I picked this up on UTU website…
Officials said Friday (Oct. 27) that a dispute that threatened to sidetrack expanded Amtrak operations in Illinois has been resolved in time for the new service to begin Monday (Oct. 30) as scheduled, according to this Chicago Tribune report.
The Canadian National Railway Co. agreed late Thursday to allow Amtrak to use the freight railroad’s lines to run more trains from Chicago to St. Louis and Carbondale.
Just my opinion, but it would be good to know what the dispute was about. Though often times the freight railroad is viewed as “the bad guy” there may be legitimate legal, safety, and/or liability issues that the railroad’s officials want solved and put into writing before a final agreement is reached. The media often leaves these facts out or if posted, trivializes them.
Then there are occasions when host railroad officials are going to give Amtrak or a commuter rail agency the “Union Pacific Class of Hard Knocks” no matter what’s brought to the table.
( Hey! Can that phrase be coined? [:P] )
I wonder if/when AMTRAK would be allowed north on CN trackage. Say up through Green Bay, WI for a return to Chicago.
When pigs fly?
Is Peoria any more likely ?
Well, if we’re putting in our wish list for Santa…how 'bout South Dakota?[:P]
Anybody who regularly drives up through Milwaukee and on up into 'The Valley" through FonduLac, Oshkosh, Appleton and on to Green Bay will certainly have seen the tons of vehicle traffic at most times on I41 and I43 and all those who are train buffs will, at one time or another, think about how many of these vehicles could be taken off of the roads and put those people onto Amtrak trains. This has been proposed from time to time, but never materialized. Shame!
Well, ( not being political as I’m middle-of-the-road).
with the new change in governmental powers there may be a better chance as the “Donkeys” have “slightly” favored Amtrak more than the “Elephants”. Seems that this is something that NARP can quickly jump on
Agreed that the highways between Milwaukee and Green Bay could use some thinning out. I seriously think the railroad is the way to do it. Amtrak would be great up here.
At one time, didn’t Milwaukee have one of the largest Interurban systems in the world… now all gone save for one section between East Troy and Mukwonago operated by the East Troy Trolley Museum?
Who were the geniuses who decided to rip out all those lines? The same ones that killed the Chicago, Aurora & Elgin and North Shore lines in the name of progress?
I’ll suggest reading “The Electric Interurban Railways in America” by George W. Hilton and John F. Due. Hilton is a railfan PhD economist. He explains why they were built, how they operated, and why they went away.
Basically, it was because the automobile was a better option for people to get where they were going. No villans, just rational economic choices by people helped along by government subsidies of highways.
But I’m still amazed by the “bar cars” operated on the Chicago “L” by the North Shore.
The automobile may have “seemed” like a better option for people to get where they were going, but look at the many consequences of american cities selling their soul to the automobile (and please note, that the decision to do so was not voted on by the public, nor did the public have any official choice in the matter - and because an individual buys a car does not necessarily mean that they are making a choice to vote in favor of having the streetcars ripped out and parking lots plastered all around downtown- this move had heavy influence from american automobile and oil corporations, google “national city lines”):
-skyrocketing rates of obesity due to the only physical activity being walking to and from parking lots to car
-over dependence on foreign oil once domestic supplies (most notably in oklahoma/texas) were feasibly exhausted
-decline of civic community and over-reliance on private, non-interactive travel (being in your car by yourself versus being in contact with others on the streetcar/subway).
there are numerous other negative consequences, need I go on?
-j
No, no need to go on. Your points are clear.
But it doesn’t change the fact that people got off the the interurban railways as soon they could get into an automobile. Nobody forced 'em off the trains.
I find Interurbans fascinating. I do reccomend Hilton and Due’s book. The Model “T” just killed those railroads. The authors do a chapter on the decline of the interurbans. Here’s a sentence:
“The decline of the industry (Interurban Railways) began very slowly in the period immediately preceding World War I, gained momentum during the war despite the good record of many lines in this period, continued at a steady pace until 1924, and then burst for in full strength in the late twenties, culminating in complete collapse in the early thirties.” p.209
These passenger centric railways had been put into decline by automobiles before WWI - that says something.
Sure the switch to autos came with a price. Everything comes with a price. But people overwhelmingly prefered a hand crank started Ford to the electric railway cars. And it’s a free country.
Henry Ford fired up his first assembly line for Model Ts in 1913 at Highland Park, MI. IMHO the last centuries most important event in North American railroading. http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17449_18638_20846-54592--,00.html