The 110 mph line is owned by Amtrak, and is west of Kalamazoo. NS owns the track east of K'zoo. The State of Michigan (with fed help) is in the process of buying NS's section of track. In the interim, the state is working with NS to reduce slow order sections. Its a work in progress.
Appears NS is playing very hardball with state of Michigan? For whatever reason Michigan is not using the HSR grant money to purchase the NS branch?.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-track-situation-slows-down-highspeed-amtrak-service-in-michigan-20120315,0,799505.story?track=rss
My hunch is NS is trying to get Michigan to get moving on purchasing the line. I'd also guess that the current deal between Amtrak and NS puts them is on the hook for the incremental maintenance cost between freight and passenger speed. There is no through freight on this line, so "branchline" speeds are enough for the local freight traffic.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Agree with Don that this looks like a rather transparent negotiating tactic and wonder if it cannot be challenged as such (and otherwise unjustifiable).
Dakota,
NS has a very smart legal department. They would not take this course if they were not on solid ground. I am glad NS has the balls to stick it to "em. ATK is a drain on the freight carriers.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNM Dakota, ... ATK is a drain on the freight carriers. Mac McCulloch
... ATK is a drain on the freight carriers.
According to an NS news release (11/14/07) the federal government authorized $95 million toward their $151 million Heartland Corridor clearance project, and yet you say the government railroad is a drain on this railroad. Very interesting.
I said ATK is a drain on the freight carriers. It is. The Heartland Corridor is a double stack clearance project that has nothing to do with ATK.
Mac
PNWRMNM Dakota, I said ATK is a drain on the freight carriers. It is. The Heartland Corridor is a double stack clearance project that has nothing to do with ATK. Mac
I thought you were talking about who's draining who. NS used $90+ million dollars of federal money (from the same taxpayer pot of money that supports ATK) for the Heartland Corridor. Whether you call it mutual draining or mutual benefit depends on your point of view, but both NS and ATK were involved.
MidlandMike PNWRMNM: Dakota, ... ATK is a drain on the freight carriers. Mac McCulloch According to an NS news release (11/14/07) the federal government authorized $95 million toward their $151 million Heartland Corridor clearance project, and yet you say the government railroad is a drain on this railroad. Very interesting.
PNWRMNM: Dakota, ... ATK is a drain on the freight carriers. Mac McCulloch
One has nothing to do with the other.
An "expensive model collector"
Dakotafred you are right, the freight carriers, who in most cases received free land and subsidies for building track, are statutorily required to give passenger traffic priority, and that includes maintaining their track to passenger train standards. When the former B&M/ Guilford tried to cut the speed limits on the Connecticut Valley line in Massachusetts it was condemned under eminent domain and sold to the Central Vermont/ New England Central. When they later tried to impose speed limits on the line between Boston and Portland ME the courts blocked it and forced them to raise speed limits for passenger trains to the normal 70-79 MPH. A few years back the Bush Administration (of all people) forced CSX to stop putting Amtrak in the hole for locals and coal trains by threatening fines and jail time.
If the freight railroads want to be free of their obligation to provide public passenger transportation then they should buy land and build their own tracks. No offers? That is what I thought.
Dwight,
The obligation to which you refer applies only to routes where the carriers were running passenger trains as of ATK day.
I suspect this line segment did not then have passenger trains on it.
PNWRMNM Dwight, The obligation to which you refer applies only to routes where the carriers were running passenger trains as of ATK day. I suspect this line segment did not then have passenger trains on it. Mac McCulloch
I believe the CHI-DET route (NS, ex-PC, ex-NYC/MC) was one of the initial ones on May 1, 1971.
Ex-Wolverine 14, 17 ChicagoBuffalo (via Detroit) Amtrak operated; DetroitBuffalo segment discontinued
Ex Michigan 355 Detroit to Chicago Amtrak operated
Ex Twilight Limited 356 Chicago to Detroit "
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It was an original route, but current deal is different than 5/1/71 deal, I think. NS seems like they are trying to get the state off center on buying the line.
DwightBranch Dakotafred you are right, the freight carriers, who in most cases received free land and subsidies for building track, are statutorily required to give passenger traffic priority, and that includes maintaining their track to passenger train standards.
Dakotafred you are right, the freight carriers, who in most cases received free land and subsidies for building track, are statutorily required to give passenger traffic priority, and that includes maintaining their track to passenger train standards.
Incorrect. Unless you have knowledge of each railroads contract with Amtrak, which are far different than the ones signed in 1971, don't say what railroads are required to do......The Guilford/B&M deal fell under the 1971 contracts. You are also incorrect about fines and jail time for CSX......
n012944 DwightBranch: Dakotafred you are right, the freight carriers, who in most cases received free land and subsidies for building track, are statutorily required to give passenger traffic priority, and that includes maintaining their track to passenger train standards. Incorrect. Unless you have knowledge of each railroads contract with Amtrak, which are far different than the ones signed in 1971, don't say what railroads are required to do......The Guilford/B&M deal fell under the 1971 contracts. You are also incorrect about fines and jail time for CSX......
DwightBranch: Dakotafred you are right, the freight carriers, who in most cases received free land and subsidies for building track, are statutorily required to give passenger traffic priority, and that includes maintaining their track to passenger train standards.
There was an article in Trains about seven years ago written by Don Phillips that outlined what I talked about regarding the Justice Department, who finally enforced the provisions in the law at their disposal enforcing the passenger-train first provision, and CSX. The quote I remember was something top management at CSX said to their top operating people, overheard by a reporter, after meeting with DOJ staff, which was: "Bury the hatchet". And the article stated that UP would be next. I would link to it but I have had no luck searching the records here.
Don't believe everything that you read......
"NS spokesman Pidgeon told MLive his comment in the Tribune was accurate. 'If any passenger rail entity wants to run on this track, then it is unreasonable to expect Norfolk Southern to pay for those improvements,' he said.
He said Amtrak and Norfolk-Southern in 2010 agreed that passenger rail could operate on these lines as safety allowed and Norfolk Southern would be able to impose speed restrictions without penalty."
schlimm "NS spokesman Pidgeon told MLive his comment in the Tribune was accurate. 'If any passenger rail entity wants to run on this track, then it is unreasonable to expect Norfolk Southern to pay for those improvements,' he said. He said Amtrak and Norfolk-Southern in 2010 agreed that passenger rail could operate on these lines as safety allowed and Norfolk Southern would be able to impose speed restrictions without penalty."
Schlimm: Good citation here, seeming to show NS on solid ground. But where is it from?
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/safety_concerns_prompt_amtrak.html
[
dakotafred schlimm: "NS spokesman Pidgeon told MLive his comment in the Tribune was accurate. 'If any passenger rail entity wants to run on this track, then it is unreasonable to expect Norfolk Southern to pay for those improvements,' he said. He said Amtrak and Norfolk-Southern in 2010 agreed that passenger rail could operate on these lines as safety allowed and Norfolk Southern would be able to impose speed restrictions without penalty." Schlimm: Good citation here, seeming to show NS on solid ground. But where is it from?
schlimm: "NS spokesman Pidgeon told MLive his comment in the Tribune was accurate. 'If any passenger rail entity wants to run on this track, then it is unreasonable to expect Norfolk Southern to pay for those improvements,' he said. He said Amtrak and Norfolk-Southern in 2010 agreed that passenger rail could operate on these lines as safety allowed and Norfolk Southern would be able to impose speed restrictions without penalty."
Sorry. I forgot to include the link. I Googled Amtrak-NS Michigan service contracts and got the article which was in something called "MLive" which must be a Michigan source.
Schlimm, Thanks for the reference. "MLive" is the common website for virtually all the larger Michigan city newspapers outside of Detroit.
Be careful what you ask for - you may get it!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Be careful what you ask for - you may get it!
Indeed- FRA could come in and impose 10 MPH on freight trains, for example, or embargo it entirely, if it is that unsafe.
A major railroad has a small legal department? I find that hard to believe.
DwightBranch BaltACD: Be careful what you ask for - you may get it! Indeed- FRA could come in and impose 10 MPH on freight trains, for example, or embargo it entirely, if it is that unsafe.
BaltACD: Be careful what you ask for - you may get it!
Sigh. Please tell me where anyone is saying that it is "that unsafe". A 30 mph slow order is a long way from a line being embargoed because of its condition. I
You are making this more complicated than it is. NS has posted track for 25 MPH. That means that when the FRA track inspector shows up he can only write up violations of the FRA Class II standard. That condition applies regardless of the general condition of the track.
If NS had been maintaining to Class IV before restricting speed to 25 MPH, the vast majority of the track will physically meet Class IV standards, so the FRA will have a hard time finding any violation of Class II standards. In the longer run, NS will presumably fix only those things that are violation of Class II standards and the overall condition of the line will deteriorate to Class II, This deterioration will take years, depending on begining condtion and tonnage over the line.
n012944 DwightBranch: BaltACD: Be careful what you ask for - you may get it! Indeed- FRA could come in and impose 10 MPH on freight trains, for example, or embargo it entirely, if it is that unsafe. Sigh. Please tell me where anyone is saying that it is "that unsafe". A 30 mph slow order is a long way from a line being embargoed because of its condition. I
DwightBranch: BaltACD: Be careful what you ask for - you may get it! Indeed- FRA could come in and impose 10 MPH on freight trains, for example, or embargo it entirely, if it is that unsafe.
I am getting tired of your patronizing tone (somewhere in this thread you told someone else to "educate himself") especially when you seem clueless as to the subtext of what is being discussed (that NS is using this speed reduction to try to extort money from Amtrak and/or Michigan). Either learn to read between the lines or please keep your opinions to yourself.
DwightBranch I am getting tired of your patronizing tone (somewhere in this thread you told someone else to "educate himself") especially when you seem clueless as to the subtext of what is being discussed (that NS is using this speed reduction to try to extort money from Amtrak and/or Michigan). Either learn to read between the lines or please keep your opinions to yourself.
I am well aware of what the NS is doing. However you seem clueless about the process and legality of what the NS is doing. You also seem clueless towards the Amtrak's contracts with the class ones, and what is required of them. As for keeping my opinions to myself, good luck with that. Maybe one should be a member of a forum for a little more than a week and half before dictating policy.
BTW please find the quote on this thread where I told someone to "educate himself"......
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.