Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds As of 2006, parts (easten parts) of the Milwaukee remain viable. The CP depends on the Chicago-Twin Cities line, the IC&E operates midwest lines, and the BNSFoperates a chunk of ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota. But nobody was able to "save" the PCE because it had no economic viability. [/quote] Well, the "ex-MILW trackage in South Dakota" you mention IS a part of the PCE, and was only saved because the State of South Dakota was smart enough to purchase it, otherwise it would have ended up a victim as well. And the Chicago-Twin Cities line is also a part of the PCE in that it was part of that trancon route. Yes, the PCE survives intact east of Miles City! And the only reason the IC&E routes were saved is that they were the part of the Milwaukee kept after the PCE retrenchment, thus they lasted until after Staggers allowed the pawning off of unwanted trackage by the Class I's to shortline and regional opertators. The owners and operators of the MRL today would have gladly bought the entire PCE west of the Twin Cities had that opportunity availed itself, but the regulatory structure pre-Staggers did not favor that. If the PCE could have survived past Staggers in an ongoing operational capacity (basically a few years more), it would still be in operation today. The existance of the MRL and the ambitions of the Washington Group would have guaranteed that. [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Would you say if the PCE was in place from Seattle and Portland to the Twin Cities under an independant owner today, that it would now be viable ? [/quote] Yes, under the umbrella of the Washington Group. The irony of that is, if the MRL people had instead bought the PCE, the ex-NP lines might be rail trails today! Of course, those NP bonds from yore might have forced the BN to keep those lines, thus contributing to an eventual BN bankruptcy! The point is, I'm not sure the MRL folks would have also bought the NP lines had they been offered up by BN, if indeed they had gotten control of the PCE. Mr. Sol might have some insight into that speculation. [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds No, I'm convinced it would still be just execess capacity. I'll cite two factors that conclusively indicate that there is adequate capacity today and into the near future: 1) The grain rates are lower, much lower, today than they were 30 years ago with the Milwuakee in place. If there was a true capacity problem that wouldn't be the case. If the demand approached available supply you'd see those prices go up, now down.[/quote] Not really. What you have to calculate is the percentage of farmers' profits being eaten up by transportation costs, which is really the only relavent measure. Under that measure, transporation costs have increased, and most of that increase is due to the captive shipper rates being forced onto Montana farmers. With another railroad competing for grain hauling in Montana, that cost as a percentage of gross income lost falls from nearly 50% to around 15%. And carload rates have gone up dramatically, so that statement if patentaly false. [quote]QUOTE: 2) Seattle and Tacoma are fast growing container ports. This growth is being handled by the current rail network. It will always be less expensive to add capacity to the BNSF lines than to operate an entire new route. (and hopefully, someday, the UP will get its act together.)[/quote] Less expensive for who? Adding capacity is a cost borne by BNSF and/or UP. Adding a new railroad is a cost borne by whatever entity or entities engage in that prospect. And you seem to forget that railcar deliveries are not keeping up with requests. Service levels are down dramatically all over the US, not just Montana elevators. You can argue all you want about current capacity being adaquate. That may be true for BNSF, and that is only true east of Sandpoint ID with the two lines diverging to three diverging into five. The real problem exists twofold: 1. The need for capacity from the shippers perspective is for competitive capacity. All the capacity additions by BNSF and UP will not aleviate the monopolistic rate setting that is harming US producers. 2. If your only concern is BNSF and not the needs of the rail shipper community, even then you have the problem of bottlenecks, a problem created by the abandonment of mainline trackage, further compounded by the fact that the best alignments sometimes were abandoned in favor of lesser aligments. BNSF's former railroads had two mainlines from Sandpoint to Spokane, now there is just one. It is a bottleneck, and BNSF does not have the money to fix it. Which might explain why today's railroads are begging the feds for financial aid. [quote]QUOTE: Throw in the domestic business (UPS, LTL, other intermodal, chemicals, etc.) and basically, that's the market between the Twin Cities and Puget sound. It's being handled just fine now. And it's growth is being handled just fine now.[/quote] NO, it isn't. This is a fantasy of yours, not in line with the reality of service complaints, lost domestic production, continued truckload growth, etc. Tell me, why is it that shippers are complaining about railroads, but not truckers and bargelines? The answer is obvious - THERE IS A REAL ONGOING SHORTAGE OF COMPETITIVE RAILROAD CAPACITY. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF TRUCK AND BARGE COMPETITIVE CAPACITY! Sorry to yell like that, but if that's what it takes to get it through your thick head.......
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