Guilford: the worst?

MEC407 wrote:You said "access to deep pockets." You don't think that Timothy Mellon has deep pockets, or at least access to deep pockets? (Mellon Bank, et al.)

Sure, he has deep pockets but what's the motivation to spend money on something that will return subpar results and doesn't contribute to his other enterprises? Erving's roads and NHN contribute to bigger enterprises; NECR and SLR come from the legacy of CN's regulated-era over investment; and, the VRS and P&W from a different kind of genesis and taxpayer support from the start. In contrast, Pan Am comes from some long-suffering railroads (D&H and B&M) in a tough situation and traumatic rationalization, all of which has had an impact. And, really, if you want to compare owners, Eder of the P&W or Wulfson of VRS haven't invested their own big money into track and infrastructure either (it's too expensive and the returns too low in too challenging of a situation).

I think NHN could probably make money and operate relatively efficiently even if they had kept their line in fairly decrepit condition and had a maximum speed of 10 MPH; instead they chose to put money into it and bring the speeds up considerably. Why? It's just stone, after all. It's not like it goes bad.

SLR acquired a line in good 40 MPH condition from CN — much like the good 40 MPH condition of most MEC lines that Guilford acquired. SLR could have gone "Guilford style" and allowed their line to deteriorate over time, with minimal investment and bare minimal maintenance, but instead they chose to spend money to maintain the previous CN standard. Why?

I hate to bring MMA into the comparison, but even they put considerable money into their lines to increase speeds. This was long before the oil trains started. They, too, could have limped along at 10 MPH, Guilford style, but they chose not to. Why? (Granted it backfired for them in several different ways, mostly related to the regional/national/global economy, and then the Lac-Mégantic disaster... but if those things hadn't happened, it's quite likely that they'd be in pretty good shape right now.)

I'm not being snarky when I ask these questions; I'd sincerely like to know why. Clearly it IS possible to run a 10 MPH railroad and keep at least a handful of your customers — Guilford/PAR is proof of that — but if that really is the best business model, how come more New England railroads haven't done the same thing?

MEC407 wrote:I think NHN could probably make money and operate relatively efficiently even if they had kept their line in fairly decrepit condition and had a maximum speed of 10 MPH; instead they chose to put money into it and bring the speeds up considerably. Why? It's just stone, after all. It's not like it goes bad.

SLR acquired a line in good 40 MPH condition from CN — much like the good 40 MPH condition of most MEC lines that Guilford acquired. SLR could have gone "Guilford style" and allowed their line to deteriorate over time, with minimal investment and bare minimal maintenance, but instead they chose to spend money to maintain the previous CN standard. Why?

I hate to bring MMA into the comparison, but even they put considerable money into their lines to increase speeds. This was long before the oil trains started. They, too, could have limped along at 10 MPH, Guilford style, but they chose not to. Why? (Granted it backfired for them in several different ways, mostly related to the regional/national/global economy, and then the Lac-Mégantic disaster... but if those things hadn't happened, it's quite likely that they'd be in pretty good shape right now.)

I'm not being snarky when I ask these questions; I'd sincerely like to know why. Clearly it IS possible to run a 10 MPH railroad and keep at least a handful of your customers — Guilford/PAR is proof of that — but if that really is the best business model, how come more New England railroads haven't done the same thing?

At a terrible operating ratio, yes. Guilford would have saved tons of money in crew costs which could have been reinvested into infrastructure. These days, Pan Am is slightly better at crew management, but still has a lot to be desired. They run a $40M a year payroll, but I bet they could trim that down tremendously.

Look for some big changes coming to NHN in the next few years. Also, Irving (not Erving) controlls 50,000+ carloads per year. If PAR had greater capacity to handle traffic, they could no doubt run a greater slice of that pie. But for now, CN dominates it.

MEC407 wrote:I'm not being snarky when I ask these questions; I'd sincerely like to know why. Clearly it IS possible to run a 10 MPH railroad and keep at least a handful of your customers — Guilford/PAR is proof of that — but if that really is the best business model, how come more New England railroads haven't done the same thing?

They are good questions. Well, you do see examples of slow railroad like the P&W Willamantic branch (recently upgraded with taxpayer money) and the VRS' Bennington branch. CSX runs a similar amount of freight on their eastern MA branchline network at 10 mph as does PAR north of Portland.

The biggest contrast to Pan Am, SLR, probably provides the best comparison because it, as you said, runs faster and without the kind of taxpayer assistance other roads have/do receive. GRS's genesis was much different than SLR and at a very different earlier time and with a different goal for its buyers and with SLR benefiting from the deep-pocketed CN's motivation to spin off the GT; GRS/PAR (PAS)'s infrastructure lifecycle interval is quicker given the higher levels of traffic, so things manifest more quickly; GRS' starting point was no doubt below that of SLR in terms of infrastructure condition; and, lastly, GRS etc. has been a much more complicated situation given its roots, history and environment.

In terms of a business model, that's something that leadership has to decide given their goals, opportunities (including outside public or deep-pocketed-vested-interests funding), and specific situation. For PAR it's a carload system so speed isn't the importance, reliability is. So, if you markedly sped the system up would it really make a difference commercially? --- not to the point where you can justify private investments. Similarly, perhaps you can save something on crew costs and locomotive utilization but are the returns high enough that someone would want to put lots of their money there instead of somewhere else? Unlikely. And, that I think is the rub of all this: it is the basic economic situation of railroading in New England that's the "dog" determining private railroad infrastructure investment to the "tail" of a property's management's latitude in making choices, unless there's taxpayer or outside funding. So, some years from now as SLR's rail wears out, unless there's dramatic change in their economics or outside funding, you may be watching their trains, too, rolling along at a slower pace (and, hey, maybe Pan Am, down to its most-effective core, relieved of the full burden of much of the ex-B&M and having been injected with NS cash, running a little faster....).

i am bewildered by some of these posts. how can anyone not see the cash flow positives in moving from 10mph to 40mph? if mr. fink really has an mba, i would ask from where?.now starting with my basic contention that railroad speed limits are really 'eye of the beholder' originated and, thus, are scaled down so as to provide 'eye' insurance for federal regulators. no one can tell me that artificial speed limits cannot be increased with the stroke of a pen. after all, car inspections are the fail-safe. think of the rewards from higher speeds. 75% reduction in crews , power, railcars. 75% increase in revenue per day. on and on. how about pricing that reflects a 400% increase in efficierncy. folks need to challenge the obtuse thinking that controls railroads. we were lucky. our moves on conrail/csxt/lirr/ns- 600 one-way miles gave us 4+ turns per month. since each car with containers cost $105k, anything less would have killed any new business. as it was, i became a 7/24 person with visits to oak point, selkirk and acca a few times a month. it seemed to me that constant interaction with railroaf operating folk was welcomed. i helped with empty/load status billing every day. i can't imagine dealing with a 10mph railroad. how depressing for the operators. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:now starting with my basic contention that railroad speed limits are really 'eye of the beholder' originated and, thus, are scaled down so as to provide 'eye' insurance for federal regulators. no one can tell me that artificial speed limits cannot be increased with the stroke of a pen. after all, car inspections are the fail-safe. think of the rewards from higher speeds.

I just want to make sure I'm fully understanding you as you intended. You honestly believe that the 185 miles of 10mph running from Keag to New Gloucester is all for show and could simply be ommited from tomorrow's temporary speed restrictions sheet?

If that is the case, then of more concern to me than where Mr. Fink got his MBA is where you got your MBS and I'm not talking about a Masters in Biological Science. That is simply the biggest pile of cow dung dropped on this forum in a long time. 10 minutes trackside would quickly illustrate the point. Or talk to pretty much any crewman working D1 north of Yarmouth. Some stretches are scary at their current 10mph, never mind your suggested pencil pushing of speed limits to 25 or better...

Dear Santa:
I know you normally don't handle birthday requests except for those people born on December 25, but since I'll be turning 72 in a few weeks, I thought it would be worth a try. Just to increase my chances of getting what I want, I'm even going to ask that what I want also be given to others. Such unselfishness should be rewarded, I would hope.
Would it be possible, Santa, to have all the people posting on RAILROAD.net infused with the spirit of generosity that you so personify? Helping them think before hitting the "Submit" button, not just in the matter of content, but also in the matter of avoiding contentiousness would be an excellent start and would also help the rest of us be better readers and better posters. If it's not asking too much, would it also be possible to help in the restraint of getting "last post?" Some people think they've won if their post is the ultimate submission on a subject. Given the actual cash value of such a victory, I'm not sure if it's worth all the effort that sometimes seems to go into its pursuit.
If I seem selfish, I apologize. If I have violated my own wishes, I again apologize.
Gratefully yours,
jaymac

Ken seems under the impression that railroad track speed limits are like artificially underposted highways speed traps - the one difference is exceeding the speed limits on a underposted road will get you to your destination quicker and safely (if revenue enforcement is not present), while doing 25mph on 10mph excepted track with a heavy train will likely get you on the ground, if not worse.
That said, "constant interaction with railroa[d] operating folk was welcomed" actually is true, and it's always good to hear from the people doing the work (I was going to say "on the ground", but considering the context...nah).

Now...

jaymac wrote:Helping them think before hitting the "Submit" button, not just in the matter of content, but also in the matter of avoiding contentiousness

In a thread titled "Guilford: the worst?" - the title alone is an open invitation to trolling

would it also be possible to help in the restraint of getting "last post?"

How about we bring back "FIRST!" before the 1990s call and want it back.

Some people think they've won if their post is the ultimate submission on a subject

The problem is...in the eyes of many, they have indeed won.

Given the actual cash value of such a victory

Being the cash prize is <Doctor Evil Voice>ONE MILLION DOLLARS!</DEV>, which the ultimate winner will collect from Railroad.net on the eve of the Apocalypse (spend it fast).

KSmitty wrote:I just want to make sure I'm fully understanding you as you intended. You honestly believe that the 185 miles of 10mph running from Keag to New Gloucester is all for show and could simply be ommited from tomorrow's temporary speed restrictions sheet?

If that is the case, then of more concern to me than where Mr. Fink got his MBA is where you got your MBS and I'm not talking about a Masters in Biological Science. That is simply the biggest pile of cow dung dropped on this forum in a long time. 10 minutes trackside would quickly illustrate the point. Or talk to pretty much any crewman working D1 north of Yarmouth. Some stretches are scary at their current 10mph, never mind your suggested pencil pushing of speed limits to 25 or better...

Yeah, I kind of took that comment the same like, "Really?!" One time about three years back out in Carmel(Damascus crossing), an engineer took a westbound up that grade pushing 25 on the corner before the crossing. I grabbed my pics and jogged toward the road just to get farther away. Cars were rocking and moaning at a scary rate! People in District 1 East of Waterville know the crappy conditions of the average PAR mile in that territory. Last time I checked, boosting your speeds out of the "Classic 10" overnight following no new track work usually brings you one thing.....a derailment!

necr3849 wrote:

KSmitty wrote:I just want to make sure I'm fully understanding you as you intended. You honestly believe that the 185 miles of 10mph running from Keag to New Gloucester is all for show and could simply be ommited from tomorrow's temporary speed restrictions sheet?

If that is the case, then of more concern to me than where Mr. Fink got his MBA is where you got your MBS and I'm not talking about a Masters in Biological Science. That is simply the biggest pile of cow dung dropped on this forum in a long time. 10 minutes trackside would quickly illustrate the point. Or talk to pretty much any crewman working D1 north of Yarmouth. Some stretches are scary at their current 10mph, never mind your suggested pencil pushing of speed limits to 25 or better...

Yeah, I kind of took that comment the same like, "Really?!" One time about three years back out in Carmel(Damascus crossing), an engineer took a westbound up that grade pushing 25 on the corner before the crossing. I grabbed my pics and jogged toward the road just to get farther away. Cars were rocking and moaning at a scary rate! People in District 1 East of Waterville know the crappy conditions of the average PAR mile in that territory. Last time I checked, boosting your speeds out of the "Classic 10" overnight following no new track work usually brings you one thing.....a derailment!

Also everyone seems to be forgetting that Mr. Fink does not own the railroad. A lot of stuff has to go by Mr. Mellon and trust me, that is very difficult. For the most part, things are improving but still the Master of Puppets is the head honcho. And without the appropriate resources, it's tough to get things done. I'm sure that PAR execs would love to spend $150M on a large scale upgrade project, but that would require taking on debt, and Mr. Fink has made it clear -- no debt (Even though he is affiliated with a bank...). All the capital comes from the RR's retained earnings (after the bull gets his cut) and/or outside investment.

So if you want to skip all the writing I just did, the point is, there are a lot of smart people working for Pan Am and unless you know what's going on in the inside, don't act like you know what you're talking about. Even people that have no idea about running a railroad can say "gee, those trains seem to be moving pretty slow."

CN9634 wrote: So if you want to skip all the writing I just did, the point is, there are a lot of smart people working for Pan Am and unless you know what's going on in the inside, don't act like you know what you're talking about.

Hello? Pot calling the kettle black?

Mikejf wrote:

CN9634 wrote: So if you want to skip all the writing I just did, the point is, there are a lot of smart people working for Pan Am and unless you know what's going on in the inside, don't act like you know what you're talking about.

Hello? Pot calling the kettle black?

I've spoken regularly with many Pan Am employees and managers primarily out of District 1 and a few from Billerica. Have yet to cash in on my tour though... Looking forward to working with them this summer on some projects as well.

CN9634 wrote:

necr3849 wrote:

KSmitty wrote:

Also everyone seems to be forgetting that Mr. Fink does not own the railroad. A lot of stuff has to go by Mr. Mellon and trust me, that is very difficult. For the most part, things are improving but still the Master of Puppets is the head honcho. And without the appropriate resources, it's tough to get things done. I'm sure that PAR execs would love to spend $150M on a large scale upgrade project, but that would require taking on debt, and Mr. Fink has made it clear -- no debt (Even though he is affiliated with a bank...). All the capital comes from the RR's retained earnings (after the bull gets his cut) and/or outside investment.

So if you want to skip all the writing I just did, the point is, there are a lot of smart people working for Pan Am and unless you know what's going on in the inside, don't act like you know what you're talking about. Even people that have no idea about running a railroad can say "gee, those trains seem to be moving pretty slow."

Just curious as to why these 2 posts were chosen to be quoted to make your point on railroad management and Mr. Mellon's rules? Neither myself or "necr3849" made any references to inadequacies in the current management of Pan Am. In fact, if you take a quick look back, I've been quite the proponent of the current management. I appreciate the situation they are in, limited resources, lots of miles, and many contractual commitments that must take priority over D1 east of Royal Jct.

years ago, i spent some time with market development and train ops people at iron horse. i was struck by the poor inside working conditions and the unending stream of outside junk. i felt bad for the workers. i, like most people, buy with my eyes. the sad state of iron horse-perhaps its better now- was a turn-off for me. i could not see how i could point to guilford as a believable player in a startup move. fortunately, guilford took themselves out of the mix with absurd pricing and train ops.
now, as for speed restrictions. why not increase to 15mph on the 'bad' track? run a few months. zero in on specific track problems and fix them. then repeat the same 'test' at 20mph. do the needed repairs. go to 25 etc.i don't like large ball-park numbers- '150 million'- because they are never real. i prefer an incremental approach. i think 4 good ties every 40 ft, gauging and resurfacing should be on-going. the increase in profits would easily pay for the work. i love folklore but it really clouds issues. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:years ago, i spent some time with market development and train ops people at iron horse. i was struck by the poor inside working conditions and the unending stream of outside junk. i felt bad for the workers. i, like most people, buy with my eyes. the sad state of iron horse-perhaps its better now- was a turn-off for me. i could not see how i could point to guilford as a believable player in a startup move. fortunately, guilford took themselves out of the mix with absurd pricing and train ops.
now, as for speed restrictions. why not increase to 15mph on the 'bad' track? run a few months. zero in on specific track problems and fix them. then repeat the same 'test' at 20mph. do the needed repairs. go to 25 etc.i don't like large ball-park numbers- '150 million'- because they are never real. i prefer an incremental approach. i think 4 good ties every 40 ft, gauging and resurfacing should be on-going. the increase in profits would easily pay for the work. i love folklore but it really clouds issues. ken patrick

I agree with your points but the incremental approach would not work because the track is either FRA Class I or Class II. So it's either maintained to 10 or 25, but nothing in between.

Furthermore, there is no need to "test" things out. They know how things run with a RR at 10 mph (Pan Am) and 25+ (Pan Am Southern) and the bean counters obviously have done the math for many years now and have decided it's not worth it.

Personally, I vehemently disagree with this. No mainline should be less than Class II with the tonnage they run. With the amount of freight and trains running over Pan Am Southern, it should be maintained to 30-40 as the TT says and as NS gave them the money to do.