Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
I'd like to remind everyone that this kind of thing has been proposed before. I suspect the reason for the host railroads staying out of it revolves around the concept of staying under the radar.
It is one thing for a BNSF or CSX freight train to derail. It is another to have passengers (with twitter) raking their names over the coal. This would open them up to more scrutiny, which could prove harmful to their reputations. Although it was NS that allowed the auto-router to wreak havoc, the name the passengers on the delayed train screamed out was Amtrak. Additionally, there is little control over "their flagship" since most trains will have to deal with multiple hosts. It is likely not worth the price of the contract. When CSX operated the MARC baseball specials, I'm sure they thought it would be good publicity and show they had the spirit of cooperation....until a few high profile incidents put CSX in the spotlight. Even though the train had MARC on the side, everyone looked at CSX. The next time the operating agreement came up for renewal, they refused to sign it and would not allow the train to operate. It is no longer "Amtrak's" disabled train. It is now NS's passengers are out in field without buses. Do you think they or their shareholders want that?
Additionally, there is also the liability factor. If they run the service themselves, even a LLC wouldn't likely be enough to shield them from the fallout of a derailment or injury.
.
This is likely why when CSX and NS were offered the VRE service, they bowed out. Their costs were guaranteed. I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want.
It is one thing for a BNSF or CSX freight train to derail. It is another to have passengers (with twitter) raking their names over the coal. This would open them up to more scrutiny, which could prove harmful to their reputations. Although it was NS that allowed the auto-router to wreak havoc, the name the passengers on the delayed train screamed out was Amtrak. Additionally, there is little control over "their flagship" since most trains will have to deal with multiple hosts. It is likely not worth the price of the contract. When CSX operated the MARC baseball specials, I'm sure they thought it would be good publicity and show they had the spirit of cooperation....until a few high profile incidents put CSX in the spotlight. Even though the train had MARC on the side, everyone looked at CSX. The next time the operating agreement came up for renewal, they refused to sign it and would not allow the train to operate. It is no longer "Amtrak's" disabled train. It is now NS's passengers are out in field without buses. Do you think they or their shareholders want that?
Additionally, there is also the liability factor. If they run the service themselves, even a LLC wouldn't likely be enough to shield them from the fallout of a derailment or injury.
.
This is likely why when CSX and NS were offered the VRE service, they bowed out. Their costs were guaranteed. I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want.
Last edited by a moderator: