Passenger vs. Freight Priority. Was: DOJ sues Norfolk Southern for making Crescent late

Congress has broad authority over interstate commerce under Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. Congress's power to regulate has been upheld many times against 5th amendment claims. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is. The same power also protects railroads from local regulations.

Sgt. Smith, let us not downplay Mr. Olesen's view regarding "Takings", because that's what the roads who signed up May 1, 1971 (the date of the first Operating Agreements between Amtrak and the roads) have essentially been confronted with. Here they are expecting to "lay down their road" for the convenience of Amtrak and are compensated for the use of their road the reported "farthings" that they are.

What would be interesting is if Amtrak were required to pay the roads (base and/or performance be it as it may) at the level JBH remunerates Uncle Warren (surely much performance) is how many LD's would be running around today. Somehow, I don't think too many, if any.

Let’s see… the current administration’s DOJ filing a lawsuit against a “major big bad awful corporation” (which to be fair NS actually is..) in the middle of… let’s just say an “interesting” election cycle when their campaign does not exactly have an automatic win in the bag…


Yeah I’m calling it right now this smacks of some kind of political power play (i.e. “look at us we’re good at doing at least one thing right for the people!”). Same with the Gulf coast service saga going back to 2021 when Amtrak was trying to essentially force CSX to let them run their desired 2 round trips. With Joe being an Amtrak fan and the administration clearly flexing its muscle at one turn or another, put the two together and… ta da!


The question of Amtrak’s usage fees going up to a “fair market rate” would present an interesting dilemma for the conservatives in Congress. They love to whinge about Amtrak being a “drain on the taxpayer” and being pro-private enterprise yada yada yada and yet if Amtrak were to “sufficiently compensate the freight carriers” with a higher usage rate that would mean a larger subsidy.


I’m personally of the opinion that the issue of costs of track/infrastructure improvements should be a separate matter from annual usage rates and that the freight carriers can’t bar Amtrak from running however many trains they want, BUT Amtrak would have to foot the *entire bill* for said improvements. On principle, the freight RRs (even the Class Is with big pockets) should not be financially responsible for a piece of infrastructure that does not benefit them.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:54 pm Maybe getting this in front of a judge will bring that to light, since it's rare for someone getting essentially free access to complain about the lack of hot water in the morning.....

Given that the freights employ thousands of lawyers in this country, both in-house and at firms in their home towns, state capitals, and Washington, they have probably considered this option. But given the context in my last post regarding 150 years of give-and-take between the gov't and railroads, neither party is assured of a win. It's a huge grey area. It would be a long and messy and expensive process, and both parties might be handed something neither expected. So they leave it alone.

What you're seeing is both parties showing their true colors in a passive way. The freights don't want a costly fight, so they give Amtrak what Amtrak pays for - third rate priority. Amtrak doesn't really care about the long distance network, so they continue to pay discounted rates and get discounted service. Congress doesn't care either or they would find the $300m/year to ante up for higher priority.

The take away here is that every party is reasonably content.

I'm not preempting this topic; certainly, the discussion we're having here is germane to the lawsuit issue. But I have set up a dedicated topic to such overall issues and broadened it a bit: long-distance-vs-corridors-you-decide-t177217.html

Allouette wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 6:08 am Congress has broad authority over interstate commerce under Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. Congress's power to regulate has been upheld many times against 5th amendment claims. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is. The same power also protects railroads from local regulations.

You really think the 535 care? Let me give you a clue. Amtrak is a low on the totem pole of budget trading pawns. The only time one of them will care is when a donor in his/her district are killed by or aboard an Amtrak train.

I'm not a lawyer, but as a citizen I know every time Congress passes funding to subsidize Amtrak it passes a new law. The idea that after 50 years all the clauses in the original law are still in effect is very unlikely. But I haven't the knowledge which clauses are still in effect. I suppose this lawsuit will settle that once and for all, at least until another new law is passed. Because that is all that is required, Congress passing a new law and it goes into effect, precisely stating what it wants to happen today.
Why are they in Court today? Is there a reasonable different reading in what the law is today? Does the law today allow Amtrak to seek a penalty fee, or tax, on lateness? Is the existing law so toothless Amtrak has to go to Court? I do not have the answers, maybe someone else will answer my questions.

1. A contract is a contract.
2. Please cite your sources that Amtrak is paying significantly under market rate for trackage rights.

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 3:55 pm

I'm all for this, provided the class 1s stop getting billions of dollars in start up costs to add an AMTRAK train on their tracks.

That's a reasonable position to take. It seems when a new shipper approaches a Freight Road for service, they look at the price to move those trains, plus the price to build a switch and spur, and then it becomes an intellectual argument surrounding the present value of money.

In other words, if the price to run the trains is $1000/mo and the price to build the spur is $24,000, does the shipper sign an agreement stating $2,200/mo for two years? Or does the shipper say "we'll pay up front for some of the capital upgrades and monthly for service" and the agreement looks like $12,000 today and $1,500/month? This then becomes a negotiation between the two parties and the principal costs are just one piece, you also have payment terms (net 30, net 15, cash in advance...) and even perhaps currency (say the shipper is headquartered in Canada or EU).

Whether they pay for new capital costs and/or operating costs up front or monthly, this opens the door to smarter trackage rights agreements. For example, guarantee five years of service but no inflation adjustments for years the trains are more than 15pct late (incentivising the host to perform), or priority demands lapse if Amtrak is late out of the originating terminal or has a engine breakdown (incentivizing Amtrak to perform).

I suspect that if negotiations for additional AMTRAK trains where really needed were handled this way the service would be up and running much quicker than what we're looking at today. I don't believe JP Hunt needs years to get a train that they need on the tracks.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:02 pm Please cite your sources that Amtrak is paying significantly under market rate for trackage rights.

Mr. Rohr, you do raise a point; the Operating Agreement between Amtrak and any road is bilateral and exempt from "prying eyes" under FOIA. But I think it safe assumption that if the $$$$ were there, such as they were during the 80's, the trains would run on time.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:02 pm 1. A contract is a contract.
2. Please cite your sources that Amtrak is paying significantly under market rate for trackage rights.

"A contract is definitely and aboslutely not a contract. A contract is a choice to perform versus not perform". Source: The dean of my law school who has written 15 books, Yale Law degree, Cambridge PhD.

In other words, you look at the contract and decide if you (a) don't want to do it (b) is it worth the consequences to break the contract. It's the same scenario when the rental car company doesn't hold your reservation or an airline bumps you to another flight. They know you can't do anthing about it so they screw you.

As for my sources that Amtrak has a below market rate? Each railroad has been very open that they are not compensated enough to run the passenger trains. Nobody has done any elementary level math to show this is incorrect. The Amtrak financials show that their operating costs are miniscule compared to salaries, so that doesn't balance out either.

Just this week NS announced they would invest $200m in Alabama to increase capacity. The railroads are more than willing it invest and increase capacity, but the traffic has to pay for it.

I do not understand why y'all insist that Amtrak is some saintly body that can do no wrong. Get out and ride the trains and be critical. It's not hard. The place is a dumpster fire of bad service. They can do better, much better. Giving them a pass just makes them a bigger target for politicians and cuts, and less attractive to citizens.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:17 pm

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:02 pm 1. A contract is a contract.

"A contract is definitely and aboslutely not a contract. "

You and Hoeflich have very loose interpretation if you assert that contracts, let alone Federal Law, can simply be violated on a whim, or after some buyer's remorse. (and I'm sure my airline and rental car agreements have fine print outlining delays and overbooks.)

I never claimed Amtrak is 'saintly' or that they deliver excellent service across the board. Don't put words in my mouth. I am reacting to posters who continually claim Amtrak is "ILLEGALLY TAKING" something of value from a victim corporation. Railroads and their successors entered into an agreement. And that agreement does guarantee compensation of the variable cost of handling Amtrak trains, IIRC.

rohr turbo wrote:1. A contract is a contract.
2. Please cite your sources that Amtrak is paying significantly under market rate for trackage rights.

This has actually been cited before, but maybe you weren't reading that day. Amtrak's financials either directly or indirectly call out trackage paid.

If you take that number, and divide it by the number of train miles that are actually traveled, and make an adjustment to exclude tracks that Amtrak owns, it's very clear that Amtrak is paying well below Market rates per train mile.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 5:12 pm You and Hoeflich have very loose interpretation if you assert that contracts, let alone Federal Law, can simply be violated on a whim, or after some buyer's remorse.

I honestly don't know how to continue this discussion if you don't realize that this is done every day, in every city and state, with regard to all types of contracts. This isn't a rare thing.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 5:12 pm You and Hoeflich have very loose interpretation if you assert that contracts, let alone Federal Law, can simply be violated on a whim, or after some buyer's remorse.

Do you know how many Federal laws are violated every day?

Do you know the three criteria the various attorneys of the US Government use to determine who they are going to file a civil suit/ask for a grand jury bill of indictment against?

1) Deaths
2) Human trafficking
2) MONEY… lots and lots of money. (Drugs=money btw)

There are a gajillion violations of the US Code that CAN be enjoined or prosecuted, but aren’t because the return on the effort is just too small.

So, yes. Tad nails the matter to the wall.