Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The only so called "evidence" you submitted in this discussion was the article. How the fact that: "Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said. " hardly sounds negative toward BNSF, especially to the BOD. Why would any business pass over $1500 to pick up $300 and expect to stay in business?[/quote] Still stuck on the $300 vs $1500 per container per trip argument? Do you even have any idea what a car cycle is? [quote]QUOTE: And it doesn't really matter what color locomotive moves the freight over the BNSF. Is this your example of a "pertinent fact?" Or a lame attempt to throw useless info into the discussion? There's 100 cents to a dollar, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? About as much as the color of the locomotives.[/quote] So now you know which unmentioned facts are pertinent and which ones are not? Your entire argumentive basis, such as it is, is predicated on your ascertion that if a fact is not mentioned in the specific article posted in this thread, it is not pertinent to the discussion, indeed it's probably made up by ole futuremodal. So BNSF's actions in Eastern Washington have no relation with BNSF's actions in Central Washington, which have no relation with BNSF's actions in Montana, which have no relation to BNSF's actions in the PRB, etc., etc, .etc. You are indeed the poster child for a rail industry kool-aid drinker, because apparently railroads can do no wrong, even when they do. [quote]QUOTE: The choice of routing for the freight would be the BNSF operating department. Are you saying you know more about moving ALL the trains over the BNSF mainlines than them? Or any knowledge of the trains that already move over them? Or another attempt to throw useless information into the discussion?[/quote] I've considered providing you a brief synopsis of BNSF's routes between eastern and western Washington and the relative usage of those routes, but I think I'll leave that to someone else lest I be accused of making up more stuff. Suffice it to say that BNSF has apparently found a way to add more trains to it's single-tracked with some double-track "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint (via the addition of UP's traffic in the near future), but it can't add a single dedicated train to it's Stevens Pass line, nor it's Stampede Pass line, nor it's Columbia River Gorge line. Hmmm, more traffic on the single and double-tracked bottleneck, but no more traffic on what is an effective triple track that at times can be seen as a quintuple track. [quote]QUOTE: Confusing your threads again I see. The WATCO problem is a couple threads back. But that would draw away from your "non-vendetta" against the BNSF.[/quote] So now referencing a related article to supplement the talking points of the specifc topic article is "confusing" to you? So sorry. [quote]QUOTE: Would this be one of the "facts from the deepest recesses of the universe?: "Reminds me of the time long ago (well, four years ago) when I was involved in trying to arrange a dedicated single stack container service between Yakima and Puget Sound over the little used trackage over Stampede Pass. Everything was a go, but BNSF said no. No explanation given." Or if you WERE given an explanation, admiting it here would put another hole in your argument.[/quote] If BNSF is so kind as to provide me and the others involved the rational for preventing a third party from arranging more business for BNSF over what is a grossly underutilized line over Stampede Pass, then I will gladly post it barring any confidentiallity agreement prohibitions. Surely there is someone from BNSF's Seattle office who reads this forum and who can provide such information to the public? [quote]QUOTE: What the article implies, and your spin on the "facts" has failed to disprove, is the decision by the BNSF to offer the listed service was anything but a good business decision. And you have also failed to prove that they could offer any better service with the existing rail network, equipment, and current freight contracts.[/quote] Existing rail network - sufficient, since BNSF was able to offer a service that takes twice as long. Equipment - all but the locomotives and engine crews are provided by the third party. Current freight contracts - all owned by the truckers, ostensibly the "competition" that BNSF is trying to beat. [quote]QUOTE: I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there. [/quote] No, what you need to do is to stop treating rail corporations as some sort of infallable godhead. Try independent thinking for once in your life, Tom.
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