Latest Texas Eagle / TRE News

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

printman2000

Engineer
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
3,785
Location
Amarillo, Texas
About $7.2 million in federal funding awarded to North Texas to double-track the Trinity Railway Express line and improve Amtrak rail service could be sent back to Washington because of a legal dispute that has now dragged on for nearly two years.
If the federal stimulus funding awarded in 2010 is returned to the federal government, it effectively would put the brakes on plans to move Amtrak's daily Texas Eagle service onto the TRE line. It currently uses the Union Pacific Railroad line between Dallas and Fort Worth via Arlington.

Regional planners have hailed that move as a way to improve Amtrak's on time performance -- by allowing the trains to avoid rail congestion in the Tower 55 area near downtown Fort Worth -- and to clear the way for the possible opening of a new Amtrak station serving Northeast Tarrant County and other areas in the middle of the Metroplex from TRE's CenterPort station.

"It's been going on now for two years, and doggone it, we're getting down to a deadline and there's no end in sight," said Peter LeCody, president of Texas Rail Advocates, a group that pushes for increased passenger rail funding.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/06/4159189/legal-spat-could-derail-tarrant.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...
Full Story
 
Moving the Texas Eagle to the TRE would be great! The fact it has to back in and out of Fort Worth is rediculous when that could all be avoided if it just went through on the TRE The current alignment I wouldn't mind as much if there was a stop in Arlington which lacks any public transportation. Greyhound pulled out in November 2011. Wanted to go to a Rangers game when I was out there but there was no way to get to the ballpark without taxis and renting cars.
 
jis said:
Isn't this similar to the legal spat between Amtrak and Florida in connection with SunRail and TriRail which was recently resolved?
Click to expand...
It sounds similar. There ought to be some way the great legal minds at Amtrak and TRE can figure this out.
 
jis said:
Isn't this similar to the legal spat between Amtrak and Florida in connection with SunRail and TriRail which was recently resolved?
Click to expand...
The legal spat in Florida over SunRail was getting the state legislature to pass a bill allowing Amtrak, IIRC, to have the same indemnified liability arrangement with SunRail as Amtrak has with the freight railroads. The Star Telegram article states - or certainly seems to state - that Amtrak is looking for a different indemnification arrangement with TRE. But the nuances and specifics of legal liability agreements are complex and I don't trust a local newspaper reporter, who is likely not knowledgeable about railroads, to get the details of the legal dispute correct. My take is that there are other undercurrents of dispute or issues between TRE and Amtrak which have also been holding up getting a deal done and the $7.2 million committed to the double-track project.

The end of August deadline, presumably set by the FRA, is likely to force all the parties to get a deal done. All too easy for mid and upper level bureaucrats to let the project slide along year after year with no agreements.

There are also a number of other stimulus HSIPR project grants that still have not the funds obligated: the 3rd track in VA, Indiana Gateway project, a few others. I think there are also some fund amounts that were set aside for WI and FL to close out the projects that were not spent. Some of the projects had smaller obligated amounts than was originally granted. As I understand it, any of the $8 billion is HSIPR stimulus funds that is not obligated by end of September goes back to the Treasury. We will likely see a round of modest sized re-allocations of the remaining stimulus funds in September. With the need to obligate the funds quickly, Amtrak NEC, Keystone East, and the NHV-SPG projects are likely beneficiaries. I expect Amtrak would say yes to $50 million or whatever amount can be reallocated for the North Portal Bridge replacement project.
 
Swadian Hardcore said:
Isn't there a plan to de-congest the Tower 55 area? If so, soes that plan involve the TE staying on UP or moving to TRE?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a big project for the Tower 55 location to add grade crossing separations and reduce freight rail congestion. As for the Texas Eagle, the news article looks clear to me. If Amtrak and TRE reach an agreement and the $7.2 million double track project is completed, then the TE moves to the TRE line - and presumably reduces Dallas to FTW trip times. If they don't reach an agreement, then the TE stays on the UP tracks.
 
afigg said:
Swadian Hardcore said:
Isn't there a plan to de-congest the Tower 55 area? If so, soes that plan involve the TE staying on UP or moving to TRE?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a big project for the Tower 55 location to add grade crossing separations and reduce freight rail congestion. As for the Texas Eagle, the news article looks clear to me. If Amtrak and TRE reach an agreement and the $7.2 million double track project is completed, then the TE moves to the TRE line - and presumably reduces Dallas to FTW trip times. If they don't reach an agreement, then the TE stays on the UP tracks.
Click to expand...

Who actually owns TRE? Is it the state of Texas, or is it owned by local counties? Either way, they would stand to benefit from a better TE service so can't Amtrak talk to the right people to get some things rolling?

For example there has been talk that the TE could then additionally serve DFW airport. that would be good for DFW and it would be good for all the towns that thus gain a direct airport link. Opposing that would only be pedantry.
 
cirdan said:
Who actually owns TRE? Is it the state of Texas, or is it owned by local counties? Either way, they would stand to benefit from a better TE service so can't Amtrak talk to the right people to get some things rolling?

For example there has been talk that the TE could then additionally serve DFW airport. that would be good for DFW and it would be good for all the towns that thus gain a direct airport link. Opposing that would only be pedantry.
Click to expand...
I believe it is jointly owned by DART and the T.
 
I found a more coherent description of the problem in this article: Can a deal be worked out to put Amtrak on the Trinity Railway Express?

Here is an excerpt of the most relevant part:

... Peter LeCody, president of Texas Rail Advocates, said Tuesday that he has sources close to the negotiations, and that "Amtrak wants TRE to assume liability for TRE's equipment, passenger and crew, regardless of fault, even if it is Amtrak's sole negligence while operating on the line."

That, LeCody said, is unacceptable to TRE.

LeCody said he also understands that the TRE, which is co-owned by two public agencies - the Fort Worth Transportation Authority and Dallas Area Rapid Transit - is limited to $250,000 in liability under state sovereign immunity laws. Those laws generally make government immune from lawsuits.

In legal terms, local governments are considered political subdivisions of the state. Texas' civil practices and remedies code generally limits damages to $250,000 per person or $500,000 for each single occurrence for bodily injury or death.

Because of that cap, Amtrak would be exposed for liability in excess of what TRE could pay out - which could be a hefty sum in the event of a rail disaster.

Amtrak may have reason to be concerned about this level of exposure. A 2004 New York Times investigation concluded that Amtrak, the nation's only coast-to-coast passenger rail line, had paid out $186 million for accidents blamed either entirely or mostly on factors outside Amtrak's control.
Click to expand...
 
jis said:
I found a more coherent description of the problem in this article: Can a deal be worked out to put Amtrak on the Trinity Railway Express?
Click to expand...
Thanks for finding the article. Now the story about the liability problem makes sense. Amtrak is not looking for anything new, just the same indemnification agreements they have elsewhere. If TRE and Amtrak are this far apart on reaching an agreement, the odds of reaching one by end of August - which is a month when many key decision makers tend to be on vacation - do not look very good.

Too bad if they can't get the funding in place for the project, The Texas Eagle is the fastest growing LD train for ridership. With the improvements to CHI-STL corridor, that will provide an increased ridership base for the TE to draw on for more business to TX. Any trip time and reliability improvements in TX will help boost ridership on the TX end.
 
But if an accident happens on the present line, Amtrak also has to pay up, even if its' not their fault.

So transferring to the new line would not put Amtrak at any disadvantage from the liability viewpoint.

However, it would permit faster and more reliable service.

So even if Amtrak owns all the liability, they're still one up on the present situation.

Risking losing all that money just to prove a point seems a silly gamble to me.
 
cirdan said:
For example there has been talk that the TE could then additionally serve DFW airport. that would be good for DFW and it would be good for all the towns that thus gain a direct airport link. Opposing that would only be pedantry.
Click to expand...
DFW Airport/Centre Point station is already served by multiple TRE services Monday-Saturday. I don't think adding one hardly-on-time long distance train to reach that spot is going to terribly interest the local counties. Anyway the "DFW Airport" TRE station is a joke. It is so far away from the airport and requires changing two buses from the station to reach the airport terminals. Moreover, by end of this year DART will start bus connection to DFW Airport from Orange Line's last station, and in a couple of years the DART Orange line will run straight into DFW Airport. So the TRE connection to airport is going to lose its charm anyway.
 
question:

Would it be imagineable that once this link is double-tracked and Amtrak starts using it, that the Heartland Flyer could also be extended to Dallas on it?

That would be a big big plus for the Heartland Flyer (whether or not it stops at DFW).
 
Texan Eagle said:
cirdan said:
For example there has been talk that the TE could then additionally serve DFW airport. that would be good for DFW and it would be good for all the towns that thus gain a direct airport link. Opposing that would only be pedantry.
Click to expand...
DFW Airport/Centre Point station is already served by multiple TRE services Monday-Saturday. I don't think adding one hardly-on-time long distance train to reach that spot is going to terribly interest the local counties. Anyway the "DFW Airport" TRE station is a joke. It is so far away from the airport and requires changing two buses from the station to reach the airport terminals. Moreover, by end of this year DART will start bus connection to DFW Airport from Orange Line's last station, and in a couple of years the DART Orange line will run straight into DFW Airport. So the TRE connection to airport is going to lose its charm anyway.
Click to expand...
And there is no long term parking at Centre Point so parking there to catch the TE is not an option.
 
cirdan said:
But if an accident happens on the present line, Amtrak also has to pay up, even if its' not their fault.

So transferring to the new line would not put Amtrak at any disadvantage from the liability viewpoint.

However, it would permit faster and more reliable service.

So even if Amtrak owns all the liability, they're still one up on the present situation.

Risking losing all that money just to prove a point seems a silly gamble to me.
Click to expand...
I think having a uniform indemnification agreement is important in order to control costs, something that Amtrak has been asked to do by their paymasters. You can't have it both ways wherein on the one hand you demand controlling costs and on the other hand each time it proves convenient one expects Amtrak to take on additional potential liability. Apparently there are significant differences in liability depending on which approach is taken. So I suspect your characterization that Amtrak ahs to pay the same amount each way is most likely incorrect.
 
jis said:
cirdan said:
But if an accident happens on the present line, Amtrak also has to pay up, even if its' not their fault.

So transferring to the new line would not put Amtrak at any disadvantage from the liability viewpoint.

However, it would permit faster and more reliable service.

So even if Amtrak owns all the liability, they're still one up on the present situation.

Risking losing all that money just to prove a point seems a silly gamble to me.
Click to expand...
I think having a uniform indemnification agreement is important in order to control costs, something that Amtrak has been asked to do by their paymasters. You can't have it both ways wherein on the one hand you demand controlling costs and on the other hand each time it proves convenient one expects Amtrak to take on additional potential liability. Apparently there are significant differences in liability depending on which approach is taken. So I suspect your characterization that Amtrak ahs to pay the same amount each way is most likely incorrect.
Click to expand...
To your point, NOBODY wants to be responsible for any sort of loss, regardless of blame. The problem here is that Amtrak has had the backing of the US Government for 40 years and the legacy railroads have enjoyed that. If CSX has a loose spike and Amtrak derails because of it, CSX has ZERO liability. Amtrak pays out all claims. This has resulted in HUGE insurance premiums for Amtrak.

Now that someone is trying to reign in Amtrak's costs, Amtrak is saying NO MORE. Since, by law, Amtrak doesn't have to any more, they don't want to. They'll take responsibility for what they are directly involved in (ie: collisions, mechanical failure, etc), but they're going to pay the host RR a lot of money to run a little twice a day train on their rails. If they aren't up to snuff, the Host RR pays.

Problem now is that these new start ups, ie: NM Railrunner, SunRail, and now the TRE, just points and says "You've always done it this way [because you've had to]. We don't want to pick up the cost, so you carry the full liability."

Amtrak huffs, puff, then gives in.

The host, however, benefits from improved infrastructure [required to even consider Amtrak coming along], all while taking no responsibility for their maintenance or lack thereof should Amtrak exhibit a loss on their line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VentureForth said:
Problem now is that these new start ups, ie: NM Railrunner, SunRail, and now the TRE, just points and says "You've always done it this way [because you've had to]. We don't want to pick up the cost, so you carry the full liability."

Amtrak huffs, puff, then gives in.

The host, however, benefits from improved infrastructure [required to even consider Amtrak coming along], all while taking no responsibility for their maintenance or lack thereof should Amtrak exhibit a loss on their line.
Click to expand...
VentureForth, my recollection is vague here, but didn't the Florida Legislature actually adopt a modified indemnity policy in order to resolve the issue with Amtrak? Anyone remember what the exact issue and change was?

In the TRE case it appears that the net argument is about whether the the Federal taxpayer should foot the bill in question covering the portion apportion-able to TRE beyond the Texas threshold, right? Or am I misreading something here?
 
jis said:
VentureForth, my recollection is vague here, but didn't the Florida Legislature actually adopt a modified indemnity policy in order to resolve the issue with Amtrak? Anyone remember what the exact issue and change was?

In the TRE case it appears that the net argument is about whether the the Federal taxpayer should foot the bill in question covering the portion apportion-able to TRE beyond the Texas threshold, right? Or am I misreading something here?
Click to expand...
My understanding in the FL SunRail situation, Amtrak got what it wanted in full for the liability agreement. The same arrangement that Amtrak has with all the Class 1 freight railroads and by inference from the statements, with Metro-North and other commuter rail owned track that Amtrak operates on. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the liability situation because of the more complex legal aspects. I'm not a lawyer nor all that knowledgeable how this works; it would be useful if someone who does understand how the railroads address liability when operating on each other tracks.

Found this Miami Herald article from February as the Florida legislature was about to pass the bill which would allow Amtrak to have the same liability indemnification that it has with the Class 1s. The focus from the FL side is how Amtrak would be shielded from lawsuits if Amtrak is at fault and runs into a SunRail train or causes an accident. They should be looking at it from the other way: what if SunRail does not perform proper track maintenance and an Amtrak train derails at speed with 450 people on board? SunRail could get hit with lawsuits by Amtrak and up to 450 people. As I understand it, in these arrangements, identification means that Amtrak takes full liability for the Amtrak train equipment, crew, and passengers. The host railroad assumes liability for the tracks, damage to their equipment, and injury of passengers on the commuter train if a commuter operator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a lawyer but is the limited liability issue of the state of Texas is the issue. If Amtrak hit a state run train (under current TX, and former FL law) they could be sued by the passangers from the state run train. That the issue, again. That why Amtrak wants / needs a change. So if contact is made with a state train with a limited liability, the passangers can not seek damages from Amtrak for there injuries. That my non-lawer understandIng.
 
cirdan said:
If an accident happens on the present line, Amtrak also has to pay up, even if its' not their fault.
Click to expand...
Exactly. No matter whose fault it is Amtrak almost always ends up paying the damages regardless of the cause or the verdict. The only exception I'm aware of are criminal acts, which are hard to prove when the defendant is a major corporation and which Amtrak may not even have a legal standing to pursue in the first place. Anyone who thinks that Amtrak's current indemnity agreements make any financial or moral sense for Amtrak might want to take another look at their assumptions.

So far as I can tell today's lopsided indemnity agreements were the result of an early win by Burlington Northern. Unfortunately for Amtrak Burlington Northern's chairman, Louis W. Menk, sat on Amtrak's board at the time of the original negotiations. Once Burlington Northern had won nearly everything they wanted it was not long before the rest of the railroads demanded equally preferential treatment. These agreements had become so lopsided they risked being found illegal and thus unenforceable.

When judges started to question the blanket immunity provisions the freight railroads rushed to defend their protections. The main claim by the freight railroads backing indemnity agreements was that they were necessary to prevent excessive losses and that they were common between freight railroads and thus should be enforceable against Amtrak as well. Congress agreed with their benefactors and as a result of their concern passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 ensuring that it would be much more difficult to successfully challenge the legality of blanket immunity provided by Amtrak to several of the largest and richest freight railroads the world has ever known.

However, this doesn't seem to add up for me. If you're free from being punished as a result of your own neglegence then what incentive is there for you to heed harsh verdicts and punitive damages? All you have to do is submit a bill to your guardian angel and go about your business.

If two freight railroads of similar size and volume enter into an indemnity agreement of equal weight then there may in fact be little cause for concern as the liability ratio may remain relatively unchanged. Unfortunately, if one very small railroad enters into an indemnity agreement with a very large railroad then unless the contract counteracts the differences in size and volume the smaller participant could be put at an extreme disadvantage.

When the smaller participant runs trains at speeds substantially faster than the rest of the traffic with possibly hundreds of times the number of potential plaintiffs you begin to see just how bad this is for Amtrak. Combine these lousy odds across several other much larger railroads and you've created the perfect storm liability wise.

This New York Times article is a rare glimpse into what Amtrak is up against every time a passenger train leaves the station.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The current arrangement is essentially the same as "No Fault" automobile insurance.

Afigg appears to have it right. Given that TRE is a commuter operation and the track owner, they should want to keep status quo.

It is not so far as I know result of Lou Menk and BN's policial clout but was standard in the railroad industry long before either came into existance. It is standard in all trackage rights agreemetns that I know anything about and has been for probably more than a century. Remember, Amtrak's position on most of its routes is essentially that of a trackage rights tenant. Only in the northeast corridor and a few other places is it the track owner and the freight line the tenant.

It is also the issue of precedent. If Amtrak gives in here, then everybody else will want the same thing. It would also change the relationship between Amtrak and host rialroad. If you think the railroad companies are less than enthusiastic about increased Amtrak service on their lines, their current position is highly enthusiastic comparted to what it would be come with the sort of liability relationshp the state of Texas is wanting.
 
George Harris said:
It is not so far as I know result of Lou Menk and BN's policial clout but was standard in the railroad industry long before either came into existance. It is standard in all trackage rights agreemetns that I know anything about and has been for probably more than a century. Remember, Amtrak's position on most of its routes is essentially that of a trackage rights tenant. Only in the northeast corridor and a few other places is it the track owner and the freight line the tenant.
Click to expand...
So you've already tossed aside the rather obvious point that Amtrak is accepting the vast majority of the combined liability simply because they are carrying as many as a hundred times the number of potential plaintiffs and have no similarly sized network which could benefit in equal measure from its own indemnity clause?

George Harris said:
It is also the issue of precedent. If Amtrak gives in here, then everybody else will want the same thing. It would also change the relationship between Amtrak and host rialroad. If you think the railroad companies are less than enthusiastic about increased Amtrak service on their lines, their current position is highly enthusiastic comparted to what it would be come with the sort of liability relationshp the state of Texas is wanting.
Click to expand...
Precedent is what backs up the assertion that this goes back to negotiations with Burlington Northern, which was a new agreement between vastly unequal partners for reasons already given and which you've apparently dismissed without explanation. Obviously if the indemnity laws were changed to punish the party or parties who actually at fault (how novel) then the laws governing future access rights would also need to be modified to counteract the potential for retaliation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top