Doktor No wrote:
Speaking of price, those fertilizer cars come off the CSX at Augusta GA then to NS then to GLK then to us then to MQT. Price not speed matter but I assume the farmers buying this stuff wanna put it in the ground to grow some crops this year...yes?
Yup, just because its cheap doesn't mean its the most efficient route. A MOW foreman with the INRD bought ties off a place in Georgia on CSX. The route was CSX to the NS to Louisville to the LIRC to INRD. Except the LIRC has to deliver to CSX at Avon to get their cars to the INRD. Took like 2 weeks between all the interchanges and weekends (LIRC doesn't run on weekends) to go from Georgia to Indy. Could have put them on Q592 (which works at Terre Haute with INRD cars no less and originates down south), and had them in under a week. Oh no, wanted to save $50 a car, and then they're scrambling when it takes 2 weeks to get their cars.
We are caught between a rock and a hard place. We want direct interchange with GDLK. CSX won't let us. Grand Elk is slow to deliver because the don't have the traffic to warrant running everyday to GR. CSX,once again has cut our other life line to the GLC, but ripping up the Baldwin to Clare line. I'm sure that's why they did it. It has been brought up more than once, that if that line was still there, MQT could give CSX the Bird and move most traffic that way. So, for the near future anyway, we have to deal with it.
Brakey wrote:I resent being labeled slow to deliver.
And to think, you rode with me before
BTW, that was a nice engine I got to bring to Grand Rapids for you the other day
It's ok Brakey your- big wigs think we are "the rednecks up north" and don't know how to run a railroad. CSX moving cars.. HA! wind blows and code lines down, it snows and the world's coming to an end. Can't pay OT, so let's not serve the customer and tie the crew down were the sit. CSX screwed up cutting off 326/327. Now you get a monster 334/335 that has to leave tonnage behind..right there's a 3-4 day delay in transist time too for MQT stuff via Detroit. If we did on MQT, our customers would not be happy. Moving stuff on GDLK might be slow but it's a constant flow of slow.
Doktor No wrote:Route via CSX and they either loose the paperwork, get routed to East St. Louis or someone forgets to send the HighWide papers with a crew and they set them out at east BumFork, NJ never to be seen again. Then again we have enough problems with cars for MQT off of GLK. Seems the paperwork is missing on some fertilizer cars for MichiganRailStorage AGAIN. (I snagged that CRDX car for Z151 last nite, that sat here for a week, they were sending it to Toledo...your welcome. It had routed GLK to us then went to Chitown then back again to sit in the time bein track)
Speaking of price, those fertilizer cars come off the CSX at Augusta GA then to NS then to GLK then to us then to MQT. Price not speed matter but I assume the farmers buying this stuff wanna put it in the ground to grow some crops this year...yes?
AveryRdhouse wrote:We are caught between a rock and a hard place. We want direct interchange with GDLK. CSX won't let us. Grand Elk is slow to deliver because the don't have the traffic to warrant running everyday to GR. CSX,once again has cut our other life line to the GLC, but ripping up the Baldwin to Clare line. I'm sure that's why they did it. It has been brought up more than once, that if that line was still there, MQT could give CSX the Bird and move most traffic that way. So, for the near future anyway, we have to deal with it.
Do you just need the physical connection or a change in the lease with CSX? Physical connection can be done for about $300,000 (rough estimate - I could refine it if there's interest ).
Doktor No wrote:Connection is there RDD. Remember that GLK units get up to the GRE? Its a paper barrier that is in the way. CSX is no dummy...they always place barriers in the way of service to their own satisfaction.
There is a piece of track missing from the NS owned GLK leased track to the MQT leased track that would make interchange very easy. During the lease bidding process I was asked by several interested parties about who owned what north of Ann St .
That whole plan has been brought up before. Then it slowly died. And don't take the slow thing personally Brakey. It aint your fault The Intern hasn't got things up to par......Ha Ha Ha.
Doktor No wrote:Connection is there RDD. Remember that GLK units get up to the GRE? Its a paper barrier that is in the way. CSX is no dummy...they always place barriers in the way of service to their own satisfaction.
the mqt knew this going into the lease, so why should we feel sorry for them. it like crying over spilled milk
Okay, if the GDLK can interchange with the GRE, can the GRE interchange with MQT? Then the GDLK could interchange with MQT via GRE? Or probably also barred from doing that?
Rick in TC wrote:Okay, if the GDLK can interchange with the GRE, can the GRE interchange with MQT? Then the GDLK could interchange with MQT via GRE? Or probably also barred from doing that?
Nope, while MQT does go past GRE on CSX trackage rights, GRE and MQT lack a wholly owned, physical connection, just like MQT and GDLK.
need a bit of refreshing about the mqt. iirc the mqt lease is for the use of the csx rails from 1 mile north
of ann street to manistee and ludington, the track and row is still the property of the csx? at the end of the
lease period csx could say thankyou for running our rr for us, but we are taking that route back into the csx
fold and will run our trains again? is this correct? with the lease starting a mile north of ann street, it would
be up to csx to install any new wye tracks to their rails at ann street and would it require permission from
csx for any connection north of the end of lease going south to ann street?
also iirc the rails from baldwin east to midland were pulled up and long gone before the line to manistee and ludington were put up for lease, mqt didn't arrive for better then a decade or more later.
Doktor No wrote:One of the STIPULATIONS OF THE LEASE is MQT can only interchange directly with CSX. Now supposedly they CAN interchange NEW TRAFFIC with others but they never have. Its IN THE RULES OF THE GAME of Trains. Ya know, an AGREEMENT. They have ta live with it.
Now we do get cars from GLK and cars to GLK from MQT back and forth so there must be a price advantage of some sort or it wouldn't happen. Maybe it would be cheaper still without CSX in the way but c'est la vie.
Exactly Dok. CSX and NS have done this all over the eastern US with short lines they've spun off. Lease the line to a shortline carrier who gets all the head aches of dealing with the customers on a daily basis and the switching tasks and the Class I still gets the long haul. MQT ownership knew exactly what they where getting into when they signed the lease. Once the MQT lease is up CSX could lease that line to whomever they wanted (read high bidder). As long as there is a money making relationship between CSX and MQT things will probaly stay as they are. CSX starts losing long hauls from the MQT generated traffic there could be a totally new carrier working that line when MQT's lease is up.
lol.. biggest thing everyone hasn’t brought up is WERE MOVING MORE CARS ON THE LINE THEN CSX DID. Current agreement says all cars must go via CSX. Cars diverted to GDLK would get charged for a switch and a little extra. What CSX didn't see is their own greed when leasing the line. With some moves, paying the all the extra charges, shipping on GDLK, is STILL cheaper than a CSX direct move. Yes we could build the connection track to the GDLK from Turner. Won't happen. A) New guys in charge have a head on their shoulders now and can talk to CSX about problems we face and struggle with and not demand change. B) *IF* the rail would be laid, just as Dok said a new agreement would have to be drafted. We would not be grandfathered track rights on CSX via GDLK. CSX thought this on through before the lease. If we went through all that trouble to draft a new agreement, why spend the money to build the track? Just go after track rights to Hugart.
Also why would we even want to interchange with GRE?? They do not offer anything customer wise to us and vise-versa and if they did, it would be such a short haul it would probably be cheaper with truck. Also you run into the same problem as above. We do not get grandfathered track rights with the current agreement. CSX wants nothing to do with it up here. Only reason the land was leased is it's cheaper than having to pay for big clean-ups with the EPA.. Can anyone recall 1978, Kopje hill, bomb train derailment?? Funny that nothing will grow still in that spot to this day..
Well if that's the case Wooo Wooo. Maybe the Great Doktor should be placed in the office and a certain roller goalie should come out and play on the high iron. And yes. Paint those darn engines. Our fleet looks like a rolling junk yard!
Reported on the Yahoo NECR Group site is that yesterday the GMTX 2177 and 2192 were on New England Central/CN train 323 at parked at Montpelier Jct, VT., waiting for the flood water to go down before continuing north. Haven't seen anything on the 2183 or 2188 reported for over a week.
