Amtrak on the Florida East Coast FEC Jacksonville - Miami

While I believe in transparency, i guess i will hush up for now and leave it alone. No matter what is said someone will disagree or have a comment that is opinion, not factual mind you, but what they believe is the right way for this to transpire. I respect any opinion, even my own sometimes. On this issue, i do not offer opinions. I have been working on this for a while now and can tell you there are far less that know the truth than those who think they know.

GN-until the liability issue is fixed on the 61 mile proposed Sun Rail and the WPB to MIA section of the S line nothing will happen with a route change. That issue remains our focus and anyone who really understands the consequences of this issue understands that. NRPC and FEC have no issues there. We operate over a sister road of RA daily, but until that issue is resolved in the Sunshine State, we do have issues.

KV- Hamlet south? I will be on the back on 91 coming from DC that morning. Look me up at JAX or maybe i will wander up to your office along the way. thanks for thinking of me with the link to the PDF, read it already. Cured my insomnia, like so many of those proposals do. As someone else stated, maybe we are both right according that document. But things tend to change in the railroad industry. By the RFE, i assume you are refering to ZC? He is a great guy if so. And lastly, remember that although division mgmt likes to think they know what is going on, sometimes they really don't. I can assure of this: on this issue, they don't know it all because I haven't told them, yet. And that as they say, is that

Noel Weaver wrote:

KV1guy wrote:Noel.....



The Amtrak people do not know this railroad as well as the FEC people do. I know FEC people too and the railroad is being
well taken care of under RA and Fotress. There are track people and work trains out frequently.
A crew can not run a freight train for a distance of over 300 miles within the permitted 12 hours on a single track railroad
that is not well maintained, it just can not be done. I ran a 300 mile division up north in New York State before my
retirement and doing a run of this length can be done but you must have the railroad to do it on or you will not make it in
the 12 hours.
Florida East Coast does not have to recrew their road trains very often and most of the time when they do, it is through no
fault of their own. One problem everywhere in Florida on every line of railroad is grade crossings and the FEC is no
exception to this, they have a lot of them and vehicles get clobbered from time to time and when this happens the crew
is likly to run out of time before they have completed their trip.
The Florida East Coast is far better than any other railroad that Amtrak is running on south of Washington, DC, believe me,
I know on this one.
Noel Weaver

Easy turbo. First of all, I think HOS was changed to 10 hours not 12....but that happened after I left for Amtrak so I dont know. First of all, your not telling me anything I dont know. I grew up on the FEC, rode the Hall turn, spent many hours in Cocoa and up in St Augustine with Carl Zellars, Mark Simmon (then Saftet Superintendent) as well as countless crews. Of course the FEC was top notch. IM just saying based on what m Amtrak guys experienced as well as what was told to them by the FEC engineer things have been on way down to. I didnt say the RR was going bellyup. And come on, an FEC train can run the route at 40mph and still have time leftover. The RR doesnt have to be ok for 60 for crews to do it.

You cant compare the FEC to being better or worse than any other RR's Amtrak runs on until it actually happens and you can compare OTP....not just based on a hunch cause the RR is built nice. Thats just ignorance.

CREngineer wrote:
KV- Hamlet south? I will be on the back on 91 coming from DC that morning. Look me up at JAX or maybe i will wander up to your office along the way. thanks for thinking of me with the link to the PDF, read it already. Cured my insomnia, like so many of those proposals do. As someone else stated, maybe we are both right according that document. But things tend to change in the railroad industry. By the RFE, i assume you are refering to ZC? He is a great guy if so. And lastly, remember that although division mgmt likes to think they know what is going on, sometimes they really don't. I can assure of this: on this issue, they don't know it all because I haven't told them, yet. And that as they say, is that

Yup. If u leave Tues and gonna be in Jax Wed then I should be on it unless I get rolled. Im the reg eng. The RFoE in question is not ZC....its RH.

Im working on 14 years rr'ing. I listen to what management has to say, but I believe it when the train pulls up to the station.

Ok nite ya'll.....good topic discussion but Im in Florence and I gotta get zzzz's for 97 in the morning.

I see this railroad almost on a daily basis at various locations around South Florida and believe me it is in superb condition
in every respect from one end to the other.

I saw this track a couple of years ago at Sebastian. I can confirm that it seemed to me in superb condition.

KV1guy wrote:Easy turbo. First of all, I think HOS was changed to 10 hours not 12.

http://www.utu.org/safety/safetyact2008.htm
The ten hours noted relates to OFF-duty time

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

KV1guy wrote:Easy turbo. First of all, I think HOS was changed to 10 hours not 12.

http://www.utu.org/safety/safetyact2008.htm
The ten hours noted relates to OFF-duty time

I knew that lol. I dont know what i was thinking!! Brainfart.

In some ways , it is a shame the silver meteor has to split at Jackonsville , and still serve the old route as well . the main one been , with the 5 hours running time saved in the course of a round trip , a same day turn around in New York should become easily doable .

David Benton wrote:In some ways , it is a shame the silver meteor has to split at Jackonsville , and still serve the old route as well . the main one been , with the 5 hours running time saved in the course of a round trip , a same day turn around in New York should become easily doable .

Nothing is really settled on this as yet. Right now nobody knows exactly what will happen, it is all down the road ahead.
Noel Weaver

David Benton wrote:In some ways , it is a shame the silver meteor has to split at Jackonsville , and still serve the old route as well . the main one been , with the 5 hours running time saved in the course of a round trip , a same day turn around in New York should become easily doable .

It would be more than a shame, it would be a counterproductive move from the standpoint of increased operating costs as well as customer service, due to the delays inherent in switching passenger equipment.

There is a point that has not been addressed at this topic, and that is with regards to the forthcoming negotiations with the FEC, should this proposal move forth. FEC is not party to the May 1, 1971 Agreement and hence not party to Section 3.2, that appertaining a requirement that Member roads negotiate in good faith with respect to new route proposals, therein. While FEC has stated to the sponsors "we're ready to talk", they too are mindful of the reduced costs benefiting Amtrak should they allow access to their road. In short, I highly doubt if FEC is about to grant access for the chicken feed "incremental costs' that Amtrak reportedly pays Member roads under either the cited Agreement of Amendments thereto.

Finally, there is the matter of indemnification that has been alluded to within various posts at this topic. To my best knowledge (but being mindful no party is required to make public disclosure of such matters), Amtrak and the roads have agreed to self-indemnification, or as known on the street, "no-fault'. Now in the ongoing negotiations between CSX and a Florida agency regarding sale of the ACL through Orange and Osceola Counties over which the Sun Rail service will operate, CSX is reportedly asking for total indemnification from any claims - even those arising from their remaining freight operations over the publicly owned lines. To jump on the bandwagon, Amtrak wants the same indemnification - yes, their Legal Department can get "aggressive". In view of this apparent "unraveling" of self-indemnification, It would be difficult to believe that FEC is prepared to accept such "prima facie'; in short just one more thing to snag upon.

But even staunch advocates such as Mr. Weaver acknowledge this will not be an open and shut matter; suffice to say neither do I.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:There is a point that has not been addressed at this topic, and that is with regards to the forthcoming negotiations with the FEC, should this proposal move forth. FEC is not party to the May 1, 1971 Agreement and hence not party to Section 3.2, that appertaining a requirement that Member roads negotiate in good faith with respect to new route proposals, therein. While FEC has stated to the sponsors "we're ready to talk", they too are mindful of the reduced costs benefiting Amtrak should they allow access to their road. In short, I highly doubt if FEC is about to grant access for the chicken feed "incremental costs' that Amtrak reportedly pays Member roads under either the cited Agreement of Amendments thereto.

While FEC seems to be quite enthusiastic, so I don't think it will be a problem, the requirement that (potential) host railroads negotiate with Amtrak is written into law (49 USC 24308) and is not conditioned on whether the (potential) host railroad was a party to the May 1, 1971 agreement. If the two parties cannot come to an agreement, there is a procedure for the STB to order that access be made available and to set "reasonable terms and compensation." The STB is further instructed to "consider quality of service as a major factor when determining whether, and the extent to which, the amount of compensation shall be greater than the incremental costs of using the facilities and providing the services." In light of this, I think that the agreement/non-agreement issue is a non-issue.

Mr. Keller, thank you for the update with regard to applicable law appertaining Amtrak access.

I haven't touched this stuff for a living in now thirty years; I guess it is time I accept that when posting here. Of course, on the flip side, I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be about posting much of anything if I were still in the industry. Obviously, when I left at end of 1981, such was a "non-issue'.

However to continue, I hope that the sponsors have done adequate research to establish expected public acceptance of this new or rerouted service. Funny how there has never been any kind of Ambus connection; say, one operating Jax to Melbourne and another Orlando-West Palm. That would seem a comparatively inexpensive way, with unquestioned ease of entry and exit, to establish if the farepaying bodies are actually there.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Keller, thank you for the update with regard to applicable law appertaining Amtrak access.

I haven't touched this stuff for a living in now thirty years; I guess it is time I accept that when posting here. Of course, on the flip side, I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be about posting much of anything if I were still in the industry. Obviously, when I left at end of 1981, such was a "non-issue'.

However to continue, I hope that the sponsors have done adequate research to establish expected public acceptance of this new or rerouted service. Funny how there has never been any kind of Ambus connection; say, one operating Jax to Melbourne and another Orlando-West Palm. That would seem a comparatively inexpensive way, with unquestioned ease of entry and exit, to establish if the farepaying bodies are actually there.

The only point on the FEC that has an AMBUS connection is Daytona Beach to and from Deland. People traveling to east
coast points are probably not going to endure a long bus ride in addition to the train. They will either rent a car, fly or
take the bus all the way.
As I have said before, there are a lot of unanswered questions but there is a will on the part of all parties. Lets think
positive on this one and wait for more developments.
Noel Weaver

From newspaper interviews with Massachusetts politicians about extended commuter service over the former Boston & Albany to Worcester, I think that CSX wanted the tenant commuter trains to do more than "no fault", but to also pay for any loss over what CSX might have paid if there had been no commuter service. For instance, track damaged by a commuter train, additional damage to a derailed freight train cased by striking passenger equipment or facilities, or criminal charges if misconduct on CSX's part harmed a commuter. Some of these thoughts are based on S.E.P.T.A.'s 1st proposed position when New Hope & Ivyland RR contemplated taking over some of ConRail's freight operations on the Warminster branch of S.E.P.T.A. That roving resume in the legal department may have moved to CSX. More recently, CSX was "burned" when their freight train derailed on their line at Neshaminy Falls, Pa. Some of the cars "trespassed" on nearby S.E.P.T.A. property, destroying a station platform and interlocked crossover. CSX's loss would have been less if there had only been vacant land there.
Anyhow, Massachusetts thought that if they bought the line, the situation would be reversed, and CSX would pay for anything that would not have been incurred if there had been no freight service. CSX though otherwise, and wouldn't sell unless the State (or someone else) was to pay almost all losses, except possibly damage to a freight train with no commuter or passenger involvement.
Florida news accounts and past posts here hint that CSX wants the same deal here, and to have it set in state law. Is Amtrak fearing its future liability if it runs over track that CSX doesn't then own?

That's some pretty scary stuff Mr. Boylan has placed on the table.

While we must be mindful that the on-going negotiations between CSX and the Florida agency (FDOT; I think) for the sale of the ACL through Orange and Osceola Counties are not not any kind of a public hearing, we have no evidence just what actually is moving forth with regards to indemnification. Some of the news reports, which were linked here at other topics and may still remain available, suggested to me at least, that CSX was seeking indemnity for ANYTHING happening on the line even if an incident giving rise to claims did not involve an Agency (SunRail) train. For example, if a CSX freight handling HAZMAT spills while passing through downtown Orlando, the Agency is on tap; after all; they failed to properly inspect the tracks and initiate corrective action - hey, just ask Chessie's Legal Beagles. Obviously, in such an incident, patching up the tracks would be the least of it. Personal injury to a trespasser.....hey if it wasn't for those SunRail trains, that person wouldn't be around the tracks; after all who cares about our freights?

Now the apparent agreement noted by Mr. Boylan does not appear as severe; at least any incident occurring on the B&A for which CSX would be seeking indemnity has to involve an MBTA (public agency) train, i.e. MBTA train spills, they "pay up to patch up" the tracks.

I'm sure that FEC is "taking notes' as they get ready to possibly host an Amtrak passenger train(s).

All told, there is the potential here of having the principle of self-indemnification that has prevailed since 1974 between Amtrak and the roads unraveling (A-Day to '74, railroad indemnification, for which of course Amtrak paid by means of an additive to contract payments, prevailed i.e. the IC paid for everything at Tonti - June 10, 1971 - Amtrak''s first major derailment incident) . Personally, I'm no fan of "no-fault" (if someone has injured me, body or property, he will stand in the gallows and "man up'; just as will I if need be) and here in Illinois, the politically connected trial lawyers are "uh, not about' to hear of it. But it has been a basic tenet of the contractual relationships between Amtrak and the roads almost since A-Day, and if unraveled and replaced with a model of either that prevailing between CSX and the MBTA or any proposal between CSX and SunRail, the cost of operating over the roads, which principally means the LD System, is only going to go up - and just may have a Critter or two wondering 'why do we need it"?