Amtrak Petition to save Special Trains

[C&O RR]

I know that the following has been mention in other forums, but I had not seen any mention of the Petition. Moderator, move this if you feel it would be better served elsewhere.

Gone are the days riding behind Southern Pacific 4449, Norfolk & Western 611, Milwaukee Road 261, Santa Fe 3751, and several others. Stream Train Excursions can only continue if Amtrak rethinks their March 29, 2018 path towards to profitability decisions.

The path towards to profitability decisions are removing Amtrak Chefs from trains, ending all Special Trains, this would include New River Train which has been done for the last 51 years and Autumn train specials. Basically, if you have ever taken a non-Amtrak scheduled train you will not be taking one in the future.

There is an online Petition that you can sign if you want Amtrak to reconsider, it is located at https://www.change.org/p/amtrak-rescind-ban-on-charter-trains-and-private-car-movements

 

[Acela150]

Many of the steam trains aren't run by Amtrak.

 

[C&O RR]

Google pictures of Southern Pacific 4449, Norfolk & Western 611, Milwaukee Road 261 and Santa Fe 3751 excursions and you will see them towing one or two Amtrak engines most of the time.

It is true that Steam excursions running on track owned by private steam company do not require need of Amtrak for those trips. The Tennessee Valley Railroad, CASS railroad and Norfolk & Western (as long as it is on N&W tracks) come to mind. A Steam engine running on a main line are usually required to have diesel power in tow in case the steam engine breaks down. More often that not it is an Amtrak engine(s).

 

[crescent-zephyr]

#611 has never run as an Amtrak excursion, with an Amtrak diesel, or with an Amtrak crew.

I don't think #765 has either. And #261 has only run with Amtrak every other year or so, with more trips being on local owned shortlines.

 

[OBS]

Rather than nitpicking over details, the OP is interested in getting people to sign the petition for Amtrak to reverse course. Either you support it or you don't....

 

[Seaboard92]

I'll end the confusion about steam charters seeing this was my biggest set of customers for my services.

Norfolk Southern in 2017 made a release stating that they were no longer in the steam excursion business and would be selling off their cars (NS 4x cars only), canceling their passenger insurance, and that any future steam charter with passengers would have to be thru Amtrak. However they will allow ferry moves without passengers to any engine that was in their program. This effects mostly N&W 611 because the other engines ended their partnership with Norfolk Southern in 2015.

Milwaukee Road 261, Southern Pacific 4449, and a handful of other large steam engines have customarily been running as Amtrak charter trains. In general practice Amtrak sends a P42DC for hotel power, and as back up in case the steam engine fails. But also included is Amtrak's insurance(required for class one access), a engineer, conductor, and sometimes a mechanical crew (usually if they lease a coach). So these trips are effectively stopped.

Nickel Plate Road 765 trips on Metra are also in danger due to the Amtrak ban because the private cars that they were depending on arriving via Amtrak may not be able to make it. So ticket sales have been postponed indefinitely till things firm up.

Santa Fe 3751 in Los Angeles is arguably in the best position of all the engines because Metrolink has consistently proven to be steam friendly. While that keeps them to a small area they can still run. And theoretically they could still run to San Diego. It would be a royal pain to orchestrate logistically but between Sam Diego Northern (Coaster) and Metrolink it's doable.

Union Pacific 844 is still going to operate as normal. This year it's schedule has been reduced because the main priority is to get 4014 the Big Boy finished as it has an event to go to next year with one of the other engines I've mentioned.

As far as New River Train that has been cancelled due to the Amtrak ban no ifs ands or buts. I'm sad to see that go because of all the operators listed above they were my absolute favorite to work with. And by far the most down to earth, and nicest people in the industry.

As far as things with TVRM in Chattanooga everything is normal operations for them with 630 and 4501. They should have a third engine running in another year (610).

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Rather than nitpicking over details, the OP is interested in getting people to sign the petition for Amtrak to reverse course. Either you support it or you don't....

Amtrak made a business decision. I've ridden on privates, and mainline steam excursions. I've also ridden on Amtrak trains as an Amtrak passenger and been delayed because of private car moves.

So I see both sides very clearly.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Enough of the nit-picking, sign the petition or don't. The flyboy-in-chief needs to know that people are pissed about these decisions.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Enough of the nit-picking, sign the petition or don't. The flyboy-in-chief needs to know that people are pissed about these decisions. [/quote

I won't sign the petition... It's a sensible business decision.

 

[jis]

I'll end the confusion about steam charters seeing this was my biggest set of customers for my services.

. . . . .

Seaboard, thanks for the info. Very useful.

On the main subject of this thread, I am actually looking forward to this matter being decided by the STB and if necessary in a Federal Court, since the term "Common Carrier" is used as justification and it appears to be not at all clear which aspects of it were actually transferred to Amtrak. Just getting a clarification of that would be useful. Clearly Amtrak did not pick up the Common Carrier obligations for carrying any freight or agricultural product. Also, quite apparently Amtrak does not appear to have any obligation to carry a passenger who is willing to pay to travel on a train that is sold out. Is dragging private cars around part of its residual Common Carrier obligations? Would that extend to dragging private freight cars around?

So I am really curious to learn what are the limitations on the Common Carrier obligations as it applies to Amtrak. At present I have no clue. But the extensive use of the Common Carrier argument in the petition raised these questions in my mind and after having read the citations quoted I am afraid I don't have any more clue. And of course I am no lawyer, but still curious as to what if any is the settled legal situation on this matter.

If anyone can enlighten with proper citations that would be most welcome.

This also raises the possibility that Anderson, who has dealt with the aspects of Common Carrier in the airline industry as it applies to them, may be incidentally trying to obtain clarification of exactly that. But that is mere speculation on my part.

Interesting times....

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I'll end the confusion about steam charters seeing this was my biggest set of customers for my services.

. . . . .

Seaboard, thanks for the info. Very useful.

Some of the info was false...

#3751 has not run any trips without Amtrak in the past decade that I am aware of. Including trips to San Diego.

#261 ran 1 trip with Amtrak in 2016. And they have 1 still on the schedule this year. (Ride it while you can... It's a great trip). other trips they have been operating have not had Amtraks involvement. (This WILL affect their private car business out of St. Paul though...)

Im not sure why he brought TVRM up, as they have never run anything with Amtrak. I don't beleive there are any current plans to restore #610...

Bottom line is... This has a very small impact over all on the current situation of mainline steam.

 

[jis]

creascent-zephyr, thanks for the update. Still more useful info.

 

[Seaboard92]

I'll end the confusion about steam charters seeing this was my biggest set of customers for my services.

. . . . .

Seaboard, thanks for the info. Very useful.

Some of the info was false... #3751 has not run any trips without Amtrak in the past decade that I am aware of. Including trips to San Diego.

#261 ran 1 trip with Amtrak in 2016. And they have 1 still on the schedule this year. (Ride it while you can... It's a great trip). other trips they have been operating have not had Amtraks involvement. (This WILL affect their private car business out of St. Paul though...)

Im not sure why he brought TVRM up, as they have never run anything with Amtrak. I don't beleive there are any current plans to restore #610...

Bottom line is... This has a very small impact over all on the current situation of mainline steam.

Actually 3751 ran with metrolink a couple years back to San Bernadino if memory serves me right. It went with a metrolink F59PHi second out. So that should in theory be a metrolink charter. Granted Amtrak does hold the metrolink contract if memory serves me right so could have been a sub. But I'm 90 percent certain I'm correct on that.

261 actually does work with Twin Cities and Western but other the. That everything is Amtrak operated. And eventually they will dry up the market on the TCW. So without Amtrak that significantly hurts their operation. Already the CP not allowing access to their lines has put a damper on it.

On 610 obviously you don't have the inside connections that I've gotten working on hundreds of trips. One of my contacts there leaked that the plan is to get 610 up and running in the next year to two.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Hope you're right as #610 is an awesome little locomotive. I suppose the plan could be to get #610 ready when #630 goes down in a few years.

I remember last year being told it was a definite no on #610 for the foreseeable future but we all know how quickly things change.

You're right CP hurt the #261 more than this announcement... That Duluth trip is great for railfans but they need to be able to do 1 day trips. I regret not getting up there for any of the CP trips.

 

[Seaboard92]

Hope you're right as #610 is an awesome little locomotive. I suppose the plan could be to get #610 ready when #630 goes down in a few years.

I remember last year being told it was a definite no on #610 for the foreseeable future but we all know how quickly things change.

You're right CP hurt the #261 more than this announcement... That Duluth trip is great for railfans but they need to be able to do 1 day trips. I regret not getting up there for any of the CP trips.

My source who is one of the shop people up there sent the info. So it should be very accurate. I love the tVRM folks. I believe your right it's for when 630 comes due because 4501 is really too large an engine for the short hops on property.

Currently I'm trying to find a way onto the Duluth trip incase this ban comes to fruition.

I did find a video of the Metrolink charter with 3751 in 2014. Two PVs, two Amtrak cars, one metrolink, and a metrolink engine.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Just signed it.

 

[TinCan782]

I'll end the confusion about steam charters seeing this was my biggest set of customers for my services.

. . . . .

Seaboard, thanks for the info. Very useful.

Some of the info was false...#3751 has not run any trips without Amtrak in the past decade that I am aware of. Including trips to San Diego.

#261 ran 1 trip with Amtrak in 2016. And they have 1 still on the schedule this year. (Ride it while you can... It's a great trip). other trips they have been operating have not had Amtraks involvement. (This WILL affect their private car business out of St. Paul though...)

Im not sure why he brought TVRM up, as they have never run anything with Amtrak. I don't beleive there are any current plans to restore #610...

Bottom line is... This has a very small impact over all on the current situation of mainline steam.

Actually 3751 ran with metrolink a couple years back to San Bernadino if memory serves me right. It went with a metrolink F59PHi second out. So that should in theory be a metrolink charter. Granted Amtrak does hold the metrolink contract if memory serves me right so could have been a sub. But I'm 90 percent certain I'm correct on that.

In September 2016 ATSF 3751 ran up Metrolink's Valley Sub (ex-SP Valley Line) to Acton, California for Metrolink's opening of the newly remodeled station there. No passenger cars; only two BNSF locomotives in tow - A PR event funded by Metrolink.

 

[keelhauled]

Is there a petition for "I don't care about special trains, just get me to my destination on time?" Cause I'd sign that one.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I'll end the confusion about steam charters seeing this was my biggest set of customers for my services.

. . . . .

Seaboard, thanks for the info. Very useful.

Some of the info was false...#3751 has not run any trips without Amtrak in the past decade that I am aware of. Including trips to San Diego.

#261 ran 1 trip with Amtrak in 2016. And they have 1 still on the schedule this year. (Ride it while you can... It's a great trip). other trips they have been operating have not had Amtraks involvement. (This WILL affect their private car business out of St. Paul though...)

Im not sure why he brought TVRM up, as they have never run anything with Amtrak. I don't beleive there are any current plans to restore #610...

Bottom line is... This has a very small impact over all on the current situation of mainline steam.

Actually 3751 ran with metrolink a couple years back to San Bernadino if memory serves me right. It went with a metrolink F59PHi second out. So that should in theory be a metrolink charter. Granted Amtrak does hold the metrolink contract if memory serves me right so could have been a sub. But I'm 90 percent certain I'm correct on that.

In September 2016 ATSF 3751 ran up Metrolink's Valley Sub (ex-SP Valley Line) to Acton, California for Metrolink's opening of the newly remodeled station there. No passenger cars; only two BNSF locomotives in tow - A PR event funded by Metrolink.

True! I had meant public trips, but i didn't say that and I had forgotten about that one.

I think the San Bernadino trips were still Amtrak.. But I can't say I am certain either.

 

[Seaboard92]

I'm pretty sure the San Bernardino trips were primarily Metrolink due to the presence of a Metrolink diesel and rolling stock. But Amtrak does hold the Metrolink operating contract so at the end of the day it's still Amtrak.

 

[TinCan782]

I'm pretty sure the San Bernardino trips were primarily Metrolink due to the presence of a Metrolink diesel and rolling stock. But Amtrak does hold the Metrolink operating contract so at the end of the day it's still Amtrak.

Yes, I believe so as well. But, if Metrolink is footing the bill (including paying for Amtrak contractors) and not using Amtrak equipment, I wouldn't think it would be a problem. Those contractors are essentially working for Metrolink anyway. Also, the line used is Metrolink's and not used by Amtrak except perhaps for a re-route once in a while. Such a run would not interfere with Amtrak's operations.

 

[neroden]

Hmmm. He's right about the common carrier obligation. There is no special magic exclusion for occupied passenger car movements: they remain a common carrier obligation, unless a carrier has been relieved of such obligation by passing it to Amtrak; and Amtrak retains the obligation.

But someone would have to sue Amtrak to force them to provide quotes for occupied passenger car movements.

Of course, Amtrak can set whatever price it likes unless there's an STB case about it. If the final outcome is that Amtrak continues to do one-time moves and charters and private car moves, but charges a lot more, then... well, I'm OK with that I guess.

 

[jis]

As far as I can tell all that Amtrak has said regarding PVs is that it will handle them only from designated locations. All that has changed is that they have substantially reduced the number of designated locations. My question about Common Carrier obligation is about that. For example just because Amtrak stops at Jesup GA does it mean they must accept hooking up/dropping cars there? Current practice apparently is that there is no such obligation.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[crescent-zephyr]

It would seem that SOMEONE should be obligated to move equipment over inter-state transportation infrustructure. In the end, after many debates, it may be that this works out better for private cars. But that will be a long long road to get there.

 

[jis]

Freight railroads may happily move cars as long as they are not occupied, or if the owner of the car carries the requisite insurance for cars carrying people.

Frankly this bru ha ha has mostly to do with getting Amtrak insurance coverage or not as far as I can see.


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum