The PTC 20 mile "loophole" is not related to tourist trains at all. It's stated purpose is so that for the purposes of interchange, a class III railroad would be permitted to operate upon PTC trackage to a yard where interchange may take place without the class III railroad being encumbered by the expense of maintaining a PTC enabled locomotive.

Mr. Rowland is correct with his statement about politics being the primary factor in such issues.

Commuter operations are typically large, top-heavy, and fickle. They are filled with consultants, committees, and appointees that are usually not "railroad people" they are "money people" or "power people" their duty is to protect the interest of the commuter line and their own jobs. The powers that be at the GVVRR should be properly and politely looking out for the interests of their operation as the project develops, so they don't have to play catch up at any point.

We were invited to do another 614 centered excursion program on NJ Transit several years ago by the then newly appointed senior leadership at the railroad but we declined based upon the realities of the economics involved.

Based upon our real life 3 year experience ( 1996-98) running the previous program we knew there was a practical limit on how many tickets could be sold at a price that would cover all the expenses involved and that at the end of the day the numbers didn't work even if the host was willing to be as accommodative as possible ( very cheap track use fee, allow liability insurance piggybacking etc.) so unless we were willing to subsidize the losses ( which we were not) it was a no go.

Sad but true. Ross Rowland

What if the commuter train is the tourist train's tenant?
For a while, New Hope & Ivyland (Pa.) RR shared use of the local transit authority's Warminster station partly because the tourist train thought that their landlord owned the track. The transit authority was reluctant to fight in court for fear of loosing, and was reluctantly satisfied with concessions from the tourist train. The landlord was willing to let the uncertainty continue for fear that they might lose if the matter ever went to court.
(The same track at the station may have been sold twice, and the tourist train's landlord got their deed recorded 1st!)

This is in response to "hotbox" comment that the 20 mile restiction for operation of non PTC equipped trains on PTC lines "is not related to tourist trains at all". It may well be that FRA wasn't thinking of tourist/excursion trains when they wrote the 20-mile restriction (in fact, I think it's very likely that they weren't). But they wrote the restriction so broadly that it applies to ANY operation of non-equipped trains on a PTC line after 2023. Perhaps FRA can be persuaded to approve waivers for tourist/excursion trains on PTC lines or (better yet) a rule revision. But the way the 20-mile restriction now reads, it would apply to all non-equipped train operations on a PTC line, including non-equipped tourist/excursion trains.

Now let me respond to JimBoylan's comment about an operation where the commuter operator is a tenant of a tourist road. In that scenario, the tourist railroad obviously doesn't have to worry about whether the commuter railroad would "accept" the operation of non PTC equipped tourist trains. Presumably, the commuter operator would have no right to control the landlord's (i.e., the tourist road's) operations. But the 20 mile limitation (which is imposed by FRA, not the commuter operator) would still apply after 2023.

Bottom line (again). A tourist railroad or excursion operator that runs on a line used for commuter service (or any other line that will have PTC) needs to start addressing NOW what it will need to do to continue operations once the PTC system is turned on.