by Gilbert B Norman
lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 5:59 am At the moment that obligation is there, and would require changes to the law to remove that obligation from Amtrak.Mr. Lord, let us consider the context of the term obligation.
At this time, especially considering a reported 300-135 "vote of confidence" in the House for the LD's (National Network), Amtrak appears compelled to continue the LD's, even considering their heavy losses would be compounded if their "bargain basement ride" over the Class I's ROW were to cease. I guess considering that vote, it can be said Amtrak's best interests are served by refraining any thoughts of getting rid of them - even if at present considering their equipment needs replacement, and hence an obligation.
The roads that hold operating agreements with Amtrak are obligated under such to operate the trains delineated so long as they are proffered by Amtrak with roadworthy equipment and Rules Qualified crews properly rested under Hours of Service.
But what I guess I objected to was that advocacy group stating the railroads had an obligation to run passenger trains - and Amtrak came to their rescue and relieved them from such (possibly a member aware of such may choose to post a link to this material). The roads, save some quirks in charters such as the B&O obligated to run passenger trains over 12 miles of their original route and the CB&Q being forced to provide passenger trains that the Crow Indians could ride through their reservation, were not obligated. It was only after 1887 when the Interstate Commerce Act was enacted (likely in great part to abuses the then monopoly railroads forced on the public) that any train to be discontinued was subject to review by the regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Act established.
However, it came about, that agency became "hidebound" and long after the roads no longer held monopoly powers, bent to Congressional constituents who (actually part of testimony) liked to hear the whistle. But by the later 60's and 70's, this agency was becoming more lenient with train discontinuances (Santa Fe discontinuing over half their vaunted LD fleet in one blow). The UP had combined all of their "City" trains into one East of Ogden and had gotten off #5-6 companion train. All told, the agency became more "relaxing" reducing this ostensible "obligation".
So even had RPSA70 not been enacted, "the writing was on the wall", but it was and the "swan song" of cash upfront (Amtrak pays the roads in advance for services - especially considering on A-Day it was for a "turnkey purchase of service") was just too great to ignore.
But, especially how history came to pass, the roads signed up for "a Faustian pact with the Devil". Trust me I was there, and the washroom walls in the CUS offices "gave 'em five years". Well, I think we know how mistaken those walls have proven to be.
Now suppose the roads collectively said, "thanks but no thanks". Ignoring "ward of the State Penn Central (read the Corridor)". I think some of the "weaks" such as "my MILW" would have gotten trains off during the statutory five years roads not joining Amtrak would have had to operate trains. Even "the strongs" would have gotten the secondary trains off, such as the BN "Mainstreeter" and "Western Star". Now when the Staggers Act was enacted during 1980, there wouldn't be a passenger train left - anywhere outside the Corridor.