STB issued a decision last Friday (9/25/20) refusing to decide the UP-Metra dispute. It's available on the STB website (https://prod.stb.gov/proceedings-actions/decisions/) under "decisions" for 9/25, decision no. 50423. It's not a decision on the "merits" The effect of the decision is to leave the dispute in the Federal court where it was initially filed.
CMStPnP Falcon48 Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything in the attached article indicating that Metra "tests" trains operating on UP lines. Still, I suppose it's possible that Metra "tests" trains in Chicago during mid day layovers at Western Avenue (a yard a few miles west of the Chicago passenger terminal where trains are stored and serviced between rush hours). But I don't know whether that's the case or not. He meant that UP should be responsible for the COVID-19 tests vs METRA since they are UP employees. I think however, officially it is a METRA workplace and the UP employees are just contractors as far as the law is concerned.....thats my guess.
Falcon48 Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything in the attached article indicating that Metra "tests" trains operating on UP lines. Still, I suppose it's possible that Metra "tests" trains in Chicago during mid day layovers at Western Avenue (a yard a few miles west of the Chicago passenger terminal where trains are stored and serviced between rush hours). But I don't know whether that's the case or not.
He meant that UP should be responsible for the COVID-19 tests vs METRA since they are UP employees. I think however, officially it is a METRA workplace and the UP employees are just contractors as far as the law is concerned.....thats my guess.
I think it would depend on who is paying them and giving them benefits. Meanwhile, Metra is playing to the public.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-metra-no-conductors-free-rides-20200901-lrgqq3yrmrbzpptxnamj2niwn4-story.html
Falcon48Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything in the attached article indicating that Metra "tests" trains operating on UP lines. Still, I suppose it's possible that Metra "tests" trains in Chicago during mid day layovers at Western Avenue (a yard a few miles west of the Chicago passenger terminal where trains are stored and serviced between rush hours). But I don't know whether that's the case or not.
charlie hebdoBoth are suburbs, served by Metra.
So whats up with that specific suburb?, the last Director lived there as well.....
https://www.nwherald.com/2010/05/07/metra-director-pagano-commits-suicide-hours-before-possible-firing/a5onrdf/
charlie hebdo Back to the topic: https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20200831/metra-dealing-with-a-summer-of-discontent UP is paid by Metra to operate and staff the trains but expects Metra to test them?
Back to the topic:
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20200831/metra-dealing-with-a-summer-of-discontent
UP is paid by Metra to operate and staff the trains but expects Metra to test them?
CMStPnP Rather far from Chicago.... "A Director of METRA lives 45 miles from downtown Chicago in the suburb of Crystal Lake, IL." Larry Cena a past CEO of AT&SF lived in Naperville, IL in a modest home only 28 miles away in comparison.
Rather far from Chicago....
"A Director of METRA lives 45 miles from downtown Chicago in the suburb of Crystal Lake, IL."
Larry Cena a past CEO of AT&SF lived in Naperville, IL in a modest home only 28 miles away in comparison.
Both are suburbs, served by Metra.
I'm pretty sure Lance Fritz lives in Omaha. I'm not positive of that, though.
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
n012944 http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/NS/NS%20ETTs/NS%20Dearborn%20Div%20ETT%20%231%208-4-2008.pdf METRA — SOUTHWEST SUB DISTRICT — 74TH ST. TO MANHATTAN The METRA Section of the C.O.R.A. Operating Guide will govern NS Trains operating between either 74th or Belt Jct. and Manhattan. All signals will conform to METRA signal indications except Forrest Hill Interlocking, which are NS Signal Indications. All trains and engines operating on the METRA Southwest Sub. between Belt Jct. and Manhattan will be under the direction of the Landers Operator.
http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/NS/NS%20ETTs/NS%20Dearborn%20Div%20ETT%20%231%208-4-2008.pdf
METRA — SOUTHWEST SUB DISTRICT — 74TH ST. TO MANHATTAN
The METRA Section of the C.O.R.A. Operating Guide will govern NS Trains operating between either 74th or Belt Jct. and Manhattan. All signals will conform to METRA signal indications except Forrest Hill Interlocking, which are NS Signal Indications. All trains and engines operating on the METRA Southwest Sub. between Belt Jct. and Manhattan will be under the direction of the Landers Operator.
Thanks for the correction. I just did a search NS terminated their lease on the building back in 2018. I forgot NS set everyone to ATL.
An "expensive model collector"
SD60MAC9500 n012944 SD60MAC9500 blue streak 1 Does NS still dispatch the SW Metra service ? Yep, Dearborn Disptach handles the route. I think it is dispatched by the Landers operator. https://metrarail.com/about-metra/our-history/southwest-service-history
n012944 SD60MAC9500 blue streak 1 Does NS still dispatch the SW Metra service ? Yep, Dearborn Disptach handles the route. I think it is dispatched by the Landers operator.
SD60MAC9500 blue streak 1 Does NS still dispatch the SW Metra service ? Yep, Dearborn Disptach handles the route.
blue streak 1 Does NS still dispatch the SW Metra service ?
Does NS still dispatch the SW Metra service ?
Yep, Dearborn Disptach handles the route.
I think it is dispatched by the Landers operator.
https://metrarail.com/about-metra/our-history/southwest-service-history
Considering there are no longer dispatchers in Dearborn, I think that information is incorrect. Also, while it might not be "Metra", the NS Landers Operator does control the diamond at Ashburn, but I belive that is the only diamond that the home road controls on the Wabash.
[quote user="CMStPnP"]
daveklepper BNSF may regard running a 1st class suburban service as worth it for free advertising for the excellence of their railroad, but that is their decision.
Ohhhh, I am pretty confident that is not why BNSF is still doing this. I suspect it has more to do with their contract has not reached expiration yet.
[/quote above]
You may be right. We'll see what happens at the time of contract experation.
CMStPnP Falcon48 I don't think it's political. It's kind of "black letter law" in STB/ICC law that a litigant in many kinds of cases has the option of bringing its case in a court or before the agency. Since this case was first brought before a court, the STB couldn't just take it over. They would have to find that some exception applied that permitted them to take it over (or compelled a court to "refer" the case to STB). The legal doctine that could mandate a referral to STB is a judicial doctrine called "primary jurisdiction". Rather than me trying to explain it, just look at the court decision, which has a pretty good discussion of the doctrine and why (in the court's view) it did not apply to the case. So how did Norfolk Southern and Canadian National get away with a different contract structure with METRA than UP and BNSF have? Was it frequency of commute trains or that the former two suffered from legacy RTA contracts? BTW, METRA loses round one with UP....... https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/08/28-judge-denies-metras-motion-to-dismiss-up-suit-over-commuter-operations
Falcon48 I don't think it's political. It's kind of "black letter law" in STB/ICC law that a litigant in many kinds of cases has the option of bringing its case in a court or before the agency. Since this case was first brought before a court, the STB couldn't just take it over. They would have to find that some exception applied that permitted them to take it over (or compelled a court to "refer" the case to STB). The legal doctine that could mandate a referral to STB is a judicial doctrine called "primary jurisdiction". Rather than me trying to explain it, just look at the court decision, which has a pretty good discussion of the doctrine and why (in the court's view) it did not apply to the case.
So how did Norfolk Southern and Canadian National get away with a different contract structure with METRA than UP and BNSF have? Was it frequency of commute trains or that the former two suffered from legacy RTA contracts?
BTW, METRA loses round one with UP.......
https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/08/28-judge-denies-metras-motion-to-dismiss-up-suit-over-commuter-operations
Concerning NS. Metra leases the ex-Wabash RoW for its SouthWest Service. With NS retaining trackage rights. So it that case they have a different contract than UP, or BNSF would have.
Metra purchased the various ICG (CN) commuter lines (just like former Milwaukee Road lines) and took over operation of commuter service on NS tracks, both years ago. So different cases than BNSF or UP.
CSSHEGEWISCHI would think that BNSF may negotiate some adjustments to the contract but I doubt that they would be too willing to sell the Chicago-Aurora main to Metra.
Agree. I think if they can demonstrate they are burdened with unreimbursed costs in court that would help their case as well.
Falcon48I don't think it's political. It's kind of "black letter law" in STB/ICC law that a litigant in many kinds of cases has the option of bringing its case in a court or before the agency. Since this case was first brought before a court, the STB couldn't just take it over. They would have to find that some exception applied that permitted them to take it over (or compelled a court to "refer" the case to STB). The legal doctine that could mandate a referral to STB is a judicial doctrine called "primary jurisdiction". Rather than me trying to explain it, just look at the court decision, which has a pretty good discussion of the doctrine and why (in the court's view) it did not apply to the case.
I don't think it's political. It's kind of "black letter law" in STB/ICC law that a litigant in many kinds of cases has the option of bringing its case in a court or before the agency. Since this case was first brought before a court, the STB couldn't just take it over. They would have to find that some exception applied that permitted them to take it over (or compelled a court to "refer" the case to STB).
The legal doctine that could mandate a referral to STB is a judicial doctrine called "primary jurisdiction". Rather than me trying to explain it, just look at the court decision, which has a pretty good discussion of the doctrine and why (in the court's view) it did not apply to the case.
Falcon48I'm actually a little surprised that UP wanted to take this issue to court rather than to STB. I would have thought STB would have institutional knowledge and expertise that would cut in favor of UP's position, while a court (which would not be familiar with the extensive history of regulatory changes since 1976) would be a bit of a wild card.
Whether this is something political involving the STB is something far better known to someone like Falcon48 than to me.
I'm actually a little surprised that UP wanted to take this issue to court rather than to STB. I would have thought STB would have institutional knowlege and expertise that would cut in favor of UP's position, while a court (which would not be familiar with the extensive history of regulatory changes since 1976) would be a bit of a wild card. Oh well, UP's got competent (and expensive) lawyers who know their business, and they didn't ask my opinion on who should decide the case. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
Sorry. You are of course correct. I was distracted by a phone call, but that's no excuse. Let's hope this doesn't drag out forever.
charlie hebdo The judge in this suit ruled against Metra so that the decision will rest with the STB, not court system. https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/08/28-judge-denies-metras-motion-to-dismiss-up-suit-over-commuter-operations
The judge in this suit ruled against Metra so that the decision will rest with the STB, not court system.
No. The effect of the decision is just the opposite. It means that the court will not refer the case to STB, but will decide the case itself.
The court decision does leave the door open for an STB referral later on if the briefing by the parties discloses issues which the STB should consider rather than the court. But the door is just open a little crack. It's clear the court intends to decide the case itself unless something really unexpected turns up.
The court did invite STB to file a brief on issues in the case. We'll see if STB will do that (I supect it won't or, if it does, it will be something non-commital). We shall see.
I would think that BNSF may negotiate some adjustments to the contract but I doubt that they would be too willing to sell the Chicago-Aurora main to Metra.
If BNSF's contract renews on the interval in GAO-06-820R, it is due to expire in December 2023. I do expect that we'll see BNSF legal carefully observing whatever results and precedents come out of the upcoming popcorn-fest...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.