The Supreme Court agreed to take a case concerning Amtrak's ability to participate in setting timekeeping standards for its trains over freight railroad's facilities. Esssentially, the nub of the case is the legal definition of Amtrak as a private, profit making, institution.
The Supremes?
Doesn't the song Stop in the Name of Love pretty much describe our affection for trains and our anxiety that the trains will be taken away from us?
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/supremes/stopinthenameoflove.html
Or maybe it describes Amtrak being abandoned in its affections by the freight railroads?
(lead) Leaving me alone and hurt
(chorus) (think it over)
(lead) Haven't I been good to you?
(lead) Haven't I been sweet to you?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic The Supremes? Doesn't the song Stop in the Name of Love pretty much describe our affection for trains and our anxiety that the trains will be taken away from us? http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/supremes/stopinthenameoflove.html Or maybe it describes Amtrak being abandoned in its affections by the freight railroads? (lead) Leaving me alone and hurt (chorus) (think it over) (lead) Haven't I been good to you? (chorus) (think it over) (lead) Haven't I been sweet to you?
Two things:
I laughed! (and people looked at me funny)
The song is stuck in my head. (at least it pushed out a Sound of Music song that was previously stuck.)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
If the freight railroads are required to give Amtrak's trains priority, they should be compensated fully for doing so. The American Association of Railroads claims that they are not compensated fully for hoisting Amtrak's trains.
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?
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?
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!
Sam1 If the freight railroads are required to give Amtrak's trains priority, they should be compensated fully for doing so. The American Association of Railroads claims that they are not compensated fully for hoisting Amtrak's trains.
Everyone assumes that this is the case - that the frt RRs don't give Amtrak priority. I believe they do - to the best of their ability.
In the case of one RR I know, a particular LD train gets other trains to go in the hole for it better than 90% of the time, and of that 10% when it has to wait, it's often for the opposing Amtrak train. In fact, the Amtrak priority is programmed into the train dispatching system with a pretty heavy bias.
You make some good points, Sam (as always!), but some of your conclusions are somewhat speculative. Would they have been able to shed all passenger services? If not, would they (all) have been pushed into bankruptcy? If so, would it have made a difference? Airlines have been going in and out of bankruptcy for many decades -- indeed, so did many early railroads! The services generally continued through and after BK.
Clearly it has been the political conclusion, that railroads -- for both passengers and freight -- is in the national interest. Maybe there should be an ETS (Essential Tran Service) program, analagous to the EAS Essential Air Service.
Amtrak may not have been the best solution, but it is what the railroads agreed to (or not, as in the case of the several RRs which did not join).
So now what? Privatize Amtrak? Privatization schemes are another political mess. The European model (separating infrastructure from operations, with "Open Access" assuring competition) would probably not be palatable here.
One thing to remember is that RRs are a natural monopoly, with high barriers to entry. Without "Open Access", competition is limited. Starting a new railroad is not the same as starting a new airline, bus line, or trucking company.
I believe the Supreme Court is reviewing this case:
"A federal judge struck down the law that told railroad dispatchers to give Amtrak priority over freight trains. Since then Amtrak’s on-time arrivals have slipped across the country, to just 74 percent since last October."
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/amtraks-sisyphean-struggle-to-run-on-time.html
So it would appear uncertain whether currently the private lines are not required to give Amtrak priority.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd Sam1 If the freight railroads are required to give Amtrak's trains priority, they should be compensated fully for doing so. The American Association of Railroads claims that they are not compensated fully for hoisting Amtrak's trains. Everyone assumes that this is the case - that the frt RRs don't give Amtrak priority. I believe they do - to the best of their ability. In the case of one RR I know, a particular LD train gets other trains to go in the hole for it better than 90% of the time, and of that 10% when it has to wait, it's often for the opposing Amtrak train. In fact, the Amtrak priority is programmed into the train dispatching system with a pretty heavy bias.
Ah, but is that railroad compensated fully - fully allocated costs - for hosting Amtrak's trains and giving them priority?
"While the requirement for Amtrak passenger-train dispatching preference remains the law, invalidated by the appellate court was the requirement for Amtrak and the FRA to establish metrics and minimum standards for measuring Amtrak passenger train performance and service quality. However, the STB still may assess monetary penalties and impose remedies, but the court’s invalidation of the metrics and minimum standards established by Amtrak and the FRA leaves in doubt what exactly are delays and how they are to be measured.
"The three-judge appellate court decision—voiding the mechanism for measuring delays and service quality —may effectively return to paper tiger status the priority handling requirement, since if freight railroads perceive they no longer face penalties for delaying passenger trains, a sturdy incentive to comply allegedly is eviscerated."
Whether all the railroads would have been pushed into bankruptcy had they not been able to shed their passenger trains is problematic.
All or most of the northeastern railroads, as well as many of the mid-western railroads, were forced into insolvency. A number of factors contributed to their decline. The outcome was not due just to their passenger trains. But they - the passenger trains - were a major contributing factor.
I lived in Australia from 2000 until 2005. Moreover, I spent many months there, off and on, from 1995 until 2000. I saw the country go from statism to privatization of most state owned and/or controlled commercial activities. i.e. national railways, airlines, banks, electric utilities, etc. They even privatized commuter rail, trams, and bus lines in Melbourne.
Privatization was not a perfect solution, but it generated far better results than statism - "a system where there is a concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry".
schlimm I believe the Supreme Court is reviewing this case: "A federal judge struck down the law that told railroad dispatchers to give Amtrak priority over freight trains. Since then Amtrak’s on-time arrivals have slipped across the country, to just 74 percent since last October." http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/amtraks-sisyphean-struggle-to-run-on-time.html So it would appear uncertain whether currently the private lines are not required to give Amtrak priority.
This is an excellent article. Lots of good thoughts in it. Here is one that I like:
"Former Federal Railroad Administrator Bob Blanchette, while later vice president of law for the Association of American Railroads (AAR), observed that Amtrak’s preference right could not, rightfully, extend into perpetuity; that Congress, in imposing the preference mandate in 1973, could not have foreseen the necessitous slimming down of America’s freight rail network, the subsequent growth in freight traffic, and the shift to a just-in-time logistics model for industries requiring stop-watch precision for freight shipment arrivals."
If nothing else the issue is a good workfare program for lawyers, consultants, and might I say accountants.
Ah, if we could get Benito and his thugs back, we might get the issue resolved in short order. And if that doesn't work, 59 mph sounds OK to me. That is about how fast I like to drive. Well, maybe we should round it up to 60 mph. Easier to remember!
Sam1Ah, but is that railroad compensated fully - fully allocated costs - for hoisting Amtrak's trains and giving them priority?
No, but it's irrelevant to the deal they have with Amtrak to host the train.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
oltmannd Sam1Ah, but is that railroad compensated fully - fully allocated costs - for hoisting Amtrak's trains and giving them priority? No, but it's irrelevant to the deal they have with Amtrak to host the train.
Every contract, no matter how well it is written, contains ambiguities. If I am being compensated fully for the service that I am providing you, I am going to bias my interpretation of the ambiguities for our mutual benefit. If I am not being compensated fairly, I am going to call them in my favor. And many times, given the psychology, I won't even know that I am doing it.
Come to think about it, I like the idea of slowing the long distance trains to 59 mph. Outside of a few die hard riders, few people take them seriously. If it would improve the time keeping, as per the Railway Age article, most of the people that I have seen on the long distance trains, including the guy I see in the mirror, would not care.
Here some excerpts from the Railway Age article that would cause a contract administrator heartburn.
..."the original agreements between Amtrak and its host railroads—voluntarily negotiated in 1971—did not give passenger trains priority, and included a clause that passenger trains not “unreasonably interfere” with freight service".
"Congress created the priority access right in 1973 out of frustration with bankrupt Penn Central’s gridlock on the Northeast Corridor."
"Freight railroads contend the user fees paid by Amtrak do not fully cover the costs of providing that access, much less justify absolute priority over freight trains."
"Amtrak passenger train delays were traced, largely, to host freight railroad dispatching practices that allegedly violated the statutory preference mandate. But freight railroads say that, in some instances, Amtrak demands preference even when its own departures are late, and “preference” must be redefined with an eye on keeping the freight rail network fluid."
"Congress in 2008 sought a collaborative solution through a provision of the PRIIA instructing the FRA and Amtrak—in consultation with the Surface Transportation Board, freight railroads, states, rail labor, and rail passenger organizations—to develop metrics and minimum standards for measuring Amtrak passenger train performance and service quality."
"The appellate court ruled that Amtrak, while taxpayer supported, is, in fact, a private entity and Congress improperly gave it regulatory power over freight railroads in violation of the Constitution."
"While the requirement for Amtrak passenger-train dispatching preference remains the law, invalidated by the appellate court was the requirement for Amtrak and the FRA to establish metrics and minimum standards for measuring Amtrak passenger train performance and service quality. However, the STB still may assess monetary penalties and impose remedies, but the court’s invalidation of the metrics and minimum standards established by Amtrak and the FRA leaves in doubt what exactly are delays and how they are to be measured."
"However, freight railroads believe setting and measuring schedules and on-time performance metrics should not be done through a one-size-fits-all approach at the federal level, but addressed jointly through private bilateral contracts that take into account the facts and circumstances of particular routes.”
If the article has it correct, developing a set of minimum performance metrics for Amtrak's trains without having the freight railroads at the table was over the top. Apparently they have been invalidated, but the STB may assess monetary penalties!
How do you interpret and comply with this sort of nonsense, let alone point a finger at business people for not honoring whatever contract terms they are supposed to be honoring. This is one more example of how the government fouls things up.
The Obama administration legal challenge is correct in two areas: Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation and that is stated in it's charter. So Union Pacific will lose on that point. The second area which I am not sure is being argued but that the Obama administration would be correct in......the freight railroads were indeed implied to be responsible for maintaining track capacity as it was at Amtrak turnover so that current Amtrak timekeeping could be maintained. In a lot of cases the railroads removed a double track (Milwaukee Road mainline is an example) which has slowed operations in time of peak traffic. Both sides could argue on this point. Amtrak could argue that in lieu of relief of passenger services it was understood that the Freight railroads would not decrease line capacity. Railroads could argue that since Amtrak did not compensate they had the legal right to downgrade rail lines and not maintain capacity.
Argue the case as you wish but the bottom line here is the Freight Railroads did not maintain track capacity with growing traffic and that has led to issues with Passenger Train operations over time. The question I have is will the Supreme Court justices view this as a Railroad problem or an Amtrak funding problem.
Personally, I don't care which way the ruling goes as I see both sides of the case and most of the Class I railroads today can very easily afford to fix the Amtrak operations problem if they wanted to. What is happening here is they want money for it vs having to be obliged to do it for free.
Sam1 Here some excerpts from the Railway Age article that would cause a contract administrator heartburn. ..."the original agreements between Amtrak and its host railroads—voluntarily negotiated in 1971—did not give passenger trains priority, and included a clause that passenger trains not “unreasonably interfere” with freight service". "Congress created the priority access right in 1973 out of frustration with bankrupt Penn Central’s gridlock on the Northeast Corridor." "Freight railroads contend the user fees paid by Amtrak do not fully cover the costs of providing that access, much less justify absolute priority over freight trains." "Amtrak passenger train delays were traced, largely, to host freight railroad dispatching practices that allegedly violated the statutory preference mandate. But freight railroads say that, in some instances, Amtrak demands preference even when its own departures are late, and “preference” must be redefined with an eye on keeping the freight rail network fluid." "Congress in 2008 sought a collaborative solution through a provision of the PRIIA instructing the FRA and Amtrak—in consultation with the Surface Transportation Board, freight railroads, states, rail labor, and rail passenger organizations—to develop metrics and minimum standards for measuring Amtrak passenger train performance and service quality." "The appellate court ruled that Amtrak, while taxpayer supported, is, in fact, a private entity and Congress improperly gave it regulatory power over freight railroads in violation of the Constitution." "While the requirement for Amtrak passenger-train dispatching preference remains the law, invalidated by the appellate court was the requirement for Amtrak and the FRA to establish metrics and minimum standards for measuring Amtrak passenger train performance and service quality. However, the STB still may assess monetary penalties and impose remedies, but the court’s invalidation of the metrics and minimum standards established by Amtrak and the FRA leaves in doubt what exactly are delays and how they are to be measured." "However, freight railroads believe setting and measuring schedules and on-time performance metrics should not be done through a one-size-fits-all approach at the federal level, but addressed jointly through private bilateral contracts that take into account the facts and circumstances of particular routes.” If the article has it correct, developing a set of minimum performance metrics for Amtrak's trains without having the freight railroads at the table was over the top. Apparently they have been invalidated, but the STB may assess monetary penalties! How do you interpret and comply with this sort of nonsense, let alone point a finger at business people for not honoring whatever contract terms they are supposed to be honoring. This is one more example of how the government fouls things up.
Railway Age is an industry publication it is going to side with the railroad industry in it's opinions or it risks losing it's subscriber base. Could very well be that the Supreme Court uses "the public good" to rule against the Railroad Industry here for NOT maintaining track capacity. That has implications for National Defense as well as the Public Good. In fact the DoD could very well join this suit on the side of Amtrak because it has it's own beefs with the Private Railroad Industry abandoning track to military bases........which is an act that goes against the public good.
If Amtrak didn't happen I suspect there would have been an almost total abandonment of all intercity passenger service in the United States. However, I believe that Santa Fe, SCL, and Southern( who did stay out of Amtrak initially) might have been persuaded to remain in the passenger train business running an extremely limited skeleton schedule on strong passenger routes. Santa Fe would have operated Chicago-Los Angeles and Los Angeles - San Diego and nothing else. SCL would have operated Washington DC- Florida and nothing else. Southern would have operated Washington DC- Altanta- New Orleans and nothing else. Penn Central would have been nationalized and its freight lines sold off to its Western and Southern connections. The US Government would have tried to take over direct operation of passenger trains in the Northeast Corridor. Eastern Airlines, AAA, Greyhound, and conservatives in Congress would have cried foul. There would have been total collapse of intercity passenger train service in the Northeast Corridor by 1975 unless something was done.
Meanwhile, Santa Fe, Southern and SCL would have been operating their own passenger trains including dispatching them. They would have controlled the levels of service, whether or not sleeping cars would have been on these trains and the food service in the diners. State and Federal subsidies would have meant no direct out of pocket losses. Santa Fe, Southern, and SCL were all pro passenger; but what would happen when these railroads became BNSF, NS and CSX?
Any debate about Amtrak should begin with what is the public good. Has Amtrak outlived its usefulness; political and otherwise? Should it survive until 2021 when it will be 50 and nothing much has changed except in California and the Northeast.
One private operator not mentioned was Auto Train. When it went into trouble in the late 70's, there seemed to be talk that SCL would take them over. Also, the oil crisis at this time is probably what saved passenger trains. Another factor would be how the Staggers Act would have dealt with whether or not these carriers could more easily drop those trains, or the price of merger would be to keep them running.
I gather that the AAR thinks the host railroads are not properly compensated by Amtrak. But if we're making analogies here (which is always dangerous), isn't that rather like the Trial Lawyers Association saying that attorney fees are inadequate? Why take the AAR's opinion as anything but conjecture? What would an outside, disinterested study show about the compensation packages?
These days corporations are people and can even have religious feelings. I expect the worst will happen to Amtrak when this case gets to the Supreme Court. I predict, by a 5 - 4 vote the decision will mean the end of Amtrak as we know it.
Contract or not, the railroads wouldn't have brought this case if they didn't expect to win. Well over 100 years ago Mr. Dooley (Finley Peter Dunn) said, "What looks like a stone wall to the layman is but a triumphal arch to a corporate lawyer."
"I am not a board."
http://www.privateline.com/PCS/metroliner.htm
I just caught on to something: What does a musical group (the Supremes) have to do with the timekeeping of passenger trains?
Johnny
Deggesty I just caught on to something: What does a musical group (the Supremes) have to do with the timekeeping of passenger trains?
Are you asking this question in all seriousness?
The Supreme Court will be hearing a case regarding the arrangement Amtrak has with its host railroads regarding preferential dispatching needed to keep time on passenger train schedules.
Judging by record sales, the Supremes are arguably history's most popular singing group. I assume the name had nothing to do with the Supreme Court and everything to do with a group of three young women growing up together in a low-income housing project Detroit having exceptional vocal talent. People call the Supreme Court "The Supremes" as a slang expression, perhaps as a mild form of denigration of a group of men and women granted exceptional power in our Constitutional system by calling them the same name as a collection of entertainers appealing to popular sentiments, but perhaps this appellation is demeaning to the accomplishments of Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, Florence Ballard, and later Cindy Birdsong.
Given the role of the Supreme Court as having the last word in many matters, it is particularly dangerous to the cause of passenger trains and especially long-distance passenger trains that the question of Amtrak trains being delayed on the freight railroad network is being heard by the Court rather than being negotiated or otherwise worked out among the affected parties. Some Supreme Court decisions are nearly universally hailed as resulting in just outcomes yet other decisions have been regarded as dividing the country, and the remaining decisions are probably somewhere in between.
The musical group The Supremes never made decisions with such impact on American society, but many of their hit songs are about personal matters that all of us have experienced in one form or another, accounting for the immense popularity of their music. Their music is certainly pervasive -- I believe "Stop in the Name of Love" came to mind because a couple weeks ago I was in a dental chair for a cleaning and checkup and this song was on the "oldies station" my hygienist plays in her office.
The lyrics to "Stop in the Name of Love" express the sentiments of presumably a young women who is losing the man in her life -- we don't know if it is a spouse, a fiance, or merely "going steady" -- to another woman, and in the song she pleads an affirmative case to the man she loves "Baby think it over."
In evidence on this thread is a tremendous amount of emotion because even if we think the law and the facts are on our side, there is always the possibility that the Supreme Court will rule against Amtrak, resulting in a highly uncertain future of long-distance passenger trains. I thought of doing a parody song of "Stop in the Name of Love" for this situation, but "Stop in the Name of Love" does not need any such modification. Just as the lead singer on that song gives strong, affirmative reasons why this man should stay with her rather than pursue "the other woman", we know from life experience that the man in the song may not listen to reason and leave for his other love interest.
Just as we have strong, affirmative reasons why long-distance passenger trains are valuable and why the freight railroads need to hold up "their end of the bargain", the Supreme Court could find other facts or legal principles to rule against Amtrak. Like the lead singer, we believe in our pleading, but sometimes others don't agree with what we reason to be true.
We will never know the outcome for the woman in the song, but I do fault people who have been pleading for "Amtrak's rights" and demanding one's day in court on this question. That "businesses need to be (sued and under court order) made to honor their contracts" is a sentiment that keeps coming up around here, but we as the passenger advocacy community may turn out to be better off if Amtrak and its host railroads just "muddled along" working out their differences.
Amtrak is getting its "day in court", and we may not like the outcome.
CMStPnP Railway Age is an industry publication it is going to side with the railroad industry in it's opinions or it risks losing it's subscriber base. Could very well be that the Supreme Court uses "the public good" to rule against the Railroad Industry here for NOT maintaining track capacity. That has implications for National Defense as well as the Public Good. In fact the DoD could very well join this suit on the side of Amtrak because it has it's own beefs with the Private Railroad Industry abandoning track to military bases........which is an act that goes against the public good.
"Haven't I been good to you?"
"(think it over)"
"Haven't I been sweet to you?"
The pleading of the lead singer in the song sound quite reasonable, don't they? But we know from life experience that such pleading does not always have the intended effect?
"Are you asking this question in all seriousness?"
No!!! I thought my smiley took care of that. I doubt that some of our posters ever heard of the Supremes, but the title of the thread suddenly struck me as amusing.
You Can't Hurry Trains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdHWO_DTRb0
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.