Have we forgot that railroads are public highways?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

steamtrain6868

Train Attendant
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
98
http://books.google.com/books?id=sEkLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA588&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U272SC1kh53Ju9yazEFuTw4wHtgCQ&ci=123%2C259%2C397%2C512&edge=0

and

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ryo8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA746&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1CGkjfdHr4yXhyTNbw8ltNMzcApQ&ci=545%2C618%2C423%2C940&edge=0

and

An Explanation of Railroads Laws From-- - http://www.lectlaw.com/articles/at0206.htm

Rail roads are a public means of conveyance of passengers and goods by way of wheeled vehicles running on rail tracks. In the U.S., a railroad is a public utility deriving its franchise from a state. A railroad constructed and operated in a state is a public highway. Railroad law encompasses all matters that relate to Railroad services. Railroad cases typically involve personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits by passengers, non-passengers, as well as employees. Workers' compensation is another prevalent issue when railroad workers are injured on the job. Railroads are common carriers and have all the rights, duties, and liabilities of a common carrier. Railroads are also subject to public regulation as public highways.

As a public utility, a rail road corporation agrees to submit to all burdens, conditions, and regulations imposed by the state with reference to its tracks and their intersections with highways necessary to promote or secure the safety of the traveling public. Roads and bridges are not merely for local use but are for the use and accommodation of all citizens of the state. The general public has the same interest in the preservation and maintenance of railroads as it has in the maintenance of other highways. The title to a part of a railroad's right of way, while it is being operated as a common carrier, cannot be divested by adverse possession. The law of railroads is generally of a federal character. Pursuant to 49 USCS 22301, a railroad means any form of non highway ground transportation that runs on rails or electromagnetic guide ways, including:

(i) commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area and commuter railroad service that was operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1, 1979; and
(ii) high speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas, without regard to whether those systems use new technologies not associated with traditional railroads.
 
And this has WHAT to do with Amtrak?

Oh CRAP! Steamtrain6868 got me!

**RRDude Pounds Head Into Wall**

"....Make it stop, make it stop................"
 
Amtrak and other passengers have the right of access to "freight railroads" just like they do they highways under the common carreir doctrine...Its judt geting the STB to enforce it
 
Passenger Trains and people have the same right of access to the railroads just like a public highway. If you want to run your own train the railroad must ccharge you a reasonble rate or goto the STB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But they had " Charters" granted to them by the state Charters give private people to do things that normaly is job of goveerment
 
A railroad constructed and operated in a state is a public highway.
Most railroads in this country however are not constructed, owned, and operated by a state. They were/are built, owned, & operated by private corporations.

peter
Peter, Peter, Peter, I feel your pain. You got sucked in too. Go pound your head against a wall, trust me, it feels better........
 
Most railroads in this country however are not constructed, owned, and operated by a state. They were/are built, owned, & operated by private corporations.
That is what popped into my mind too. But in thinking about this a bit more, just about every "public utility" in this country has been built, owned, and operated by a private corporation.
 
I don't believe freight railroads are 'public' in the sense that they are in Great Britain, where the government retained the tracks, but privatized the trains.

In the US, you can't just buy a train and demand a railroad let you operate over their road. You can buy equipment that meets AAR standards, but it is up to the railroad to provide crews to operate them. In some instances, one railroad may operate their trains over another road if they secure "trackage rights", either by negotiation, or government order. The government would never let someone other than an existing railroad gain this privilege.
 
Amtrak and other passengers have the right of access to "freight railroads" just like they do they highways under the common carreir doctrine...Its judt geting the STB to enforce it
Only Amtrak has the right of access and then only to existing routes at the time that Amtrak was formed. If Amtrak want's a new route, it must negotiate with the host RR for access. This is not to say that the host can play hard ball with Amtrak, their demands have to be reasonable, but Amtrak simply cannot order them to allow the train to run. Neither can the STB, unless the RR has played hardball.
 
I am trying to recall the original law that created Amtrak....IIRC, railroads had the option to 'join' Amtrak, and relieve themselves from the responsibilites of running passenger trains. If they chose not to, as a few didn't for various reasons...they would have to continue running their trains unless they could get the ICC to relieve them in the previous method, but since they turned down this other remedy, would have a much harder time. They would also get a second and third chance to 'join' Amtrak after a four year interval.

For those roads that did join Amtrak, they would be obligated to allow Amtrak to run passenger trains anywehere on their road that Amtrak chose, whether or not there was service at the time. Later mergers, bankruptcies, etc. complicated the issue.

I believe this act was modified a few times as the years passed. I don't know just what the current law is in this regard.
 
I am trying to recall the original law that created Amtrak....IIRC, railroads had the option to 'join' Amtrak, and relieve themselves from the responsibilites of running passenger trains. If they chose not to, as a few didn't for various reasons...they would have to continue running their trains unless they could get the ICC to relieve them in the previous method, but since they turned down this other remedy, would have a much harder time. They would also get a second and third chance to 'join' Amtrak after a four year interval.

For those roads that did join Amtrak, they would be obligated to allow Amtrak to run passenger trains anywehere on their road that Amtrak chose, whether or not there was service at the time. Later mergers, bankruptcies, etc. complicated the issue.

I believe this act was modified a few times as the years passed. I don't know just what the current law is in this regard.
The Passenger Rail Act of 1970 mandated that any route that had passenger service on it had to allow Amtrak to use that route, whether it was in Amtrak's original route structure or not. Further, if Amtrak elected to run passenger on that route, the railroad would have to maintain it to standards that would allow the same speed as the fastest 1970 passenger train over the route. Those clauses expired, as well as most if not all of the original law expired in 25 years, in 1996, so Amtrak lost these rights in 1996. The current Amtrak authorization legislation is the PRIIA Act.

Also, the 1970 Act mandated that railroads not joining Amtrak (NRPC) had to run their existing passenger service, and could not even petition the ICC for discontinuation of any of those trains until 1975. After 1975, they could again petition for discontinuation. I know that D&RGW petitioned for discontinuance/partial discontinuance (cut back to Denver-Grand Junction) of the Rio Grande Zephyr several times after 1975 and were turned down cold each time. Ultimately the were cut an easier deal with Amtrak, as they had a special clause that allowed them more flexibility in scheduling.

I am not sure about any restrictions on joining Amtrak at a later date. The first to join was Southern in 1979, well after the ICC lockout. I think they could join at any time if an agreement could be reached.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am trying to recall the original law that created Amtrak....IIRC, railroads had the option to 'join' Amtrak, and relieve themselves from the responsibilites of running passenger trains. If they chose not to, as a few didn't for various reasons...they would have to continue running their trains unless they could get the ICC to relieve them in the previous method, but since they turned down this other remedy, would have a much harder time. They would also get a second and third chance to 'join' Amtrak after a four year interval.

For those roads that did join Amtrak, they would be obligated to allow Amtrak to run passenger trains anywehere on their road that Amtrak chose, whether or not there was service at the time. Later mergers, bankruptcies, etc. complicated the issue.

I believe this act was modified a few times as the years passed. I don't know just what the current law is in this regard.
The Passenger Rail Act of 1970 mandated that any route that had passenger service on it had to allow Amtrak to use that route, whether it was in Amtrak's original route structure or not. Further, if Amtrak elected to run passenger on that route, the railroad would have to maintain it to standards that would allow the same speed as the fastest 1970 passenger train over the route. Those clauses expired, as well as most if not all of the original law expired in 25 years, in 1996, so Amtrak lost these rights in 1996. The current Amtrak authorization legislation is the PRIIA Act.

Also, the 1970 Act mandated that railroads not joining Amtrak (NRPC) had to run their existing passenger service, and could not even petition the ICC for discontinuation of any of those trains until 1975. After 1975, they could again petition for discontinuation. I know that D&RGW petitioned for discontinuance/partial discontinuance (cut back to Denver-Grand Junction) of the Rio Grande Zephyr several times after 1975 and were turned down cold each time. Ultimately the were cut an easier deal with Amtrak, as they had a special clause that allowed them more flexibility in scheduling.

I am not sure about any restrictions on joining Amtrak at a later date. The first to join was Southern in 1979, well after the ICC lockout. I think they could join at any time if an agreement could be reached.
Thanks for clearing that up.....it's been a long time since 'Railpax' :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top