Amtrak New Gulf Coast Service - New Orleans to Mobile AL

Train60 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 8:54 am Note the following STB filing.

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 302686.pdf

Does this mean that CSX and NS have give the go ahead for the new service on or about 1/1/2022?

Would also be interesting to know what caused NS and CSX to change their minds about hosting this new Amtrak service.

No. That's still being hashed out. Amtrak basically asked for access to get it ready if things go their way.

All CSX is saying is "Okay, you can get things ready in case things are going your way, and make repairs as needed, but coordinate with us."

All NS is saying is "You got it already. If you need more, specify it and let us know."

I think the freight railroads are making a big mistake by not quietly inviting Amtrak back to the negotiating table and cutting a face-saving deal. The current political climate does not make me think that fighting this is at all a wise idea. Maybe they're trying to run the clock by tying it up in case law and appeals after the STB says "yes," but even if the freight railroads have a leg to stand on legally, I feel as though any victory on their end would simply result in an immediate and corresponding change to the law to counteract whatever successful legal challenge was used. That's the rub about fighting the government; they can change the rules.

And please, let's not talk about 5th amendment takings. Even if they'd normally have a case for that (and I personally find it doubtful), they're in the uniquely bad position of their predecessors having signed contracts that surrendered many of their rights to Amtrak in return for relief of the then-extant requirement for passenger service. They can cry about how they never thought Amtrak would last this long, but that's their problem, not Amtrak's. And if they really pitch a fit about it, they can get a free ride back to the "good old days" of regulation with the ayes of enough pissed-off legislators.

Legally, the railroads have been so unencumbered by regulation solely by Uncle Sam's beneficence. But Uncle Sam is currently run by a politician nicknamed after Amtrak, and a pro-urban party broadly supportive of it. And there is more than one hundred years of legal precedent for the feds having the ability to force railroads to run services that don't make them money...

Be careful for what you ask for in Court.

Its entirely possible that a case can be made to find that those obligations from 1971 have long since been fulfilled.

Then what?

Do remember that CSX and NS haven't said no. They've simply laid out the cost of saying yes. If UP could get the nearly $2B to upgrade CHI-STL to their needs, certainly that's in order here where Federal law gives precedence to marine traffic over rail.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Jadebenn wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 8:09 am And please, let's not talk about 5th amendment takings. Even if they'd normally have a case for that (and I personally find it doubtful), they're in the uniquely bad position of their predecessors having signed contracts that surrendered many of their rights to Amtrak in return for relief of the then-extant requirement for passenger service.

Ah, but the legislative history, press reports, railroad and other records of the time clearly demonstrate that both the railroads and the government mutually believed that Amtrak was an interim measure as patronage would continue to decline and passenger trains would ultimately be phased out of existence over a several year time-frame. It is a long-standing principle of contract law that a mutual mistake of a material fact when entering into a contract constitutes a firm ground for either party to void a contract in the future when such mistake becomes evident. Clearly by the evidence the mistake was mutual and material to the railroads agreeing to the terms and conditions of the contract. It is highly likely that the courts would find the contract to be terminable by the railroads. Thereafter, the imposition of costs harmful to the railroad's business would indeed constitute a taking without just compensation.

Ken,

As always, thank you, Counselor.

Ken W2KB wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:26 am Ah, but the legislative history, press reports, railroad and other records of the time clearly demonstrate that both the railroads and the government mutually believed that Amtrak was an interim measure as patronage would continue to decline and passenger trains would ultimately be phased out of existence over a several year time-frame.

If the plan was to quickly self-destruct, why would Amtrak buy (and govt authorize) 1973 purchase of Amfleet, 1975 purchase of Superliners, both of which we now know have 45+ year lifetimes. Not to mention early/mid 70s rollout of Turboliners with fanfare. And the building or rebuilding of many stations in those first years?

Even the issuing of stock indicates that Amtrak was chartered with a mandate for growth and possibly even profitability, not planned obsolescense.

No doubt some in the private railroad industry thought and/or hoped Amtrak would die (Mr. Norman's overheard MILW washroom conversations are legend on this forum), but that's hardly evidence that a quick phase-out was the government's intent, nor that RPSA contracts are invalid.

As rohr points out, it would be extremely difficult (read: impossible) to argue that the legislative intent of Amtrak was to fail.

Sure, realistically, we know that there were two camps behind Amtrak: The pie-in-the-sky idealists who genuinely thought Amtrak could be made profitable, and the cynical pessimists who went along with it to at least show the government tried before it inevitably crashed and burned. Neither turned out to be right.

Thing is, the NRPC Act was clearly written by the idealist camp. You have the railroad stocks, legal procedures for initiating new services, etc. You also have subsequent legislation over the past 50 years showing Congress expanding many of those powers whenever it felt host railroads were being uncooperative. There is a lot of precedent for this.

For instance, in the 80s, Amtrak used eminent domain (through the ICC and DOT) to forcibly purchase a portion of the Boston and Maine RR and resell it after falling maintenance standards forced them to suspend service. One of the points noted in the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Amtrak's favor is that the act was almost immediately amended after the legal challenge was launched to specifically clarify Amtrak's use of the eminent domain power had been valid. The court saw clearly that congressional intent was on Amtrak's side.

Again, I think this has to be a stalling play on CSX and NS's part. The law is pretty clearly stacked against them.

Let's also not forget ,many of the railroads were facing bankruptcy, there was an excess of track capacity, And Amtrak payments provided needed cash for the struggling railroads.

David Benton wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 4:13 pm Let's also not forget ,many of the railroads were facing bankruptcy, there was an excess of track capacity, And Amtrak payments provided needed cash for the struggling railroads.

Yeah, basically the reverse of the current situation where the railroads cut too much capacity post-Staggers (IMO).

Amtrak forcibly purchased portions of Guilford’s Conn River trackage
in late 80’s. B&M on paper only.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 2:28 pm

Ken W2KB wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:26 am Ah, but the legislative history, press reports, railroad and other records of the time clearly demonstrate that both the railroads and the government mutually believed that Amtrak was an interim measure as patronage would continue to decline and passenger trains would ultimately be phased out of existence over a several year time-frame.

If the plan was to quickly self-destruct, why would Amtrak buy (and govt authorize) 1973 purchase of Amfleet, 1975 purchase of Superliners, both of which we now know have 45+ year lifetimes. Not to mention early/mid 70s rollout of Turboliners with fanfare. And the building or rebuilding of many stations in those first years?
Even the issuing of stock indicates that Amtrak was chartered with a mandate for growth and possibly even profitability, not planned obsolescense.

No doubt some in the private railroad industry thought and/or hoped Amtrak would die (Mr. Norman's overheard MILW washroom conversations are legend on this forum), but that's hardly evidence that a quick phase-out was the government's intent, nor that RPSA contracts are invalid.

The government is not highly regarded by many for prudence or well-reasoned decision making when making expenditures of taxpayer money. There is very clear evidence available that the expectation of many legislators and the White House in enacting this legislation was to satisfy political concerns, and that their expectation that demand for rail passenger service would continue to decline, except perhaps for the Northeast Corridor and similar. Here, for example, are two smoking gun excerpts from then confidential internal Whitehouse memoranda by senior government advisors to President Nixon with respect to signing the bill creating Amtrak. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xz3omcmt6s74n ... 8.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyiwzodhifv10 ... 6.jpg?dl=0

Ns seems to have backed off stating that their mileage is coverage by the Crescent.

Ken W2KB wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:00 pm

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 2:28 pm

Ken W2KB wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:26 am Ah, but the legislative history, press reports, railroad and other records of the time clearly demonstrate that both the railroads and the government mutually believed that Amtrak was an interim measure as patronage would continue to decline and passenger trains would ultimately be phased out of existence over a several year time-frame.

If the plan was to quickly self-destruct, why would Amtrak buy (and govt authorize) 1973 purchase of Amfleet, 1975 purchase of Superliners, both of which we now know have 45+ year lifetimes. Not to mention early/mid 70s rollout of Turboliners with fanfare. And the building or rebuilding of many stations in those first years?
Even the issuing of stock indicates that Amtrak was chartered with a mandate for growth and possibly even profitability, not planned obsolescense.

No doubt some in the private railroad industry thought and/or hoped Amtrak would die (Mr. Norman's overheard MILW washroom conversations are legend on this forum), but that's hardly evidence that a quick phase-out was the government's intent, nor that RPSA contracts are invalid.

The government is not highly regarded by many for prudence or well-reasoned decision making when making expenditures of taxpayer money. There is very clear evidence available that the expectation of many legislators and the White House in enacting this legislation was to satisfy political concerns, and that their expectation that demand for rail passenger service would continue to decline, except perhaps for the Northeast Corridor and similar. Here, for example, are two smoking gun excerpts from then confidential internal Whitehouse memoranda by senior government advisors to President Nixon with respect to signing the bill creating Amtrak. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xz3omcmt6s74n ... 8.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyiwzodhifv10 ... 6.jpg?dl=0

Hardly a smoking gun , i would except there to be several opposing views presented to the government on any matter.

Ken W2KB wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:26 am

Jadebenn wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 8:09 am And please, let's not talk about 5th amendment takings. Even if they'd normally have a case for that (and I personally find it doubtful), they're in the uniquely bad position of their predecessors having signed contracts that surrendered many of their rights to Amtrak in return for relief of the then-extant requirement for passenger service.

Ah, but the legislative history, press reports, railroad and other records of the time clearly demonstrate that both the railroads and the government mutually believed that Amtrak was an interim measure as patronage would continue to decline and passenger trains would ultimately be phased out of existence over a several year time-frame. It is a long-standing principle of contract law that a mutual mistake of a material fact when entering into a contract constitutes a firm ground for either party to void a contract in the future when such mistake becomes evident. Clearly by the evidence the mistake was mutual and material to the railroads agreeing to the terms and conditions of the contract. It is highly likely that the courts would find the contract to be terminable by the railroads. Thereafter, the imposition of costs harmful to the railroad's business would indeed constitute a taking without just compensation.

I find it hard to believe that either the circuit courts or SCOTUS is going to rule that Amtrak is unconstitutional.

Not rule that Amtrak is unconstitutional, but that it is unconstitutional as a taking without just compensation under the 5th Amendment for Amtrak to utilize trackage of a freight railroad without paying the full direct costs and indirect costs of use of the track. That is likely a much greater amount than Amtrak now pays.