DwightBranch and on other railroads, the former B&O St. Louis line (CSX decided they were a conveyer belt for coal companies, shortsightedly tore up the line through Ohio and West Virginia in favor of the meandering C&O, lost out on the double stack boom and then had to enter a bidding war for Conrail so they would have a St. Louis line again. Idiots.),
and on other railroads, the former B&O St. Louis line (CSX decided they were a conveyer belt for coal companies, shortsightedly tore up the line through Ohio and West Virginia in favor of the meandering C&O, lost out on the double stack boom and then had to enter a bidding war for Conrail so they would have a St. Louis line again. Idiots.),
Mark Meyer
DwightBranch No, just a very clear memory and a subscription to Trains through the nineties. I recall very clearly two articles, in one it was mentioned that at the time CSX was removing their St. Louis line UP was routing a new double stack train and contacted CSX about using their St Louis line, which was still on the system map but was being torn up even as UP was talking to them (here is a mention of the UP trains that I first heard in Trains). Another was in the context of the Conrail split-up, that the main reason that CSX was interested in Conrail was because they need ed to replace the St. Louis line, the latter was a Don Phillips article as I recall. None of the articles from the nineties are available online so I cannot link to them, and my back issues from that time period are back in my parent's house.
No, just a very clear memory and a subscription to Trains through the nineties. I recall very clearly two articles, in one it was mentioned that at the time CSX was removing their St. Louis line UP was routing a new double stack train and contacted CSX about using their St Louis line, which was still on the system map but was being torn up even as UP was talking to them (here is a mention of the UP trains that I first heard in Trains). Another was in the context of the Conrail split-up, that the main reason that CSX was interested in Conrail was because they need ed to replace the St. Louis line, the latter was a Don Phillips article as I recall. None of the articles from the nineties are available online so I cannot link to them, and my back issues from that time period are back in my parent's house.
Well, your "clear memory" needs an upgrade. You can easily do this by reading a book. Try it. You can learn a lot from books.
Try reading "The Men Who Loved Trains" by Rush Loving Jr. He details the CSX/NS bidding war for Conrail. It had nothing to do with St. Louis. (You just made that one up, didn't you.) CSX and NS both wanted Conrail. They wanted it because it would give them access to northeast markets. They both already went to St. Louis.
They had negotiated over a joint purchase of Conrail but it came to naught when Conrail told both it wanted to remain independent. Latter, Conrail and CSX reached a merger agreement that was approved by both boards of directors and signed. NS realized that this would marginalize them to a great extent. They didn't want to be marginalized. So a good old fashioned bidding war for a railroad materialized. It was great. This winners in the war were: 1) folks who owned Conrail stock (they paid off mortgages, took dream vacations, put children through college, all kinds of good stuff) and, 2) the American people who got a better integrated, more competitive rail system. Again, service to St. Louis wasn't a significant consideration.
It wouldn't pay to keep a rail line in place for one stack train a day. And please don't cite railfan websites as an authoritative source. (I'm a railfan and I like to speculate as much as any of us. But railfan speculation isn't worth spit.)
One thing you and that yoho guy need to realize is that there are always limited resources. If the money is spent retaining an unneeded rail line, it can't be spent maintaining or upgrading a needed rail line. I worked on abandonment analysis at the ICG. When it's time to get rid of a line, the company needs to do it. Otherwise the enterprise will sink in to a hole and not be able to serve its customers and earn its living.
One other thing you two need to realize is that even the government doesn't have unlimited resources. For every $1.00 put in, you have to get at least $1.01 out. Countries can go broke, just like railroads. If either a railroad company or a government wastes money retaining unneeded rail lines, they're bringing themselves closer to going broke.
Every rail line that has been taken up has gone through some type of analysis. Sometimes this analysis is as sofisticated as possible, sometimes it's less. But somebody with information that you don't have made the decision. For you to label the people who made the decision as "Idiots" without knowing the particulars is nothing but arrogance on your own part.
greyhounds DwightBranch: No, just a very clear memory and a subscription to Trains through the nineties. I recall very clearly two articles, in one it was mentioned that at the time CSX was removing their St. Louis line UP was routing a new double stack train and contacted CSX about using their St Louis line, which was still on the system map but was being torn up even as UP was talking to them (here is a mention of the UP trains that I first heard in Trains). Another was in the context of the Conrail split-up, that the main reason that CSX was interested in Conrail was because they need ed to replace the St. Louis line, the latter was a Don Phillips article as I recall. None of the articles from the nineties are available online so I cannot link to them, and my back issues from that time period are back in my parent's house. Well, your "clear memory" needs an upgrade. You can easily do this by reading a book. Try it. You can learn a lot from books. Try reading "The Men Who Loved Trains" by Rush Loving Jr. He details the CSX/NS bidding war for Conrail. It had nothing to do with St. Louis. (You just made that one up, didn't you.) CSX and NS both wanted Conrail. They wanted it because it would give them access to northeast markets. They both already went to St. Louis. They had negotiated over a joint purchase of Conrail but it came to naught when Conrail told both it wanted to remain independent. Latter, Conrail and CSX reached a merger agreement that was approved by both boards of directors and signed. NS realized that this would marginalize them to a great extent. They didn't want to be marginalized. So a good old fashioned bidding war for a railroad materialized. It was great. This winners in the war were: 1) folks who owned Conrail stock (they paid off mortgages, took dream vacations, put children through college, all kinds of good stuff) and, 2) the American people who got a better integrated, more competitive rail system. Again, service to St. Louis wasn't a significant consideration. It wouldn't pay to keep a rail line in place for one stack train a day. And please don't cite railfan websites as an authoritative source. (I'm a railfan and I like to speculate as much as any of us. But railfan speculation isn't worth spit.) One thing you and that yoho guy need to realize is that there are always limited resources. If the money is spent retaining an unneeded rail line, it can't be spent maintaining or upgrading a needed rail line. I worked on abandonment analysis at the ICG. When it's time to get rid of a line, the company needs to do it. Otherwise the enterprise will sink in to a hole and not be able to serve its customers and earn its living. One other thing you two need to realize is that even the government doesn't have unlimited resources. For every $1.00 put in, you have to get at least $1.01 out. Countries can go broke, just like railroads. If either a railroad company or a government wastes money retaining unneeded rail lines, they're bringing themselves closer to going broke. Every rail line that has been taken up has gone through some type of analysis. Sometimes this analysis is as sofisticated as possible, sometimes it's less. But somebody with information that you don't have made the decision. For you to label the people who made the decision as "Idiots" without knowing the particulars is nothing but arrogance on your own part.
DwightBranch: No, just a very clear memory and a subscription to Trains through the nineties. I recall very clearly two articles, in one it was mentioned that at the time CSX was removing their St. Louis line UP was routing a new double stack train and contacted CSX about using their St Louis line, which was still on the system map but was being torn up even as UP was talking to them (here is a mention of the UP trains that I first heard in Trains). Another was in the context of the Conrail split-up, that the main reason that CSX was interested in Conrail was because they need ed to replace the St. Louis line, the latter was a Don Phillips article as I recall. None of the articles from the nineties are available online so I cannot link to them, and my back issues from that time period are back in my parent's house.
I too read "The Men Who Loved Trains". It is a great read. Although it has been approximately six months since I finished it, my recollections square with yours. Loving did a great job in gather and presenting his historical facts.
greyhounds DwightBranch: No, just a very clear memory and a subscription to Trains through the nineties. I recall very clearly two articles, in one it was mentioned that at the time CSX was removing their St. Louis line UP was routing a new double stack train and contacted CSX about using their St Louis line, which was still on the system map but was being torn up even as UP was talking to them (here is a mention of the UP trains that I first heard in Trains). Another was in the context of the Conrail split-up, that the main reason that CSX was interested in Conrail was because they need ed to replace the St. Louis line, the latter was a Don Phillips article as I recall. None of the articles from the nineties are available online so I cannot link to them, and my back issues from that time period are back in my parent's house. Well, your "clear memory" needs an upgrade. You can easily do this by reading a book. Try it. You can learn a lot from books. Try reading "The Men Who Loved Trains" by Rush Loving Jr. He details the CSX/NS bidding war for Conrail. It had nothing to do with St. Louis. (You just made that one up, didn't you.) CSX and NS both wanted Conrail. They wanted it because it would give them access to northeast markets. They both already went to St. Louis.
Loving was a journalist, just like Don Phillips, no better no worse. He is now at the University of Denver, the same place I earned my PhD. So before you throw out insults about "read a book" (where did you come up with that - hilarious) perhaps you should tell us how many serious books you read when YOU worked on your PhD.
DwightBranch Loving was a journalist, just like Don Phillips, no better no worse. He is now at the University of Denver, the same place I earned my PhD. So before you throw out insults about "read a book" (where did you come up with that - hilarious) perhaps you should tell us how many serious books you read when YOU worked on your PhD.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
My PhD is in an interdisciplinary field, my specialization is Political Economy. My point was about his smart a*s comments about my needing to read a book once in a while. The bibliography for my dissertation alone is twelve pages. Once I had a week of courses when I was assigned ALL of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in a political economy course at the same time I was assigned ALL of Hegel's The Philosphy of Right for a Political Theory course, and at the same time I was reading about ten journal articles for a neoclassical economics course. And that is one week only, I had four years of grad school classes. So I am not about to be patronized about needing to read by someone who cites a former business reporter for the Richmond Times Dispatch as THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCE on the Conrail split, if anything business reporters, unlike investigative journalists, are likely to "take dictation to power", uncritically transcribe whatever the big shots who run companies tell them without digging deeper into the real reasons.
greyhounds One thing you and that yoho guy need to realize is that there are always limited resources. If the money is spent retaining an unneeded rail line, it can't be spent maintaining or upgrading a needed rail line.
One thing you and that yoho guy need to realize is that there are always limited resources. If the money is spent retaining an unneeded rail line, it can't be spent maintaining or upgrading a needed rail line.
Oh goody, insults a sure fire way to make a good impression and get your point across. Anyways, yes that's axiomatic money spent on one thing can't be spent on another and if you spend on something not needed then you can't spend it on something you do need. That isn't exactly rocket science and doesn't disagree with anything anyone has said.
Well, this is all just fundamentally wrong.
First of all, why on earth would the government need to make a profit on anything it does? It's the government not a business it is not supposed to make a profit. And, in point of fact sovereign nations cannot go broke. It's impossible to go broke when you have the printing presses. It's true you can devalue your currency to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue. Further, the government can choose to retain an unprofitable rail line and pay for it with taxes. The government's job is to within the extent of our laws do things that the free market and individuals cannot or would not on their own. So again the above is just fundamentally wrong. Perhaps you should leave the workings of Sovereign nations to the International Macro Economists just like you would like me to leave off judging good and pure railroad men's decisions.
Perhaps you missed it, but I made it pretty clear both via internet smilie and some other ludicrous statements that I was being facetious in my insulting of BN/BNSF management. But even if I wasn't I can label them idiots if I want and I can be arrogant if I want, but in this case, I'm not. I merely pointed out that the facts at the time of some decisions such as the aforementioned Milwaukee abandonment look less well thought in hindsight. Maybe even with a better crystal ball, the decision would still be made that way, but maybe it wouldn't.
Also, let's be clear here, I never said I thought Raton was for sure going to see freight service again nor did I say that BNSF MUST keep all lines. I only said to never say never. You can't know that it will never be used.
And clearly BNSF thinks there is some value to the line or they wouldn't offer to pay for part of it.
Now, that value could simply be PR, or Maybe Warren, being a train fan insists that it be attempted to be saved. That's unlikely, but who knows.
I do NOT believe our insider that it was only done knowing that it was an empty gesture that the other groups would never come up with the match.
I may not have ever worked for a railroad, but I've worked in corporations big and small and I know that a well run competent corporation never pledges money it doesn't really mean to spend. So BNSF see some sort of value in the line, because they have offered to pay for that perceived value.
YoHo1975 And, in point of fact sovereign nations cannot go broke. It's impossible to go broke when you have the printing presses. It's true you can devalue your currency to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue.
And, in point of fact sovereign nations cannot go broke. It's impossible to go broke when you have the printing presses. It's true you can devalue your currency to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue.
I don’t see the comfort of dismissing the possibility of going broke because it only amounts to self-destruction rather than running out of money.
Generally, I would say that a government that prints enough money to destroy all of the value of money has done something that amounts to “going broke” even though technically they have not run out of money.
It is reasonable for BNSF to contribute funds for that portion of the Raton Line between Newton and La Junta because they will continue to use it. Also because of the DOD Pinon Canyon manuver site located between La Junta and Trinidad they may be obligated to retain and maintain that portion.
However they have no interest in the portion of the Raton Line between Trinidad and Lamy as evidenced by their Agreement to sell it to the State of New Mexico.
May I suggest that none on this thread, no matter what our education and experience, has enough information to do more than speculate about BNSF's plans and reasons for them. So instead of becoming angry with those whose speculations differ from ours why don't we allow this thread to "cool down" before it is shut down.
diningcar May I suggest that none on this thread, no matter what our education and experience, has enough information to do more than speculate about BNSF's plans and reasons for them. So instead of becoming angry with those whose speculations differ from ours why don't we allow this thread to "cool down" before it is shut down.
There are two or three anti-passenger, anti-government conservative types on this board who can only respond to pro-Amtrak posts with sneering and insults.
Bucyrus YoHo1975: And, in point of fact sovereign nations cannot go broke. It's impossible to go broke when you have the printing presses. It's true you can devalue your currency to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue. I don’t see the comfort of dismissing the possibility of going broke because it only amounts to self-destruction rather than running out of money. Generally, I would say that a government that prints enough money to destroy all of the value of money has done something that amounts to “going broke” even though technically they have not run out of money.
YoHo1975: And, in point of fact sovereign nations cannot go broke. It's impossible to go broke when you have the printing presses. It's true you can devalue your currency to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue.
It's not a matter of comfort. It's that someone who knew what they were talking about would not use the term "going broke."
And in fact, Self destruction, in this case has traditionally meant revolution in some form. I realize I am now validating Godwin's law, but Weimar Germany being a prime example.
The concept of personal finance and in fact even the concepts of the market economy often have almost nothing to do with soverign nation's financing.
Though it makes for good political soundbites to pretend like they do.
DwightBranch diningcar: May I suggest that none on this thread, no matter what our education and experience, has enough information to do more than speculate about BNSF's plans and reasons for them. So instead of becoming angry with those whose speculations differ from ours why don't we allow this thread to "cool down" before it is shut down. There are two or three anti-passenger, anti-government conservative types on this board who can only respond to pro-Amtrak posts with sneering and insults.
diningcar: May I suggest that none on this thread, no matter what our education and experience, has enough information to do more than speculate about BNSF's plans and reasons for them. So instead of becoming angry with those whose speculations differ from ours why don't we allow this thread to "cool down" before it is shut down.
And at least 2 who "apparently" are currently on BNSF's payroll. Which of course doesn't mean they know anything about the specifics of these decisions, but they may have more information to place into their speculations.
YoHo1975 Bucyrus: YoHo1975: And, in point of fact sovereign nations cannot go broke. It's impossible to go broke when you have the printing presses. It's true you can devalue your currency to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue. I don’t see the comfort of dismissing the possibility of going broke because it only amounts to self-destruction rather than running out of money. Generally, I would say that a government that prints enough money to destroy all of the value of money has done something that amounts to “going broke” even though technically they have not run out of money. It's not a matter of comfort. It's that someone who knew what they were talking about would not use the term "going broke." And in fact, Self destruction, in this case has traditionally meant revolution in some form. The concept of personal finance and in fact even the concepts of the market economy often have almost nothing to do with soverign nation's financing. Though it makes for good political soundbites to pretend like they do.
Bucyrus: YoHo1975: And, in point of fact sovereign nations cannot go broke. It's impossible to go broke when you have the printing presses. It's true you can devalue your currency to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue. I don’t see the comfort of dismissing the possibility of going broke because it only amounts to self-destruction rather than running out of money. Generally, I would say that a government that prints enough money to destroy all of the value of money has done something that amounts to “going broke” even though technically they have not run out of money.
And in fact, Self destruction, in this case has traditionally meant revolution in some form.
Well you are the one who brought up self-destruction in relation to economic collapse, and not in relation to a revolution. You said this in disagreeing that a country can spend so much that it will go broke, since it can print money: “It's true you can devalue your currency [by printing money] to the point of self destruction, but that is very much a different issue.”
I agree that sovereign finance is more complex than personal finance, but they share the same economic fundamentals. I do not believe that a country can simply spend money indefinitely beyond the revenue it takes in from the production of wealth as though money were merely an abstraction that government can create for itself as it desires. Government can indeed spend its way into an economic collapse if it spends too much. If this were not true, we would all be on easy street with a golden goose satisfying all wants.
YoHo1975 DwightBranch: diningcar: May I suggest that none on this thread, no matter what our education and experience, has enough information to do more than speculate about BNSF's plans and reasons for them. So instead of becoming angry with those whose speculations differ from ours why don't we allow this thread to "cool down" before it is shut down. There are two or three anti-passenger, anti-government conservative types on this board who can only respond to pro-Amtrak posts with sneering and insults. And at least 2 who "apparently" are currently on BNSF's payroll. Which of course doesn't mean they know anything about the specifics of these decisions, but they may have more information to place into their speculations.
DwightBranch: diningcar: May I suggest that none on this thread, no matter what our education and experience, has enough information to do more than speculate about BNSF's plans and reasons for them. So instead of becoming angry with those whose speculations differ from ours why don't we allow this thread to "cool down" before it is shut down. There are two or three anti-passenger, anti-government conservative types on this board who can only respond to pro-Amtrak posts with sneering and insults.
Everything I have ever heard about railroad management is that it is a military-style, chain-of-command organization in which lower levels are kept in the dark about decisions and all knowledge is passed on on an absolute need-to-know-only basis. In such a situation it is every bit as likely that an investigative reporter would know more than say a trainmaster or even a vice-president.
Bucyrus I agree that sovereign finance is more complex than personal finance, but they share the same economic fundamentals. I do not believe that a country can simply spend money indefinitely beyond the revenue it takes in from the production of wealth as though money were merely an abstraction that government can create for itself as it desires. Government can indeed spend its way into an economic collapse if it spends too much. If this were not true, we would all be on easy street with a golden goose satisfying all wants.
I brought it up because the person insulting me telling me I was ignorant was himself being ignorant.
First of all, they do not share very many of the same economic fundamentals. That is nothing but populist speechifying.
Secondly, of course a government could spend itself into economic collapse. But since it can levy taxes and also print money, in the absence of governmental gridlock (uh oh) it should be near impossible.
Even in the year 2012, the reason a country like Greece is going through economic ruin is yes, because of poor choices they made, but also because as a part of the European Union, they don't control their own printing press.
If they still had the Drachma, they could devalue it and solve many of their debt problems in the short term which would restart their economy.
Alas, they have no such control, Germany is in charge of the Euro and they don't want to devalue Greece debt because it isn't good for Germany. The Euro is really just the Deutsche Mark renamed and it's value is pegged mainly to Germany and to a lesser extent the rest of northern Europe, not southern Europe.
This is something that most people don't understand, because all they listen to is soundbites, not how global macro economics and Sovereign nations work.
None of which is relevant to the topic beyond the fact that the poster I was responding to needed to be reminded to take their own medicine.
YoHo1975 Bucyrus: I agree that sovereign finance is more complex than personal finance, but they share the same economic fundamentals. I do not believe that a country can simply spend money indefinitely beyond the revenue it takes in from the production of wealth as though money were merely an abstraction that government can create for itself as it desires. Government can indeed spend its way into an economic collapse if it spends too much. If this were not true, we would all be on easy street with a golden goose satisfying all wants. Secondly, of course a government could spend itself into economic collapse. But since it can levy taxes and also print money, ...it should be near impossible.
Bucyrus: I agree that sovereign finance is more complex than personal finance, but they share the same economic fundamentals. I do not believe that a country can simply spend money indefinitely beyond the revenue it takes in from the production of wealth as though money were merely an abstraction that government can create for itself as it desires. Government can indeed spend its way into an economic collapse if it spends too much. If this were not true, we would all be on easy street with a golden goose satisfying all wants.
Secondly, of course a government could spend itself into economic collapse. But since it can levy taxes and also print money, ...it should be near impossible.
Ah, so you do believe in the economic golden goose. Just tax and print money. It sounds like the world just needs more printing presses.
What Economic Golden Goose? Printing more money is no Golden goose and there are of course Tax rates that will supress economic activity. We're talking about the tools a soverign nation has to protect itself from collapse. These aren't tools that guarantee zero pain and huge economic gains.
You're making a political argument not discussing anything about the realities of how this works. And even if you weren't this is off topic and you know it.
YoHo1975 What Economic Golden Goose? Printing more money is no Golden goose and there are of course Tax rates that will supress economic activity. We're talking about the tools a soverign nation has to protect itself from collapse. These aren't tools that guarantee zero pain and huge economic gains. You're making a political argument not discussing anything about the realities of how this works. And even if you weren't this is off topic and you know it.
It is not political at all. It is the subject of economics. I don't understand your point that the tools are not a "golden goose" when you say one of them (printing money) would prevent the economic collapse of Greece.
I would say the best way for a country to protect itself from collapse is to encourage the private sector economy and keep public spending from outpacing economic productivity. If a country is heading for economic collapse because these objectives are not met, then the tools you mention will not protect that nation from collapse. Indeed, they may hasten it.
Greece is a specific country with a specific problem. If you don't understand what caused greece's problem then you might not understand how this works.
Greece's problem is that it took on too much government debt and in the economic collapse it cannot pay it's debt. It is forced to pay that debt at Germany's interest rate and with the Euro which is pegged to Germany's production. If Greece had the Drachma it could print money and inflate some of their debt away while encouraging economic activity and make non-greece products more expensive.
This would not solves greece's profligate ways, but it would stabalize their economy and allow them to resolve their internal issues.
Instead, they are beholden to Germany who controls the money, but has no political or social interest in Greece only in Germany and so Greece is stuck. Which is why exit from the Euro is perhaps the only solution as painful as it would be.
And again, this is remarkably off topic and your responses are just arm waving about the free market ignoring how governments have worked for pretty much the past century and in some ways longer.
DwightBranch My PhD is in an interdisciplinary field, my specialization is Political Economy. My point was about his smart a*s comments about my needing to read a book once in a while. The bibliography for my dissertation alone is twelve pages. Once I had a week of courses when I was assigned ALL of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in a political economy course at the same time I was assigned ALL of Hegel's The Philosphy of Right for a Political Theory course, and at the same time I was reading about ten journal articles for a neoclassical economics course. And that is one week only, I had four years of grad school classes. So I am not about to be patronized about needing to read by someone who cites a former business reporter for the Richmond Times Dispatch as THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCE on the Conrail split, if anything business reporters, unlike investigative journalists, are likely to "take dictation to power", uncritically transcribe whatever the big shots who run companies tell them without digging deeper into the real reasons.
What you wrote about CSX and Conrail was wrong. Just flat out wrong. You got called on it and now you're upset.
You have absolutely no, nada, none, zip resources to support your preposterous assertion that CSX was in a bidding war with NS for Conrail because it needed access to St. Louis. CSX already had access to St. Louis.
So what do you do when presented with evidence that you were wrong? You attack the source but not the facts. Because you have no ability to counter the facts as reported. I can't think of a better person to write the story than a former business reporter with an interest in railroads. This was, after all, about business and railroads. But what he reported doesn't agree with you. So you denigrate the person disagreeing with you - because you are flat out powerless to counter the truth. And that just burns you up.
It's a fact that CSX and Conrail had a signed merger agreement in place and approved by their boards. NS decided to fight. If either CSX or NS alone had acquired Conrail the winning railroad would greatly overshadow the other. Neither was willing to accept the fate of being an also ran. It was about the huge markets in the northeast. Niether CSX or NS served the northeast to any great extent. The both had multiple lines to St. Louis.
But you sure can read a lot in a week.
"And that just burns you up."
You cannot possibly know what I think about you, and as such your comments are personal and out of line. But if you like I have enough of a background in psychology to do a better job than you at diagnosing at a distance, and have a bit of speculation I can offer about you.
Moderator ringing the bell!
Order, Gentlemen, order please!
This thread is developing into some kind of a dogfight between two forum members, having opposing views. There is nothing wrong in having a different view on an issue and voicing it, but please don´t get too personal!
Let´s stay civil!
jim1944 I heard that Amtrak is discussing the idea to move the route of the Southwest Chief through Texas instead of through western Kansas. Is this true and why move an established route through Texas ?
I heard that Amtrak is discussing the idea to move the route of the Southwest Chief through Texas instead of through western Kansas. Is this true and why move an established route through Texas ?
Also upon further review, the above is the OP of this topic so if there is nothing else related to this specifically we will likely bring this topic to a close...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Given the last few posts (all removed), this topic has come to a close...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.