posted
NYC-ATL-NOL then Houston-Corpus Christi-Brownsville-Mexico city. And to hell with KCS no mexitrak deal.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
As I have noted not only at this Forum, Mr. GP-35, but also the other two at which I actively participate, a condition of the agreement to "privatize' the Mexican railways with US investments comprising capital and "know-how" was simply no passenger trains - not even a government supported passenger agency (Mextrak; for lack of a more descriptive name).
If that provision appears draconian, especially in a land where a far stonger case for LD passenger trains could be made than here in the USA, it simply is "sorry 'bout that'. That is what the two parties agreed to - and that is what evidently will be.
Further, as I have also noted in the past, US railroad managers surely are of the opinion that signing up with Amtrak was analagous to a "Faustian pact with the devil". Had the roads declined to join up, they quite simply today would have been "out'. If they were unable to remove trains after the statutory five year moratorium pursuant to RPSA '70, then, with the enactment of Staggers during 1979 (implemented during 1980), the "party WOULD have been over". The roads would simply have "filed', as distinct from "petitioned', with the STB their intent to discontinue the trains and, save a meaningless protest or two by advocacy groups, the band would have played "That's All".
But lest we forget during 1970, more railroads than not in the Northeast & North Central regions were in bankruptcy proceedings. Two Midwest roads followed later in the decade resulting in over one-third of the railroad mileage being operated by companies with bankruptcy protection. So all too many of the roads were 'against the wall' and had no alternative other than to sign up.
A key point to remember is that track capacity was abundant, so the position of 'hey, we'll run 'em if someone else pays the bills' was quite tenable. The inauguration of contractual performance payments starting during 1974 enabled roads, still "flush' with capacity, to actually "make a buck' running the trains. But with subsequent reductions in the payment rates and the explosion in traffic volume, running the LD's simply became a burden to the roads.
All told, from the industry perspective, what was to have been an orderly plan to eliminate LD trains from the railroads over likely a five year period turned into just another domestic program. The trains are still around thirty five years later and there is no end in sight to being rid of them.
The mistake was not about to be repeated "south of the border".
gp35 Member # 3971
posted
Who is running Mexico, the railroads!!!!!!!! I'm sure if Mexico thought passenger trains was in its best interest, and it is but they are too stupid to see, the railroads would play ball. Reguardless, a Crescent train to the developing Padre Islands would be cool.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Last time I checked, Mexico is a Federal Republic, which essentially means in terms of governmental structure, "same same USA".
I believe, but could be mistaken, that the railway system, comprised of several companies such as the NdeM, ChP, and FcP, was owned by their Federal government. Therefore it was apparently at Federal level the decision to accept the US roads' condition of no passenger trains was made.
But as you note, Mr. GP-35, I must wonder to what extent there is record of the debate, if any, within their National Congress regarding this decision.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
I would imagine that ANY westward expansion of the Crescent at this point would first begin with a discussion of changing the northeastern terminus to Washington, DC and converting the consist to Superliner. Amtrak does not, I believe, have enough operable Viewliner sleepers at any one time to support doing anything that would have the Crescent on the road more than one night in each direction.
posted