Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal A short haul is considered anything under 300 miles, and today railroads won't touch shorthauls [/quote] The fact that railroads gave up this business means they couldn't compete for the business-the trucks won, in this case.[:)] [/quote] What you are missing is the fact that railroads under regulation had to offer a bid for such services. Just because they did haul oddities 300 miles doesn't mean they wanted to. When trucks and decent highways came along, the railroads were more than happy to pawn this type of haul onto the mode of last resort. And I will tell you this - If for some reason trucking companies no longer wanted this business, it would no longer get hauled. Do you really think the railroads would want this back? HEdoubletoothpicks No! The mode of last resort. Learn it, memorize it, engrain it. [/quote] [(-D] Whatever,Dave. It appears that repeating something over and over until you believe it sure has worked for you. Would the railroads want this (or any other lost business)back? Absolutely, IF they could make a decent profit on it. Who wouldn't? In my field of work, trucks and trains compete with each other to haul building materials. I wonder why that's different in your part of the world.[xx(] [/quote] Gee, I could carry a hod of coal on my bicycle if the price was right. Of course, that price would be so out of kilter as to make a coal power plant shut down quicker than a 90's dotcom. IF they would just pay me enough, I'd do it! You know nothing of transportation, only the transparency you see from your silo. There's literally thousands of opportunities where railroads could get business currently being hauled by trucks, if only they wanted it. Apparently, they don't, for the reasons listed previously (which you seem to have either missed or ignored.) Many of those lost opportunities have occured right in my backyard, simply because the railroad is engaged in something other than maximizing the customer base. Go back to a past issue of TRAINS, there's an article by Bruce Kelly regarding railroading in Eastern Washington. In it, he states what I have tried to drill into your head, namely that the railroads don't want certain business. His example is of (then) BN and UP seemingly glad to allow grain hauling to drift to the truck/barge combo, ostensibly because the 300 mile haul to the coast is too short. His near exact wording was "the railroads were glad to let go of this business, prefering the longer grain hauls out of the Upper Midwest." The reason that coal from Gillette moves by truck instead of rail is that the railroads don't want it. Why? As I stated previously.... 1. It is a short haul - which means only a unit train operation would work - short haul carload doesn't happen 2. It would require cooperation for a short haul move by the two connecting lines (BNSF and DM&E) - ain't gonna happen. 3. The road mileage point to point is significantly shorter than the existing rail mileage, which wipes out the 4 to 1 efficiency advantage of the railroad. 4. In case you haven't been reading the papers lately, there is a capacity shortage out of the PRB - why would BNSF want to add a short haul shuttle when they're having so much trouble getting the long haul (e.g. *profitable*) trains out of the PRB in good shape? Up here in God's Country, BNSF is (and has been) engaged in systematic destruction of carload services off the shortlines. Doesn't matter that there is inherent profit in this business, the fact is BNSF and other Class I's aren't as motivated by the profit motive as they are the political motive. You seem to be under the impression that, if there is transporation business to be had, that some mode will pick it up when the price becomes high enough. It might suprise you that plants have shut down due to lack of rail service. "Gee, why didn't they just switch to trucks, trucks compete with trains?" Because there are commodities out there that need the efficiencies of railroads to be viable, and if rail service isn't offered, there is no competition to turn to, ergo THEY SHUT DOWN. Trying to ship by trucks would blow their cost structure out of the water. Trucks are no competition for railroads. I notice another forum participant indicated that the Deadwood power plant shut down. How can that be? Since trucks are competition for railroads, they should've been able to hum right along even without rail service. Apparently, the trucks couldn't hack it. Some competition they were (insert sarcastic smilie here).
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