MRL's Bridge over Yellowstone River Collapsed

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:28 pm

PMC wrote:

I don't have any specific insight about MRL, I have general insights about drawn-out merger processes and incentives to spend money, the classic example being the Rock Island while their merger with the Union Pacific was pending. It is much better to have the acquiring carrier take over immediately.

"Past performance is not an indication of future results."

Especially when it's a different company nearly fifty years later.

Chris Webster · **Joined:** Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:45 am **Posts:** 1010

An informative video by KULR journalist Ren Wadsworth:

Train car removed from Yellowstone River timelapse

P Martin · **Joined:** Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:56 pm **Posts:** 11

PMC wrote:

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

By every account published over the past year and a half, Montana Rail Link was NOT "selling the property." Instead, their long-term lease over portions of BNSF were being terminated by the lessor, BNSF. MRL was apparently at one point selling locomotives now surplus to their needs, and their website still offers properties for lease (not sale) and car storage services.

I have been following this matter quite closely, indeed since the original lease occurred in the 1980s, under which the Washington Co./ MRL, as part of the lease, was required to perform maintenance on the properties they were leasing. Did they have an incentive to perform maintenance? They did in the beginning, as not doing so would mean putting their own equipment on the ground, which they would pay for. How about toward the end of the lease, when they would be soon turning it back over to BNSF? That is the question. Most leases that require the lessee to perform maintenance do not stipulate how much maintenance, how many ties per mile, etc., and this one apparently didn't even specify that it be maintained at class III standards etc., because BN (at the time) thought that they were out of there for good. This is around the time when their president (ex-ARCO oil) said that "the whole railroad is for sale". Absence of specificity about how much maintenance is required was the origin of the dispute between Indiana Transportation Museum and the city of Noblesville that eventually ended the ITM.

If you follow it so closely, then you will know that this isn't near the end of the lease, but rather 24 years until the end. The assumption that the railroad is suffering from a lack of maintenance from the lease termination is comical, and typical of classic RYPN rhetoric from know-it-all arm chair know-nothings.

PMC · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm **Posts:** 2315

P Martin wrote:

If you follow it so closely, then you will know that this isn't near the end of the lease, but rather 24 years until the end. The assumption that the railroad is suffering from a lack of maintenance from the lease termination is comical, and typical of classic RYPN rhetoric from know-it-all arm chair know-nothings.

LOL, I didn't recognize your handle, so I looked at all nine of your posts here to see if any other resembles an unhinged rant like the one above, and I found that indeed almost all of them do. Interestingly all of them are responses to other posts (none to me other than the above), and one of the more nasty ones is directed at another poster in this thread. Here is a sample, unedited and posted in full:

P Martin wrote:

Does the Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum have a collections policy? It seems like the C&NW is a bit out of the wheelhouse of HVRM. It's enjoyable seeing signals in their natural territory and environment, not just as a random display in a small museum.

P Martin wrote:

What kind of comment is that? If the only things you know about railroading in the UP are (1) the Sharks and (2) the C&NW’s ore operations, then you obviously have never been to the UP, and just see things as they appeared on 20 year old Pentrex videos.

P Martin wrote:

Pretty spot on, if you ask me.

I have not, and will not patronize a tourist railroad that mandates me to wear a mask while riding a train to nowhere. Obviously it's out of their control as to what big brother wants them to do, but it's also my prerogative that I will choose to spend my money where I feel it is of the best benefit for my own sanity, and riding a train to nowhere with a piece of cloth on my face is not on that list.

It seems that the Gov't will delay the abolishment of this mandate until something new pops up out of nowhere, giving them just another excuse to extend it. The masking seems more and more to simply be a unpleasantly experiment to see how much more they can involuntarily force people to adapt.

Moral of the story, if you think that families, individuals, and foamers will suck it up and patronize your tourist railroad or museum regardless of this mandate, you are very wrong.

P Martin wrote:

Let me get this straight. Because Eau Claire had 9000 people attend a toy train expo, that suddenly make them a major contender for preserving railroad history? What a statement!

I’ve seen a few posts from those whom work or are/have been involved in some capacity for Lake Superior Railroad Museum. What would be great is if the museum itself were to issue a statement on the subject, either confirming of denying their interest in providing a permanent home for 2719. If they indeed want the engine, perhaps a fundraiser could be held to buy the locomotive from the city.

For whatever happens in the future, I am happy for the 2719 to go somewhere loved. (as long as it isn’t Colfax...)

P Martin wrote:

Maybe you need to actually read the 2008 congressional mandate about who is required to have PTC, instead of shooting from the hip and making yourself look any more uneducated.

Regarding your most recent comment, BNSF ended the lease early, but you seem to be making a stand on a technicality. i.e. the "Moops" argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0uYJjDHeDU

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:16 am

PMC wrote:

LOL, I didn't recognize your handle, so I looked at all nine of your posts here to see if any other resembles an unhinged rant like the one above, and I found that indeed almost all of them do. Interestingly all of them are responses to other posts (none to me other than the above), and one of the more nasty ones is directed at another poster in this thread. Here is a sample, unedited and posted in full . . .

This is the 2023 Internet variation of the classic quote:

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, attack the integrity and/or competence of the opposition.”

There's another quote that comes into play here:

"When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is STOP DIGGING."

Your original implied premise that the derailment was the result of MRL deferred/neglected maintenance has been shot full of holes, in my opinion. Bury it and slink away

PMC · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm **Posts:** 2315

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, attack the integrity and/or competence of the opposition. ... Your original implied premise that the derailment was the result of MRL deferred/neglected maintenance has been shot full of holes, in my opinion.

"original implied premise" = weasel words ("words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated".) They wouldn't be tolerated in court, and not in any journalistic endeavor worthy of the name either.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

I took two courses covering libel/slander law as part of my English-Journalism degree, so I'm not your usual online blowhard.

Well, you're right about that, for someone who has admitted to having essentially zero meaningful legal training or experience to keep making claims that only someone who does have those things should be claiming makes you a pontificating blowhard of monumental proportions, not just the hack that a sizable group sees you as. You may slink away yourself, as I doubt many here would care if you just disappeared, and there are many who would be quite pleased.

I have reported this thread, as it serves no purpose but rancor at this point.

tomgears · **Posted:** Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:08 pm

This thread has gone on long enough with nothing to offer preservationist. Those who wish to argue about arguments please move along to another place.

MRL's Bridge over Yellowstone River Collapsed

Who is online