" WASHINGTON — Amtrak believes the Florida East Coast Railway route between Miami and Jacksonville, Fla., is the most likely route to get Amtrak service in the near future, the Sunshine State News has reported. Florida officials are pushing for service there, which would be the first regular passenger train on the line since 1968.
"This is great news and reinforces what we know about the project," said Doug Smith, a Martin County, Fla., commissioner. “Passenger service on the FEC corridor will create economic development opportunities from Jacksonville to Miami, boosting tourism, helping the cruise ship industry, and directly benefiting key destinations like Dayona’s international speedway.”
Amtrak’s preliminary analyses of the route suggest splitting the New York-Miami Silver Star at Jacksonville. One train would use the current CSX route to Orlando, and the other would go straight to Miami on FEC. The railroad predicts additional ticket revenue would exceed operating costs. However, the report warns, up-front capital costs could be “significant.”
Florida officials continue to seek funding and consensus on how the route would work, and no plans are in place to make the service happen."
************ Again, Amtrak does a great job on 'plans'. But, show me where the money is. If this is going to fly, guess it'll be up to Florida. Strange that this has been talked about for years, yet the new Norfolk service has only been an item in the past couple years yet supposed to start in 2013 with construction under way on necessary upgrades.
I am surprised that the connection will be off the Star, not the more direct Meteor.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Gotta luv" how an official from Martin County gets his finger in the pie. Remember this is the county that has blocked any Northward (FEC) or Northwestward (SAL) expansion of Tri-Rail by refusing to impose the State mandated local excise tax allocated to Tri-Rail, as Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade have all done.
"Yeah, I'm all for trains - so long as the Feddies are paying".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love to see separate Tampa and Miami sections for both the Silver Star and Silver Meteor restored. If that were to happen in conjunction with service over the FEC, I would be pleased.
-------------------- 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
OK, even if I have my reservations about service over the FEC (reduction in service through Orlando, only passenger "base" to the East are sharks; need to make any expansion to the LD system for any reason when it presently is doing its job garnering funding), there appears to be 'rumblings' it will move forth. Of interest, this new route over the FEC, should it come to pass, will be the first new route, Local or Federally funded notwithstanding, since 2001 and The Downeaster.
I guess there is (to most here) one "plus' that should not be overlooked. I have often held that 97-98, Meteor, is the most vulnerable train in the System; that is because it could be discontinued overnight without any Notice under ARAA '97. The addition of the route miles over the FEC, and with the service at "one a day" level, Notice would now have to be served at least for that segment.
Should "one a day' be the model that Congress is prepared to fund (and the Class I industry prepared to accept over their lines) and a route with 'two a day' of which the "Silver Service' is the only route with such is hence vulnerable, the reroute would now mean that more of the route South of Selma NC for each train is separate from one another than together. Any questions such as "why have they got two trains chasing each other's markers' would be lessened.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Any questions such as "why have they got two trains chasing each other's markers' would be lessened.
Mr. Norman, I fear that by now most people who are much under 60 adn outside the railfan world have no idea what you mean by "markers" Today when people say markers they think of those things you use to write on a whiteboard, instead of the lights/flags on teh back of a train. Even "on each other's block" propbably means nothing outside the railroad world. It would probably raise a picture of trains with one city block of space between them.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not understood why the Star and Meteor have operated on such similar schedules for so long now. It would be nice to see them carded for a Florida arrival/departure at least 6 hours apart.........
And with the return of separate Tampa sections so that the Star doesn't keep backtracking on itself.
-------------------- 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 Star and Meteor run on similar schedules due to the preference of CSX as negotiated in their operating agreement with Amtrak...
Posts: 332 | From: Long Island, NY USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agee with notelvis -- the southbound Silver Service trains south of Tampa run approximately one hour apart (if they are on time), which is bordering on ridiculous, since those are the ONLY 2 trains per day that serve the area. I also agree there should be a separate Tampa section on one or both of the existing trains to eliminate that silly backup move between Tampa and Winter Haven.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rich, be sure to note Mr. MDRR's point; I think he has alluded in other posts that he "does this stuff for a living". To have 91 and 97 "chasing markers' simply lessens the interference with other operations. "Line up the railroad once and be rid of 'em' is the operating philosophy in play.
On occasion, when there is trackwork on the Chicago Sub, BNSF will hold #5, Zephyr, and run it as 'Advance #3, Chief", resulting in less interference. To forego performance payments in this instance is simply a lesser of evils - and baring no further delays, that hour could be recovered before interchanging the train to UP at Denver.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an update on Amtrak's effort to use the FEC.
Which will it be: FEC's All Aboard Florida proposal, Amtrak's proposal, all of the above, or FEC stays freight only?
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I miss the days when the Star arrived in Miami between 11am and noon and departed northbound at 1:40pm. That gave passengers a real choice. FEC service would be a winner with many popular destinations along the east coast. Now if only the service from New Orleans were restored and/or a Chicago train via Atlanta, there would be decent Amtrak service to Florida.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Brief Passage from the linked material submitted by Mr. Palmland:
For Amtrak, the biggest issue to be ironed out to even consider service on the FEC was getting a no-fault policy for operating south of the Treasure Coast. To reach the FEC tracks in West Palm Beach, Amtrak trains in Miami requires several miles of state-owned coastal tracks, company Government Affairs Director Thomas L. Stennis III said Tuesday.
"This bill creates a no-fault liability for Amtrak and the state," he said. "Amtrak currently has this relationship with other host railroad companies. But the state didn't have that relationship with Amtrak."
Amtrak operated on a no-fault basis with CSX Transportation Inc. in South Florida, he said. But when the state bought those tracks for the Tri-Rail commuter line south of Jupiter, Stennis said, Amtrak had to negotiate such a relationship from scratch with the state.
I'm utterly confused.
First what tracks are being addressed? If such are the Tri-Rail tracks West Palm-Miami, then I think it safe assumption that the pre-existing indemnity provisions with SCL remained "as successor'.
Now will FEC seek indemnity provisions in an operating agreement beyond those with other roads as CSX did with the Central Florida (Sun Rail) authority, or will they accept those in place with other roads which, to my knowledge, are essentially "no-fault" as addressed by the article.
Now I should note that indemnity is simply one issue (albeit important) within a bi-lateral agreement between Amtrak and a railroad over which their trains operate, and for which no public disclosure is required. I have been over thirty years since my last railroad paycheck, but I can report first hand that the indemnity provisions on my road when I was there were, essentially, no-fault, i.e. each party cleans up their own messes (Amtrak; their equipment, injury claims. Road; their tracks and lineside structures injuries to their employees). How much insurance, as distinct from self-indemnification, will be in force is a matter for negotiation.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, Trains.com take on it certainly doesn't sound like no fault liability:
"At issue was liability on state-owned track at the southern end of the route. A transportation bill that included an amendment addressing the liability issue went to Florida Gov. Rick Scott on March 23, and he has seven days to sign it. The legislation apportions liability according to degree of fault on a case-by-case basis."
I suspect this is more accurate than whatever the Amtrak spokesman was saying.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
If the CSX-Sun-Rail agreement regarding indemnity, which upset any "no-fault" doctrine on the former ACL line through Orange and Osceola counties, has now been applied to Amtrak (what about the limited CSX freight operations as well?) operating over Tri-Rail, how does this legislation directly affect any future negotiations between Amtrak and FEC regarding indemnity?
Indirectly, it undeniably does so, as FEC will use this as wedge to "foist" off otherwise their indemnity (tracks lineside structures) under no fault to Amtrak. This may raise the cost of operating over the FEC to such level that Amtrak will simply choose to stay on the existing SAL route. Also of concern; if Amtrak "caves in", other roads will use the cave-in as a wedge to upset "no fault" on their properties.
All told, I cannot see how this development will enhance the possibility that Amtrak trains will operate over the FEC.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
