Tri-State Tom wrote:Trainlawyer -
Never have directly addressed you before now. Have followed/read your previous posts on other threads and while I didn't always agree with you, my impression was you were an intelligent individual who at least made the effort to present - and you'll pardon the pun - a case for your posted positions.
Now, this verbage you've posted here plus the similar comment in the other forum is atypical of you.
" I suppose the funding is as imminent as the movement of the F-40s to Metro North. "
The relevance of this comment to this subject thread escapes me.
FWIW to you, MetroNorth came to Morristown and inspected the F40's a few weeks ago. There's a post somewhere here ( engine thread ? ) authored by me about watching the evaluation one afternoon. Don't know the status of the deal today. Your comment suggests it was a quasi fairytale....it wasn't/isn't.
Who from Metro-North (ie, what was their title. They may have worked for MN but not represented them) came to Morristown, and how do you know they were from MN? I imagine you spoke to this person/people which is how you know they were from MN. Regardless, this rumor has been circulating for probably about a year now, and nothing has come of it. Morristown continues to maintain that MN will be leasing these locomotives but no movement in that direction has occurred. A MN employee who visits this site has said several times that the chief mechanical officer at MN has no knowledge of any deal for them to lease those locomotives. Meanwhile, several of the FH's, which these locomotives are supposed to replace while they are out for rebuilding, have already left the property, and I believe one has already been returned.
" I note that business is not up to the point where Mr. Fuller is willing to expend some of the railroad’s money on the Rahway Valley. "
I'm assuming on further review you'd prefer to erase this comment since it is extremely juvenile and suggests you're not as business savvy as one would expect from an individual in your purported profession.
I do not see how this is a "juvenile" statement. It is a opinion, that I happen to share. If the M&E is doing so well, and the RV is so important to them, why not spend their own money to continue the project? How much would it cost to simply connect the RV to the Raritan Line interchange? There is not much work left to be done to accomplish that. This would allow access to the "customers" they desire to serve. Once funding comes through, they could simply request payment for the work performed while waiting for further funds. I don't see why Union County would object, they get a cut of the profits from the operation of the line.
" Unfortunately this tends to support my original belief that there was no economic justification for the original project. "
Unfortunately, it's painfully obvious that all this ridiculous comment does is make you appear even more juvenile and wet behind the ears biz savvy wize than after the first comment. You've presented yourself as an experienced, veteran jurist here. Do you honestly believe that the Morristown & Erie would involve itself with a project like this knowing ahead of time that there was little or nill economic benefit to be had for them upon completion ?
Instead of 'beliefs', why don't you contact the appropriate county authorties to garner their take on the economic benefits of restoring these lines to service ? I'm pretty confident that they had to lay that out pretty extensively to the state/feds to warrant the $$$ advances.
carry on.
Again, I don't see how this is juvenile. It is another statement of opinion, a well formed opinion I agree with. You are making assumptions that the M&E has invested a significant amount in this project, with absolutely no basis in fact. Maybe they simply saw this as a way to get locomotives from Bayway to Morristown, or mis-judged the potential of the line. There is as much evidence to support that conclusion as yours. There is no evidence anywhere that the M&E had to lay out any funds of their own to secure this contract to operate these rail lines. If then, they have invested no funds of their own, and no traffic results from the restoration of service, what has the M&E lost? If they have made no investment of their own, then they have no downside. If traffic is generated on the RV, they get the revenues, less Union Counties cut. If no traffic is generated, then they have a unused rail line that a new customer may choose to use in the future. If there is no traffic on the RV, then only the taxpayers have lost anything, as they have put forth the money for this project. I apologize for answering for Trainlawyer, but I share the same opinion as him on this subject, and felt the need to throw my two cents in.
A couple quick points. First, why have customer sidings been built as work progressed along the line? It is easier to build in a switch as they worked along, even if they did not build the actual siding, now, rather than trying to install one later. Second, not all of the employee laid off by the M&E were track dept employees related to the reconstruction of the RV. Some were mechanical employees from Morristown. How do I know this? A friend of mine who used to work for the M&E and remains in touch with several current M&E employees.
Finally, the M&E contract with Union County is to rehabilitate and operate the SIRY and RV, as stipulated in the agreement. The agreement has a term of 10 years, with the option for two 5 year extensions.
