service in this state,” including the three-days-a-week Sunset Limited as a rare exception. That complaint comes from Peter LeCody, a leader in the effort to bring more rail service to the Lone Star State. Mr. LeCody says the Texas legisla-


ture, since its 2017 session began in early January, has been giving micro- scopic attention to whether the privately funded bullet train will soon be zooming across the state between its two largest metropolitan areas at a record-setting (for the U.S.) speed of 205 m.p.h. in 90 minutes each way. The hoped-for HSR between San Francisco and Los Angeles is aiming for 220 m.p.h. if it ever gets completely off the blueprints and actual- ly running. As we’ve previously reported in this space, that project has encoun- tered a plethora of economic and politi- cal trip-wires. Even the well-established Northeast Corridor, which has some new equip- ment on order capable of doing much better, is in the meantime held to no more 150-160 m.p.h. in New England. Several political NIMBY issues are de- laying action there as well. But then again… The Texas case is


largely a rural versus urban issue. Le- Cody ticked off a list of cities and towns that are gung-ho to bring the Texas Cen- tral project into reality. Texas Central Land & Infrastructure is trying, and not without some resistance, to buy up land for the proposed project. One landowner has pushed back in a


very fundamental way. David Risinger told Dickson Star Telegram.com that when a land consultant representing the railroad contacted him (whose property is a 220-acre farm in a little town) and requested permission to enter his prop- erty to survey, the permission was re- fused. Risinger and at least 30 others in the mostly rural counties are merely the latest in a series of plaintiffs that have filed a lawsuit in the case. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastruc-


ture then filed a lawsuit of its own, charging that Risinger had no right to interfere with the project. “They said I’m costing them millions of dollars, and the project was just so big that it just could not be stopped,” the farmer complained to reporter Gordon Dickson. Tim Keith, chief executive for Texas Central Partners, argues the state leg- islature has protected certain indus- tries that were for the common good, railroads among them. To which the 81-year old Risinger (whose family has raised cattle and grown corn, cotton, and other crops on the property since 1892) replies, “Texas Central didn’t ex- ist until 2012, and really owns no de- pots, locomotives, tracks or ties.” Just because a company calls itself a railroad doesn’t make it one as far as that “don’t


22 APRIL 2017 • RAILFAN.COM


An eastbound Norfolk Southern freight passes under old Pennsylvania Railroad position light sig- nals at Newport, Pa., on February 19, 2017, as new signals that are compliant with Positive Train Control stand by. PTC could be the precursor to driverless technologies. STEVE BARRY PHOTO


mess with Texas” farmer is concerned. The show is entertaining, but the ur-


ban side of Texas is every bit as deter- mined that its people will no longer be denied a decent passenger train worthy of so large a state. Those Texans won’t be messed with either. Lawsuits and countersuits will likely solve nothing. Eminent domain is about attaining rea- son and fairness to both sides.


Matt Rose Railway Age and other active outlets


for the rail industry perform a neces- sary service to the business community as well as regulators, shippers, and (to some extent) the public at large in pro- viding speaking platforms to leading railroaders in an industry that is going through big changes. Take, for example, these comments by Matt Rose, longtime CEO of BNSF. The STB is “a good regulator,” he told


his audience. “They are very capable people. But they are going to have to understand that you cannot look in the rearview mirror, you’ve got to look at the current day and industry that has got 3,000 locomotives in storage, an in- dustry that has got 50,000 freight [cars] in storage, and an industry that has got 6,000 to 7,000 employees that are fur- loughed,” according to Rose. While noting that the industry has


been adding more safety controls — in- cluding “the PTC evolution,” Mr. Rose noted that the goal of eliminating hu- man risk could “ultimately lead to the development of driverless technologies,” and that DOT is already allocating $5 billion to support these technologies for the roads; it’s an area “in which the rail


sector must keep up.” The railroads have hired “enormous amounts of people over the last 15 years,” but the industry still is not at the rate where there are enough replace- ments for those who are retiring from the industry. Matt Rose nonetheless is confident


the rail industry will adapt to all these changes. “The [new] talent is going to be so much more educated and technol- ogy savvy… an exciting time to be in the industry.”


Harrison: Next Stop CSX Having made his presence emphati-


cally felt with both major carriers north of the border (Canadian National and Canadian Pacific), Hunter Harrison, re- garded in industrial quarters as a rail legend in his time (albeit sometimes a bothersome one), has picked himself up from his latest battle. Harrison has built his legendary sta-


tus in part through his advocacy of “pre- cision railroading,” which is defined as moving trains to their destinations as quickly as possible rather than just waiting for them to refill. One can imag- ine most shippers would applaud that approach, assuming there is consistent- ly enough equipment on hand to fill any gaps that might unexpectedly occur. The Hatch input: Tony Hatch of


ABH Consulting told the Financial Times that Harrison’s switch would not necessarily lead to further consolida- tion, noting that CSX has dramatically improved operations since 2014. Or, as Hatch puts it, “Like Melville’s greatest white whale, CSX is not a weak fish.”


WES VERNON IS A WASHINGTON WRITER and veteran broadcast journalist. You can reach him with questions or comments at capitollines@railfan.com.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76