Talk:List of railroads eligible to participate in the formation of Amtrak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PC Chatham trains[edit]

I'm not sure this is the article to do it, but do we tell the story of the Chatham trains anywhere? I've finally got a source discussing both them and the Long Island Rail Road. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Amtrak#Formation is the right place to do it. Penn Central's more-well-used trains did make the cut. Why were they dropped, anyway - were they considered commuter trains, or just not worth including in the basic system? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latter; after litigation arguing the former. Went all the way to the Third Circuit. Last trains ran on or around March 23, 1972. It occurs to me that there could be an article describing the transition from private to Amtrak operation. List of passenger trains in the United States on April 30, 1971, except with a better title. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed into merging this article into a broader "Formation of Amtrak" article. That could cover the RPSA in more detail than the Amtrak article, provide a listing of the fate of various services by railroad, and so on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources etc[edit]

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Pacific Railroad[edit]

Per an article by Don L. Hofsummer in Trains,[1] the Northwestern Pacific Railroad's remaining service was a twice-weekly RDC between Eureka and Willits. The specific reference is on page 53. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hofsummer, Don L. (July 1986). "SP and passengers: the bittersweet love affair". Trains. 46 (9): 46–53.

D&RGW[edit]

As written, the article implies without quite saying so that the D&RGW didn't "join" Amtrak in 1983. I think that's incorrect, but I don't have a source. Welsh[1] implies that D&RGW joined Amtrak, but I'd like to see something more specific. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders[2] makes it sound as though the railroad did not join Amtrak, at least not in the same way that the original 20 did. The railroad didn't contribute rolling stock or money; in fact, it received modest incentives from Amtrak. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think those incentive payments were open to any of the private railroads handling a train. A related question is this: did the Southern Railway "join" Amtrak, or did it merely convey the Southern Crescent? It's unclear to me per RPSA 1970 401 (a)(1) whether a railroad could join after 1975. The sources we're relying in may be using that term loosely. On the other hand, I've never heard that Amtrak pays anything other than incremental cost for the use of the ex-Rio Grande and ex-Southern. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Welsh, Joe (2008). Union Pacific's Streamliners. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Voyageur Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-7603-2534-6.
  2. ^ Sanders, Craig (2006). Amtrak in the Heartland. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. pp. 143–44. ISBN 978-0-253-34705-3.

Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad[edit]

While looking for stuff on the Rio Grande and the Southern I ran across a CBO report[1] from 1982 which lists five non-participating railroads, excluding the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. Supreme Court said five in 1985's National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co..[2] Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, its five were the Southern, the Rio Grande, the Rock Island, the Georgia, and...the Canadian Pacific. No South Shore nor Reading. This is sourced to a GAO report from 1980.[3]. Thoms isn't in front of me at the moment but I believe he wrote that the Canadian railroads were specifically excluded. Mackensen (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hilton doesn't mention the South Shore either, but he does include the Reading.[4] Thoms indicates that both the Reading and South Shore were commuter systems and "not offered a contract by NRPC."[5] He says that 22 railroads were offered contracts. Presumably that's the twenty participating railroads, plus the Rio Grande and the Southern Railway. Sanders states that 26 railroads were eligible. He does not enumerate the six specifically, but he does discuss the South Shore, Rock Island, Southern, and Rio Grande.[6]. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more. Don Phillips states categorically in a 2011 article for Classic Trains that there 26 eligible railroads, with 20 participating. What's more, he actually enumerates them.[7]. His list matches ours. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ferris, Sally A. (1982). Federal Subsidies for Rail Passenger Service: An Assessment of Amtrak. A CBO study. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. p. 3. OCLC 631205606.
  2. ^ 470 U.S. 451 (1985)
  3. ^ United States. General Accounting Office (1980). How Much Should Amtrak Be Reimbursed for Railroad Employees Using Passes To Ride Its Trains. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. p. 3. OCLC 44142381.
  4. ^ Hilton, George W. (1980). Amtrak: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (PDF). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0-8447-3369-5. OCLC 5777023.
  5. ^ Thoms, William E. (1973). Reprieve for the Iron Horse: The AMTRAK Experiment–Its Predecessors and Prospects. Baton Rouge, LA: Claitor's Publishing Division. p. 48. OCLC 1094744.
  6. ^ Sanders, Craig (2006). Amtrak in the Heartland. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. pp. 7–9. ISBN 978-0-253-34705-3.
  7. ^ Phillips, Don (Summer 2011). "The Road to Rescue" (PDF). Classic Trains. 12 (2): 30.

California Western Railroad[edit]

The California Western Railroad continued to run their Skunk train after Amtrak's formation.[1] It's definitely not a commuter train, but I just don't know if they were eligible to join Amtrak due to the size of their operations or what the deal there was. If it's because they never turned a loss on passenger operations, I guess they should be in the Ineligible railroads section, though I would think that's hard to verify. -MJ (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) MJ (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I found this news article which doesn't clarify the matter much. Page 37 of this paper indicates that the California Western believed their California-only service to be solely within state jurisdiction. Whether that's relevant to joining Railpax/Amtrak is debatable (the Northwestern Pacific joined, while the Georgia was eligible but declined, and the D&H only operated passenger service in one state by 1971). It seems that the California Western wasn't looking to exit the passenger business, since they were doing well as essentially a tourist train, and Railpax wouldn't have had any interest in the line. Perhaps both parties were simply content to leave it at that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those sources indicate that CWR was eligible to join Railpax, but it opted not to. But then the latter further goes on to note:

Commissioner Stafford also pointed out that if a railroad showed a profit on passenger operations in 1969, it would have no way of getting into the Corporation, even if each year thereafter it should show a hopeless loss on the operation.

the CWR article notes that it was only around 1996 that passenger operations usurped freight as the railroad's main income, but that claim is not sourced, so again hard to verify - and doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't turning a profit from passenger operations in 1969 anyway. -MJ (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to take your references which say:

Legally, the two trains could drop their passenger service after Railpax goes into effect on May 1.

and

Trains not operating in metropolitan and suburban areas are included in the "intercity" classification, despite the fact that many trains which offer passenger service are short-line or mixed train operations with no connection with intercity runs. The law affects the Santa Fe's "Super Chief" between Chicago and Los Angeles equally with the California Western's "Super Skunk" between the towns of Willits and Fort Bragg in California.

and use those as justification for CWR's inclusion with the rest of the Non-participating railroads. -MJ (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoms' paper was turned into a book, Reprieve for the Iron Horse. He repeats what he said about the California Western, but doesn't address it subsequently. None of our sources include the California Western, or any other non-Class I railroads, as non-participating railroads. The Skunk is listed in my 1972 Official Guide. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read over an ICC report from 1971 that (I think) can lay certain matters to rest. First, the report says that "25 carriers operated 547 passenger trains in the United States." (p. 7) It lists those railroads (p. 9); it differs from our 26 in that it doesn't include the South Shore and the Reading, and does include the Canadian Pacific. There's a lengthy discussion (p. 58) of which trains fall within RPSA 1970.[2] Commuter operations are mentioned only to exclude them, and short lines aren't mentioned at all. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rail Passenger Development Plan: 1984-89 Fiscal Years. Sacramento, CA: Division of Mass Transportation, Caltrans. 1984. OCLC 10983344.
  2. ^ Interstate Commerce Commission (1971). Amtrak: Effectiveness of the Act: Report to the President and the Congress. United States.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_railroads_eligible_to_participate_in_the_formation_of_Amtrak&oldid=1203680982"