As another post suggested, you also deal with this by keeping track of the roving resumes and trying again when personnel changes put different people in charge.
Are there A.A.R. interchange standards for locomotives? Or, are we trying to apply Freight Car Standards to something they are not exactly meant to cover?
In some cases, the A.A.R. Freight Car interchange standards are stricter than the Federal government's requirements, like 40 versus 50 year age limits. So, if CSX or anyone else applies A.A.R. Freight Car interchange standards to steam locomotives and dining cars, will any but "Levithian" pass the age limit?

Jim:

Rule 88 now allows for interchange of equipment up to 65 years old.

The problem is, the AAR has so many publications (one alone covers strictly intermodal), that keeping up with current standards can be a daunting task.

I believe there is a separate set for locomotives, but I don't have a copy and would not know if there are any references to steam locomotives in them.

It's their railroad. They don't need an "excuse." Money or not, they can say no simply because they don't want to deal with it. Every day, the railroad turns away business that they don't view as being profitable enough to be worth their time.

For example ... several years ago I know of a RR employee who called up the intermodal marketing department to get a quote on rates. They inquired about moving one trailer from NY to LA in premium intermodal service. Because it was only one trailer, the railroad told them they weren't interested in the move and that there were viable alternatives to intermodal.

The same goes for general merchandise. Unless you are doing so many cars per week, the railroad won't even talk to you about a contract. So, the idea that any group is willing to pay money to move equipment isn't much of a factor. The railroad simply doesn't care if they view it as being more hassle than it is worth.

If they really want to be pricks about it, they can agree to the move and then let it sit and rot while every train within 200 miles runs around it. Or, they can say that some dwarf signal won't clear the cylinders and therefore it doesn't meet the clearances for the line. Only CSX knows for sure if it really does, and they don't have to provide proof of their reasons.

Honestly, I think the chances of 614 running on CSX aren't great, and this has been taken into account with the GBX talk being of steam covering only a portion of the trip.

And, for 614 to be Amtrak certified, I believe it's going to have to get out there and run so many miles before Amtrak will even consider it. Other than Reading and Northern, where is that going to happen? NS or CSX? Doubtful.

Again, the rails belong to CSX, and only they will decide what runs on it. Just look at what happened out west, with the two proposed trains between LA and Las Vegas. UP said, "Thanks, but not thanks."

Of partiuclar note, is a quote from Ross Rowland in another forum. He stated:

"Anybody that knows ANYTHING about the railroad industry knows that there was NEVER any chance that UP was going to let a private sector party train run over its rails.

They couldn't buy enough insurance nor pay a high enough mileage charge to make it acceptable to UP.

It never had ANY chance of happening and never will!!

Ross Rowland"

Anyone see the irony of that statement?

Under Staggers and other deregulation acts, railroads seem to have acquired lots of leeway in how they satisfy their Common Carrier duties to somewhat impartially accept and haul almost all freight offered to them. Not all cases are rich enough to reach the Supreme Court, and the Court doesn't hear all that do get that far. The same happens with transportation cases and the Surface Transportation Board. CSX doesn't want to haul Poisonous Inhalation Hazard chemicals, either, but there is more money and public necessity involved there, so the Surface Transportation Board has ruled against CSX and other lines. But, they have been allowed to raise rates astronomically.
Even if CSX was forced to move 734, they would still be allowed to charge enough to make a profit, including the cost of moving and replacing a dwarf signal that might be in the way. The schedule of the move could still try to avoid delay to the rest of the railroad's traffic.

Funny, here we've been upset at what seems to be some poor decision making in Jacksonville, and then, over on Norfolk Southern, it starts to sound like 1966 again:


http://www.tvrail.com/pages/standard/news.php

I enjoyed these comments from Jim Boylan and Dave Crosby on the thread about this:

"If I were a shipper, I'd certainly chose the road that could move the unusual or out of the ordinary as opposed to the road that couldn't!"

"About 1981, I rode a NRHS chartered train to ConRail's Lucknow Welded Rail Plant near Harrisburg. We returned via Enola yard - through a departure yard and over the hump in the wrong direction! My seat mate was an official of a duPont chemical plant in West Virginia. When a fan on the other side of the aisle explained what those terms meant and how unusual it was to have an a Amfleet train running there, he exclaimed, "If ConRail's yards are safe enough for a passenger train, then I guess their main lines are safe enough for my traffic!" Someone else had overheard on railroad radio that track crews had spiked and unspiked the yard switches before and after the train. I'm sure that even in 1981 dollars, the revenue from even 1 extra chemical car would pay for the track crew's overtime."

For my own "humble opinion," I have always thought that a railroad with an excursion program was inherently better run, because the program was so demanding. Like the fellow said about a yard track being fit for passenger trains. . .

I believe it was Graham Claytor who thought steam was the greatest ambassador a railroad could have. David P. Morgan thought steam served to heighten the modernity of the present day railroad. This is echoed today by CEO Wick Moorman, who said, "We have a fascinating history, and we have a compelling message about how today's railroads support jobs, competition, and the economy. It is a forward-looking message that resonates with people everywhere."

It would wonderful if a part of this sank in at Jacksonville (although I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the result).

I've noticed several posts mentioning shippers in the context of choosing to ship via rail based upon riding an excursion or some goodwill brought to the local area by a steam locomotive. The truth is that railroads, at least here in the Northeast, pick and choose what they haul.

I worked for a major international chemical company here in Delaware. We manufactured a million dollars of product per day and were served by Conrail and later NS. We used to get a few rail cars per week and dozens and dozens of trucks. Even though our company was a major shipper system wide, our plant got little respect/service. Instead of working to get some of the traffic from the dozens and dozens of trucks they gave us such poor service that they lost all of our business. In my opinion they were happy to see us go.

I do think the railroads will take advantage of a little goodwill they can generate but they are not going to be bothered with any facility unless it is getting a lot of traffic. A plant that reopens a long unused siding and gets a couple cars a week only happens on shortlines/regionals, not on NS or CSX.

Well, this turned up with a recent posting--knew it was around here somewhere, that thread about a business car with grease roller bearings, with comments about a CSX manager who supposedly couldn't tell them from a plain-bearing car on the second page:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27240

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27240&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

To anybody in the know (and I'm talking about shippers here), this can't make CSX look good.

In reference to some earlier comments, both by others and myself, this steam business tickled my brain cells a bit, and seems to dredge up a memory of an editorial by the late David P. Morgan in Trains. It seems he too thought a steam excursion program was a sign of a well-run railroad, and as his circumstantial "proof" (my term, not his) cited how the Southern Railway (this was long before the NS merger) had a steam program, and was a well-run railroad, in contrast to the blundering, fumbling Penn Central (now that dates this!) which was very anti-steam and anti-excursion at the time.

I do think there is something to this. A railroad with a steam program has to be well run because of the demands of the steam program itself, as anyone who has worked on the beasts knows. It takes a great deal of effort , dedication, and discipline to pull such a program off and do it well. It is also a sign that the management knows and cares about its heritage, and is savy enough to play up the contrast between old and new, as Southern and NS would do, and as NS wants to do today.

It's a sign that the management is human, too, and isn't just about money and nothing but money. I am reminded of a story about a grocery store chain in the Washington, DC area which has become quite large in recent years, but was noted for excellent operation when it was a regional outfit with its original management. One of its vice-presidents was a stickler for a neat store, and would bug his managers with surprise visits. If a manager complained the store was doing OK because it made good money and suggested that the VP was worrying too much about appearances, the VP would give a blast at the manager for being shortsighted. His words ran to something like, "You are not in business just to make money; you must also take care of your customers. If you are only in business to make money, you will chase away all your customers. If you don't have any customers, you won't have any money."

Many businesses of all types would do well to heed his words.

Oh well, back to the waiting game. . .

I noticed some folks have brought up RJ Corman running the QJ over CSX and comparing it to this situation. Unfortunately, it's not a fair comparison. The 734 move would have required the use of a CSX locomotive and a CSX train train crew plus additional officials and railroad police. The QJ move only required a couple of railroad officials and railroad police as RJ Corman crews are qualified over the railroad. At the same time, RJ Corman had a set of diesels following the train, just in case something were to happen.

It may not seem like it but, tying up a locomotive and train crew for that long is a big deal in some areas. Especially in the summer as crews start to take vacation.

remembering your heritage, all these big railroads grew out from smaller lines.

perhaps a reminder like the Alamo....


"Remember the team track!!!"



I always wondered why its so difficult to throw a few switches, have the 734 crawl in its own power 10 miles, done. Wow, haul it up before a commitee first.

overNout.

In order to do just that, CSX would have to call out a conductor and engineer to be the pilot crew. No, an RFE or Trainmaster alone couldn't do it due to union agreements. So you call the first two guys out on the extraboard.... OR you might have to wait for a rested conductor to come available. Then you've got to hope there are no hot trains or anything in the yard that needs a crew. On top of all that CSX is tying up a crew for the time of the move plus 8 or 10 hours for rest.

Nothing is simple on the railroad.

Plus, who is going to pay the Special Train Charge, which is high enough to cover all those problems and expenses (including loss of other business) mentioned in earlier posts? A footnote to the tariff allows CSX to charge even more if there are more extra expenses, and still perform the move at its convenience.