Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
China ditches Maglev project
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="beaulieu"][quote user="futuremodal"] <p>You mean proof of the perception? It's all right there in #1 and #2. BNSF's own financial statements show that import intermodal only brings in half the revenue per carload compared to everything else, including domestic intermodal. And BNSF has done nothing but trumpet it's desire to double track the entire LA-Chicago transcon, despite the fact that the <strong><em>real</em></strong> high margin stuff like grain and coal is moving over the northern transcon and the midwest core, which is still bottlenecked to the hilt.[/quote] </p><p>There's your problem FM, you have trouble reading, the 2006 Financial Statement clearly states that Intermodal is per unit not per carload, since a doublestack car can handle at least 2 units, the revenue is at least twice per car, unless BNSF can't load both positions. BNSF revenues for International Intermodal was approx $2,582million last year which is more than Agricultural Products, and not a lot less than Coal. [/quote]</p><p>Well John, I'm suprised you've made a bit of an error in defining "unit". There is a difference between a unit and a platform, and for a single well car the proper definition is 1 unit and 2 platforms - a bottom platform and a top platform. Therefore, if BNSF's FS for intermodal lists revenues per unit, that would include both platforms (aka, two containers) as one unit.</p><p>The revenues for import intermodal is the volume number, not the revenue per unit number which is more descriptive of rate comparisons. For example, you'll see the revenues per import intermodal unit is half that for domestic intermodal per unit.</p><p>Also, the R/VC ratios (from a few years ago - the STB no longer requires that information to be made public, for obvious reasons) clearly show the bulk of import intermodal in the low range, aka <180%, while domestic traffic has a healthy share sitting above that 180% threshhold. If that isn't cross-subsidization......</p><p>Again, old news, been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum.</p><p>What I would question is why you and Paul would even be upset by the prospect of significant foriegn control over US railroads. You're previous posts in this thread seem amicable to the idea that China is exerting some negative influence over US economic interests. Why would the idea of non-US influence over US railroads either shock you or offend you?</p>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy