> This is
> relevent to rail history and preservation
> and not just politics.

As most of you know, Bob Yarger is the Editor of RyPN. If he chooses to reopen this thread, it is reopened.

Please direct any discussion of this decision to Bob rather than me, and he has assumed the responsibility in this case.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> Unashamedly, I will reiterate that the
> policies begun in the Reagan Administration
> (mainly corrupting the Staggers Act) not
> only decimated the lives and incomes of
> thousands of rail workers (including
> eventually mine), but led also to the
> eventual destruction of a great amount of
> trackage in the U.S. and returned us to an
> almost total dependency on oil, for which
> our brave troops are still dying. This is
> relevent to rail history and preservation
> and not just politics.

That evil Reagan and his evil administration - now I know the real reason they took up my favorite NYC tracks. While we're at it let's post the blame of the demise of the passenger train on Eisenhower. If it wasn't for him building that great tax burden called the Interstate Highway system we wouldn't have the ease of driving from city to city and would still be dependent on the railroads. Trucking wouldn't have had as great an impact on rail freight either.

And I don't recall Union Pacific having the service problems they've had since Bush was elected either - that evil Bush, why I bet he has something to do with delaying my carload of ipswitches being delivered on time.

I don't believe for a minute that any of the problems railroads have had in the past half century are the result of poor management and bad decisions of the heads of the corporations. No, it all comes down to the politicians and the president in particular.

Now with sarcasm aside, it's quite easy to start blaming industries problems on any single individual when the problem is usually much more complicated. The public is always quick to blame presidents for tax increases when in fact ALL federal tax increase (and decreases for that matter) come from Congress. Sure the president can ask for taxes, but it's congress who approves them. (read your Constitution)

Now as for the problems with the railroads in particular, there has been corruption at their highest levels with politicians since the first rails were laid in this country. Why did the UP start in Omaha? Because the powers that be helped get Lincoln elected so he made sure the first transcontinental RR was accessed by Illinois. And the ICC tied the competitive hands of the railroads so long ago that by the time they were cut loose most railroads were too far into bankruptcy to recover.

Now on the other hand, we could put a positive spin on Reagan's impact to the railroad industry. How many remember the railroads of the 1970's? Poor track, bad equipment and almost no maintenance. Locomotive sales were at an all time low, but by the early 1990's the economy was up, railroads were experiencing some of their best freight volumes and locomotive sales were up. We could attribute this to Reagan as easily as we blame him for the problems couldn't we? So then using the same logic others have on this board, I think we should blame Clinton for the demise of the NS excursion program and the high insurance costs of mainline steam. After all it all happened while he was in office - right?

Let's be honest, more often than not the railroads have been their own worst enemy even in this day. Blaming one man for the woes of an entire industry that has had problems for years is asinine.

AP


saturated_steam@yahoo.com