Home Open Account Help 153 users online

Passenger Trains > Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached


Date: 11/22/22 09:33
Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: swiftstream




Date: 11/22/22 10:08
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: ShortlinesUSA

"The council, on Feb. 4 of that year, voted 6-1 to support a resolution to back Amtrak’s Gulf Coast service with future city funds. The lone “No” vote came from Councilman Joel Daves, who argued the service would be nothing more than a “joyride for the affluent.”

This guy has obviously never ridden Amtrak in his life...
 



Date: 11/22/22 10:56
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: Wolverine350

Class 1s bend the knee.

Posted from iPhone



Date: 11/22/22 11:03
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: CPMorris

If The Sunset ( 1 & 2 ) was still operating, would this have been an issue? 



Date: 11/22/22 11:05
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: joemvcnj

CPMorris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If The Sunset ( 1 & 2 ) was still operating, would
> this have been an issue? 

Yes. 



Date: 11/22/22 12:30
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: MEKoch

And now Amtrak after completing any useless upgrades demanded by CSX (none are needed), Amtrak will say they don't have employees or the equipment to operate the trains.  And, oh yes, they will need to hire and train new employees (another six month delay).  



Date: 11/22/22 13:07
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: PHall

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And now Amtrak after completing any useless
> upgrades demanded by CSX (none are needed), Amtrak
> will say they don't have employees or the
> equipment to operate the trains.  And, oh yes,
> they will need to hire and train new employees
> (another six month delay).  

Maybe the states the new trains are operating through need to step up and actually support these trains.
If states like California and Washington can do it why not Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama?

[edit - spelling mistake]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/22 17:27 by PHall.



Date: 11/22/22 13:09
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: OnTime

Looks like Amtrak won this round after the freights realized that if they did not settle then an adverse ruling by the STB would be worse than settling. The Devil may still be in the details (how much did each side give away to reach a compromise? One daily train instead of two??) We shall see.



Date: 11/22/22 13:48
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: ronald321

The real value of Amtrak winning this case is not the Mobile trains.

It is the precedent that the freight railroads cannot simply refuse to
operate passenger trains - just because they don't want to.

This gives Amtrak "Legal Teeth" to start new trains elsewhere--even
on such anti-Amtrak roads as the UP.

BUT, the STB has to officially render a verdict on this.  An agreement  between
the parties must be submitted to the STB before this case can be settled.

(once this case is over -- the On-Time case can begin)
 



Date: 11/22/22 13:53
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: PC1974

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This gives Amtrak "Legal Teeth" to start new trains elsewhere--even on such anti-Amtrak roads as the UP.

If your a UP stockholder, you should welcome new Amtrak's to the system. Use the Alton Route as the model for the service. UP has made out like a bandit, got a brand new railroad out of the deal.. Same thing has been going on with upgrades to the service in Northern California...

And Amtrak in the midwest still doesn't have a 110mph operation to STL after 2 billion.. I think we can agree at UP was the real winner.



Date: 11/22/22 14:59
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: gbmott

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And now Amtrak after completing any useless
> upgrades demanded by CSX (none are needed).

And just what is your basis for saying this?  
Gordon  



Date: 11/22/22 17:15
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: pdt

gbmott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MEKoch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And now Amtrak after completing any useless
> > upgrades demanded by CSX (none are needed).
>
> And just what is your basis for saying this?  
> Gordon  

Maybe he has eyes and a brain?

On the good news side.....The upgrade to CTC from Ellwood to Guadalupe  on the ex-SP coast, was paid for half by the govt, and half by UP...so at least something is being done the way it ought to... quite a few power switches, electronic locks on hand throws, and entrance/exit signalling for all sidings.    It was more than just wiring signals into central command.

 



Date: 11/22/22 17:31
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: ronald321

PC1974

You are soooo right.  The UP got all the benefit from the rebuilding of Chi-St. Louis.
Amtrak passengers got nothing.

But, Chicago-St, Louis was a special case. The money ($3B if I remember), came from a 2008
bill that gave the money directly to the State of Illinois - who in turn, paid the UP to rebuild it.
Amtrak received no money, and had no say in what was done.

A few years earlier, Amtrak asked the UP to make the Sunset daily.  The UP said NO - unless you
pay $700 Million (which was a lot more than Amtrak's entire annual budget at the time)
A very anti-Amtrak UP move,

If the STB issue a reg. in Amtrak's favor - they will have the legal teeth to bring suit  against the UP to reinstate the daily Sunset,
and make them prove why they say 'No"

See the true value of the Mobile Case?



 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/22 17:34 by ronald321.



Date: 11/22/22 18:00
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: Typhoon

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gbmott Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MEKoch Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > And now Amtrak after completing any useless
> > > upgrades demanded by CSX (none are needed).
> >
> > And just what is your basis for saying this?  
> > Gordon  
>
> Maybe he has eyes and a brain?

I talked to the 1st trick AA dispatcher the other day about adding Amtrak to his desk.  He said he had no idea how they will be able to do it without some serious upgrades/additions.  I am guessing he knows a little bit more about his railroad then you or MEKoch, so pipe down.  Your and MEKoch opinions on this subject show you don't know what you are talking about, something you really seemed to take issue with in another thread.



Date: 11/23/22 05:34
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: joemvcnj

Not even Amtrak agrees with "none are needed". I remember reading a long punch list in the Michigan ARP newsletter (since thrown out) of the cap improvements Amtrak would bring. It is about $45 million worth through 3 states of various siding and track additions, forgot the details.

But CSX spoke of their capacity analysis tool last winter. Gardner did a pretty good job or refuting it in testimony, the declining volume of freight trains on the line to Mobile over the years, and that CSX chose not do use that tool when they allowed more freights added to the schedule on the B&A across Massachusetts. EHH's student, Foote, and his temper tantrums did not help his cause either with the STB, he is gone, and the ruling is now out in Amtrak's favor. PSR is more the cause of CSX's capacity troubles than Amtrak. 



Date: 11/23/22 09:31
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: ronald321

Amtrak has said from the beginning of this case - they are willing to 
pay the cost associated with starting passenger trains -- but, not any
wild-ass amount the railroad says it needs.

Now the railroads have to prove to the STB's satisfaction, that they
really need the money they are demanding, In this case, the CSX couldn't do it.

For example - the CSX claimed this route was at capacity with freight trains.
So, Amtrak hired a Drone--and presented recorded evidence to the STB that this
WAS JUST NOT TRUE.



 



Date: 11/23/22 11:49
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: SpringedSwitch

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pdt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > gbmott Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > MEKoch Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > And now Amtrak after completing any useless
> > > > upgrades demanded by CSX (none are needed).
> > >
> > > And just what is your basis for saying this?
>  
> > > Gordon  
> >
> > Maybe he has eyes and a brain?
>
> I talked to the 1st trick AA dispatcher the other
> day about adding Amtrak to his desk.  He said he
> had no idea how they will be able to do it without
> some serious upgrades/additions.  I am guessing
> he knows a little bit more about his railroad then
> you or MEKoch, so pipe down.  Your and MEKoch
> opinions on this subject show you don't know what
> you are talking about, something you really seemed
> to take issue with in another thread.

Most dispatchers don't want more work or problems on their desk, so of course they are going to make everything sound like a bigger problem than it is.

That's part of self-preservation in the dispatch office...



Date: 11/23/22 12:26
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: Typhoon

SpringedSwitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typhoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pdt Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > gbmott Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > MEKoch Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > And now Amtrak after completing any
> useless
> > > > > upgrades demanded by CSX (none are
> needed).
> > > >
> > > > And just what is your basis for saying
> this?
> >  
> > > > Gordon  
> > >
> > > Maybe he has eyes and a brain?
> >
> > I talked to the 1st trick AA dispatcher the
> other
> > day about adding Amtrak to his desk.  He said
> he
> > had no idea how they will be able to do it
> without
> > some serious upgrades/additions.  I am
> guessing
> > he knows a little bit more about his railroad
> then
> > you or MEKoch, so pipe down.  Your and MEKoch
> > opinions on this subject show you don't know
> what
> > you are talking about, something you really
> seemed
> > to take issue with in another thread.
>
> Most dispatchers don't want more work or problems
> on their desk, so of course they are going to make
> everything sound like a bigger problem than it
> is.
>
> That's part of self-preservation in the dispatch
> office...

Or it was one dispatcher telling another dispatcher the honest truth.



Date: 11/25/22 17:57
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: ProAmtrak

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CPMorris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If The Sunset ( 1 & 2 ) was still operating,
> would
> > this have been an issue? 
>
> Yes. 

No Joe, CSX let Amtrak knbiw when the line reopened after Katrina, Amtrak Balked!



Date: 11/25/22 18:03
Re: Gulf Coast rail service agreement reached
Author: ProAmtrak

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real value of Amtrak winning this case is not
> the Mobile trains.
>
> It is the precedent that the freight railroads
> cannot simply refuse to
> operate passenger trains - just because they don't
> want to.
>
> This gives Amtrak "Legal Teeth" to start new
> trains elsewhere--even
> on such anti-Amtrak roads as the UP.
>
> BUT, the STB has to officially render a verdict on
> this.  An agreement  between
> the parties must be submitted to the STB before
> this case can be settled.
>
> (once this case is over -- the On-Time case can
> begin)
>  

What teeth, until they get off this crappy corridor only mentality and screwing the LD Network, their teeth are still weak!



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.1476 seconds