Trains.com

CN vs Amtrak lawsuit on Amtrak Train Delays by CN

5972 views
39 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 7:02 PM

JOHN PRIVARA
Re: The RR's pay significant taxes on their operating properties.

I know they do.

I was saying it's too BAD the railroad lines (not the companies, just the "road" part of the "railroad") aren't owned by the states and treated like highways ("roads").

"Open access roads" that happen to have rails.

How much are the States that are all crying poverty now going to PAY the private investors that own the railroads in the USA?  If the states are in poverty now, just how are they to come up with the money to purchase the rights of way from their private owners at market value?  

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:29 PM

JOHN PRIVARA
I was saying it's too BAD the railroad lines (not the companies, just the "road" part of the "railroad") aren't owned by the states and treated like highways ("roads"). "Open access roads" that happen to have rails.

    I think I remember reading that a similar concept was considered back in the earliest days.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:11 PM

If some financial wizards at the rail companies discover that selling off the real estate and just operating transportation is far more profitable the owning (along with huge capital gain distributions), watch the rush to open access. 

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 133 posts
Posted by JOHN PRIVARA on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:56 PM

Re: The RR's pay significant taxes on their operating properties.

I know they do.

I was saying it's too BAD the railroad lines (not the companies, just the "road" part of the "railroad") aren't owned by the states and treated like highways ("roads").

"Open access roads" that happen to have rails.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by diningcar on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:38 PM

John P, your post is misleading, or perhaps poorly informed. The RR's pay significant taxes on their operating properties. It is just difficult to apportion to the various locations and that is why the states have developed methods to accomplish the distribution. The counties- parishes- or whatever do not have the expertise and cannot afford to acquire it.

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 133 posts
Posted by JOHN PRIVARA on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:30 PM

Re: resisted by states because it would mess up a system they have spent a long time establishing

Another downside of private ownership of railroad infrastructure.

Remember - generations ago - all those railroad ads, and railroad supporters, proudly proclaiming how ONLY railroads paid taxes and all those other forms of transportation were freeloading socialists! Looks like it all backfired on them (and nobody ever really cared about that argument anyway).

If railroads were just another government sponsored "open access" transportation system who knows how many abandoned lines wouldn't have been, if passenger trains may have survived (a bit longer anyway), and if a higher percentage of freight would be on the rails instead of the roads.

Oh well, too late now..

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:21 PM

I know for the power transmission lines in Georgia the property tax was assesed at the county level. Not sure if the railroads are similar.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by diningcar on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:14 PM

The discussion of 'property taxes' for railroads is  very complex, and differs from state to state. RR's are not like your and my properties which may be easily viewed and appraised. Each state has developed its own system, but attempting to simplify I know that there is a definate distinction between: Two MT with TCS; single track with signals; branch line track; major yards and misc. side and yard tracks; and all other properties. 

To discuss RR taxes as a trade off for 'whatever' cannot be easily done and in fact would be resisted by states because it would mess up a system they have spent a long time establishing.

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 133 posts
Posted by JOHN PRIVARA on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:56 AM

Seems to me Amtrak should be required to pay for the "portion of costs" required to run their trains faster than freight train speeds (whatever that works out to be).

But, maybe a good compromise would be: Any track that has a passenger train doesn't have to pay state and local taxes. The railroads would be clamoring for Amtrak trains.

  • Member since
    July 2011
  • 380 posts
Posted by runnerdude48 on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:33 AM

CMStPnP
 #3  Minimal axles on a passenger train rule, Amtrak should fight this if it has not done so.  CN and other railroads should be able to safely operate short passenger trains without worrying about crossing signals.

Amtrak passenger trains (Other than the City of New Orleans) on the Canadian National ex-IC line operate with old Heritage Fleet baggage cars, diners, and sleepers in order to activate the signals.  This seems to me to be kind of silly as no other short passenger trains tha I have ridden need to do this.  I may be wrong on that as I have been in the past.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
CN vs Amtrak lawsuit on Amtrak Train Delays by CN
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:24 AM

Interesting article.    In my view CN is being unreasonable in three areas.   #1 measuring timeliness at endpoints, clearly CN knows this keeps the door wide open for further abuse because their next suggestion will be Amtrak pad the schedule until there are no delays.   #2  Amtrak has to pay costs for delayed freight trains....yeah, CN might have an argument there if it wasn't also the dispatcher.    Seems to me though this is a red herring for the most part.   #3  Minimal axles on a passenger train rule, Amtrak should fight this if it has not done so.  CN and other railroads should be able to safely operate short passenger trains without worrying about crossing signals.

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/08/13-stb-urges-mediation-in-amtrak-cn-contract-renewal-dispute

 

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy