Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Farmers complain about BNSF rates to STB

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by rick bonfiglio now i can see why both kids had to go to the principals office. what a convoluted and confusing way to point out what the railroads and farmers have been doing to each other for the last 150 years (and don't criticize my math). when it's all said and done, the farmers will still suffer, and the railroad will get smaller due to public resentment. this is an old story, and i can't believe i wasted the time to read all five pages. -rrick [/quote] What you're missing is that until Staggers, rail rates were regulated to reflect mileage based hauls, and frankly there were more railroads to do business with. The rate differential between Montana grain shipments and Nebraska grain shipments with the same destination and same relative mileage was for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. Since Staggers, you get to the point where the captive shippers like Montana are paying double the rates of the non-captive shippers like Nebraska. So it's not an analysis of the last 150 years of acrimony between farmers and the multitude of railroads, it's the focus on the last 25 years of acrimony between suddenly captive rail shippers and the immense railroad oligarchy. It's a situation that needs to be rectified before we lose our ag and industrial base to foreign producers. [/quote] Oh, boy, here we go again... I thought I was watching the ad for "Chicken Little" again... But, no, it's just FM with his usual, "the sky is falling" approach to railroads... Of course, in the pre-Staggers world many of the granger roads were nearly or really bankrupt. Look at the finances of the CRIP, MILW or CNW and you'll find that all were having a tough go of it. Also, the dynamics of the grain markets have changed quite a bit over the years with a large shift to western ports for exports rather than domestic use or shipments from the Gulf Ports via the river systems. Last time I checked Montana was pretty challenged in terms of water transport to any deepwater port. LC [/quote] Not real suprised you're a "Chicken Little" fan, when it comes out on VHS you can stick it next to your copy of "The Little Mermaid". Not overly suprised that your view of grain hauling pre-Staggers is focussed on the granger lines. Of course, what I was refering to is the grain hauling of the current Class I's then vs now. One thing that hasn't changed for the BNSF or UP lines is that they were hauling most of the grain to the Western ports for export under regulation, same as now, and nothing has changed here other than relative rates have doubled for captive shippers. Montana isn't "challenged" for access to water transport any more than the wheat growing areas of southeast Wyoming, western Nebraska, or Colorado. In fact, Montana is closer to the Pacific ports than all other HRS and HRW wheat growing areas. The big factor of course is that Montana is mostly captive, while Wyoming and Colorado are not.
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