Rumford Branch, RUPO / PORU

QB 52.32 wrote:Newpylong, you continue to try and find guilty Pan Am's "bean counters" in your court of axe-grinding emotion. Do you know for a fact that the cause of this derailment was because of a lack of "routine maintenance"? Do you really think the calculus for the "bean counters" is your simplistic assertion that they've determined that "picking up derailment after derailment is cheaper than routine maintenance"?

I think that the "bean counters" calculus is closer to trying to meet many needs with limited resources. Unless there's a big injection of money from some outside source, you don't just turn a New England railroad on a dime. It seems to me that Pan Am is investing in their railroad and with some of the needs pressing to support traffic growth (which is a good thing, no?). And, it's not like other New England carriers haven't had their share of problems in the past few years, either.

I can only wonder what your emotional state toward the "bean counters" might have been if you had witnesed New England railroading's darkest days of the late '60's and early '70's when the B&M, NYC/PC and even the P&W were wracking 'em up pretty good all over the place and frequently, destroying lading left and right.

He worked for the RR, I'd pretty well consider him one of the most expert people on this forum regarding Pan Am operations.

And to further bolster his point, think about how many privately (aka a majority owner is a single person) railroads there are the size of Pan Am. I can't think of any. You would think in this day and age with most railroads being publically held, or owned by an investment or umbrella company, that Pan Am wouldn't exist in its current capacity. But having a single person own the majority of the RR hinders operations, especially since it's clear they've enjoyed their NO DEBT capital structure.

Imagine if Pan Am took about a $100M loan or even had an IPO. Certainly they could raise a few bucks

NHV 669 wrote:hey, it beats dumping a few Boeings in the water

That's for sure!

(In case anyone doesn't understand the reference, this is what NHV 669 was referring to: http://www.railpictures.net/photo/488740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

QB 52.32 wrote:Newpylong, you continue to try and find guilty Pan Am's "bean counters" in your court of axe-grinding emotion. Do you know for a fact that the cause of this derailment was because of a lack of "routine maintenance"? Do you really think the calculus for the "bean counters" is your simplistic assertion that they've determined that "picking up derailment after derailment is cheaper than routine maintenance"?

I think that the "bean counters" calculus is closer to trying to meet many needs with limited resources. Unless there's a big injection of money from some outside source, you don't just turn a New England railroad on a dime. It seems to me that Pan Am is investing in their railroad and with some of the needs pressing to support traffic growth (which is a good thing, no?). And, it's not like other New England carriers haven't had their share of problems in the past few years, either.

I can only wonder what your emotional state toward the "bean counters" might have been if you had witnesed New England railroading's darkest days of the late '60's and early '70's when the B&M, NYC/PC and even the P&W were wracking 'em up pretty good all over the place and frequently, destroying lading left and right.

I do know for a fact it was track. My assertion might be simplistic, but that's their strategy.

QB 52.32-
newpylong -- credit to his self-restraint -- chose to respond to the non-personalized comments in your post. If he had chosen to respond to some of the more personalized comments, self-restraint aside, that would have been more than his right. As a premise, let me state that I have not contacted newpylong concerning your post in response to his post, nor would I ever presume to ever comment for him. However, let's look at your post:

QB 52.32 » Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:17 am

Newpylong, you continue to try and find guilty Pan Am's "bean counters" in your court of axe-grinding emotion. Do you know for a fact that the cause of this derailment was because of a lack of "routine maintenance"? Do you really think the calculus for the "bean counters" is your simplistic assertion that they've determined that "picking up derailment after derailment is cheaper than routine maintenance"?

I think that the "bean counters" calculus is closer to trying to meet many needs with limited resources. Unless there's a big injection of money from some outside source, you don't just turn a New England railroad on a dime. It seems to me that Pan Am is investing in their railroad and with some of the needs pressing to support traffic growth (which is a good thing, no?). And, it's not like other New England carriers haven't had their share of problems in the past few years, either.

I can only wonder what your emotional state toward the "bean counters" might have been if you had witnesed New England railroading's darkest days of the late '60's and early '70's when the B&M, NYC/PC and even the P&W were wracking 'em up pretty good all over the place and frequently, destroying lading left and right.

To borrow a phrase of yours, I, too, can only wonder, but wonder at the utility of selecting phrasing that might seem intended to diminish a person's position by diminishing the person. You and others will note that various portions of your response to newpylong have been italicized. That modification was made by me as a way of highlighting some of what seems personally-aimed commentary. If Barry Goldwater thought it was possible to disagree without being disagreeable, then surely each and all of us who post on RAILROAD.net can keep this site from devolving into similarity to any of a number other and more politically/combatively oriented sites.

Aside from being incredibly wordy, I'm trying to figure out what the previous post has to do with the Rumford branch.

I think it speaks for itself, and I agree with Mr. Jaymac's sentiments.

Let's move on, shall we?

Good plan.

The rumor mill suggests the Verso-Newpage merger won't be good for the Rumford branch. Key word here is rumor, but the rumor is Verso is much more interested in Newpage's holdings elsewhere in the US, than in Maine.

Also on the rumor block is the New Page employees don't like the deal and are trying to stop it, as of 2 months ago...

jaymac wrote:QB 52.32-
newpylong -- credit to his self-restraint -- chose to respond to the non-personalized comments in your post. If he had chosen to respond to some of the more personalized comments, self-restraint aside, that would have been more than his right. As a premise, let me state that I have not contacted newpylong concerning your post in response to his post, nor would I ever presume to ever comment for him.

Jaymac, rest assured my post takes into account the context and scale of ongoing assertions by Newpylong about Guilford/Pan Am's management and my responses to those assertions. Perhaps, you should revisit a number of posts made over time and in a few different threads before passing judgement. I certainly do not intend to personally insult anyone and do believe that my responses are measured in appropriate scale. Lastly, I get the sense from Newpylong's responses that he is wearing his big-boy pants and knows that if he is going to dish it he has to be willing to take it. But, I appreciate your concerns and will remain mindful of them moving forward.

QB 52.32 wrote:Newpylong, you continue to try and find guilty Pan Am's "bean counters" in your court of axe-grinding emotion. Do you know for a fact that the cause of this derailment was because of a lack of "routine maintenance"? Do you really think the calculus for the "bean counters" is your simplistic assertion that they've determined that "picking up derailment after derailment is cheaper than routine maintenance"?

I think that the "bean counters" calculus is closer to trying to meet many needs with limited resources. Unless there's a big injection of money from some outside source, you don't just turn a New England railroad on a dime. It seems to me that Pan Am is investing in their railroad and with some of the needs pressing to support traffic growth (which is a good thing, no?). And, it's not like other New England carriers haven't had their share of problems in the past few years, either.

I can only wonder what your emotional state toward the "bean counters" might have been if you had witnesed New England railroading's darkest days of the late '60's and early '70's when the B&M, NYC/PC and even the P&W were wracking 'em up pretty good all over the place and frequently, destroying lading left and right.

Turn a road on a dime? You talking money or time it takes? If you mean the latter, they've had 30+ years to get it right last time I checked and are still a laughing stock. You're 40-50 years removed and almost two generations beyond comparing to the 60s and 70s. Many acts have been passed and regulations have been rewritten countless times. Weigh today's tonnage/track mile ratio to that of the mentioned dark days. It's crazy what's moved today on what remains of overall mileage. Pan Am has managed to pattern everything on a 10mph, bare bones maintenance policy all this time unless someone else does the work needed to make it better. NS/PAS down South.....Amtrak.....NBSR.....The list goes on if I forgot anyone. If those others hadn't made an impact, the whole PAR system would likely be a 10mph road from end to end with barely any dependable routine. Not to mention a derailment every other day.

necr3849 wrote: Turn a road on a dime? You talking money or time it takes? If you mean the latter, they've had 30+ years to get it right last time I checked and are still a laughing stock.

What you've said here is akin to someone who has never operated a locomotive blaming an engineer for stalling an underpowered train on a grade or going into emergency for a kicker. Up until the past few years, it's been no picnic for Guilford/Pan Am: created from 2/3 marginal/loser operations, increasing and substantial competition even for its most important traffic, de-industrialization of New England, rationalization within the rail industry on which it depends, some loss associated with the defacto subsidization benefits provided with regulation, and, like any other standalone New England carrier, not generating the kinds of money to justify and attract private capital for big investment in track. I would bet that had your engine-handle namesake carrier been in the same position instead of having come from a deep-pocket predecessor owner who over-maintained the property and spun it off some 10 years later than Guilford's start, and without the huge benefits accrued from the taxpayer trough throughout their existence, their behavior wouldn't have been much different. And, I think the condition of their railroad at its southerly end provides a glimpse into that.

And lets not forget, PAR had the opportunity to sell part of the system when NS was itching to get a foothold in New England. That was management's choice, not a myriad of economic and governmental challenges.

Gents, forgive me if I wasn't completely clear when I said "let's move on." The discussion you're having is perfectly valid but it's not appropriate for this particular thread. I suggest checking out this thread if you wish to continue this discussion. Thank you.

Guys, I'm serious. The off-topic banter ends now. If you've got a problem with someone, hash it out via private message. This thread is not the place for it. I deleted the last two messages and I'll delete any more that aren't directly related to the Rumford Branch.

↑↑ Like