Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
BNSF boss says transport system nearing crisis
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by nanaimo73</i> <br /><br />Dave, <br />The PCE appears on the B main lines map, meaning between 20 and 5 gross ton-miles per mile per year, from the Twin Cities to Tacoma. The maps in Trains, and DPM's comments, are mostly about the 11 Potential A Main (excess capacity) corridors. The Milwaukee Road was one of 5 in the Chicago-Twin Cities corridor, 1 of 7 in the Chicago-Ohio River, 1 of 8 Chicago-KC and 1 of 5 Chicago-Omaha. Trains did not discuss the lines west of St. Paul-Cheyenne-Colorado Springs-Houston. <br />You said- <br />[quote]QUOTE: You all won't face up to the truth: THERE WAS NO "EXCESS CAPACITY" OF THE US RAIL SYSTEM. There was only fixed capital that wasn't being marketed correctly. [/quote]I say there was excess capacity in the mid-west, causing the Milwaukee, Rock Island and North Western to not earn the cost of capital. Will you agree there was excess capacity in the mid-west ? <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />To take something Michael mentioned and expanding on it, in my view the only excusable classification of trackage as being "excess capacity" is that in which the business potential has ceased to exist. A spur to a mine that has played out. A branch to a suburb where the lumber mill has been replaced by a housing development. Stuff like that. <br /> <br />Not those Midwest branchlines, if they serve(d) functioning grain elevators. I'll wager a bet that the businesses on those ex-branches which were served by the railroad still exist for the most part, and are now shipping by truck, over county roads that are now getting beat up year after year, as those elevators are forced to ship to the railroad shuttle facility 100 miles away. From the 1970's DOT perspective, why would they classify working branchlines as "excess" only to have that traffic shift to roads? Don't the federales and states have to support the roads too? I just don't see how the federal DOT exuded any gain for society by quasi-forcing those lines to shut down (via a withholding of rail rehab funds) if the business on those lines are still functioning. <br /> <br />Just a hunch, but I'll bet there is a correlation between the closure of a railroad branchline, most any branchline in the Midwest from that map, and a sudden increase in state and county road maintenance costs subsequent to that closure. <br /> <br />You almost get the feeling that the DOT rail folks were quarantined from discussions with the DOT road and highway folk.
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