Author Topic: Loss of service at Greensburg  (Read 4270 times)

monty

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2019, 10:23:34 PM »
It’s been a while since I had experience, but I don’t believe railroads pay property taxes. They may pay taxes on their buildings, but not on the ROW / railbed.
monty

xgap

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1937
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2019, 11:22:56 PM »
In Indiana, that's my understanding. That is, if it still has track.  CSX lost some real estate when they pulled the tracks, forgot to start paying PT, and was sold at a tax sale. NS pays where some track and a radio tower was never constructed.,

Wema

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
  • A Rail History Nut
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2019, 03:10:49 PM »
Looks like Lowe's got a nice Christmas gift from Conrail:

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1576878506422/300209.pdf

Scrap: Did you have a hand in this? ;)

Course now the question is, who pays to put back in the grade crossing?

scraphauler

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 5310
  • Oberfeldwebel Hans Scraphauler
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2019, 07:30:14 PM »
Go look for a recent filing for CCET and let me know if you see anything that looks similar.  Will just leave it at 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.

Laguna Man

  • Superintendent
  • *****
  • Posts: 769
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2019, 07:47:51 PM »
With this development, does Lowe's or a nearby "party" have an interest in shipping by rail once the line is open again?

trainmaster53

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 9083
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2019, 08:07:26 PM »
I can't pull it up for some reason.

Bob Durnell

  • Mogul
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2019, 09:55:41 PM »
So somebody at Conrail finally pulled their head out of their a** and figured out that SOMETHING is better than the NOTHING they have currently?

xgap

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1937
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2019, 01:32:34 AM »
Well Merry Christmas.
Could it be that CR figured that if Lowe's ever demanded service CR would have to reinstall the crossing, so let's do a deal asap?

Bob Durnell

  • Mogul
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2019, 07:29:12 AM »
Which is one (of several) reasons that five seconds after Conrail found out they still owned this property, they should have been trying to figure out how to either make money from it themselves (not practical in this case), or getting it sold off to someone that can.  Just getting this white elephant off their books and getting rid of the liability for the property is probably worth as much to Conrail is whatever the selling price was.  Anybody with a measurable IQ could have figured this one out.

CSX_CO

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 8221
  • Ok...lets get our stories straight......
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2019, 08:20:25 AM »
Which is one (of several) reasons that five seconds after Conrail found out they still owned this property, they should have been trying to figure out how to either make money from it themselves (not practical in this case), or getting it sold off to someone that can.  Just getting this white elephant off their books and getting rid of the liability for the property is probably worth as much to Conrail is whatever the selling price was.  Anybody with a measurable IQ could have figured this one out.

So, if they approached CIND, offered the sale, and they said no?  How much effort you think they’re going to make when the one connecting carrier says no?

Luckily for Conrail there was someone else out there that new if the property, and did the math on the ROI and was able to make a deal.

scraphauler

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 5310
  • Oberfeldwebel Hans Scraphauler
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2019, 08:47:18 AM »
Well Merry Christmas.
Could it be that CR figured that if Lowe's ever demanded service CR would have to reinstall the crossing, so let's do a deal asap?

NO

So, if they approached CIND, offered the sale, and they said no?  How much effort you think they’re going to make when the one connecting carrier says no?

Luckily for Conrail there was someone else out there that new if the property, and did the math on the ROI and was able to make a deal.

You got it
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.

Bob Durnell

  • Mogul
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2019, 08:50:21 AM »
So, if they approached CIND, offered the sale, and they said no?  How much effort you think they’re going to make when the one connecting carrier says no?

Luckily for Conrail there was someone else out there that new if the property, and did the math on the ROI and was able to make a deal.

I'm basing my comments off Scrap's original post that states that Conrail refused to sell the otherwise useless property at a price that made sense for a potential buyer.  If that is NOT the case, then disregard what I said.  As far as I'm concerned, if Conrail got $1.00 for the property, it's better than having a useless (to them) orphan property on their books.

scraphauler

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 5310
  • Oberfeldwebel Hans Scraphauler
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2019, 09:47:51 AM »
6 months ago, Conrail was this is our price, take it or leave it, knowing it was facing a hard deadline to remove crossing.  Crossing has been removed, time has passed, and a lot of behind the scenes things have happened.  STB filing was necessary to close deal - hopefully deal closes, things move forward, and rail service resumes.  Stay tuned...….
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.

Bob Durnell

  • Mogul
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2019, 09:54:56 AM »
So basically, it took Conrail six months to pull their head out of their a**..................

Bob

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2019, 12:48:58 AM »
So G&W didnt want to serve Lowes when conrail owned it, but now they will?  What am I missing here?  I assume this is being done now so the crossing can be put back in now and the line is ready to go should Lowes want to use it, or do they have an immediate desire to use rail?  Who pays for the crossing?
Also, who is Patten?

scraphauler

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 5310
  • Oberfeldwebel Hans Scraphauler
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2019, 12:59:17 PM »
Assuming deal in fact closes (STB filing was require prior to closing), Lowe’s WILL use rail. No other details can be released at this time.
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.

IU_Tower

  • Mogul
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2019, 08:03:45 PM »
Assuming deal in fact closes (STB filing was require prior to closing), Lowe’s WILL use rail. No other details can be released at this time.

Who pays for the crossing replacement? INDOT?

xgap

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1937
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2019, 01:00:44 AM »
May be apples and oranges, But NS seems famous for simply just taking lines OOS and removing crossings such as Hwy 41 in Evansville. INDOT seems content but what when a customer does demand service?

trainmaster53

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 9083
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2019, 07:25:35 AM »
I guess INDOT has to put the Crossing back in. So does the State Eat the Cost if it's a State Highway?

Tree City Train

  • Brakeman
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Loss of service at Greensburg
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2019, 02:06:34 PM »
Well this is certainly good news.   Nice to see the last remnant of the Columbus, Hope and Greensburg survive a while longer.   Maybe there might be some additions to the line?    How do you open the PDF?  I have tried several times and have been unsuccessful.  Thank you for any assistance in this matter.  I hope everyone has a good day.

Keep on training