Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
You have to be a NYT subscriber to read this. No thanks.
I agree with Rich.
However, on that topic, I have had some first hand experience with having to access private property for getting Hulcher heavy equipment to a derailment site. On several occasions, we derailed in remote areas (and Texas is full of remote areas). Our standard method of operation was to drive to the ranch house in the hope that the rancher would come outside to see who we were and what we wanted. They usually have dogs around the house, and -- especially at night -- they answer the door to a stranger, armed with at least a pistol, if not a shotgun. We would explain that we had derailed adjacent to the ranch property and that we would need access across the ranch to the track. We also assured the rancher that we would gold plate any damage we might do and would make a generous monetary payment beyond repairing damage. Normally, we got cooperation, although sometimes reluctantly, as railroads have few friends. If we were ordered off the property -- or if a locked gate prevented us from driving to the ranch house -- we notified the local Sheriff Department (who normally had already been notified of the derailment. Deputies would inform the rancher that we were going to cut fences and drive bulldozers and heavy equipment across the property and that the law was on the side of the railroad, and that any interference would result in arrest. Our Claims Agents got to the ranch owner as soon as possible and wrote a nice check on the spot as down payment on our damage repair. Employees or ranchers friendly to the railroad, with horses and experience herding cattle, were sometimes brought in to protect places where we had to remove fencing. After the wreck was picked up and the pastures remediated, and the fence replaced with first quality fence (which costs about $100,000 per mile these days) we normally had a friend in the owner of the ranch.
Link to Seattle Times article, no paywall encountered.
From my reading of the article, this is a contract disagreement.
This looks like bad behavior on the part of BNSF -- both in honoring an agreement concerning the amount of traffic on the rail line, as well as, apparently, events resulting from a derailment that happened on the reservation. The Company apparently got what they deserved.
I will say that relations between tribal nations and Northern Pacific, Great Northern, Burlington Northern, and, now BNSF, across the northern tier, have traditionally been acrimonious. That was not our experience on Santa Fe, but there was a different history in the northern tier.
@Kelunaboy posted:Link to Seattle Times article, no paywall encountered.
Tom, how did you get to this article? I can't read this one either...
Attachments
@Rich Melvin posted:Tom, how did you get to this article? I can't read this one either...
@Rich Melvin posted:Tom, how did you get to this article? I can't read this one either...
Rich,
I found the same thing. That's different from the NYT article. Here all you have to do is disable your ad-blocker and you can read the article. No payment is required.
Stuart
It opened fine for me.
Given the terrain, of course, ( and the real cost to do it) one wonders if RR and tribe could have worked out a deal where the RR could have used the $400M to build around reservation, yanking track off reservation, and tribe would have been satusfied with their goal, and RR could run as many and as long trains as wished. (Future need forecasted for route applies, too...). Likely other factors unknown to us apply. De
@colorado hirailer posted:Given the terrain, of course, ( and the real cost to do it) one wonders if RR and tribe could have worked out a deal where the RR could have used the $400M to build around reservation, yanking track off reservation, and tribe would have been satusfied with their goal, and RR could run as many and as long trains as wished.
Did you view the map of the area and the size of the Reservation? There would be absolutely NO WAY to "build around" the Reservation!
(Future need forecasted for route applies, too...). Likely other factors unknown to us apply. De
With fencing $100K a mile!!, what does laying new track cost today!? (Which would not include real estate acquisition, if at all available)
@colorado hirailer posted:With fencing $100K a mile!!, what does laying new track cost today!? (Which would not include real estate acquisition, if at all available)
What does THAT have to do with the subject?
As l feared, other factors applied . "Number 90" mentioned above that fencing was not cheap, so even if possible to reroute, cost of laying new route, fenced probably, might have been prohibitive.,
