Fracking may be a factor to save some of these lines. SW Ohio and NE Pennsy are former coal fields that are now fracking fields. Railroads now bring in frak sand and frak fluids and carry out frak gas and oil. Gennese and Wyomings Buffalo and Pittsburgh is a major player in this game. https://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GWR
Thier are no such thing as a good bankruptcy. Perhaps Donald trump or the major air lines came out OK. The people who are hurt, the employees who lose thier jobs, vendors and other companies who are never paid what they are owed, bond holders and shareholder's who lose their investments.
The top managers of trump's corporations and other companies that went bankrupted may have been given golden parachute's but everyone else lost.
Be nice to keep politics out of it.
As per the Law Dictionary, which features Blacks Law Dictionary, People might ask "How is Donald Trump able to file for bankruptcy so many times?" The answer is "He didn't." Trump himself has never filed for bankruptcy. His corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times.
Most of the nation's railroads or their predecessors have filed for bankruptcy at sometime in their corporate history.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Phoebe VetOr he could just burn the creditors by declaring bankruptsy like he has 4 times in the past.
But they were the best bankruptcies! People could only dream of having bankruptcies like him!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
schlimm JPS1 The feds could legislate a change to Medicare, for example, which would reduce the out year obligations, but it cannot refuse to pay the interest on the public debt unless it wants to default, which is unlikely. One candidate "suggested" renegotiating the debt with creditors, in fact. At least that was his position for one news cycle.
JPS1 The feds could legislate a change to Medicare, for example, which would reduce the out year obligations, but it cannot refuse to pay the interest on the public debt unless it wants to default, which is unlikely.
One candidate "suggested" renegotiating the debt with creditors, in fact. At least that was his position for one news cycle.
Or he could just burn the creditors by declaring bankruptsy like he has 4 times in the past.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
MidlandMike daveklepper... The Surface Trasnsportation Board would, of course, insure that all toles would be proportional to weight and on an pervihicle-mile basis. Does the STB already regulate private toll roads? Railroads set prices with shippers, and if shippers have a problem they file a complaint with STB. Tarrifs have been gone for years. Some new toll roads don't even take coins, you must have a credit-like card.
daveklepper... The Surface Trasnsportation Board would, of course, insure that all toles would be proportional to weight and on an pervihicle-mile basis.
The Surface Trasnsportation Board would, of course, insure that all toles would be proportional to weight and on an pervihicle-mile basis.
Does the STB already regulate private toll roads? Railroads set prices with shippers, and if shippers have a problem they file a complaint with STB. Tarrifs have been gone for years. Some new toll roads don't even take coins, you must have a credit-like card.
The latest in toll roads don't have manned toll plaza's - correct change or license tag reader that will send a bill to the owner of the license, others don't accept money at all, it is either 'E-Z-Pass' (or equivalent) or the license tag reader routine.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
daveklepper ... The Surface Trasnsportation Board would, of course, insure that all toles would be proportional to weight and on an pervihicle-mile basis.
...
The
MidlandMike daveklepper Mysuggestion for cutting the deficit and at the same time put trucking compeition with rail on a more equal footing is to sell the Interstate Highway System to investors who would make it into a series of toll roads, with the purchase price paid off, plus maintenance and imiprovements, paid out of the tolls. Be careful what you wish for. Private companies run the business for the benefit of their largest customers. In this case it would be for large trucking and bus companies. Maybe AAA and large fleets could get deals also. There is no guarantee that the turnpike companies wouldn't get subsidies like transit operations do. There would be no more freedom of the road.
daveklepper Mysuggestion for cutting the deficit and at the same time put trucking compeition with rail on a more equal footing is to sell the Interstate Highway System to investors who would make it into a series of toll roads, with the purchase price paid off, plus maintenance and imiprovements, paid out of the tolls.
Mysuggestion for cutting the deficit and at the same time put trucking compeition with rail on a more equal footing is to sell the Interstate Highway System to investors who would make it into a series of toll roads, with the purchase price paid off, plus maintenance and imiprovements, paid out of the tolls.
Be careful what you wish for. Private companies run the business for the benefit of their largest customers. In this case it would be for large trucking and bus companies. Maybe AAA and large fleets could get deals also. There is no guarantee that the turnpike companies wouldn't get subsidies like transit operations do. There would be no more freedom of the road.
[/quoteabove]
Cincinnati (and Indianapolis) absolutely need to be served at better hours. I'd have the westbound leave 6 hours later. It would arrive in Cincinnati in the morning, Indy around noon, and Chicago about 6pm. The eastbound leaves 6 hours earlier from Chicago so it arrives in Cincinnati before midnight and gets to New York earlier in the afternoon. That doesn't allow for transfers to/from western trains but would Cincinnati rather have transfers or better hours? I would split the Cardinal and Hoosier State and have the Hoosier State run daily in the current Hoosier/Cardinal times.
If the Cardinal can't be rescheduled to better serve Indy/Cincy, it would be better to just break up the train. You could extend the Hoosier State to Cincinnati and reschedule it to benefit all three major cities involved and then have a new Lynchburger in the Cardinal slot so Charlottesville-New York service is maintained. Best of all, both of these trains can be daily and you wouldn't have to worry about Buckingham Branch or a potential downgrade east of Cincinnati.
RMEBaltACD Serving alternate intermediate locations, that are not on the 'normal' route will always have a trip duration time penalty. RME wrote the following post 3 hours ago: Sometimes a really tremendous one, if the 'intermediate location' pairs are to be served at human-acceptable hours...
RME wrote the following post 3 hours ago: Sometimes a really tremendous one, if the 'intermediate location' pairs are to be served at human-acceptable hours...
So why not change the end point to Cincy at an acceptable hour and see if that increases the ridership??
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BaltACDServing alternate intermediate locations, that are not on the 'normal' route will always have a trip duration time penalty.
Sometimes a really tremendous one, if the 'intermediate location' pairs are to be served at human-acceptable hours...
There is also the 'California Zephyr' criterion that end-to-end speed may NOT be even particularly necessary for all or part of a LD train service -- and perhaps even further, keeping to announced schedule might not be, provided connections or accommodations are assured.
It might be interesting to see how much of a parallel there is between people riding LD trains and people arranging for containerized freight shipments -- in both cases, there is often much more value in the guaranteed arrival (and in the quality inherent in the trip) than in absolute time reduction.
Philly Amtrak Fan ROBERT WILLISON Not saying that the rerouted cardinal would be faster just plugging a hole in the Amtrak system It should be. If you're going to have two Chicago to New York trains at least make the second one competitive in terms of time to the first. Same with Chicago to Washington DC. The Silver Star is slower than the Silver Meteor NYP-MIA but only by 3.5 hours. The Cardinal is over 9 hours slower NYP-CHI and over 6 hours slower WAS-CHI. Plus, the Star detours to serve Raleigh and Tampa. The largest intermediate markets the Cardinal serves are Indianapolis and Cincinnati and both are close to if not in the graveyard shift.
ROBERT WILLISON Not saying that the rerouted cardinal would be faster just plugging a hole in the Amtrak system
Not saying that the rerouted cardinal would be faster just plugging a hole in the Amtrak system
It should be. If you're going to have two Chicago to New York trains at least make the second one competitive in terms of time to the first. Same with Chicago to Washington DC. The Silver Star is slower than the Silver Meteor NYP-MIA but only by 3.5 hours. The Cardinal is over 9 hours slower NYP-CHI and over 6 hours slower WAS-CHI. Plus, the Star detours to serve Raleigh and Tampa. The largest intermediate markets the Cardinal serves are Indianapolis and Cincinnati and both are close to if not in the graveyard shift.
Serving alternate intermediate locations, that are not on the 'normal' route will always have a trip duration time penalty.
I second this for another set of reasons.
I remember in the '80s and early '90s a wretched excuse for a New Jersey governor capped a string of dubious decisions with a scam of epic proportions. A large bond issue was floated with the nebulously-stated purpose of widening the New Jersey Turnpike, which needed extra capacity, without having to raise tolls. At about this time, 'someone' found out that the Government would take the historical cost of construction as the 'price' of part of the Interstate highway system -- specifically, the part of the Interstate system running from the north ends of the New Jersey Turnpike past the end of I-80 up to the George Washington Bridge, the price being as I recall somewhere in the $400 million range. The governor's party's plans were to use the revenue from the bonds to buy this stretch and incorporate it into the Turnpike ... of course extending toll revenue generation, including every piece of traffic going from 80 up to the Bridge. Then to add insult to injury, since there wouldn't be enough left for the Turnpike widening, they were going to finance it by raising tolls on the Turnpike anyway.
I kept legal residency in New Jersey for a year and a half after going to Louisiana, and then drove all night in the rain north, JUST so I could cast my vote to help run that bastid out. It is still one of the most satisfying things I have done. I'd do the same for anyone who suggested privatizing access to the Interstate system for anything other than OTR truckers (and even there, anyone who proposed using tolls in addition to a perpetuation of the current system of 'road use taxes' on Interstate truck use...)
ROBERT WILLISON Just thinking out loud, could the cardinal be rerouted Thur Cleveland via cinncy. This would hurt the folks in west Virginia but return service from the north coast ( ie Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland) and restoring service to Columbus Ohio, one of the fastest growing areas of Ohio. This would reconnect many city to city connections that disappeared may 1, 1971. Just a thought.
Just thinking out loud, could the cardinal be rerouted Thur Cleveland via cinncy. This would hurt the folks in west Virginia but return service from the north coast ( ie Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland) and restoring service to Columbus Ohio, one of the fastest growing areas of Ohio. This would reconnect many city to city connections that disappeared may 1, 1971.
Just a thought.
I'd prefer going to Pittsburgh/Philadelphia/New York rather than a slower Lake Shore Limited. Most of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have no direct route to/from Chicago and Philadelphia has a 26 hour train. I don't know if going through Columbus/Cleveland would be any faster than the current Cardinal route but it would be daily.
IMHO the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers should be running today instead of the Cardinal. It was faster between CHI and NYP and served large markets in Pennsylvania including Harrisburg and Lancaster. The only large market served by the Cardinal that isn't served by any other train is Cincinnati and the train passes through Cincy during the graveyard shift in both directions. The only reason the train still exists is because Sen. Byrd demanded it stay to serve West Virginia. It should have been canceled a long time ago and actually was canceled before Byrd demanded it be reinstated. Most of PA lost their train to Chicago so West Virginia could keep theirs?
Granted. "Haircuts" already given treasuries holders is why places like Greece can now scarcely borrow money at any price.
However, defaulting on treasury instruments would damage/destroy the economy.
The difference between inflation that is "engineered" and is simply depended upon, with a wink and nod, as part of one's budgeting strategy is a meaningless distinction.
CMStPnPThe new proposal it was suggested bond holders take a haircut or discount on repayment and the candidate was called a nutcase EVEN THOUGH, exactly that has been done in the past via engineered inflation and paying back the debt with inflated dollars. The only difference between the two approaches is a public declaration by the government.
Even assuming you actually can cite evidence of long-term engineered inflation, having the government welshing on repayment by renegotiating it at a discount is illegal (with disastrous results), while inflation is not. Given the "suggestor's" use of bankruptcy to reduce his debts, such an approach is not surprising. And most critics do not use the term nutcase. Rather, the terms con artist, flim flam man, or shady operator are the ones going around, mostly coming from conservatives.
Perspicacious post by Milw.
schlimmOne candidate "suggested" renegotiating the debt with creditors, in fact. At least that was his position for one news cycle.
What I find interesting about the proposal is it is similar to what Ross Perot suggested back when he was running. Big difference was Ross Perot said exchange short term variable and high interest rates for lower and fixed long-term interest rates. Nobody called Ross Perot a nutcase.
The new proposal it was suggested bond holders take a haircut or discount on repayment and the candidate was called a nutcase EVEN THOUGH, exactly that has been done in the past via engineered inflation and paying back the debt with inflated dollars. The only difference between the two approaches is a public declaration by the government.
schlimm Excess capacity that could be used for passenger services should be bought up by the fed. It would help the freight rails, and probably would not be all that expensive.
Excess capacity that could be used for passenger services should be bought up by the fed. It would help the freight rails, and probably would not be all that expensive.
Yes they could probably have most of the former AT&SF across Kansas, CO, and NM and now the D&RGW which will take them to Salt Lake City. Soon the Fed's could have a Chicago to West Coast passenger rail line.
schlimm JPS1 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question. As you can see from this link, for 2015, the total budget was $3.8 trillion. Mandatory spending was $2.45 trillion, which is 64.6%. Perhaps you need to check your figures, definition of mandatory or math? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
JPS1 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question.
As you can see from this link, for 2015, the total budget was $3.8 trillion. Mandatory spending was $2.45 trillion, which is 64.6%. Perhaps you need to check your figures, definition of mandatory or math?
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
I made a mistake. I should have said OMB 15 instead of CBO. I have not downloaded the FY16 data; there probably is not that much out years change in the data.
Table S-4 has the adjusted numbers by category through 2026. Table S-5 has the proposed budgets through 2026. The manditory spends for the estimated 2020 budget amount to 83.6 per cent of receipts.
The federal government has not adopted a national budget for several years if I remember correctly.
The key message, however, is that the federal government has a deficit and debt problem. One can quibble over the numbers, but the ability of the federal government, without a signiificant change in its tax and spend practices, will not be able to fund much of anything outside of the mandatory programs without significant additional borrowing.
The mandatory programs are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Other mandatory federal programs, which would include retirement programs, the VA, etc., I think.
Although it is not classified as a mandatory program, interest on the national debt is an imperative, and I included it in my calculation. The feds could legislate a change to Medicare, for example, which would reduce the out year obligations, but it cannot refuse to pay the interest on the public debt unless it wants to default, which is unlikely.
JPS1According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question.
Question: Since we do not yet have a budget for 2020, how does anyone know what percentage of the budget the mandatory [with an 'a'] programs will be? Link?
JPS1 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question. Where would the federal government get the money to buy excess capacity rail lines for future use?
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts.
Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question.
Where would the federal government get the money to buy excess capacity rail lines for future use?
I think you've answered your own question.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.