QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails. Did another railroad buy the Little Joes? The Chicago South Shore & South Bend Did CSS&SB buy all of them from MWK?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails. Did another railroad buy the Little Joes? The Chicago South Shore & South Bend
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails. Did another railroad buy the Little Joes?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 What, are we now calling the political correctness police? Let this discussion proceed, it sure beats the heck out of color schemes for SDP45's from the 70's. This thread in more ways than can possibly be imagined, gets to the core of what went wrong in the industry and how it needs to be managed in the future. There are strong personalities here and that is not necessarily a bad thing. ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol That is the most incoherent thing I have ever read. Let's suppose that Milwaukee Road hired outside, experienced, railroad consultants and paid them a ton of money. And suppose after a great deal of traffic survey and analysis they came back and said "you can't make money without the PCE" and, "if you have the PCE you have a good shot at being a profitable railroad," then you would be exactly right because that it exactly what the consultants, Milwaukee Road's own bankers -- Continental Illinois and Harris -- major creditors, private investment bankers and the largest shippers all concluded. Why they might disagree with Ken Strawbridge is probably due to two reasons: 1) they knew what they were talking about, and 2) he doesn't. Best regards, Michael Sol Yes, and that's why the Federal bacruptcy judge OK'd the PCE shut down? I'd bet, and I do bet, that he didn't find their findings credible. All you gottta' know is that the bankers loaned half a billion to start the Chicago, Missouri and Western. It lasted 10 months. I wss at a short line financing conference and I ask a Citi Bank guy about that. He said: "You mean, how could anybody be so stupid/" Their analysis is no better than my analysis or your analysis. Only difference is that we've had "boots on the ground". I "know" you're full of***. You "know" i'm full of ***. Let's just take it from there. Ken Strawbridge
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol That is the most incoherent thing I have ever read. Let's suppose that Milwaukee Road hired outside, experienced, railroad consultants and paid them a ton of money. And suppose after a great deal of traffic survey and analysis they came back and said "you can't make money without the PCE" and, "if you have the PCE you have a good shot at being a profitable railroad," then you would be exactly right because that it exactly what the consultants, Milwaukee Road's own bankers -- Continental Illinois and Harris -- major creditors, private investment bankers and the largest shippers all concluded. Why they might disagree with Ken Strawbridge is probably due to two reasons: 1) they knew what they were talking about, and 2) he doesn't. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds How would you allocate the revenue from a TOFC trailer originating in Chicago and terminating in Seattle? How much to the PCE and how much to the "eastern" part of the MILW? You can pick an arbitrary method, such as allocation by mileage, but that's garbage. The MILW wouldn't have had the load in the first place if they didn't serve Chicago.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Yes, and that's why the Federal bacruptcy judge OK'd the PCE shut down? I'd bet, and I do bet, that he didn't find their findings credible.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhoundsI don't know how Sol is allocating revenue to support his claim that the PCE was viable, he don't say. However he's doing it, it's arbitrary.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Greyhounds - I must respectfully disagree. I think the Milwaukee had an incredible future, but without management to identify this you are pretty much done for. After the BN merger in 1970 the Milwuakee opened up 11 or 12 new gateways out west - potential traffic generating gateways. The PCE was one of the few areas of the railroad that was making any money. .
QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl The Milw never made good on it's debt stemming from the Indiana coal purchases, never paid for the Puget sound extension .....
QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy StahlThe one in Chicago was/is 1500 volt. I will say that if they were still around I have a market for them .
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds The MILW as a corporate entity ... had absolutely no future.
QUOTE: ]Originally posted by greyhounds I wrote "the MILW". MILW was the reporting mark for the railroad and that's what anyone with common sense would know I was writing about.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds If you read what I said, you'll understand that the electric locomotives used on the PCE had nothing but scap value without the PCE. They couldn't be sold for operation to another railroad. Of course, overlooking nearly 50,000 miles of 3 kv Electrification, including two other railroads that specifically ran Joes -- including one in Chicago -- and presupposing, with zero knowledge, that they would not want a machine proven superior to just about anything else on the rails. The gentleman doesn't know the difference between a reporting mark and a "corporate entity" and now demonstrates that he knows nothing about electrification. Proceed accordingly.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds If you read what I said, you'll understand that the electric locomotives used on the PCE had nothing but scap value without the PCE. They couldn't be sold for operation to another railroad.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Michael, please read what I wrote. I wrote "the MILW". MILW was the reporting mark for the railroad and that's what anyone with common sense would know I was writing about. Of course, everyone knows a reporting mark is the same thing as a corporate entity. That's why reporting marks are registered in Delaware, Wisconsin, Illinois, or other states. Right? Because reporting marks are "corporate entities." The AAR has long been the proper registry for "corporate entities" as everyone well knows that has anything to do with railroading. I very much enjoyed the Santa Fe's corporate entity 2005 Annual Report, based entirely on the continued existence of its registered reporting marks which is aways how profit and loss is reported for railroad corporate entities -- by reporting mark. The MILW reporting mark continues to be registered and used. So your original statement is still completely haywire no matter how you try and spin it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Michael, please read what I wrote. I wrote "the MILW". MILW was the reporting mark for the railroad and that's what anyone with common sense would know I was writing about.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze The railroad was obviously broke. "Obviously." Hillman told Railway Age that "the Milwaukee is a relatively wealthy company." Railway Age, "MR: Assets set at $832 Million", January 8, 1979, p. 11. Best regards, Michael Sol It went bankrupt. Yes, "obviously" it was broke. By definition it was broke. Mr Hillman was looking at the liquidation value (assets = $832 M). That's different from having no cash.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze The railroad was obviously broke. "Obviously." Hillman told Railway Age that "the Milwaukee is a relatively wealthy company." Railway Age, "MR: Assets set at $832 Million", January 8, 1979, p. 11. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze The railroad was obviously broke.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight. Well, the PCE had greater capacity in 1970 than the former GN, now BNSF, line has in 2006. Not sure what "viability" means in that context. Best regards, Michael Sol Give him a sentence to respond to and he'll write for a week. He's just got to show everybody how much he thinks he knows. IF the PCE had a positive cash flow, which in and of itself doesn't mean squat in terms of an ongoing business, it was because they were "cashing it out". When a business is failing, such as the Milwaukee Road was, the managers try to "cash it out". Get as much cash out of the business as possible before the bankruptcy court takes over. In the case of the MILW PCE this meant doing as little maintenance as was absolutely neccesary to run trains. If you don't replace ties and surface the track, you'll generate cash flow by eliminating maitenance expense. If you sell the copper wire you'll generate cash, and the diesels you replace those no resale value electric locomotives with can easily be returned to their lessor or sold off for cash (unlike the electrics, which at best, had scrap value). The MILW as a corporate entity, and the PCE as a rail line, had absolutely no future. The reasonable, skillful, managers saw this - and they "cashed out". Not sure where he gets the idea that the MILW had more capacity than the BNSF does today, but one thing's for sure: You don't get paid for your capacity, you get paid for the freight you haul. And the old MILW didn't have enough of that, and it never would have enouth freight with the BN to the North and the UP to the South. It was the 3rd railroad into the Pacific Northwest, and 3rd place doesn't pay well. First of all, Michael knows allot about the milwaukee road and he is forunate enough to have been around the milwaukee road as long as he did. Second don't come around here talking crap like those electrics were only scrap, because they weren't. If you had read up on the milwaukee road and had as much knowledge as Michael did you wouldn't be saying that. Third the electrics have more power and tractive effort than your little diesel locomotives. Don't come to our little forum if your going to be an idiot. We had a nice chat on the milwaukee. Now please take your opinions to other forums. We don't need them here. You should probably look at what Michael has to say. I think it is quite informative and I can learn much from it. So don't be a smart *** about it. James
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight. Well, the PCE had greater capacity in 1970 than the former GN, now BNSF, line has in 2006. Not sure what "viability" means in that context. Best regards, Michael Sol Give him a sentence to respond to and he'll write for a week. He's just got to show everybody how much he thinks he knows. IF the PCE had a positive cash flow, which in and of itself doesn't mean squat in terms of an ongoing business, it was because they were "cashing it out". When a business is failing, such as the Milwaukee Road was, the managers try to "cash it out". Get as much cash out of the business as possible before the bankruptcy court takes over. In the case of the MILW PCE this meant doing as little maintenance as was absolutely neccesary to run trains. If you don't replace ties and surface the track, you'll generate cash flow by eliminating maitenance expense. If you sell the copper wire you'll generate cash, and the diesels you replace those no resale value electric locomotives with can easily be returned to their lessor or sold off for cash (unlike the electrics, which at best, had scrap value). The MILW as a corporate entity, and the PCE as a rail line, had absolutely no future. The reasonable, skillful, managers saw this - and they "cashed out". Not sure where he gets the idea that the MILW had more capacity than the BNSF does today, but one thing's for sure: You don't get paid for your capacity, you get paid for the freight you haul. And the old MILW didn't have enough of that, and it never would have enouth freight with the BN to the North and the UP to the South. It was the 3rd railroad into the Pacific Northwest, and 3rd place doesn't pay well.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight. Well, the PCE had greater capacity in 1970 than the former GN, now BNSF, line has in 2006. Not sure what "viability" means in that context. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the issues for it to have been viable in todays market would have been to have increased the siding lengths, convert to CTC, and have enough power to handle the freight.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.