CSX was to get paid to move the 734? They turned down money because someone in Jacksonville got nervous? Someone in Jacksonville got nervous about a professional steam operation with an excellent safety record (which includes regular operation up and down 3% grades) and didn't trust the judgement of their own operating personnel in Cumberland?

My mother taught me not to say nasty things, so I won't say what I think of Jacksonville's business accumen. I will say, again as an auditor with almost 30 years' experience, that at least half the people in business have no business in business (and I've had other auditors and accountants tell me I'm too generous). I've seen this apply even in some surprisingly large businesses. Many such operations would die if they weren't so large as to essentially be running on momentum; the Pennsylvania Railroad in the 1940s and the American auto industry in more recent times are two outstanding examples.

Some other links, from this site, on the roller bearing issue:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27304&hilit=roller+bearing+end+caps

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28787&p=135938&hilit=roller+bearing+end+caps#p135938

Darn, can't find the bit about a proposal to move an ex-C&O office car that had rust issues and grease roller bearings, but I know it's in here somewhere. . .CSX didn't trust a group that runs up and down 3% regularly, I wonder what they would think of the narrow-gaugers in Colorado who run up and down 4%, or the crews at Cass on a railroad that averages 5%, has several stretches of 8% (including one that regularly requires a standing start from a water stop), and has two stretches of 11% and curves as tight as 40 degrees. . .all of it operated with steam power, including an engine at Cass (No. 5) which is on the high side of 100 and reportedly still has its original iron (not steel) boiler?

I can't help but wonder if the railroad industry ought to include a regular steam railroad school, preferably on a mountain line, to really teach proper operation under difficult conditions. This is the same principle under which a number of naval accademies, including one run by our own Coast Guard, still operate sailing ships for their cadets. Apparently there is still nothing like a sailing ship to really teach you how to appreciate the effects of wind and current on a vessel.

Bah, I shoot off my mouth too much.

Some other thoughts--worth looking over if you haven't done so.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29678

A quote from a member of Trainorders regarding Union Pacific's City of Milliken Centennial Special with UP #844 (and no diesel):

"The town's celebration was itself delightful, and just a very pleasant mirror of the life of such communities and regions. The appreciation and enjoyment of all of the folks present in town was genuine and sincere. It was a very classy operation for which Union Pacific and the town of Milliken deserve tremendous credit. It all made for just a very pleasant, sweet way to spend a beautiful summer's weekend. And it will not be forgotten, to be sure."

Sounds like GOOD business to me.

/Mitch

it will be forgotten. Like our bosses always say "a thousand atta-boys won't counter one oh s----!"

While I did read (in a newspaper article linked from this topic) that the Governor of West Virginia called Jacksonville in vain, I have not heard of any allegations of shirking common carrier responsibilities or complaints to the Surface Transportation Board about them. Was there any contract that was canceled or broken? CSXT does have expensive tariff charges for special train moves. Was 734 to be moved at some other rate, not put in writing, possibly for free?
The "not necessary" excuse mentioned in an earlier post sounds like a failed argument that a railroad should not have to move poisonous chlorine because the move by rail is not necessary, as highway trucks have been invented!

The difference, however, is that cars carrying chlorine meet current AAR interchange standards. Common carrier or not, if the equipment does not meet current AAR technical standards the carrier reserves the right to reject the move at will.

Just ask the folks who have been trying in vain to get a CNJ passenger car moved 28 miles from one of their properties to another. NS refuses to move the car any further (it came from Scranton, PA) because of the type of couplers the car has. Even though the mileage they had already moved the car ... safely ... far exceeded the remaining mileage the car needed to travel, NS refuses to give an inch.

And the feeling is mutual, least as regards the older stuff. Do you know how many interurban class cars have been mangulated by handling of Class I's? Let's see.... North Shore 761, South Shore 36, and Sacramento Northern 1005 (scroll down to the first color pic) http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/holman.html ... and those are just the few I've heard about, outfits don't exactly advertise the fact that they let a class I crush their artifact. This is why most moves are flatcars, Silk Road or nothin', and why there's not much reason for a museum to care about having an interchange anymore, except for ballast.

So here's a dumb question from somebody who doesn't know any better: can you retrofit an acceptable coupler onto the car?

Yes. I have a CNJ coach which has been retrofitted with E couplers.

Sharon couplers are an inherently weak design and have been known to fail, including at speed on a mainline excursion on a predecessor of the carrier that has been much maligned in this thread for its reluctance to move antique equipment.

Alan Maples
Everett Railrod

I went to the CSX site and sent them a question about why the engine could not be moved, Got a snail mail letter back from them yesterday, I don't have time to retype it word for word, gotta get to work. Basically it was about an antique piece of equipment and inspection time and the public safety around an operating railroad.

I want to ask them a question if they would move the Leviathan given the same circumstances, brand new engine. Prolly not worth it tho. I keep seeing this same issue from the CSX everywhere I hear.

I think I will write back to CSX now I have a letter from them about a few things, about a few issues, business fashion now, no ranting.

This (iron) horse is dead. Let's find something else to talk about. Give it a rest, please.

I must concur with Mr. Laepple. Don't send the letter; save your arrows for another day. All you will succeed in doing is annoying CSX officers (which will likely make things more difficult for Mr. Rowland and Mr. Justice later).

What I consider to be rather flimsy excuses to (reportedly) turn down money and make themselves look bad suggest that you are dealing with people who, unfortunately, resemble certain members of royalty in that "they never learn anything, and never forget anything."

We may have to wait for them to be replaced with others who are more sympathetic and less "paranoid" (or at least, less nervous).

P.S.--Leviathan, despite being new, would not meet interchange standards due to having plain bearings and a drawbar for a front coupler. On the other hand, a full-roller equiped 4-8-4 with a current air brake schedule and couplers could easily do so, and as Ross well knows, give any diesel of today a race for the money in terms of running performance (if not operating economy). I wonder what excuse CSX would have to turn that down, particularly if it were Amtrak certified, or if it were pulling an Amtrak run or Amtrak sponsored train?

I will say, again as an auditor with almost 30 years' experience, that at least half the people in business have no business in business (and I've had other auditors and accountants tell me I'm too generous). I've seen this apply even in some surprisingly large businesses.

You are NOT too generous, however, to paraphrase Nicholas Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", the reason capitalism works isn't because it ensures or even incentivizes success, but because it allows for failure.

Read his account of the successful trader named "tony".

Remember, we of the order of the green eyeshade merely tell numerical stories of others ventures; our faculty with numbers and organization often blinds us to the improbable ventures of the kind where "fools" rush in and accountants fear to tread.

Great minds must think alike :-); I've seen the book in stores but have never read it (and didn't know a line like that was in it).

Guess I'll have to add this to my reading backlog. . .

As a practical matter, how would you suggest we deal with things like this CSX business?

As a corollary (perhaps best answered in the Hepburn Act thread), might railroads be an unusual, or even unique, business by virtue of the argument that they are a "natural monopoly" because of that expensive, private right-of-way? It's one thing for Joe down the street to open a bar and fail because there are too many bars in a town with only so many drunks, but a railroad, especially a modern one with high-capacity bridges and so on, or a high-speed job of the types being proposed, or even a local trolley line--whew, talk about a tough entry into the market!

You deal with this by letting CSX run their railroad and being appreciative that your favorite local museum has a nice ALCO RS3 (or whatever) that everyone enjoys seeing in operation. That is all anybody can do about it.

PC