Regulatory panel says the railroad promoters' application was 'incomplete'
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/08/31-great-lakes-ended
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
I guess $151.00 doesn't buy you what it used to!
Seriously? $151 bucks? Embarrassing.
http://www.lionel.com/products/thomas-friendstm-diesel-lionchieftm-ready-to-run-set-6-30221
This costs $200. Could they finance the rest with $151 in the bank?
If they could finance the purchase, it would be more valuable than what they propose in the 12 inch to the foot scale
Johnny
Guess they thought if the Pacific Imperal Railroad could do it ...
No big deal, all they have to do is to refile meeting the boards requirements. That isd what they have lawyers and accountants for.
rdamon Guess they thought if the Pacific Imperal Railroad could do it ...
Well, I think that PIR maybe had more than $151 in the bank...not much more...but enough "pie in the sky" to rival Marie Callender's baking output.
Dang, now I'm hungry for pie!
ChuckCobleigh Well, I think that PIR maybe had more than $151 in the bank...not much more...but enough "pie in the sky" to rival Marie Callender's baking output.
One fears the project was less Marie Callender and more Betty Crocker...
billio ChuckCobleigh Well, I think that PIR maybe had more than $151 in the bank...not much more...but enough "pie in the sky" to rival Marie Callender's baking output. One fears the project was less Marie Callender and more Betty Crocker...
Amazing what a misplaced decimal can do....$151.00 (vs.$151) . With those available funds, the 'Promoters', GLTC, et al., did not have enough funds to buy a plane ticket out of Illinois. Which they would have probably would have needed at some point....
I think, it was at some point earlier, in this discussion BaltACD, made a statement that the "... GLTC was a solution in search of a problem..." { possibly, a search for another 'Golden Fleece'?}. After all, it is in Illinois(?).
Maybe for 151 bucks they could invest in a brass spike (brass, because you wouldn't want to use "bleeping golden" in Illinois), to be placed, with appropriate fanfare, at the completion of a major CREATE project, such as the 75th Street corridor, which might help perform the funcion desired by the GLB (open to other suggestions for location). Make sure the place is known, and the spike maintained and replaced as necessary as "the GLB Memorial Spike."
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
There may be enough shell casings around the area to melt down for the brass.
billioOne fears the project was less Marie Callender and more Betty Crocker...
As Benjamin Braddock declares to his father's suggestion that his plan to wed Elaine Robinson sounded kind of half-baked: "Oh, no, sir, it's completely baked."
Too bad the plan is kuput. From a hobbiest perspective, it would have been neat to watch a brand-new railroad be built. I mean, COME ON! A brand new railroad!
One wonders how much the Union Pacific and Central Pacific had in the bank before the government offered the about $55 million in bonds to build the roads. Focusing on the amount of money a venture has is silly. They won't get funding until approvals by various agencies. Agencies should not dismiss a venture for funding they cannot get until approved. Catch 22 all over again.
petitnjOne wonders how much the Union Pacific and Central Pacific had in the bank before the government offered the about $55 million in bonds to build the roads. Focusing on the amount of money a venture has is silly. They won't get funding until approvals by various agencies. Agencies should not dismiss a venture for funding they cannot get until approved. Catch 22 all over again.
I suspect UP & CP each had more the $151 'free cash' available before seeking and getting the US financing to further their efforts.
The old saying, 'It takes money to make money' certainly applies to railroading. Just like getting any loan, you have to have such a financial position that you could 'possibly' do what you want the loan for, without gettng the loan. Those making the loans desire to be paid back - WITH INTEREST! If you don't present yourself as being able to do it, you won't get the loan.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDI suspect UP & CP each had more the $151 'free cash' available before seeking and getting the US financing to further their efforts. The old saying, 'It takes money to make money' certainly applies to railroading. Just like getting any loan, you have to have such a financial position that you could 'possibly' do what you want the loan for, without gettng the loan. Those making the loans desire to be paid back - WITH INTEREST! If you don't present yourself as being able to do it, you won't get the loan.
Balt,
An 'old saw' comes to mind. It basically said that to obtain a loan you had to prove to the lender that you didn't really need the money. Today, many interests are seeking federal funds for various sundry projects; some of them worthwhile, others not so much.
Although I'm not experienced in that area I can't help think that anything that would reduce the congestion in Chicago would be of benefit to not only the railroads but the entire economy. Reduced travel times would result in lower costs for the railroads and hopefully consumer prices.
But it brings to mind whether the new railroad can be privately financed and be profitable or whether taxpayer assistance is required. If the former, I'm all for the bypass. If the latter, taxpayers have taken enough beating from past experience to wish to opt out.
Norm
Norm48327 BaltACD I suspect UP & CP each had more the $151 'free cash' available before seeking and getting the US financing to further their efforts. The old saying, 'It takes money to make money' certainly applies to railroading. Just like getting any loan, you have to have such a financial position that you could 'possibly' do what you want the loan for, without gettng the loan. Those making the loans desire to be paid back - WITH INTEREST! If you don't present yourself as being able to do it, you won't get the loan. Balt, An 'old saw' comes to mind. It basically said that to obtain a loan you had to prove to the lender that you didn't really need the money. Today, many interests are seeking federal funds for various sundry projects; some of them worthwhile, others not so much. Although I'm not experienced in that area I can't help think that anything that would reduce the congestion in Chicago would be of benefit to not only the railroads but the entire economy. Reduced travel times would result in lower costs for the railroads and hopefully consumer prices. But it brings to mind whether the new railroad can be privately financed and be profitable or whether taxpayer assistance is required. If the former, I'm all for the bypass. If the latter, taxpayers have taken enough beating from past experience to wish to opt out.
BaltACD I suspect UP & CP each had more the $151 'free cash' available before seeking and getting the US financing to further their efforts. The old saying, 'It takes money to make money' certainly applies to railroading. Just like getting any loan, you have to have such a financial position that you could 'possibly' do what you want the loan for, without gettng the loan. Those making the loans desire to be paid back - WITH INTEREST! If you don't present yourself as being able to do it, you won't get the loan.
The problem most don't see about the operation of Chicago - It is the actual destination for a high volume of the traffic that enters the city. Additionally the through traffic doesn't just go to a single carrier upon leaving the city and those carriers departing Chicago go in multiple directions. There are many more complications to the traffic patterns than 'solutions' such as Great Lakes bypass proposal contemplate.
$151.00? Gee the cheapest Lionel train set is $250.00.
Now really they did find about 1.5 million dollers in investment capital but that is still short because its about 500,000 to a 1,000,000 a mile on existing right of way to build track.
BaltACDThe problem most don't see about the operation of Chicago - It is the actual destination for a high volume of the traffic that enters the city. Additionally the through traffic doesn't just go to a single carrier upon leaving the city and those carriers departing Chicago go in multiple directions. There are many more complications to the traffic patterns than 'solutions' such as Great Lakes bypass proposal contemplate.
Couldn't some of that traffic be diverted to a location, or multiple locations where through trains experienced no delay? I'm thinking of a 'neutral zone' ala Conrail where transfers and hand-offs take place. Wouldn't that help clear the congestion in Chicago? The proposed railroad may not be the answer but there has to be a solution somewhere. Not perfect, but it seems to have merit at this time.
Exchange between the eastern and westrern roads at Chicago is not set in stone. There are other options that may benefit all.
Can someone explain why the J or CN Loop is not working?
Norm48327 BaltACD The problem most don't see about the operation of Chicago - It is the actual destination for a high volume of the traffic that enters the city. Additionally the through traffic doesn't just go to a single carrier upon leaving the city and those carriers departing Chicago go in multiple directions. There are many more complications to the traffic patterns than 'solutions' such as Great Lakes bypass proposal contemplate. Couldn't some of that traffic be diverted to a location, or multiple locations where through trains experienced no delay? I'm thinking of a 'neutral zone' ala Conrail where transfers and hand-offs take place. Wouldn't that help clear the congestion in Chicago? The proposed railroad may not be the answer but there has to be a solution somewhere. Not perfect, but it seems to have merit at this time. Exchange between the eastern and westrern roads at Chicago is not set in stone. There are other options that may benefit all.
BaltACD The problem most don't see about the operation of Chicago - It is the actual destination for a high volume of the traffic that enters the city. Additionally the through traffic doesn't just go to a single carrier upon leaving the city and those carriers departing Chicago go in multiple directions. There are many more complications to the traffic patterns than 'solutions' such as Great Lakes bypass proposal contemplate.
If rate divisions were the same at all Gateways - Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans - it might change some interline routings; however, at present those rate divisions are not and thus the current economics benefit the Chicago gateway.
I am not a rate expert! But rates and their division among the carriers participating in a haul are what make railroads run. Operational 'solutions' have to make economic sense for all participating parties.
BaltACD If rate divisions were the same at all Gateways - Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans - it might change some interline routings; however, at present those rate divisions are not and thus the current economics benefit the Chicago gateway. I am not a rate expert! But rates and their division among the carriers participating in a haul are what make railroads run. Operational 'solutions' have to make economic sense for all participating parties.
What you are saying about rate divisions does not make sense to me, and I mean that in an inqusitive, not argumentative way.
We both know that there are/were three great rate making territories, Official, Southern and Western. Official was north of the Mason-Dixon line and east of Chicago and the Mississippi River. Southern was south of Official and east of the river. The west was everything else.
Lets consider Chicago. I presume that West Coast states to East coast states in Official Territory divisions are roughly 2/3 to west and 1/3 to east. Yes, it is almost a mileage prorate, but lets assume that. Chicago is the natural, meaning short mileage on good lines interchange point for virtually all of Official Territory to the West. All the western routes are roughly 2200 miles from the western ports to Chicago. The eastern routes are more variable in terms of miles but lets keep it simple and assume 1,000 miles or so.
My question is, who can make a change in the rate division stick? Assume the eastern roads want 5% more over Chicago to force some trafic to St. Louis. First they have to conspire, and the historic rate bureau anti-trust exemption no longer exists. I suspect the lawyers would discourage the discussion/conspiricy. Why would the BNSF and UP think this was a good idea? At this point I doubt the STB wants to mess with that tar baby!
What about East St. Louis as a alternative for Official Territory to West Coast traffic? I think main lines east are less capable than to Chicago, and may be even longer from some eastern destinations. On the west, mileage to Oregon and Washington is certaily greater. Why would either side favor STL? Who would take a shrink to make STL work? Oh, by the way there are only two rail bridges across the river, plus the UP at Ilmo. I suspect most carload traffic would be switched by the TRRA and doubt that they work for free.
My theory is that given an Origin-Destination pair there is usually one E-W interchange that makes the most sense, that is the short mileage main line route. Given that, who is going to take a shrink to force the traffic out of its "natural" route, and why?
Mac
As I said, rates and divisions are not my area of expertise.
The other thing you would be facing if large volumes of traffic to shift to a different gateway - the physical plants on both sides of that gateway have been 'right sized' to the traffic that exists today. I doubt, given current philosophies that carriers would want to invest in physical plant to facilitate shifting traffic to alternate gateways.
When I was working, the carriers had negotiated blocking patterns to facilitate run through trains for the benefit of the carriers involved. My understanding is that EHH has withdrawn CSX from those agreements and will ultimately pay the price with additional switching and terminal congestion on property as well as having connecting carriers become much less than cooperative in their dealings with CSX. All from the book "How to Lose Friends and PO everyone".
It makes sense that each carrier wants the most profit they can get from a haul. OTOH, wouldn't they also profit from expediting shipments by the shortest way? It seems certain that shippers would pay a premium to have their cargo delivered in the time the railroads promise.
Norm48327 Balt, It makes sense that each carrier wants the most profit they can get from a haul. OTOH, wouldn't they also profit from expediting shipments by the shortest way? It seems certain that shippers would pay a premium to have their cargo delivered in the time the railroads promise.
Without doing a detailed study, I am not so sure that the Chicago gateway isn't the 'shortest' way for the traffic that it is currently handling.
When a railroad deals with 'short' that is also a function of their physical plant at and feeding the gateway. In the case of CSX, the lines feeding the New Orleans and Memphis gateways are single track and not in a condition to handle a great deal more traffic in either direction. The St. Louis gateway has it's own issues with the western carriers terminating on the West side of the Mississippi and CSX on the East side. NS operates through St.Louis on its own rails and goes on to Kansas City for their connections to the West.
zardoz Too bad the plan is kuput. From a hobbiest perspective, it would have been neat to watch a brand-new railroad be built. I mean, COME ON! A brand new railroad!
This Finance Docket is kaput, but is there a sensable project hidden in it?
Some details from their application. Project was roughly equavalent to 250 miles of two main track line. I state it that way because there were two single track segments. Projected cost was $2.8 billion. My calculator says that is $11.2 million per mile which seems low for a grade separated line. They projected an average daily train density of 50+ three years out on the dense segment which basically started at the UP (cnw) main, picked up BNSF from the northwest and from Galesburg, and ran to NS & CSX in northern Indiana.
I imagined a wholy owned subsidiary of BNSF that would build from BNSF to eastern connectons only. If UP wanted to connect, they would build their own line between the two. The proponents seem to plan to connect with everybody including WSOR and CN at north end. CN has no need for this at all, they have their own routes!
I came to about 160 miles, all two main tracks. I would put the divide between east and west basically due south of Chicago so as to not disturb rate divisions. No need to open that can of worms. Some sort of yard would be required. KISS and assume block swap and layover only.
Work it as a toll road. Each user supplies its own crews and pays a per car mile toll to the owner. Cars stay in line haul account until interchange. There are lots of good reasons for this, AND it allows for a simple economic analysis.
What are the economics? First I increased cost per mile to $15,000,000 which makes capital investment 2.4 billion. Taking the original proponents 50 trains per day at 100 cars per train, and my assumption that trains ran the full 160 miles at a toll of $.40 per car mile, I got gross revenue of $116,800,000. Even without maintenance of way and dispatching costs, that is 4.8% ROI, clearly inadequate. Gross revenue would need to be about five times what I calculated to give investable ROI after say 20% operating expenses.
Looks like a tall hill to climb, even if someone was willing to consider a major investment.
Comments and criticism invited.
Mac's analysis - the sort I like to do - reminds me of a saying seen in Trains, attributed to Alfred E. Perlman as I recall:
"A beautiful theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts."
- PDN.
GLB is a solution for a problem they don't understand and don't fix.
BaltACD GLB is a solution for a problem they don't understand and don't fix.
Paul_D_North_Jr Mac's analysis - the sort I like to do - reminds me of a saying seen in Trains, attributed to Alfred E. Perlman as I recall: "A beautiful theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts." - PDN.
Which reminds me of a saying seen in Mad, attributed to Alfred E. Neuman as I recall:
"What, Me worry?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.