QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Anti: I'm a terrible oracle.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Greyhounds, I appreciate your arguments, but you are still simply repeating the talking points and the skewed framing of the subject via AAR. What you need to do is to step back and take a comprehensive look at the entire freight transportation spectrum, and ask yourself if there isn't something amiss in that other transportation modes are open access, while only railroads are such that the owner of the ROW has sole discretion to operate over the ROW. Why is it necessarily bad to project what the transportation picture would look like if the ROW playing field was eqalized, either all transportation ROW's in the owner-operator mode, or all ROW's in the open access mode? Isn't it possible, given the economies of scale presented by railroad technology, that the rail industry could achieve 50% or 60% of commercial freight activity in this country? As for exemptions from constitutional law, are not railroads exempted from the Sherman Anti-trust Act and other comprehensive business regulations, since railroads historically have had their own sets of rules for governence? You and others on this forum have yet to provide evidence that open access would necessarily involve confistication of property. As far as I know, a federal takeover of rail ROW's with due compensation is only one option being considered. The logical option is to split rail companies into ROW owners and rolling stock owners e.g. infrastructure companies and transporting companies, respectively. Other lesser acts would simply invoke current STB caveats of allowing one operator to access another's ROW as a condition of some merger or other operating procedure that results in a lack of rail competition in certain sectors of the country. Given the difficult nature of building new rail lines to compete for market share, the STB recognizes this anomaly and is supposed to address the competition issue whenever it surfaces.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Anti: No problem, and thanks. That was a long, long, time ago, when I understood a lot less about railroading. The point of the phrase was a comment on the end of the Rio Grande as something that rail enthusiasts valued -- they were in love with it as a showgirl that paraded in front of their cameras, and not much concerned about what it did, why it did it, and what that meant. Probably no one got my comment at the time, but I was pulling their leg, teasing them about their single-minded pursuit of an unreality that didn't matter to anyone else in the world.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal If Staggers had been true deregulation, it would have forced railroads to submit to business laws that are applicable to other industries instead of exempting railroads from these constitutional protections. A true act of deregulation is not supposed to allow special rights exempting the parties from the equal protection clause of the constitution, yet that is exactly what Staggers has done, to the detriment of the nation. OK, no act of congress can "exempt" anything from any part of the constitution. You see, the constitution defines what laws may/may not do. If it was possible to "exempt" things from the constitution by law then the constitution would be meaningless, which it isn't. I don't know what your agenda is. You seem to want economic deregulation extented to include open access. The two are vastly different concepts. Dereg removes (basically silly, ignorant and repressive) restrictions and allows natural economic activity (which will mean growth). Open access would involve confiscation of private property. Now you may argue for open access, but please don't mix it up with dereg and please don't say things like "congress 'exempted' something from the constitution." I'm of the firm beliefe that seperating the train operating company from the right of way ownership is a "BAD IDEA", and I haven't seen any resonable arguments to the contrary. (Hint!)
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal If Staggers had been true deregulation, it would have forced railroads to submit to business laws that are applicable to other industries instead of exempting railroads from these constitutional protections. A true act of deregulation is not supposed to allow special rights exempting the parties from the equal protection clause of the constitution, yet that is exactly what Staggers has done, to the detriment of the nation.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill You found a quote referring to a paint scheme, written for an audience that cared about paint schemes. Both the page on which it appears and your reference to the quote are out of context and meaningless to the argument you are making. I find it only faintly amusing to be accused of a malfeasance by someone who remains cloaked behind a pseudonym. For your future posts, I'll consider the source. MWH
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I appreciate the compliment, but I doubt we'd agree on all that much if your user name is any indication of your feelings about Microsoft. I have no love lost about Microsoft, and yes, Bill Gates is a bit of a left wing ogre, but I believe the whole Justice Department case against Microsoft was misplaced. There are no real barriers to entry into the markets of software development, computer manufactering, computer sales, et al. Besides, Linux-based systems are there to keep Microsoft in check. Contrast that with the current rail industry, where any thought toward building new lines to compete for rail-based traffic is basically a pipe dream. Even those projects that have been given the initial go-ahead face the possibility of being blocked by the regulatory mire, e.g. DM&E's PRB connection. Once rail companies have been allowed to extract predatory pricing and service denials, there is no way out for those rail shippers who are captive to these rail oligarchs. Once rail companies "achieve" such an oligarchy status, there is no competitive reason for them to take actions which involve risk. Risk aversion means no aggressive marketing and no attempts at innovation to improve market share, since the cream of the market share is already maxed. It is ironic that the Clinton JD chose to waste millions of dollars going after Microsoft while at the same time Clinton's STB was drunkenly approving just about every merger brought before it, eliminating most aspects of rail competition in much of the country e.g. the "red" states. The mega-mergers of the 1990's have had a more negative affect on average joe consumers than any of Microsofts tactics. The end result of all this will be one or both of the two major things railroaders fear the most: Either an adoptation of Canadian-style trucking regs (more LCV's, GVW's of up to 146,000 lbs), and/or a re-introduction of some aspect of pre-Staggers rate regulation.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal After reading all this, one has to wonder why the logic of merger won't eventually extend to UP + BNSF, CSX + NS, CN + KCS, and basically any other combination? If your answer is "Well, the STB wouldn't allow such a scenario, therefore it won't happen", why not? The STB under Linda Morgan during the decade of fraud has shown that parallel mergers are just fine, mergers that leave huge sections of the country under single Class I control are just fine, mergers that result in capital expenditure shifts from one section of the country to another section of the country are just fine, etc. so long as the CEO's get theirs and the regulators are promised theirs after their government gig is up. The caveat of maintaining the semblence of consumer choice and national economic security in an industry where entry of new service providers is nearly impossible has been apparently thrown out by STB overlords. Don't kid yourselves about todays railroads being this tremendous asset to the nation, only certain segments of the nation are being given the benefits of the partial deregulation. We have the remaining two railroads in the West throwing what capital improvement funds they are willing to expend on the LA - Chicago corridor, and very little elsewhere. There is no incentive to develop more logical rail corridors due to lack of political pull in these regions, along with the lack of full control by one railroad or the other over other rail corridors. The I - 15 corridor is a logical NAFTA rail corridor, except UP owns all of it from Butte MT to LA, while BNSF owns the portion from Butte to the Canadian border (and apparently is letting much of that go to scrap). Since todays railroads demand monopoly control over point to point trackage before they'll spend on those corridors, the I -15 is left to rust. Maybe a UP + BNSF merger will finally open up that corridor, if BNSF hasn't already scrapped a key link by then. Lord knows BNSF will tear up the trackage before they'd sell it to a competitor, and UP would do the same rather than sell to BNSF. Is there any other industry in the U.S. where a closed or underutilized asset is destroyed rather than sold to a possible competitor? If a Safeway grocery store is shut down, they don't tear down the building and walk away, they put it on the market and hopefully get a buyer, even if the buyer ends up being a competitor. The same exists if the buyer is a third party developer intent on reselling it to a competitor of Safeway. If Safeway tried to insert a clause in it's sale contract to a third party that they must never resell or lease the asset to an Albertsons or Tidymans, it wouldn't take long for a judge to strike down that clause. Yet today's railroads are rife with such contractual inhibitors when they decide to sell to a shortline operator. If Safeway tried to tear down the building rather than sell it, that action too would probably be struck down by a judge. Yet railroads are allowed to do that very thing when they tire of a certain section of track. How are railroads able to do this? They were allowed to do so by the regulatory bodies as a caveat of regulation. Then when Staggers came along, instead of the ICC/STB synchronizing this action into a prevailing characteristic of business law in conformity with other industries, they are allowed not only to continue the act of infrastructure destruction, they actually accellerate this destruction. Well, can affected shippers and regions appeal to the Sherman Anti-trust laws? Nope, Staggers still exempts the railroads from this protection too. If Staggers had been true deregulation, it would have forced railroads to submit to business laws that are applicable to other industries instead of exempting railroads from these constitutional protections. A true act of deregulation is not supposed to allow special rights exempting the parties from the equal protection clause of the constitution, yet that is exactly what Staggers has done, to the detriment of the nation. So I ask again, what is stopping (in the legal sense) an eventual merger of all Class I's into one big company? Nothing in Staggers. Nothing in any anti-trust laws. No one at the STB, FRA, USDOT. Right now the only thing stopping these eventual mergers is calculated PR. The predator must be patient, carefully stalking it's prey until the moment is right, only then can it envelop it's prey. Those folks perceptive enough to take "stock" in this hunt will eventually be rewarded, barring any drastic changes in the management of the wilderness. Hey man,...after all that I have ONE question I need to ask you: Are you my long lost twin brother seperated at birth? I like the way you think! [;)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal After reading all this, one has to wonder why the logic of merger won't eventually extend to UP + BNSF, CSX + NS, CN + KCS, and basically any other combination? If your answer is "Well, the STB wouldn't allow such a scenario, therefore it won't happen", why not? The STB under Linda Morgan during the decade of fraud has shown that parallel mergers are just fine, mergers that leave huge sections of the country under single Class I control are just fine, mergers that result in capital expenditure shifts from one section of the country to another section of the country are just fine, etc. so long as the CEO's get theirs and the regulators are promised theirs after their government gig is up. The caveat of maintaining the semblence of consumer choice and national economic security in an industry where entry of new service providers is nearly impossible has been apparently thrown out by STB overlords. Don't kid yourselves about todays railroads being this tremendous asset to the nation, only certain segments of the nation are being given the benefits of the partial deregulation. We have the remaining two railroads in the West throwing what capital improvement funds they are willing to expend on the LA - Chicago corridor, and very little elsewhere. There is no incentive to develop more logical rail corridors due to lack of political pull in these regions, along with the lack of full control by one railroad or the other over other rail corridors. The I - 15 corridor is a logical NAFTA rail corridor, except UP owns all of it from Butte MT to LA, while BNSF owns the portion from Butte to the Canadian border (and apparently is letting much of that go to scrap). Since todays railroads demand monopoly control over point to point trackage before they'll spend on those corridors, the I -15 is left to rust. Maybe a UP + BNSF merger will finally open up that corridor, if BNSF hasn't already scrapped a key link by then. Lord knows BNSF will tear up the trackage before they'd sell it to a competitor, and UP would do the same rather than sell to BNSF. Is there any other industry in the U.S. where a closed or underutilized asset is destroyed rather than sold to a possible competitor? If a Safeway grocery store is shut down, they don't tear down the building and walk away, they put it on the market and hopefully get a buyer, even if the buyer ends up being a competitor. The same exists if the buyer is a third party developer intent on reselling it to a competitor of Safeway. If Safeway tried to insert a clause in it's sale contract to a third party that they must never resell or lease the asset to an Albertsons or Tidymans, it wouldn't take long for a judge to strike down that clause. Yet today's railroads are rife with such contractual inhibitors when they decide to sell to a shortline operator. If Safeway tried to tear down the building rather than sell it, that action too would probably be struck down by a judge. Yet railroads are allowed to do that very thing when they tire of a certain section of track. How are railroads able to do this? They were allowed to do so by the regulatory bodies as a caveat of regulation. Then when Staggers came along, instead of the ICC/STB synchronizing this action into a prevailing characteristic of business law in conformity with other industries, they are allowed not only to continue the act of infrastructure destruction, they actually accellerate this destruction. Well, can affected shippers and regions appeal to the Sherman Anti-trust laws? Nope, Staggers still exempts the railroads from this protection too. If Staggers had been true deregulation, it would have forced railroads to submit to business laws that are applicable to other industries instead of exempting railroads from these constitutional protections. A true act of deregulation is not supposed to allow special rights exempting the parties from the equal protection clause of the constitution, yet that is exactly what Staggers has done, to the detriment of the nation. So I ask again, what is stopping (in the legal sense) an eventual merger of all Class I's into one big company? Nothing in Staggers. Nothing in any anti-trust laws. No one at the STB, FRA, USDOT. Right now the only thing stopping these eventual mergers is calculated PR. The predator must be patient, carefully stalking it's prey until the moment is right, only then can it envelop it's prey. Those folks perceptive enough to take "stock" in this hunt will eventually be rewarded, barring any drastic changes in the management of the wilderness.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill IEric, if you step back away from this, do you realize what a remarkable thing happened? The Rio Grande -- that dinky, no-account property that everyone treated as the benighted rube in the mountains --ended up controlling the UP! And through UP, the SP, WP, MP, C&NW, Katy, and some big chunks of the Rock! Philip Anschutz is the largest stockholder in UP, with something around 25% of the stock, and how did he get there? Why, with Rio Grande's bank account -- and, granted, a lot of shallow thinkers along the way who watched him purchase SP and Rio Grande for nothing. I know, most people think UP won. Well, corporations are just shells. They're conveniences owned by people. Paint schemes and corporate names are just ego and window dressing. They're very useful to hide behind, especially when you're a billionaire and you don't want anyone to notice your moves. Only people win. If you follow the money, not the paint scheme or the title on the annual report, it leads you straight to Mr. Anschutz, the guy with the cash who calls the shots. He leveraged Rio Grande's cash into a controlling position of about one-fifth of the entire railroad system of North America. I was kinda thinking this too especially after I saw him listed on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans (he's ranked 33) a few years back. It said he was a major shareholder in UP; I didn't know that until then. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:22 PM Did the KCS make a bid on the SP once apon a time? Andrew Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:17 PM QUOTE: If you follow the money, not the paint scheme or the title on the annual report, it leads you straight to Mr. Anschutz, the guy with the cash who calls the shots. He leveraged Rio Grande's cash into a controlling position of about one-fifth of the entire railroad system of North America. Yep, he got the UP, the SP, the MP, the MKT, etc. He got 'em, and I think we'd all like to see him do something with them. "We're Full" doesn't cut it as a growth strategy. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, January 15, 2005 9:43 PM MWH wrote: "I don't know if this proves Anschutz was brilliant. It might prove that the Rio Grande management had done an incredibly poor job of selling the value of their railroad to Wall Street (intentionally, perhaps). And it absolutely proves that most investors spend far too much time listening to media pundits instead of paying attention to fundamentals." Mark- Perhaps Anshutz wasn't brilliant, but certainly was bright enough to know value when he saw it... LC Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:14 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. As far as I know of,Yes the SP could have. There is a lot of Business out there,The Railroads just don't want it. WHAT!?! Where is all this pie in the sky??? Most business that is available to the railroads at a reasonable return is already moving by rail. Why do you suppose things are so congested now?? Railroads want whatever they can move and earn a reasonable rate. LC Reply Edit kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:22 AM Just to ad to Nomad's notes, EVERYTHING that was not railroad was transferred to the SPSF. It was intentional. If the merger went through, the SP was going to be subordinate to the ATSF. If the merger did not, the strong assets were already with the purchaser, BFB's "Managenent" plan was put to fruit, and the railroad was left to die. And it would have had not the DRGW stepped into the picture. Those of us that worked in the field in station and train service, at least in Oregon, generally wanted the Santa Fe management to take over real soon so that we could keep the railroad together. We could see how well the Santa Fe was run and the employee spirit and the comparison with our SP was grim for "The Friendly". The refusal of the merger really was a blow in that respect. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, January 14, 2005 2:22 AM Another interesting twist is UPS's recent earnings downgrade, due in part to "increased operational costs". I wonder how much UP's discontinuation of the UPS bullet trains has played a role in UPS's troubles? If this UPS situation ends up having long term negative impacts on future rail business, then the question of "Could SP have survived without UP" can be turned around into "Will UP survive the consequences of it's SP purchase"? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:25 PM It would have died out eventually due and likely would have to been publicly own for a while. Then they would have sold it to class 1 or 1s like they did eventually with Conrail. My too little, too late advise would have been for SP and KCS merger. That way 3 class 1s can get to the west coast increasing competition for at least intermodal thus decreasing capacity on the mainlines. Andrew Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, January 10, 2005 3:30 PM Rembember that the merger of SP and UP was not a recent idea. Harriman would have done it much, much earlier if the US Gov. would have permitted it. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 10, 2005 2:03 AM Ed-- Point taken about the definition of insider, but I have to tell you that the info that filters down to the troops is usually not the straight scoop. Rumor has a bad habit of changing slightly with every retelling and rumor is usually all we get. For myself, I'd define an insider as someone who has feelers in the home office, or maybe someone with a friend on the board of directors. As to Biaggini's influence over the goings on of that time, anything I say is pure guesswork. Obviously, even he was guessing up to a point, because despite his seeming prediction of SP's demise I managed to stay employed. Hindsight being 20-20, I honestly think the whole conversation had more to do with the fact that he was a friend of my father's than anything else. He probably didn't want to be in the position of not having said anything. ( You'd have to know my dad, then this would make perfect sense.) I think what he expected was that there would be no room for someone with my seniority in the near future, and he was almost right. During those years I moved several times, and even at that I frequently found myself at the bottom of the extra board. My wife always refers to that time as "the days of hot dogs and beans". This is off topic, but I've got to hit on it anyway just briefly. The only point to the fly fishing in terms of this story is to explain how I managed to be in close contact with someone like Ben Biaggini. Having said that, I have to tell all the fishermen out there that, yes, I do love to fish. Whether it's fly fishing, spin casting, bait casting.............. Last but not least, Beatnik jumps in with a comment about the difference between working for SP and UP. He's right on the money as far as most former SP and WP people are concerned. I'm sure there are a few that like the UP better, but quite frankly, I've never met one. For myself, I have to admit that I was pretty unhappy when UP first took over, but as I've said before, I've gotten used to their ways. More to the point, though, is Dave's question about crew layoffs and retirements at that time. I can really only answer based on what I observed myself, but yes, both those things occurred. They couldn't cut too deeply in places where they'd formerly had no presence, but I've been told that in others the axe fell pretty hard. As to actual numbers, I could only guess. I do remember a number of people who got out within a year or less because they were miserable under UP management, and others that have gone since, as soon as they were able, for the same reason. Please remember that I saw this from an operating point of view, and that people from other crafts may have a different take on it. I think we've already gotten the mechanical department's view, but I wonder what others think? One last thing that I've always found interesting: As UP and SP crews were integrated, there was a feeling on the part of some of the old UP hands that the SP guys were a bunch of spoiled whiners. I don't really know if that was a localized thing or not. Any old UP guys care to comment? From my own observation, I'd have to say there's at least SOME truth in it. --JD P.S. Ed, I don't remember if I caught any fi***hat day, but in those years the fishing was usually pretty good at that location. As to where I run, let's just say that these days I'm mostly a flatlander. I'd rather not be any more specific than that so that I'm free to comment on my employer anonymously. ( OK, OK, I know that makes me a little paranoid......) Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 9, 2005 8:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by cnwfan11 QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl I think as a class 2 regional it could have done fine. Randy [#ditto] SP was doing just fine till UP [:(!][V] stuck their grubby hands in the situation. Look at what has been happening in Texas,especially in the Gulf Coast area,and the chemical companies that are there. SP was much better to work for before UP took over. Thats from the Mechanical side of things.....[:D] Reply Edit MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, January 9, 2005 11:58 AM DAve: I dont have a clue as to what the revenue was/is for PRB coal. But, based on comments I now read, it seems as if the margins are pretty thin now. So, that means that the early days of PRB coal were the days to make $$$ and to strengthen your franchise, similar to most businesses. Any comments out there regarding the desirability of PRB coal today vs 1980? ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 9, 2005 2:13 AM Nomad, regarding Mr. Biaggini's statement to you that you should have begun looking for another job since SP the railroad was not going to be around in a few years, for him to have stated it that way e.g. "look for another job" rather than "you might be working for new management" leads one to perceive a major retrenchment or shutdown was in order as being in the best wishes of SP the company, merger or no merger. So I must ask anyone who might know, how many SP train crewmen were laid off or took early retirement upon UP's takeover? Also, given UP's underestimate of how many crewmembers would be needed of late leads me to beleive that UP management perceived a major slowdown in the railroading industry was in the cards, and as such "advised" the SP upper echelons including Biaggini that such workforce reductions were imminent. Was rail management of the 1990's so out of it that they couldn't make reasonable predictions of the increase in world trade and the subsequent increase in intermodal transportation needs? Didn't they read the same business newspapers and magazines the rest of us perused which were immersed in information regarding the impending world trade dynamics? One interesting logistic does come to mind. Of the western railroads in the U.S. during the 1980's and 1990's, it was the two PRB companies who became the sole survivors into 2000. Could it be that having access to the low cost, low sulfer coal of the Powder River Basin was seen as THE lifeblood of western railroading into the 21st century, with all other potential commodities including other coal producing regions not having the necessary value or volume to enhance a profitable rail operation? Reply Edit MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, January 9, 2005 12:50 AM Nomad: I guess it depends on your definition of "insider". A person employed by a company, in any capacity, is subject to all sorts of information that a regular guy like me is never privy to. Your story about the fly fishing is just an incredible story to me. It would have been interesting to know if Mr Biaggni was influencing that decision or whether he was following orders. Did you catch any trout that day? I have never fly fished, but I watched A River Runs Thru It. Personally, give me ultralight tackle and a lake or pond of crappie or bluegills and I a very happy man. Particularly if I have a sharp filleting knife and an iron skillet. What line do you run? Over Tehachipi or any of the mountain grades? ed Reply 123 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
IEric, if you step back away from this, do you realize what a remarkable thing happened? The Rio Grande -- that dinky, no-account property that everyone treated as the benighted rube in the mountains --ended up controlling the UP! And through UP, the SP, WP, MP, C&NW, Katy, and some big chunks of the Rock! Philip Anschutz is the largest stockholder in UP, with something around 25% of the stock, and how did he get there? Why, with Rio Grande's bank account -- and, granted, a lot of shallow thinkers along the way who watched him purchase SP and Rio Grande for nothing. I know, most people think UP won. Well, corporations are just shells. They're conveniences owned by people. Paint schemes and corporate names are just ego and window dressing. They're very useful to hide behind, especially when you're a billionaire and you don't want anyone to notice your moves. Only people win. If you follow the money, not the paint scheme or the title on the annual report, it leads you straight to Mr. Anschutz, the guy with the cash who calls the shots. He leveraged Rio Grande's cash into a controlling position of about one-fifth of the entire railroad system of North America.
QUOTE: If you follow the money, not the paint scheme or the title on the annual report, it leads you straight to Mr. Anschutz, the guy with the cash who calls the shots. He leveraged Rio Grande's cash into a controlling position of about one-fifth of the entire railroad system of North America.
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. As far as I know of,Yes the SP could have. There is a lot of Business out there,The Railroads just don't want it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cnwfan11 QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl I think as a class 2 regional it could have done fine. Randy [#ditto] SP was doing just fine till UP [:(!][V] stuck their grubby hands in the situation. Look at what has been happening in Texas,especially in the Gulf Coast area,and the chemical companies that are there.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl I think as a class 2 regional it could have done fine. Randy
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.