Latest Texas Eagle / TRE News

[Anderson]

Just a thought, but I think gross negligence is another exception to any liability agreement. This has come up a few times (surrounding BP in particular), but as a rule if negligence is extreme enough then I think it's basically considered a breach of the agreement by the negligent party.

 

[George Harris]

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.

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.

It is obvious that you did not really read what I said. These precendents go back over 100 years. Amtrak - BN was just one more along the way. Since Amtrak was and is primarily a creature of the government, I would hardly call BN the big dog in this fight.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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.

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.

It is obvious that you did not really read what I said. These precendents go back over 100 years. Amtrak - BN was just one more along the way. Since Amtrak was and is primarily a creature of the government, I would hardly call BN the big dog in this fight.

I read every part of it. I just don't understand how you can see a fledgling passenger rail startup as the equal of a large conglomerate like Burlington Northern. Amtrak was by all accounts a last ditch emergency creation that had few specific powers over its own destiny. When a judge eventually took notice of the lopsided agreements Amtrak was forced to accept our own congress decided to side with the freight railroads. Indeed they passed a law granting special status to Amtrak to allow the freight railroads to continue holding Amtrak liable for millions of potential plaintiffs across tens of thousands of miles in return for the reciprocal protection of only a few thousand potential plaintiffs across a few hundred route miles in return. Does that sound like equal footing to you?

 

[George Harris]

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.

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.

It is obvious that you did not really read what I said. These precendents go back over 100 years. Amtrak - BN was just one more along the way. Since Amtrak was and is primarily a creature of the government, I would hardly call BN the big dog in this fight.

I read every part of it. I just don't understand how you can see a fledgling passenger rail startup as the equal of a large conglomerate like Burlington Northern. Amtrak was by all accounts a last ditch emergency creation that had few specific powers over its own destiny. When a judge eventually took notice of the lopsided agreements Amtrak was forced to accept our own congress decided to side with the freight railroads. Indeed they passed a law granting special status to Amtrak to allow the freight railroads to continue holding Amtrak liable for millions of potential plaintiffs across tens of thousands of miles in return for the reciprocal protection of only a few thousand potential plaintiffs across a few hundred route miles in return. Does that sound like equal footing to you?

Your opinion is noted. I see no reason to repeat what I have already said.

 

[Trogdor]

On the other hand, Amtrak is granted access to the railroad infrastructure owned by the freights at a tiny pittance of what they could get by running a freight train in that slot. Make the track owners liable for potential damages, and they'd be certain to demand that Amtrak pay for that in increased track charges, since Amtrak would be causing a significant increase in the railroads costs (through liability insurance). In the end, Amtrak still pays. Just a matter of how and when.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

On the other hand, Amtrak is granted access to the railroad infrastructure owned by the freights at a tiny pittance of what they could get by running a freight train in that slot.

Considering that freight railroads essentially run 24/7 they are not likely to be giving up a whole train's worth of transport in order to serve Amtrak unless the line is already at or near maximum capacity. However, even in that situation the host railroad could still choose to put Amtrak onto a siding and push their own train through. And there are other ways they can free up space for freight, such as when BNSF implements their unilateral 48-hour ban on passenger trains following mudslides.

Make the track owners liable for potential damages, and they'd be certain to demand that Amtrak pay for that in increased track charges, since Amtrak would be causing a significant increase in the railroads costs (through liability insurance). In the end, Amtrak still pays. Just a matter of how and when.

Yes, if we let the freight railroad dictate the terms then Amtrak will always be on the losing end. The only way to prevent that is to stop letting the freight railroads dictate the terms.

 

[tonys96]

"Amtrak has asked for TRE to assume liability on its line, even in the event of a crash involving an Amtrak train. TRE has balked at that proposal."

Hell, folks, I do not blame the TRE for not accepting liability no matter who was at fault.

Any of y'all want to accept liability for my driving? I thought not.

 

[Trogdor]

On the other hand, Amtrak is granted access to the railroad infrastructure owned by the freights at a tiny pittance of what they could get by running a freight train in that slot.

Considering that freight railroads essentially run 24/7 they are not likely to be giving up a whole train's worth of transport in order to serve Amtrak

No. They're giving up more.

I don't think most people realize, let alone appreciate, what a 79 mph passenger train does on a railroad full of 50-60 mph freights.

Whenever trains are operating at more or less the same speed, you can run them as close as the signal spacing will allow. However, if you put a significant speed differential between trains, especially one that railroads are legally supposed to give priority over their own trains (whether or not they do is for another topic, and the whole definition of what constitutes "priority" on a network as complex as a railroad is yet another discussion beyond that). If one works under the assumption that the goal is to delay the passenger train as little as possible, then that means that every time the passenger train catches up to the freight in front, then something has to stop and hold so the passenger train can get around it. On a double-track line, that either means stopping the freight that the passenger train is following, then having the passenger train cross over to the other main, run around, then cross over again, while traffic heading in the other direction comes to a complete stop (a process that, depending on the location of the crossovers, could take 15-20 minutes or more), or you keep the first train moving, but can have nothing coming in the other direction for several dozen miles (since the first freight and the passenger train are moving in the same direction).

That's if you have double track. If the line is single track, then it just becomes that much more complicated.

unless the line is already at or near maximum capacity.

A line doesn't have to be at maximum capacity (which isn't really a set number, because it's dependent on the types of trains involved) for a passenger train to cause problems on a freight railroad. As noted above, the speed differential combined with the need to give priority to the passenger train eats up a ton of capacity.

However, even in that situation the host railroad could still choose to put Amtrak onto a siding and push their own train through.

But technically, that's against the law (at least, if it can be demonstrated that the freight trains are intentionally giving preference to their own trains on a regular basis).

Yes, if we let the freight railroad dictate the terms then Amtrak will always be on the losing end. The only way to prevent that is to stop letting the freight railroads dictate the terms.

As long as the freight railroads own the tracks, they will dictate the terms. There's really no other way around it.

 

[cirdan]

Whenever trains are operating at more or less the same speed, you can run them as close as the signal spacing will allow. However, if you put a significant speed differential between trains, especially one that railroads are legally supposed to give priority over their own trains (whether or not they do is for another topic, and the whole definition of what constitutes "priority" on a network as complex as a railroad is yet another discussion beyond that). If one works under the assumption that the goal is to delay the passenger train as little as possible, then that means that every time the passenger train catches up to the freight in front, then something has to stop and hold so the passenger train can get around it. On a double-track line, that either means stopping the freight that the passenger train is following, then having the passenger train cross over to the other main, run around, then cross over again, while traffic heading in the other direction comes to a complete stop (a process that, depending on the location of the crossovers, could take 15-20 minutes or more), or you keep the first train moving, but can have nothing coming in the other direction for several dozen miles (since the first freight and the passenger train are moving in the same direction).

This is true of course. But i wonder

1) how many lines are geneuinely so choc- a-bloc with trains that this problem is real. You can go train watching on busy lines and sometimes wait for hours without seeing anything at all. Remember also that BNSF has invited Amtrak to come off the Raton Pass line and run on the transcon instead, one of the busiest lines in the whole US. I have expressed my sceptiscism towards that on another thread where we discussed it, but I was clearly the only one. So I bowed to the superior knowledge of the others that it isn't an issue.

2) Just because a train can run at 79mph it doesn't mean it always will. It may be more efficient to leave a passenger train running behind a freight until the next major yard or junction than to initiate an overtaking operation every time one catches up. Also remember passenger trains often stop in places where freights don't, so that allows the freight time to make headway. I think in the bigger picture it all averages out.

3) Some freight railroads also run fast freights at passenger speeds. So it's not as if the concept of passenger train speeds is totally alien to them or that they wouldn't have to deal with it anway. A smart scheduler might run a passenger train immeditaely in front of or behind such a fast freight and so minimize disruption.

 

[jis]

Curious, which railroad runs fast freights at passenger speeds.

 

[cirdan]

Curious, which railroad runs fast freights at passenger speeds.

Doesn't UPRR for example, run refrigerated trains of fresh produce from California to the North-East?

There was an article in Trains magaizine some years ago.

 

[jis]

Curious, which railroad runs fast freights at passenger speeds.

Doesn't UPRR for example, run refrigerated trains of fresh produce from California to the North-East?

There was an article in Trains magaizine some years ago.

At what speed though? Do freight railroads even have any locomotives that can run at anything faster than 70mph anymore?

Of course, one solution maybe to just run passenger trains at the same speed as freight hotshots, which would be 70mph.

But Trog's point is real. Things do not just magically average out. Mixing trains of multiple speeds is seriously destructive of line capacity and certainly adds considerable complexity to dispatching.Of course it is not just freight railroads which face this problem. Amtrak faces this in spades on its own railroad since most commuter railroads appear to run their trains somewhat like freight trains as far as speed goes.

 

[VentureForth]

To the best of my knowledge, there are only three categories of train speeds: Freight, Passenger, and Auto Train. On the CSX mainline, much of it is listed at 59 MPH for freight, 70 MPH for AT and 79 MPH for passenger.

The Tropicana Juice train is a PRIORITY train, but it doesn't get to go more than the posted "F" speed.

I am unaware of any California to NE fruit train.

 

[Trogdor]

1) how many lines are geneuinely so choc- a-bloc with trains that this problem is real. You can go train watching on busy lines and sometimes wait for hours without seeing anything at all.

The line doesn't have to be jam-packed for it to be an issue. You just have to have freight and passenger trains in the same general time period. A long-distance train may travel considerable distance without being delayed by freight trains, but it's not going to go the entire route without encountering some congestion. Some lines, though, are quite congested, and plenty of time can be lost weaving trains in and out of each others' way.

2) Just because a train can run at 79mph it doesn't mean it always will. It may be more efficient to leave a passenger train running behind a freight until the next major yard or junction than to initiate an overtaking operation every time one catches up.

If you want a 48-hour long-distance train trip to take 56 hours, then fine. Essentially, we're coming back to the key debate about whether passenger trains should take priority on a line that primarily serves freight. If you don't care about timeliness and cost, then you may very well be fine with having passenger trains run at freight speeds and following freight trains dependent on the flow of traffic. But that has consequences for both revenue (while someone taking a long-distance train end-to-end may not take speed as their most important factor, eventually the train trip will be too long to be practical, plus there are people traveling on LD trains but taking shorter trips, for whom travel time may be more important, then there is the issue of connections that will be missed due to longer schedules, equipment turns and requirements, etc.) and cost (a longer trip means you're paying the crew for longer, and/or requiring more crews such as conductors and engineers).

The theory is that passenger trains should have priority so they can make good time, but that priority comes with a cost to capacity, and that cost is not covered by what Amtrak pays to the railroads (to bring this slightly back onto the topic of the tangent that this thread went on).

As for following the train just to the next yard, yards can be dozens or hundreds of miles apart. Plus, if that yard isn't actually where the freight train is headed, then you still have a delay to that freight train, which could very well add up to more time than if it just held at a control point for the passenger train to cross over. If you take a 10,000-foot freight train and have it enter a yard at restricted speed (which could be as low as 10 mph on certain railroads for yard speed, and even slower if there are switches or other potential obstructions in that yard), you're talking 10-15 minutes just for the train to get into the yard. If you wind up following four freight trains, you could lose an hour just doing that.

Also remember passenger trains often stop in places where freights don't, so that allows the freight time to make headway. I think in the bigger picture it all averages out.

It doesn't. Most passenger stops are maybe 2-3 minutes, and are spaced fairly well apart. A 79 mph passenger train making brief stops mixes fairly well with a 70 mph freight train that isn't stopping. If the freight is going 60 mph or 55 mph, then something is still going to get delayed.

3) Some freight railroads also run fast freights at passenger speeds. So it's not as if the concept of passenger train speeds is totally alien to them or that they wouldn't have to deal with it anway. A smart scheduler might run a passenger train immeditaely in front of or behind such a fast freight and so minimize disruption.

As already noted, freights don't run at passenger speeds, but some can run fairly fast (70 mph). Those are most compatible with passenger trains in mixed traffic, but depending on the railroad, that may not be a significant portion of the traffic.

To the best of my knowledge, there are only three categories of train speeds: Freight, Passenger, and Auto Train. On the CSX mainline, much of it is listed at 59 MPH for freight, 70 MPH for AT and 79 MPH for passenger.

Actually, in most cases, there are only two categories, freight and passenger.

In the Northwest, there's a special "Talgo" category on the Cascades route.

A quick glance at the CSX timetable shows freight speeds are 60 mph max (speeds ending in 9 usually relate to some specific technology requirement for exceeding the next threshold; 50 mph and above for freight or 60 mph and above for passenger require signals, for example, so in unsignalled territory, they would be limited to 49/59 respectively), and 79 mph for passenger.

The Auto Train counts as a passenger train.

However, there are often equipment-specific restrictions that can be more restrictive than the speed on the line. The Auto Tracks, for example, can run at passenger speeds, but cannot exceed 70 mph. The timetable (and any trackside speed signs, if they exist) wouldn't necessarily say anything about this, but the crews on the train have to be aware of any equipment restrictions that further limit their speed.

There are many examples of freight trains that can't do the full freight speed, as well, because of certain equipment types or other conditions (such as braking capability compared to the weight of the train).

 

[cirdan]

The line doesn't have to be jam-packed for it to be an issue. You just have to have freight and passenger trains in the same general time period. A long-distance train may travel considerable distance without being delayed by freight trains, but it's not going to go the entire route without encountering some congestion. Some lines, though, are quite congested, and plenty of time can be lost weaving trains in and out of each others' way......

I can follow your arguments and they all make sense.

But if that is so, why is BNSF so keen on getting the SWC off Raton pass and onto the Transcon?

The BNSF Transcon is one of the busiest freight routes imagineable, and the SWC won't just be the equivelant of one extra freight train, but as you rightly explain, will cause no end to difficulties and restrictions for the other trains it meets and that is possibly the equivalent capacity to quite a lot of freight trains. If i was BNSF I'd be fighting tooth and nail to put the idea out of Amtrak's heads, not saying, please come here and run on this line.

 

[printman2000]

I can follow your arguments and they all make sense.

But if that is so, why is BNSF so keen on getting the SWC off Raton pass and onto the Transcon?

The BNSF Transcon is one of the busiest freight routes imagineable, and the SWC won't just be the equivelant of one extra freight train, but as you rightly explain, will cause no end to difficulties and restrictions for the other trains it meets and that is possibly the equivalent capacity to quite a lot of freight trains. If i was BNSF I'd be fighting tooth and nail to put the idea out of Amtrak's heads, not saying, please come here and run on this line.

Not sure BNSF WANTS the SWC on the transcon between Clovis and Witchita. I think they simply have to offer it since they no longer maintain the Raton line. And the SWC on the transcon would be cheaper than maintaining the Raton line.

 

[Trogdor]

The line doesn't have to be jam-packed for it to be an issue. You just have to have freight and passenger trains in the same general time period. A long-distance train may travel considerable distance without being delayed by freight trains, but it's not going to go the entire route without encountering some congestion. Some lines, though, are quite congested, and plenty of time can be lost weaving trains in and out of each others' way......

I can follow your arguments and they all make sense.

But if that is so, why is BNSF so keen on getting the SWC off Raton pass and onto the Transcon?

The BNSF Transcon is one of the busiest freight routes imagineable, and the SWC won't just be the equivelant of one extra freight train, but as you rightly explain, will cause no end to difficulties and restrictions for the other trains it meets and that is possibly the equivalent capacity to quite a lot of freight trains. If i was BNSF I'd be fighting tooth and nail to put the idea out of Amtrak's heads, not saying, please come here and run on this line.

Because BNSF doesn't want to pay the tens of millions of dollars per year to maintain a line that they otherwise don't need.

 

[AlanB]

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.

This is the main issue right here!

Freight doesn't sue Amtrak, even when the accident is Amtrak's fault. Amtrak covers it's equipment and any passenger lawsuits, the freight companies cover their equipment. But Amtrak hitting another passenger train means that all those passengers can sue Amtrak and Amtrak would have to pay out.

And that is why Amtrak wants this, that is the difference between freight and another passenger train.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

BNSF wants the SWC on the Transcon the whole way because they feel that the losses incurred through slowing of freights there would not be as significant as te maintenance costs of not only Raton but keeping the line through Kansas at the 90 or 79 it was. It's basically a lesser of two evils thing at work here.

 

[printman2000]

Some more news...

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/15/4183488/officials-on-track-to-settle-amtrak.html

 

[afigg]

Some more news...

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/15/4183488/officials-on-track-to-settle-amtrak.html

I wonder if the FRA has decided that it is more important to go ahead and just get the track upgrade project moving ahead, rather to demand that Amtrak and TRE work out the liability issues. If Amtrak and TRE can't reach an agreement, well at least, the double tracks will be there for TRE to use.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Some more news...

http://www.star-tele...tle-amtrak.html

I wonder if the FRA has decided that it is more important to go ahead and just get the track upgrade project moving ahead, rather to demand that Amtrak and TRE work out the liability issues. If Amtrak and TRE can't reach an agreement, well at least, the double tracks will be there for TRE to use.

That would be great - if it could be worked out that way. I have a feeling that currently the allocation has some stipulation somewhere dictating that the money is to be spent to "further Amtrak's reliability" or something and that Amtrak must be using the line to get the funds. I wish it would get double tracked no matter what though.

 

[VentureForth]

I've really expected the double tracking to be done by now. 10 years ago, it was a "priority" for TRE to double track the whole line. Glad they have Amtrak to donate the funds to do it now.

 

[afigg]

That would be great - if it could be worked out that way. I have a feeling that currently the allocation has some stipulation somewhere dictating that the money is to be spent to "further Amtrak's reliability" or something and that Amtrak must be using the line to get the funds. I wish it would get double tracked no matter what though.

The funding for the project is coming from the FRA High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program. The funds that have awarded to CA HSR and were awarded to the Florida Tampa to Orlando HSR project had nothing to do with Amtrak. Because the TRE grant was stimulus money, the FRA has a lot of latitude in the terms of the grants. For this project, the FRA presumably did award the funding on the premise that it would help the Texas Eagle, thus qualifying as intercity passenger rail. But with the September 30 deadline approaching to obligate the funds or lose them (end of FY2012), the FRA may be able to obligate the funds if there is an agreement in principle that the TE can use the TRE route once TRE and Amtrak agree on the liability terms.

Since the project will probably take a year or two to build, gives the legal departments and upper management still more time to negotiate. :wacko:

 

[johnny.menhennet]

The Trains News Wire article from today about this issue says

"That money would have to be returned if the Eagle did not use the new route."