QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP Now I'm getting sick and tired of you. If you don't shut the **** up I"m going to go and get Bergie and he can deal with you and possibly this forum.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds No - there was no market for them other than scrap.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by CMSTPP Now I'm getting sick and tired of you. If you don't shut the **** up I"m going to go and get Bergie and he can deal with you and possibly this forum. Gee, I haven't had anyone threaten to "go tell on me" for a lot of years. It's not like I said your sister was ugly or anything. Ken Strawbridge
QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel there is no doubt the MILW deferred maintenance on the PCE. And cashing out is indeed a legitimate strategy, if you do not see any future for your business. Managment has no obligatio to us railfans, only to the creditors and shareholders of the company. greyhounds raised a very important question, without saying it cleary. The question is: would the PCE have generated enough profit to be a viable business IF managment had invested what was necessary to keep the ROW to class-1-standard? An interesting question would also be: where did the cash go that the PCE generated. Was it used for the branch-lines in the midwest, or paid to bondholders or shareholders?
QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by MichaelSol At the time of disposition in 1974, the Joes were 27 years old. There were some discussions about sale, but ultimately the GE 750 traction motors commanded a higher price than the Company could get for the complete locomotive, and so the traction motors were removed and sold, with the remaining body shells scrapped in Seattle and Chehalis. Those traction motors are probably still working out there somewhere, but I no longer recall who bought them. Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Michael: Thanks for all of the economic data. Define, please "earnings". Are you saying the PCE had earnings of $170 million in 1974. If so, that certainly would have kept the entire company afloat, unless something completely out of control was occuring. My guess is the "revenue" was $170 million. Earnings are the net income. Also, I dont follow how $170 million goes to $707 million. Connect the dots for me. If that is the result of inflation, so be it. If that is the adjusted gross revenue based on increased freight rates over the years then I have a problem with that number as what you have indicated in the past is that Staggers reduced freight rates. Also, what is the accounting basis for the $170 million? Is that the revenue carried by the line in 1974 west of Miles City? Does that $170 million inclusive of all freight revenue carried? If so, discounting the revenue is necessary to correctly account for pickup and linehaul aspects of the revenue EAST of Miles City. In other words, if you had a $1000 revenue carload from Chicago to Seattle, I don't see how you can assess all of that $1000 to 1440 route miles. Also, you are comparing system revenue per mile for the two mega carriers vs mainline selective revenue per mile. If you would compare the Milwaukee system revenue per mile, my guess it was much less than the figures stated. Rework you numbers. Factor the freight revenue to today's figures based on rail rate increases, rather than inflationary increases. Since I dont have a 1974 Moody's at hand, I cannot access the Milwaukee revenue, miles, net income, etc. Surely you do. I will stop at the local university library and see if I can find a Moody's. By the way...what is the point of all of this? I think most of us here are in agreement that the PCE would be a great line to have today. I think most of us here are in serious agreement that the Milwaukee appears to have been grossly mismanaged. What exactly is all of the tension over? ed
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 I think most of us here are in agreement that the PCE would be a great line to have today.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 I think most of us here are in agreement that the PCE would be a great line to have today. the book , "the nation pays again," took the position that the PCE shoudl have been kept. That was published over 20 years ago. I pretty much agreed with the idea when I read it way back then.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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. Well, the TOFC/COFC manager at Milwaukee is puzzling over this one, for Milwaukee or any other railroad. Not much originating in Chicago. Japan just didn't seem to be doing much TOFC/COFC importing. Odd. Ken Strawbridge thinks they did.
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: Not much originating in Chicago. Japan just didn't seem to be doing much TOFC/COFC importing.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Michael: Thanks for all of the economic data. Define, please "earnings". Are you saying the PCE had earnings of $170 million in 1974. If so, that certainly would have kept the entire company afloat, unless something completely out of control was occuring. My guess is the "revenue" was $170 million. Earnings are the net income. Also, I dont follow how $170 million goes to $707 million. Connect the dots for me. If that is the result of inflation, so be it. If that is the adjusted gross revenue based on increased freight rates over the years then I have a problem with that number as what you have indicated in the past is that Staggers reduced freight rates. Also, what is the accounting basis for the $170 million? Is that the revenue carried by the line in 1974 west of Miles City? Does that $170 million inclusive of all freight revenue carried? If so, discounting the revenue is necessary to correctly account for pickup and linehaul aspects of the revenue EAST of Miles City. In other words, if you had a $1000 revenue carload from Chicago to Seattle, I don't see how you can assess all of that $1000 to 1440 route miles. Also, you are comparing system revenue per mile for the two mega carriers vs mainline selective revenue per mile. If you would compare the Milwaukee system revenue per mile, my guess it was much less than the figures stated. Rework you numbers. Factor the freight revenue to today's figures based on rail rate increases, rather than inflationary increases. Since I dont have a 1974 Moody's at hand, I cannot access the Milwaukee revenue, miles, net income, etc. Surely you do. I will stop at the local university library and see if I can find a Moody's. By the way...what is the point of all of this? I think most of us here are in agreement that the PCE would be a great line to have today. I think most of us here are in serious agreement that the Milwaukee appears to have been grossly mismanaged. What exactly is all of the tension over? ed Ed you are the eternal optimist to believe that you'll get any straight answers.[;)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 There was a ginormous heated, but very informative discussion about this a while back. Unfornately the thread was either locked and/or removed.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Also, I dont follow how $170 million goes to $707 million. Connect the dots for me. If that is the result of inflation, so be it. If that is the adjusted gross revenue based on increased freight rates over the years then I have a problem with that number as what you have indicated in the past is that Staggers reduced freight rates.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Bob-Fryml I only wish we could get both Jim Scribbins and Wallace Abby (Is the later still with us?) to throw their two cents in. My apologies, Mr. Abby/Abbey, if I misspelled your surname.
QUOTE: Originally posted by doghouse QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 There was a ginormous heated, but very informative discussion about this a while back. Unfornately the thread was either locked and/or removed. I remember that one. Of all the RR topics, why is this one so violent and heated? The Milwaukee Road topic; people throw civility to the wind. Never ceases to amaze me.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Michael: Thanks for all of the economic data. Define, please "earnings". Are you saying the PCE had earnings of $170 million in 1974. If so, that certainly would have kept the entire company afloat, unless something completely out of control was occuring. My guess is the "revenue" was $170 million. Earnings are the net income. Also, I dont follow how $170 million goes to $707 million. Connect the dots for me. If that is the result of inflation, so be it. If that is the adjusted gross revenue based on increased freight rates over the years then I have a problem with that number as what you have indicated in the past is that Staggers reduced freight rates. Also, what is the accounting basis for the $170 million? Is that the revenue carried by the line in 1974 west of Miles City? Does that $170 million inclusive of all freight revenue carried? If so, discounting the revenue is necessary to correctly account for pickup and linehaul aspects of the revenue EAST of Miles City. In other words, if you had a $1000 revenue carload from Chicago to Seattle, I don't see how you can assess all of that $1000 to 1440 route miles. Also, you are comparing system revenue per mile for the two mega carriers vs mainline selective revenue per mile. If you would compare the Milwaukee system revenue per mile, my guess it was much less than the figures stated. Rework you numbers. Factor the freight revenue to today's figures based on rail rate increases, rather than inflationary increases. Since I dont have a 1974 Moody's at hand, I cannot access the Milwaukee revenue, miles, net income, etc. Surely you do. I will stop at the local university library and see if I can find a Moody's. By the way...what is the point of all of this? I think most of us here are in agreement that the PCE would be a great line to have today. I think most of us here are in serious agreement that the Milwaukee appears to have been grossly mismanaged. What exactly is all of the tension over? ed Ed you are the eternal optimist to believe that you'll get any straight answers.[;)] Not much point in talking to you, is there?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Revenue figures were as calculated by the Milwaukee Road, per ICC regs, not my doing. If there is a complaint about "earnings" PCE vs the rest of the system, you would have to take it up with Milwaukee Road/ICC. Uses their reporting system. The ICC Office of Rail Public Counsel was the first to bring it to the public attention that the PCE was profitable. I suppose only Strawbridge knew they were wrong. What should be notable is Ken Strawbridge's complete lack of any data. The usual name-calling, but no data. Yet, he purports to be an expert on the PCE as well as scrap value of Electrics. Milwaukee's market share of intermodal is from the Washington state DOT. Milwaukee's revenue including "profit" is from the Milwaukee Road. I have offered the published data. Strawbridge offers none, just the usual crap. Not a single published source of anything. Wasting everyone's time. There is something wrong with a self-proclaimed expert that can't seem to ever cite a source. Judge for yourselves. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by doghouse QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 There was a ginormous heated, but very informative discussion about this a while back. Unfornately the thread was either locked and/or removed. I remember that one. Of all the RR topics, why is this one so violent and heated? The Milwaukee Road topic; people throw civility to the wind. Never ceases to amaze me. Probably because you get people with no knowledge of it whatsoever offering bizarre opinions contrary to published fact. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on the Milwaukee, and they don't care if they know anything about it or not.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Revenue figures were as calculated by the Milwaukee Road, per ICC regs, not my doing. If there is a complaint about "earnings" PCE vs the rest of the system, you would have to take it up with Milwaukee Road/ICC. Uses their reporting system. The ICC Office of Rail Public Counsel was the first to bring it to the public attention that the PCE was profitable. I suppose only Strawbridge knew they were wrong. What should be notable is Ken Strawbridge's complete lack of any data. The usual name-calling, but no data. Yet, he purports to be an expert on the PCE as well as scrap value of Electrics. Milwaukee's market share of intermodal is from the Washington state DOT. Milwaukee's revenue including "profit" is from the Milwaukee Road. I have offered the published data. Strawbridge offers none, just the usual crap. Not a single published source of anything. Wasting everyone's time. There is something wrong with a self-proclaimed expert that can't seem to ever cite a source. Judge for yourselves. Best regards, Michael Sol Oh, ICC Regs. Now there's a reliable source (Not!). If you want to cite a government commission that didn't have clue, go ahead. If you want to suppor their so called "costing system", their "Rail Form A" , then your a fool. When I worked on branch line abondoments the government idiots told us to "allocate" 50% of the revenue to the branch line. Do you seriously think they put any thought into that? No. They just picked a number out of their***and regulated us with it. We'd move carloads of lumber from Council Bluffs to Bloomington, IL - over 620 miles - then we'd put it on a local (which had 10 cars on a good day) to Hopedale, IL. This was 23 miles from Bloomington and the asinine ICC would tell us to "allocate" half the revenue to that local serving Hopedale. Now there's more to rail costs than miles, much more. But this was flat out asinine. That branch from Bllomington to Mason City, IL was so freaking bad that we were able to get an ICC abandonment even meeting their asinine standard of "allocating" 50% of our revenue to the branch. If you're using ICC allocation formulas, which you way you are, then you're a biiger fool than I thought.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by doghouse QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 There was a ginormous heated, but very informative discussion about this a while back. Unfornately the thread was either locked and/or removed. I remember that one. Of all the RR topics, why is this one so violent and heated? The Milwaukee Road topic; people throw civility to the wind. Never ceases to amaze me. Probably because you get people with no knowledge of it whatsoever offering bizarre opinions contrary to published fact. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on the Milwaukee, and they don't care if they know anything about it or not. Nearly all the threads about The Milwaukee Road evolve into a Michael Sol vs. *you people* thread. I have come to believe the problem is not with *you eople*. Perhaps Michael Sol does know a lot about MWK. The problem is that he is unable to convince many to agree with his opinions. Consequently, any who dare to question *authority* get the "how dare you challenge me" treatment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge "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 MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 How about this one...provide your data that Chicago wasnt a freight generating market. Chicago was one of the most incredible freight generating cities on the face of the earth. Well, this is typical. My point was specifically intermodal. Not a lot of westbound intermodal into Port of Seattle in those days. But, to you it suddenly became "freight generating." In 1974, those were two different things. There is no way to confuse my remarks unless you intend to. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge Actually, I had nothing to do with it, it was the Milwaukee Planning Dept. that made the specific allocation, and which made the specific objection to the Trustee regarding cash flow to the parent company, but, what would they know compared to your knowledge of the Milwaukee Road? Oh, a published interview exists with Milwaukee Road Asst. Vice President -- Planning Fred Simpson about that entire episode. I can give you his phone number if you wish so that you can challenge his "asinine allocation." He made it long before they had to fill out an ICC form about it. Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:51 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Not much point talking to me? For asking questions? Alright, no more tough questions. How about this one...provide your data that Chicago wasnt a freight generating market. Chicago was one of the most incredible freight generating cities on the face of the earth. It was a manufacturing town. Still is to a certain degree, but things have changed. The entire corridor from Milwaukee to Detroit/Cleveland was smokestacks and lunchpails. ed Hey Ed! Forget him! We were both "boots on the ground" in Chicago at that time. We both know that we couldn't move enough trailers into Chicago to handle the outbound manufactured loads. Hell, we'd move trailers in expidited TOFC service from New Orleans on boxcar rates just to get 'em back in Chicago under revenue load. The alternative was to bring 'em back empty with zero revenue on the move. Sol doesn't understand any of this. He wants me to "cite a publication". My "citation" is a shipper yelling at me over the phone because we didn't have trailers available for his loads. As I said, we couldn't get enough trailers into Chicago to handle the available outbound manufactured loads. All Sol knows about actually moving freight is what he chooses to read.. And he doesn't have the background to put that in context. So we are subject to asinine posts from him about Chicago not originating much of anything. And, of course, his absolutely stupid beliefe that the ICC formula accurately determined profit and loss. Ken Strawbridge "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 greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:55 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge Actually, I had nothing to do with it, it was the Milwaukee Planning Dept. that made the specific allocation, and which made the specific objection to the Trustee regarding cash flow to the parent company, but, what would they know compared to your knowledge of the Milwaukee Road? Oh, a published interview exists with Milwaukee Road Asst. Vice President -- Planning Fred Simpson about that entire episode. I can give you his phone number if you wish so that you can challenge his "asinine allocation." He made it long before they had to fill out an ICC form about it. OK, give me Fred's phone number. And you're wrong again. That ICC costing formula came from the 1930's. (or 20's) Is Fred still alive? Ken Strawbridge "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 « First«45678910»Last » 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
Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 How about this one...provide your data that Chicago wasnt a freight generating market. Chicago was one of the most incredible freight generating cities on the face of the earth.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge Actually, I had nothing to do with it, it was the Milwaukee Planning Dept. that made the specific allocation, and which made the specific objection to the Trustee regarding cash flow to the parent company, but, what would they know compared to your knowledge of the Milwaukee Road? Oh, a published interview exists with Milwaukee Road Asst. Vice President -- Planning Fred Simpson about that entire episode. I can give you his phone number if you wish so that you can challenge his "asinine allocation." He made it long before they had to fill out an ICC form about it. Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:51 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Not much point talking to me? For asking questions? Alright, no more tough questions. How about this one...provide your data that Chicago wasnt a freight generating market. Chicago was one of the most incredible freight generating cities on the face of the earth. It was a manufacturing town. Still is to a certain degree, but things have changed. The entire corridor from Milwaukee to Detroit/Cleveland was smokestacks and lunchpails. ed Hey Ed! Forget him! We were both "boots on the ground" in Chicago at that time. We both know that we couldn't move enough trailers into Chicago to handle the outbound manufactured loads. Hell, we'd move trailers in expidited TOFC service from New Orleans on boxcar rates just to get 'em back in Chicago under revenue load. The alternative was to bring 'em back empty with zero revenue on the move. Sol doesn't understand any of this. He wants me to "cite a publication". My "citation" is a shipper yelling at me over the phone because we didn't have trailers available for his loads. As I said, we couldn't get enough trailers into Chicago to handle the available outbound manufactured loads. All Sol knows about actually moving freight is what he chooses to read.. And he doesn't have the background to put that in context. So we are subject to asinine posts from him about Chicago not originating much of anything. And, of course, his absolutely stupid beliefe that the ICC formula accurately determined profit and loss. Ken Strawbridge "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 greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:55 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge Actually, I had nothing to do with it, it was the Milwaukee Planning Dept. that made the specific allocation, and which made the specific objection to the Trustee regarding cash flow to the parent company, but, what would they know compared to your knowledge of the Milwaukee Road? Oh, a published interview exists with Milwaukee Road Asst. Vice President -- Planning Fred Simpson about that entire episode. I can give you his phone number if you wish so that you can challenge his "asinine allocation." He made it long before they had to fill out an ICC form about it. OK, give me Fred's phone number. And you're wrong again. That ICC costing formula came from the 1930's. (or 20's) Is Fred still alive? Ken Strawbridge "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 « First«45678910»Last » 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Not much point talking to me? For asking questions? Alright, no more tough questions. How about this one...provide your data that Chicago wasnt a freight generating market. Chicago was one of the most incredible freight generating cities on the face of the earth. It was a manufacturing town. Still is to a certain degree, but things have changed. The entire corridor from Milwaukee to Detroit/Cleveland was smokestacks and lunchpails. ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge Actually, I had nothing to do with it, it was the Milwaukee Planning Dept. that made the specific allocation, and which made the specific objection to the Trustee regarding cash flow to the parent company, but, what would they know compared to your knowledge of the Milwaukee Road? Oh, a published interview exists with Milwaukee Road Asst. Vice President -- Planning Fred Simpson about that entire episode. I can give you his phone number if you wish so that you can challenge his "asinine allocation." He made it long before they had to fill out an ICC form about it. OK, give me Fred's phone number. And you're wrong again. That ICC costing formula came from the 1930's. (or 20's) Is Fred still alive? Ken Strawbridge "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 « First«45678910»Last » 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Anything about the Milwaukee Road, or just the usual name-calling? It was all about the MILW and your asinine allocation of revenue to the malignant PCE. But you seem to not understand that, but then again, you don't seem to understand much. Ken Strawbridge Actually, I had nothing to do with it, it was the Milwaukee Planning Dept. that made the specific allocation, and which made the specific objection to the Trustee regarding cash flow to the parent company, but, what would they know compared to your knowledge of the Milwaukee Road? Oh, a published interview exists with Milwaukee Road Asst. Vice President -- Planning Fred Simpson about that entire episode. I can give you his phone number if you wish so that you can challenge his "asinine allocation." He made it long before they had to fill out an ICC form about it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.