D&H up for sale?!

[pablo]

I guess that's how things have always been. In years back, loads of people post loads of things that go nowhere. The site has always been against that sort of rumor-mongering, and if that's a change that's been made, so be it. This site and others like it are hardly going to be the butterfly's wings that start the hurricane.

However, there are drawbacks to posting such things, and forgive me if others have said it: some things do not wish to see the light of day until their time. As such, it can hurt operations if things get out there. That's why facts don't get out until they are ready: as an example, in one case I am familiar with, keeping specifics out of the public realm meant that trucking companies could not bid against a fledgling railroad and undercut the rates to snuff them...which they would have done. In this regard, I'm certain that this is something that this site should be for.

Lastly, the initial post here offered supposed specifics which were then retreated from. If you have something, and you say something, I think you should prove something. That's not hammering someone, it's just the way the world works...and certainly the way things have worked around here.

Dave Becker

[Jeff Smith]

Dave, and Otto too I guess, no criticism implied, I thought I actually followed your lead in asking for a description of the source. Your points, though, Dave, are well-taken, and I think this open discussion helps facilitate. I also tend to that cautious side about posting stuff that's word of mouth, but am still figuring out some boundaries. I tell you what, the last few months have given me an appreciation for how you all managed the site.

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Sometimes, it's just a "stalking horse". Wasn't the whole CR-NS-CSX deal kind of that way? They just get a life of their own and spin out of control.

No, the long, protracted negotiations between Conrail, CSX and NS weren't negatively impacted by the rumormill. Basically, CR was going to be taken over one way or another, and the breakup was inevitable, due to concerns over maintaining competition. There were more than a few bluffs from both sides but it all turned out well enough.

[goodnightjohnwayne]

I guess that's how things have always been. In years back, loads of people post loads of things that go nowhere. The site has always been against that sort of rumor-mongering, and if that's a change that's been made, so be it. This site and others like it are hardly going to be the butterfly's wings that start the hurricane.

Honestly, I don't believe for one second that rumors of a possible D&H sales will precipitate a chain of events leading to an actual D&H sale. We all know that something is happening behind the scenes at CP, since through traffic is still passing over CSX's own Montreal Secondary. Just why CSX hasn't shifted all through traffic to the CP's D&H is a mystery even to industry observers.

However, there are drawbacks to posting such things, and forgive me if others have said it: some things do not wish to see the light of day until their time. As such, it can hurt operations if things get out there. That's why facts don't get out until they are ready: as an example, in one case I am familiar with, keeping specifics out of the public realm meant that trucking companies could not bid against a fledgling railroad and undercut the rates to snuff them...which they would have done. In this regard, I'm certain that this is something that this site should be for.

You anecdote seems to describe some sort of marginal shortline railroad. This instance is entirely different. I really don't see any negative impact from someone reporting a rumor, as long as it's correctly identified as such. Actually, as far as the issue of shipping rates being made public, I don't see the issue either. If shippers can negotiate lower rates a consequence of publicly available information, isn't that a positive development?

Lastly, the initial post here offered supposed specifics which were then retreated from. If you have something, and you say something, I think you should prove something. That's not hammering someone, it's just the way the world works...and certainly the way things have worked around here.

Dave Becker

I don't see why anyone should be compelled to reveal a source? After all, this isn't old fashioned journalism, but just an internet forum. As a moderator, do you really want to take on the role of a newspaper fact checker?

A rumor has been reported by a member, and actually, that rumor makes a lot of sense in view of current events.

[Jeff Smith]

Lastly, the initial post here offered supposed specifics which were then retreated from. If you have something, and you say something, I think you should prove something. That's not hammering someone, it's just the way the world works...and certainly the way things have worked around here.

Dave Becker

I don't see why anyone should be compelled to reveal a source? After all, this isn't old fashioned journalism, but just an internet forum. As a moderator, do you really want to take on the role of a newspaper fact checker?

A rumor has been reported by a member, and actually, that rumor makes a lot of sense in view of current events.

FOR THE RECORD: No one was trying to compel someone to reveal a source. Yes, it's just a railroad forum. No, it's not old-fashioned journalism. Although I think the blogosphere has certainly played a role in recent current events. I do think, though, to properly assess the "confidence level" in information, you need to know the source. So I asked, with the proviso that we not use names, what the source was.

FOR THE RECORD: I frown on using names, last or first if readily identifiable, of private (i.e. no public official or executive officer type) third parties so that they not receive undue attention.

Now I see why Dave and Otto locked threads like this. And I'm sure someone will call me a Nazi for doing it. It's called being a moderator, folks.<SIGH>