Gulf Breeze Mobile - Birmingham - Huntsville - Chattanooga Past and Future?

Is this ex routes ROW still used? Any chance for it to be used again by Amtrak?

Mr. Bobby S, this is the Louisville & Nashville "main line" from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast that was once the route of the Humming Bird from Chicago and the Crescent from New York; during the Amtrak era, the route had service Birmingham Mobile with through Coach and Sleeper from the Crescent. However, the service was discontiunued, I think, as part of the Carter Cuts.

This is a major CSX route, and I'm certain that any new passenger train initiatives would be met with resistance (as I personally think would be the case with any Class I).

Gilbert B Norman wrote: This is a major CSX route, and I'm certain that any new passenger train initiatives would be met with resistance (as I personally think would be the case with any Class I).

Mr. Norman, suppose that Amtrak and a state(s) wanted to establish a new corridor day service between two populated areas (no more than 500 miles apart). Moreover, suppose this corridor's service was to be 110 MPH, with state and federal money being used to increase capacity and improve the tracks so that they meet FRA standards for 80-110 MPH service. Would the Class 1 railroad that owns the tracks resist this proposal?

tarheelman wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote: This is a major CSX route, and I'm certain that any new passenger train initiatives would be met with resistance (as I personally think would be the case with any Class I).

Mr. Norman, suppose that Amtrak and a state(s) wanted to establish a new corridor day service between two populated areas (no more than 500 miles apart). Moreover, suppose this corridor's service was to be 110 MPH, with state and federal money being used to increase capacity and improve the tracks so that they meet FRA standards for 80-110 MPH service. Would the Class 1 railroad that owns the tracks resist this proposal?

maybe since it would take 10 years to do what you propose.

New York State proposed something of this sort of improvement to CSX between Albany and Schenectady. CSX was worried about having to pay the increased taxes on the improved property.

tarheelman wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote: This is a major CSX route, and I'm certain that any new passenger train initiatives would be met with resistance (as I personally think would be the case with any Class I).

Mr. Norman, suppose that Amtrak and a state(s) wanted to establish a new corridor day service between two populated areas (no more than 500 miles apart). Moreover, suppose this corridor's service was to be 110 MPH, with state and federal money being used to increase capacity and improve the tracks so that they meet FRA standards for 80-110 MPH service. Would the Class 1 railroad that owns the tracks resist this proposal?

There's not one single example where this has been accomplished so far. If you start with the assumption that 110 mph is entry level for high-ish speed rail, it tends to point toward fast and modern passenger rail service on private ROW as a dead end unless there's a game-changing event that has yet to occur.

JimBoylan wrote:New York State proposed something of this sort of improvement to CSX between Albany and Schenectady. CSX was worried about having to pay the increased taxes on the improved property.

If I where running for president, I would encourage LOWER taxes for having this improved property, although I do realize the predicament that csx and the government is in, if they do it for csx, they need to do it for everyone.

To directly respond to Mr. Tarheel's inquiry, if there is to be any serious initiative to establish or upgrade passenger service over a route, then the public agency sponsoring such had best be prepared to acquire that right of way. This is the only way to positively assure that the passenger trains will have priority and whatever freight operations remain will be conducted at the sufferance of such. The Northeast corridor is the best example of a public ROW acquisition. While the transaction between Conrail (yes, it WAS with Conrail and not PC) and Amtrak was essentially cash free (Amtrak "worked it off' by allowing freight access; it was roundly "paid off' by the '99 CR takeover).

Now I am mindful that there are "sixteen a day" Oakland-Sacramento ("twenty a day" Oakland Martinez) over a railroad owned ROW and that the Union Pacific has agreed to have publicly funded improvements made to support passenger traffic. No doubt, they have agreed to more stringent OTP provisions than they have regarding other Amtrak operations. However, there is an "alt route' for freight over the Western Pacific. Also of note, there are "six a day' over the BNSF Stockton-Bakersfield - again railroad owned.

Some could say that this Central California initiative indicates there can be railroad-passenger agency cooperation; to my best knowledge, these trains all run "more or less" on time. But I am really speculating now, somehow the California passenger agency will not consider the job to be done until they acquire these ROW's.

As I've noted, even if I was at first skeptical in view of previous initiatives' outcomes, I'm "pleased as punch" to learn the additional Illinois trains are "doing OK" and that the "broke" State has continued to find the wherewithal to fund such. However I still hold that to have a REAL initiative, Illinois should be considering (no doubt they are - well considering) acquisition of the GM&O and MILW to enable a Milwaukee St Louis corridor.

In closing, if there is to be real passenger service initiatives, where the service speed is 110 or higher instead of 79, and where options such as electrification can be considered, then the ROW must be in public hands.

But, remember "The Fifth' as Mr. Mudlake notes; allow myself to note there is more to it than Tony Soprano "on the stand' saying "I plea the Fifth'.

JimBoylan wrote:New York State proposed something of this sort of improvement to CSX between Albany and Schenectady. CSX was worried about having to pay the increased taxes on the improved property.

NYS has an asinine policy of charging taxes per track mile.
Examples of where the host-passenger has worked well is the downeaster. I believe St. Louis-chicago is slated for 110 mph speeds as well.

JimBoylan wrote:New York State proposed something of this sort of improvement to CSX between Albany and Schenectady. CSX was worried about having to pay the increased taxes on the improved property.

This was a proposed restoration of double track on what is already a high speed line, if I remember correctly. If so, it would seem simple enough for New York to overcome CSX's objection by guaranteeing in some sort of legally binding manner that taxes on that stretch would not be increased over current levels solely on the basis of the NY-funded improvements.

Suburban Station wrote:

JimBoylan wrote:New York State proposed something of this sort of improvement to CSX between Albany and Schenectady. CSX was worried about having to pay the increased taxes on the improved property.

NYS has an asinine policy of charging taxes per track mile.
Examples of where the host-passenger has worked well is the downeaster. I believe St. Louis-chicago is slated for 110 mph speeds as well.

From a ridership standpoint, the Downeaster seems to have done reasonably well but at an average ticket price of around $15, it has a lot of tailwind. However, I really struggle to declare any train that traverses roughly 115 miles in nearly two and a half hours a success. How many more people would ride that line if it made it in an hour and a half?

The Chicago - St. Louis line has been slated for 110 mph speeds for what seems like forever and are we any closer today than we were three or four years ago?

Gilbert B Norman wrote:To directly respond to Mr. Tarheel's inquiry, if there is to be any serious initiative to establish or upgrade passenger service over a route, then the public agency sponsoring such had best be prepared to acquire that right of way. This is the only way to positively assure that the passenger trains will have priority and whatever freight operations remain will be conducted at the sufferance of such. The Northeast corridor is the best example of a public ROW acquisition. While the transaction between Conrail (yes, it WAS with Conrail and not PC) and Amtrak was essentially cash free (Amtrak "worked it off' by allowing freight access; it was roundly "paid off' by the '99 CR takeover).

Now I am mindful that there are "sixteen a day" Oakland-Sacramento ("twenty a day" Oakland Martinez) over a railroad owned ROW and that the Union Pacific has agreed to have publicly funded improvements made to support passenger traffic. No doubt, they have agreed to more stringent OTP provisions than they have regarding other Amtrak operations. However, there is an "alt route' for freight over the Western Pacific. Also of note, there are "six a day' over the BNSF Stockton-Bakersfield - again railroad owned.

Some could say that this Central California initiative indicates there can be railroad-passenger agency cooperation; to my best knowledge, these trains all run "more or less" on time. But I am really speculating now, somehow the California passenger agency will not consider the job to be done until they acquire these ROW's.

As I've noted, even if I was at first skeptical in view of previous initiatives' outcomes, I'm "pleased as punch" to learn the additional Illinois trains are "doing OK" and that the "broke" State has continued to find the wherewithal to fund such. However I still hold that to have a REAL initiative, Illinois should be considering (no doubt they are - well considering) acquisition of the GM&O and MILW to enable a Milwaukee St Louis corridor.

In closing, if there is to be real passenger service initiatives, where the service speed is 110 or higher instead of 79, and where options such as electrification can be considered, then the ROW must be in public hands.

But, remember "The Fifth' as Mr. Mudlake notes; allow myself to note there is more to it than Tony Soprano "on the stand' saying "I plea the Fifth'.

Thanks for the detailed answer, Mr. Norman. I understand your point about public purchase of the ROW being the only way to "100% ensure" that passenger trains always will be given priority over freight trains. However, because of the huge cost of making the capacity and speed improvements to the tracks, it might be better for the federal and state governments to join with the Class 1 railroad in funding these upgrades---this would avoid putting the burden of the entire cost on the taxpayers. In return for help with funding, the Class 1 would be required to give priority to the passenger trains which, with the capacity improvements, shouldn't interfere with their freight trains. Moreover, in exchange for indemnity from liability, the Class 1 would be required to maintain the tracks so that they continue to meet FRA standards for 80-110 MPH operation. (A $1 per ticket surcharge could go into a maintenance fund to help with this.) Then, several years (probably at least a decade) in the future after the upgrades have been completed and the corridor services have started, the federal and state governments can begin to fund a purchase of the ROW from the Class 1 railroad in exchange for trackage rights (and complete use of the tracks from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M.).

MudLake wrote:
The Chicago - St. Louis line has been slated for 110 mph speeds for what seems like forever and are we any closer today than we were three or four years ago?

What is frustrating about the chicago-St. Louis corridor(I rode it both ways this summer) is the single tracking, and the lack of passing sidings. It happened about 2-3 times both ways, when the train moved onto a siding (that was NOT a passing siding), waited for another train to pass, proceeded to execute a reverse move(off the siding) and then back forward. The first time this happened it was so odd cause of the reverse move (that almost NEVER happens on the nec).

i think youll find parrallels in the telecommunications and electrcitiy industries , where the company owning the lines have been forced to let others use their lines to allow competition and break a monopoly . But i would say they would pay market rates for that access .

Well this went way off topic! LOL What happened to the old stations on this route? ex; Montgomery Or were they Amshacks that were taken down?