 |
Re: PIR goes Bankrupt-What does it all mean Mr Natural...?
Author: BOB2
Date: 10-28-2016 - 01:00
Answer one:
I meant MTS, not MTC (wrong key stroke, sorry about that....). They own the line..... That is the entity that issued the lease to this operator for the use of the line.
Answer 2:
Based on the studies I reviewed over the last 25 years which looked at restoring the line for various scenarios, there is little or no likelihood of any significant sustainable rail traffic base necessary to support the not insignificant costs to restore, upgrade, maintain, and operate this rail line profitably. Which is largely why this line is in the condition it is in, today.
The line, even back when it was still in full operation all the way across to Seeley, has always been a "marginal" economic proposition, never really generating any significant level of profitability, all the way back to when it was first constructed. Today, the line is even less relevant to the economics of rail transport to and from the SD area, than ever.....
I meant MTS, not MTC (wrong key stroke, sorry about that....). They own the line..... That is the entity that issued the lease to this operator for the use of the line.
Answer 2:
Based on the studies I reviewed over the last 25 years which looked at restoring the line for various scenarios, there is little or no likelihood of any significant sustainable rail traffic base necessary to support the not insignificant costs to restore, upgrade, maintain, and operate this rail line profitably. Which is largely why this line is in the condition it is in, today.
The line, even back when it was still in full operation all the way across to Seeley, has always been a "marginal" economic proposition, never really generating any significant level of profitability, all the way back to when it was first constructed. Today, the line is even less relevant to the economics of rail transport to and from the SD area, than ever.....
