Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Dragoman"] Ah, but shouldn't the calculus include that, because of Amtrak, they were (are) relieved of their historic obligations (found in their corporate charters, as well as their government franchises and related land grants, etc.) to be common carriers of passengers, as well as freight? Perhaps they will now argue that it wasn't such a good deal they entered into 40-some years ago, but isn't that the deal they agreed to then? [/quote] Had Amtrak not come about the capital stock railroads could have continued the train off petitions and eventually would have rid themselves of the passenger trains or been thrown into bankruptcy and probably nationalized.   Did the railroads go hat in hand to the government and beg them to take passenger trains off their hands?  Or did the politicians recognize the inevitable and step in with a political solution?  Given all the smoke associated with the decision to form Amtrak, we may never really know.  I believe the government formed it for political reasons without any clear idea of the long term implications.   Clinging to a condition that may have been extant 40 years ago but is not relevant today is not a good policy.   If the UP, for example, has to give priority to Amtrak's trains, it should be compensated fully for doing so. Several of the Trains forum participants who apparently work for the railroads claim that they are not fully compensated.  So too argues the American Association of Railroads!
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag