Lithonia OperatorNew hearing dates have now been set for April 5th and 6th. https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/continuance-requested-for-amtrak-csx-stb-hearing/ "The request for a continuance may indicate, according to some industry observers, that CSX and Amtrak, the primary adversaries in what has evolved into a contentious, litigious situation, are willing resume negotiations and reach an agreement on Gulf Coast service without STB intervention."
https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/continuance-requested-for-amtrak-csx-stb-hearing/
"The request for a continuance may indicate, according to some industry observers, that CSX and Amtrak, the primary adversaries in what has evolved into a contentious, litigious situation, are willing resume negotiations and reach an agreement on Gulf Coast service without STB intervention."
Will this be settled before or after we 'have' a 2022 Major League Baseball season? Both 'negotiations' seem at the same stage.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CSX needs more time to make up new outlandish numbers?
New hearing dates have now been set for April 5th and 6th.
Still in training.
Electroliner 1935 CMStPnP, Isn't that similar to what California did with UP & BNSF for the CALTRANS trains?
CMStPnP,
Isn't that similar to what California did with UP & BNSF for the CALTRANS trains?
I don't know I don't follow CALTRANS that much but if they did then good for them I think you need a neutral party between Amtrak and the railroads like the DOT.
Louisiana is putting in a huge addition to their container port. Gulfport, Mississippi, and Mobile, Alabama, both have expanded and are expanding their container ports.
I'm sure CSX is looking at all that future expansion of traffic along that rail corridor. I'm also sure they don't want to be messing around with Amtrak adding to the mix.
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."
Lithonia OperatorThis white paper explains Amtrak's view of what rights were granted in the 1970 law creating Amtrak. I don't know enough about the law per se to know if Amtrak's position is 100% legally sound based upon the 1970 law and subsequent legislation. However, my understanding is that it has generally been accepted that Amtrak has the right to use the carriers' tracks and that passenger trains get priority in scheduling.
Two areas of fog here that this is trying to clear up:
1. Amtrak was setup to PRESERVE what was left of rail passenger service versus expand into new routes all over the country that did not exist at Amtrak turnover. This is point of contention #1.
2. Point of contention #2 is what should the compensation be from Amtrak to host railroad to accomodate the passenger trains. As I stated in another thread, CSX and NS are more than willing to host Amtrak trains but ONLY ON THEIR TERMS. They do not believe Amtrak has the right to determine what those terms should be and Amtrak has to accept what the private railroads present. Amtraks position is it feels much of the costs presented are ridiculuos and an attempt to obstruct it's access rights and that Amtrak can by itself determine what the costs should be and the private railroads have to accept that as fair.
Thats my interpretation of the core of the argument with CSX and NS the above two points.
The current CP working model that Amtrak has no issues with. Is Amtrak and WisDOT both look at what CP presents and WisDOT is the determining factor on what is reasonable. So far CP has been honest and not come up with huge inflationary costs like CSX and NS both have. It's been very rare where WisDOT disagrees with CP and if it does they work it out together via negotiation. Amtrak is not really comming into the relationship and saying this is how it is going to be. On the other hand, WisDOT has the legal power to force any issue on CP it wishes to, including forcing CP and UP into a track sharing arrangement. Amtrak does not have that power. CP views WisDOT as a neutral party more concerned with transportation balance overall vs acting only in the self interest of getting passenger trains up and running. I think that is why the Wisconsin model works so well. I believe it is what Amtrak should use nationwide.
Lithonia OperatorI agree. They are trying to set a new precedent that goes against the terms under which Amtrak relieved the carriers of their responsibility to run passenger trains. They are trying to fundamentally change the paradigm.
Just the reverse. Amtrak is trying to get into legal precedent what is not widely already recognized in current legal interpretations. The railroads are reacting in an attempt to protect their current rights. If it was as you described it the case would have been thrown out already and Amtrak would have won.
Second, CSX asked for an extension of the evidentuary part of the hearing, Amtrak complied. The reason was the court was publicly doubting some of the evidence CSX presented as I understand things. So CSX it is thought will come back with more detailed info which more than likely lead to a closed hearing as it will also be competitive info. For someone that watches these hearings you sure are missing quite a bit in context. Suggest you read the articles in the TRAINS competitive publication as well as Trains Newswire.
charlie hebdo Lithonia Operator They are trying to set a new precedent that goes against the terms under which Amtrak relieved the carriers of their responsibility to run passenger trains. They are trying to fundamentally change the paradigm. Could you post or direct us to the pertinent documents that spell out these terms?
Lithonia Operator They are trying to set a new precedent that goes against the terms under which Amtrak relieved the carriers of their responsibility to run passenger trains. They are trying to fundamentally change the paradigm.
Could you post or direct us to the pertinent documents that spell out these terms?
This white paper explains Amtrak's view of what rights were granted in the 1970 law creating Amtrak. I don't know enough about the law per se to know if Amtrak's position is 100% legally sound based upon the 1970 law and subsequent legislation. However, my understanding is that it has generally been accepted that Amtrak has the right to use the carriers' tracks and that passenger trains get priority in scheduling.
Lithonia OperatorThey are trying to set a new precedent that goes against the terms under which Amtrak relieved the carriers of their responsibility to run passenger trains. They are trying to fundamentally change the paradigm.
CMStPnP Paul of Covington Thanks, L.O. It doesn't seem to me that it would make much difference to them, but maybe they are trying to keep Amtrak at bay in case they get other ideas about some of their other routes. I think yourself and a few others are reading this wrong. This isn't about just NO to Mobile. This is roughly akin to UAW pattern bargaining in that Amtrak, DOT and STB are attempting to set a precendent or pattern for Amtrak to apply to the rest of the U.S. Rail Network. So the 6-7 miles of NS track just gets their skin in the game on this initial argument but their real interest is the entire NS rail network. CSX real interests here are the entire CSX network. CSX in fact explicitly states the concern as such in it's letter to shippers. I am sure the NO to Mobile is still a concern but CSX and NS are not spending gobs of money on lawyers here for that short little stretch of track.
Paul of Covington Thanks, L.O. It doesn't seem to me that it would make much difference to them, but maybe they are trying to keep Amtrak at bay in case they get other ideas about some of their other routes.
Thanks, L.O. It doesn't seem to me that it would make much difference to them, but maybe they are trying to keep Amtrak at bay in case they get other ideas about some of their other routes.
I think yourself and a few others are reading this wrong. This isn't about just NO to Mobile. This is roughly akin to UAW pattern bargaining in that Amtrak, DOT and STB are attempting to set a precendent or pattern for Amtrak to apply to the rest of the U.S. Rail Network. So the 6-7 miles of NS track just gets their skin in the game on this initial argument but their real interest is the entire NS rail network.
CSX real interests here are the entire CSX network. CSX in fact explicitly states the concern as such in it's letter to shippers. I am sure the NO to Mobile is still a concern but CSX and NS are not spending gobs of money on lawyers here for that short little stretch of track.
I agree. They are trying to set a new precedent that goes against the terms under which Amtrak relieved the carriers of their responsibility to run passenger trains. They are trying to fundamentally change the paradigm.
If Amtrak wants to expand or revive service elsewhere, they need to win this case.
I have not yet seen that the STB has rescheduled the hearing, but it seems more than likely that it will. The parties agree to a three-week delay.
Electroliner 1935 Your question sent me to my 1952 copy of the Official Guide and I found a N.Y. sleeper (10-1-1) you mentioned going , SOU, N&W, SOU, AC&S, I.C.to Shreveport but NOT to Dallas. I also looked at the other RRs serving Shreveport for cars going to Dallas. Or from Dallas to NYC. Did not find any. KCS = Freight Only. TP trains were Dallas - N.O. Nothing diverting @ shreveport.
Your question sent me to my 1952 copy of the Official Guide and I found a N.Y. sleeper (10-1-1) you mentioned going , SOU, N&W, SOU, AC&S, I.C.to Shreveport but NOT to Dallas.
I also looked at the other RRs serving Shreveport for cars going to Dallas. Or from Dallas to NYC. Did not find any. KCS = Freight Only. TP trains were Dallas - N.O. Nothing diverting @ shreveport.
Same for me but I googled old railroad timetables instead. Just for clarity the former T&P swung South at Shreveport, LA for New Orleans. The last train to serve that route I think was the Fort Worth, TX to New Orleans, LA "Louisiana Eagle" which operated as a overnight train up to 1969-1970 from T&P Station in Fort Worth.
Remember NS is involved with operation of the Cresent between Alexandria, VA and New Orleans and its horrible OT performance between Atlanta and New Orleans. NS has never been a big fan of operating Amtrak, On Time or otherwise.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington I was under the impression that the whole waterfront line from New Orleans to Mobile was CSX. Where or how is NS involved?
I was under the impression that the whole waterfront line from New Orleans to Mobile was CSX. Where or how is NS involved?
Apparently there are about six miles of NS track in New Orleans that are part of the route.
blue streak 1 CMStPnP blue streak 1 Any idea how that car was routed at Shreveport? Since all other RRs used the Union stationthat bgs the question of how the car masde it from there is T&P was used?. I may have confused the issue. From meridian to Shreveport it was IC RR fr sure. Now ifpassenger service continued after KS took over leave to others. The IC route (now KCS) from Shreveport to Dallas as I understand is much slower than the TP (now UP) route. Since only T&P used the TP station. Everyone else Union station.
CMStPnP blue streak 1 Any idea how that car was routed at Shreveport? Since all other RRs used the Union stationthat bgs the question of how the car masde it from there is T&P was used?.
blue streak 1
Any idea how that car was routed at Shreveport? Since all other RRs used the Union stationthat bgs the question of how the car masde it from there is T&P was used?.
I may have confused the issue. From meridian to Shreveport it was IC RR fr sure. Now ifpassenger service continued after KS took over leave to others. The IC route (now KCS) from Shreveport to Dallas as I understand is much slower than the TP (now UP) route. Since only T&P used the TP station. Everyone else Union station.
blue streak 1The IC route (now KCS) from Shreveport to Dallas as I understand is much slower than the TP (now UP) route.
IC had no route to Dallas from Shreveport, LA and never has served Dallas. Only Cotton Belt, SP, KCS, T&P / MP, CB&Q, AT&SF, KATY, RI as far as I am aware. Cotton Belt passenger service was very circuitous.
The KCS route was not maintained as well as T&P because UP has an Auto Plant somewere East of Marshall (1 train a day down that line with auto racks).........I think thats why. They only have from what I read about 10-12 trains a day on the Marshall to Shreveport, LA line. KCS freight I suspect is lower margin and bulk is intermodal from what I observed. Some DoDX deployment trains from Fort Hood, and Fort Bliss, TX to Savannah, GA and other ports.
Lithonia OperatorCould you please expand on the part I bolded above?
They asked for more time or continuance of the evidence hearing.
CMStPnPCSX just asked for a private time out from their argument with Amtrak over this and they are keeping the meeting closed. So I wonder what is going on there. According to another rail magazine they were winning along with NS which was also arguing against Amtrak's position on the NOL to Mobile service.
Could you please expand on the part I bolded above?
I watched much of the STB hearing on this, plus the pre-trial conference with the attorneys. Personally, I did not perceive CSX and NS to be "winning." While trying to be neutral, Chairman Martin Oberman nonetheless appeared to be pretty skeptical about some assertions by CSX.
I grew up along that (then L&N) line, so I have a special interest in the case. If the case does indeed go to an STB trial, I expect it to be quite interesting and will watch for sure; right now it's scheduled to begin on 3/9.
blue streak 1Any idea how that car was routed at Shreveport? Since all other RRs used the Union stationthat bgs the question of how the car masde it from there is T&P was used?.
Did they use T&P? because they could have easily used KCS....they both connect to Dallas via seperate lines from Shreveport, LA.
charlie hebdoNOL to Mobile? Silly.
CSX just asked for a private time out from their argument with Amtrak over this and they are keeping the meeting closed. So I wonder what is going on there. According to another rail magazine they were winning along with NS which was also arguing against Amtrak's position on the NOL to Mobile service.
York1 CMStPnP Amtrak is getting ahead of itself again. I agree with you. Amtrak might get it started, but the states, especially Alabama, will not want to put in the money needed to keep it going. Mississippi and Louisiana have pie in the sky ideas of an economic boon with this train, although I can't picture that much since the drive is only three hours by car. The Mississippi casinos are only an hour away by car from New Orleans, which has its own casinos. With all that, I think the biggest issue will be this route would be on CSX track, and CSX is very much against it. They are busy enough without Amtrak.
CMStPnP Amtrak is getting ahead of itself again.
I agree with you. Amtrak might get it started, but the states, especially Alabama, will not want to put in the money needed to keep it going.
Mississippi and Louisiana have pie in the sky ideas of an economic boon with this train, although I can't picture that much since the drive is only three hours by car. The Mississippi casinos are only an hour away by car from New Orleans, which has its own casinos.
With all that, I think the biggest issue will be this route would be on CSX track, and CSX is very much against it. They are busy enough without Amtrak.
I think you are quite correct. Wisconsin provides the example of rejection of federal funding for more useful expanded Amtrak service because they didn't want to pay anything later.
NOL to Mobile? Silly.
What caused the questio was there was a NYP - Bristol - Chattanooga - Meridian train SOU 41 Pelican that had a sleeper line that went on to DFW. Best I recall that lasted until about ealy 1958 when the sleeper was cut back to Shreveport <> NYP.
blue streak 1Did the original train(s) from Meridian to DFW use IC all the way ( Now KCS) or did it change to MP (UP now) Shreveport to DFW? Have not found an old timetable.
I believe the following:
Dallas - Marshall, TX (ex-T&P)
Marshall, TX to Texarkana, TX (ex-T&P).........Texarkana North (ex-MP).
Marshall, TX to Shreveport, LA (ex-T&P)
Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS (ex-IC, I believe he is right on it being former MidSouth after ICG sold it off)
Shreveport, LA to Dallas, TX (KCS) intersects with the ex-T&P North of Marshall, TX in Jefferson, TX on the Texas Eagle route to Texarkana. KCS takes a very Northerly route to Dallas (via Farmersville) and then dips sharply South in the Dallas Suburb and via Garland, TX (parallel to highway 78) connects with the T&P line into Dallas Union Station.
Additionally, KCS purchased the former AT&SF Texas Chief line from Garland,TX out to wherever it terminates North of Fort Worth (Alliance Yard?, Denton?). I believe as well KCS purchased one or two ex-SP lines in the Dallas area but not sure on that. Interesting note: AT&SF built the Texas Chief line in the 1950's at the cost of tens of millions so that the Texas Chief would first enter Dallas then Fort Worth. Instead of entering Fort Worth first. Kind of a waste of money as they sold to KCS for probably less than construction cost.
So the answer is no, there was no original direct train connecting Meridian, MS to Dallas, TX. If anything it was two trains, with a train change in Shreveport. So Meridian to Shreveport, LA (on IC) then Shreveport, LA to Dallas, TX on T&P.
Also of note: T&P had it's own Shreveport, LA station which is still standing and it required I think a 4-5 mile backup move to reach. All other railroads used Union Station in Shreveport LA. The T&P has a rail connection to Union Station via probably former SP. So that would be another obstacle to a previous through train that no longer exists today because of railroad mergers.
Did the original train(s) from Meridian to DFW use IC all the way ( Now KCS) or did it change to MP (UP now) Shreveport to DFW? Have not found an old timetable.
OvermodThere would be no point in using a route other than the ex-MoPac to Marshall and then across from Shreveport. There would be no point I can imagine in using CPKC trackage between the Dallas area and Shreveport; the issue with the route is only that the train is a run-through between Dallas and Meridian, not a connection between the existing Texas Eagle at Marshall and Meridian.
Bingo! OK now we are on the same sheet of music again. This was what I was trying to communicate all along after you or someone else posted the KCS route between Dallas and Meridian. Between Dallas Union Station and the KCS route via Plano, TX to Shreveport would be a nightmare for Amtrak to navigate too and would eat up way too much time. Plus they would need to build a lot of new stations. The route we finally agree on above in the quotes is the fastest and most logical for Amtrak to use speed wise and low spending wise.
The Marshall, TX station is in the middle of a fully active and well maintained to mainline standards WYE, all three legs are CTC signalled and in really good shape. The Southern leg that veers off to the right goes to Shreveport, the Western leg is what the Texas Eagle uses and it heads North to Texarkana. So Marshall, TX station is perfect because it was built to serve all three legs of the WYE.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.