Passenger Trains > Amtrak/Union Pacific Settlement

Amtrak and Union Pacific has reach a settlement on the Sunset Limited.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amtrak-union-pacific-reach-settlement-in-sunset-limited-case/ar-AA1JGtvb?ocid=socialshare

Its about time.  Im not in love with any company who's MO is arrogance. 

I wonder why CPKC didn't want to dismiss this even as a minor party.

This brief article tells me the following.

.  The STB has wiggled out of having to render a precedent setting
decision for the 3rd time, involving Amtrak vs. the freight railroads.

.  This case (SUNSET CASE) was a bitter, years-long,  fight in which Amtrak 
asked the STB to force the UP to operate the Sunset on time.  Now, as if by
magic--no STB decision is necessary.  The Waring parties withdrew the case.
RESULT;  THE STB WILL NOT LEGALLY FORCE FORCE FRT. RR's TO RUN AMTRAK ON TIME.

.   The (MOBILE  CASE)  Frt. RRs refused to operate new pass. trains.  Amtrak asked the STB
to force them to.  Again, as if by magic--the warring parties withdrew the case.
RESULT:  THE STB WILL NOT LEGALLY FORCE FRT. RR'S TO ALLOW NEW AMTRAK SERVICE.

.  The (ON-TIME CASE)   Would have established fines against the Frt. RR's for late trains based on very
exact definitions of what late means.  The STB wiggled out of setting precedent, by simply not hearing the case.
RESULT:  delays to Amtrak trains (like 6-10 hours) can continue without penalty to the railroads.

Amtrak is not doing very well with the STB.


 

I wonder if the Union Pacific gave some ground and settled as they will be under more scrutiny from the STB with their Norfolk Southern merger.

Better than an actual loss or something that gets struck down by a court. 

stevef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if the Union Pacific gave some ground and
> settled as they will be under more scrutiny from
> the STB with their Norfolk Southern merger.

Cleaning up your companies legal items is something alll companies do before mergers or acquisitions.  Hopefully they will be good stewards of Amtrak trains on their rails at least while the meger is taking place which could take 2 years.  I hope too Amtrak will be looking for concessions from both NS and UP before they endorse the merger. 

"...and that the two sides have agreed on a process to certify a schedule for the train."

Wonder how many hours they will add to the schedule this time around? 

irhoghead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...and that the two sides have agreed on a
> process to certify a schedule for the train."
>
> Wonder how many hours they will add to the
> schedule this time around? 

This becomes the end result in such situations, or when the STB steps in, or its threatened for the STB to set in. This is not a win-win........

It is worth noting that, as this was posted, Sunset Limited #2 was operating in Texas 1 hour + late. That delay grew to 2 hours late today as Amtrak left Houston due, in part, Amtrak says to "freight train interference". 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/25 11:51 by OnTime.

OnTime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is worth noting that, as this was posted,
> Sunset Limited #2 was operating in Texas 1 hour +
> late. That delay grew to 2 hours late today as
> Amtrak left Houston due, in part, Amtrak says to
> "freight train interference". 

A bit of a red herring on this one. #2 arrived San Antonio only 49 minutes late, but left at 8:23 (nearly 2 hours late). All this time was lost while sitting in San Antonio on Amtrak's watch, UP can not be found at fault for that. A clean run to Houston is 4 hours flat, #2 today did that in about 4'20" with the occasional slow order and meet built in which is quite within the standard operating range for on-time. But then #2 sat at Houston for 30 mins (mind you they have a Dorm, Sleeper, and single Coach, a stop in Houston should be no more than 20") and will lose at least 20-30 mins between Houston and Beaumont because the schedule does not take into account the directional routing on the Beaumont Sub with it's top speed of 60 mph. But the train will make OTP tolerance on arrival in New Orleans with all the padding. I do wish they paid more attention to intermediate stops vs end terminal OTP. It paints the full picture compared to end terminal arrivals. 

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This brief article tells me the following.
>
> .  The STB has wiggled out of having to render a
> precedent setting
> decision for the 3rd time, involving Amtrak vs.
> the freight railroads.
>
> .  This case (SUNSET CASE) was a bitter,
> years-long,  fight in which Amtrak 
> asked the STB to force the UP to operate the
> Sunset on time.  Now, as if by
> magic--no STB decision is necessary.  The Waring
> parties withdrew the case.
> RESULT;  THE STB WILL NOT LEGALLY FORCE FORCE
> FRT. RR's TO RUN AMTRAK ON TIME.
>
> .   The (MOBILE  CASE)  Frt. RRs refused to
> operate new pass. trains.  Amtrak asked the STB
> to force them to.  Again, as if by magic--the
> warring parties withdrew the case.
> RESULT:  THE STB WILL NOT LEGALLY FORCE FRT. RR'S
> TO ALLOW NEW AMTRAK SERVICE.
>
> .  The (ON-TIME CASE)   Would have established
> fines against the Frt. RR's for late trains based
> on very
> exact definitions of what late means.  The STB
> wiggled out of setting precedent, by simply not
> hearing the case.
> RESULT:  delays to Amtrak trains (like 6-10
> hours) can continue without penalty to the
> railroads.
>
> Amtrak is not doing very well with the STB.
>
>
>  

You think 6-10 hour late trains are the result on freight train inerference, last I checked that goes to things beyond both carriers control with mechanical issues, a derailment, and the biggest issue, the weather!

Posted from Android

A fairly good article on the settlement.  I liked seeing what I call the "Donald J. Russell Houston Union Passenger Terminal" in the picture.