CSX opposes NYS high speed plans

The following link is from the Times Union in Albany.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article ... 571510.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"The owner of the rail line state officials hope to use for high-speed passenger trains strongly opposes the plan, calling it unsafe, bad for the environment and economically unsound."

BobLI wrote:The following link is from the Times Union in Albany.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article ... 571510.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"The owner of the rail line state officials hope to use for high-speed passenger trains strongly opposes the plan, calling it unsafe, bad for the environment and economically unsound."

Even the 79 MPH trains or the 90 MPH trains wouldn't be on CSX's track much. The 125MPH trains, which is a terrible idea, 160 MPH tilt trains or the full fledged 220 MPH trains would be on their own right of way. Which wouldn't be anywhere near CSX's tracks except in a few places. Even when it's near CSX's tracks, lets say 20 feet away, CSX doesn't have much to say about it.

Adirondacker wrote:

BobLI wrote:The following link is from the Times Union in Albany.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article ... 571510.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"The owner of the rail line state officials hope to use for high-speed passenger trains strongly opposes the plan, calling it unsafe, bad for the environment and economically unsound."

Even the 79 MPH trains or the 90 MPH trains wouldn't be on CSX's track much. The 125MPH trains, which is a terrible idea, 160 MPH tilt trains or the full fledged 220 MPH trains would be on their own right of way. Which wouldn't be anywhere near CSX's tracks except in a few places. Even when it's near CSX's tracks, lets say 20 feet away, CSX doesn't have much to say about it.

Umm, what tracks do you think the 79mph or 90mph trains are suddenly going to start running on? The only existing tracks really are CSX's. That's CSX's main point.

That said, while I think they have some valid points here, I think they're also using this is a tool to fight the state on some of the on-going controversy regarding the oil-trains passing through the state. They basically want the state to stop hounding them on safety issues. So I'd give this about 50% real concerns and 50% simply being recalcitrant due to the other issues.

yeah, there arent going to be any brand-new corridors built for high-speed rail anywhere in the state..
From Albany to Buffalo it will need to run right along CSX's tracks..
CSX is using 2-tracks of the once 4-track New York Central mainline..so there is room for a new track, in theory.
but CSX does own the entire ROW, length and width..so they do have a lot to say about it..
(The state can of course force them to accept it anyway..)

Scot

Greg Moore wrote: Umm, what tracks do you think the 79mph or 90mph trains are suddenly going to start running on? The only existing tracks really are CSX's. That's CSX's main point.

That said, while I think they have some valid points here, I think they're also using this is a tool to fight the state on some of the on-going controversy regarding the oil-trains passing through the state. They basically want the state to stop hounding them on safety issues. So I'd give this about 50% real concerns and 50% simply being recalcitrant due to the other issues.

Not the ones with the 40 MPH freight trains toddling along. Not if you want something more frequent than what we already have.

Adirondacker wrote:

Greg Moore wrote: Umm, what tracks do you think the 79mph or 90mph trains are suddenly going to start running on? The only existing tracks really are CSX's. That's CSX's main point.

That said, while I think they have some valid points here, I think they're also using this is a tool to fight the state on some of the on-going controversy regarding the oil-trains passing through the state. They basically want the state to stop hounding them on safety issues. So I'd give this about 50% real concerns and 50% simply being recalcitrant due to the other issues.

Not the ones with the 40 MPH freight trains toddling along. Not if you want something more frequent than what we already have.

And that's CSX's entire point. The 79mph, 90mph options were predicated on using the existing tracks.

There is plenty of 79MAS track between Hoffmans and Buffalo, jumping it to 90mph would require cab signaling which in turn would require the leading unit on all trains to have cab signal equipment. That equals $$$$$$

Is mandatory universal PTC happening or not? (I honestly haven't kept up with the news.) If so, will it allow 90 mph?

Greg Moore wrote: And that's CSX's entire point. The 79mph, 90mph options were predicated on using the existing tracks.

The 79MPH and 90 MPH options aren't fast enough to attract a lot of new riders either. So ya don't need a lot more trains. Longer ones perhaps but not a lot more.

Most people don't care or realize how fast they are going. They do know when there stopped looking at the same piece of vegetation for an hour. Frequency not speed is the key the more choices a consumer has the more likely they'll use the service.

CSX dosent give a poo about Amtrak, were just taken up space. There are old school dispatchers who will move you around and try to keep you on schedule, however they are few and far between. A couple of examples following Qxxx we were a little tardy and the dispatcher got us around him. Could have been well over an hour instead only about 30min. Good move thanks.

Qxxx with an equipment failure train restricted to 30mph. Follow for about 120 miles never getting over 28 mph mostly 15 or less. Train crew even offered to take there time to get us around them, no go. Saw one train in the opposite direction. The icing on the cake a couple of miles at 10mph temp speed.

This is another of the recurrent dramas that we see play out based on the structure of rail transportation in this country. In the US (and Canada), outside of a few corridors (principally the NEC and its extensions), the rail network is in the hands of private railroads and exists to provide an avenue for freight transportation. In this context, passenger trains are, at best, an annoyance to the track owners. In much of the rest of the world (especially Europe), the rails are publicly or quasi-publicly owned, and their central purpose is passenger transportation; freight use is a very distant afterthought.

In order to improve the situation for passenger trains on the freight roads, the passenger forces (Amtrak, the states, the feds, whoever) have to make it "worth their while," at least to some extent. CSX says it is not "worth their while" to host more/faster trains on the Water Level Route. As Mr. Moore suggests, perhaps this is a negotiating ploy. While some of their positions have some legitimacy, though, they're undercut by the fact that other freight railroads (e.g., UP between Sacramento and San Jose) have figure out how to profitably co-exist with much higher volumes of passenger trains. CSX seems to be taking the position that there's just no way to make additional frequencies and higher speeds work. I'd be surprised if that were true. And if CSX continues to adhere to that position, they could be in for a lot of unpleasant scrutiny (passenger-related and otherwise).

scottychaos wrote: ...CSX is using 2-tracks of the once 4-track New York Central mainline..so there is room for a new track, in theory...
Scot

And I think that CSX's recent signal upgrade project, although it clearly has other purposes, also has the convenient additional feature of blocking some of that extra right of way. "You want that third track? You're going to have to pay to replace or move all of those new signals we just installed."

CSX will not only protest in public, but do all it can "behind the scenes" to make that additional ROW unusable.

Station Aficionado wrote:This is another of the recurrent dramas that we see play out based on the structure of rail transportation in this country. In the US (and Canada), outside of a few corridors (principally the NEC and its extensions), the rail network is in the hands of private railroads and exists to provide an avenue for freight transportation. In this context, passenger trains are, at best, an annoyance to the track owners. In much of the rest of the world (especially Europe), the rails are publicly or quasi-publicly owned, and their central purpose is passenger transportation; freight use is a very distant afterthought.

In order to improve the situation for passenger trains on the freight roads, the passenger forces (Amtrak, the states, the feds, whoever) have to make it "worth their while," at least to some extent. CSX says it is not "worth their while" to host more/faster trains on the Water Level Route. As Mr. Moore suggests, perhaps this is a negotiating ploy. While some of their positions have some legitimacy, though, they're undercut by the fact that other freight railroads (e.g., UP between Sacramento and San Jose) have figure out how to profitably co-exist with much higher volumes of passenger trains. CSX seems to be taking the position that there's just no way to make additional frequencies and higher speeds work. I'd be surprised if that were true. And if CSX continues to adhere to that position, they could be in for a lot of unpleasant scrutiny (passenger-related and otherwise).

Does the UP between Sacramento and San Jose host the same number of freights?

Like I say, with the recent boom in oil traffic and soon container traffic away from the east coast into the heartland, I honestly can believe CSX is pretty dang busy on this route.

Ultimately, NYS needs to pony up and go with the new ROW. It really is the only way to go in my opinion. (Though, I'd honestly plan for 135 or even 150mph, not 120mph, yes a higher cost, but I think ultimately the economic benefits will show up.)

Railjunkie wrote: Frequency not speed is the key the more choices a consumer has the more likely they'll use the service.

Nope, people pick the fastest mode. If it's slower than driving or flying people will fly or drive.

Greg Moore wrote:Ultimately, NYS needs to pony up and go with the new ROW. It really is the only way to go in my opinion. (Though, I'd honestly plan for 135 or even 150mph, not 120mph, yes a higher cost, but I think ultimately the economic benefits will show up.)

Building a 220 MPH ROW between the slow parts to get to and from downtown and building a 125 MPH ROW between the slow parts to get to and from downtown doesn't cost much more. The parts that are straight cost the same. There's a lot of straight stuff in Western New York.

It's not a one to one relationship. That if you spend a dollar you can go from 78 MPH to 79 MPH and 2 bucks you can go from 78 to 80. the step from 79 to 80 is really really expensive and the step from 80 to 90 in lots of places doesn't cost anything at all. It works the same way with 124 and upgrading to 125. Going from 125 to 220, especially in the places that will be straight anyway, doesn't cost much more.