Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Futuremodel-What the BNSF has probably done is make rates to Pasco and the PNW deep water ports equal when they look at the contribution to overhead (ie. revenues less long run varible cost). Their stockholders would be very upset if the looked at revnue per mile rather than contribution per mile. You are probably right that pre Staggers the rates to Pasco were very similar on a $/mile basis to the rates to the ports. Of course the BN's stockholders got screwed and they decided to put their money into lumber, etc. [/quote] Bob, There are other cost savings with a Pasco transload. Reducing rail line congestion in the Gorge is one. Better rail hopper utilization is another. What I'm getting at is this: If BNSF ran itself more as a comprehensive transportation company and less like a rail only company, their stockholders would derive benefits from a BNSF Truck Division transloading into a Rail Division unit train, then a Rail Division transload into a BNSF Barge Division at Pasco, i.e. convering from one relatively low cost operation to an even lower cost operation where available and appropriate. BNSF could then offer a tri-modal (truck to rail to barge) rate package to it's Midwest customers, perhaps at a price that will reduce the overall costs to it"s shippers but still add somewhat to the BNSF comprehensive bottom line.
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