posted
The oft talked about reroute of 21-22, Texas Eagle, between Dallas and Fort Worth over the former Rock Island Twin Star Rocket route and now used by Trinity Rail Express has been snagged. This issue appears to be assumption of liability where by the rail commuter agency is seeking greater indemnification from Amtrak than is afforded under existing contractual relations with the Class I's:
The spat is between Amtrak and TRE, a commuter rail service co-owned by the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, also known as the T, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. At the heart of the dispute is the issue of liability -- in other words, who would be responsible for any damage or injury incurred during passenger train service.
Amtrak has asked for TRE to assume liability on its line, even in the event of a crash involving an Amtrak train. TRE has balked at that proposal. On Monday, T officials were tight-lipped but expressed a bit of optimism that the dispute can be resolved before the end of August -- which according to the Texas Department of Transportation is the federal deadline for the parties to obligate the money.
"We are making every effort to meet the requirements of this grant," T spokeswoman Joan Hunter said.
Amtrak wouldn't comment on the negotiations. The nation's only coast-to-coast passenger rail service operates mostly on tracks owned by freight companies such as Union Pacific and Fort Worth-based BNSF.
Amtrak does indemnify -- or secure against liability -- "host" railroads such as Union Pacific and BNSF in accordance with laws that were passed in the early 1970s, when Amtrak was created, spokesman Marc Magliari said. Those laws helped Amtrak bring service to areas such as Fort Worth, which is served daily by Texas Eagle trains to Chicago and San Antonio, and a daily Heartland Flyer to Oklahoma City.
But those laws didn't cover future agreements between Amtrak and other railroads, he said.
This appears to be a furthering of the convention that was set in Florida when Sun Rail wanted complete indemnity from both Amtrak and CSX for any damages caused if either of their trains were involved in an incident. This is clearly a departure, as Amtrak spokesman Maglieri noted, from the self-indemnification that was laid down about two years after A-Day with the roads. That self-indemnification is roundly like a "no-fault" auto insurance policy. In the event of an incident, such as at Trinity NEVADA involving the Zephyr, Amtrak paid to have its equipment rerailed and removed, to "patch it up" (I think they had to write a T-Dorm off), and (the biggie) claims for injuries made by its passengers and employees. The railroad, UP in this case, paid for costs to restore their track, signals, lineside structures, and if any involved, such as a Road Foreman or Traveling Engineer, injuries to their employees.
Now, agencies like SunRail and Trinity are expecting complete indemnification; I can only hope that Trinity's terms for access will reflect this additional assumption of liability by Amtrak, should an agreement to move Amtrak operations over to the Rock Island (Trinity) be consummated.
Also of concern; will the Class I's operating LD's be coming to the table when their Agreements are next renegotiated with Amtrak wanting this same full indemnity. If they are successful (and if Jim Larsen, whom I've met along the way, was still around, guarantee you they wouldn't get it), then up goes the cost, even if contingent, of operating the LD's. Just more "Rare Meat" for Rep. Mica; raw meat if there is to be a President Romney sixteen blocks down the street.
This could be a slippery slope, volks. It could well be in Amtrak's best interests simply to stay put on the T&P and just accept the train delays as "res vita".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume this, if it came to fruition, would mean no more reversals at Fort Worth, and thus halving the traversals of that busy junction immediately to the south of Fort Worth station?
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to think the parties could come to a win-win solution on this matter. Since at present, #21's schedule calls for 2'40" from the time it arrives Dallas and the time it leaves Fort Worth - and travels only 31 miles in the meantime, that in view of all on-train employees, OBS and T&E, are on an hourly pay scale, savings would result if any time could be saved through this congested area. Presumably use of the "Route of the Twin Star Rocket" (Trinity/CRI&P) would result in less of such.
The scope of indemnity, be it the no-fault model in force between Amtrak and the Class I's under the Amended Agreements, or "all fault" (you were there; and it wouldn't have happened if you weren't) as reportedly proposed by Trinity for access to their rails, are simply costs of doing business. If one goes out and buys (and pays through the nose) "all perils zero deductible" coverage, then you have complete predictability of that cost. Obviously, with its deep pockets, Amtrak is not about to do that. But the fact remains full indemnity is a measurable cost, and Amtrak negotiators must recognize that when they go to the table and weigh that cost with the expected benefit of labor savings. They should also consider the indeterminate benefit of that the service will be more attractive if more expedient.
As I said, this seems like a matter over which two parties could come together for their mutual benefit - that is "once what I learned in school today" successful negotiations are all about.
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: But the fact remains full indemnity is a measurable cost, and Amtrak negotiators must recognize that when they go to the table and weigh that cost with the expected benefit of labor savings. They should also consider the indeterminate benefit of that the service will be more attractive if more expedient.
They are probably also thinking about what sort of precedent they would be setting.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Responding to Geoff's question, yes - this reroute would result in the Texas Eagle being a 'run-through' operation rather than having to back in and out at Ft. Worth. This could probably shorten the Eagle's schedule 75 minutes give or take each way through the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.
-------------------- 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
Additional opinion is available at a Fort Worth Star Tribune blogsite. The opening comment, made by the reporter on the earlier linked article, appears to represent a high degree of research and insight:
Amtrak's Marc Magliari sent an email this afternoon to dispute a sentence in my story asserting that Amtrak has asked TRE to assume liability on its line, even in the event of a crash involving an Amtrak train. Instead, Magliari said, Amtrak wants an agreement in which it "take(s) on the liability for our equipment, passengers, and crew - regardless of fault."
But Peter LeCody, president of Texas Rail Advocates, said Tuesday that he has sources close to the negotiations, and that "Amtrak wants TRE to assume liability for TRE's equipment, passenger and crew, regardless of fault, even if it is Amtrak's sole negligence while operating on the line."
That, LeCody said, is unacceptable to TRE.
LeCody said he also understands that the TRE, which is co-owned by two public agencies - the Fort Worth Transportation Authority and Dallas Area Rapid Transit - is limited to $250,000 in liability under state sovereign immunity laws. Those laws generally make government immune from lawsuits.
In short, Amtrak spokesman Maglieri has stated Amtrak wants a "no-fault" agreement patterned after what exists under the Amended Agreements with the Class I's; the Texas Rail spokesman LeCody understands that Trinity is seeking Amtrak indemnity for anything that could possibly involve an Amtrak train (the Eagle; maybe even the Heartland Flyer should that be extended to Dallas after the reroute). Such indemnity would include, say, what if on the double tracked segments of the Rock Island (TRE), say, WB 21 clears an X-ing, but as soon as it does so, an EB Trinity whacks a motorist or pedestrian who chooses not to hear an opposite movement's whistle as such approaches the X-ing.
As I read it, Trinity wants Amtrak to be "on tap" for such an occurrence; Amtrak. through their spokesman has other ideas.
In my earlier posting, I suggested the parties could work it out as $$$ can be attached to what either party has to put on the table.
Guys and Gals; work it out. Uncle Pete, if no one else, will be the happier to have Amtrak gone.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
