Amtrak Keystone Corridor Freight Outage Protested by NS Customers

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... k-project/

Amtrak hopes to resolve Pennsylvania freight customer complaint about track project


WASHINGTON — Amtrak has told federal regulators that it wants to find a way to resolve a complaint from freight customers who will lose access to Norfolk Southern service for several weeks during trackwork on the Philadelphia-Harrisburg main line.

Amtrak plans to shut one track to all traffic starting this month, which would prevent NS from serving some local shippers on the line via its trackage rights. Wenger and Esbenshade, which produce animal feed for distribution throughout the Northeast, would lose service to their feed mills in Mount Joy, Pa., for the duration of the project, the companies told the Surface Transportation Board in a complaint filed last week.

The NS customers sought an injunction to halt the trackwork as well as a directed service order that would keep freight cars moving.

Norfolk Southern said it wants to maintain the status quo and pursue board-sponsored mediation.
...

Keystone Corridor... around Mount Joy. It's two tracks, and they're closing the east-bound track, which could definitely use a resurfacing... and the feed mill only connects to that track.

Oh, and no full interlocks between ROY and LANCASTER.

The thing is, NS was notified back in November and only now complaining about it?

Is it NS who is complaining, or shippers who got their notices?

Either way, Major track maintenance matters. If it doesn’t happen, you get track that’ll break cargoes in transit.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 6:48 pm Is it NS who is complaining, or shippers who got their notices?

Either way, Major track maintenance matters. If it doesn’t happen, you get track that’ll break cargoes in transit.

It's the shippers.

It would seem that NS would be ethically impelled to install a temporary crossover connecting the eastbound track to the westbound at Mt. Joy for the duration of the project; it could be hand-thrown as the present siding switch (in the eastbound track) presumably is. When work on the eastbound track reaches that point a weekend interruption of freight service might be necessary, but that should be endurable. If no relief is provided, the shipper will be forced to arrange shipment by truck, bringing the risk they might find they like it and never come back, thus "solving" the railroad's "problem."

The schedule and specific limits of the required work, and the details of work, whether surfacing, tie replacement, and/or rail replacement (and the respective limits of each) should reveal the potential windows where service could be arranged, if the parties were willing or able to negotiate. Nothing that I see in this thread provides this information beyond the implied difficulty in finding solutions.

The options for NS access should be simpler for surfacing, and more limited with tie and/or rail replacement. Scheduled NS access could vary as work advances, managed through detailed plans typically adjusted weekly. Direct communications are indispensable. There could be costs to NS associated with the details of the access that could be arranged. On the other hand, there could be costs to Amtrak, to clear a segment of track overnight in various segments of the work area.

These kinds of issues between the respective parties have in the past been addressed with the Operations and Engineering management, following the principle that neither party would UNREASONABLY interfere with rights of the other.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 8:17 pm It would seem that NS would be ethically impelled to install a temporary crossover connecting the eastbound track to the westbound at Mt. Joy for the duration of the project; it could be hand-thrown as the present siding switch (in the eastbound track) presumably is. When work on the eastbound track reaches that point a weekend interruption of freight service might be necessary, but that should be endurable. If no relief is provided, the shipper will be forced to arrange shipment by truck, bringing the risk they might find they like it and never come back, thus "solving" the railroad's "problem."

Installing a hand-operated turnout on a main track where one did not previously exist is not a simple job. The turnout must be electrically-locked, interlocked with the signal system and the train dispatcher’s dispatching system, and PTC must be configured to know the turnout exists and the actual position of the switch points. All of these things cost time and money, and we’re not talking chump change. In short, it is not reasonably feasible to do for a temporary situation such as this.

Understood; nothing in today's railroading is either simple or cheap. The costs have to be weighed against the anticipated profitability of the traffic if it comes back.

It's been settled: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... burg-line/

WASHINGTON – Amtrak has reached a settlement in principle with two freight customers in Pennsylvania who had asked federal regulators to prevent the loss of rail service during a six-week track project.

Amtrak told federal regulators on May 10 that it had reached a confidential settlement with Esbenshade and the Wenger Group, which operate feed mills in Mount Joy, Pa., adjacent to Amtrak’s Harrisburg Line. The plants receive inbound loads from trackage rights tenant Norfolk Southern.
...