 |
Re: Roseburg Forest Products Sends Letter to CORP
Author: GUNNER XV
Date: 03-10-2008 - 00:00
I'll admit I don't know much about the actual traffic, revenue & costs on CORP, or Roseburg's particulars, but it sure looks like to me we are seeing the same old piece of crap routine playing out:
a) ClassI get's rid of a marginal line, or one that they see becoming marginal
b) ClassI's are evil, they want to tear out track, drive off customers, provide bad service
c) Shortlines & regionals are good, = better service, rehab lines, invest, draw shippers
d) ClassI sells out, shortline saves the day!
e) winning bidder pays to much, gets the line, things don't go right, same result as 'b'
f) threaten to tear out line, reduce service unless public or other money comes in
g) railroad deteriorates, people jump ship, place goes downhill
I'd say that that many of the good and bad attitudes and approaches to business of the ClassI's and shortlines have flipped 180 degrees.
I agree on one hand that management has a duty to shareholders, but I don't cut FIG or RA/CORP one bit of slack. You don't jump in & out of the RR business, if you have a railroad, there is a long history of custom, precedence, procedure & case law that the are obligations to parties OTHER than the shareholders. >>> DO YOU GET THIS FIG and all other financially oriented parties that see railroads as just some other company to get control of & play games (i.e. CSX situation)???
Owning, managing & running a railroad, no mattter what size, takes a big commitment for a lot of investment of time & money over a long period of time. If you're lucky, the property will hold its own and support the required employment, maintenance, rules compliance, etc. that railroading demands.
Not all track needs to be kept, some lines just don't add up economicaly anymore, and rail investments need to meet the cost of capital, but darned if I am willing to let operators walk away from a line or shovel public money to them on account of bad decisions or management. I'll also admit that a shortline or regional may have difficulty in dealing with changes when the problem's source or the solution's obstruction is the ex-ClassI track owner, but I haven't heard that UP is the problem for CORP.
The only angle missing in the Siskyou saga is that it's not WATCO. I wonder what this line's situation would be if G&W had acquired it. I know they looked at it, and probably assessed its value at the time of sale lower than RA did. When the ClassI sells something, it pays to really look at why & why it won't work in their picture. When something this big gets spun off, it's not just to save 1 crew and free up 1 locomotive like on a 10 mile 10/car per week branch.
a) ClassI get's rid of a marginal line, or one that they see becoming marginal
b) ClassI's are evil, they want to tear out track, drive off customers, provide bad service
c) Shortlines & regionals are good, = better service, rehab lines, invest, draw shippers
d) ClassI sells out, shortline saves the day!
e) winning bidder pays to much, gets the line, things don't go right, same result as 'b'
f) threaten to tear out line, reduce service unless public or other money comes in
g) railroad deteriorates, people jump ship, place goes downhill
I'd say that that many of the good and bad attitudes and approaches to business of the ClassI's and shortlines have flipped 180 degrees.
I agree on one hand that management has a duty to shareholders, but I don't cut FIG or RA/CORP one bit of slack. You don't jump in & out of the RR business, if you have a railroad, there is a long history of custom, precedence, procedure & case law that the are obligations to parties OTHER than the shareholders. >>> DO YOU GET THIS FIG and all other financially oriented parties that see railroads as just some other company to get control of & play games (i.e. CSX situation)???
Owning, managing & running a railroad, no mattter what size, takes a big commitment for a lot of investment of time & money over a long period of time. If you're lucky, the property will hold its own and support the required employment, maintenance, rules compliance, etc. that railroading demands.
Not all track needs to be kept, some lines just don't add up economicaly anymore, and rail investments need to meet the cost of capital, but darned if I am willing to let operators walk away from a line or shovel public money to them on account of bad decisions or management. I'll also admit that a shortline or regional may have difficulty in dealing with changes when the problem's source or the solution's obstruction is the ex-ClassI track owner, but I haven't heard that UP is the problem for CORP.
The only angle missing in the Siskyou saga is that it's not WATCO. I wonder what this line's situation would be if G&W had acquired it. I know they looked at it, and probably assessed its value at the time of sale lower than RA did. When the ClassI sells something, it pays to really look at why & why it won't work in their picture. When something this big gets spun off, it's not just to save 1 crew and free up 1 locomotive like on a 10 mile 10/car per week branch.
