UP wants "out" of Chicago commuter rail

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes...isn't UP 'flip-flopping' on its earlier desire to provide (subsidized) commuter services, over several of its routes around the system, or did I miss something since that time?
Actually, I'm surprised that Metra hasn't embraced the idea...most bureaucracies that I am aware of, seem to want to control their own destinies, as well as grow their 'empire'. Unless Metra management fears that they aren't up to the challenge?

I also wonder why they are keeping the details from the public...what could they possibly be afraid of the public learning?
 
I cannot think of anything that would be properly resolved in court. UP retains the legal obligation to run commuter service (it was never removed, since neither the Amtrak Act nor the Northeast Rail Service Act applied and there was no ICC or STB ruling), so almost all contract terms would be properly within the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board. So the lawsuit is mystifying.

Maybe it is a suit for asset valuation? The STB often throws those back to the courts...
 
I'm sure the details are in the money, who pays for what and what price. It seems UP wants Metra to take over operating crews, ticket agents, maintenance of way and equipment. I doubt if UP would sell the rights of way, at least not on the West Line, so the operation would be similar to Metra's running of trains on trackage rights such as the Southwest Service, North Central and Heritage routes, not complete ownership such as Metra Electric, Rock Island and Milwaukee.
 
Operating crews, ticket agents, and other personnel for the passenger service, yes, but I doubt they would have Metra take over maintenance of way of the road, if UP retains ownership. Just maintenance of Metra rolling stock and perhaps stations...
 
Perhaps most likely is that the lawsuit gets dismissed by stipuation and we never find out what it was about.
Second most likely is that it turns out it wasn't a valid topic for a lawsuit and the whole thing ends up at the Surface Transportation Board.
 
The cynic in me says that when UP says it wants out of the contract to "focus on moving customers' goods," it means that it wants to be able to delay passenger trains with fewer repercussions.

Metra has eleven routes; of those, three are operated by UP, and BNSF operates one.

So, to be clear, 36% of Metra's routes are operated by freight railroads.
 
I am wondering how BNSF will react when this goes through?
Will they do likewise, or will they hold tight to their Metra operation?
 
A question might be- What is the employee sonority of the UP employees assigned to METRA? What are they paid as compared to other UP employees working freight?
 
west point said:
A question might be- What is the employee sonority of the UP employees assigned to METRA? What are they paid as compared to other UP employees working freight?
Click to expand...
Good question...how many will "bail" from Metra service, and instead take freight position's if and where they can? I suppose they will have to make a choice at some point, although they may have "dual seniority" for a contracted period....
 
It would be terrible for a lot of the suburbs served if their service was cut.

The cynic in me wonders if they are trying to get a bit of the big pot of money that Metra got from the state. They've actually started hiring again according to my Metra employee friends.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top