Suburban Station wrote:true, restoration of the old route would get them off CN for that portion. I believe it's owned by a short lineThree guesses with the first two not counting, who operates that Short Line?
Railroad Forums
Amtrak Sunset East Reactivation Proposal (Including City of New Orleans Extension)
- Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
I'm pretty sure that the suggestion was to re-route over Grenada and bring the old line up to passenger speeds
B. Dawe's map of routes and urban populations https://brendandawe.carto.com/viz/80b9d ... /embed_map" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; NOW updated with 2016 Canadian Populations
gokeefe wrote:Because BNSF (Empire Buildier and Southwest Chief) is an exceptionally cooperative host ... CN (City of New Orleans) has an adversarial relationship with Amtrak on certain (most?) items ...It's not just Amtrak that the CN is adversarial with. They also hate Metra, effectively killed off the Star proposal when they took control of the EJ&E, and haven't allowed any meaningful expansions on the Heritage or NCS corridors.
==============================================
Owner/operator of TrainSim.com (the internet's largest train simulation community)
Owner/operator of TrainSim.com (the internet's largest train simulation community)
Gilbert B Norman wrote:Cn sold it in 2009, it changed hands again in 2015 and is operated by iphSuburban Station wrote:true, restoration of the old route would get them off CN for that portion. I believe it's owned by a short lineThree guesses with the first two not counting, who operates that Short Line?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada_Railway" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Suburban Station on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's part of Iowa Pacific now,make $$$ off of car storage fees.
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!
Backshophoss wrote:It's part of Iowa Pacific now,make $$$ off of car storage fees.Wonder what the North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority thinks of Iowa Pacific these days. It isn't like there's enough cash in that part of MS (or the will in the rest of the state) to repair the Grenada District to mainline standards though, let alone 100 mph City of New Orleans speeds.
I think we should probably count our lucky stars that Amtrak is running over CN in that part of the country ...
gokeefe
gokeefe wrote:I think we should probably count our lucky stars that Amtrak is running in that part of the country ...Fixed that for you
Lol ... that too ...
gokeefe
A recent letter from CSX to the Atmore [AL] News says it will cost $2 Billion dollars to bring things up to passenger train standards, and that even then, the service will under-perform according to the legal standards of 80 % on time performance at stations. Two billion dollars? Did I miss something?
That is CSX's most recent "negotiating position", according to reports (aimed at masking the passenger proposals just go away, I'd imagine). Before CSX walked out of the negotiations, they had been talking at the (still ludicrous) $800 million level.
Only half facetiously, I'd really like to ask CSX how they have managed to neglect and and generally let the railroad get so 'run down' in twelve years that it'd take $2 billion to get it back to the standards it was previously.
Only half facetiously, I'd really like to ask CSX how they have managed to neglect and and generally let the railroad get so 'run down' in twelve years that it'd take $2 billion to get it back to the standards it was previously.
So how does this work? Amtrak has compelled access as I understand it.
How can the host railroad be forced to spend the coin necessary to upgrade and maintain the trackage for passenger usage?
How can the host railroad be forced to spend the coin necessary to upgrade and maintain the trackage for passenger usage?
scoostraw wrote:So how does this work? Amtrak has compelled access as I understand it.Correct but no one can compel the host railroad to upgrade existing infrastructure. The railroads can also claim that they "need" certain improvements in order to be able to operate. They have a lot of leeway in how much they can demand in capital improvements and on busy Class I lines it's pretty easy for them to establish their case.
scoostraw wrote:How can the host railroad be forced to spend the coin necessary to upgrade and maintain the trackage for passenger usage?If they receive federally provided capital funds they must commit to maintain the tracks to a certain standard which varies depending on the intent of the grant (freight v. passenger).
gokeefe
gokeefe wrote:But likewise, if they don't accept federal funds for capital improvements then they don't have to maintain the higher standards for passenger rail.scoostraw wrote:How can the host railroad be forced to spend the coin necessary to upgrade and maintain the trackage for passenger usage?If they receive federally provided capital funds they must commit to maintain the tracks to a certain standard which varies depending on the intent of the grant (freight v. passenger).
That was the thinking CSX took after the route was damaged after that Hurricane that suspended service east of NOL.
CSX DID reopen that route to freight traffic,but would NOT accept Amtrak's $$$ for need repairs for passenger service return.
About that time CSX demanded a new Inland route as part of the funding needed to return the Sunset Ltd east back to the line used.
That forced the now ongoing "service suspended" tag to placed on the route east of NOL.
CSX DID reopen that route to freight traffic,but would NOT accept Amtrak's $$$ for need repairs for passenger service return.
About that time CSX demanded a new Inland route as part of the funding needed to return the Sunset Ltd east back to the line used.
That forced the now ongoing "service suspended" tag to placed on the route east of NOL.
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!