Some comments on the previous posts:
LP pointed out Oakfield yard was full of NOKL cars which met their needs but was told they would have to be leased in order to use for shipping
It may have looked like an anti-customer ploy, but look at it this way: I don't have first hand knowledge of the LP scenario, but I can imagine what occurred. During that time period, car supply was TIGHT. The lessor probably would have wanted a high rate AND extended lease terms. If LP wasn't offering them an extended volume agreement, it would have been risky to take on those cars. Think of it: the housing market began to soften in '07, and fell off the charts in '08. MMA would have been sitting on all those cars- and paying for them- all these months. At least if they're stored off-lease on their line, they're collecting a storage fee!
407, I know what you're saying about eye rolling, but the subsequent interviewee (the legislator) puts it in context. In short, he stated that passenger service to Brunswick, and even the reactivation of the Mountain Sub should be given a higher funding priority than the MMA issue. Leaving aside the dubious Brunswick passenger potential, the Mountain Sub funding requires substantially more than the proposed MMA funding. So there you have it: the state believes it's wiser to put money into the Mountain Sub than preserve rail service in the County. Now THAT deserves an eye roll!
If the union's blame what's happening in the county on the MMA management, they're off-base. And if Burkhardt actually blames the unions for their demise, he's equally delusional. MMA is doomed for three reasons: 1) They paid way too much for the property, 2)They insist in operating a contiguous system, i.e., operating the CP line, and 3)Traffic potential in their service area was slim to begin with, has dropped precipitously, and will be a long time in coming before it again (if ever) reaches sustainable, i.e., non-subsidy levels.