One might be able to make the case that Montana Rail Link should not exist at all.  It was created when the former BN was in the hands of management that couldn't see the reason for maintaining two mainlines across the Northwest and sold the former Northern Pacific between Laurel and Sand Point, Idaho, to the newly formed MRL.  MRL is virtually assured its survival simply on the BNSF traffic that MRL is contracted to handle on an overhead basis.  

I recall the bigger reason for the MRL was the BN scheduled work force taking extreme exception with the crew reductions taking place with cabooses going bye bye in the 80's.  The headaches that ensued were enough for BN to say "hasta la vista" and walaa...MRL.

The new MRL employees said thanks to their new employer by letting a few loco's "get loose" in the hills near Livingston, MT on the first day or two of business.  Of course I don't recall any responsibility for the event being pinned on anyone in particular.  There was a bit of a mess to clean up at the bottom of the hill that I'm sure Dennis Washington was real happy with.

You're right, BacktotheFuture, but these things rarely turn on just one factor.  The Wobblies of Montana were a particular problem to manage, but without mentioning names, I can assure you because I was present, that BN had a CEO who took on a mission to get as many assets off the books as possible, and the NP main was a good target.  The period in the 80s was when BN management - the non-operating part - didn't believe railroads had a future.

As always your comments are well appriciated and some what interesting Larry. But do you believe the point of the story is about the MRL and if they should have ever existed or not?

DHEIS:  Of course not.  Nor do I think I suggested what the point of the story is about.  I simply offered some additional context on MRL, which some might find of interest - or not.  I also would point out that many thousands of rail workers working for other roads than MRL have lost their jobs during this recession.  For the 46 on MRL who are laid off, their disaster is total - as it is for anyone who has last a job because the economy isn't functioning properly.

Good point Larry...the same BN folks that sold the Stampede Sub for $4M and bought it back for $30M a few years later then had to resurface the entire route since Washington Central didn't put maintenance into their operating plan.

:)

Lots of politics in Montana and doubt the BN would have EVER been able to simply tear up 900 miles of rail.  What BNSF wouldn't do to have that part of the system now.

I think you're absolutely right, BacktotheFuture.  BN had no more chance of ripping up 900 miles of Montana rail than it did of abandoning 1,000 miles of line in North Dakota.  That these mostly were light-density lines that had been known for years were candidates for abandonment made no difference when it came to politicians in Montana and North Dakota - and other grain-producing states - who took a "not one inch in my state" approach.  Byron Dorgan, retiring Senator from North Dakota, was state tax commissioner back then and damn near tried to nationalize the BN.  But MRL, the former NP main line is a different story.  It had traffic, both local and overhead.  As I stated earlier, the "sale" to Dennis Washington was a straight-forward plan to get the asset off the books.  BN, at that time, was in the hands of financial types, not operating types, and they understood that if you reduced assets on the books, all other things remaining equal, you would increase reported return on assets.  

It seems as though the financial types running the BN in the 80's ascended to Wall Street jobs by 2007.  Or they were running the banks by then.

They were basically eased out with marvelous retirement packages.  In most cases they had reached retirement age.

MRL does not own the row- it is leased under a longterm deal. If you read the local papers, it is possible that having ownership under the washington group of companies also damps down some of the more militant shipper complaints and organisations.

It was/is a 60 year lease executed in 1989.  I've oft wondered what will happen in 2049.

All things being equal, which they never are, I would expect BNSF to not renew the lease.  When Rob Krebs was BNSF CEO, he tried, but Dennis Washington wouldn't hear of it.  But, 2049 is a long way off, BNSF presumably will be a Berkshire Hathatway company with a different traffic mix than it has today.  It might even choose to renew the lease, but with a lower volume guarantee.