There was a lot of question, from my understanding, as to exactly how and where the cars would be maintained and exactly who would be responsible for the maintenance. There was also the likelihood that having another party would complicate the maintenance activities. That is as opposed to the railway, which already maintains a fleet of 25,000, as you've heard--well, the total is 25,000, but the railway maintains a fleet of approximately 18,000 railcars within our own auspices, as well as other railcars. The situation is more complex when you bring in another party or owner, who now would potentially advocate to maintain their own fleet of cars at facilities other than those existing today.
The overall railway flexibility was the last point that I mentioned. From a railway flexibility perspective, it gets back to doing what we're in business to do, which is basically to provide railcars for the movement of business and to maintain those railcars at the level and standards we feel are appropriate.
The flexibility side of it is literally.... Quite frankly, the points are relatively intermixed, but when you're potentially having to switch cars out or do something differently from the way you would do it with the rest of your entire fleet of cars, you have the potential to run into some reduced system effectiveness and efficiency.