Amtrak Shutting Down Several Route Sections 12/31/2018

I got this through the BLE website this morning, here is a link.

https://www.wmtw.com/article/downeaster ... l/22857879" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Noel Weaver

So it's safe enough to 12 trips a day but not for 2 a day on the Southwest Chief route?

Matt Johnson wrote:So it's safe enough to 12 trips a day but not for 2 a day on the Southwest Chief route?

Actually, it's currently 10 trips. Twelve would kick in the need for PTC as I understand it.

Rockingham Racer wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:So it's safe enough to 12 trips a day but not for 2 a day on the Southwest Chief route?

Actually, it's currently 10 trips. Twelve would kick in the need for PTC as I understand it.

No, the appropriate phrase reads "no more than 12 trains per day".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/236.1019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(c)Limited operations exception. FRA will consider an exception in the case of a track segment used for limited operations (operating in accordance with § 236.0 of this part) under one of the following sets of conditions:
(2) Passenger service is operated on a segment of track of a freight railroad that is not a Class I railroad on which less than 15 million gross tons of freight traffic is transported annually and on which one of the following conditions applies:
(i) If the segment is unsignaled and no more than four regularly scheduled passenger trains are operated during a calendar day, or
(ii) If the segment is signaled (e.g., equipped with a traffic control system, automatic block signal system, or cab signal system) and no more than 12 regularly scheduled passenger trains are operated during a calendar day.

I would like to add 12 trains per day is equivalent to 6 round trips per day, and the more restricted 4 trains per day is equivalent to 2 round trips per day.

There are more exemptions listed I didn't include because they aren't applicable to the Downeaster discussion.
Additionally, Class 1 railroads can use a phrase (3) instead of (2) in this same regulation:
(3) Not more than four passenger trains per day are operated on a segment of track of a Class I freight railroad on which less than 15 million gross tons of freight traffic is transported annually.

There are sections of the Chief between Lamy and Dodge City where more than 15 million gross tons of freight are transported annually, i.e. after the harvest season. Only a part of this section of track falls under the 15 million annual gross tons exemption.

Downeaster is run by contract by Amtrak. If they decide to not renew the contract or breach the contract, NNEPRA can contract with somebody else to run it.

Not too long ago,NMRX was given the $$$$$ to install I-ETMS PTC,Santa Fe-Belen.
Auto Train Stop(Santa Fe Legacy) runs La Junta-CP Madrid(NMRX) 1 round trip daily,well BELOW the PTC 6 RT limit.
CP West Isleta-Dalies is BNSF owned,possible "triprod" is Haz-Mat tonnage,same for Lamy-CP Madrid segment on NMRX(Crude Oil in Lamy yard loading)
Gandy Dancer,a "last mile" delivery service/Team track operation is opening a yard that connects to the "passenger cutoff" near Dalies
and the Facebook "Super Server" building.

The "feeling" is the PTC issue is a red Herring,created by Mr Anderson,to play a DANGEROUS GAME with certain services.

jcpatten wrote:Downeaster is run by contract by Amtrak. If they decide to not renew the contract or breach the contract, NNEPRA can contract with somebody else to run it.

It's hard to imagine any reason why amtrak would walk away from the DownEaster other than trying to isolate itself

Tadman wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote:

Tadman wrote:
This. 110% this. PTC is Positively Total Crap.

Pretty much every industrialized country out there has some form of train protection, and has for decades.

Mr. Nas, I have a lot of respect for your views, so please don't take this personally, but "every other nation" argument doesn't hold much water. There are lots of things every other nation's railroad has that we don't have. At the end of the day, the safety record of our railroad is defined by the casualty rate, which is a darn small blip on the radar compared to the economic impact and ton-miles/pax-miles numbers.

Mr. Tadman, I ask the same forebearance that you asked of Mr. Nasadowski, but in this case, he's right; US railroading is afflicted with a chronic case of "not-invented-here" syndrome, and the same laws of physics and human factors engineering that the European and Asian railroads are objectively better at handling, do not cease to apply in the Western Hemisphere. We accept an absurdly high failure rate on our railroads, a holdover from the bad old days of the mid- to late-20th Century, and it's only because so much of the traffic on our rails is dumb, non-hazmat freight that nobody really cares. But when the safety record is such that the Commerce Clause is the only thing preventing cities from banning hazmat shipments from passing through their boundaries, it shouldn't be nearly as hard as it is to acknowledge that We Have A Problem.

Tadman wrote:Final thought: If PTC were so amazing at presenting rail crashes, when do rail vehicle crash standards go away? There's no need for them if PTC works as presented.

It's funny you should mention that. I doubt very much that the FRA would be attempting to bring in Euronorms crashworthiness standards without the political cover granted by the PTC mandate. By no means should that be taken as an endorsement of a technical prerequisite; crash energy management standards should have been introduced thirty years ago, long before PTC, and the FRA should have taken five years less than it has (so far) to complete their adoption. But as we know, Federal safety bureaucrats are a small-c conservative bunch, and if PTC is what it takes to get off-the-shelf European EMUs and DMUs on American rails, that is a small premium to pay for huge savings down the road.

Suburban Station wrote:

jcpatten wrote:Downeaster is run by contract by Amtrak. If they decide to not renew the contract or breach the contract, NNEPRA can contract with somebody else to run it.

It's hard to imagine any reason why amtrak would walk away from the DownEaster other than trying to isolate itself

Please refer to link posted by Mr. Weaver. It is apparent that Amtrak will continue running the Downeaster after Dec.31, 2018.

That article is meaningless. NNEPRA is stating that they don't need PTC, but Amtrak has allegedly stated they will not run without PTC, whether it is needed by FRA mandate or not.

Amtrak could always just stop cashing Maine’s and Vermont’s checks.

There are so many conspiracy theories floating around the world, to say nothing of actual conspiracies, that it’s hard to tell if Amtrak is actually trying to shred the LD and state-supported system or if One Mass is actually just concerned with passenger safety.

They are negotiating for money. It's that simple.

jcpatten wrote:Downeaster is run by contract by Amtrak. If they decide to not renew the contract or breach the contract, NNEPRA can contract with somebody else to run it.

You mean like how things went with the Hoosier State?

If Amtrak calls Maine’s bluff and refuses to operate on PAR without PTC, what’s the likelihood Maine will even continue train service? There’s always Corridor Capital I suppose?

That depends almost entirely on who the new Governor is.