MARC Brunswick Line - Third Track Recommended

Apologies if this has been discussed in a separate thread: Gazette

MTA, Montgomery recommend third track for MARC line

The Maryland Transit Administration is considering adding a third track to MARC's Brunswick Line, though it is not yet clear who would pay for it.

CSX Transportation owns the Brunswick Line and operates freight trains, while MARC leases the rails for the state-run commuter trains. The line itself runs from Union Station through central Montgomery County, including Silver Spring, Gaithersburg and Boyds, then branches out to Frederick and Martinsburg, W.Va.

The proposed third track would be added beside the 12 miles of rail line between Gaithersburg's Metropolitan Grove station and the Montgomery County-Frederick County line, according to a Nov. 8 master plan staff report to the Montgomery County Planning Department. The report did not estimate the project's cost.

...

CSX spokesman Robert Sullivan said the company is willing to discuss proposals with the state, but they must meet at least four conditions.

The new commuter rail service must be safe for existing and future rail operations, and it must not compromise CSX freight service, Sullivan said. It also cannot generate any extra costs for CSX, and it cannot create liability for CSX or its shareholders.

Jeff Smith wrote: CSX spokesman Robert Sullivan said the company is willing to discuss proposals with the state, but they must meet at least four conditions.

The new commuter rail service must be safe for existing and future rail operations, and it must not compromise CSX freight service, Sullivan said. It also cannot generate any extra costs for CSX, and it cannot create liability for CSX or its shareholders.

Let's see: Must be safe for existing and FUTURE rail operations, must not compromise their service, generate extra costs for them or create liability!

Is that all?

I think you can see what they are really trying to say:

Interesting way to show CSX's responce to passenger trains and track improvements.

CSX is a private entity. How would you feel if the government wanted to use your house for something? Wouldn't you want the use to be safe for existing and future occupants and usage? Must not compromise your use of your house? And not generate extra costs or liability for you? Frankly, this sounds reasonable to me. Now, if they have some track that can host 40 trains per day, that currently see 20 trains per day, and you want to run 5, and they want millions for capacity improvements, then you'd have a point. Not saying that is, or will be the case, but as much as we want passenger rail service, CSX should also be able to run its trains they way they always have.

CSX does not exist in a vacuum - and certainly not without the thousands of miles of ex-Conrail track.

MattW wrote:CSX is a private entity. How would you feel if the government wanted to use your house for something? Wouldn't you want the use to be safe for existing and future occupants and usage? Must not compromise your use of your house? And not generate extra costs or liability for you? Frankly, this sounds reasonable to me. Now, if they have some track that can host 40 trains per day, that currently see 20 trains per day, and you want to run 5, and they want millions for capacity improvements, then you'd have a point. Not saying that is, or will be the case, but as much as we want passenger rail service, CSX should also be able to run its trains they way they always have.

I had no problem with that if CSX did the same. They have the AUDACITY to say THEIR safety must not be compromised???? This is the same company who's actions were called BORDERLINE CRIMINAL by a judge after passenger train derailed on their territory. On top of that, they want to be shielded from being liable from their own negligence?? They say they don't want extra costs, yet when you give them money for things like...oh.... switch heaters and pay for them to be installed, they still won't use them to expedite the movements of the trains.

I'd have no problem with this if trains wandered down into their territory. But, they expanded north and divided Conrail, knowing that a ton of passenger services came with it. They KNEW IT and still did a lot to try to chase off the passenger services.

They are lucky more states don't follow VA's lead when they tried to "f" around with the VREs. Va whipped them right into shape. They are quite cooperative. I hope MD does the same!

What does Conrail have to do with any of this? The line in question has always been CSXT property (and before that B&O).

When Conrail was split up, it was done along the former NY Central and PRR lines,which were the largest pre-PC/CR RR's in the region,
Some of the smaller Pre-CR RR's like the EL,LV,NH,CNJ,and L&HR were split to the NYC side or to the PRR side.

NS got the PRR side,CSX got the NYC side when the split was completed.

Yes, I'm quite aware of how the Conrail de-merger worked.

What I'm still trying to figure out is how it is unrealistic for a private company to expect that it's protected from liability and future use of it's privately owned assets when a public agency wants to make use of that private asset?

Either way (Conrail territory or not), why should CSXT not be entitled to the above when a commuter agency wants to make use of it's assets? I know it's often not what commuter rail boosters or railfans want to hear, but at least some states and agencies are beginning to realize that you can't get free or discount access to private assets. Yes, this will drive up the cost of commuter rail projects, but when you want access to a private property you have to play by the owner's terms.

Full indemnity is a huge issue these days, and becoming somewhat standard. I believe Sunrail, Amtrak, et al had this issue in Florida.

octr202 wrote:
What I'm still trying to figure out is how it is unrealistic for a private company to expect that it's protected from liability and future use of it's privately owned assets when a public agency wants to make use of that private asset?

Either way (Conrail territory or not), why should CSXT not be entitled to the above when a commuter agency wants to make use of it's assets? I know it's often not what commuter rail boosters or railfans want to hear, but at least some states and agencies are beginning to realize that you can't get free or discount access to private assets. Yes, this will drive up the cost of commuter rail projects, but when you want access to a private property you have to play by the owner's terms.

Read ThirdRail's response carefully. Two or three times if necessary. Those "assets" are not always kept to the standard they should be. Auto Train derailment in Florida....VRE picking a bad switch and going on the ground in Quantico.....etc. If the tenant causes a wreck, OK fine...its on them. But if the landlord isn't holding up their end of the deal....why should the tenant pick up the bill?

IIRC I read somewhere that the mother of the kid who was killed in the AT derailment went off the deep end and went after CSX when she found out they sent the bill to Amtrak......

Funny they just put in all those fancy new interlockings and a third track would mean they get to start over and signal it again.

Jersey_Mike wrote:Funny they just put in all those fancy new interlockings and a third track would mean they get to start over and signal it again.

Adding a 3rd track doesn't obsolete everything that has been done to the two existing track - you just add in what is necessary to make the 3rd track functional and a operating benefit.

With a third track you would need to change the interlocking limits to support the extra crossovers and also for most major signaling changes it is cheaper to install new equipment in parallel instead of attempting the modify the old stuff.

They need a full 3rd track from Brunswick all the way to DC. I don't see what putting 12 miles of track randomly in the middle will do.