Harrison Leaves CP early, looks to CSX, end of CSX in MI?

[CSX_CO]

Look at it this way. Discontinuing service over a line with 0 online business (B&O from Oleny, IL to Collinsville, Il) warranted filings. No impacted customers, no line sale, no violations of trackage rights agreement, etc. Stands to reason entering into a trackage rights agreement where customers could be impacted would warrants filing too. That means advanced filings along with the actual agreement.

Look at all the filings pertaining to the CSX and GDLK in GR. You don't think CSX and CP wouldn't warrant the STB wanting to know?

[Proto48Patrick]

Whats the lifespan of the powerplant at West Olive? That's the only thing holding the potential thru-route together.

Come on UNIT 4!! Been rumored, but CMS is pretty broke right now as far as adding a huge boiler like U4 on the west side

[Waddy]

I doubt Watco would bid on the line, they would rather have the Michigan line. That leaves the door open for G&W. CP will just stick to having its trains on the Wabash.

[MQT1223]

Could the state buy the line in a similar manner that they own the GLC's tracks and hire an operator?

[Saturnalia]

Could the state buy the line in a similar manner that they own the GLC's tracks and hire an operator?

The state isn't going to buy the line for any reason except HSR...which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

PS: haven't had time to research CSX_CO's point yet...back to that later

PPS: Although I would point out that in a bidding war for other roads to take control, I'd think CP (I know you're thinking: gosh-darn-it the kid never stops, does he?) would have plenty of cash if they thought themselves so inclined as to want it. Just sayin'

[MQT1223]

PS: haven't had time to research CSX_CO's point yet...back to that later

Have you ever admitted to being wrong to anything instead of jumping around the subject?

[CSX_CO]

PS: haven't had time to research CSX_CO's point yet...back to that later

Have you ever admitted to being wrong to anything instead of jumping around the subject?

I've never seen him admit he was wrong. If he is, he covers by saying he "misspoke". It's like saying "I was wrong" would kill him.

[Saturnalia]

It is all speculation. Thinking of possible outcomes based on the facts. There are way more than one possible answers, because there can be no right answer, because it is speculation, defined as: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

I'm not wrong, just because one guy decides he has the one and only right answer to a speculative problem, and that he must stomp out the other views.

Sure, debate and discussion is fine, and maybe in Russ' view CP indeed has a 0.0% chance of ever returning to GR in any way. But that's speculatory just as much as my belief that there is a chance, not a large one, but a chance, that it could happen. Just because Russ thinks that there is no chance, doesn't mean I'm incorrect, ok?

I don't claim to have the right answer. I have my speculations, but I don't claim them as the only possibilities. The way most people treat a discussion like this is to debate and discuss the various points and have a good time doing it. Maybe to some people it looks like that's me trying to prove my answer correct, but it isn't.

For over 6 years now, everytime something like this comes up, Russ has pursued one single mission: sink me. Funny how I'm pretty much the only recipient. It's probably because I'm the only one dumb enough to keep going. But since I go in pretty much expecting this result, I don't really care. 6 years of this stuff has made me immune to it, I guess.

So I'll probably get a somewhat nasty response about how it all just makes me some sort of toad-licking fool, but eh, I've been taking it for years.

[CSX_CO]

It is all speculation. Thinking of possible outcomes based on the facts. There are way more than one possible answers, because there can be no right answer, because it is speculation, defined as: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

I'm not wrong, just because one guy decides he has the one and only right answer to a speculative problem, and that he must stomp out the other views.

Sure, debate and discussion is fine, and maybe in Russ' view CP indeed has a 0.0% chance of ever returning to GR in any way. But that's speculatory just as much as my belief that there is a chance, not a large one, but a chance, that it could happen. Just because Russ thinks that there is no chance, doesn't mean I'm incorrect, ok?

I don't claim to have the right answer. I have my speculations, but I don't claim them as the only possibilities. The way most people treat a discussion like this is to debate and discuss the various points and have a good time doing it. Maybe to some people it looks like that's me trying to prove my answer correct, but it isn't.

For over 6 years now, everytime something like this comes up, Russ has pursued one single mission: sink me. Funny how I'm pretty much the only recipient. It's probably because I'm the only one dumb enough to keep going. But since I go in pretty much expecting this result, I don't really care. 6 years of this stuff has made me immune to it, I guess.

So I'll probably get a somewhat nasty response about how it all just makes me some sort of toad-licking fool, but eh, I've been taking it for years.

Even when you're called out, you still can't admit you're fallable. Trust me, you are. You treat people who know exactly what we're talking about, because it's our vocation and life, like we're idiots. That's the reason people don't come here. Because when you're proven wrong, you will not admit it. You "misspoke" or were "speculating". Even today when presented with evidence that your CP rumors couldn't be more than rumors, well, you're still researching what was presented.

You'll do your self a service by eventually admitting you can be wrong. Otherwise, once you reach the real world, people will just watch you burn because of that attitude.

[hoborich]

I've never seen him admit he was wrong. If he is, he covers by saying he "misspoke". It's like saying "I was wrong" would kill him.

He's probably better suited for a career in politics, than engineering.

[Saturnalia]

It has to be made known so outside parties can file adverse petitions, file to block the sale/transaction, workforce concerns, etc. etc. etc.

It's in the Codified Rules.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/1180

(b) Prefiling notification.

(1) Between 3 to 6 months prior to the proposed filing of an application in a major transaction, and 2 to 4 months prior to the proposed filing of an application in a significant transaction, applicant shall file a notice with the Board. The notice shall:

(i) Briefly describe the transaction,

(ii) Indicate the year to be used for the impact analysis,

(iii) Indicate the approximate filing date of the application, and

(iv) Indicate why the transaction is major or significant.

If they were basically writing contracts and had "set the price" they would have made pre-motion filings before even getting that far.

Alright, so here's why I wanted time to research. You didn't quite put all the meat in the sandwich because you left out the definition of a major and significant transaction.

So I found them, and here they are... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/1180.2

Transactions proposed under 49 U.S.C. 11323 involving more than one common carrier by railroad are of four types: Major, significant, minor, and exempt.

(a) A major transaction is a control or merger involving two or more class I railroads.

(b) A significant transaction is a transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more class I railroads that is of regional or national transportation significance as that phrase is used in 49 U.S.C. 11325(a)(2) and (c). A transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more class I railroads is not significant if a determination can be made either:

(1) That the transaction clearly will not have any anticompetitive effects, or

(2) That any anticompetitive effects of the transaction will clearly be outweighed by the transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs.

(c) A minor transaction is one which involves more than one railroad and which is not a major, significant, or exempt transaction.

(d) A transaction is exempt if it is within one of the eight categories described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (8). The Board has found that its prior review and approval of these transactions is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and is of limited scope or unnecessary to protect shippers from market abuse. See 49 U.S.C. 10502. A notice must be filed to use one of these class exemptions. The procedures are set out in § 1180.4(g). These class exemptions do not relieve a carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of employees. See 49 U.S.C. 10502(g) and 11326. The enumeration of the following categories of transactions as exempt does not preclude a carrier from seeking an exemption of specific transactions not falling into these categories.

Parts 1-6 and 8 are not relevant, saving some space here

(7) Acquisition of trackage rights and renewal of trackage rights by a rail carrier over lines owned or operated by any other rail carrier or carriers that are: (i) based on written agreements, and (ii) not filed or sought in responsive applications in rail consolidation proceedings.

Ok, so I admit that I didn't know about this pre-filing (I had previously glossed over the meaning of the upcoming verbage as legalese I didn't know the meaning of), now I do, and now I'm going to show you how CP acquiring trackage rights over the CSX via Michigan wouldn't require a pre-filing notice, because it is an exempt transaction.

And here's a pretty darn good case to study. Let's take a look at when CP filed for trackage rights onto the NS in the first place:

https://www.stb.gov/Filings/all_2000s.n ... 214148.pdf

Operative phrasing goes like this, on the first page:

The trackage rights are based upon a written agreement and are not filed or sought in a responsive application to a rail consolidation proceeding. Accordingly, they are exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 USC (squigly thing) 11323.

Later, the STB rendered their decision as an approval...

https://www.stb.gov/decisions/ReadingRo ... enDocument

Therefore I think this is a good case study in that we shouldn't expect a pre-filing if the CP were to desire trackage rights via Michigan on CSX, or anywhere else. So long as the motion is pre-approved (ie mutual) on the part of both railroads with a written contract in place, then they file as an exemption proceeding, which is exempt from pre-filing requirements.

So...see why I wanted to have a chance to research this?

[Schteinkuh]

Train fights are like the special Olympics. It doesn't matter who wins, you're still retarded.

[~Z~]

Oh, the children and their bickering... enjoyed reading what most of you stated...not so much from csxco, mqt3001, mqt1223, and amtk55.

This thread sucks; locking, thank you, drive thru.