posted
Courtesy of another site and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, this is a letter from NS on the feasibility of using their line for passenger rail.
Amazing that they are publicly saying they have capacity. But a couple very big 'ifs' pointed out by Mr. Harrell.
Long live the Nancy Hanks II!
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a "we'll work with you" letter, but "the ball is in your court" to come up with the loot.
At this time, how could NS's interests be furthered with any kind of statements to the effect of "no way are you people going to tie up a vital freight corridor with some meaningless passenger train".
disclaimer: author holds long position in NSC
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that proposal primarily for local commuter rail? I can't help but notice that the return address on the linked document is Atlanta GA. I wonder if "Joel" happens to live in a suburb that would benefit from a passenger rail line to Atlanta? Is there any proposal to extend the line to Savannah and have Amtrak involved? How would NS react to that proposal?
In the Puget Sound region, BNSF has benefited enormously by allowing Sound Transit to operate on the local rail lines linking Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. Sound Transit has paid for new signal systems, extra mainlines and a complete rehabilitation of the infrastructure. BNSF freights now run through Seattle faster and more efficiently thanks to the Sound Transit taxpayers. Why wouldn't NS want some of that, too?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN, I agree NS interests wouldn't be served by saying 'no way'. But I would have expected something on the order of - 'we'd be happy to work with the state on any proposal that doesn't impact our ability to operate our trains on this vital main line that has very limited capacity'.
To me, the letter sounded like 'we have the capacity and welcome a good proposal to run passenger trains'.
I suspect if this was the UP, the response would have been less than welcoming.
At least on CSX, the resident VP for each state has the responsibility to keep his ear on happenings at the state house and deal with local political issues. Sort of runs interference for the corporate staff and represents the company interests with the local and state governments.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The line that NS is offering is the ex Central of Georgia line. It is about 12 miles longer than the ex Southern (GF&S, I think it was) line. It is also very curvey. Due to the difference in distance, most of the freight was shifted to the ex Southern line after they took over the CofG. To say they have sufficient capacity on this line is an understatement.
The major problem with this line is that the two hour, maybe a little more, best schedule that the CofG had for passenger trains is about as good as you are getting without realignments.
Essentially, NS is offering something that they do not need for through traffic but may have enough local business that to try to abandon it would not be a good idea, or even if it is, they do not want to go through the hassle. If they can get the state to do upgrades, then they would be happy.
They probably would not admit it under torture, but NS may have realized that the state of North Carolina has benefited NS signifcantly with the improvements they have made to run the Raleigh - Charlotte trains. Now: if they could just get Georgia to do likewise.
It would not surprise me if they would likewise be willing to see passenger service on from Macon to Savannah on the ex-CofG, or to Jacksonville via Jesup and from there on CSX, NOT on the line through Valdosta.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ex-CofG parallels I-75 around Forsyth. It serves some communities that would produce a few commuters. The line IS curvy and less direct as it passes the ATL airport area and winds its way through southern ATL suburbs. We rode both lines on a steam excursion several years ago and the CofG was better in terms of en route communities.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
It would appear that the Southern Railway Atlanta Macon route (as distinct from that of the Savannah & Atlanta) belonged to a predecessor other than the GS&F. Mr. Haithcoat, who I can assure all "first hand", has quite a collection of Southern Ry timetables and may be able to clarify "who owned what' and to what extent would rail commuter service offered from Macon (an extension of MARTA?) would affect NS freight operations.
Also as I recall, Valdosta was a "Claytor Terminal Station" under his "chop and block' train off strategy.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Where the 'Royal Palm' stops (forever) in the night.
I'm not in favor of train off strategies, mind you, but I am interested in the 'way things went down' back in the day. I concede that Southern's truncating the Augusta Special beyond the South Carolina borders so that it connected with nothing was a remarkable exploitation of a regulatory loophole.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Claytor Terminal Station", "chop and block", "nowhere to nowhere", (any I missed) train-off strategy was based on that the SRY believed their best interests were served by the State regulatory agencies rather than the Interstate Commerce Commission. While assertions that SRY "owned" or "had 'em in the back pocket" are unfounded, the conclusion must be drawn that there was a favorable working relationship in place.
The strategy obviously worked, as SRY got trains off in droves. In fact they succeeded in getting so many off after the Calendar 1969 measuring period for the Amtrak entry fee under RPSA '70, that there was simply not going to be the cost benefit as there would be for a road, Santa Fe comes to mind, whose level of service had not appreciably changed during that period.
While the song and dance about "Corporate pride" plays well to the ears of "the faithful', it was simply dollars and cents that kept SRY out of Amtrak until such time that they could join up during 1983 on their terms - and no doubt since WGC was at the throttle @ 400 N Cap (predecessor to 60 Mass), SRY likely dictated them.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read somewhere..... possibly in Fred Frailey's book.... that Southern Railway engaged through the mid-to-late 1960's in what it called the 'missionary work' prior to each train off petition.
Corporate reps would visit scores of local civic group meetings in the region to be affected and talk about what a drain empty passenger trains were on the corporate bottom-line and how the railroad could continue to keep rates down on their efficient freight service which clearly mattered more to the local citizenry than a dinky, mostly empty, always dirty and late passenger train with no food service, and how important it was to maintaining the more essential affordable freight service if the daily flyer went away etc. etc.
In other words, a coordinated plan intended to get the railroad's side of the story out first was formulated and executed. The desired result being to minimize opposition to pending train off petitions.
Graham Claytor is widely regarded to be the man who developed and oversaw that effort.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a good thing they are willing to do it. But why would NS write a letter, without someone asking them. So I think there may be a strong chance that someone wants this.
Now I think NS could gain a lot from this. As they have learned from NC, that it can improve them, if they run the trains, then the state pays for the improvements. I'm shocked CSX hasn't thought about doing this yet. It would be a great way for them to improve.
Posts: 465 | From: elgin (s-line) | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
It would appear that the Southern Railway Atlanta Macon route (as distinct from that of the Savannah & Atlanta) belonged to a predecessor other than the GS&F.
Mr. Norman: I have no idea who was the original or pre-Southern owner of the Southern line Atlanta to Macon. All I do know is that the Southern Railway mileposts on this line have Cleveland TN as zero, that is, they carry right on through Atlanta. Maybe this was part of the East Tennessee, Virgina and Georgia? I do not remember the precise name behind the Bristol to Chattanooga railroad right now.
Being a mid 1960's rider of the Southern's offerings in Tennessee and Alabama, I was truly underimpressed by their "pro Passenger" stance in the early Amtrak years. I think you did get it right. However, with a longer view, they did do a reasonably good job of keeping it up as long as they did run it. There was none of the the grungy ratty falling apart equipment even up to the day of discontinuance. They might not be so hot at keeping schedule since a lot became piggyback trains with a couple of coaches and a sleeper, but what was there was not bad. On the oher hand, they did not do much in the way of schedule adjustments for changes in reality. For example, after the major rebuilds on the CNO&TP, the Royal Palm schedule did not change at all. Its timekeeping was truly great, as a lot of the slower segments were bypassed, but the run time could have easily been reduced and was not.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Near the end Southern's train actually was shown terminating at Council, GA, a tiny hole in the way next to the Florida border above Jacksonville. No doubt they deadheaded to JAX as I doubt there was a siding to tie up at between runs.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: For example, after the major rebuilds on the CNO&TP, the Royal Palm schedule did not change at all. Its timekeeping was truly great, as a lot of the slower segments were bypassed, but the run time could have easily been reduced and was not. [/QB]
So true. My brother and I were on our way to his wedding in 1965 via the National Ltd and Royal Palm.
We didn't know why at the time but we got into Chattanooga almost an hour early and held at stops for correct departure time. At that time the train still had a sleeper and diner. Not bad leaving CUT enjoying our first cup of coffee in the diner and crossing the Ohio.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
