RAILROAD.NET

Removed the track Amtrak was going to use ? And while negotiating the service. Certainly does appear as bad faith negotiating. If STB requires the service can it compel CSX to restore the siding ? Then maybe transfer the siding to Amtrak so as to not claim extra property taxes on the siding and switches ?

Nope, not bad faith by a country mile. The plan all along was and still is for Amtrak is to be using a layover track at the downtown station. Who could reasonably fault CSX for taking that proposal at its word?... they have no obligation to keep excess facilities in place on the oft chance that "situations beyond Amtrak's control" are going to arise...

Since there's still no PTC in place, and no funding, I don't see what the rush is. How hard could it be for Amtrak and the City to expedite the construction of a layover track, and/or holding off on starting up services requiring a layover until its ready?

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

No PTC on the line between New Orleans and Mobile? Are we certain about that?

With all the HAZ MAT from LA and Texas must have PTC.

MattW wrote:No PTC on the line between New Orleans and Mobile? Are we certain about that?

It's been raised as an issue by CSXT when arguing against the commission estimates of the startup costs.

Until the docket gets updated when hearings start, nobody will know for certain.

The requirements to install PTC are vague enough that it could be exempt using 2008 car volumes as the metric and with an embargo or prohibition on hauling inhalation risk level hazardous materials. I don't recall any refineries or major plants on the route so it's entirely plausible east of NOL.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

The CSX/NS reply to FD 36496, dated 11-03-21, is on the STB website, under filings. Basically the two railroads are asking for capital improvements between $405,588,000 and $440,855,000 in order to accommodate Amtrak's proposed three round trips. NS, which would host the trains (and already hosts the CRESCENT) between Elysian Fields and East City Jct. (3.4 miles) on double track, is requesting six new power operated crossovers. CSX, who would operate the trains between Mobile and NOT Jct. (Elysian Fields), is requesting a station track and double track at Mobile, siding extensions at Brookley, St. Elmo, Fountainbleau, Harbin and Nicholson, additional power switches at Theodore and Bayou Cassotte, double track at Beavoir, Claiborne and Michoud and a bypass and Gentilly (I thought CSX had done the bypass when the SUNSET was extended east in about 1992). The RL Banks consultants the rrs hired claimed that with the 13 drawbridges (actually two are just beyond the limits of the proposed route) and numerous grade crossings that would be blocked by freight trains in the siding that freight train capacity and velocity would be reduced when proposed passenger trains meet opposing or overtake freights.
A big issue that is not discussed in the report is both railroads deciding to run longer freights as a result of embracing Precision Railroading. In the 162 miles of single track on CSX between Choctaw and Michoud, the longest siding (Brookley, AL) is 10,365 ft and the other sidings are less than 10K. Apparently the rrs believe they are offering adequate service at present, and that their service would deteriorate if they accommodate the six Amtraks without the aforementioned improvements. I have to wonder if CSX either fleets their trains between double track sections or has sawby meets. According to the consultant they are running about 13 trains/day. If the requested improvements were accomplished, I'm sure freight service would improve over what it is today - even with the six Amtraks. In my opinion, the rrs (and supporting parties) should pay for at least half. Let this not be another UP in Illinois, who benefited greatly from an ARRA-financed upgrade of the former GM&O (Joliet-E St Louis) and paid little (if anything) to accommodate more (and faster) Amtraks over this line. UP is running intermodal trains over this route to relieve capacity on other lines - something they could not have done without the upgrades because the pre-upgraded ex-GM&O was too slow and had too much single track. Similarly, CSX could develop more export/import business and western connection business with a faster, higher capacity railroad.
Andy

"Sure, you can have your $405 million. But Amtrak trains get priority over this area, and for every minute they're late is a $1M fine". The money will be paid back in 6 months

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:58 pm "Sure, you can have your $405 million. But Amtrak trains get priority over this area, and for every minute they're late is a $1M fine". The money will be paid back in 6 months

Why so harsh a fine? Mussolini came up with even a harsher penalty for late running trains pre WW2, and not one dispatchers was ever shot to death by a firing squad because every train overnight had at least 2 more hours padding added to their schedules.
You should and will get better results using honey vs vinegar.

twropr wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 5:29 pm In the 162 miles of single track on CSX between Choctaw and Michoud, the longest siding (Brookley, AL) is 10,365 ft and the other sidings are less than 10K. Apparently the rrs believe they are offering adequate service at present, and that their service would deteriorate if they accommodate the six Amtraks without the aforementioned improvements. I have to wonder if CSX either fleets their trains between double track sections or has sawby meets. According to the consultant they are running about 13 trains/day.

The fact remains they're running 13 trains a day on their track without needing any improvements, and there's no question that creating room for Amtrak is going to be disruptive. Amtrak will either be running in the opposite direction or freights are going to have to be sidelined to make a hole.

The goal should be to keep everything moving, and right now, Amtrak stands to bring CSX/NS to a halt multiple times a day.

twropr wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 5:29 pm If the requested improvements were accomplished, I'm sure freight service would improve over what it is today - even with the six Amtraks.

Sure, but I don't think you can really force CSX or NS to pay based on what you, I or even the STB sees as a potential future upside with an improved physical plant. There's a price tag to put Amtrak on that stretch of track without negatively impacting the owner.

twropr wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 5:29 pm A big issue that is not discussed in the report is both railroads deciding to run longer freights as a result of embracing Precision Railroading.

Fact or assumption?... Regardless, it's really not materially relevant if they're able to run longer freights on their single track today via fleeting without meets, unless you need to make the argument that to accommodating meets, trains have to get shorter and that makes accommodation even more disruptive since you'd have another couple trains to run...

A few nuggets from CSX's filing:

* Amtrak’s pre-2005 Sunset Limited service over the Gulf Coast Corridor operated three times a week in the middle of the night, when local freight traffic service is significantly reduced and bridge openings are far less frequent. Amtrak now proposes to operate four trains per day, and during primetime hours — when freight demand and disruption from bridge operations are at their respective peaks. Those proposed operations consume far more capacity than the pre-2005 service did.

* CSX and NS are proposing roughly 23 miles of sidings and double track on the 137 mile CSX single track main to allow limited bi-directional flow and the ability to overtake slower freights

* some of the bridges are staffed by bridge operators who require shift changes by hi-rail vehicles, which consumes capacity on the Gulf Coast Corridor especially for the more remote bridges

* Under normal operating conditions, there are typically between 15 and 20 individual train movements per day over the (New Orleans) Back Belt that touch two or more of
the dispatchers in question. For approximately one hour, twice per day, the Back Belt is essentially cleared of all freight traffic to ensure on-time operation of the existing Crescent Amtrak service to and from the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal. This effectively forces the freight movements over the route into a shortened, 22-hour operating day. The introduction of four additional passenger trains contemplated for the proposed Gulf Coast passenger service, and the associated operating windows required to facilitate that service, would further force existing and future freight service into a more confined roughly 18-hour operating day.

* There is significant local traffic that requires significant switching utilizing the main track.

* Without any capacity projects, the RTC model cannot find a dispatching solution without permitting a freight train to be stopped blocking public crossings for more than 20 minutes.

Wait... doesn't Amtrak already have those slots from when they had Gulf Coast service pre-Katrina? Or did CSX/NS consider them abandoned and started running freights?

Frankly this study is a load of bull and I hope the STB can see through it. These studies are only as good as the input information and they seem to be making unrealistic and inflexible assumptions about their freight operations.

They repeatedly mention the Crescent tying up the New Orleans back belt, but neglect to mention that it is double tracked well past the spur to the passenger terminal. I live near the back belt and can tell you that the freight RRs are usually using it to park trains awaiting a transfer, likely due to staffing or other issues on their end - that's not an Amtrak problem. The reality is that the main issue is the single trackage to the west, which doesn't have any passenger operations. The RRs have known about that choke point for ages, but no one wants to foot the bill to fix it.

They also repeatedly mention 13 moveable bridges. By my count, only 7 of the ones they mention are actually on the proposed route.
The line previously (albeit briefly) hosted a similar service in the 80s and 90s. It seems that with just a bit of flexibility, such as having trains depart and arrive just before the Crescent in NOL, you could minimize disruption.

All that being said, it would be nice if the new infrastructure funding could allow for some creative solutions to solve multiple issues at once. For example, elevating and doubling the track in the Michoud area could remove several road crossings as well as eliminate the need for flood gates that have to be closed for every impending storm. Some sort of connection, crossover and bypass where NS and CSX intersect could benefit the Crescent as well as the Gulf Coast service. If we are going to spend public money, let's benefit everyone, not just the freight railroads.

How Amtrak can get this done overnight…

BRING AN OPEN CHECKBOOK

They are, in the eyes of all the Class i railroads now, just another time sensitive shipper … except they don’t pay the rates UPS, FEDEX, COSCO, MSC and others do to move TOFC, COFC or automobiles.

Amtrak ponying up real $$$ will solve the matter in short order.

Disclaimer: Long positions in BH and UNP.

STrRedWolf wrote:Wait... doesn't Amtrak already have those slots from when they had Gulf Coast service pre-Katrina? Or did CSX/NS consider them abandoned and started running freights?

What's a reasonable time to hold "slots" from the past?.... i

It's been over 15 years since the Sunset ran overnight, and the daytime Gulf Coast Ltd hasn't run in over 24 years.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 7:18 pm

STrRedWolf wrote:Wait... doesn't Amtrak already have those slots from when they had Gulf Coast service pre-Katrina? Or did CSX/NS consider them abandoned and started running freights?

What's a reasonable time to hold "slots" from the past?.... i

It's been over 15 years since the Sunset ran overnight, and the daytime Gulf Coast Ltd hasn't run in over 24 years.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

This and previous posts gave me the answer: There was no daytime service pre-hurricane. It was all overnight, when existing traffic was low, so... the slots are there for that service, but not for daytime service. This would of shaken out way earlier... had CSX and NS cooperated early with the study instead of trying to run out the clock.

Now, CSX and NS run the real risk of having to cut freight service under orders of the STB.