I have been following the events surrounding the attempt to shut down the Spirit of Washington dinner train (see the links in the Flimsies Section) with interest. Here is a piece of railroad that not only has a thriving tourist attraction, but still has a decent amount of freight. Yet the local government, in alliance with the NIMBYs and Rails to Trails seriously want to tear the thing up and replace it with a trail!Rails to Trails is no longer interested in "saving" abandoned rights of way. They are now interested in shutting down and removing as many rail lines as they can. It is obvious that the "Rail to Trail" efforts in this country are completely out of control and have an agenda. I have noted before that the national organization has many ties to noted left-wing "527" type groups. Recently, while doing some research on a different topic I found that several trucking advocacy groups have also contributed funds!I think it is time that rail advocates of all kinds form a counter organization. You may recall that the American Association of Railroads and the American Automobile Association successfully teamed up to limit the length and size of trucks on the national highway system. Perhaps a combination of the AAR, Rail Labor, the National Chamber of Commerce and rail preservationists is in order. Between King County and the Western Maryland situation we are told by the Rail to Trail people what a great economic boom a hiking trail is. I would think that the loss of jobs (both at industries served and on the railroad), loss of future economic development, loss of tourism dollars, and added cost to the highway system with added trucks make this arguement a no-brainer.These people are well organized and politically connected. Like many things, original good intentions have gone seriously off track here.

OK, I guess I can't resist the temptation to get on my favorite hobbyhorse.1. In my opinion there is nothing ethically wrong with RTT going after any right of way in public ownership, active or not. If a right of way is in public ownership it is an asset that will be allotted to the group that makes the most sustained, best-organized and vociferous political case for it. Anyone is welcome to play and make their case. RTT is a special interest with one vision of what these right of ways should be, but so are we. I prefer our use to theirs, but I don't feel that our "agenda" has any more innate moral merit than theirs. Those are the rules of the game when it comes to the allotment of public assets in a democracy. The best organized group will win. So guess what happens: RTT is organized, disciplined, and politically astute. We are not. When we lose in a head to head clash, it is becuase we refused to play, or were incapable of playing, the game the way the game is played. The fault is ours, not theirs. They are just being who they are, and doing a smarter, better job of it than we are. I don't demonize them for it--I admire them.2. If you really want to see something funny, have a look at the way RTT carries our water on the Federal funding issue of single greatest importance to us--transportation enhancements funding in the Federal highway bill-- while we don't lift a finger to save it. Under ISTEA and TEA-21 this program has been the single greatest infusion of public funds into railway preservation in the history of our field. All this past year, its fate has hung by a thread. To my knowledge, we as a community have mounted no organized effort to save it through ARM, TRAIN, or any other formal coalition. RTT by contrast has been working the issue every day, building a huge and influential grassroots network to support the program. If there is an enhancements program in the next highway bill, you can thank RTT for every single one of the millions of dollars it will pump into railway preservation.3. Now a purely personal observation. If one is issuing a call for a national campaign around a specific issue far removed from the hot-button cultural issues, I would suggest that one not imply that it is part of a larger battle against liberals and liberalism. I would happily join a national campaign to save active rail lines and wage the fair fight against RTT where necessary. But I am a center-left person politically--a liberal in the view of most conservatives. I predict that as phrased, your call will alienate people like me who would be with you on the narrow merits of saving active rail lines, because they are liberals on other issues and after reading the comment about "left-wing "527" type groups" they suspect they are not especially welcome in your tent. Then again, maybe in the current climate an avowedly anti-liberal pro-rail movement would get a better hearing on Capitol Hill and have better access. It might be well worth trying. It just won't attract my support. Thanks, but I'll have to work to the same ends by other channels.

You've got this one exactly wrong (for what its worth, I LIVE IN RENTON, do you?).1) The Spirit of WA Dinner train is a for profit business and the only vague, remote connection with "Preservation" is the use of heavily modified and modernized equipment that looks old.2) The Belt Line is mildly historic but a money loser for BNSF who would like to be rid of it. As well as a fantastic recreational opportunity, it would open up a badly needed alternate commuter route on the hilly east side of Lake Washington. I could have used it to commute to work at my last job.The county is NOT ignoring the potential for light rail use should that ever become politically feasible.3) The owner of the Dinner Train is not a nice guy and is currently trying to drive two honest to God tourist RR/Rwy Museums out of business.http://www.nprymuseum.org/alert/alert.h ... t25.htmlAs for your remarks regarding recreation and rails-to-trails... Please butt out. This has been in the works for several years and is a local issue with many political and economic ramifications, including the loss of the entire corridor to development, if deal spoilers like you try to get involved. The county and the railroad are trying to negotiate a delicate deal with a win-win outcome.BNSF pays the taxes and expenses for this line you don't. If they're willing to negotiate a sweet heart deal with the county to preserve the corridor, please let them.

SO,I agree with your statement that the RTT lobby is out of control. There are many cases where the general plan is to destroy infrastructre and the potential of rail service.I would also like to clarify that 527 politcal action groups are prevalent on both the left and right wing. In the most serious cases where abandonment is being encouraged, both wings are active. It all depends on the line in question.I hasten to add that I think we should not make this a party/right-left issue, and rather look at it from the perspective logic (adding a partisan slant seems to remove logic from most arguments).I understand Brian's concerns about losing the corridor to development. That is an important local issue. On the national scale, the very idea that an active rail corridor is faced with a train-or-loss situation is disturbing. Yes, light rail *might* be a future use, but the reality is getting a ROW back from the grip of trail proponents is an unlikely proposistion.Is there a reason that a shared ROW is out of the question, for rail and trail?Rob

One quote from one of the newspaper articles did stand out, which I think pretty much sums up what the trails people believe:[But King County Councilwoman Carolyn Edmonds, who chairs the natural-resources committee, predicted that most people along the route will be excited about the idea. "Railroad lines are not pretty, and they're noisy. We're going to turn this into an asset for communities," she said.]There is no doubt RTT is much better organized than us and that we have benefitted financially from their activities, but at the same time, they have become very active in the destruction of railroad lines that could still see use for their original intended purpose of train operation.

This article sems to talk of a possible compromise for a rail-with-trail plan:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/224737_trail18.html If there are really 15 freight customers on the line, one would think BNSF would want the freight business, but having worked on the railroad for nearly 30 years, I know the mentality of management is still often "the only good railroad is a dead one".

bob, there was an interesting article in the Dallas Morning News this week about the BNSF and it role in China trade. About the third paragraph in, it spoke of how the RR was once made up of branchlines, yards,ect. but those were mostly gone, then, a little later, Rose talks about how there is a need to grow the business after TOFC (which doesn't make the money it should) has peaked.Reckon he's ever heard of loose cars and branchlines?An old friend from the KCS told of an executive that, when confronted with the question of why they were whizzing off traditional buisiness in favor of TOFC, with the old stuff making more money, per unit, replied "We make it up on volume."Old aggie joke: Two aggies buy a truck load of watermelons in East Texas for a dollar apiece, and drive them to Dallas and sell them for a dollar. when they were trying to figure out why they weren't making money, one of them said, "We need a bigger truck."Both have jobs in Omaha and Ft Worth.Back OT, there is no compelling economic reality to sacrifice an intact, operating railroad and the industries it serves, to make a trail of anykind.The only significant money made on RTT is the guy that does the studies, and the cat that paves it over.

The loose car business is currently a topic of subjective management strategy. BNSF is not interested in it, and has a stated policy of encouraging the development of transshipment/logistics warehouse terminals for customers to transfer freight to truck.On the other hand, I attended a lecture by Rob Ritchie of Canadian Pacific last year in which he stated that the loose car freight remained their most profitable traffic. The through container and TOFC traffic operated at much lower margins.CSX has a middle policy. They are actively trying to sell business on existing spurs, but if no sales appear this cycle, they are going to pull the switches.

I believe that if we are going to lose a rail line then the train is a better alternative than a strip of weeds with occasional development.On the other hand, the hard core trail people don’t value rail as rail, either as tourist trains, or for freight service. Since they don’t understand rail, they can be unrealistic about sharing R of W or shortening lines, and the effect it might have on the whole.Rail clearly has a very negative image in many communities. Some is true, for the most part working freight lines serve industrial landscapes, which while economically productive may not be desirable neighbors. Rail lines are generally noise producers, but not necessarily to the extent that their critics claim.I attended one meeting, speaking for a museum/tourist group, where one opponent claimed that the railroad would bring hobos to town???? He also questioned the noise, comparing it to a local high speed (79 mph) commuter operation (this for a slow, 25 mph steam/diesel tourist train)I suspect it will take an initiative by either TRAIN or ARM or both to create a politically viable organization to advocate for rail route preservation (as apposed to rail preservation) We need to pick and chose our battles, but currently there are a couple of possibilities: The Western Maryland Scenic RR (have I got the name right?) and the Santa Cruz branch here in California… Both have great possibilities, both are in danger. I have to admit I don’t understand all the issues in Washington (the dinner train mentioned above), so will sit that one out. We have lost in Vermont. There are other issues and statutes that can be used. Many rail lines are on revisionary right of way, if it isn’t used for rail use, it reverts to the original property owner or his/hers heirs. Using the line for a trail, or for a pipe line or fiber optic right of way doesn’t preserve it.Federal laws reserve interstate railroad regulation for the Feds… This can be help in efforts to save an in-service line. Washington DC is much less likely to be swayed by a small group of homeowners than a local city.