Author Topic: N. Judson vs. CKIN?  (Read 35629 times)

RailfanJ-Ro22

  • Mogul
  • *****
  • Posts: 2533
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2015, 04:15:23 AM »
Can you spot the track?  ;)
Jeremy Rose - Check out my railroad videos at www.youtube.com/railfantube

STLX 7000

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
  • I'm a Hoosier Railfan!
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2015, 11:05:53 PM »
I have to ask, who is the new operator they're looking at? Pioneer, G&W, U.S Rail, Respondek?

E-Unit

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2015, 06:54:55 PM »
None of the above.
Prairie Maverick.

CIOR

  • The Second
  • Administrator
  • Jay Gould
  • *****
  • Posts: 14292
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2015, 07:40:54 PM »
A do it yourself option   ;)

STLX 7000

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
  • I'm a Hoosier Railfan!
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2015, 08:38:25 PM »
Great, the museum wants to play railroad. Goodbye freight traffic.

Eric G

  • Engineer
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2015, 10:53:20 PM »
Eh... Where does Hoosier Valley expect to pay for this if North Judson chooses them?  More bake and tshirt sales?  And what actuall equipment do they have to pull anything? Plus would any one of the class ones in the interchange with them ?

Eric G

E-Unit

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2015, 11:24:07 PM »
They want to run it themselves, but they can't. I've heard two names for operators, but neither were mentioned. One is Appalling Hauling's best pal and the other is RED. Obviously both are rumors, but I would hope on option 2.
Prairie Maverick.

STLX 7000

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
  • I'm a Hoosier Railfan!
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2015, 12:06:53 AM »
They want to run it themselves, but they can't. I've heard two names for operators, but neither were mentioned. One is Appalling Hauling's best pal and the other is RED. Obviously both are rumors, but I would hope on option 2.

So P&L Transpotation and RJ corman? The first wouldn't want to mess with a small fries operation like North Judson. RJ Corman might work but I wonder if they would allow museum operations?

E-Unit

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2015, 06:27:52 AM »
So P&L Transpotation and RJ corman? The first wouldn't want to mess with a small fries operation like North Judson. RJ Corman might work but I wonder if they would allow museum operations?

first close but no. think people in covered wagons. second yes.

The new operator would have no choice but to let the museum run and they would have to play nice with them as well. Otherwise the HVRM would convince the town not to renew them as they did with the CKIN. To the towns, tourism is priority over the services provided to local businesses and farmers. Its the only thing the area has to offer besides bass lake.
Prairie Maverick.

scraphauler

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 5150
  • Oberfeldwebel Hans Scraphauler
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2015, 09:45:43 AM »
Pioneer was mentioned by STLX7000 a couple posts back.  "Playing nice" with museum often translates to let museum do what they want , when they want, where they want.  I really don't see one if the corporate operators (like RJ) allowing themselves to be handcuffed like that.
The opinions, views, and incoherent ramblings presented here do not necessarily represent the view point of any company I work for or own,  any logical thinking being, or even me.

Broadway

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2015, 01:26:33 PM »
There's a happy medium as far as "playing nice." The museum doesn't need the rail lines every day; if the freight moves predominantly on weekdays and the museum gets the reins on weekends -- and they communicate ahead of time when an exception has to be made -- this shouldn't be a big issues. We're not talking about high-density railroading of any kind here!

Bob Durnell

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1891
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2015, 02:00:18 PM »
A couple of questions I have are, 1) How often does the museum actually USE the trackage where the switching service takes place?
2) How often do the customers need serviced?  3) How big of cuts of cars are we talking?  4) Could class one power be use to move these cuts in, as Indiana Northeastern often does with NS power?  What is needed that in your opinion that the museum COULDN'T provide?  I'm intrigued by the idea of a museum  taking on a contract service operation to raise cash flow for the organization, ( I have a specific possible future operation in mind) and it SEEMS doable, but I'm sure there are some hurdles to cross.  Just to clarify, is the general opposition to HVRM doing this apply to all groups, or is this just a HVRM thing?

Amtk427

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 261
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2015, 02:11:21 PM »
If HVRM is  non profit and tax exempt,  if they start moving freight they become a common carrier and would lose their non profit status.    The Indiana Transportation Museum had the same problem when INRD first approached them about moving coal.   ITM had the power to move it,   but it would have jeopardized their non profit standing.  In the end they kept the coal moves separate from museum operations,  and just got a cut of the revenue from it.   

Bob Durnell

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1891
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2015, 02:50:15 PM »
Is there any specific regulation that says a non-profit CAN'T be a common carrier?  What if a for-profit corporation was set up and the non-profit was given all the shares in the corporation?

Ralph

  • Global Moderator
  • Superintendent
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2015, 03:03:29 PM »
There's a happy medium as far as "playing nice." The museum doesn't need the rail lines every day; if the freight moves predominantly on weekdays and the museum gets the reins on weekends -- and they communicate ahead of time when an exception has to be made -- this shouldn't be a big issues. We're not talking about high-density railroading of any kind here!

If HVRM is  non profit and tax exempt,  if they start moving freight they become a common carrier and would lose their non profit status.    The Indiana Transportation Museum had the same problem when INRD first approached them about moving coal.   ITM had the power to move it,   but it would have jeopardized their non profit standing.  In the end they kept the coal moves separate from museum operations,  and just got a cut of the revenue from it.   

And ITM dispatched the line including the coal moves.

Is there any specific regulation that says a non-profit CAN'T be a common carrier?  What if a for-profit corporation was set up and the non-profit was given all the shares in the corporation?

IRM in French Lick operates in some fashion such as this. Non-profit on the north -- for profit on the south.

Amtk427

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 261
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2015, 03:12:02 PM »
And ITM dispatched the line including the coal moves.

IRM in French Lick operates in some fashion such as this. Non-profit on the north -- for profit on the south.

But it's still two separate corporations.   You can be non profit,  or for profit,  you can't be both.  If that was the case every Class one railroad would operate a 2 mile excursion train,  and say all there millions of dollars in revenue went back into the excursion train,  and not pay a dime in state and federal taxes.   This is a little extreme analogy but it does apply.

Bob Durnell

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1891
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2015, 03:25:19 PM »
I understand your point, but one difference, there would be no profits distributed to shareholders if the big railroad ran as a nonprofit, which is a reason it isn't done that way.  I'm thinking of this more as the credit union or rural electric cooperative model where they are basically nonprofit, but operate almost as a regular business and have assets and perhaps even paid employees.  "Profits" are then plowed back into operation.  If current law wouldn't allow such an operation, it wouldn't seem all that hard to change the law to allow it.  I'm sure some shortline operators would howl though, and maybe rightfully so, but banks and power companies howl too.

Sharky1

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 428
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2015, 04:15:42 PM »
There are nonprofits who own for profit companies as a part of their endowment. If ITM were to want to do this they would need to separate the for profit assets and carefully account for the expenses that the profit operation is creating so that they could show what the for profit made and what taxes the for profit was responsible for. Only the after tax profits could be claimed by the nonprofit.

This would make for a lot of bookeeping hassles and also potential legal liabilities as being the sole owner of the for profit would expose the museum to the possability of being sued for something that the for profit did. That liability may be the single biggest reason why they don't want to get into for profit hauling. Insurance companies may also have a problem with the situation and what insurance they offer to the museum.
There a fine line between a 'hobby' and a 'mental illness'.

CSX_CO

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 8066
  • Ok...lets get our stories straight......
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2015, 05:19:30 PM »
This would make for a lot of bookeeping hassles and also potential legal liabilities as being the sole owner of the for profit would expose the museum to the possability of being sued for something that the for profit did. That liability may be the single biggest reason why they don't want to get into for profit hauling. Insurance companies may also have a problem with the situation and what insurance they offer to the museum.

Also the FRA is more apt to come in and go over your equipment with a fine tooth comb if you want to start being a 'for profit' railroad.  Right now they kinda/sorta turn a blind eye to the museums, especially any 'land locked' ones.  Not saying the ITM isn't running 'safe' equipment, but you can probably shop every piece of equipment on the railroad at any time, for a long list of things.  You get a FRA guy with a burr under his/her saddle (and it happens) ITM could find themselves on the short end of a long list of equipment defects.

Practice Safe CSX

Eric G

  • Engineer
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Re: N. Judson vs. CKIN?
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2015, 05:50:00 PM »
To get back on the subject of the thread I'm personally not against museum operations, however the thing I'm concerned about especially with the likes of HVRM is that there seems to be a lack of experience in running an operating railroad. From the look of things it looks like there just "weekend" railroaders.  Plus like I asked earlier does HVRM have the cash to start freight ops?

Eric G