A major railroad has a small legal department? I find that hard to believe.
BaltACD Be careful what you ask for - you may get it!
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Schlimm, Thanks for the reference. "MLive" is the common website for virtually all the larger Michigan city newspapers outside of Detroit.
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."
"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?
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
[
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/safety_concerns_prompt_amtrak.html
An "expensive model collector"
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."
Don't believe everything that you read......
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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
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 "
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.
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
Dakota,
... 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.
One has nothing to do with the other.
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 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.
PNWRMNM Dakota, ... ATK is a drain on the freight carriers. Mac McCulloch
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.
Agree with Don that this looks like a rather transparent negotiating tactic and wonder if it cannot be challenged as such (and otherwise unjustifiable).
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.
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.