNJ branch that wasn't short. And in that town a mayor who may have received large sums of money seized large tracts of land and evicted hundreds of residential land owners using Eminent Domain at what was then fair market value so that a contractor could build a bunch of impressively ugly and badly built condos, apartments, and retail shops and sell it for an order of magnitude more than they paid.

GML: I know the situation whereof you speak. How that was allowed to stand is beyond me. It has to be the most blatant misapplication of the law both in word and spirit I could imagine. Either there were some very heavily greased hands both in administration and courts or an all around level of stupidity not even to be found in a cabbage. The entire concept of emminent domain was that whatever is being contemplated is for the greater good and cannot reasonable be located elsewhere. The case we are talking about here would have the "none fo the above" box checked on the answer sheet. Quite a few people deserve to be long term residents of the graybar hotel over that one.

 

[VentureForth]

Actually, George, his legal theory is largely correct. However, as this country has evolved, that theory has been super ceded- to a point even in court- to the reality as it exists.

The government is not allowed to make unreasonable seizure except for the public good. Definitions of unreasonable and public good vary with the time. Theoretically the constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to allow what Neroden is talking about. The reality is that it won't be contemplated, and almost definately won't stand muster in federal court.

That being said, there was a town on the shore in a state south of New York and North of Delaware. I can't name the town but it was named for a CNJ branch that wasn't short. And in that town a mayor who may have received large sums of money seized large tracts of land and evicted hundreds of residential land owners using Eminent Domain at what was then fair market value so that a contractor could build a bunch of impressively ugly and badly built condos, apartments, and retail shops and sell it for an order of magnitude more than they paid.

GML: I know the situation whereof you speak. How that was allowed to stand is beyond me. It has to be the most blatant misapplication of the law both in word and spirit I could imagine. Either there were some very heavily greased hands both in administration and courts or an all around level of stupidity not even to be found in a cabbage. The entire concept of emminent domain was that whatever is being contemplated is for the greater good and cannot reasonable be located elsewhere. The case we are talking about here would have the "none fo the above" box checked on the answer sheet. Quite a few people deserve to be long term residents of the graybar hotel over that one.

I agree with George. There have been blatant misapplications of Eminent Domain that have been upheld by courts - and an abomination to our constitution. The thinking (from a legal point of view) in some of those real estate cases come from the definition of the public good meaning that the taxes received by the city/county would be greatly increased, thus improving the 'public good'. Unrealized at the time, a huge increase in population negates the huge increase in taxes - nullifying that promised improvement in public good.
In terms of railroad, sometimes cutting through one's home is much cheaper than going around it - especially if there is a huge mountain in the way.

The Japanese really do value private property rights. Eminent Domain has prevented some rail construction - or in the least mitigated the real estate impact. In fact, much like what was done in NYC 60-80-100 years ago, most grade level trains in Japan are either being elevated, increasing retail space, parking, etc., under the tracks or being dug underground where air rights can be restored.