And thank you for wasting everyone's time with a petition that accomplishes NOTHING, as opposed to doing something that might possibly help things (like actually talking to your local representative who might want to start poking around to see what might be done).

The bottom line is that the law is whatever the courts interpret it to mean. They look at what Congress passed and whatever clarifying remarks are included and what past practices have been in utilizing the law. There probably is a basis for a class action suit that could be taken to court. Whoever pursued that route would definitely want to file in a federal jurisdiction that has a track record of interpreting law in a favorable direction. Whether they would be successful probably depends on how deep their pockets are and whether Amtrak would consider the cost worth it.

Lawsuits can always be done. It's just whether the plaintiffs can afford the cost and time.

Several of those posting to this thread have speculated that 49 USC 11101 could be used to compel Amtrak to accept private and special moves. Section 11101 is part of STB's governing statute in 49 USC Subtitle IV. It's the statutory "common carrier obligation" applicable to freight railroads. An older version of this section used to be applicable to passenger service as well, in pre-Amtrak days when RR's ran their own passenger trains.

But it is not applicable to Amtrak. 49 USC 24301(c) (which is part of Amtrak's governing statute) expressly makes most of 49 USC Subtitle IV (including 11101) inapplicable to Amtrak.

As an aside, this is the third time I've tried to post the substance of this reply. For some reason (probably due to my level of computer skills - or lack thereof), the first two were never posted. It is possible that they may show up later. If that happens, it's not because I was trying to make multiple replies - I was trying to make just one.

In response to Mr. Longhofer, I don’t want to get into a heated exchange. I’m old, I’m watching my blood pressure, and I ran out of valium last night. But I do have a little experience dealing with railroad regulatory and legislative matters.

There are a few important points to keep in mind here. First of all, as Mr. Wilkins pointed out, there is very little (if any) legal recourse available against Amtrak. The statutes that govern Amtrak don’t impose any legal obligation on Amtrak to provide the services in question. A congressional expression of “encouragement” – even if it did apply to these services (questionable, for the reasons mentioned in Mr. Rowland’s post of 4/23) - falls considerably short of a legal obligation to do anything. The only “legal recourse” possibility I see is if there’s some kind of contract between Amtrak and some private car or excursion operators that Amtrak is violating. I don't know what contracts Amtrak may have made, but I doubt that Amtrak would have agreed to any ongoing contract like this.

The second point flows from the first. If the policy is to be changed, the change will have to come from Amtrak itself or from the politicos who ultimately control Amtrak’s operations and financing. With respect to the latter, online petitions will not be effective (and probably won’t even be read by anyone with any real authority). What would be more effective is to identify the politicos on the Congressional committees with jurisdiction over Amtrak (especially the chairmen and ranking members), and identify constituents in their districts that are willing to approach them. Also, I know from my own experience that the trade associations representing the excursion operators and private car owners have some really competent people, and I am sure they are giving a lot of thought on how to approach this issue effectively.

The third point has to do with making friends and not creating enemies. I can’t think of a worse strategy than arguing for some kind of “open access” so that excursion operators can operate their trains on freight railroads. It’s never going to happen. But arguing for it to happen turns the freight railroads into opponents. Not a good way to get anything done. I also note that Mr. Longhofer’s posts proposing such a measure list the various organizations on which he serves as an officer. This creates the impression that he is speaking for them in some form or fashion. Yes, I know there is also a disclaimer that the views expressed are his own. But the impression is still there, and is likely what will be remembered long after the disclaimer is forgotten. Not good. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

For what (if anything) it may be worth.

Remember back in 1994 when it was the end of the world when NS pulled the plug on their steam program and anything after that could not roll over their rails unless it burned diesel? I do. Remember how after 20 or so years that decision was reversed? Yep, remember that too. The point I'm making is, this could only be a temporary thing until Amtrak realigns itself, streamlines their company so to speak. Management changes and so do policies. This decision might not be forever, but suing them would surely make reversing it much further down the line if at all. If it happens that it's not reversed, take this time to keep improving your equipment so that if the call ever comes, we as an industry can spring forth without any hesitation. Keep your groups visible and relevant or else we'll be forgotten.

As a side note, I'd like to also mention that there is a Private Message feature on this board. If you want to bicker, take it there. It keeps the dirty laundry off the board. We don't have proof that any high ranking railroad officials read these boards but we also don't have proof that they don't. In their position, would you allow a group that seems to have bad communication skills with their peers onto your property?

Since I was in the rail industry, let me respond to ns2110's question about "high rankng railroad officials" reading this and other railfan boards

It should be assumed that some "high level" railroad officials do read this and other boards (although probably not on a daily basis). Either that or someone in their public affairs office does and brings things of interest to the attention of appropriate officials. I definitely recall getting copies of posts and news items from the TRAINS forum from time to time through the public affairs folks at my railroad. Also, keep in mind that there are many people in senior level positions at railroads who are "railfans" to a greater or lesser extent.

I don't know this as a fact, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the chronic negativity (often outright hostility) towards Amtrak that appears in various railfan sites was a factor in Amtrak's recent decision. I can imagine a meeting at which Amtrak's new top management questioned whether the railfan community was, on balance, an asset (creating a positive image for legislators and potential customers) which they should support and nurture or a negative. The answer from the public affairs folks would probably be "mostly negative".

Robert Opal is certainly correct about railroads tracking what is being said about them and the industry. Most large railroads, and the AAR, have companies hired to monitor news and discussion boards to see what is being said. This information is generally organized into daily or weekly reports which are then provided to the public relations or other offices. This info is then edited and passed on up as needed. This practice is common in almost all industries and in government. It is actually what many advertising campaigns, polls, and other studies are based on.

I also want to comment on having an organization tied to your name. It is not a good idea unless the statement that you are making is officially from that organization. Get it off, because it does imply official status. If it doesn't, then why is it there? Generally, it is there to imply some sort of "official" position, status, or expertise. When I work legal cases, testify on regulations, speak at conferences, etc., my titles and registrations are used. Here, it is just me. This is not my opinion, there are several cases where groups have been drug into legal issues due to a member using an organizations name or their status as an officer in a group.

Finally, if you check the history of Supreme Court rulings, you will find that they and the ICC said that the railroad industry paid by 10-fold what they received in benefits from the land grants and other government support. The case ended the practice of railroads providing at-cost government service, something all had to do in return for the earlier grants. Stating that the railroads owe the public shows a lack of knowledge about railroad case law and certainly does not make friends in the industry. I don't know how many times I have had a railroad official cite statements like that as a reason to refuse an excursion, a special event, and almost anything to do with the public.

Having worked for Union Pacific about the time that the 819 trips ended, I can state that some public statements by members of the group hurt their efforts to run. These statements were not made directly to the railroad, but they were certainly heard by the management.

The insults have been removed.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... 041818.pdf so it appears that private cars are still allowed.

"April 18, 2018 Guidelines for Charter Trains Operated by Amtrak These guidelines apply to Charter Trains, defined as non-regularly-scheduled trains for commercial customers operated by Amtrak pursuant to negotiated agreements. These guidelines do not apply to special moves that Amtrak may operate for its own or for governmental purposes. This policy does not apply to private cars. Amtrak’s primary objective is to operate its core train service safely, punctually, and efficiently. Amtrak must stay focused on this objective. As a result, we have instituted the following guidelines for Charter Trains effective March 28, 2018:  Charter Trains must operate on existing Amtrak routes;  Charter Trains must not be one-time trips;  Charter Trains proposing to use Amtrak resources such as equipment and crews are subject to the availability of those Amtrak resources without impact on regularly scheduled operations;  Charter Trains must generate sufficient financial benefit for Amtrak to justify the Amtrak resources and assets;  All Charter Train terms and conditions are subject to a final written agreement signed by Amtrak and the commercial charter customer. If you have questions about Charter Train guidelines, please contact chartersales@amtrak.com."

I can confirm through private conversations that certain high officials in Amtrak, present and retired, DO peruse this rail preservation forum, and/or are made aware of what shows up (sensibly or ridiculously) in other forums. The ones I can say for certain are top logistical, mechanical, and engineering officials that also happen to be rail enthusiasts, covert or overt. They're not necessarily the ones at the top that make these decisions as the Claytors were for Southern/NS/Amtrak, but they are the ones that either can propose things that eventually happen (such as the Autumn Express and AEM-7 Farewell excursions) or are consulted when the "top brass" might be mulling over such things as deciding whether to let excursions or equipment sales/donations happen.

This most likely is true of CSX, NS, UP, CP, etc. as well.

So, behave yourselves, or you most likely will only have yourselves to blame.

For the record, as much as a slobbering foamer railfan as I can be at times, if I were a properly appointed judge reviewing a case for suing Amtrak because they wouldn't allow your excursions or PV options, I would calmly say:

"Mr. Riffen, I am well aware of your exorbitant and frivolous attempts at litigation over regulatory matters of railroads in the past. Your alias does not fool me. You are hereby ordered to pay the legal costs of Amtrak in appearing here today, and I'm sentencing you to 90 days for contempt of common sense and the judicial system....."

As some of the other posters have reiterated suing Amtrak will not solve this problem. I think we should all give Mr. Anderson the benefit of the doubt and let him run his railroad for the moment. If his corporate policies prove successful then none of us will have any grounds to criticize him. Likewise I understand many of you are emotionally attached to your private cars or excursions but do not let those same feelings cloud your ability to make rational decisions. I am not a fan of some of these new proposals myself but I know it's better to keep my mouth shut right now than potentially worsening the situation. I think some of you should too for your own good.

Cameron

Who WAS...that Masked Man? Nicely done, Rick.

Mr. Opal - thank you for the very thorough and concise posts. I agree. As I opined in the " Amtrak Special Moves and Charters Under Threat" thread, the path forward is through a coordinated effort to influence legislation and not through litigation.

Agreed. Bob is “the man” when it comes to this stuff.