Prototype News

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) has granted authority for Watco Holdings, Inc. to acquire control of the 379.2-mile Class III Great Lakes Central Railroad, Inc., subject to certain conditions. The acquisition will allow Watco, which provides rail, transloading, terminal and port, and logistics services, to expand its control to one Class II and 44 Class IIIs across the United States.

GLC is currently owned by Federated Capital Acquisitions, Inc., a subsidiary of Federated Capital Holdings, LLC. According to Watco, the state of Michigan owns about 350 miles of GLC’s lines and GLC operates over them via “modified certificates of public convenience and necessity,” the STB reported in its Aug. 31 decision (download below). It will join Watco’s Grand Elk and Ann Arbor (AA) railroads in Michigan. Stretching from Ann Arbor (north) to Cadillac (central), Mich., with branches to Thompsonville, Traverse City, and Petoskey, GLC is the largest short line in the state and serves 15 counties. It ships a range of commodities including soybeans, corn, and other agricultural products, fertilizers, plastics, and LPG, and interchanges with CSX, Genesee & Wyoming’s Mid-Michigan Railroad and Huron & Eastern Railway, CN, and AA, which links with Norfolk Southern.

52682Download

Pittsburg, Kans.-based Watco on March 6 filed a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502, seeking an exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 to acquire control of GLC by acquiring 100% of GLC’s common stock. On June 20, under the STB’s direction, Watco filed a supplement providing additional information that the Board needed to determine whether the transaction qualified for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a).

The STB on Aug. 31 reported that its decision followed “a thorough review” of the petition and supplement. “In its filings, Watco stated its commitment to implementing service improvements and modernizing GLC’s infrastructure,” the Board said. “Specifically, Watco presented that its acquisition of control of GLC will create streamlined routing efficiencies between GLC and AA, allow GLC to gain access to Watco’s experienced marketing team, and allow Watco to invest approximately $3.7 million in GLC’s network. Watco also represented that the transaction will not reduce competitive options for shippers and committed to keeping open all currently active gateways operated by GLC and the Watco-owned AA, to which GLC connects.” No party opposed the transaction, and the State of Michigan submitted a letter in support of the acquisition, according to the STB.

In its approval decision, the Board said it “finds that the transaction satisfies the applicable statutory criteria and will not result in significant impacts on competition, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring Watco to maintain all currently active gateways on commercially competitive terms.” The decision, it noted, is subject to standard employee protective conditions.

The exemption will become effective Sept. 28, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by Sept. 8, 2025. Petitions to reopen must be filed by Sept. 18, 2025. STB Chairman Patrick J. Fuchs and Members Karen J. Hedlund, and Michelle A. Schultz issued the decision.

Further Reading: Did Primus Engineer His Own Ouster?

The post Watco Adding GLC to Small-Road Portfolio appeared first on Railway Age.

On August 21, Chicago’s Regional Transportation Authority voted to shift $74 million in discretionary funding from Metra and Pace (the region’s bus system) to the Chicago Transit Authority. While the money move won’t prevent the impending “doomsday” cuts, it will delay them until the middle of 2026. 

The RTA, which oversees the three agencies, is facing a $770 million deficit largely due to the end of federal funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although legislation to reform the RTA and provide funding passed through the state Senate, it failed to reach the House floor before the May 31 deadline. While it’s possible that the legislature could still address the budget shortfall during an upcoming special session, the RTA has begun cutting its budget to the amount it anticipates receiving next year from the state.

If the state does not come through with additional funding, drastic cuts are expected to impact bus, transit and commuter rail services in Chicagoland. Four of the CTA’s eight rail lines could be suspended, resulting in the closure of 50 stations. Metra would need to reduce service by 40 percent, which would eliminate early-morning and late-night trains.

The post Chicago Staves Off Transit Cuts — For Now appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

Sound Transit

Sound Transit announced Aug. 28 that passenger service will begin on the Link 1 Line to Federal Way on Dec. 6. The 7.8-mile Federal Way Link Extension includes three new stations in South King County, serving Kent Des Moines, Star Lake and Federal Way Downtown. During peak hours, trains will operate every eight minutes. 

The Federal Way extension will serve the following stations, all of which will include multiple transit connections:

• Kent Des Moines Station. Located east of I-5 at S 236th Street on the border of Kent and Des Moines, Kent Des Moines is an elevated station that serves Highline College, includes a 500-space parking garage, and features transit-oriented development opportunities including a 233-unit affordable housing project from Mercy Housing Northwest set to break ground this winter.
• Star Lake Station. Located at S 272nd St and 26th avenue, Star Lake station will serve as a key interchange for Link, St Express, King County Metro, and park-and-ride commuters. The elevated station features a new bike and pedestrian access path to the station plaza, connects to the existing freeway station, and will add 1,100 parking spaces in a new garage that replaced surface parking.
• Federal Way Downtown. Located at the Federal Way Transit Center, this elevated station serves one of the busiest transit centers in the region from the heart of Downtown Federal Way. The station features 400 new parking spaces in addition to existing garages, public restrooms, and a rebuilt street grid with pedestrian and bicycle improvements and opportunities for affordable housing and sustainable transit-oriented development.

The new Federal Way bus loop, which opened earlier this year, connects King County Metro, ST Express, and Pierce Transit buses directly to the station, “providing fast and reliable light rail connections to South King and Pierce County,” the agency noted.

“Today’s announcement on Federal Way shows that the region continues to make significant progress toward our mass transit goals,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. “This is one more step in completing the spine and providing relief from gridlock and more travel options for our residents. I look forward to the day we open Everett, and Tacoma, and the other key elements of the Sound Transit 3 package.”  

“It’s exciting to see trains out there running on the tracks as we continue to prepare for the opening of this crucial extension, further knitting our region together with clean, traffic-free light rail,” said Sound Transit CEO Dow Constantine. “Thank you to our partners at the Washington State Department of Transportation and the local jurisdictions who have accommodated years of project activity, and to our hard-working contractors and staff.”

According to a KIRO 7 News report, Sound Transit staff recently said they are “facing a 20-25% increase in costs compared to what’s currently outlined in the Long-Range Financial Plan, unless cost-saving measures are applied.

Voters approved the Sound Transit 3 (ST3) System Plan in 2016; however, according to the report, the agency says, “much has changed since then, citing challenges including lower-than-expected revenues, rising costs and uncertainty surrounding tariffs and federal funding commitments.”

On Aug. 28, staff reported a need for an additional $14 to $20 billion in today’s dollars “to cover capital program costs to complete the major, voter-approved ST3 light rail projects,” including West Seattle, Ballard, Tacoma Dome, Everett, Tacoma Community College and South Kirkland-Issaquah Link extensions.

The agency, KIRO 7 News reports, also says it will need a few billion dollars more to cover service delivery costs, including new and replacement light rail vehicles, investments to improve light rail system resiliency and other maintenance and operations costs.

On top of growing costs, staff expect revenue to fall, according to the report.

For the last few months, the Board has been focused on implementing an action plan, deemed “the Enterprise Initiative,” which the agency describes as a “comprehensive effort that helps identify affordability gaps and tools available to cut costs.”

The initiative, KIRO 7 News reports, “aims to update the system plan, while staying in line with the original voter-approved ballot measure.”

Some of that increase can be tied to industry-wide issues, while other cost issues are related to “agency process, procedure, and delays since ST3 adoption,” according to Sound Transit documents and as reported by KIRO 7 News.

According to the report, “Phase 1 of the Enterprise Initiative calls for analyzing how the region has changed since 2016, building a deep understanding of the scale of the problem and understanding how to use available tools to solve these challenges (or coming up with new tools to fix them).

“Phase 2, which the agency has previously said will begin in 2026, calls for identifying approaches for updating the ST3 System Plan and adopting a new long-range financial plan.

“It also calls for conducting more public engagement about the initiative. During this phase, the Board is set to take action to amend the ST3 System Plan and adopt the new long-range financial plan.”

Board members on Thursday, according to the KIRO 7 News report noted that “the cost increases are unprecedented, but that Sound Transit is not the only agency in the country dealing with challenges out of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Sound Transit staff believe there are some cost-saving measures that can be applied to future projects, but it’s not clear at this time exactly how Sound Transit will make up the gap, according to the report.

The process, KIRO 7 News reports, “is expected to be finished by the middle of next year, but the deadline is not set in stone.”

Once complete, the agency will release an updated System Plan and a new Long-Range Financial Plan.

Infrastructure Ontario/Metrolinx

Infrastructure Ontario and Metrolinx announced Aug. 28 that they have selected Trillium Rail Partners (TRP), a consortium comprised of WSP Canada Inc.; Amico Major Projects Inc.; Alberici Constructors, Ltd.; and Acciona Infrastructure Canada Inc., to deliver the Stations, Rail and Systems (SRS) package for the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension. The team has signed a Development and Master Construction Agreement with Metrolinx.

(Rendering Courtesy of WSP)

According to Infrastructure Ontario, the team was selected following an evaluation of proposals. The selection of TRP “is the result of an open, fair and competitive procurement process overseen by a third-party fairness monitor,” the agency noted.

The Development and Master Construction Agreement (DMCA) marks the start of the development phase, part of a progressive design-build procurement model. The DMCA, Infrastructure Ontario says, enables TRP to begin construction of early works and for them to collaborate with Metrolinx to further develop the design scope, risk allocation and pricing of various elements as part of the development phase.

The scope of work for the project’s SRS package includes design and construction of seven stations and installation of rail and systems for the 9.2-kilometer (5-7-mile) extension and works at the existing Mount Dennis Station to connect the ECWE with future Line 5 Eglinton LRT service.

(Rendering Courtesy of WSP)

The overall Eglinton Crosstown West Extension project is being delivered through various Public-Private-Partnership (P3), progressive design-build and traditional procurement contracts.

“The Eglinton Crosstown West Extension is a vital east-west transit connector for Toronto, one that will significantly reduce commuting times for people throughout the city. We are proud to be part of a project that, once complete, will make it easier for thousands of people in the Greater Toronto Area get to the places and people they value most,” said Corina Moore, Executive Vice President, Transportation and Infrastructure at WSP in Canada, which will lead the design as part of the TRP consortium.

The post Transit Briefs: Sound Transit, Infrastructure Ontario/Metrolinx appeared first on Railway Age.

Now based in Dunwoody, Ga., the company says it is “reinforcing its presence within Atlanta’s logistics ecosystem through a new, state of the art facility.” The location, IntelliTrans adds, supports hybrid work and ongoing product innovation as demand increases for its transportation management system (TMS).

Replacing the company’s former Midtown Atlanta office, the new headquarters “unites executive leadership, product, marketing and technical teams under roof to foster closer collaboration and align around the company’s next phase of growth,” IntelliTrans said. “The new headquarters continues a transformative growth period for the company, with new leadership, expanded operations in Conway, Ark., and continuing to provide more advanced TMS offerings.”

“This move is about focus,” said IntelliTrans CEO. “Ongoing supply chain disruption and rising pressure to optimize freight operations have bulk and breakbulk shippers demanding better visibility and smarter tools. Together with our operations hub in Conway, Arkansas, this new Atlanta headquarters gives our team the space to accelerate product innovation and scale the infrastructure our customers depend on. This headquarters is just as much about empowering our people as it is about scaling our platform—we’re building a space where teams can do their best work to serve our valued customers.”

“By being headquartered in Atlanta, we’re scaling strategically—growing our product and engineering teams in one of the country’s strongest logistics and tech talent markets,” added IntelliTrans Chief Technology Officer Jim Bell. “We’re building a team that understands the complexity of freight and brings the technical depth needed to turn that understanding into scalable solutions for today’s challenges.”

The post IntelliTrans Opens New Atlanta Headquarters appeared first on Railway Age.

Earlier this month, we profiled Brightline, the only private-sector railroad that operates passenger trains (not counting tourist excursions) in the United States. The story—Brightline: Something Different on the Rails, which posted online and in Railway Age’s August issue—featured an overview of Brightline and its current plans for Florida and for Brightline West, which will serve Las Vegas, Nev., with high-speed trains when it is complete. Since then, more issues have arisen concerning this unique railroad. One is a court battle with the Florida East Coast Railroad (FECR for purposes of the case and the official corporate name) over the capacity of the part of the FEC main in the Sunshine State’s three southern counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. That is the area where Brightline began service in 2018, and which comprised its entire operation until the extension to Orlando International Airport opened in September 2023 (see map below).

Brightline Map. Download Fact Sheet Here (Courtesy of Brightline)

Railway Age has often reported on battles between Amtrak and its host railroads, including Union Pacific and CN. We covered the “Second Battle of Mobile” between Amtrak and host railroads CSX and Norfolk Southern regarding new train service between New Orleans and Mobile, with stops along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. That conflict included an 11-day trial before the Surface Transportation Board, but the parties settled their differences, and Amtrak’s Mardi Gras service is now running two daily round trips on the route.

The situation between FEC and Brightline is not the same. Things were different years ago, when All Aboard Florida, which became Brightline, proposed running passenger trains on the FEC for the first time since 1968. It started as a component of the railroad’s ownership. Part of the deal included selling yards and other real estate and infrastructure that the railroad no longer needed and developing that real estate—a plan similar to transit-oriented development, which is practiced along regional passenger rail lines that serve major cities.

FEC sued Brightline on July 11, 2025, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami, and was assigned Case No. 2025-013297-CA-01, captioned FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, L.L.C. v. BRIGHTLINE TRAINS FLORIDA, L.L.C.  

Joshua Ceballos and Aaron Leibowitz first reported the litigation on Aug. 5 in the Miami Herald. They began by saying: “In a move that could derail plans for a long-awaited commuter train service, Florida East Coast Railway is suing Brightline for ‘clandestinely’ negotiating with county governments to add more trains to its rails. FECR claims the move violates a contract agreement between the two companies.” They also reported: “Plans have been in the works for Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties to run a version of Tri-Rail commuter trains through South Florida’s urban corridor east of Interstate 95 along the Florida East Coast Railway tracks that Brightline uses. The private, luxury-train company and FECR entered into a series of agreements in 2016 and 2017 giving Brightline exclusive rights to run passenger trains on the rail corridor—with specific limitations.”

FECR’s Complaint, As Reported

According to Ceballos and Leibowitz, the complaint filed by FECR said: “The cooperation and transparency between FECR and Brightline that made Brightline’s passenger service a reality has, unfortunately, long disappeared … Desperate to salvage some of its investors’ funds, Brightline has covertly engaged in a years-long campaign to stave off its own financial problems by loading FECR’s tracks with more passenger trains.”

The original FEC was founded by Henry M. Flagler, an oil magnate and real estate developer, in 1895. Today, it is owned by Grupo México, and there is no longer such commonality of interest between the passenger (Brightline) and freight (Grupo México) operators whose trains run on FEC tracks.

(Courtesy of Tri-Rail)

The dispute apparently focuses on efforts by Brightline to develop local passenger service along the line. The present service to Orlando International Airport carries local passengers between Miami Central Station in downtown Miami, West Palm Beach, and intermediate stops. In a sense, it is a luxury service, offering food and beverages on board, as well as a “Premium” class. It also runs faster than Tri-Rail, which operates a service for commuters and other riders that is typically associated with “transit railroads” that serve other cities (see map above). Brightline also charges significantly higher fares than Tri-Rail in the region.

Coastal Link Map (Courtesy of Miami Dade County)

As we have reported over the years, Brightline is also planning Coastal Link, a similar service on its own line, which is located in coastal areas (see map, right). Most of Tri-Rail operates along the historic Seaboard Railroad’s line, which is several miles inland from the FEC route for most of the length of its line. Brightline and Tri-Rail both run service from Brightline’s Miami Central Station in downtown Miami, and both railroads have stations in West Palm Beach, which are a few blocks apart. Miami-Dade County described the Coastal Link project, which would provide a full, seven-day span of service, this way: “The Northeast Corridor marks the first segment of the 85-mile Coastal Link commuter rail, designed to seamlessly connect Miami-Dade with Broward and Palm Beach counties. This 13.5-mile project will establish a new rapid transit route from Miami Central Station in downtown Miami to West Aventura Station, utilizing the existing railroad corridor shared with Brightline and freight services. The goal is to provide residents, businesses, and visitors with a reliable and efficient transportation option.” The line is not to be confused with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, but the service pattern would be similar to Amtrak’s NEC: trains every 30 minutes at peak-commuting periods and every 60 minutes at other times, including on weekends. There would be new stations at Wynwood, Design District, Little Haiti, North Miami Beach, and FIU North Campus. There are also other plans to introduce that type of service in Broward and Palm Beach counties. That plan was revealed in 2023. FECR alleged that Brightline planned to run 54 “commuter” trains daily under the plan, the Herald reported.

According to the Herald, FECR’s complaint says: “Brightline kept [FECR] in the dark because it knew full well that its expansion plan not only threatened to significantly disrupt FECR’s freight service, but was also impossible without substantial new investment in track and facility infrastructure, which Brightline certainly could not afford.” The Herald also reported: “FECR contends that it only found out about these talks ‘by chance’ and that when it approached Brightline with its concerns, Brightline accelerated its negotiations without bringing FECR to the table.”

According to Caballos and Leibowitz: “FECR alleges those plans were made without its approval, which is required through its agreement with Brightline, and that the plans threaten to create a logistical nightmare for South Florida.” While the line is double-tracked in the area at issue, Brightline already runs essentially hourly service on it to a place beyond the northern boundary of Palm Beach County. There is also FECR’s freight operation. As well, Brightline trains run faster than the proposed local passenger trains would. The Herald report noted: “The Florida Legislature removed funding for the commuter rail from this year’s budget cycle, prompting worries about the project’s future”—an event that could render the case moot, if no further progress is made on the Coastal Link proposal.

What We Don’t Know About the Complaint—Yet

Railway Age has not obtained the entire complaint or contracts that FECR submitted as exhibits, despite efforts to contact both parties to obtain them. In a paper filed with the complaint on July 11, the railroad claimed that 12 paragraphs of it (out of at least 145), along with two documents submitted as exhibits, contain confidential information, and requested that they be shielded from public view. If there is a redacted version of the complaint (presumably there is, because the Herald reported on it), we have not yet seen it, despite a diligent effort so far.

In effect, the Herald reported that FECR alleged that Brightline did not follow the rules of the parties’ Joint Use Agreement (JUA) for the railroad, which requires either party to present proposals for changes to a joint committee, that Brightline negotiated with the counties about Coastal Link starting in 2020, that FECR found out about these talks “by chance,” and that Brightline kept negotiating “without bringing FECR to the table.” Ceballos and Leibowitz also reported that FECR alleged: “Brightline kept [FECR] in the dark because it knew full well that its expansion plan not only threatened to significantly disrupt FECR’s freight service, but was also impossible without substantial new investment in track and facility infrastructure, which Brightline certainly could not afford.” In addition, there have been questions raised about Brightine’s finances, which we will cover in a separate report. The JUA and other contracts between the parties are also part of the court papers. If and when we obtain them, we will review them and report on their relevant provisions.

(Brightline Photograph) Brightline Moves to Dismiss Case, Calls for Arbitration

Brightline on July 29 filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration of the dispute with FECR. We obtained those motion papers. If a defendant does not believe that the plaintiff has stated a cause of action in the complaint and exhibits submitted with it that would justify relief, the defendant can move to dismiss the case before filing an answer, which the defendant would only need to file if the judge denies the motion. Brightline on July 31 filed its motion papers, acknowledging the JUA and passenger service easements, which Brightline alleged “are integrally related, independent and constitute … a single, unitary, and indivisible agreement.”

Brightline also alleged: “Under that agreement, Brightline has an express contractual right [emphasis in original] to operate passenger rail service along the FEC Corridor, either itself or through one or more ‘designees’ … This includes both higher-speed ‘intercity’ passenger service and ‘commuter’ service.” Also alleged: “Nevertheless, FECR’s Complaint asserts that Brightline ‘violat[ed]’ the JUA by working with Miami-Dade County and others to develop a badly-needed commuter rail service in South Florida. The Complaint seeks a series of declarations which are supposedly necessary to set at rest the rights, duties, and obligations of the parties as they pertain to the JUA and the continued shared use of the FEC Corridor.”

FECR’s primary argument is that the judge should dismiss the action because the contracts between FECR and Brightline require a binding arbitration proceeding to resolve disputes of this sort, rather than a court decision. FECR described a three-step procedure that (first) would present the dispute to a Service Standards Committee comprising representatives from both parties for investigation, (second) referring the dispute to the Presidents of FECR and Brightline for them to attempt to resolve the matter (the original agreement named All Aboard Florida, but Brightline is its successor), and (third) either party can submit the dispute to binding arbitration.

In the “Argument” section of its motion, FECR argued that arbitration is the only proper forum for resolving the dispute under both the Federal Arbitration Act and the Florida Arbitration Code, and that the court should submit it to arbitration.

The Issue of Following the Rules

FECR complained that Brightline was negotiating with the affected counties about local trains but did not follow the rule that required arbitration of such disputes. In response, Brightline alleged: “FECR is well aware of those contractual requirements, as it is currently pursuing claims against Brightline unrelated to commuter service in a separate arbitration under the JUA and associated agreements … In this instance, however, FECR chose to flout [emphasis in original] those contractual requirements and file its claims in court. It knew that one of Brightline’s parent entities was preparing to issue a bond offering to help finance the commuter rail project, and it sought to thwart that effort by asserting specious claims in a public forum” and “FECR publicly sought to harm Brightline by making gratuitous factual allegations it knew not to be true and pursuing baseless causes of action which can only be pursued, if at all, through ‘binding arbitration.’” FECR also called on the judge to submit the case to arbitration.

Setting the arguments about Brightline’s financial interests aside for the moment, it appears that FECR was aware of Brightline’s efforts to establish local service, so the question arises of why this issue has become so hotly disputed at this time. We have reported on the Coastal Link proposal before (most recently in March 2025), and a report from Miami-Dade County indicated that the project is in design stages and is not scheduled to begin service until 2032. With the State pulling funding, though, it will probably take longer, if service runs at all.

A bill before the Florida Legislature, CS/SB 916, is concerned with indemnifying victims of accidents involving “commuter” trains in the State. The Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement from March 20, 2025, said: “CS/SB 916 provides for the indemnification of commuter rail transportation providers on the Coastal Link Corridor. The bill creates the Coastal Link Commuter Rail Service Act and establishes parameters related to the indemnification of and insurance related to an agency providing commuter rail service on the corridor. The bill … Names Brightline, Florida East Coast Railway (FECR), South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA), and an agency as parties operating rail service the coast link corridor.” SFRTA operates Tri-Rail. The provisions of the bill relate to a fund for compensating accident victims with a cap on liability, a self-insurance retention, allocation of liability, and other aspects of insurance law. We mention it here to clarify how much FECR would have known about Brightline’s efforts to establish local train service along the line. Without having the complaint and exhibits to review, we cannot speculate any further on that issue at this time.

(Jonathan Chalon Photograph) A Dispute Over a Process Leading to Arbitration

In its motion to dismiss, Brightline called on FECR to follow a three-step process for resolving disputes, using a Service Standards Committee, the presidents of the two railroads, and, finally, to arbitration if the other steps do not provide a resolution that is satisfactory to both parties.

Courts usually favor sending disputes to arbitration, because the process is simpler than litigation and referrals to arbitration get cases off the court calendar. Arbitration is usually faster, less formal, and less expensive than litigating a case in court. The American Arbitration Association sets rules for arbitrating cases, and arbitrators act as “professional neutrals” in deciding cases, but the process of selecting them is far less formal than that for selecting judges, who are chosen by a political process and assigned to cases. Typically, the parties select a single arbitrator or a panel of three. In the latter situation, each party chooses one member of the panel, and those two select the third. In all likelihood, these processes are set out in the JUA between the parties, but only a review of that agreement would confirm this.

Why are FEC, Brightline Fighting?

We don’t know all the details, but it appears that the parties have a dispute concerning how many passenger trains can fit onto the affected segment of the line, along with FEC’s anticipated freight use. For almost 50 years, there were no passenger trains at all running anywhere on FEC. Then Brightline came along, and now there is a train essentially every hour between Miami and Orlando International Airport, with intermediate stops in South Florida and more planned further north along the coast.

With local service coming, which would act as if it were “Tri-Rail East” as a parallel railroad for local service in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, it would require at least relatively careful scheduling to be sure the line could accommodate all that freight and passenger service. While the line is double-tracked in the region at issue, there are limits to the capacity of any rail line. We don’t know precisely what those limits might be in the present case.

This is the sort of case that often lends itself to arbitration, especially if the arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators) have enough familiarity with the railroad to assess capacity intelligently and make a decision with which both parties can live.

Whether that happens is now up to a judge in Miami. We will keep an eye on the case as it proceeds, because capacity issues can arise whenever a new service is introduced on a railroad line. We remember the “Second Battle of Mobile” over Amtrak trains between that city and New Orleans, and we are also aware that trains are running there today, despite that battle. If and when we obtain the original complaint, we will report on it more thoroughly. We are also prepared to report the result of the present case. At this juncture, it appears reasonably likely that the judge will refer it to arbitration, especially if the JUA specifically calls for that. Still, in a litigation, nobody can be sure about a result.

The post FEC, Brightline Fight in Court Over Rail Capacity appeared first on Railway Age.