Railroad Forums 

  • Does UP still have rights to run intercity passenger trains?

  • Discussion about the Union Pacific operations past and present. Official site can be found here: UPRR.COM.
Discussion about the Union Pacific operations past and present. Official site can be found here: UPRR.COM.

Moderator: GOLDEN-ARM

 #657239  by Spokker
 
Can you help settle an argument for me, please?

Someone is claiming that California High Speed Rail will be hampered by Union Pacific's right of run intercity passenger trains. Here is what was posted on another forum.
What is of substance . . . is the fact that CalTrain does not own inter city passenger rights on the SF to San Jose corridor. Those inter city passenger rights are owned by the UPRR.
The poster goes on to say that Union Pacific can either sell them or give them up. But another poster is claiming that Union Pacific has no rights to run passenger service, and that those rights were given up when Amtrak was formed.

Any help on this very specific problem would be appreciated. This is just a summary of the arguments. I will post the full arguments below.

What is of substance and Robert, Rafael, Clem and others who don’t want to talk about it is the fact that CalTrain does not own inter city passenger rights on the SF to San Jose corridor. Those inter city passenger rights are owned by the UPRR.

1. Now if the UPRR agrees to give them up (hardly likely) or agrees to sell them (maybe more likely, but not probably either), CalTrain has approved an MOU, implicit therein that the Authority will be able to use their corridor for HSR, which is most decidedly an inter city passenger service.

2. CalTrain excuses this problem right now by saying they have had successful agreements with the UPRR before and they are confident they will be able to obtain these rights. The CalTrain board approves the MOU on a 9-0 vote.

We should all be objecting to the process here. CalTrain has had years in which to obtain these needed rights, and thus far has not been successful. UPRR writes a letter dated Feb 23,2009, clearly indicating they are not just going to walk away and play dead.
If Union Pacific is claiming this, they are wrong. First, the rights to run intercity passenger trains, historically, expire if not used -- unlike many sorts of rights -- and Union Pacific isn't using them and hasn't for many many years. Second, the obligation to run said trains was transferred to Amtrak by Union Pacific (and all of its predecessors) back when Amtrak was formed. The rights probably followed the obligations. In addition, San Jose to San Francisco is an intercity route, so in fact Caltrain excercises intercity passenger running rights.

The chances that Union Pacific has any sort of legally enforceable exclusive right to run intercity passenger trains? Zero percent. At the most they might have a "preemptive" right to run them, but if they decline to run them, they're *OUT*. If they're angling to run the CAHSR operation, I wish them the best of luck. If they're angling for a small payout, they'll probably get it. If they're angling for anything more, they will be swatted down hard.
Please note: between SF and SJ, UP has freight rights as well as EXCLUSIVE intercity passenger rail travel. Nothing is happening on the Caltrain corridor without UP's say-so.
If you are interested in giving your opinion on this matter, you can talk about it in the comments section here: http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/04/two-q ... dates.html
 #657721  by John_Perkowski
 
I will ask Mr Gilbert B Norman and Ms Nellie Bly, who both know their way around RPSA 70, to weigh in.

SFAIK, UP was relieved of its rights and obligations to run its own intercity rail passenger service when it bought into Amtrak.

Now, that said, UP may not have any obligation to run any intercity service other than Amtrak on its rails. It may be claiming that any HSR must run on wholly new rails independent of the UP at any point.
 #657752  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Article I of the May 1, 1971 Agreement explicitly states that any road party to this Agreement has surrendered its franchise to operate intercity passenger trains. This provision within the Agreement is drawn from Section 401(c) of RPSA '70:

) Xo railroad 01 aiij otliei person ma\, without the < oii.-ent of the
Corporal ioi.. i ondiict int«Tcit\ rail jiassongor service over an\ route
<»\er \\hiili t!u- Col (Miration is pui-Torniing schi-duled int(.T< it\ rail
passenger sorvico |nn-suant to a contract under tliis section.

In short, Union Pacific or any other party is barred both by the Act and by the Agreement from operating intercity passenger service for their own account over any route where Amtrak operates such.
 #657856  by Jtgshu
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote:Article I of the May 1, 1971 Agreement explicitly states that any road party to this Agreement has surrendered its franchise to operate intercity passenger trains. This provision within the Agreement is drawn from Section 401(c) of RPSA '70:

) Xo railroad 01 aiij otliei person ma\, without the < oii.-ent of the
Corporal ioi.. i ondiict int«Tcit\ rail jiassongor service over an\ route
<»\er \\hiili t!u- Col (Miration is pui-Torniing schi-duled int(.T< it\ rail
passenger sorvico |nn-suant to a contract under tliis section.

In short, Union Pacific or any other party is barred both by the Act and by the Agreement from operating intercity passenger service for their own account over any route where Amtrak operates such.
Im not quite sure what happened to that quote there, but it sure is interesting!

Mr. Norman, you mention "In short, Union Pacific or any other party is barred both by the Act and by the Agreement from operating intercity passenger service for their own account over any route where Amtrak operates such." - what if it is a route where Amtrak trains do NOT or have not currently run? Im an east coaster, so im too familar with the routing of long distance Amtrak trains in California or elsewhere.

I was always under the impression that Amtrak took over the rights to operate certain passenger trains from the freight RRs, and Amtrak was allow to run those trains over their historic routes. (at least the routing of them prior to Amtrak day). I didn't think that the forming of Amtrak actually gave up the "rights" of Freight Lines to operate intercity trains, but they couldn't compete with Amtrak on the same route. I have always believed this is one of the reasons why you don't have NY to Philly for example (from my neck of the woods) local service because it would compete with Amtrak. (remember at first, many passenger/commmuter operations were operated by Conrail at the time, with agreements with the states, so its is sort of relevant).

Who knows, maybe High Speed rail could be very lucrative for freight RRs to build and operate, especially with the Feds giving out boat loads of cash.

Anyway, i believe this discussion is also related to Caltrans and their HSR project in California, and would the Amtrak agreement even be relevant if it is a route where Amtrak has never run trains over or doesn't have any now? (again, I do not know any particular routes, just asking a general question).

If that route doesn't have any current Amtrak trains, I would tend to think that UP DOES have the right to operate whatever they want over those tracks they own. Also, the issue is is that Amtrak isn't necessarily the lead agency sponsering HSR, so does those agreements made in 1970/71 still hold any water?

I work for a state operated RR, and I know how they can sometimes just "assume" things which aren't quite true or change things to their liking, and the freight RRs sometimes have to "refresh" some memories on actual agreements and how things REALLY are. It can be a real fly in the ointment if you will.....
 #658208  by John_Perkowski
 
I was visiting with Ms Nellie Bly of this board. She mainly posts on the Amtrak Forum. She works inside the industry, as a professional.

Her considered opinion is that PRIAA 08 trumps the original provision of RPSA 70, but it doesn't give 3d parties the right to ask for line haul passneger service on someone elses' mainline. So, UP could, if it thought it had a winner, redevelop passenger service (with all the attendant infrastructure problems I've described so often), but MegaBus cannot rent a train and run it on UP rails LA-Chicago because it wanted to. UP has to let it, at whateve rate UP chooses.
 #666622  by Gadfly
 
A better question might be: "Why would they WANT to" given that they worked so hard to get RID of them. Southern was the last hold-out and, that, I understood it from fellow employees, was because Amtrak started trying to deal with the freight roads as if they were beggars and Southern was NO beggar.
One thing they wanted to do was start running (in the era of the 70's) passenger trains on SR's main freight routes, basically telling Southern to get out of the way.Messrs. Claytor and Crane told Amtrak to go to HELL :-D :he'd run the Crescent for FREE until the wheels fell off if need be, and Southern DID run the Crescent until early '79. I happen to have a recording from the cab of E8 6908 running over the Piedmont Division on the last weekend as a Southern Railway Train (Train #2)! I was aboard those engines that night! I can witness that Southern ran Trains 1 and 2 as first class operation to the very end. I remember watching the porters and conductors coming down off the cars wiping the handrails with clean, white rags, a new one each time, and for every stop. One of my friends was an engineer on the Crescent, Mr George Ambrose--a real character from the late steam days up into the 80's. Chances are, if you rode the PIedmont Division aboard one of the steam excursions, it was George who had "claimed out" for that trip, and he didn't need any coaching for either steam or diesel: he was qualified for BOTH! :wink:

But getting back to the original question---WHY would the freight roads want to get back into long haul passenger trains? :-)


Gadfly
 #667163  by Gadfly
 
slchub wrote:Great story there Gadfly.

Thanks for sharing.

We knew the Crescent would go, but those of us who worked with that Green n' Gold Herald (Southern Railway Serves the South--Look Ahead, Look South!) were damn proud of that train up until the very end :wink: Even the fact that Southern was the last one to give in! :-D A bunch of independent cusses, we!!!! :wink:
 #668381  by Jtgshu
 
Gadfly wrote:
slchub wrote:Great story there Gadfly.

Thanks for sharing.

We knew the Crescent would go, but those of us who worked with that Green n' Gold Herald (Southern Railway Serves the South--Look Ahead, Look South!) were damn proud of that train up until the very end :wink: Even the fact that Southern was the last one to give in! :-D A bunch of independent cusses, we!!!! :wink:
Good for you guys! I always wondered why the Southern Crescent lasted so long into Amtrak!!!

but one reason freight guys might wanna get back into pass ops is an old concept - (Super) Express freight!!!

Look at the stink the freight RRs put up when Amtrak's Mail and Express service was going on. While alot of those concerns were legitimate, you gotta think in the back of someones head at the Freight RR was "hmmmmmmmmm we could do this" - good PR and and a new revenue stream. Of course passenger ops would probably be money loosing, but a limited stop, high speed network, paid largely by the Govt? That they could run some express freight over and charge a premium for that service.

I think the next spike in fuel prices (and its coming sooner or later) and a Railway Express Agency type service is going to seriously be considered. UPS and FedEx shipping more and more over rail is sign of this - a small operation by the railroad, or in conjuction with the USPS could be pretty lucrative. (as well as more less than car load service, but thats another topic.....)
 #669694  by GWoodle
 
I may need to know CA law if CalTrain is not authorized to run outside of certain counties. For the same reason, Metra does not have the right to go to Rockford. There may be a legal procedure (state law) & taxing authority tied up to support the RTA transit agency.

There may also be a huge difference between inter & intra state rail travel. For the Rock Island, it may have been more difficult to deal with the state DOT than the federal ICC?

The business with the UP would deal with public use of private property. The UP would be the new owner of the former SP right of way. Having CalTrain operate over the UP requires some $$ that may not be present with Amtrak.