by Gilbert B Norman
Suburban Station wrote:true, restoration of the old route would get them off CN for that portion. I believe it's owned by a short lineThree guesses with the first two not counting, who operates that Short Line?
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Suburban Station wrote:true, restoration of the old route would get them off CN for that portion. I believe it's owned by a short lineThree guesses with the first two not counting, who operates that Short Line?
gokeefe wrote:Because BNSF (Empire Buildier and Southwest Chief) is an exceptionally cooperative host ... CN (City of New Orleans) has an adversarial relationship with Amtrak on certain (most?) items ...It's not just Amtrak that the CN is adversarial with. They also hate Metra, effectively killed off the Star proposal when they took control of the EJ&E, and haven't allowed any meaningful expansions on the Heritage or NCS corridors.
Gilbert B Norman wrote:Cn sold it in 2009, it changed hands again in 2015 and is operated by iphSuburban Station wrote:true, restoration of the old route would get them off CN for that portion. I believe it's owned by a short lineThree guesses with the first two not counting, who operates that Short Line?
Backshophoss wrote:It's part of Iowa Pacific now,make $$$ off of car storage fees.Wonder what the North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority thinks of Iowa Pacific these days. It isn't like there's enough cash in that part of MS (or the will in the rest of the state) to repair the Grenada District to mainline standards though, let alone 100 mph City of New Orleans speeds.
gokeefe wrote:I think we should probably count our lucky stars that Amtrak is running in that part of the country ...Fixed that for you
scoostraw wrote:So how does this work? Amtrak has compelled access as I understand it.Correct but no one can compel the host railroad to upgrade existing infrastructure. The railroads can also claim that they "need" certain improvements in order to be able to operate. They have a lot of leeway in how much they can demand in capital improvements and on busy Class I lines it's pretty easy for them to establish their case.
scoostraw wrote:How can the host railroad be forced to spend the coin necessary to upgrade and maintain the trackage for passenger usage?If they receive federally provided capital funds they must commit to maintain the tracks to a certain standard which varies depending on the intent of the grant (freight v. passenger).
gokeefe wrote:But likewise, if they don't accept federal funds for capital improvements then they don't have to maintain the higher standards for passenger rail.scoostraw wrote:How can the host railroad be forced to spend the coin necessary to upgrade and maintain the trackage for passenger usage?If they receive federally provided capital funds they must commit to maintain the tracks to a certain standard which varies depending on the intent of the grant (freight v. passenger).