Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Montana vs BNSF, railroad blinks
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by MP173</i> <br /><br />Greyhound: <br /> <br />I agree completely. I kept pulling rates from the tariffs which indicated the rates were pretty normally biased based on mileage. <br /> <br />No one could ever pull a definative rate which gave any proof. Everything was based on yet another assumption. I dont understand the methodolgy in which rates can be proven excessive, but I would image carriers can respond to competitive pricing. <br /> <br />I think Montana is just in a tough situation. Too far from market and no competitive manner to get their product to market. <br /> <br />ed <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Ed, <br /> <br />If the grain rates were mileage based, why are rates Minnesota to Porland less than rates Montana to Portland, which are more than rates Eastern Washington to Portland and Nebraska to Portland? I am astounded that you and others did not understand the numbers put up in the "other" thread. As we already stated, even BNSF admits it charges more to move Montana grain than those areas on either side of Montana, so if even BNSF can get it, why can't you? If the rates were mileage based, Montana grain shippers would be paying less than Minnesota farmers, and would be paying the same as Nebraska farmers. <br /> <br />The rates aren't mileage based, which even you allude to in your last sentence. They are based on pricing ability, e.g. differential pricing, e.g. monopolistic allowances. There are no assumptions about this, just plain fact. <br /> <br />The whole argument wasn't whether BNSF engaged in differential pricing, it was how this situation came about and some of the "solutions" being explored by the "victims". Contrary to your statement about Montana being in a geographically tough situation, it is much closer to Portland than Minnesota, so if you discerned from the tariff schedule that the rates are "pretty much" mileage based, you evidently need a geography lesson. You and greyhounds can be in denial all you want, it won't change the facts, even if you cannot cognitively perceive them. <br /> <br />BTW, this recent action by BNSF is just window dressing to try and stave off the perfectly legal proposed change in how a state delegates it's property valuations, Gabe's objections not withstanding. BNSF is not going to stray from it's prime directive of maximizing the returns for it's mostly foreign stockholders, to the detriment of U.S. producers. For those overseas stockholders, it's a win-WIN. Get a small return on the "investment" via the railroad stockholding and a much larger return via the degradation of the economic position of a major global trade competitor in the form of the U.S.
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