Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Energy, Powder River Basin, and the DM&E

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Murphy Siding"] [quote user="futuremodal"]You're still not differentiating between a dollar spent on or by BNSF/UP and a dollar spent on or by someone other than BNSF or UP.  How does capacity growth on BNSF help UP, CP or KCS? [/quote]  Why should capacity growth on BNSF have to help UP,CP,KCS or any other railroad.  Is the goal to get more coal to power plants, or simply to take business away from BNSF?  Would it be any different if only UP increaced capacity?( pssssst:  You're letting your anti-BNSF ideas cloud the issue again[;)])[/quote]I'm not really sure why you are stuck on the status quo as being the prefered alternative in this debate.  This has nothing to do with being pro-BNSF or anti-BNSF, pro-UP or anti-UP, pro-DM&E or anti-DM&E, nor pro-MS&P or anti-MS&P.  It's about what's best for the country in terms of a reliable cost competitive supply of coal for it's power plants.  The key word there is competitive, an idea that seems not to take root in your analysis of the situation.  You seem to be okay with the notion of a continued duopoly out of the PRB as being the best alternative, but of course you are not in the energy biz so you don't see things the way we do.  Suffice it to say, just adding incremental capacity to UP and BNSF coal hauling lines, regardless of who pays for it, is not going to alleviate the situation to any great extent.  We need more players in the basin, and we need more lines leading out of the basin.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag