So how many trains are they running on the 24th? They don't have any times other than the final posted on thier site. Are they running just the one or are they running all day? And if so what times?

irss@eriecoast.com

A portion of this problem comes from how the insurance industry invested it's holdings. They moved out of the safe and somewhat garrenteed investments like bonds and T-bills and into the stock market. because they could make more money for their shareholders. So now the bill has come due, and the market has crashed. The premiums go up to cover their loses.

Why not bill the shareholders who let the companies get on a quick sand foundation?

Because that would only bring on additional litigation, resulting in even higher premiums.

awalker2002@comcast.net

> But I have to ask, didn't they make this
> FINAL decision once before only to re-start
> steam operations. As sad as it is, I feel
> like I've been to this funeral before

Not exactly. The daliy Sugarcreek operation was closed in 2000 and 2001, I believe, but there was never any announcement to cease steam operations. That closure had a specific cause.

During that time period, excursions continued to operate, and work on 6325 continued.

JAC

That's what I thougt too John, but I did a little searching and came across the 1998 press release from Ohio Central that I've copied below. As you can see, they were planning to cease all operations including both Sugar Creek and the extra excursions. I don't remember exaclty how everything played out, but I can't recall a year when there were no extra trains.

"The Ohio Central Railroad Company has announced that 1998 will be its last year to operate daily and extra scheduled passenger excursions. The passenger excursions attracted riders from all over the world who were treated to vintage steam locomotives, passenger coaches and narrated tour of the Amish country side and customs found therein. Company Official stated that the decision to suspend the passenger excursions was not easily reached due to the train's extreme popularity after nearly ten years of safe operation. "We have grown our rider ship every year to the point of 1997 where well over 145,000 people rode an Ohio Central Excursion Train. Our core business, however, is hauling freight to and from numerous industrial customers over a 385 mile network of seven railroads that we operate in Ohio. The tremendous growth of that business, due largely to intense marketing and service commitments, mandates that we focus our efforts solely in that direction. The Ohio Central Railroad Company has enjoyed and been honored to safely provide an opportunity for the public to experience the mode of transportation directly responsible for the expansion settlement and industrial development of this country."

The insurance industry isn't much different from any other financial service industry operating in the current economy. An ebbing tide sinks all ships, but most especially those whose cargoes weigh more than their displacement.......

In any case, the OC guys are a class act and have invested heavily in their steam program. They surely have the sophistication to recognise the current situation is yet another cycle cycling through and, what with their freight business, can afford to mothball the passenger business until the shaking down has shaken down and rationality eventually prevails.

I wouldn't be digging a large mass grave in Ohio just yet.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

TYBR's insurance rates for most of the 1990's
were about $15,000 per year. About 1993, up to
$16,500, about 1997, down to $14,250, about 2000
up to $15,575, in 2001, $16,500, in 2002, near
$19,500, this year, over $26,000! If you apply
those percentage changes to the higher premiums
that a larger road must have to pay, you have
some idea what Ohio Central is going through.
As for what happens even if you do have insurance,
read the footnotes to the Kansas City Southern's
annual report. They got hit with a claim that
finally had to be paid for more than their
insurance policy limit, and they also had to pay
the high deductable they had endured to get
a "lower" premium!
I don't have quick access to my road's costs for
the 1970's and '80's, but I do remember talk of
forming an "off-shore" railroad insurance company
in the early 1980's. The problem in my employers'
view was that the start-up costs were more than
the exhorbitant premiums the insurance companies
were demanding. You had to put up almost as much
money as the amount of insurance covereage you
wanted, and hope to get a refund after all claims
were paid.
I think that Penn's Landing Trolley's insurance
premiums in later years were about equal to the
farebox revenues.

104577.651@compuserve.com

> I hate to say it but our system of so-called
> justice is out of control.

> Voting out politicians tied to the trial
> lawyers is paramount.

> We need some new ideas.

After politicians tied to the trial lawyers are voted out, those remaining should pass legislation modeled after workman's compensation to address insurance issues and avoid future jackpot lawsuits.

If it were not for workman's compensation protections, no employer could afford the risk of a employee filing a jackpot lawsuit after any injury, real or imagined.

Defined maximum claims and payouts, plus "loser pays" rules on frivolous claims, would make passenger excursions financially viable once again.

bruceman@stargate.net

> Defined maximum claims and payouts, plus
> "loser pays" rules on frivolous
> claims, would make passenger excursions
> financially viable once again.

I am behind that "Loser Pays" like they have in the UK. It makes too much sense for the US to adopt it though!!!

Hope you got to Sugarcreek yesterday Bruce. I had to attend a wedding.

Greg Scholl


Videos
sales@gregschollvideo.com

> If it were not for workman's compensation
> protections, no employer could afford the
> risk of a employee filing a jackpot lawsuit
> after any injury, real or imagined.

However, the railroad industry itself is not "protected" by worker's compensation. Rather than State worker's comp. laws, the industry is covered instead by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). They have found a way to manage the accompanying litigation risk and stay in business. That said, the railroads would love to be covered by worker's comp. instead but the unions still have the political muscle to prevent that change in the U.S. Congress.

On the other topic, I think a change to the "English Rule" (loser pays) would be a very good thing. In the meantime, if more defendants were willing to defend themselves and make the plaintiff prove the case, as Mr. Levin seems to have done, rather than settling frivolous or egregious lawsuits to "avoid uncertainty and the cost of litigation", it would help everyone.

pnichol6@prodigy.net

> On the other topic, I think a change to the
> "English Rule" (loser pays) would
> be a very good thing.

I think "loser pays" stinks!
Having rendered my opinion let me tell you why, in a case I was personally involved in. The case involved a certain unnamed state agency that was trying to prevent the formation of a historical district because it would have prevented them from destroying a rail corridor proven, on a state level, to be directly involved in the historical development of the area. A brief was filed in Federal Court for the formation of this corridor requiring the agency to cease and desist demolition of the segment of the corridor recently purchased by this agency (a whole nuther story) until the required federal historical review was conducted. The plaintiff in this case hired historians, gathered data, presented experts, and used some pretty darn good ($$$) lawyers in the presentation. The defendants (read state agency) pulled out all stops and hired just about the most expensive team of lawyers in the vicinity (for some reason they felt more comfortable with outsiders rather then their own legal staff ????)... these guys were something else (read Hollywood) and they put on quite a show. Unfortunately as happens in elections the guy that spends the most money usually wins and we lost our case. Well, it seems that the defendant had legal bills in excess of $600,000 which the state agency required the plaintiff to pay if they were to have future dealings towards this corridor. Really gives you faith in the system!

PS: less then two years after the demolition of a bridge and the destruction of a mile of ROW the corridor received its historic status on the Federal Record ... which really gives you even more faith in the system!

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Not trying to bring anymore storm clouds in,
> but isn't this technically the second
> (Frisco 1522 being the first)? Or third,
> C&O 614?

> Gerald W. Kopiasz

Those two were mainline excursion engines so it is a little different, what about the LNAC in Corydon, Indiana. I don't think it has to be steam to be in danger.

James Kissinger

JamesKissinger@hotmail.com

The day I rode the train to the circus, #6325 did not run due to mechanical issues. I was unaware that this was also the last day of the Sugarcreek daily trains. The train was run with two EMD FP9's #6307 and #6313 which served on Via Rail. They did a photo runby at Trinway on our return trip.