Railroad Forums 

  • Illinois Amtrak Service

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
It is currently Tue Apr 30, 2024 2:18 am

Illinois Amtrak Service

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 Reply

 #306738  by mkellerm
 
The press release announcing the new schedules for Chi-Stl is now up on the Amtrak website, with the full schedules for each train. Two things of note: The southbound Texas Eagle (21) will depart Chicago at 2:00 rather than 3:15, arriving in St. Louis at 7:35. Also, the first Lincoln Service train out of Chicago will only make intermediate stops at Joliet, Normal, Springfield and Alton. All other Lincoln Service trains make all stops.

Kummant to appear at summit on rail service

 #307276  by themallard
 
Amtrak President Alex Kummant will join Durbin, a Springfield Democrat, and more than 30 mayors from around the state at 1 p.m. in the downtown Champaign Amtrak terminal. The invited mayors represent communities that already have Amtrak service and those cities that hope to get it, including Rockford, Moline, Rock Island and Peoria.
Advertisement

"It's basically an opportunity for the mayors to meet with the new Amtrak president to discuss the current level of service, any concerns they have and any thoughts they have about expansion," said Durbin spokeswoman Christina Angarola.
News Gazette

 #307292  by amusing erudition
 
Oh to be a fly on that wall and ask why I can't get anywhere from here without connecting in Chicago.

-asg

(My apologies I guess, to Dallas and KC, but I'm from the east coast and that's where I go.)

 #307371  by Zanperk
 
FWIW 10031 (superdome) & 10001(biz car) were on Friday's (10/13) 391.

 #307451  by Gilbert B Norman
 
An interesting report, Mr. Zanperk.

Previously, we had reports here at the Forum, as well as confirming reports elsewhere, that Dome 10031 (superdome is the name of a public event facility in New Orleans and was never used by Amtrak or predecessor to market this Dome) had structural damage rendering the car beyond economic repair. The car reportedly was making a one way trip to Beech Grove, and I personally observed the car at the Chicago maintenance facility Oct 3 "going into town' for a lunch (also for that matter, my"maiden voyage' on METRA at Senior rates :P ).

However, I guess the car from its years of running along the Mississippi in both Q and Amtrak service, had a little Mark Twain in it and 'reports of my death are a bit premature". I'm pleased to learn it apparently will be used for Mr. Kummant's visit to the on-line communities such as Champaign noted above by Mr. Mallard and presumably for the 'inaugurals" of the new Illinois services.

 #310347  by amusing erudition
 
Can I get some expert analysis: "Amtrak expansion threatened by rail agreement" (Chicago Tribune--free registration may be required)?

This is going to be a problem for those of us already ticketed on the new trains.

-asg

 #310369  by EJ&ESDM809
 
What CN is doing is wrong. I would take them to court for sure. They shouldn't have the right to try terminating the trains this close to when they were supposed to start up. All CN thinks about is themselves. What other traffic on the Joliet Sub? All they run is a local.

 #310393  by mkellerm
 
The CN informed Amtrak on Friday that the railroad is now allowing access for only one extra round-trip train daily each to St. Louis and Carbondale—and only for one year, instead of running open ended as stated in the agreement.

<snip>

CN has told Amtrak that the CN official who approved the expanded access did not have the authority to make the agreement, railroad sources said. CN officials say there is not enough track capacity on the two lines to operate the additional Amtrak trains without inconveniencing other freight railroads that also use the CN tracks.
(fair use from the Tribune)
Did someone in Montreal open up the paper this week and discover that there would be more Amtrak trains on his railroad? I feel sorry for whoever signed that agreement. At best, he's had his legs cut out from under him; at worst, he may be looking for a new job.

 #310483  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Amtrak Press Release

If you wish to avoid registration to read the material submitted above by Mr. Erudition:

Chicago Tribune

Oh well, at least there is no way the CN can affect comencement of "The Carl Sandburg"

 #310492  by amusing erudition
 
As long as they're willing to prosecute their contractual rights against CN, I don't see this being an issue. I suppose it's as good a time as any, though, to ask what happens when a train is just outright cancelled--not just for a day, but permanently--to the ticketed passengers?

-asg

(As to the Tribune, the problem is that there's no way to avoid registration without closing out the browser or deleting (or preventing) the various "Cookies". The Tribune lets access for one article free from registration but registration (or cookie removal) is required for every subsequent article. I read the Tribune online every morning and even the latter link forces me to log in if I've already read any other article. Regardless, if you don't want to have to log in, just close the browser and try again)

 #310786  by Vincent
 
As an ex-corporate officer, I can say that the issue will be whether or not the signators on the agreement are authorized by state law to sign agreements of this sort, not whether the CN-IC signator is authorized by CN-IC corporate rules to sign such an agreement.

State law authorizes certain corporate officers to negotiate and sign legal agreements obligating the corporation to perform services. If Amtrak signed an agreement with an officer duly authorized by state law to sign such an agreement, then the contract should be enforceable. If the CN-IC signator didn't follow corporate rules or by-laws while negotiating the agreement, CN-IC may have internal discussions over the matter, but the signature obligates the corporation to the contract. Of course, lawyers make a lot of money making things more complicated than they appear, so don't expect things to be simple.

 #310796  by amusing erudition
 
There will likely also be bits of fraud law dragged through this, because it seems very unlikely that Amtrak would conclude such an agreement without the opposing counsel present (at least constructively), and they certainly have some power to act for the corporation, and at the very least, a requirement to advise when there can be no agreement. Standing idly by while a knowingly illicit agreement is made and then trying later to rely on the incapacity of the signatory reeks of impropriety.

It should be interesting to watch, since this is going to be playing into my paper that I mentioned a few weeks back. It's the first concrete example I've seen since I started.

Assuming they lose, and it seems plausible (especially with the way courts operate these days) does anyone want to speculate which two runs to/from St. Louis will get cut?

-asg

 #310965  by cifn2
 
New problems have surfaced, initially CN was supposed to be the carrier from Quincy to Carbondale I was reading the paper. Now the folks from the state of IL approached Cn to discuss the issues and acknowledge the beginning of the new trains soon. CN more less said you aren't putting more amtrak trains on our tracks even though this upgrade had already been discussed and approved maybe just a gentlemans agreement and not a written contract.

Interesting either way

 #310972  by jck
 
amusing erudition wrote: Assuming they lose, and it seems plausible (especially with the way courts operate these days) does anyone want to speculate which two runs to/from St. Louis will get cut?

-asg
Assuming who loses?

Amtrak could still "win" the contract dispute, but not be able to run the trains, if a judge or other arbitor determines that CN is required to pay damages to Amtrak. Would a judge actually force CN to run the trains on its own tracks?
 Reply
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 108
 Return to “Amtrak”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -