Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Railroad Mergers and You
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by TheAntiGates</i> <br /><br />Discuss "among ourselves"? why? I'd LOVE to see another rehash of mergers past a present in the magazines. <br /> <br /> <br />What I would have rather seen might have been NYC, Wabash, and Santa Fe tie the knot, with PRR, CNW, and uncle pete providing the competition. And maybe a Milwaukee- Erie Lakawanna merger for good measure and maybe a C&O-Great Northern merger, just for chuckles <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />LOL! talk about "putting your foot in in it"....I just bought the July issue Wednesday evening, and see now that the mag did EXACTLY THAT.....[8] My bad. <br /> <br />I was more than just a little surprised to see the specific referance to a Santa Fe/Wabash,NYC Transcon routing <i> after</i> I had made mention of it, I guess great minds think alike? [:D] <br /> <br />Specific to the articles "slant" touting the virtue of a BNSF-NS merger to be the ability to avoid "Congested Chicago".....I've been reading for some time in Trains magazine about how bad Chicago congestion is,...and to some extent I have no doubt that it truly is...But I am starting to conclude that "Congested ol' Chicago" is not as big of a thorn in the side of the railroads as the magazine always portrays it as. <br /> <br />I think the "problem" must be getting a tad over sensationalized by the conservative/liberal (pick one [:D] ) media. <br /> <br />Why? Because if it were REALLY that huge a daunting problem for them, they would be doing more to solve the problem, than they presently are. <br /> <br />In fact, BNSF has all but mothballed their facility in Remington Indiana, conveniantly removed from the chicago congestion along the line they formerly co-owned with PRR, the TP&W.. Surely a dandy of an exchange point could have been built there IF IT WERE THAT BIGGA BURNING PRIORITY to dodge Chicago. <br /> <br />BNSF has other "potential" exchange points with both CSX and NS that avoid Chicago altogether, but evidently the share of revenue thus forfeited thru the shorter haul is perceived to be a more menacing demon than the 'awful awful Chicago congestion" that would be avoided if the exchangeswere made elsewhere. But,.. in the case of a theoretical revitalized Remington facility on the TP&W, a seeming best of both worlds would be available to BNSF,...allowing a maximum haul AND Chicago avoidance,...yet I don't see BNSF running to make the change. <br /> <br />I'm begining to think that the greatest tangible impact "Chicago congestion" has upon the Railroads is in terms of giving the trade journals a cause celebre to rally around bantering about the need for "taxpayer subsidized impovements to infastructure" in the odd months that some evil republican has not said anything sufficiently negative about Amtrak to raise a newsworthy stink about. [:D]
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy