[tup] [tup]
Exactly. I feel not one bit of sorrow for these railroad companies. They knew this stuff was coming years ago. Is safety first more than a slogan?
Now now, don’t let the facts get in the way of Schlimm’s rant
She has no idea how this will affect the railroads and the US economy.
So here is what I want to know. When the railroads shut down their freight hauling operations where non-PTC compliant at the end of this year, what will happen next?
First of all, an important disclaimer. I’ve mentioned in some other posts that I have a Class I railroad background (I’m retired now). But I want to make it clear that I have absolutely NO inside information on what any railroad may be planning to deal with the PTC deadline and I have had NO discussions with any of my industry contracts about the subject (if I had I wouldn’t be writing this post). I’m speculating, just like everyone else.
That out of the way, I would be very surprised if any railroad totally shut down if the PTC mandate isn’t extended. There’s no reason to do that. The PTC mandate requires installation of PTC on rail lines that carry TIH or intercity/commuter passenger operations. A railroad that eliminates those operations is in compliance with the mandate.
But, you may ask, how can they do that? What about the common carrier obligation? Don’t they have to carry whatever may be offered to them? Well, no. The letter from STB Chairman Elliot mentioned in the link provided in CMSTPnP’s post alludes to this. As he states, the common carrier obligation is not absolute, and railroads can suspend service for various reasons, including safety. There’s nothing shocking or new about this. In fact, the case law on the common carrier obligation makes this quite clear. A railroad doesn’t have a common carrier obligation to handle hazardous commodities in ways that violate Federal rail safety laws or regulations. There are many commodities prohibited in rail shipment by Federal rules. There are many others that a railroad is obligated to refuse if the railroad knows that they aren’t “packaged” in accordance with Federal rules. In this case, the effect of the PTC mandate is to tell the railroad that it’s unlawful to handle TIH over a line that isn’t equipped with PTC. If it’s unlawful, then there’s no common carrier obligation to do
I can understand the argument that they have the right or even the legal obligation to shut down non-compliant operations. But what happens if they do?
Does the government not realize that operating non-PTC compliant operations after the end of the year would be illegal? If they come to that realizaton only after the railroads shut down, will the government admit that they made a mistake and withdraw the mandate?
If they do realize that operating non-compliant operations after the deadline is illegal, what then do they expect the railroads to do?
It seems like a standoff with no workable positions for either side to take.
I would say that if the government dug thier heels in , railroads jobs would be hard to come by.
Will Amtrak, on the track that they own, be compliant by 1/1/16?
I suggest we all take a deep breath and slowly exhale and relax. The railroads won’t be shutting down.
Why do I think this way? Several reasons: First, it’s not in anyone’s interest, but rather potentially disadvantageous to several parties. Second, the Administration is not going to allow this sort of major disruption to the economy. They’ll leave that to the GOP and the up-coming budget battle and looming gov’t shutdown (what will this be? Number 17? 23?).
This “issue” is an example of what my inner-city students in 1970 termed “sellin’ wolf tickets.” Translation: All for show; ain’t gonna happen.
Well it is in someone’s interest. It is in the interest of the railroads if they want to abide by the law if they are non-compliant when the deadline arrives. Not only is it in their interest, it is required if they want to follow the law.
I agree that the railroads will not likely be “shutting down”. The most likely scenario is that Congress, being the reasonable institution it is, is going to be sensible and extend the PTC mandate (I also still believe in the Tooth Fairy).
But if Congress isn’t sensible (imagine that) and doesn’t extend the mandate, I still don’t think that any railroad is going to “shut down”, for the reasons discussed in my earlier note. Rather, I think that several (perhaps all) railroads will stop providing TIH service and stop providing, or hosting, passenger service. My impression is that neither of these services are considered particularly desireable by commercial freight railroads, and they wouldn’t be crying in their beer if one or both of them had to be discontinued because of the PTC mandate.
In response to Falcon48’s post above:
Well said - [bow]
The only contra argument I can think of is this: Amtrak or such a shipper of hazmat could take the position that the railroad had an obligation to install PTC by the deadline, and that Amtrak/ shipper should not be disadvantaged by the railroad’s failure to comply by then. The PTC mandate trumps any tariff or contract of carriage. So if the railroad can’t actualy perform, then Amtrak/ the shipper is entitled to appropriate monetary damages.
I too doubt that a court will order “specific performance” (as a court of equity) - i.e., for the railroad to actually move the hazmat or Amtrak train. Instead, the court will likely act as a “law court” and say that the remedy of monetary damages is sufficient to make the aggrieved party “whole”. (The reasons for this would get us bogged down in a lot of legal theory.)
If such a shutdown - or even the threat of it - comes to pass, the doctrines of impossibility, commercial impracticality, anticipatory breach of contract, force majeure, 3rd-party (govt.) interference with contract rights, mutual and/ or unilateral “mistake” or assumption/ allocation/ knowledge/ control of the risk of this, etc., will get a major workout in the courts.
- Paul North.
Sorry your language is so inadequate that you can only make specious, ad hominem attacks to comments that are not directed at you personally. Perhaps such is the expected response of a disgruntled, embittered worker?
Naww, just another day on the Geezernet.
He’s disgruntled and embittered?
All this time I thought he was a miscreant and a malcontent, but now…
As I understand it, the railroads may refuse service on non-compliant operations. The response to my question here seems to be that the issue ends there, and the railroads will probably choose not to refuse service.
However, it is not just that they have the option to refuse service. They also are breaking the PTC law if they operate in non-compliance after the deadline. So to be legal, they have no option but to cease operation and refuse service.
Is this not correct?
You are right. However, in the 1990s, UP and GE did work on a moving block system called PTC - Precision Train Control, but abandoned it.
The mandate was passed in the RSIA in 2008, so seven years before the deadline. It was endorsed by the AAR in a written statement by its CEO, Edward Hamberger.
and it was NOT either a designed or purchasable product from any vendor or consortium of vendors and no standards existed for it.
You all know about the 10 minute home repair job - that ends up taking 10 months and $10K to finally accomplish once the real significance of the repair becomes clear and understood.