Amtrak New Gulf Coast Service - New Orleans to Mobile AL

MikeBPRR wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 10:08 am I may be wrong, but wouldn't the Class I's be less opposed if someone upgraded their infrastructure for them? My understanding is that the New Orleans - Mobile Route is mostly single-tracked, and to an amateur like me, it seems rather pointless to have a corridor passenger rail service sharing trackage with freight rail if the line isn't double-tracked.

Putting the double track issue aside, that's precisely what the freight railroads have been asking for, Amtrak or a local transit agency reimburse them for all the improvements needed to run passenger trains without causing delays to the freight trains.
The differences of opinions over what is really necessary to make them whole is the root of their reluctance to run passenger trains over their lines. They do not want someone else to upgrade their railroads, what they want is for someone else to pay for them to do it. If Amtrak or a local transit agency balks at what they suggest is needed, that certainly raises their opposition.

It's like taking your car to a mechanic shop to repair your car, and you balk at the mechanic's price. Do you think you should be able to force the mechanic to fix your car at your price? I hope not, that would not be fair to the mechanic. Of course, the transit agencies or Amtrak is not left with the option to use a different mechanic, they are mostly forced to use the one and only railroad in existence. There should be some mechanism in place to arbitrate the differences. Apparently, the STB is the one and only arbitrator.

But it should be done in private without all the publicity present, a fact finding mission on what is needed and why, then how much that should cost. Barting in public does not present the best face possible from either side.

From what I gather from the petitions and latest news, all three (Amtrak, CSX, and NS) were doing that fact-finding mission, but CSX and NS were dragging their heels so much, Amtrak was forced to kick it up to the STB.

After 16 years? And for CSX and NS to try to be opaque when they're required by law to be transparent? Come on.

(And if I hear "5th Amendment" one more time I'm going to counter with "Sherman Antitrust Act")

electricron wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 3:20 am

Thanks for the answer. As a novice, I'm curious - why would a railroad oppose someone else upgrading their infrastructure? On a personal level, if I ran a railroad, and if someone promised to upgrade infrastructure to my specifications with minimal involvement or effort on my end, I'd rather take that offer than have to wait for money to come through, put out a bid for contractors, and potentially pull workers off other projects. As we saw from the CHI-STL debacle, federal grants meant to expand service don't always end up doing so. Then again, there may be something I am missing.

By way of better understanding, this is how the appellate process takes place: It should be noted that the STB federal administrative agency is regulatory, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in nature, and a party aggrieved by a STB decision wishing to contest that decision must first exhaust all remedies at the STB, such as requesting rehearing at the STB of the STB order. Once there is a final order on rehearing, or rehearing denied by the STB, the next step of appeal is to the United States Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the USA. The United States District Court is bypassed as all evidence is introduced at the STB trial-like proceeding. The US District Court is a trial level court, but the trial has already taken place at the STB, so the District Court generally has no potential purpose or role in the contested matter, and would in all probability dismiss any such complaint on motion. Therefore, the aggrieved party files an appeal of a STB order directly to the US Court of Appeals, often the USCA for the DC Circuit, but proper venue can often also be had in the Circuit where the controversy arose. At the USCA no additional witness testimony or other evidence can be introduced. The three appellate judge panel reviews the record of the STB proceeding, and the parties submit legal briefs; sometimes there will also be oral argument in open court by the attorneys before the three judge panel, consisting typically of the judges questioning the attorneys on matters of law, and other contents of the briefs. The standard of review applied by the judges varies somewhat dependent upon the specifics of the case. Typically the standard of review consists of the judges determining if the STB order should be set aside are if it was arbitrary or capricious, not the product of reasoned decision making, clearly contrary to law or to the facts in evidence at the STB and so forth. The judges, depending again upon the fact pattern, will either modify the STB order or remand all or a portion of the order to STB with instructions on how the found legal deficiencies should be cured. If one or more of the parties remains aggrieved after this process has played out, the next, and final, step is to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court, which Court's process is similar to that of the Circuit Court's described above. It should be noted that while the USCA and USSC do typically afford deference to the expertise of the federal agency whose action is being appealed, the record is replete with many instances of federal agency actions and orders being reversed on appeal.

MikeBPRR wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:28 pm Thanks for the answer. As a novice, I'm curious - why would a railroad oppose someone else upgrading their infrastructure? On a personal level, if I ran a railroad, and if someone promised to upgrade infrastructure to my specifications with minimal involvement or effort on my end, I'd rather take that offer than have to wait for money to come through, put out a bid for contractors, and potentially pull workers off other projects. As we saw from the CHI-STL debacle, federal grants meant to expand service don't always end up doing so. Then again, there may be something I am missing.

All the railroads have built their tracks to a national standard, but to their own standard as well. They will be the ones having to maintain the tracks, so they certainly want to control who builds the tracks. Each railroad also has its own set of operations rules, etc. Amtrak's trains running on UP, BNSF, CSX, or NS tracks not only have to follow Amtrak's rules, but also the rules of the road they are running on.

And yes, apparently Illinois taxpayers feel cheated. But Illinois never paid the UP enough cash to double track the entire corridor. The cash went into new train stations, new station platforms, track upgrades, crossing upgrades, and signaling upgrades.

west point wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:42 pm It may be that CSX wants the approach sidings to the various draw spans because of the many delays CSX takes at those draw bridges and having to park opposing trains at distance from the draw spans ? I suspect CSX is trying to make their freights not take as many delays not what passenger trains will cause in delays ?

If CSX is already taking delays because of marine traffic, it's reasonable to think the situation won't get any better during the windows where Amtrak plans to be running, especially when you add in the OTP >80% mandate.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 12:19 am

west point wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:42 pm It may be that CSX wants the approach sidings to the various draw spans because of the many delays CSX takes at those draw bridges and having to park opposing trains at distance from the draw spans ? I suspect CSX is trying to make their freights not take as many delays not what passenger trains will cause in delays ?

If CSX is already taking delays because of marine traffic, it's reasonable to think the situation won't get any better during the windows where Amtrak plans to be running, especially when you add in the OTP >80% mandate.

I would imagine that there are curfews during which the bridges cannot be opened for marine traffic. If not, they could certainly be added, which would benefit both Amtrak and CSX.

prokowave wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:29 pm I would imagine that there are curfews during which the bridges cannot be opened for marine traffic. If not, they could certainly be added, which would benefit both Amtrak and CSX.

Would be nice if that were so, but in many cases, not all, since the seaway was in service prior to the invention of railroads, they have the right if way. Just to get permission to cross over a navigable river they had to build bridges with lift or swing spans. It is also far easier to stop a train than a fully laden ship, whether it is propelled by sail or machinery.

MikeBPRR wrote:As a novice, I'm curious - why would a railroad oppose someone else upgrading their infrastructure? On a personal level, if I ran a railroad, and if someone promised to upgrade infrastructure to my specifications with minimal involvement or effort on my end, I'd rather take that offer than have to wait for money to come through, put out a bid for contractors, and potentially pull workers off other projects.

I made this exact point to a railroad President once and he said that operational complexity was a far bigger problem.

In short the day to day acrobatics required to operate in mixed traffic are very challenging compared to running with the road all to yourself.

Knowing what to know now I am strongly inclined to agree.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Regarding the Post Road connection, for what it's worth, here's what Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Road_Branch) says:

On April 30, 1972, Penn Central Transportation removed the track on the Post Road Branch, forcing passenger trains to make a reverse movement along the current Schodack Subdivision.[6] The abandoned line was assigned to Amtrak in the 1976 formation of Conrail,[7] and Amtrak reopened it on October 28, 1979[8] with Conrail trackage rights for freight. These rights were assigned to CSX Transportation in the 1999 breakup of Conrail.

6 "PRR Chronology, 1972" (PDF). (52.1 KiB), June 2005 Edition
7 1975 Conrail Final System Plan
8 Schafer, Mike. Amtrak's atlas, Trains June 1991

Interesting to note that Amtrak mist have participated in the associated ICC process for Conrail.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Note the following STB filing.

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 302686.pdf

Does this mean that CSX and NS have given the go ahead for the new service on or about 1/1/2022?

Would also be interesting to know what caused NS and CSX to change their minds about hosting this new Amtrak service.