For what it's worth, if any of you would like to make a...."donation" ....to the Mayo Clinik, here's a link for you to express your opinion.....
https://forms.mayoforms.org/forms/up/mc447301.cfm
Enjoy!
Bucyrus wrote: wallyworld wrote: Here's one I forgot..well oiled agitprop piece.http://www.protectrochester.com/video.htmlAccording to foes of the DM&E, the Powder River basin should be capped."Using vast amounts of diesel fuel to move soft coal to burn for electricity will significantly increase pollution along the railroad line as well as in the areas where the intended (and out of date) coal plants are located. The 30% moisture content of the coal means in effect that 30 of those 100 coal cars are hauling water. It would be far better to invest taxpayer dollars in research and development of renewable fuel and energy...." Editorial by former Minnesota Legislator in Opposition To LoanI think the above reveals the true heart and soul of the Rochester opposition Arguably, Minnesota is the most liberal state in the union, spiritually if not politically. In Minnesota, even Republicans are liberal, so naturally the state is tripping over itself to become the vanguard of "green," and nothing could be less green than a coal train. I have not heard an explanation of why the loan was denied, but it remains to be seen if the Rochester opposition had an influence in the loan denial. It also remains to be seen if other financing can bring the project forward. And if it does, it remains to be seen if somehow Rochester can defeat it. Like others have suggested, I don't think the Rochester opposition has anything to do with train noise, dust, vibrations, etc. I suspect that is a red herring for a deeper objection, based on leftist, environmental, religious-like ideology that goes to philosophical objections about too much consumption, the so-called throwaway society, and how these sins are being especially enabled by the rich and their capitalistic system. I think this feeling is exemplified in Mr. Walz's letter where he prefers soybean trains to coal trains, but cannot explain why in rational terms. The only difference is the cargo. While "follow the money" has traditionally been a reliable principle to explain otherwise unexplainable political decisions, in Minnesota it is rivaled by "follow the political correctness."
wallyworld wrote: Here's one I forgot..well oiled agitprop piece.http://www.protectrochester.com/video.htmlAccording to foes of the DM&E, the Powder River basin should be capped."Using vast amounts of diesel fuel to move soft coal to burn for electricity will significantly increase pollution along the railroad line as well as in the areas where the intended (and out of date) coal plants are located. The 30% moisture content of the coal means in effect that 30 of those 100 coal cars are hauling water. It would be far better to invest taxpayer dollars in research and development of renewable fuel and energy...." Editorial by former Minnesota Legislator in Opposition To Loan
Here's one I forgot..well oiled agitprop piece.
http://www.protectrochester.com/video.html
According to foes of the DM&E, the Powder River basin should be capped.
"Using vast amounts of diesel fuel to move soft coal to burn for electricity will significantly increase pollution along the railroad line as well as in the areas where the intended (and out of date) coal plants are located. The 30% moisture content of the coal means in effect that 30 of those 100 coal cars are hauling water. It would be far better to invest taxpayer dollars in research and development of renewable fuel and energy...." Editorial by former Minnesota Legislator in Opposition To Loan
I think the above reveals the true heart and soul of the Rochester opposition
Arguably, Minnesota is the most liberal state in the union, spiritually if not politically. In Minnesota, even Republicans are liberal, so naturally the state is tripping over itself to become the vanguard of "green," and nothing could be less green than a coal train. I have not heard an explanation of why the loan was denied, but it remains to be seen if the Rochester opposition had an influence in the loan denial. It also remains to be seen if other financing can bring the project forward. And if it does, it remains to be seen if somehow Rochester can defeat it.
Like others have suggested, I don't think the Rochester opposition has anything to do with train noise, dust, vibrations, etc. I suspect that is a red herring for a deeper objection, based on leftist, environmental, religious-like ideology that goes to philosophical objections about too much consumption, the so-called throwaway society, and how these sins are being especially enabled by the rich and their capitalistic system. I think this feeling is exemplified in Mr. Walz's letter where he prefers soybean trains to coal trains, but cannot explain why in rational terms. The only difference is the cargo. While "follow the money" has traditionally been a reliable principle to explain otherwise unexplainable political decisions, in Minnesota it is rivaled by "follow the political correctness."
I find it more than ironic that if one tabulates the formally "sign on the dotted line" participants on both sides of this battle of wills, it is interesting to note the very strong argricultural interests which, in effect, represent a potentially greener future that support the DM&E with hopes for a new ethanol plant and I assume others to follow. So we have the Mayo led front in direct opposition to the very green philosophy they propagandize very effectively as a straw dog in order to defeat their true interests.
Kevin Paap, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, says rail transportation is important to farmers in rural areas. He saw the proposed expansion as an opportunity for farmers to move things faster, safer and more efficiently.
"That's why this expansion was so important in improvements, as to be able to increase the use of the DM&E from where we are now," says Paap. "We were looking forward to having that ability to ship more agriculture products -- whether it be the stuff we grow or the renewable fuels -- to ship more of it, not less of it."
The evil capitalistic crowd to which the Rochester Supporters themselves belong ( see Steve Forbes biography) along with egads..the chamber of commerce...manipulate their slick PR campaign with well oiled with supposedly satanic wads of cash which tips the equation in their favor. Enviromentalism is like loving your pet or mom and apple pie...makes a great shield...and misdirection of attention. This also is manipulated... this sense of embending apocalyptic doom creates a fine fear factor ( see link to agitprop piece in previous post) to get all concerned banging the same tribal alarm drum...
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
It certainly sounds like Johnny Come Lately Walz is protective of his organized (lobbying) voter block. The graingers are putting a squeeze on him as his carefully worded "support" testifys.
'We need expanded rail travel. The DM&E has a great potential to help Southern Minnesota, but it also has the potential to hurt Rochester, Mayo and others,' according to Walz. 'I am not either Pro, Anti-DM&E, Pro, Anti-Mayo [other than the way I] want both to succeed for Southern Minnesota.'" Source: KAAL-TV, February 1, 2007
Say what?
In my earlier post I wondered aloud on two issues revolving around a website and the Coalition itself. In addition the amount of effort and real money that Mayo has furiously shovelled into keeping the fire of contention hot is all out of proportion to "noisy" trains.
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/tag.do;jsessionid=6842D02956938CA99DC823754AB8DAFE?tag=Rochester+Coalition
They certainly have deep pockets.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/development/financial-facts.html
They have powerful allies.
http://www.who2.com/steveforbes.html
"It's not as if Wyoming's rich coal region is not being serviced. "Rail service is already being provided by two larger and superior railroads, which have invested private funds in most of their ventures. The government should not prop up a weak competitor," notes the National Taxpayers Union, a citizens' group working for low taxes and on whose board I sit."
-Steve Forbes
This level of objection sets up an red flag. Bear in mind this is supposed to be about afew more trains a day on a railroad track..right? The introduction to the Rochester Coalition's main website seems to focus on a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the noise of steel wheels on rails.
"We face an enormous challenge. DM&E is a private, politically-well connected company that is trying to profit at the expense of taxpayers and local communities."
"No satisfactory safeguards or alternatives to protect the safety of our patients and preserve the jobs in our state have been offered by the DM&E." Huh?
"...the [Surface Transportation] Board explained that the proposed project would actually increase safety because it entailed system wide improvements to existing track. The Board also noted that it was unlikely that DM&E would be involved in the increased shipment of hazardous materials. Finally, the Board did not view the two incidents as posing a threat specific to Mayo." 8th Circuit Court Appeal Ruling
Safety:
"Kevin Schieffer, president of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, said a preliminary investigation into the derailment points to problems with the more than 50-year-old railroad track in the area of southern Minnesota.
"It desperately needs to be replaced," he said of the track. "It is extremely frustrating because this doesn't need to happen."
The DM&E is awaiting word on a $2.3 billion federal loan that would pay for part of its $6 billion plan to rebuild 600 miles of track across South Dakota and Minnesota and add 260 miles of new track to reach Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. "
Whats the real issue if this "noisy train" issue is a red herring? The dual role of spokeman for both the Coalition and Mayo is no coincidence.
"We will continue to remain diligent as we assess next steps in this entire process to ensure that moving forward, whatever alternatives are explored, that our patients, staff and community are protected," said Chris Gade, a spokesman for the Mayo Clinic and the Rochester Coalition.
Myths and Facts:
http://www.gotrac.org/index.cfm?page=267
I have learned that for every visible political action of this scope, there are afew very well connected funders who have a horse in the race and that it would be impolitic if they showed their hand. Having spent a great deal of time in Chicago, I can tell you the squeaky money wheel gets oiled if you catch my drift. Noise from a train as a statewide- national uproar..it's only that way because a well funded propaganda PR campaign has made it so....and to keep the noise level down a couple of db's down the scale as a public rationale..has worked...so far...where are the investigative journalists...? They are in the Bahamas waiting for the hapless Anna Nicole to be put to rest....pathetic. If you believe noise is the real issue, this strategy has applied enough smoke and mirrors to the dynamics of the real players interests. Follow the money...ask yourself a question that has nothing to do with the lofty idealistic goal of noise..Who stands to profit if the deal does'nt happen?
Is demand for coal decreasing? Is the market tapped?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6881347
Kind of a wacky situation, a Democrat (Walz) elected to Congress from a hardcore Republican district by campaigning against a project that the Republican governor also opposes, but which the Republican incumbent was for...or at least, didn't oppose enough. But then both MN US Senators (one of each party) oppose the plan too, so I don't know how it all breaks down except politicians like to go where they think the votes are. Even if most people in MN think the plan is good (and I don't know if we do or not), the average voter outside the SE part of the state wasn't going to vote based on that opinion - but people in that area did, enough to hold their nose and vote for a Democrat (some probably for the first time in their lives).
A little like the 1978 DFL (Democrat) primary where endorsed US Senate candidate Cong. Don Fraser of Mpls. lost the nomination to businessman Bob Short because a lot of people in northern MN didn't like the things Fraser had done in Congress to restrict access to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (on the border between MN and Ontario) and so voted for Short in huge numbers. Statewide, probably only 10% of the people even knew there was an 'issue' and it was assumed Fraser would win an easy victory, but in that one area, there was a landslide against Fraser because of it that gave Short a narrow victory.
Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: Star Tribune - Minneapolis St. Paul / February 27, 2007 – 9:47 PMIf DM&E reassesses its proposal, Walz says he could become railroad's allyWASHINGTON - Rep. Tim Walz said he could support a railroad expansion in southern Minnesota if the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad re-evaluates the $6 billion project that was denied a federal loan on Monday."We need expanded rail travel, whether that's a coal-based railroad or not, I'm not sure. But I can guarantee that we need an agricultural railroad," Walz, D-Minn., said Tuesday. "I said if they change their focus, if they came about this thing a little differently, they would sure find an ally with me." Translated: If DM&E could provide an agricultural railroad in my district, which has been proven to be a money loser, I'd be happy to support the idea, to garner more votes in my next re-election bid.
Datafever wrote: Star Tribune - Minneapolis St. Paul / February 27, 2007 – 9:47 PMIf DM&E reassesses its proposal, Walz says he could become railroad's allyWASHINGTON - Rep. Tim Walz said he could support a railroad expansion in southern Minnesota if the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad re-evaluates the $6 billion project that was denied a federal loan on Monday."We need expanded rail travel, whether that's a coal-based railroad or not, I'm not sure. But I can guarantee that we need an agricultural railroad," Walz, D-Minn., said Tuesday. "I said if they change their focus, if they came about this thing a little differently, they would sure find an ally with me."
Star Tribune - Minneapolis St. Paul / February 27, 2007 – 9:47 PM
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tim Walz said he could support a railroad expansion in southern Minnesota if the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad re-evaluates the $6 billion project that was denied a federal loan on Monday.
"We need expanded rail travel, whether that's a coal-based railroad or not, I'm not sure. But I can guarantee that we need an agricultural railroad," Walz, D-Minn., said Tuesday. "I said if they change their focus, if they came about this thing a little differently, they would sure find an ally with me."
***************************************
Someone should tell that "dear" pol that any road capable of carrying coal is capable of carrying anything lighter, which means almost everything else. And that modern coal hoppers are properly filled and quite unlikely to spill off onto the ROW--particularly when 80 to 90 percent of the road is what they used to call an "air line."
I used to have such respect for Minnesota as a political entity. I mean, D-F-L and Humphrey, and progressivism and all that. I can't blame Ventura; he was more a result than a cause of modern personality politics. I can think of a number of states that are just plain corrupt (I live in one of them); and I don't think Minnesota is, not to my knowledge. But no matter how clean a place's politics are what does it matter if no one knows what's going on?? Is it a matter of nobody losing money on Seabiscuit or backing the Mayo, or what??
Are there any Minnesotans out there (particularly in vicinity of Rochester) who would like to add something that might possibly give someone like me (and there are similarly puzzled folks on this thread and for similar reasons), why Mayo is so gol-danged against a project that just won't hurt 'em. Are the self-appointed decision-makers aware that the DM&E terminus is to be at Winona, MN? Maybe Rochester has full-employment; there are a lot of Mississippi River towns that don't and could use the jobs. - al
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance." - Bridge-players' maxim.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Datafever wrote: Star Tribune - Minneapolis St. Paul / February 27, 2007 – 9:47 PMIf DM&E reassesses its proposal, Walz says he could become railroad's allyWASHINGTON - Rep. Tim Walz said he could support a railroad expansion in southern Minnesota if the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad re-evaluates the $6 billion project that was denied a federal loan on Monday."We need expanded rail travel, whether that's a coal-based railroad or not, I'm not sure. But I can guarantee that we need an agricultural railroad," Walz, D-Minn., said Tuesday. "I said if they change their focus, if they came about this thing a little differently, they would sure find an ally with me."The railroad company has planned to build about 280 miles of new line to Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines and rebuild 600 miles of track in South Dakota and southern Minnesota. It had hoped for a $2.3 billion federal loan to help pay for it, but the Federal Railroad Administration denied the request on Monday, partly out of concern over DM&E's ability to repay it.Walz, whose district would have been crossed by the project and who opposed the loan, said that DM&E's approach needs to be less confrontational and it should reconsider its proposal to haul coal from the Powder River Basin. He said there's a need to transport commodities like corn and soybeans.Full story here
The railroad company has planned to build about 280 miles of new line to Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines and rebuild 600 miles of track in South Dakota and southern Minnesota. It had hoped for a $2.3 billion federal loan to help pay for it, but the Federal Railroad Administration denied the request on Monday, partly out of concern over DM&E's ability to repay it.
Walz, whose district would have been crossed by the project and who opposed the loan, said that DM&E's approach needs to be less confrontational and it should reconsider its proposal to haul coal from the Powder River Basin. He said there's a need to transport commodities like corn and soybeans.
Full story here
Help me out here.
Wouldn't a trainload of beans/ethanol/etc cause as much of a crossing delay on that gold-plated Mayo Street Crossing as a coal train, or any other train for that matter?
Do Minnesoteans think that raw PRB coal is somehow toxic or radioactive, should a coal train derail a block from Mayoville?
Do the Walz's of the world think coal trains and ag trains are incompatible?
Do the residents of Walz's district have any premonition that they just might have elected a dunce to represent them in DC?
In other words, if the DME would kiss my butt just a little bit more gently I would consider helping them out. And if they would stop going after lucrative coal contracts and start hauling more soybeans then I might re-consider.
A great case of a politician laying it on a little thick as to who the DME should be buttering up. I am sure that if there was money to be made hauling beans the DME would be after it already. I don't think the DME needs the esteemed politician to figure that one out.
futuremodal wrote: ericboone wrote: futuremodal wrote:How exactly was money being "taken from the coffers" of UP and BNSF? I didn't realize that UP and BNSF were being taxed to pay for the DM&E loan.UP and BNSF pay federal taxes, right? Well, if those taxes are being used to give the DM&E a loan or a reduced interest rate, then UP and BNSF are most definitely being taxed to support their competitor. So UP and BNSF pay taxes, but DM&E and others in the same boat don't? Keep in mind, federal aid to UP and BNSf of late has been in the form of grants, not loans. I'll bet DM&E has paid taxes to aid it's competitors, huh?C'mon, do you really want to go down this road?All industries pay taxes. Said taxes go into the general fund for the most part. It is the feds who decide how that fund is dispersed. No one individual entity can dictate how their particular tax payments are used.
ericboone wrote: futuremodal wrote:How exactly was money being "taken from the coffers" of UP and BNSF? I didn't realize that UP and BNSF were being taxed to pay for the DM&E loan.UP and BNSF pay federal taxes, right? Well, if those taxes are being used to give the DM&E a loan or a reduced interest rate, then UP and BNSF are most definitely being taxed to support their competitor.
futuremodal wrote:How exactly was money being "taken from the coffers" of UP and BNSF? I didn't realize that UP and BNSF were being taxed to pay for the DM&E loan.
UP and BNSF pay federal taxes, right? Well, if those taxes are being used to give the DM&E a loan or a reduced interest rate, then UP and BNSF are most definitely being taxed to support their competitor.
So UP and BNSF pay taxes, but DM&E and others in the same boat don't? Keep in mind, federal aid to UP and BNSf of late has been in the form of grants, not loans. I'll bet DM&E has paid taxes to aid it's competitors, huh?
C'mon, do you really want to go down this road?
All industries pay taxes. Said taxes go into the general fund for the most part. It is the feds who decide how that fund is dispersed. No one individual entity can dictate how their particular tax payments are used.
*******************************************
Well, I regret the fact that alternate energy sources cannot be found--wind power might put off the inevitable for a while, but sooner or later Illinois will need new coal-burning plants for the electric generation.
IMHO a loan shouldn't be rescinded for non-economic reasons; and IMO there's plenty of traffic out of the PRB for three lines. Has anyone pointed out yet that BNSF and UP now have an effective duopoly on removal of coal extraction, and it's marketing as much as routing with which the RRs in this case try to compete?
Has anyone pointed out that the fed gov't helped bail out their triple-track washout? They weren't above playing "corporate welfare" then; now they want to be the dogs in the manger?
Also IMHO the Mayo has been insufferably righteous about the whole thing. If they're too dang poor to help pay for an automobile underpass, why don't they show us a little of what they do or don't have in the way of endowment? So the public can truly see how broke they are? Talk is free but Mayo talk only cheapens it. The purity of their rhetoric is not matched by the purity of their public discourse.
Mookie is right: I tend to go into indignant mode -- but with the possible exception of the DM&E it's hard for me to generate much sympathy for the major "players" in this sad farce. This whole thing just epitomizes "political stalemate" for me. Whatever happened to the can-do America I grew up with? - a.s.
rrnut282 wrote: Seriously, if the government can't pony up $2.3B (or whatever the amount needed for sound operations is today) for Amtrak which has a proven record and benefits many, why are we not surprised that it won't give, I mean, loan money to a small granger-type railroad with dreams of greatness that will only benefit a few power plants?
Seriously, if the government can't pony up $2.3B (or whatever the amount needed for sound operations is today) for Amtrak which has a proven record and benefits many, why are we not surprised that it won't give, I mean, loan money to a small granger-type railroad with dreams of greatness that will only benefit a few power plants?
Except Amtrak squanders nearly a billion per year for it's.......thing. I'll bet the total amount wasted on Amtrak over the years comes to 20 or 30 billion by now. The DM&E aid was just a loan, not a grant (which it should have been, and still should be, except this time make it a grant for a railroad across the entire Northern Tier to a PNW port, you know, just like BNSF's predecessors!)
Now, how succesful would Amtrak be if all it's federal aid was in the form of a loan?
petitnj wrote:DM&E will be able to raise the money on the capital market but will be forced to give up control of the railroad to investors. This has its up side and down side. The up side is that the investors want to see it succeed the down side is that investors become impatient and may want return on their investment quickly.
I guess I'm confused to what the rate is on coal deliveries now and what they are going to be and just how much money are we talking about the railroad supposedly screwing the utilities out of. I bet the rate is still going to be way under any other mode of transport, I mean if its so outrageous they could go to trucks.
I just find it hard to believe that because the rail industry is doing better everyone wants a piece of it, the same industry that most do want any part of, usually. If DM&E can find private financing I say go for it. I still don't see how this is gonna save the electric companies money though, DM&E is gonna have some huge debt load and is gonna have to pay for it, just doesnt seem likely that rates are gonna be effected that much.
I am not a conspiracy theorist as I believe that most covert plans actually resemble the title of the novel. "A Confederacy of Dunces." But there's one nagging question that keeps my intuition radar primed. Is it just my mis-reading of the situation or is there a back story to how the Rochester Coalition was funded? The other is the tempest in a teapot nature of the Mayo objection. Did Mayo piggyback on the efforts of the coalition? If I were a investigative reporter, I would dig a little below the surface and see where these roots are located. Check out this website....linked to the coalition website. Nah...I'm just too cynical...right? They have an e-mail address on their website for questions. So...I sent them an e-mail entitled "Question" and it was simple enough; "What is the source of your funding and that of the Rochester Coalition?" The e-mail did not go through....it kicked back. Is this group incorporated as a non-profit? hmmm...list of private donors? I looked for ownership of this website and could find none like a blindbox ad...It could be perfectly honorable and I am not accusing these folks as being a front for others but I am curious.
http://www.dmetraintruth.com/
futuremodal wrote: zardoz wrote: A 10-mph, 9-degree curved loop, so the flanges can squeal all day long; .....preferably using jointed rail and a lot of railcars with flat spots on their wheels, being pulled by old smokey Alco's with stuck out of tune horns........ being pushed back and forth, back and forth.......slack in, slack out, slack in, slack out........
zardoz wrote: A 10-mph, 9-degree curved loop, so the flanges can squeal all day long;
A 10-mph, 9-degree curved loop, so the flanges can squeal all day long;
.....preferably using jointed rail and a lot of railcars with flat spots on their wheels, being pulled by old smokey Alco's with stuck out of tune horns........ being pushed back and forth, back and forth.......slack in, slack out, slack in, slack out........
Murphy Siding wrote: I'd have to question that statement. Non-tillable land, in rural ag states, divided into 100 foot widths by 100's of miles long doesn't fetch the highest prices on today's market.
Spaghetti farmers will snatch it up, though.
It's truly too bad that this load was denied. Maybe the concerns fo repayment are legitimate, I don't know. What I do know is that the government has taken a bath for amounts much greater than 2 billion dollars for lesser causes than this. I felt it would be money well spent. Everything does happen for a reason, however.We are to far removed from when the railroads settled and built this part of the country for people to care about the railroads. Thanks to Rochester and Mayo for tying up our courts and milking huge dollars out of DM&E for lawyers fees. As for their arguement of DM&E's safety record, well, is it any wonder? Look at the rails they are having to run on. This project would vault their safety record upward, most certainly. And as for trains going through town.....I live in a community where trains idle through at 5 to 10 mph. I would rather wait one and a half minutes for each train a mile long running at 45 mph than to sit for 10 minutes or more for the same train to clear the crossing.
It'll be interesting to see what happens now, but quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if DM&E dropped the plan and settle for doing what they've been doing all along. Providing a service in an area that no one wanted to handle.
I was dissapointed in the decision but have no problem with the financial market deciding on the viability of the project. I think it will go ahead.
There are problems with rail vibration and sensitive diagnostic equipment, but they have been addressed successfully elsewhere, either at the hospital or within the track construction or both together.
I was extremely disapointed in the FRA's decision. However, I don't think it means the end of the DME's PRB attempt. I am sure that Scheiffer was smart enough to have a plan 'B' in place in case the loan process didn't come through. I tend to agree with a previous poster's point about the railroad losing itself to investors in order to get this done. I am sure that if Scheiffer wants to do this, he will find a way to fund it privately. The problem is that the railroad will become lost to investors, although this may give impetus to making the expansion successful. In any case, the stakes have definitely risen.
As for the Mayo clinic, I would recommend running a 100 car unit train of tankers through Rochester with ever car labeled 'cyanide' on the side. They could fill the tankers with water (just for fun) and then have it derail right in front of the clinic. But instead of stopping the railroad to clean the mess up, just keep sending trains through and let them pile up in front of Mayo.
Ha.
There, I feel better.
In addition to the Mayo objection, the one that REALLY killed me was BNSF objecting to the "possibility" that the DM&E may disrupt BNSF operations at Savannah, IL by monopolizing the BNSF / ICE diamond. How could BNSF posed this issue w/ a straight face.
1) If DM&E ran 20 coal trains a day (they'd likely never have reached that high of a count) + 20 empties a day and if the speed limit at Savannah on the DM&E was 20 MPH, they'd tie up the diamond a total of 2 hrs per day, assuming that each train was a mile long. Add on signal delays and maybe you get to 4 hrs. BNSF currently runs about 40 trains per day, so that would account for about the same amount of time. That still leaves 16 hrs of quiet time per day at the jct.
2) If the minority RR at a junction (lesser volume) should be held subordinate to the larger volume RR at a diamond - and should perhaps be barred from expanding operations based on the premise that the lesser volume RR would impinge on the traffic of the larger volume RR, how does BNSF reconcile the fact they "THEY - the mighty BNSF" is the lesser volume RR at a much more substantial diamond, just an hour away, at Rochelle. (BNSF 40 trains per day, UP 60-80 trains per day)
I guess BNSF's EVP of Law - ex STB Chair - political puppet Roger Nober has to have something to do these days.
- - Stack
zardoz wrote: Chris30 wrote: I don't know if this kills the PRB dream. In our legal system there always seems to be an appeal. I appeal the appeal of your appeal... or something. Perhaps this motivates the DME. If they do have the private money, then build away and show the FRA that the loan could have been repayed. If there's any money left over... build a big loop around the Mayo Clinic.A 10-mph, 9-degree curved loop, so the flanges can squeal all day long;
Chris30 wrote: I don't know if this kills the PRB dream. In our legal system there always seems to be an appeal. I appeal the appeal of your appeal... or something. Perhaps this motivates the DME. If they do have the private money, then build away and show the FRA that the loan could have been repayed. If there's any money left over... build a big loop around the Mayo Clinic.
I don't know if this kills the PRB dream. In our legal system there always seems to be an appeal. I appeal the appeal of your appeal... or something. Perhaps this motivates the DME. If they do have the private money, then build away and show the FRA that the loan could have been repayed. If there's any money left over... build a big loop around the Mayo Clinic.
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Or are their monopolistic abuses and cross-subsidization of the Red Chinese economy a God-given Constitutional right? Slow down there Dave. You're going to work yourself into a tizzy! I didn't say I agreed with how this worked out. All I'm saying is, I'm not too surprised how this worked out. It's far to easy to dismiss people for being stupid, because they don't see things as you do . It's far harder to convince people to see things your way. If DM&E had convinced enough people,this would have been a slam-dunk.
futuremodal wrote: Or are their monopolistic abuses and cross-subsidization of the Red Chinese economy a God-given Constitutional right?
Or are their monopolistic abuses and cross-subsidization of the Red Chinese economy a God-given Constitutional right?
My apologies to the forum. I've now had one full day to cool off about this. Still ticked off, mind you, but now I'm at the stage where a healty dose of cynicism helps to lower the blood pressure. Serentity now, serenity now........
As for what DM&E could have done differently, I don't think they could. Mayo and BNSF seemed fanatically committed to killing this project no matter how many concessions DM&E made, and you know what they say about trying to reason with fanatics.......
petitnj wrote:Obviously DM&E is not worth $30B but I am sure that their property is easily worth $2.3B and would easily collateralize the FRA loan. I know you don't belive that but the price of land has
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.