Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
LETS DEBATE OPEN ACCESS
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Mark, <br /> <br />1. The barge lines are less constrained by crew issues <br />2. It is more cost effective to unload bulk commodities from barge to ship. Barges are lower maintenance and lower impact than rail hoppers. Labor costs are lower in Pasco and Lewiston than at the deep water ports. The advent of LA***ype shipping can provide a bypass of expensive longshore labor. LIke I said, extra capacity already exists on the Columbia-Snake Waterway, capacity in the Gorge and the Funnel is already constrained. <br />3. Helper crews? Have you ever heard of powering a consist to eliminate helper districts? Isn't that what BN did on the 1.8% west side of Maries? Also, by reducing the westbound grade to Mullan with the Silver City bypass, that only leaves Bozeman Pass. The grades and curvature of the Billings-Great Falls-Shelby line are not much better. <br />4. The idea of simpy adding more capacity to existing rail lines ignores the relative incompatibility of heavy haul cargos with intermodal cargos. It is more prudent to have one line designated for more time sensitive freights and passenger operations, and one designated for heavy haul drag type freights. <br />5. As stated, even a Havre-Missoula-Lewiston route would be shorter to tidewater than the Havre-Spokane-Pasco line. It would be about equal distance Havre-Pasco on either route. If westbound grades on the former are at 1% or below, then it becomes the best line for heavy haul, whether the commodity is transloaded to barge at Lewiston or continues down the Gorge to the deep water ports. <br />6. At least you acknowledge that railroaders have enough business sense to utilize government provided capacity if it becomes available. <br />7. From Websters - "Corrupt: To change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; to cause disintergration or ruin; characterized by bribery, the selling of political favors, or other improper conduct." The loss of a vital rail link, one in which WDOT consultant studies favored for ideal intermodal transloading from rail to barge, certainly begs such a description. If an electric utility tried to tear down a power line prior to selling assets, the FERC would be on them in an instant. Apparently, the railroads are exempted from such oversight. <br />8. The economic fundamentals of the Mississippi waterway are not in the same ballpark as that of the Columbia-Snake River waterway. You may also note that BNSF does offer a grain rate to Pasco, but it is priced so that the combined rail barge price is more than the all rail route. If it was priced on a ton mile basis such as existed before Staggers, then the rail barge option would probably be used more. This is part of the corruption of the railroad: ignore the lowest cost option in favor of the higher cost option by pricing to skew the natural market, and if hanging on to the grain as long as possible to the deep water port results in rail car shortages back in the Midwest, just charge those folks demurage charges if they can't arrange for a loading crew at 3 am on a weekend. <br />9. As an aside, your crocodile tears over budget deficits and the like ring hollow with your continued support for Amtrak. At least the projects of the Corps have provided significant economic benefits in lower energy costs, lower transportation costs, and improved recreational benefits, and this rail link would certainly fit into those societal benefits in conformity with the first two benefits mentioned. As for Amtrak, after nearly $40 billion of my tax dollars going into an abyss of no economic benefits, it is hard to ascribe credibility to your criticisms of ostensible "debacle" spending on the part of the feds. That $40 billion not only could have paid for the L-M rail link and its assiciated line upgrades in Montana, but also a Billings-Rapid City rail link, the Alaskan rail link, a Conrail-esque preservation of the MIlwaukee's PCE, your aforementioned Chicago rail bypass, and any other rail capacity improvement projects you care to mention.
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