Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="arbfbe"]Ah, Bert, missed again.  Every craft on the MRL is represented by one of the national labor organizations.  That includes section men, signal maintainers, machinists, electricians, clerks and train crews.  It has been that way on the MRL since day 1.  This has been mentioned in every published article on the railroad in the railfan press.  Try to get the facts straight before you push the send key. MRL is hardly a toll road in the accepted sense of the word since the tracks are not open to all comers.  MRL has offerred the mainlins to UP detours in the past but this happens on a case by case situation.  Remember, the BNSF still OWNS the MRL mainlines and all the stipulations placed on MRL's use of these lines are only known to those at high levels in both organizations.  Unless futuremodal has some information not in common knowledge, I would say it is very unlikely UP trains will be soon operating on the MRL.  If some other railroad wants to route over the MRL they would have to do the same at points east of Billings and west of Spokane with the BNSF.  That sort of thing is generally handled in a rate making process.  If such joint rate making meets the definition of a toll road then all common carrier railroads in the US are by your definition "toll roads".[/quote] No, I didn't suggest that MRL is a de facto toll road (okay, the "for all intents and purposes" description is probably off base!), but that the effect of the BNSF overhead traffic shows that the toll concept works for the stated purpose of generating revenue otherwise missed.  Not sure if you'd agree with the following or not, but it seems to me that without the BNSF overhead traffic, MRL would have a hard time making it as a stand alone regional railroad. As for other potential MRL clients, only UP is close enough connection-wise to be able to achieve overhead rights at two ends.  And that would probably only be for Eastport-Pocatello traffic, not any east-west traffic.  Again, on the MRL newsgroup there are always "rumormill"-type posts regarding the UP angle from time to time (aka, BNSF bought back the Montana Western to keep UP and MRL from having a direct connection, BNSF will never let MRL buy the Homestake Pass line to prevent the same, that kind of stuff).  As for the details of the original lease contract, does that in and of itself prevent MRL from acting independently should UP by it's own volition make the necessary connections at Sandpoint and Silver Bow?  The only inside information I have is from a few years ago, when I was discussing a prospective Billings to Missoula 3rd party line haul with an MRL rep.  There was no mention of such being forbidden by the original lease contract, and the reps willingness to discuss the proposal at length suggested to me that MRL could act independently if they so chose.  Of course, he may have just been acting as a typical salesman, not wanting to throw water on any proposal until absolutely necessary.  In the end, it was fear of BNSF seeing such as competition to it's own grain monopoly and subsequently pulling it's overhead traffic off MRL in response that squelched the idea, not any contractual misgivings. Also, I remember MRL being interested in purchasing both the Palouse lines from BN (eventually sold to SCRAPCO.....er, I mean WATCO) and UP's Pocatello-Silver Bow line.  If MRL was constricted from making such deals as per the lease contract, why would they go ahead and waste time making the pitches in the first place?  Again, as in my case, BNSF's threats of pulling traffic off MRL was what was rumored to have squelched such plans.
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