750 million dollar Sunset

[bretton88]

Ask Guilford what happens if you push Amtrak too far. Amtrak used emminent domain on them to gain access to the tracks they needed for Vermonter service. It went all the way to the supreme court, where the court upheld Amtraks right to emminent domain on any railroads property. The court also upheld amtraks ability to transfer (seizing the tracks in order to sell to another rail operator more willing to allow the trains) the tracks. This is amtraks big stick to use against any railway and has precedent in the supreme court which is a powerful legal protection. As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.

 

[Donctor]

...and now the new laws that will let the FRA punish them if they delay Amtrak too much.

Ironically, these new regulations regarding on-time performance are likely to make Amtrak's life more difficult, as host railroads become more reluctant to allow Amtrak to add service or remove schedule padding without boatloads of extra cash to build more infrastructure. Not to say that they would welcome said changes with open arms in the absence of such regulations. However, these new rules give them a very convenient excuse to say no to everything.

And make incentives absolutely useless (though, to be fair, they already are in certain cases).

 

[Donctor]

Ask Guilford what happens if you push Amtrak too far. Amtrak used emminent domain on them to gain access to the tracks they needed for Vermonter service. It went all the way to the supreme court, where the court upheld Amtraks right to emminent domain on any railroads property. The court also upheld amtraks ability to transfer (seizing the tracks in order to sell to another rail operator more willing to allow the trains) the tracks. This is amtraks big stick to use against any railway and has precedent in the supreme court which is a powerful legal protection. As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.

Amtrak would probably win the case, but they'd lose favor with the hosts. (That probably only applies to BNSF, as Amtrak is already on UP's "bad side," whatever that means.)

 

[AlanB]

They're caring a bit more about Amtrak these days, after nearly getting hauled into court over the CS & CZ delays and now the new laws that will let the FRA punish them if they delay Amtrak too much.

Maybe UP should care, but to the best of my understanding those new legal remedies have yet to be tested and until UP is taken to court and loses or is otherwise fined or penalized in a substantially painful manner we must accept that these potential legal remedies remain unproven instruments at this time. Perhaps the threat of a fine is enough to push UP into permanent compliance, but I sincerely doubt it. Indeed if I were a board member at UP I'd be ready and willing to challenge Amtrak's legal status at each and every opportunity. UP staff are not fond of Amtrak as it is and any proposed expansion will be greeted with ever more resistance. If you don't believe me all you have to do is ask them. They don't exactly hide how they feel about Amtrak or the regulations that allow them to keep operating.

UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court. When confronted with a very stern letter regarding the many slow orders on the tracks used by the CZ & the CS a few years back that threatened legal action, and before the new remedies, UP showed up at the table to talk with Amtrak and a deal was worked out. That deal included putting in some temporary padding to help keep the CZ on time while they fixed the tracks. Over a period of 2 or 3 years, that padding was gradually removed and I believe that it is now fully out of the current TT, although I won't swear to that.

So no, UP isn't going to be challenging Amtrak on everything. They've already proven that.

Now in the case of the Daily Sunset, that I could see UP letting that go to court, especially as noted by Trogdor that UP could get fined if they don't keep Amtrak on time. But again, UP won't be challenging Amtrak on everything as they've already been hit over the head once with just the threat of legal action.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.

Are we talking about National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp. in 1992? If so you might want to revist that assumption.

William Rehnquist

Byron White

Harry Blackmun

John P. Stevens

Sandra Day O'Connor

Antonin Scalia

David Souter

Anthony Kennedy

Clarence Thomas

Considering that Thomas dissented we're basically we're left with one single justice from that opinion. That's not much of a buffer seeing how little the Roberts Court reveres stare decisis.

UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court.

I see what you mean in that occasionally UP has backed down in the past. However, every time UP tells Amtrak to sit on the side and wait for a freight to pass or tells Amtrak they need to pony up millions for rail improvements is that not a challenge? And if Amtrak doesn't push back legally then why would UP take it to court if they already have what they want? For many years Amtrak was willing to sit on the siding and twiddle their thumbs and there was nothing for UP to gain from initiating a court battle themselves. It's true that Amtrak has received some new potential remedies that may or may not impact future operations. However, we're also in a major slump for freight traffic that has taken much of the pressure off. From what I understand UP can also receive some compensation from Amtrak for improved on-time performance that is usually ignored but can be appealing in times of low freight volume. The real battle for Amtrak's future probably won't start until after freight traffic fully recovers and the mid-term elections have swept one of the most anti-government legislatures we've ever had into power. When those conditions are met we'll see who really holds the power, and I sincerely doubt it will be Amtrak.

 

[AlanB]

UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court.

I see what you mean in that occasionally UP has backed down in the past. However, every time UP tells Amtrak to sit on the side and wait for a freight to pass or tells Amtrak they need to pony up millions for rail improvements is that not a challenge? And if Amtrak doesn't push back legally then why would UP take it to court if they already have what they want? For many years Amtrak was willing to sit on the siding and twiddle their thumbs and there was nothing for UP to gain from initiating a court battle themselves. It's true that Amtrak has received some new potential remedies that may or may not impact future operations. However, we're also in a major slump for freight traffic that has taken much of the pressure off. From what I understand UP can also receive some compensation from Amtrak for improved on-time performance that is usually ignored but can be appealing in times of low freight volume. The real battle for Amtrak's future probably won't start until after freight traffic fully recovers and the mid-term elections have swept one of the most anti-government legislatures we've ever had into power. When those conditions are met we'll see who really holds the power, and I sincerely doubt it will be Amtrak.

I'm not sure that challenge is the correct word, but yes in general I agree, UP will try to push things as far as they can. That's a given!

The only time that UP doesn't push the envelope is when they feel that they are being properly compensated for allowing passenger service on their tracks, like in the case of Amtrak California, where the state is paying for improvements and I believe more than the standard Amtrak rate for passenger service on the UP tracks.

As for why Amtrak stood idly by while UP parked Amtrak in sidings; in my mind I see two major reasons. One, Amtrak was afraid of challenging them for a number of years for fear that it would make things even worse. Second, neither Amtrak nor the FRA really had a leg to stand on in terms of challenging UP.

In fact, the threatened lawsuit that I mentioned wasn't about parking Amtrak in the sidings. The lawsuit was over the fact that the contract has specifics about how many slow orders can be on a track and for how long. Please don't quote me 100% on that as I'm not sure of the exact particulars. But the point was, UP had too many slow orders and was in violation of the contract. And that is the technicality that Amtrak seized upon when they threatened UP with court action. And all indications are that UP would have lost any court battle, hence the reason that they quickly caved and negotiated temporary schedule changes that lengthened running times. But unlike what was done to the Sunset 10 years ago, those additions to the running times were temporary and certain bench marks had to be met. Then over the course of I believe 3 years, all that extra time would eventually be taken back out in predetermined increments over a specified period of time.

 

[Mackensen]

As many of the supporting justices are still on the bench, I have little doubt that Amtrak would win big in court again if it came to that.

Are we talking about National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp. in 1992? If so you might want to revist that assumption.

William Rehnquist

Byron White

Harry Blackmun

John P. Stevens

Sandra Day O'Connor

Antonin Scalia

David Souter

Anthony Kennedy

Clarence Thomas

Considering that Thomas dissented we're basically we're left with one single justice from that opinion. That's not much of a buffer seeing how little the Roberts Court reveres stare decisis.

UP has already shown that they don't want to challenge Amtrak in court.

I see what you mean in that occasionally UP has backed down in the past. However, every time UP tells Amtrak to sit on the side and wait for a freight to pass or tells Amtrak they need to pony up millions for rail improvements is that not a challenge? And if Amtrak doesn't push back legally then why would UP take it to court if they already have what they want? For many years Amtrak was willing to sit on the siding and twiddle their thumbs and there was nothing for UP to gain from initiating a court battle themselves. It's true that Amtrak has received some new potential remedies that may or may not impact future operations. However, we're also in a major slump for freight traffic that has taken much of the pressure off. From what I understand UP can also receive some compensation from Amtrak for improved on-time performance that is usually ignored but can be appealing in times of low freight volume. The real battle for Amtrak's future probably won't start until after freight traffic fully recovers and the mid-term elections have swept one of the most anti-government legislatures we've ever had into power. When those conditions are met we'll see who really holds the power, and I sincerely doubt it will be Amtrak.

Getting very, very off-topic but Scalia is still on the court. Also, that was an administrative law case which didn't break down on traditional lines and is much less likely to get reversed.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Getting very, very off-topic but Scalia is still on the court. Also, that was an administrative law case which didn't break down on traditional lines and is much less likely to get reversed.

You're absolutely right; my apologies for that rather glaring mistake. Hopefully you're also right about it not being overturned, but the Roberts Court has ignored precedent before and I wouldn't put it past them in the future.

 

[bretton88]

Getting very, very off-topic but Scalia is still on the court. Also, that was an administrative law case which didn't break down on traditional lines and is much less likely to get reversed.

You're absolutely right; my apologies for that rather glaring mistake. Hopefully you're also right about it not being overturned, but the Roberts Court has ignored precedent before and I wouldn't put it past them in the future.

More hopeful on that too is that traditional conservatives like Scalia and Rehnquist(I know he's not on the court but he was a model conservative) voted in favor of Amtrak. Ironically, since Amtrak is an administrative entity (thus deals with purely legal issues), It makes it less prone to breaking down on traditional lines, unlike say moral issues. There's a lot less gray area to interpret. More importantly is the hope that Amtrak would never need to use such drastic measures. It took 20 years for Guilford (now Pan-Am) to come to good terms with Amtrak again after the Vermonter incident, it would probably guarantee UP would never cooperate with Amtrak again and would definitely make other railroads look at Amtrak as much more than a minor nuisance.

 

[George Harris]

It took 20 years for Guilford (now Pan-Am) to come to good terms with Amtrak again after the Vermonter incident, it would probably guarantee UP would never cooperate with Amtrak again and would definitely make other railroads look at Amtrak as much more than a minor nuisance.

Given all that has gone on between Guilford and Amtrak / Massachusetts I would hardly call their realationship as cooperative at any time, before, during or since the Vermonter issue. Notice that the train still does not use Guilford rails at any point on its route. As to the Downeaster, the freight traffic on that route is so low that delaying the trains would require planning on the part of Guilford.

 

[had8ley]

It took 20 years for Guilford (now Pan-Am) to come to good terms with Amtrak again after the Vermonter incident, it would probably guarantee UP would never cooperate with Amtrak again and would definitely make other railroads look at Amtrak as much more than a minor nuisance.

Given all that has gone on between Guilford and Amtrak / Massachusetts I would hardly call their realationship as cooperative at any time, before, during or since the Vermonter issue. Notice that the train still does not use Guilford rails at any point on its route. As to the Downeaster, the freight traffic on that route is so low that delaying the trains would require planning on the part of Guilford.

Just to add gas to the fire Guilford held up the potential upper speed limit of 79 mph on the Downeaster for years !!! :angry2:

 

[AlanB]

It took 20 years for Guilford (now Pan-Am) to come to good terms with Amtrak again after the Vermonter incident, it would probably guarantee UP would never cooperate with Amtrak again and would definitely make other railroads look at Amtrak as much more than a minor nuisance.

Given all that has gone on between Guilford and Amtrak / Massachusetts I would hardly call their realationship as cooperative at any time, before, during or since the Vermonter issue. Notice that the train still does not use Guilford rails at any point on its route. As to the Downeaster, the freight traffic on that route is so low that delaying the trains would require planning on the part of Guilford.

Just to add gas to the fire Guilford held up the potential upper speed limit of 79 mph on the Downeaster for years !!! :angry2:

Well Guilford, now PanAm, fought that speed for quite some time yes. However IIRC, it was within the first year, if not the first 6 months of operation that they lost their final appeal and they had to raise the speed limit.

 

[PRR 60]

...Well Guilford, now PanAm, fought that speed for quite some time yes. However IIRC, it was within the first year, if not the first 6 months of operation that they lost their final appeal and they had to raise the speed limit.

Guilford did not lose the case. Although several intermediate rulings by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) went against Guilford (and Guilford appealed the STB rulings in Federal Court), the case was finally settled amicably, and Amtrak was notably not a party to the settlement.

Guilford and the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) reached a settlement on June 2, 2004 that allowed the speed to be increased to 79mph on selected portions of the route (ultimately about 30 miles) in exchange for the NNEPRA funding $5.5 million of additional improvements to the trackbed and rail. The speed increase in most of the selected locations did not occur until the improvements were made. In other locations, the speed limit remained 60mph.

The settlement was reached about two and a half years after the December 15, 2001 start of Downeaster service. During that two and a half year period, the speed limit on the route was 60mph.

 

[stntylr]

UP has already gotten Lone Star Rail to agree to build a whole new ROW between San Antonio and Austin at a cost of 1 billion dollars so why not try to get some more money.

 

[The Chief]

UnPac spent $42 mil 1Q 2010 on Arizona track/ROW improvements, over 24 miles of CWR, according to Forbes.

And the UP also opposes, this year, sharing ROW with Calif High-Speed Rail Authority in San Jose area, according to San Jose Biz Journal.

daxomni posted earlier in this thread the list of UP Congressional political contributions in 2010 cycle. I broke the big list down to Sunset-Eagle rail states and found:

105 total Reps/Senators from Illinois, Misery, er, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona, California receiving UP money

27 from Texas Eagle-Only States

52 from Sunset Limited-Only States

26 from combined Eagle-Sunset States (Texas)

The 105 received $356,300. Some of them may be interested in hearing about the UP shakedown. I saw my guy's name so I can contact him. He's pretty much an Amtrak hater though (Joe Linus Barton)

 

[George Harris]

Union Pacific is loudly opposed to having the California High Speed Rail even close to its right of way anywhere in the state.

The San Antonio to Austin rebuild is a plan and nothing more. It is also not between these two points, but a freight bypass of these points and every point in between. The objective being to allow frequent passenger service between SA and Austin. Unless something has happened very recently, this is of no more significance than any of the other multitudinous rail plans that have gone no where so far.

 

[Mark]

One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.

 

[stntylr]

Union Pacific is loudly opposed to having the California High Speed Rail even close to its right of way anywhere in the state.

The San Antonio to Austin rebuild is a plan and nothing more. It is also not between these two points, but a freight bypass of these points and every point in between. The objective being to allow frequent passenger service between SA and Austin. Unless something has happened very recently, this is of no more significance than any of the other multitudinous rail plans that have gone no where so far.

I do have to point out that Lone Star Rail has started the Engineering studies and the final environmental impact report. Plus they have already secured 200 miliion dollars from the state toward the project.

Here's what the web site says

"Lone Star Rail District launched preliminary engineering and environmental impact studies (PE/EIS) for the LSTAR service in January 2010. These studies, required under federal law, represent the final planning stage for the project. Once the PE/EIS is completed and approved, the district is authorized to begin final design and construction. The PE/EIS process is expected to take 18 to 24 months and will also include planning work on the LSTAR’s proposed 15 station locations and facilities."

I know it's just a plan but it sounds like a pretty well developed plan to me.

 

[Trogdor]

One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.

Why not?

 

[PRR 60]

One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.

Sunset Limited on-time rate for FY 2010 YTD (10/09 to 6/10): 88.5%, the second best performance of any Amtrak LD (first is the Coast Starlight @ 90.7% on-time).

 

[had8ley]

One could Triple-Track the Main between LAX and SAS and UP still wouldn't run the SSL on-time.

Why not?

I would have to totally agree with Mark.One would have to understand the mind set in the "Bunker" in Omaha which serves as the dispatching center for the UPRR. Not many people get into it and not too many want to go back. h34r:

 

[bretton88]

What I can say, having been in the "bunker" is that UP is trying to change that mindset. They have signs everywhere that say: "Do Not Delay Amtrak." The dispatchers now have to tell their supervisors when and why they delayed Amtrak. It's no longer permissible to put Amtrak into the hole unless absolutly necessary (i.e. single track areas where a freight might have not cleared it yet). UP has decided to treat existing service with respect now.

 

[had8ley]

What I can say, having been in the "bunker" is that UP is trying to change that mindset. They have signs everywhere that say: "Do Not Delay Amtrak." The dispatchers now have to tell their supervisors when and why they delayed Amtrak. It's no longer permissible to put Amtrak into the hole unless absolutly necessary (i.e. single track areas where a freight might have not cleared it yet). UP has decided to treat existing service with respect now.

Knowing the UP they probably charged Amtrak $750 a piece for the signs... h34r:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What I can say, having been in the "bunker" is that UP is trying to change that mindset. They have signs everywhere that say: "Do Not Delay Amtrak." The dispatchers now have to tell their supervisors when and why they delayed Amtrak. It's no longer permissible to put Amtrak into the hole unless absolutly necessary (i.e. single track areas where a freight might have not cleared it yet). UP has decided to treat existing service with respect now.

This is what should have been UP policy from the early 1970's on. Since it has not been, I would suggest the government side with Amtrak repeatedly for the next forty years to make up for UP's debilitating scheduling. Only then can we say the playing field has been evened.

 

[bretton88]

I have a question. How was the OTP for the trains on UP track like the Desert Wind before the Southern Pacific merger? Was the UP always this hostile? Or was is a result of the Southern Pacific merger? I know the SP was always hostile to passenger trains.