BNSF Facility in Remington, In

[Anonymous]

Is a ghost town. Drove by this place yesterday, (not knowing it was even there, previously) And not one rail car was present, though at 5 PM, broad daylight, the yard lights were all burning mighty bright.

This must be part of the "excess capacity" that according to Mr Hemphill "no longer exists"

As would no doubt the former Wabash NS line from Detroit to Lafayette that , with few exceptions, sat empty most of my day yesterday driving along side it?

Whenever I read one of his articles (the june issue opener, in this case) "beating the drums" suggesting public contribution to the railroads to be our only means towards uncongested highways, I can't help but to think of the "redundancy" torn up and sold for scrap value by these very railroads who palms Mr Hemphill expects us to grace "in order to get our highways back"

What is it he's really saying? that (as an example) the tax payer should be delighted to see Union Pacific "mothball" Tennessee Pass and run right in with cash and kisses inviting them to add a 4th "optimally located" main through Nebraska? why? Nyet Commrade! Where's my stock dividend?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Wasn't the Remington facility a piggyback terminal that Santa Fe originally set up and reached through its association with TP&W? Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall it never really took off and became a poor location once BNSF opened its Joliet Ammunition Depot super site along with the previously opened Willow Springs yard. Cicero and Corwith changes, too? COFC/TOFC connections through Chicago made Remington obsolete?

Hey, you are probably correct, as my maps indicate the lines to be "TP&W". Don't overlook the mention that the existance of this transload facility was news to me to begin with. I was just driving along, then !BAM!.. "well, lookie here" etc. [:I]

Still, it was lit up like a christmas tree, someone obviously forgot to turn out the lights and pull down the shades on their way out the door.

The timing could not have been funnier though, as it was on my way home that I decided to stop by a news stand, and get the latest issue of Trains magazine. Which right on page i was Mr Hemphill's "installment xx" in what has become a serial appeal of his to "socialize" the railroads.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading his work, but as a reader of every issue these past 3-4 years, it's hard NOT to digest a theme from him having marxian undertones. The concept of the US Taxpayer buying back highway capacity by giving the poor RR's ca***o build new infastructure (since the existing "is at capacity") is one I have to laugh at, seeing the mentioned former Wabash line run by my house in near atrophy. This line used to hum, but no more. Same for the nearby former Nickleplate. Sure, if once the railroad scraps those lines, tears up the tracks, selling it to a recycler, THEN maybe they could argue the need of the taxpayer to lay rails on their poor poor behalf, but why even go there? is my point.

It's a nutshell game at best, if you see the "gobble it all up" UP laying the tennessee passto waste, then crying in their beer that they need more rails at my expense. PHOOEY!

Look at this Remington facility, as an example. So, as you say, the "function" was consolidated into Chicago? Well, what have we been reading about in Trains mag? That Chicago is a great "bottleneck" to freight flow on the rails? how INFASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DESPARATELY NEEDED to relieve this "horrible problem threatening the very republic"? Then look at this ghost town facility just a spit and a stones throw from Chicago, tell me where the sense of that line of thinking is?

Maybe in terms of jobs eliminated, if you ask the residents of Remington, but (trying to tie this all together) SINCE WHEN has it become a priority of the US tax payer to fund projects for private industry that reduce the number of jobs available to a hungry workforce?

That's the way I see it anyway,...excuse me if that view steps on some toes.

[Anonymous]

All executives must be farsighted, when a solution to a problem is right in front of them they never seem to realize it.[}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjm89

All executives must be farsighted, when a solution to a problem is right in front of them they never seem to realize it.[}:)]

Amen to that!

[jeaton]

I don't think any railroad is going to put their stockholders' money into added capacity for lines or facilities where it is not needed. Clearly the stretch of ex-Wabash and the Reminton intermodal facility aren't needed. Maybe they might be needed or useful in the future, so the lights are still on, but please explain to me how this excess capacity is of any use to the Union Pacific's ability to get trains up the Sunset Route.

In the very few cases where they have joined with other interests to get government funding, it has only occured in situations where there is clearly potential benefit to more than railroad stakeholders. To site a couple of examples, both the Chicago Plan and the I-95 initiative are proposed to get some trucks off the streets and highways. I think the study on the I-95 issue demonstrated that the cost of adding rail capacity would be about 75% of the cost of adding lane capacity. Take your pick. If you don't want your tax dollars spent on railroads, you can have more of your tax dollars spent on highways.

Now there is a great deal of concern that government grants to railroads will line the pockets of shareholders with added dividends. That may be true, but how much different is that than the fact that trucking company owners can line their pockets with profits because the tolls, fuel and other excise taxes, and registration fees that they pay do not come any where near their share of the cost of highways?

Speaking of highway user fees, what would be your take on the fact that the nationwide annual expenditure on highways runs about $50 BILLION over and above the collections from gas taxes, tolls and other such fees. I might be a little less outspoken about this if all government highway expenditures came from user fees, instead of having 40% of those cost drawn from the income, sales and properties taxes that I pay.

[Anonymous]

Well, I think you have to look at the serial nature of Mr Hemphills appeals. "UP into S.Cal" is just the latest example he has used. In the overall, the longterm approach he seems to sponsor is one of proclaiming that RR capacity is maxxed out all over, hence "a taxpayer funded solution" is to be our only salvation.... And my counterpoint is, just how much "redundancy" had to, (will have to) be auctioned off to the recyclers before *that* becomes a true statement? Surely it COULD happen, if the taxpayer is willing to play the sap enough to let the RR's get away with it.

Before we run in and decide how much the taxpayer is expected to suck up enhancing UP's "sunset" portfolio, lets first look at the capacity it is abandoning up in the colorado hills, to see if "one from column A can suffice for one in column B". I think on a macro level what is hidden under the nutshell is taxpayer funding of the optimization of RR assets, allowing them to forsake (example) a fuel intensive route for one they can ru n more profitably.....so, wheres MY divided check? you know the one that will result from my (the taxpayer) investment?

Same goes for the BNSF facility in Remington. Don't come crying to me (the taxpayer) that dire need exists in coping with the Chicago "bottleneck" when alternative infastructure in place and conveniantly nearby, is abandoned (yet fully lit with yard lights, at 5 pm, 3 hours before sundown) Is the taxpayer equally expected to subsidize the stupidity of lighting an abandoned yard in broad daylight? where does one draw the line?

"need" vs "want" can be a precarious animal to analyze,

[edblysard]

You may want to observe said facility for a 24 to 48 hour period, before declaring it a empty, or excessive yard.
If you had seen where I work last week, you would swear that it was a abandoned yard, and a waste of the taxpayers money, look this week, you swear we needed to double our crew sizes just to get the cars moving, from less than 200 cars in a 3500 car capacity yard to over 3500,(we run them through and park em in sideings) in a 48 hour period.
This stuff runs in cycles.
As for the line that sees no traffic, the railroad my have tried to abandon it in place, and been forbidden by the surf board.
UP had a line beside interstate 10 in Houston, they tried to abandon it several times, even managed to sell it to TDOT for expansion of the section of I10 between Katy and Houston.
The surf board refused to grant them the right to abandon service, because one shipper, out in Katy, a cement plant, still wanted to be served by rail.
So, once a week, UP ran a train out there, proceeded by a hirail repair truck to fix the joint bars and switches.
Once a week, less than 30 cars in and out, but still forced to service a shipper than generated such a small amount of revenue that UP had to lose money every mile that train travled.
Could UP have put that train and crew to better use clearing up the congestion here in Houston, (this was in the middle of the first meltdown) sure, but they had to service a customer that cost them money, because the feds said so.
When the cement plant finally gave it up three years ago, UP, who had to keep a small yard, Eureka, open to sevre them and maintain a 25 mile section of track to build a once a week train, pulled the switch from the west end of Eureka, tore up the west end of the yard, and was out of there in under a week, leaving the rail, ties and everything else in place for TDOT to deal with, who promptly ripped up the track in under a month to expand I 10.
So, what may appear to be "excess" may in fact, be a line that has no purpose what so ever.
This was a ex MKT line and yard, and there were other rail lines into Katy, but the cement plant was a captured service costomer, on this on line only, and the fed rules say as long as they request rail service, the carrier has to provide it.
Your line may be in the same postiion, a few customers only.
And remember, in a lot of instances, the carrier cant, by law, just walk away.
Same for the yard you mention, is purpose for being there may no longer exsist.
Just in the 8 years I have been doing this, the industry has undergone a big shift in the way it does business, we have a lot more trains than before, with the same amount of trackage.

Ed[:)]

[Anonymous]

That all ~could~ be Ed, but I kinda doubt it, especially in the instance of the former Wabash line, as it is key to keeping NS's "triple crown" world headquarters flowing. And the line does see spurts of mixed freight at various parts of the day, but nothing like last year.

Moreover, reading various "fan" websites, it looks like NS is going through a "re-routing" craze, trying to opitimize the assets picked up in the Conrail split. affecting both the nearby former Wabash as well as the "in area" former Nickleplate. with reduced traffic.

And hey, it's not all bad. Living near 3 grade crossings on the former Wabash, those horns last year woulda liked to drive me nuts, honkin ON 18 hours per day. Now it seems like there are "clusters" of activity at 11 am, 4 pm, and 9-10 pm that I can hear, the rest of the day....PLENTY OF AVAILABLE CAPACITY. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive because when I read Mr Hemphill write "taxpayers" I interpret that to mean "get out your wallet" and that just rubs me the wrong way knowing there are mainlines nearby to both St Louis and Chicago that have been "strategically" cut back.

Last year having driven the Tennessee Pass, there's a lot of good RR sitting there, hardly used, and IT IS a coveted "east west" transcon ostensibly under the control of the UP. The same UP with "east west" woes according to mr Hemphill's article, albeit perhaps not as fuel efficient as one could idealize, if left solely to daydreaming of what one might OPTIMALLY wish for. Which to my way of thinking, comes back to a question of why did UP aquire these roads in the first place? to gain the capacity, or simply to close off "channels" of competition?

If the former, well now that you have the capacity, then use it. if the latter, how ethical is it to let the railroad assimilate scrap value in closing a competing corridor, then running to the taxpayer, screaming "we need capacity"? Maybe try selling off that "surplus" capacity and lets just see if the power of competition can solve
that "sunset" bottleneck without taxpayer participation?

I've driven that southern route across the Arizona desert into the LA area, and know what ED? I doubt seriously that "land aquisition cost" is the barrier. Rather my bet is that the gist of Mr Hemphills observations is that UP would like someone to lay the rail and drive the spikes for them, $$$ being the prime motive. And that to me sounds like a solicitation for "partnership" hence my observation of "where's my dividend check?"

It's been a few years since I've driven it, but the I-40 and I-10 corridors didn't seem to be congested at all, all the way across the continental divide, so I question the relavent "payback" to the taxpayer of any such improvement ("doubling" the sunset route), all the way to the outskirts of the general LA area. Only there does real problem come into being, so what are we talking about? A couple hundred miles of track,...tops? And *that* is gonna break Uncle Pete? Gimme a break..

The entire ordeal wreaks of "pork barrel" to me, and granted, I may be overstepping my bounds in my regard of "taxpayer money" as being my own, but I see the converse of regarding "the taxpayer" as some benevolent entity far far removed, yet ever willing to rush in and solve all problems as how it got to the point where 39% of my paycheck is already gone before I ever see it, and I have zero desire to see that "grade" become any steeper, choo-choo or no choo-choo.

Tell me if you think I am entirely wrong?

[edblysard]

Your dividend check has already show up, in the form of cheaper goods, due to the lower transportation cost.

Imagine how much it would cost to truck lumber in from the mill/ forest to the user, on a city by city, site by site cost.

I will, next chance I get, take a photo of the Volvo/Volkswagon receiving lot here at the docks, you will see acres of VW Beetles, well over a thousand every week.

Add the cost of trucking them out to each southwest dealer from Houston, versus sending them to distribution centers via rail.

Your clothing, computer, just about every thing you have, in some part, arrived by rail.

Rail paid for by the carrier.

But the short trip from the distribution center to the dealer lot is on public roads, paid for by you.

But more and more of that road you paid for is used daily by private industry to move their goods, and the only "user fee" they pay is a small tax on the fuel they burn, which, by the way, the railroad pays also, and the occasional toll.

When was the last time you saw a Schnider, or UPS mow crew repairing pot holes or bridges on I 45?

But they helped create the holes, and rely on the public, me and you, to repair the roadway then must have to conduct business.

We subsidise them with every foot of roadway we pay for and build.

All I have ever gotten from Mark's editorials is that, if we, the public,(read businesses and public utilities) demand a specific service from railroads, then we should help bear part of the burden of paying for the maintainance of the infrastructure, much like we "pay" for the interstate, county, and city streets used by truckers, and UPS, FedEx, heck, even the US Postal Service, who use the road but dont pay to do so, nor pay to maintain it, at least not in any usable amount.

Dont make the mistake of assuming railroads do business the same way as they did even ten years ago, or even from one coast to the other.

From the outside, we appear somewhat in stasis, after all, one train looks pretty much like the next one, but if you could see where that one train came from, and where it was going, and how it was assembled, and why it was done that way, you would notice vast differences from carrier to carrier, district to district, yard to yard.

UP learned the hard way when they bought SP, how much of a spiderweb the rail network here is, and how quickly it becomes snarled.

They went to directional running out of desperation, they literally had no choice.
But surprise, they discovered it worked, and worked well.
Does the fact that you own a rail line mean you have to run trains on it?
Only if you like congestion.

Bringing every train in from the east, and sending every train out of the city to the west keeps it fluid now, and lines that used to see twenty trains a day may only see one or two now, but they move more trains in and out of Houston in a day than used to run in a 72 hour window.

Duplicate lines are a part of rail mergers, just as duplicate anything is a part of any similar businesses merging.

If you had two different computer systems in two different firms, and merged the firms, would you insist on running both system, because you had them?

Even if it meant two different hardware and software systems?

No, you find the one that works best, and use it.

You may sell the excess computers, inventory, what ever the duplicate is, or mothball it, but you dont use it just because you have it, thats a waste of money.
If your smart, and the duplicate cost millions to replace, you may keep it around as back up to your primary system.

As for the "public's" money, when HL&P, (excuse me, Center Point Enegry, this month, I think) demands delivery of PR Basin coal at such and such a rate per ton, and the carrier replys with a slightly higher rate than HL&P wants, who eats the difference in price?

You do, in higher enegry cost.

But, if the carriers cost in rail and maintainance is lowered, by the use of "public" funds, and the difference in cost per ton is offset, you pay less for your kilowatt hour enegry.

You ulitmatly pay the difference anyway, its just where you pay it, and in what percent of your "disposable" income that payment comes out of.

I wouldnt mind a penny per gallon extra gas tax, if that transforms into a 25% reduction in my summer light bill because HL&P gets it's coal cheaper.

We act like railroads are, and demand they perform like, public utilities, yet we chose not to fund them like public utilities.

Then we get upset when they remind us they are businesses, not utilities, and are in the business of making money moving "our" stuff.

If we want them to act like and perform as if they were public utilities, we should fund like they are one.

If not, then we should get out of their way, and let then conduct business in the same manner we allow all free enterprise to function, the strongest wins,

Ed

[Anonymous]

I gotta beg to differ with you on a couple points

#1 if they charged to move those goods, then I PAID my share, that'll showup right in their profit and loss statement. Now they want me (the taxpayer) to invest in their capital plant? move over PARDNER!! Let me belly up to the "distributions" bar and have myself a little refreshment from the net proceeds. It's called "ROI" (return on investment)

Secondly, funny you would bring up computer systems. In my last job I handled programming of the public ad screens that ran promos in the common area of the 3rd largest shopping mall on the face of the planet using Windows 98, Powerpoint, and Adobe Photoshop for Windows. I was also the SYS Admin for the automation system that ran the lights and Air conditioning on a networked system running IBM's OS/2 operating system.

Did I complain? YOU BETCHA! Every friggin day. The OS/2 system was soo much better, sooo much more stable than the win-idiot based system I was forced to use to program the ad screens, it wasn't funny. I felt like I was "soiling myself" using the MS windows based system, but the software I needed to use was windows based,...so I used it,..and complained relentlessly...something to do with "market dominance" g'rrrrr[banghead]

[Anonymous]

If memory serves me, Remmington closed last October. Yes it did run on the TP&W. I had heard that some contractor had made a play to buy the TP&W with the plan of tearing it up for scrap. The scrap was worth more than the purchase price. STB wouldn't allow the abandonment so it didn't sell to the contractor.

Now, here's an interesting spin on the "maxed out capacity arguement....

Every year, the RR's go through a number of peaks - coal, grain, intermodal, etc. They always seem to manage through it. In the case of the "pre-Christmas" intermodal peak, volumes will nearly double. Grain will go from zero to gonzo overnight come fall rush. Coal goes up significantly during the summer a/c season.

The commodities somewhat run on different parts of the networks for BNSF and for UP respectively. Regardless, they manage through a process of handling greater-than 100% of the usual volume.

Its kind of like how everybody fits into church on Christmas and Easter, when all the extra people show up.

So what does that tell you? I would argue that what the RR's traditionally consider "full" i.e. normal volume, isn't really full at all. It might be 80% or 90%, but it isn't full. If it was full, then, by definition, you couldn't add more. But, come peak, they do. That means that they really do have more capacity than is needed perhaps 8 months of the year and have slightly less that what is needed during the peaks.

If they were using their assets at the same intensity all year as they do during peak-season, I bet they'd cover their cost of capital with no problems. They may have to identify the choke-points in their network to ease some pressure, but it begs the question of whether they really could move more than they are today.

Have you ever sat along a supposedly busy main line for a half hour, an hour or more with no trains passing by? I've sat along the supposedly maxed-out BNSF double track transcon main for nearly 2 hrs at times with no trains at all. Same with UP on the Central Corridor.

Here's the one, underlying thing that would have to change, shipper / customer demand behavior. There is a desire to use the railroad as a just-in-time transportation mode. i.e. shippers have gotten away with this sort of stuff: retailers who ship like crazy in the 2 months before Christmas. Grain shippers who ship like mad for 4 months following the harvest. Utility companies who wait until May to start shipping coal for summer demand.

Yes, there is an inventory cost to the customer to hold the product longer. At the same time, there is great value to the RR to get these shipping patterns flattened out to a more year-around stable volume, where the assets continue to be used at 100% vs the current peaks and valleys. How do you get shippers there? Good question - it probably has to be financial (i.e. surcharges or credits ).

I think that the right now the church is built for 95% of the Christmas and Easter parishoners, but nobody owns up to that yet.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Though I think I've always been in the minority in thinking this way, I've always thought that the interstate highway system should be a toll system where the people using it (cars and trucks) would pay for the cost of it and receive the benefit of it. The endless demand of a free good would be held in check by dollars and cents that way. The regular highway system would continue to be "free" access, and the military security need for "autobahns" would be satisfied.

The first interstates were and are toll systems, and were built on relatively cheap land and passed near cities, not through them. Today, massive chunks of money are being spent to rebuild worn-out urban interchanges that economics would dictate shouldn't have been built in the first place. The rebuilding of the Marquette interchange in Milwaukee at upwards of a billion bucks is soaking up most of the funds available to maintain the rest of Wisconsin's interstates.

One poor economic decision plopped onto another plopped onto another. (I realize highways have been used as a tool for ecomomic development just as railroads were, but railroads were overbuilt too. Maybe it's starting to be time to make the actual users pay the full cost of the interstates, and allow disinvestment in some of the least economic roadways).

I hear what you are saying,... be interesting to see all the people "flock" to the old US highway routes if they did start charging for interstate usage,,,,,,sure make the few remaining roadside motel operators happy [8)]

[Rodney Beck]

Hello AntiGates

As far as computer operating systems between the railroads they are not the same no (2) railroads have the same programs I.E. just look at the melt down caused when the UP took over the SP everyone in Omaha said it would work but in did not. As far as dispatching the signal systems also needed to be programed into the mix. Now for the goverment I realy do not like people who talk out of both sides of their mouth. Ok lets talk trucking Ed is right just figure trucking everything your light bill would be so high that I bet you could not pay it also you car/truck I have went truck shopping and just got a new one if it had been trucked all over from the plant to the dealer the cost would have been about 32,000 not the 24,000 that was on the sticker. Rodney Beck conductor BNSF

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rodney Beck

Hello AntiGates

As far as computer operating systems between the railroads they are not the same no (2) railroads have the same programs I.E. just look at the melt down caused when the UP took over the SP everyone in Omaha said it would work but in did not. As far as dispatching the signal systems also needed to be programed into the mix. Now for the goverment I realy do not like people who talk out of both sides of their mouth. Ok lets talk trucking Ed is right just figure trucking everything your light bill would be so high that I bet you could not pay it also you car/truck I have went truck shopping and just got a new one if it had been trucked all over from the plant to the dealer the cost would have been about 32,000 not the 24,000 that was on the sticker. Rodney Beck conductor BNSF

Hi Rodney,

The "trucking" angle is understood, but that argument seems kinda out in left field, and almost has a taint of extortion to it, it smacks of the railroads refusing to deliver goods unless they get the public investment in their physical plant? Why don't you try using a gun if you wi***o hold me up?[:-^]



Here is the way I see it. If you and I were working together and it was coffee break time, and I said to you "you buy, and I'll fly" that MIGHT be a deal you're willing to make. But if I say "hey, buy me a Starbucks franchise and I'll send one coffee back to you ~free of charge~ to show my gratitude" ...any takers? Why not? you get your free coffee, and don't have to leg it out to go get it? Same deal for you,..right?

Oh, the fact that I'll then be able to sell coffee to others at a profit, on your dime, ~bothers~ you some how? Why is that,..afterall you still get your coffee.

Now MAYBE even that offer can be tuned to where it makes sense, supposing I offered to cut you in for half the profits, with me doing all the work,.....PROVIDED you wished to get into the coffee business in the first place.

Back in context, but I really don't think I wanna get into the railroad business if it means more than 39% coming out of my paycheck before I even see it, thankyou very much... The porkbarrel is overly full as it is

[Anonymous]

DblStack.

Just to assure we are on the same page,....you are talking "Toledo, Peoria, & Western" correct? Owned at one time by the SF, now a "Rail America" holding?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

AntiGates,

Sorry to break the news to you, but truckers, airlines and barge lines are already making money on your dime. It's OK if you don't want to let anybody else step up to the trough, but rest assured that those guys are not going to see their deal get cut short. And, as I have indicated previously, capacity for those modes comes at a higher price than rail capacity.

I will let Mark Hemphill speak for himself, if he wishes to, but I don't see any indication that the Class 1 carriers are making any significant effort to get government subsidies. Speculation that subsidies may be needed tend to come from industry observers who note that the railroads are not generating sufficient ca***o acquire capitol to pay for the capacity improvements necessary for continued growth. That is not something that senior management wants to speak of, as it isn't good for the stock price.

So why are railroad in that shape? Maybe the fact that the competition doesn't have to cover their full (public and private) cost has something to do with it.

There is perhaps an even larger issue for the railroads. They spent almost a century subject to federal laws that defined and regulated them as a public utility. That didn't work out too bad until the competitive modes started to reap the benefit of government subsidies for infrastructure. At about the end of that period, all of the major carriers in the Northeast were operating in bankruptcy, and the Rock Island flat ran out of money and had to shut down. It boiled down to a choice. If the government felt that railroad service was necessary for the economic welfare of the country, they would either have to cut them loose from the "public utility" requirements or start subsidising.

So the choice was to let the railroads essentially "private" entities. And just like Microsoft, the owners or their managers get produce whatever they want to realize their profit. You can complain all you want, but basicly the free enterprise system only leaves you the option to "vote" with your checkbook.

You are correct, my main thrust is bound inseperably to the philosophy "enough is enough". I may not be able to undo what is done, but, put a fresh plate in front of me, and ask "whadda ya think?"....be prepared for an honest opinion.

That's why I've made several referances to the 39% income tax level I wish not to see expand,.

I don't "begrudge" the railroads specifically because they are railroads, so much as I do the implicit concept of (further) feathering the nest of ANY entity allowing them to expand their revenue stream, without hard promise of ROI.

Merely "kissing the money off" under some pretext of buying Highways back, when I know for a fact (example) that the two interstates paralleling the sunset route are not particularly over burdened,....just seems foolish.

Am I a "trucking" fan? NO! Do I prefer highways over railways? Well, I have to admit, ol Uncle Petey isn't gonna let me drive over his dual mainline sunset route if it does get built, taxpayer money or no taxpayer money, so It's hard to answer that question with total objectivity,...but I'll say "no I'm not" To the extent that,...perhaps you've heard about the plans to extend interstate 69 down to Houston? Calling it the "Nafta Highway"? Wouldn't bother me a bit to see that cleverly disguised ploy for Texas to share it's immigration problem with the rest of the nation get the axe, and spend that money designing RR abatement solutions. (rotsa ruck on that one though, it seems that one is seen as someones priority, despite the RR's general views that demand for North-South movement of freight is nill.)

Maybe we could spend some of that money reviving the poor poor canal business too? You know the Wabash RR helped bankrupt the state of Indiana years ago by bleeding off traffic from it's newly completed "wabash and erie canal", wheres the "hommage" to the canal people? (sorry about the sarcasm, but I couldn't help it, in this instance it "fits")

[edblysard]

Okay, now that crack about the NAFTA highway was a pretty cheap shot...
I think everyone north of San Antonio is entittled to really good mexican food and excellent lawn care too...
Ed[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Okay, now that crack about the NAFTA highway was a pretty cheap shot...
I think everyone north of San Antonio is entittled to really good mexican food and excellent lawn care too...
Ed[:D]

Sadly enough, I haven't had a decent plate of Chile Verde since leaving S. California a year ago..

On the Highway it's funny, for 20+ years the locals have been lobbying hard to get I-69 extended from Indianapolis to either Evansville, or Memphis. With the Fed always putting the kibosh on it saying "But, there's not sufficient NEED for such a highway"

Then the Clinton Administration drums up NAFTA, the Fed comes in and says "Hey guys, good news! We're gonna do the I-69 thing you've been asking for, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TEXAS!"

Now, the Locals are the ones saying "But gee,....come to think about it, there's no real need for such a road"...etc

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Re: the canal stuff. The Army Corps is pushing hard to $revamp$ the upper Mississippi.

Why do I have a heart for something that's a loser's game?[V]
I think I'll go model railroad...

Really? Wow! To do formal "freight" canals? Or things more related to allowing them to better regulate the Water flow of the mississippi?

If the later, yeah I'm somewhat familiar with that, the Corps has done it's dernedest to ruin the Water level of the St Mary's river behind my house. It seems some genius determined that excess runoff (rain) could be diverted easily from the Wabash river valley to the Maumee Valley, with just a little creative work at Grand Lake St Mary's, over in Ohio. So now where I once had boat docks, the water level raises 5 feet eveytime we get a good rain, roughly overnight, where previously the net effect was about a foot and a half. The improvements they came through here and did as part of it all, were sold to us as "flood control". Funny thing is, what used to be one big flood with the spring thaw, is now one big flood with the spring thaw and a half dozen smaller floods throughout the year, making me reluctant to even leave a boat chained at my own boatdock.

Gotta love the corps.

[rrnut282]

You forgot to ask "whos flood" .

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

You forgot to ask "whos flood" .

Heh heh,....no kidding!

Grew up here, spent 25 years watching the river, learning it's character, then lived away for 20 years, and the "improvements" were done while my mom lived here alone.

She passed away, and the housing market sucked, so I decided to move back here. . Thinking "well I need to buy a boat", but first seeing some boat dock repairs were in order. Went down one July morning to find my forms under 6 feet of water. Thinking "well that's strange" so I postponed the work. Next good rainfall,...same thing.. Never in the 25 years I had familiarity with the property, did the water ever come up that much in the summertime.

Remembering bits and pieces she had told me about the work, back when the corps was in here, I started to do a little info digging, and came upon the local flood district, who was all giddy with "Yes isn't it just WONDERFUL?" And I'm like "NO, not really" As if it even mattered..[censored]

[jeaton]

AntiGates,

I just got the July Trains this morning and Larry Kaufman's column address the transportation funding issue. Good new for you-President Bu***hreaten's to veto anything over $256 billion for the 6 year authorization, the house bill is at $275b and the Senate bill is at $318b. Interestingly, the house bill includes 2800 earmarked projects for individual districts. Kaufman notes some of them have a vague connection to transportation. One part of the bill I am sure you will like is the provision to relieve large corporations from the Alternative Minimum Tax provisions.

So anyway, he also notes that Bush's own U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that it will take $375 billion in Federal expenditures "just to sustain the existing highway system".

Hope the stretches of US Highway that you use are in good shape.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

AntiGates,

One part of the bill I am sure you will like is the provision to relieve large corporations from the Alternative Minimum Tax provisions.

Was that REALLY called for?

Nevermind, it doesn't matter.

What would you like to see? $50 billion in new taxes earmarked for rail giveaways, and a nice engineers cap so you can go play "choo-choo"?

[jeaton]

No, I was serious. I thought you favored tax cuts.

I'll take the hat. No problem.

As for the $50 Billion, I would just as soon see it put into highways. Maybe they would fix the piece of ---- part of I-43 that I have to drive almost daily or maybe make it so I could get from Gary to Indianapolis at an average speed of something more than 54 MPH.

For $50 billion on a six year plan the per capita cost is 29 bucks a year. My family of three makes it $87. My tax bill actually runs double the average, so say my share is $174. I'll skip the part about getting through Indiana any faster. The beating my car takes is costing me more than $174 a year or whatever, I might have in added taxes to fix the highways.

[Anonymous]

Oh, OK (ha ha) the "anti socialist" in me puts me right up there with the likes of "Enron" ehhhhh?

To me "tax breaks for the big guys" looks strikingly similar to handing them money, which I thought I was demonstrating a disdain for, in this thread.

Oh well, I guess you caught me, time for a "full disclosure" statement: ~We here at AntiGates International take this moment to reaffirm our commitment to crushing the little guy, no matter what the cost.~

Better now? [8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

AntiGates,



I will let Mark Hemphill speak for himself, if he wishes to,

Looks as though he'd rather not.

I suspect his serial appeal towards this end, is mostly well intentioned "cheerleading" or "sabre rattling" designed to lift spirits, as much as anything else. Understandable too, in context that he edits a train magazine, the fan following no doubt could use a lift in spirits, what better way than to paint a picture of some HYPE-othetical "shot in the arm" that, conceivably, could fix everything, provided the money was there to spend *** and everybody lived HAPPILY ever after*** etc.