If you are like me you read other boards, and I couldn't help but notice that CSX has put the proverbial brakes on 1225's trip to Grand Rapids. I have linked here to the denial notice. Can I read between the lines and infer that CSX said no for two reasons
1. MSTRP is not a client, and so does not rate CSX spending one iota of manpower or effort helping them (conversely, does this mean that if Warner Bros. was willing to pick up the tab for any extra security, and wheelage that CSX would have said yes...I mean if they're paying, they are a customer right?)
2. CSX does not want the engine parked on its property (I think this is what company lawyers call an "attractive nuisance"). However if the engine and consist were parked/displayed on a customer's property, well off the CSX, would this still be a problem?
Anyhow here's the letter, you read between the lines and tell me what you think.

How short-sighted. I doubt any CSX stockholder would have been offended by the positive PR such activity would have generated. Perhaps we have a case of a CSX executive "being educated beyond their intelligence." -- Ray

I'd like to see how the original letter was written, but I think that I grudgingly have to side with CSX on this one.

It would be one thing to ask CSX for permission to let the 1225 utilize their tracks to reach an off-line destination. It's another to seemingly ask them to foot the cost of the transfer, and also use CSX property to display the train.

In other words, I agree with Finderskeepers two reasons, but I'd really like to see how the request was phrased.

JimE
http://jrevans.fbody.com/trains.html

I agree that the answer is out of context and we really should see the request before passing judgement on the answer but this is what I read between the lines:

Reading through the answer what the request was for, it appears that 1225 people wanted CSX to allow what could be a mob of young people all over their industrial property in the vicinity of where ever the engine was parked. The "Polar Express" is a childrens' book. The 1225 organization doesn't seem to have provided a visiting plan inorder to contol the access to the engine nor the CSX property. Had CSX provided an unrestricted, unsupervised access, it would in effect, shut down the track in the area for five days (a couple days before and after) because of the fear of children being where they don't belong. Not being familiar with the site, this could have been a sigficant impact on CSX operations during the event. I think the CSX answer was fairly predicable based on what we're reading in the answer.
Ed

CSX is currently pressured by physical bottlenecks, equipment and manpower shortages. These problems have been combining to turn the needed fluid operation into molasses. The recent system 1,500 position downsizing has put that much more pressure on the field personnel to cover all the bases.

Add to those above issues the liability aspects, the request to do something for nothing, and the hugh negative PR possibility if something went wrong. I fully understand why they said no. As an operating officer I might have said hell no.

Now none of the above stops me from thinking out loud, was there a way to make this work? I have gotten these events to happen, but it takes the organization making the request to do all the work. This means putting themselves in the railroad's shoes and answering all the questions BEFORE a request is made. Basically you MUST eliminate all reasons for the railroad to say no.

As I said, not easy, but things worth doing seldom are.

Gary Landrio, Stone Consulting & Design

I have been dealing of late with CSX on a private preservation-oriented movement (actually, if I think about it, two of them). Rest assured that CSX has no hesitation about bringing up past events gone badly wrong, including in the one case the "famous" seven LIRR cars that derailed in northeast Baltimore en route to a new home. If there were a way to reach the one shipment's intended destination over NS instead of CSX, it would be the wiser move, at the rate things are going.

Once again, as with the others, I don't know the circumstances of the proposed 1225 movement/display. However, here's my immediate knee-jerk answer: Isn't this a promotional deal for an upcoming Hollywood blockbuster? If so, isn't it at least realistic to ask the movie studio, a for-profit corporation, to at least pony up the trackage fees and rental of a display area, including all insurance (if even available)?

The reproduced letter seems to be a reply to a request for free transportation, etc. of a non-profit group's equipment from a "Trust" (profit or non?) for the benefit of some profit-making arm of the motion picture industry. Usually when props are used at the premier of a motion picture, the transaction is treated as any other business deal, and money is paid at market rates.
As a CSX stockholder, I need more information to determine why I should pass up part of my dividend to help Hollywood.

The request was way off base in the first place.

This movie is thought to be a mega-million dollar extravaganza. It is hoped to be a bonanza at the box office. If the producers thought it was so key to the success of the movie in the marketplace, they should have approached CSX with a six or seven figure check, a $200,000,000 liability policy, and a rash of tickets donated in CSX's name to every Ronald McDonald house in every City served by CSX.

The Preservation Community has to get off the "something for nothing syndrome", that we so frequenty see.

CSX and all the major carries are most generous with the preservation community. But this request will only make them think we are all "out of bounds".

If the Michigan Trust thought this was key then they should have had this covered in their contract with the movie company and let the movie company deal with CSX rather than the trust asking for "something for nothing."

To whine about this in an open forum only detracts from the serious efforts most non-profits in RR preservation struggle with.

I am in full agreement with Bennett. Thanks for you wise insight.

Ditto to Tom's comments. Mr. Levin hit the nail on the head with his comments. To succeed in the "Preservation Business", we all need to remember that not everyone out there has the same interest in history that we do, nor do they see the PR value in it. In order to get a "yes" answer from anyone, whether it is an equipment move, or a financial or other donation, we must show a strong benefit of some sort to the other party. One of the most basic rules of any transaction is that it is a 'win-win" situation. In this case, as much as I would love to see the 1225 make the trip, the movie company should have been willing to back the efforts financially. Make CSX an offer that makes sense to the bottom line.

I am 100% in agreement with CSX on this and also agree with Bennett's comments.

It was unrealistic and naive to ask CSX to "donate" a move like this when the end result would be to benefit a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie outfit who could have easily afforded to pay for the move and provide other perks for the railroad.

Mr.Levin is dead on. Its going to get worse.

Life in publicly traded corporate America is changing and changing rapidly. The passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (AKA "Sarbox") requires corporate executives to certify that their companies have adequate "internal controls". Internal controls are policies and procedures designed to ensure that companies protect assets and produce accurate financial reporting.

It doesn't mean that executives won't take risks, it means they need to justify the rewards and the risks. It means there'll be committees of executives fearful of going on the witness stand because some hyperactive attorney or some overzealous "public official" like NY atty general Elliot Spitzer filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders because the RR was sued when o'l 99 jumped the tracks and killed some spellbound motorist, whose estate rocked the RR for 100 million.

No revenue, no great burst of positive publicity? Your dead.

Two years ago, Michael Oxley gave a speech to the DC bar jioking that they wanted to call the act the securities attorneys full employment act. You can bet that was freudian slip.

If you want to get a flavor of how big companies will be run, go to coso.org and see the previews of the documents. Thats the "state of the art" in this regard.

Too bad Sarbanes and Oxley didn't go after attorneys like the did executives and accountants.. ok, time to get off the soapbox.

I would like everybody know that the movie company will not make any money off from this preview. This is a benefit for Childrens Hospice of Michigan. That goes for the engine going their that was being done by Hospice to help bring in people and donations. The whole operation plan was actually approved by CSX. All the insurance details where worked out and appoved to.

Although my initial reactions were along the same lines as Mr. Levin's, might I point out that all we had to work with was a reproduction of what was supposedly a letter from CSX denying the trip (and yes, I'm cynical enough to say that it *could* be a forgery).........

To be honest, we have no idea what the original request was specifically, the terms purportedly discussed, the circumstances involved, etc. Nor do we know who supposedly "approved" this proposal initially.

I can hardly believe the 1225 group was naive enough to ask for "the moon and the stars" from CSX, even if the proposed event was a charity event. Something about this whole affair as described doesn't sound right. Perhaps local CSX officials familiar with the circumstances approved a request for paid trackage rights to a charity event on a line they knew was little used, only to have the request hopelessly garbled into "donation of free passage to a promotional event for that Polar Express movie" while en route to superiors in Jacksonville. Stranger things have happened.

Also, I might note that the reproduction of the purported CSX letter on a public forum is not necessarily indicative of "official" policy/response by the 1225 group. One nonprofit I work with has had to take on the not-very-pleasant task of reprimanding, and eventually "firing," one of the founding members of the organization for repeated unauthorized behavior of this nature, i.e. posting/speaking for the organization above and beyond his official capacity to do so. And the passions that ran in the meeting where he was eventually demoted ran so high, I was first announcing my intention to referee the bloodbath that was developing, then announcing my intention to quit if the idiocy didn't stop.

Although in fairness to the Mich. Trust people we've only seen mostly one side (CSX's turndown) of this story, I do think Bennett Levins comments are on target.
In todays hyper-competetive corporate world where the Class1's are truly struggling every hour of every day to handle the biz. they have-you better have your act THOROUGHLY together BEFORE you ask for a special anything (meaning= have GOOD answers for all the operating&legal reasons for the chain of command to want to say no) and have lined up the political and industrial support such that the carrier sees the Corp. benefits of saying -yes.
As Mr. Levin states as part of a multi-million dollar movie promotion, if it had been handled properly from the get-go there certainly could have been sufficient funds budgeted(if the studio felt the Premiers promotion warranted it) to provide CSX with the financial and non-financial incentives to make a "yes" a no-brainer.
Unfortunatly for all concerned that was obviously not done!
Ross Rowland