Former CEO Snow had close ties to the previous administration.
The irony is that this removes freight congestion as an argument for not restoring the Sunset over a good portion of the route.
-------------------- 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
Here is a Brief Passage from the material located by Mike for those who do not subscribe to any rail related Kalmbach publication;
The rerouting, which occurred in the last half of 2009, involved two pairs of freight trains that had operated between Waycross, Ga., and New Orleans, via Baldwin, Tallahassee, and Pensacola, Fla., and Flomaton, Ala.
Now the four trains use a slightly shorter route. From Flomaton, eastward freights operate up the M&M and Atlanta & West Point subdivisions to Montgomery, Ala., and LaGrange, Ga. From LaGrange, they use the Lineville Subdivision a short distance to Manchester, Ga., and then follow the CSX Chicago-Waycross main line into Waycross over the Fitzgerald Subdivision. Schedules of the rerouted trains are, by and large, a bit faster than before.
In view of the soon to be required installation of "Positive Train Control' as mandated under RSIA '08, CSX has apparently decided that more efficient operations result from routing traffic what at first would appear "all over Robin Hood's barn", but, considering that WAY-X is where CSX "marshalls' trains to both the Northeast and Midwest, the routing is shorter as reported by TRAINS. As noted in the Sunset Route Study, much of the ex-SAL route is 'dark'.
Naturally advocates for restoration of Sunset East will be quick to say that CSX is the 'villain', but Amtrak is clearly not interested in restoring that service. Accordingly, it would appear CSX has fulfilled any obligation to keep the noted line ready to again operate a passenger train and has now decided to operate their railroad as they see fit. We should note that the reroute does not affect the Mobile-New Orleans L&N Gulf Coast Line that CSX spent heavily to rebuild.
Even if Amtrak can be accused of using "obfuscating' means to be rid of Sunset East, i.e. the 'suspension" is in all likelihood a violation of the 180 Day Notice provisions under ARAA '97, the fact remains such was the poorest performing train on the System. It clearly has no political "patron saint', and it is simply time for the several advocacy groups urging its restoration to find a new battle to fight and otherwise move on.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Gil. I forgot that the link might not work for "non-subscribers".
The way I read the article, I would be concerned as a taxpayer that Amtrak (read, taxpayer) would be paying for something that CSX (read, private corporation) would ultimately reap the benefits of. I guess I shouldn't be concerned, however, because taxpayer largesse seems to be in vogue right now in keeping our "free enterprise" system afloat.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This might make the CONO continuation to FL more of a challenge since it would presumably now require Amtrak to ante up for PTC, although the congestion issue may be moot, as Notelvis notes.
Considering this, I think it still makes sense for Amtrak to figure out a route from the midwest to FL on a route where there are more potential riders, ie. Atlanta or Washington, not Tallahassee.
Given that it will be extremely difficult to get railroad agreement (not to mention expensive) for any new LD route, it would seem the easiest scenario would be a continuation of the Capitol through to Orlando. Just bring it into the lower level of Washington and keep going. Perhaps use a modified Star schedule and beef up the Meteor for NEC-FL passengers.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again I note, Mr. Palmland, a Capitol/Star is a "been there done that" with Amtrak. I understand that when Amtrak was flush with Superliners (S-II's delivered - Mercer Cuts implemented), and the Viewliners had been whacked from 100 to 50, that is when the proposal was "on the table'. However, marketing surveys established that there would be more passengers lost with one less through train from NEC points than would ever be gained from offering no change of train for Capitol passengers.
Lest we forget, most of the world is not a railfan and could care less whether the car has two levels and big wide windows - they just want a ride.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN, Amtrak's 'marketing surveys' seem to prove whatever the boss wants. When Amtrak operated a through car(s), I suspect it failed because of inconsistent connecting train OTP and Amtrak not wanting to bother with Washington switching.
I do believe more passengers would be gained at places like Cleveland and Pittsuburgh, if not Chicago, to the southeast than lost on a rerouted Star.
But, perhaps a better scenario would be a continuation of the Star and Meteor as is (with schedule adjustments so they don't run on each other's markers). Then have the Capitol use the Palmetto slot, but continue from Savannah on to Jax and Orlando. Those extra miles (298 vs. 617) would be a lot cheaper than reestablishing a FL panhandle train. This would also retain twice daily service to Orlando if one of the Silver trains ever used the FEC route. And perhaps Amtrak could turn the train in Orlando faster than the 27 hours it now sits in Washington.
On a related thought, I wonder what would happen if Amtrak offered Thruway bus service (at appropriate additional cost) to Universal and WDW hotels? Oh that's right, Amtrak really doesn't do marketing.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this falls within the topic title "CSX Gamesmanship" as I'm sure CSX has input to Amtrak on what trains are operated over their lines make reliable connections with one another.
Why can't the previously guaranteed 30-WAS-91 and v.v. connection be restored?
Journeys such as PGH-30-WAS-91-CAM would again be possible.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, we have strayed off topic quite a bit, but it is a fact that CSX figures prominently in rail passenger transport issues here in the Sunshine State (see allegations of their "sweetheart deal" vis a vis Sun Rail, and now the issue of service for the Florida panhandle).
Guess it's unavoidable for a large Class I railroad to have input into a rail passenger operation when the former owns the tracks and the latter has to run over them.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
