I can't find it now but someone had quoted some legislation--perhaps within an appropriation bill--that stated Amtrak was supposed to run special trains.

Probably not a good idea for any of the regular, major players to bite the hand that once fed it and could again in the future lest they piss them off. Amtrak can always find a reason not to run your special, even after a return to a more enlightened policy.

But would there be a basis for some entity to bring suit against Amtrak for violating the law? If it in fact was as described. (And not superseded by a new appropriation that lacks that clause.)

The best analogy would be Amtrak's carriage of firearms. Amtrak is a commercial corporation, in spite of its government ownership. It did not want to carry firearms as checked baggage, and did not, until Congress dictated it in an appropriations bill.

You could not sue Amtrak for canceling the California Zephyr, for example, but Congress could enforce the operation of the train in an appropriations bill. For decades the "Hilltopper" ran because of the political power of Senator Robert Byrd.

Amtrak is a political animal and change is best achieved by political methods. Motivate your communities and local politicians!

Yes, that's is exactly what we need.

More lawsuits.

There is an online petition: https://www.change.org/p/amtrak-rescind ... -movements

This might be what you are looking for:

In implementing this policy, we believe that Amtrak may be in violation of 49 US Code 11101. From Cornell University's Legal Information Institution, section A of 49 US Code 11101 states the following:

"A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request. A rail carrier shall not be found to have violated this section because it fulfills its reasonable commitments under contracts authorized under section 10709 of this title before responding to reasonable requests for service. Commitments which deprive a carrier of its ability to respond to reasonable requests for common carrier service are not reasonable"

No, it actually said special movements or something like that.

You mean this...


Special Passenger Trains
Pub. L. 110–432, div. B, title II, §216, Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4930, provided that: "Amtrak is encouraged to increase the operation of special trains funded by, or in partnership with, private sector operators through competitive contracting to minimize the need for Federal subsidies. Amtrak shall utilize the provisions of section 24308 of title 49, United States Code, when necessary to obtain access to facilities, train and engine crews, or services of a rail carrier or regional transportation authority that are required to operate such trains."

http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm? ... &page=4930

Online petitions aren't worth the bandwidth expended on them:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/your-online-petition-is-useless/340316/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism

That does not sound like it is meant for one time special excursions but rather for regular trains operated in conjunction with a private operator or governmental agency. The Iowa Pacific's Hoosier trains come to mind.

The only reference I can find is a mention on the RPCA webste, that basically Amtrak set up a special movement bureau soon after being formed in the 1970s. How exactly was that bureau created? I did not see anything in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 or the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, although I did not have time for a thorough read. I believe there was another revision in 2002 or so.

Thank you for your pessimism.

Removed for reasons

It is not as it is stated. Priod. End of story. I've seen this about 15,000 times on Facebook the last month alone, and it's just plain wrong. The people quoting this "law" and stating Amtrak is violating it are either mistaken or being terribly dishonest. Neither of which actually help the situation, and the more people claim Amtrak is "violating the law" with regards to not allowing special trains does a lot to discredit the preservation industry as a whole.

Yes, I know you are telling yourself "But David! The law says...!" Follow me for a short civics lesson for those of you who missed Schoolhouse Rock.

The quoted public law made changes to, among other areas, 49 USC 24308. This is the actual statute, the law which Amtrak is to follow. The full text of that statute can be found here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308

The public law that made the most recent changes to 49 USC 24308 was Public Law 110-432, which was entered in October of 2008. A public law is a fancy word for a bill that has passed both houses of Congress and signed into law. A bill may make changes to parts of the federal code, or create whole new sections, so you have to look to the actual federal code to determine what is in "the law" and what is not in it. That text can be here:
http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm? ... &page=4930

The section that people are staying Amtrak is "violating" is a "note." In other words, Public Law 110-432 did not insert language into the relevant statute requiring Amtrak to run special trains. The quoted note is something Courts may use to as what is called "legislative history" to discern the intent of the statute, but nothing more. At best, Congress intended to encourage Amtrak to consider running special trains, but did not require it. Even if Congress required it, that would be messy, as how many, with whom, what if they don't meet insurance or safety requirements, etc.?

Even if Public Law 110-432 inserted that language into 49 USC 24308, the wording it would not make operation of special trains mandatory. When a legislature wants a governmental agency to do something, and gives said agency no discretion, the word "shall" is used. When there is discretion, the word "may" is used. (Yes, I realize Courts sometimes hold "may" really means "shall" but I'm not getting into those word games). The quoted section says neither. Instead, Amtrak is simply "encouraged" to run special trains. Nothing more.

Regarding 24308, I am not sure even that passage directly applies to what we are discussing as a "special." It sounds more as though the govt is trying to encourage local operation over subsidized federal operation, where feasible, in order to trim costs. In other words, a local county (or counties) operating a connecting line under Amtrak, as opposed to Amtrak staffing and operating the branch itself. Not to promote one-time or semi-annual tourist excursions, or even sporadic moves of privately owned passenger equipment, but full and regular commuter traffic.

My guess is that past usage was tolerated but never guaranteed. However, since the federal government does essentially own Amtrak, don't we as citizens have some sort of right to use? Think of it along the lines of holding a protest on the National Mall - it's federally owned and operated land, but as a citizen you have a right to make exclusive, temporary use of at least part of it, provided you fill out the required paperwork. I believe that is the argument that would eventually lead to a victory, especially if Amtrak makes exceptions for certain groups while excluding others without a rule to justify it (611). If a corporation is a person, what about a non-profit? When is it legal for a federal entity to discriminate? (it isn't)

Thank you, David, for clarifying my original question. "Oh well."