I was thinking about trackage rights and about historical societies and all. I was thinking about the Age of Steam with Jerry Jacobson steam locomotives. even though Mr. Jacobson doesn't own the Ohio Central anymore and sold it to the G&W in 08 or 09 doesn't he have like some sort of trackage rights to run his collection on the G&W? I'm just wondering about that. And also with steam excursions can a NS steam excursion go on CSX trackage because of a detour even tough the NS has trackage rights on that stretch of track. CSX has a no steam policy and yet NS needs this steam excursion to go on CSX tracks where NS has the rights to use those tracks and then get back on the NS tracks. can someone clear this up for me?

well, nobody seems to has replied yet so I will, its been the habit of many railroads to accept offrouted trains due to derailments and whatever, Nickel Plate and NYC had parallelled a lot between NY and Chicago so traffic problems on either they took trains onto each other during those times. South Shore has taken offrouted Amtrak trains and so on and so on.

If you have seen NKP 765's original restoration time runs they had a lot of runs on the CSX but you know as time went they've changed their character about steam runs, a few years ago a group wanted to do a very short run on the CSX to move their steamer under its own power to a display close by and CSX just flat out refused.

Somebody knowledgeable about current CSX operations would have to tell you if they took offrouted trains from other lines recently but with so much post merger rail lines these lines have more self congruous routes not needing to diverge to other lines, the but other rail lines taking diverted trains can still happen.

Trackage Rights are "durable" rights, subject to STB regulation, and NOT granted under "casual" circumstances.

Class 1 roads have standard Detour Agreements which cover operations such as those described between Buffalo and Cleveland above. The detouring party assumes absolute liability for all costs and/or losses. The host party has complete discretion as to whether or not to entertain any particular detour request.

Keep in mind that "Passengers" are the most highly "perishable class of freight", if you will. They are litigious, too!

Museum and excursion operations do NOT fit the criteria of either arrangement above. In some cases, however, the host party has permitted the trackage rights tenant (typically but not necessarily Amtrak or a Commuter Agency in good standing) to operate a steam excursion with the express assumption of all applicable liabilities. Such arrangements require strict assurance the excursion would not unreasonably interfere with the hosting party's operations.

The principal reason that museums and like organizations operating in their own behalf are not accommodated is driven from the fact they lack the assets, liquidity, credit, and/or insurance to fund the losses that might occur, and which - regrettably - do actually happen on rare occasion.

The above is correct, as far as I can tell.

One interesting other aspect to consider is that a trip operated under Amtrak auspices MAY likely be handled differently from a non-Amtrak one. At least one Amtrak charter excursion in the 1980s in Oregon required a substantial detour after a derailment blocked the return route, arriving back at its departure point the next morning.

If a steam excursion was being operated under Amtrak auspices, I could foresee, as a hypothetical example, CSX allowing a move over a connecting track and using a route that Amtrak already operates over, but demanding the steamer be removed and diesels subbed. Indeed, a couple NS circle excursions with return over a CSX route did just that as well.

Certainly possible. When TVRM ran Chattanooga to Crossville, Tennessee trips the railroad substituted diesels for the steam locomotive at Oakdale. In that case, it was due to operational limitations-the line above Oakdale wouldn't accommodate the steam locomotives.

When I was at TVRM, we did have trackage agreements in place with the Norfolk Southern and the Chattooga and Chickamauga Railway. The agreements did stipulate when our trains could be run and the circumstances. Our agreement was for weekend operations though the other railroads could (and did) permit operations on other days at their discretion. Other stipulations addressed crew requirements-in our case, no pilot but engineers had to be approved by the local road foreman. Conductors only had to make a couple of trips over the road under supervision of a conductor who was already route qualified.

In our case, if we were going to the Terminal Station, it was not unusual for the operator to cross us over ahead of other trains if there was sufficient time for us to get across-the reasoning being that as our trains were usually no more than three coaches, we could get started quickly. Of course, our efforts to maintain cordial relations with the local operators also helped-our road foreman (and a few other officers) knew those fellows. Every so often, they'd swing by the tower and leave some goodies for them.

This question gets asked frequently on sites such as these - should this go in the FAQ section?

First, starting with a loaded passenger train, not a deadhead/empty train move: when this question gets asked, it usually is along these lines: "Railroad X has trackage rights over CSX or UP, so can that railroad operate a steam excursion over CSX/UP?" The short answer is, CSX or UP would never allow that to happen. I doubt CSX would even allow a detour of 10 feet over their tracks with a loaded passenger train these day. And it is unlikely any other railroad would allow an excursion via trackage rights either.

Second, regarding deadhead moves, it needs to be clarified that deadhead moves are completely different animals than loaded passenger trains. With the exception of CSX, most railroads are approachable about deadheading an empty train, even with a steam engine. Again, I highly doubt CSX would ever allow a steam engine to move over their lines, trackage rights or not. And moving passenger cars over CSX is increasingly a non-starter as well.

It is an oft-repeated chestnut that JJJ has "trackage rights" or some sort or other agreement to operate over the G&Y ex-OC lines. It is interesting that if he does, he never uses them. And as to if G&Y would ever allow a steam passenger excursion over their lines: from my dealings with them, I highly doubt it.

Chris

Let us not forget that last year, 765 and the Fort Wayne crew were able to use CSX for part of their deadhead move leaving Cuyahoga Valley, on their voyage back to their home base. So we can no longer say that CSX "will never" allow deadhead moves...

Do the terms of a trackage rights agreement or lease have any validity? IF an agreement allows passenger trains, can the owner of the track still prohibit them?

Trackage Rights Agreements are typically crafted to cover regular operations by the tenant over the line(s) of the owner. Each TRA stands upon its own terms - which vary - and may be written to specifically include or exclude certain operations by the tenant, such as passenger operations (excursions or otherwise). Labor Protective conditions apply under TRAs.

Other Operating Agreements, such as for Interchange, are not TRAs. Labor Protective conditions do NOT attach to IC Agreements.

Other arrangements, such as Haulage Agreements, likewise stand upon their own terms, some of which may be used in lieu of Trackage Rights Agreements, depending upon the circumstances of the owner and user.

The effect of all this is: A WILLING owner can negotiate and agree to permit any tenant activity it chooses to allow. On the other hand, an UNWILLING owner - as has been seen - can and should be expected to resist any unwanted tenant or activity, in the absence of contractual rights.

To specifically answer Jim Boylan's question, YES, if the proposed User activity is deemed by the Owner to unreasonably interfere with its own operations, or if the rights to the proposed activity are not CLEARLY identified in any TRA the User asserts, then in such instances the Owner would likely deny access to the User. Why would an Owner permit its TRA to be used for an UNINTENDED purpose?

In my opinion and experience, the apportionment of liability - including security for payment of any loss - is the principal area of concern, which introduces a very high threshold to the operators of excursions.

Other concerns, such as to the operation of steam power, its fueling, watering and maintenance do carry a potential risk of interference to the Owner's operations, but these concerns can usually be addressed on the basis of the planned operation, the condition of the motive power, the experience of those charged with its care and maintenance, and/or other alternatives - such as a diesel unit in tow.

Any and all of these matters requires the time and attention of the Owner's qualified and WILLING managers (who are typically pressed to intervene and handle many other priorities 24/7).

As you can see, the WILLINGNESS of the Owner is the best predictor of what might be possible.

I hope this more fully addresses your questions.

How it is understood to me is he has that option to move equipment and also for steam powered freight photo runs. He will no longer do any passenger trips of his own due to insurance costs and liability. He will however loan or lease out a locomotive for other places wanting to use one like 1293 running on CVSR at times.

To answer JonBoylan's question:

Yes, the terms in a trackage rights agreement are important. But, in my experience, most trackage-rights agreements are completely silent on the issues that would be important to our industry - steam-powered engines, friction bearings, passenger equipment, etc. Most trackage-rights agreements I have seen came about in the late 1970s, in the start of the big selloff by the Class 1 RRs, the formation of state-owned railroads, etc. At that point people didn't consider the possibility of a live steam engine moving over their lines, or similar moves.

And, as is alluded to in later posts, the willingness of the host carrier is key. For example, if you could find a trackage-rights agreement over CSX that allowed passenger movements (not likely, but there could be one out there dating decades ago), I guarantee CSX would throw up enough roadblocks to make sure that would simply never happen. Same goes with movements of live steam engines over their tracks - such as the attempted move of a steam engine from the WMSR over CSX a while back. While you could then try to fight that issue, either by the regulatory or legal processes, you likely would never be able to win. That's the reality.

Chris.

The steam move over CSX years past was designed to fail. The organizer made assumptions and had no commitment from CSX for the move. Once backed into a corner, the answer will always be "NO".

FYI, every diesel locomotive has plain bearings between the traction motor and the axle. Plain bearings run the industry, just not holding up the weight of the unit.

I don't believe the failed WMSR deadhead move of 734 counts as valid example of CSX voiding or not honoring a trackage rights agreement due to steam power. As far as I know WMSR didn't have trackage rights over the route they wished to deadhead the 734.

You are correct - that had nothing to do with trackage rights. It had everything to do with both steam and CSX. The Fort Wayne crew, having demonstrated an incredible record over the past many years, of reliability and getting over the railroad without delay, I imagine helped convince CSX to let them ferry over their line for a short period of time this past fall when they were in a bind leaving the Cuyahoga Valley.