Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
RAILforum
»
Passenger Trains
»
Amtrak
»
Enroute on No. 5
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by tarheelman: [qb]It's been said that ATSF only gave up its passenger service to Amtrak in '71 at the last minute[/qb][/QUOTE]Quite correct, Mr. Tarheel, Santa Fe was "on the fence" until the eleventh hour. One of their principal concerns was their access to Chicago Union Station. They were concerned that they would be stuck with all costs, including debt service, that a tennant incurred under the controlling 1919 Agreement. Something tells me thay took a look at the May 1, 1971 Operating Agreement, specifically to Section 4.4 appertaining Jointly Owned Terminals and thought these provisions are simply unconscionable in the railroad's favor and Amtrak would never pay them. It turns out that Amtrak did pay them, but took immediate steps first with litigation to alleviate the burden and then simply vacating those terminals with access fees far more abusive than CUS. They of course subsequently "solved the problem" at CUS by acquiring the facility. First to be out was Cincinnati where the entire cost of that barn was passed to Amtrak for operating six trains a week. Needless to say, that Amtrak went back there and to Kansas City as well, means that they obtained far more favorable terms from non-rail owners than were provided for within 4.4. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Home Page
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2
Copyright © 2007-2016
TrainWeb, Inc.
Top of Page
|
TrainWeb
|
About Us
|
Advertise With Us
|
Contact Us