Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Ooops, I did make a mistake. It is "revenue per ton", not "revenue per ton mile". The print out copy was smeared on top. The actual caption reads: "Calculations are based on 2002 Revenue-Per-Ton rates (as submitted to the Surface Transportation Board) and 2001 Railroad Revenue-to-Variable Cost ratios (RVCs), by individual rail carrier" I'll go back and correct it. My apologies to your left foot. [/quote] My left foot declines your apology. It knows full well you are still using made up, meaningless numbers to try to advance a political point. Nobody records how many actual tons are in an intermodal load. So nobody can produce an accurate "per ton" revenue figure. Every UPS load I ever saw was billed as having 20,000 pounds. They moved on the same rates as some guy shipping 44,000 pounds of aluminum ingots. So we charged UPS "over twice" as much per ton as the aluminum guy? Well, no, we weren't charging per ton, we were charging "per vehicle used". We charged so much to move a trailer from here to there. And we didn't care if you put one can of dog food in it or 44,000 pounds of aluminum. "Per ton" revenue figures on intermodal are as meaningless as your "per ton mile" figures. But you're going to use them because you don't have any actual experience to make you know better. [/quote] You can shove your left foot up your own orifice then. You keep charging that I am making up these numbers, yet anyone else on this forum can verify that they come from the CURE website. If I had presented these figures and claimed them as my own, then I would be a plagiarist, 'cept of course I cited the sources. The chart presented on the CURE website entitled "The Cost of Captivity, by Industry" lists various commodities. It does not differentiate between "revenue per ton" and "revenue to variable cost ratios" among these commodities. I simply went down the list, found "Intermodal, captive rate" and "Intermodal, non-captive rate", and highlighted it as evidence that there is such a thing as a captive intermodal rail shipper. One can presume that "captive vs non-captive, intermodal" comparisons, if not presented on a revenue per ton basis, is subsequently presented on a revenue to variable cost ratio. Either way, it is presented to provide evidence that discriminatory rates can even affect intermodal. Since the site claims these figures are presented to the STB by the individual railroads themselves, one can only conclude that the railroads themselves acknowledge such a rate differentiation. So you see, if I'm not making up these numbers, then CURE must be making up these numbers, and if CURE isn't making up these numbers, then the railroads themselves must be making up these numbers. So basically, what you are doing is accusing your precious railroad dominatri of making up numbers soley for the purpose of inadvertently exposing themselves to public scrutiny. And since you choose not to read the material yourself, you are choosing to remain ignorant. So why don't you just stick your head where your left foot was inserted and give it some company?
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