New Illinois Services In Jeopardy?

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
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.
Here's the full Amtrak press release:

October 24, 2006 Amtrak to Seek Order to Keep Illinois Lincoln Service and Saluki Train Service

Order would counter Canadian National-Illinois Central Railroad effort to cancel agreement for new passenger train service

CHICAGO - Amtrak is prepared to seek an emergency order requiring Canadian National-Illinois Central (CN-IC) Railroad to honor the existing agreement between the two railroads allowing the addition of new passenger trains between Chicago and St. Louis and between Chicago and Carbondale.

Amtrak would seek relief from a National Arbitration Panel or a restraining order in Federal court, should the CN-IC make a final decision not to honor the agreement.

The service expansion, being carried out by Amtrak for the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), is set to begin on October 30 and runs over tracks owned in part by the CN-IC. In July, Amtrak and the CN-IC signed an agreement permitting the new trains to operate on the CN-IC tracks.

On October 19th, CN-IC attempted to change the agreement to reduce the number of trains and shorten its term. Illinois rejected this proposal by CN-IC. Already popular with passengers, some of the trains are sold out during the upcoming holiday season.

Following a Carbondale news conference on Sept. 25, tickets have been on sale for the Saluki (Trains 390 & 391) and Illini (Trains 392 & 393). Ticket availability for the Lincoln Service (Trains 300 & 301, 302 & 305, 306 & 307) to and from St. Louis was announced on Oct. 14.

"Canadian National's unilateral move to violate its existing agreement allowing trains to operate is an affront to Illinois and its rail passengers," said William Crosbie, Amtrak Senior Vice President, Operations. "Amtrak has been in communication with CN-IC officials since March concerning this service. Amtrak has hired and trained employees, renovated train equipment, purchased advertising and mounted a series of public events - some of which CN was a participant - supporting the new train frequencies.

"CN-IC is now trying to back out of the agreement," Crosbie said, pointing out Amtrak and IDOT will be resolute in enforcement of the pact to add new frequencies on downstate Illinois routes, in response to legislative action and to satisfy public demand.

Amtrak has no plans to cancel these additional trains and is continuing to accept reservations and sell tickets on all routes and frequencies. Expanded service on the Chicago-Quincy route is unaffected by this matter.

Amtrak, IDOT and other railroads have invested capital on the Chicago-Joliet route to increase capacity and improve reliability for passenger trains. Less than 37 miles of the 284-mile Chicago-St. Louis route is on tracks owned by CN-IC between Chicago and Joliet. Three Amtrak trains and three commuter trains make round-trips on this route, with no commuter trains on weekends. Under the agreement with CN-IC, two more daily round-trips by Amtrak trains will be added for a total of eight passenger train round-trips on weekdays, five passenger train round-trips on weekends.

Nearly the entire 310-mile Chicago-Carbondale route is on tracks owned by CN-IC. Two Amtrak trains currently make round-trips on this route, with all commuter trains using dedicated tracks nearby. Under the agreement with CN-IC, one more daily round-trip by Amtrak trains will be added for a total of three passenger train round-trips daily.

The expanded service comes after news that all state-sponsored Amtrak routes posted record ridership levels for Illinois' Fiscal Year 2006 and with an increase in state funding for passenger rail service by Amtrak from $12.1 million to $24 million approved by the Illinois General Assembly and Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.
Click to expand...
Available here.
 
It seems that CN might be a little worried about additional Amtrak trains mucking up their freight schedule, don't you think that they might have thought about this before siging the contract?? AND if I am remembering correctly, Illinois state funds were used to upgrade some of this track so CN might be a little beholden to the State.. Shades of Guilford and the Ethan Allen Express...yes we'll take your money to upgrade our tracks, but no you can't run the train at speed or at all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, I think the excuse CN is using is that the official who signed the contract lacked the proper authority to do so.
 
Chicago - Joliet is or way a paired track situation with one track being BNSF former ATSF and teh other the IC former Alton/GM&O. The ICG simply held on to the Chicago to Joliet portion when they sold of the rest fo teh former Alton to CM&W to keep the CM&W from accessing the Chicago interchanges, thereby effectively starving them to death. I can't imagine that this line has enough traffic to cause any capacity issues for two extra passenger trains.

AS for the ICRR main to Carbondale, mabe they do have a capacity problem north of Edgewood? where the cutoff freight line to Fulton KY takes off from teh old main. This can be blamed on the former owner's single tracking of the main. But except for what has to be a fairly rediculous claim, it is hard to see how CN can have a leg to stand on. On the other hand how do you enforce a contract against a foreign owned business?
 
George Harris said:
On the other hand how do you enforce a contract against a foreign owned business?
Click to expand...
Actually while it won't help Amtrak in the short term, my understanding is that the FRA can sieze the trackage from CN if they fail to obey court orders.

Of course that now creates another issue, who do you give the tracks to? Amtrak, already drowning in debt? Or another potentially hostile RR?

Additionally the courts could seek to freeze CN assets in this country until they comply. That is one of the conditions of doing business in this country to my knowledge.
 
George Harris said:
On the other hand how do you enforce a contract against a foreign owned business?
Click to expand...
The Illinois Central is still a U.S.-based railroad. They can certainly have funds and assets in this country frozen or taken. Depending upon the corporate structure, they may even be able to reach across the border; I'm sure that the government of Canada isn't going to do anything that makes Canada out to be a bad guy, too.
 
I have the feeling that this will settle itself out fairly quickly. CN has usually been pretty good to Amtrak and the amount of negative publicity that this is bringing to them may make them recant or seek a viable solution.

So the person who signed the contract didn't have to pass it off to headquarters to be looked at???

Sounds kind of odd to me.
 
This is fascinating issue. It could be a textbook case for contract law.

First: we have not heard CN's side of this yet. CN has been a generally Amtrak-friendly railroad. Why would they suddenly turn a 180? Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.

Second, the question of who at CN signed the Amtrak access agreement is relevant. There are officers who are authorized to commit the corporation and those who are not. So the fact that an agreement was signed by someone at CN may or may not prove validity.

I have a feeling there are side issues at work here. The short notice seems clearly an attempt to leverage Amtrak for something. I work with Amtrak all the time and I can tell you they are very, very difficult to deal with on a commercial basis. Maybe CN wants something and is using this as a wedge to get Amtrak off dead center. We'll see. In the meanwhile, I am just going to sit back and watch.
 
The below statement is incorrect. the CN nee IC nee ICG nee GM&O is double track from 21st street to Joliet (reference current CN Chicago division employee timetable). I roughly parallels the BNSF nee ATSF from Bridgport to Joliet with portions, especially near Joliet being directly next to each other leading to the teh appearance of a 4 track main line through Joliet. At other times the BNSF is on the North side of the ship canal and the CN is on the south

George Harris said:
Chicago - Joliet is or way a paired track situation with one track being BNSF former ATSF and teh other the IC former Alton/GM&O. The ICG simply held on to the Chicago to Joliet portion when they sold of the rest fo teh former Alton to CM&W to keep the CM&W from accessing the Chicago interchanges, thereby effectively starving them to death. I can't imagine that this line has enough traffic to cause any capacity issues for two extra passenger trains.
Click to expand...
 
PRR 60 said:
This is fascinating issue. It could be a textbook case for contract law.
First: we have not heard CN's side of this yet. CN has been a generally Amtrak-friendly railroad. Why would they suddenly turn a 180? Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.

Second, the question of who at CN signed the Amtrak access agreement is relevant. There are officers who are authorized to commit the corporation and those who are not. So the fact that an agreement was signed by someone at CN may or may not prove validity.

I have a feeling there are side issues at work here. The short notice seems clearly an attempt to leverage Amtrak for something. I work with Amtrak all the time and I can tell you they are very, very difficult to deal with on a commercial basis. Maybe CN wants something and is using this as a wedge to get Amtrak off dead center. We'll see. In the meanwhile, I am just going to sit back and watch.
Click to expand...
Good Points PRR60,

It will be fascinating to see what the side issues (or perhaps the main issues) are. None-the-less, I'm still puzzled why someone who had no authority would clear/sign a contract for the Corporation. If that was indeed the case, I assume that this person is no longer working for CN.
 
PRR 60 said:
This is fascinating issue. It could be a textbook case for contract law.
Click to expand...
Lets hope it does not go that far. Law school casebooks are filled with appelate court decisions. Were still a few years away from an appealate court speaking on this issue.

PRR 60 said:
Second, the question of who at CN signed the Amtrak access agreement is relevant. There are officers who are authorized to commit the corporation and those who are not. So the fact that an agreement was signed by someone at CN may or may not prove validity.
Click to expand...
Amtrak's defense to CN's arugment is the doctrine of apparent authority. A court may enforce the contract if at appeared that the individual who signed on behalf of another party has the authority to do so. Unless somebody at CN tells them, Amtrak does not know who at CN does and does not have the authority to bind CN to a contract. If Amtrak dealt in good faith with this individual, Amtrak should not be punished for CN's mistake.

My $0.02

Rick
 
I find it hard to believe that the two more Lincoln Service trains along the CN from Chicago to Joliet will significantly disrupt CN's freight operations. There has to be something else involved.

However if it is such a burden on CN why doesn't Amtrak approach BNSF to run to Joliet over the former ATSF stretch the way the Southwest Limited used to? The AM express skips Summit anyway.
 
Mark said:
I find it hard to believe that the two more Lincoln Service trains along the CN from Chicago to Joliet will significantly disrupt CN's freight operations. There has to be something else involved.
However if it is such a burden on CN why doesn't Amtrak approach BNSF to run to Joliet over the former ATSF stretch the way the Southwest Limited used to? The AM express skips Summit anyway.
Click to expand...
While mostly intact, The route hasn't been used by a passenger train since the rerouting of the Chief to BN/CB&Q rails Chicago to Galesburg. There may be little or no service east of Corwith?? Could those tracks be cut to 40mph or less?? Is the crossing at Brighton Park STILL stop & go??

I've got plenty ov video showing GM&O or Amtrak trains crossing to ATSF rails in Joliet Union Station. As a passenger, you had to be careful to clear the platform before an ATSF freight came thru.

Frankly, I don't see what the deal is. AFAIK there isn't much traffic on the line. I'm not sure how busy the old Glenn Yard near Central Ave is. There may be a few industries between there & Pulaski to warrant some service?
 
Network X had some video of Durbin's announcement on the affiliate news service feed. I happened to catch it at work. The script supplied was a bit confusing; I had to hit the usual suspect intercity passenger rail sites in order to figure out what really happened.

Here's an example of the stories coming out of local broadcast stations.
 
AMTK1007 said:
The below statement is incorrect. the CN nee IC nee ICG nee GM&O is double track from 21st street to Joliet (reference current CN Chicago division employee timetable). I roughly parallels the BNSF nee ATSF from Bridgport to Joliet with portions, especially near Joliet being directly next to each other leading to the teh appearance of a 4 track main line through Joliet. At other times the BNSF is on the North side of the ship canal and the CN is on the south
George Harris said:
Chicago - Joliet is or way a paired track situation with one track being BNSF former ATSF and teh other the IC former Alton/GM&O. The ICG simply held on to the Chicago to Joliet portion when they sold of the rest fo teh former Alton to CM&W to keep the CM&W from accessing the Chicago interchanges, thereby effectively starving them to death. I can't imagine that this line has enough traffic to cause any capacity issues for two extra passenger trains.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My error then. I had heard this somewhere quite a few years ago when the players were ATSF and GM&O. Since you are going from an ETT, I wil take that as a reliable source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top