Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Alan, Missoula is used as a point of reference, not as an example of a grain growing mecca. As for your contention that the railroads don't want new publicly built rail links, the bottom line on that is dependent on the bottom line of the railroads in question. Assuming BNSF is a company run by logical rational people, any support, opposition, or disregard all together for a public rail link will depend on their analysis and perceptions of the link being an asset or liability to it's profit enhancing operations. If the Texas plan looks like it might become a reality, we'll have to wait and see what BNSF's response to that is before we can decipher their response to a potential Missoula Lewiston rail link. As an adjuct, whether BNSF would then employ rail to barge transload also would depend on whether they have invested in the barge lines. If so, they would utilize a BNSF barge line in conjunction with a BNSF rail line to provide the most optimal movement. No one is suggesting BNSF (the transportation company, not necessarily the railroad) would shorthaul themselves if it resulted in less revenue. If MRL has access to grain loading facilities, it also would probably take advantage of a rail to barge transload, regardless if Dennis Washington invested in a barge line or not. It all depends on how much real autonomy MRL has separate from BNSF, or how much BNSF would allow MRL to run its own affairs. The rail line west of Lewiston has connections to both BNSF and UP. Would the threat of MRL interchange with UP at Ayer Junction really cause concern at BNSF? BNSF's exorbitant purchase of the Montana Western, if indeed implemented to keep MRL from interchanging with UP, would suggest so.
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