If all the stories are even "mostly" even "close" to "true" on this one, the "lease" is about the only actual "asset" left, and a pile of unpaid bills. And, that makes sense to protect that, as it gives them some leverage in reorganizing and possibly selling their "franchise" to someone else, and then liquidating this enterprise.

Although I don't know all of the specifics of MTC's current agreement and terms. Failure to make payments would clearly jeopardize the "lease". But, if there are other requirements for ongoing maintenance of the "asset", or other provisions related to the lease with which they may have failed to comply, then who knows what MTC might do...? I've seen other articles which raise these "related" issues. So who knows where this will go?

My work always was more concerned with market analysis and economic analysis of the costs and benefits related to the rail served transportation "demands" or "needs" which this project would purportedly serve, in its various eventual potential project options and permutations.... And, I would not invest my pension fund in this project, was my conclusion then. And, it is still my conclusion today....

I was always very doubtful that this crew, that have run it over the last few years. They never appeared to have the real expertise or access to the kind of resources necessary to reopen the line. So no one is really that surprised about this turn of events.

Yes, you can probably just barely get a tri-level through with current clearance, at least in theory. But, based on several of the studies, it was recommended that for double stacks or auto racks to be able to use this line, it would require significant tunnel work to improve close clearances to make it safe and reliable for such traffic.

It is a great RR line, but it is unfortunately of little economic value in today's transport market.