This is a matter of contract beween the owner and the tenant, so not all joint facility agreements follow this pattern. However, in my experience, this is the pattern that the Amtrak contracts follow. A big part of the reason for this is to have a simple, easily applied rule for allocating liability, rather than turn each incident into a messy court battle between the railroads as to who is responsible.
Deggesty As I understand the matter of who pays for the damage when a train running on trackage rights is involved in an accident, the owner of that train pays for all of the damage, regardless of whose fault the accident is..This has been the agreement between owning roads and foreign roads.
As I understand the matter of who pays for the damage when a train running on trackage rights is involved in an accident, the owner of that train pays for all of the damage, regardless of whose fault the accident is..This has been the agreement between owning roads and foreign roads.
The situation described above is part of the National Detour Agreement, not all trackage rights agreements.
Johnny
BNSFandSP Half the article doesn't make sense. As Sam already pointed out, the Eagle needs to go through Tower 55 anyways, and I don't see how TRE operations would improve. I know the sacrifice Sunday service for double tracking, but the meets usually don't take more than 2-3 minutes.
Half the article doesn't make sense. As Sam already pointed out, the Eagle needs to go through Tower 55 anyways, and I don't see how TRE operations would improve. I know the sacrifice Sunday service for double tracking, but the meets usually don't take more than 2-3 minutes.
Well here is the deal, the Texas Eagle would pull forwards into Fort Worth Intermodal Terminal from the North. Tower 55 is to the South of the station and it has to pull through it once forwards and then back through it a second time to reach the station now. Additionally, Fort Worth is a station stop for the Texas Eagle of I think 10-20 min. Any delay waiting at Tower 55 for the new arrangement would just extend the station stop for Southbound to San Antonio passengers. Northbound to Ft. Worth passengers the delay would still be on the train. However Northbound passenger movements again the train would pull fowards into the station from the South and leave forwards to the North.
So thats how the change would work. Also, the TRE tracks would be and are higher speed right now because the UP tracks to the South go through more than one yard limit from what I remember. TRE tracks just a single yard limit at a interchange with the BNSF other than that they have no real impediments and the speed is fairly decent. They have been slowly and incrementally improving the TRE line with better drainage, new bridges, better rail and ties, etc.
now appears that state of Texas is stepping in to correct this dispute.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/15/4184488/officials-on-track-to-settle-amtrak.html
amazing what even Texas will do to get construction money ??
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
CMStPnP I should have looked before I posted, this article sheds more light on the liability story. I suspected it was TRE balking at Amtrak presence causing increased liability exposure........Typical of Amtrak to try and twist the story...... http://blogs.star-telegram.com/honkin_mad/2012/08/can-a-deal-be-worked-out-to-put-amtrak-on-the-trinity-railway-express.html
I should have looked before I posted, this article sheds more light on the liability story. I suspected it was TRE balking at Amtrak presence causing increased liability exposure........Typical of Amtrak to try and twist the story......
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/honkin_mad/2012/08/can-a-deal-be-worked-out-to-put-amtrak-on-the-trinity-railway-express.html
Sam1 Falcon48: blue streak 1: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/fort-worth/headlines/20120807-fort-worth-s-t-rail-stays-mum-on-legal-dispute-with-amtrak.ece It is amazing these liability issues keep croping up all over the country. The news article is pretty interesting, if it's accurate (given the difficulties the media has in accurately reporting on railroads, I wouldn't necessarily assume that it is). It seems to say that Amtrak is insisting that TRE assume liability for accidents to Amtrak trains on TRE trackage. To my knowledge, that's not how Amtrak's arrangements with freight railroads are structured. Generally, Amtrak assumes liability for accidents involving its trains and passengers. That's consistent with the philosophy underlying these deals. Amtrak was supposed to relieve the freight railroads of any financial responsibility for intercity passenger service. "But for" the Amtrak operations, the freight railroad wouldn't have any financial responsibility for passenger train accidents (becuase there wouldn't be any passenger trains). Therefore, Amtrak assumes that liability. It's certainly not unreasonable for TRE to insist on the same kind of lability arrangemetns that Amtrak has with freight railroads. After all, why should TRE take on liability exposure for accidents to Amtrak trains which it can completely avoid by not permitting Amtrak operations? And why should TRE take on more liability exposure than the host railroad has on Amtrak's current route? I did a search on Amtrak's contracts with the carriers that hoist its trains. I did not find much, although I would not describe my search as robust. One posting on Railroad.net said that the terms of the contracts are private. I am not a lawyer. However, I managed a lot of the contracts for large construction projects in the electric utility business. It would be unusual for the hoist carrier and/or Amtrak to be completely liable for incidents involving Amtrak's trains. If it were clear that Amtrak caused an incident, as I understand the law, it would be liable. On the other hand, if the incident was clearly the fault of the hoist railroad, I would think that it would be liable.
Falcon48: blue streak 1: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/fort-worth/headlines/20120807-fort-worth-s-t-rail-stays-mum-on-legal-dispute-with-amtrak.ece It is amazing these liability issues keep croping up all over the country. The news article is pretty interesting, if it's accurate (given the difficulties the media has in accurately reporting on railroads, I wouldn't necessarily assume that it is). It seems to say that Amtrak is insisting that TRE assume liability for accidents to Amtrak trains on TRE trackage. To my knowledge, that's not how Amtrak's arrangements with freight railroads are structured. Generally, Amtrak assumes liability for accidents involving its trains and passengers. That's consistent with the philosophy underlying these deals. Amtrak was supposed to relieve the freight railroads of any financial responsibility for intercity passenger service. "But for" the Amtrak operations, the freight railroad wouldn't have any financial responsibility for passenger train accidents (becuase there wouldn't be any passenger trains). Therefore, Amtrak assumes that liability. It's certainly not unreasonable for TRE to insist on the same kind of lability arrangemetns that Amtrak has with freight railroads. After all, why should TRE take on liability exposure for accidents to Amtrak trains which it can completely avoid by not permitting Amtrak operations? And why should TRE take on more liability exposure than the host railroad has on Amtrak's current route?
blue streak 1: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/fort-worth/headlines/20120807-fort-worth-s-t-rail-stays-mum-on-legal-dispute-with-amtrak.ece It is amazing these liability issues keep croping up all over the country.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/fort-worth/headlines/20120807-fort-worth-s-t-rail-stays-mum-on-legal-dispute-with-amtrak.ece
It is amazing these liability issues keep croping up all over the country.
The news article is pretty interesting, if it's accurate (given the difficulties the media has in accurately reporting on railroads, I wouldn't necessarily assume that it is). It seems to say that Amtrak is insisting that TRE assume liability for accidents to Amtrak trains on TRE trackage.
To my knowledge, that's not how Amtrak's arrangements with freight railroads are structured. Generally, Amtrak assumes liability for accidents involving its trains and passengers. That's consistent with the philosophy underlying these deals. Amtrak was supposed to relieve the freight railroads of any financial responsibility for intercity passenger service. "But for" the Amtrak operations, the freight railroad wouldn't have any financial responsibility for passenger train accidents (becuase there wouldn't be any passenger trains). Therefore, Amtrak assumes that liability.
It's certainly not unreasonable for TRE to insist on the same kind of lability arrangemetns that Amtrak has with freight railroads. After all, why should TRE take on liability exposure for accidents to Amtrak trains which it can completely avoid by not permitting Amtrak operations? And why should TRE take on more liability exposure than the host railroad has on Amtrak's current route?
I did a search on Amtrak's contracts with the carriers that hoist its trains. I did not find much, although I would not describe my search as robust. One posting on Railroad.net said that the terms of the contracts are private.
I am not a lawyer. However, I managed a lot of the contracts for large construction projects in the electric utility business. It would be unusual for the hoist carrier and/or Amtrak to be completely liable for incidents involving Amtrak's trains. If it were clear that Amtrak caused an incident, as I understand the law, it would be liable. On the other hand, if the incident was clearly the fault of the hoist railroad, I would think that it would be liable.
The basis for my statements on the liability provisions of Amtrak contracts was personal experience.
I think there might be several issues here.
Amtrak has more financial resources than TRE does, any dispute over accident accountability needs to be laid out ahead of time or TRE is going to find itself in trouble financially.
TRE trains are run by contractors. You get what you pay for there and the contractor professionalism is not what I would consider up to par of a Class One Railroad in some cases.
TRE probably wants to run express trains over the route once it is double tracked and then it will have to contend with a interferring Amtrak operation.
Amtrak might not be willing to pay the fair market track use charges between Dallas and Fort Worth.
I would like to see Amtrak on TRE as well as anyone but I would leave the decision up to TRE, they so far have managed the service pretty good and I trust their judgement to be what is best for those that live in the DFW area and use TRE.
Falcon48 blue streak 1: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/fort-worth/headlines/20120807-fort-worth-s-t-rail-stays-mum-on-legal-dispute-with-amtrak.ece It is amazing these liability issues keep croping up all over the country. The news article is pretty interesting, if it's accurate (given the difficulties the media has in accurately reporting on railroads, I wouldn't necessarily assume that it is). It seems to say that Amtrak is insisting that TRE assume liability for accidents to Amtrak trains on TRE trackage. To my knowledge, that's not how Amtrak's arrangements with freight railroads are structured. Generally, Amtrak assumes liability for accidents involving its trains and passengers. That's consistent with the philosophy underlying these deals. Amtrak was supposed to relieve the freight railroads of any financial responsibility for intercity passenger service. "But for" the Amtrak operations, the freight railroad wouldn't have any financial responsibility for passenger train accidents (becuase there wouldn't be any passenger trains). Therefore, Amtrak assumes that liability. It's certainly not unreasonable for TRE to insist on the same kind of lability arrangemetns that Amtrak has with freight railroads. After all, why should TRE take on liability exposure for accidents to Amtrak trains which it can completely avoid by not permitting Amtrak operations? And why should TRE take on more liability exposure than the host railroad has on Amtrak's current route?
blue streak 1 http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/fort-worth/headlines/20120807-fort-worth-s-t-rail-stays-mum-on-legal-dispute-with-amtrak.ece It is amazing these liability issues keep croping up all over the country.
Switching the Teax Eagle from the UP to the TRE for the run between Fort Worth and Dallas or vice versa would not allow the train to avoid completely the Tower 55 bottleneck in Fort Worth as stated by the writer of the article. But it would cut in half the number of moves through the bottleneck.
Currently, Number 21 pulls around Tower 55, which is no longer operational, and backs through the crossover into the Fort Worth Intermodal Transit Center (ITC). After being serviced, it again pulls through the junction to resume its southbound journey to San Antonio. Number 22 moves through the junction to stop at the ITC. After it is serviced, it backs out of the station, through the crossover, and then runs around the crossover to resume its northbound journey to Chicago, although between Fort Worth and Dallas the trains are running east/west.
If the Eagle could run over the TRE, it would avoid the backing movements in Fort Worth, thereby making it possible to improve the schedule time between Big D and Cow Town, although by how much is difficult to say since the current schedule is padded heavily. It would also allow Amtrak to stop at Centre Point, which is a convenient connection point for DFW Airport.
This change has been discussed for at least six or seven years. I am not sure whether double tracking the TRE is the real issue. Except from West Irving to Dallas, where the TRE hoists BNSF runs coming off the old Frisco line, the traffic density does not appear on the surface to be an impediment to running the Eagle on the TRE. There may be some hidden agendas here.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.