by F-line to Dudley via Park
QB 52.32 wrote:Huh???? There is almost no continuity 31 years into the MellonFink administration from who was running what 45 years ago on the eve of B&M's bankruptcy. Management is ancient history, generations of employees are ancient history, the employee unions at the time are ancient history, hundreds of miles of track are ancient history, every railroad they competed with (with possible exception of passed-intact Central VT) is ancient history and now part of a completely different route network, the very economics of privately-owned railroads and freight rail of that era are ancient history. Very little is the same except some of the lengths of stick on the Worcester Branch.newpylong wrote:What is this supposed to prove? The B&M went a hell of a lot faster and put on more of a show when they left the rails than Pan Am? If so, that's true. At 10 MPH trucks are in the ballast. At 40 they're in someone's house.Those 36 derailments in 1969 averaged $158,000 in 2014 dollars per incident and like today were reported only when above a threshold, so it makes you wonder how many "trucks in the ballast" occurred in East Deerfield and elsewhere during that same year.
36 derailments in 1969? The B&M went bankrupt the following year so that isn't surprising. Pan Am doesn't report minor derailments, but there have been around two dozen in Deerfield alone so far this year.
What this tells you when you step back and look objectively, is that the same issues both seen and underlying, including their outward public relations image shortcomings, present today were also present 45+ years ago, leading one to conclude that the names may change but the story stays the same.
If you're trying to make a point here...make it without resorting to disingenuous logical fallacies, please.