This is at least presented as a short-term continuity of service thing. STB has apparently tried to punt on 'timely' ruling on the underlying issue now being asserted -- that UP has a continued common-carrier duty to provide commuter service on the parts of C&NW it took over, regardless of any subsequent deregulation or the formation of METRA to assist with continuing or improving commuter service. One sees the usual suspects lining up for where-you-stand-is-where-you-sit but I think there is unlikely to be much to come out of the 'new' on a faster scale than the present court and regulator actions already in process.
Expect whatever injunctions assure 'continuity of service' under some operator or another ... probably in my opinion by enforcing the status quo as that's the easiest 'dumb thing for judges to compel'. Then see it stretched out as everyone strives to get the most they can for as little ... aside from legal fees, the baksheesh that makes our current excuse for an economy and society run as it does.
I don't think METRA, or Chicago, or Illinois May have the wherewithal to actually "buy" the line from UP, even assuming UP would sell for some achievable price in return for the well-demonstrated hassle of running 'trackage rights only' around a heavily-trafficked and perhaps slipshod-scheduled transit service. I do think where this is going is selection of an entity like Keolis to run the transit functions -- including employing those ticket agents back -- but the absence of such a solution in this present popcorn show clearly says it can't be done for the el cheapo funds UP is now getting to provide it.
How do you know what UP is paid? Why would Metra hire an outside agency to run trains and staff operations? They own and run some lines now. UP would never sell their West line, since it carries the bulk of UP traffic from the west coast.
charlie hebdoHow do you know what UP is paid?
Why would Metra hire an outside agency to run trains and staff operations? They own and run some lines now.
UP would never sell their West line, since it carries the bulk of UP traffic from the west coast.
Personally I think you'd be looking at a model for government acquisition of railroad line infrastructure, just as you've advocated on a more fully national scale, and perhaps a case could be made for extensive Federal participation in acquisition (it is, after all, intimately related to interstate commerce on a grand scale although being nominally intrastate for commuter purposes.) Of course, I can hear the screaming starting now about where the Government money would come from...
UP already gives commuter trains priority. There are curfews during peak commuter times when they hold out trains.
I think the big reason UP wants out is that they want to reduce their employment numbers. If Metra took over, UP could get rid of a lot of employees. Employees who cost money beyond direct costs that any Metra contract may cover. Also, employees who may mainly work the scoots, but still vote on union contracts on the freight side.
Jeff
OM: You really don't understand the situation and you are misreading what I wrote. The UP didn't spend millions on the line out to Elburn to turn over to Metra at any price. The North and Northwest lines are not as valued for freight. Metra is fine with UP running trains but if UP won't, they aren't going to have a third party operate.
Jeff Hergert understands the reasons.
charlie hebdoYou really don't understand the situation and you are misreading what I wrote ... Jeff Hergert understands the reasons.
Be interesting to see how it comes out, though.
Here's a new development. UP has not complied with its contractual obligation to check for tickets and collect fares for months.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-chicago-metra-up-fare-collection-20200825-y5qy3asonnh7hmr6ecrbszqnv4-story.html
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Thanks again, Falcon. Let's hope the two parties can settle. I wonder if the UP would like to see some reductions in Metra service, particularly in non-rush hour periods? And a shorter rush hour segment? I don't commute anymore, but I think that could be managed without much impact on riders on the UP West line. All UP wants to do is dump the employees. They do not care about current levels of service and in the future agreement UP would retain ownership and dispatching on all the lines. They do not want to carry the extra employees involved in train movement, ticket sales, maintenence or whatever and want METRA to take on the employees. Their public reasoning is that brings the contract in line with other contracts they have external to Illinois. My feeling is they projected out into the future the pension, health care, etc of the employees and figured out they were probably getting soaked financially by the METRA contract. It reads like via the challenge that METRA can't afford the costs of the employees without a fare or subsidy increase. Just my read based on METRA stalling the transfer. So potentially bad news for METRA and it's costs if UP wins the case and I predict UP will win the case just by showing the contracts in other states and how they are different in just that one area. UP has a strong case for showing Metra is shifting it's costs to UP.
charlie hebdo Thanks again, Falcon. Let's hope the two parties can settle. I wonder if the UP would like to see some reductions in Metra service, particularly in non-rush hour periods? And a shorter rush hour segment? I don't commute anymore, but I think that could be managed without much impact on riders on the UP West line.
All UP wants to do is dump the employees. They do not care about current levels of service and in the future agreement UP would retain ownership and dispatching on all the lines. They do not want to carry the extra employees involved in train movement, ticket sales, maintenence or whatever and want METRA to take on the employees. Their public reasoning is that brings the contract in line with other contracts they have external to Illinois. My feeling is they projected out into the future the pension, health care, etc of the employees and figured out they were probably getting soaked financially by the METRA contract. It reads like via the challenge that METRA can't afford the costs of the employees without a fare or subsidy increase. Just my read based on METRA stalling the transfer.
So potentially bad news for METRA and it's costs if UP wins the case and I predict UP will win the case just by showing the contracts in other states and how they are different in just that one area. UP has a strong case for showing Metra is shifting it's costs to UP.
Doesn't matter what kind of contracts the UP has elsewhere around the system. METRA has a precedent with the purchase of service contract with BNSF...from what I've read the UP and BNSF agreements are practically identical(maybe not money wise, but in all other aspects). That's the only argument METRA needs to make in court, there's already a precedent for the existing contract with UP. UP is just listening to Wall Street to much, nothing more, nothing less. Run the damn railroad and tell Wall Street to shut up.
+1. Thanks, McFarlane!
I understand your point of view, but hauling suburban passengers is not the business UP wants, and a whole management structure, independent of the railroad as a whole, is required to manage that operation. Coach cleaning, ticket collecting and pass checking, a whole business that looses money under the contract, and it is perfectly understandable why they want out.
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.
I'll leave it up to the STB or courts to decide. There are arguments on both sides.
And no railroad management can tell the investors to GTH and stay on as the management.
Amtrak took over the ATSF services early in the game. The initial foray into running passengers over ATSF by a local commuter agency was a mess. It took a decade and several former ATSF and UP managers to clean it up. (The locals had a bad habit of breaking agreements of previous regimes when they did not suit the new regime's politics.... Only thing I saw that was worse was what NM did.
BaltACD Did ATSF even have any commuter services in California before it became a part of BNSF? I think not.
Did ATSF even have any commuter services in California before it became a part of BNSF? I think not.
daveklepper I understand your point of view, but hauling suburban passengers is not the business UP wants, and a whole management structure, independent of the railroad as a whole, is required to manage that operation. Coach cleaning, ticket collecting and pass checking, a whole business that looses money under the contract, and it is perfectly understandable why they want out. 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. I'll leave it up to the STB or courts to decide. There are arguments on both sides. And no railroad management can tell the investors to GTH and stay on as the management.
I'm sure the contract UP has doesn't lose them a lot of money. All those other things are probably figured into it. UP may not be making money, but I doubt they are losing a lot of money, either.
They do have to carry more employees' on their books than they would if they could jettison the commuter operations. If anything, it's some of those costs that aren't covered by the contract.
Dave, you have the same affliction that Fred Frailey had. That BNSF can do no wrong. While they certainly do better than UP, they still act in many ways like the rest of the class one bunch. They are doing certain facets of PSR. It just seems like they haven't gone to the extreme of telling certain lines of business to take a hike. Yet. BNSF, from what I've read from guys who work there, feel the same way towards their employees as do UP, NS, and CSX. Maybe also KCS, CP, and CN.
And you can tell some investors to GTH. As long as it's the ones who don't control 51% of the voting shares.
daveklepperBNSF 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.
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...
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.......
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does NS still dispatch the SW Metra service ?
blue streak 1 Does NS still dispatch the SW Metra service ?
Yep, Dearborn Disptach handles the route.
[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.
[/quote above]
You may be right. We'll see what happens at the time of contract experation.
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.
An "expensive model collector"
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.