I think domestic intermodal is the growth opportunity, more so than imports. Buffett is smart and the BNSF goal, as the article says, is to grab traffic from trucking, which means domestic.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmTrue. One thing you see from the statistics is that intermodal represents almost as many carloadings as all other sources combined.
UP is investing a lot more than BNSF in intermodal and interior Intermodal ports than BNSF is.....in my opinion.
I am curious how CSX is going to improve with their tunnel clearance projects and addition of some North-South capacity. Seems Wall Street has a lot of hopes there and CSX stock is holding fairly steady despite the drops in Coal and Oil traffic. Have my doubts the updated Panama Canal will have as much impact as Wall Street is banking on though......we'll see. So hopefully CSX has a targeted Intermodal marketing campaign they intend to roll out.
Wall Street still thinks CSX is a merger candidate for CP though, a good chunk of people think CP is going to find a way at some point.
CMStPnP Wow has this thread gone off topic! Anyhow, I wish the BNSF luck but I still think UP will eat their lunch as it has more and longer rail corridors to serve with Intermodal.
Wow has this thread gone off topic! Anyhow, I wish the BNSF luck but I still think UP will eat their lunch as it has more and longer rail corridors to serve with Intermodal.
Jeff
dakotafred- I see what you mean. In S.D. Pierre, and Fort Pierre accross the river, were about the only good sized cities or town affected by the annual spring flooding. Being a lot smaller than Bismarck, I don't think the same real estate games went on. You are right about some of the indian tribes coming out on the short end of the dam projects. Speaking of off-topic, while thinking over this reply, I happened to watch all of BaltACD's meme. I guess I'd never noticed there was an ending before. On topic- the article makes it sound as if doubling the track will double the amount of freight hauled. Is that type of proportional thinking realistic? In comparison, how much freight does UP haul on its transcon compared ton BNSF on its transcon?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Ask the Native Americans about 'illegal' immigration!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy Siding dakotafred What hydropower produces is usually worth less than what it destroys, not only in resources but in natural beauty. The flooded Missouri River valley (where I live) is Exhibit A. The test: Would the dams be built again? No way! I've always read that an important featue of the Missouri dams built in the Dakota I live in was to provide flood control in the spring. This seems to be a useful tool on the Nebraska / South Dakota border. Further north, where the river is contined in deep valleys, maybe not so much. What resources were destoyed by the ND dams?
dakotafred What hydropower produces is usually worth less than what it destroys, not only in resources but in natural beauty. The flooded Missouri River valley (where I live) is Exhibit A. The test: Would the dams be built again? No way!
What hydropower produces is usually worth less than what it destroys, not only in resources but in natural beauty. The flooded Missouri River valley (where I live) is Exhibit A.
The test: Would the dams be built again? No way!
I've always read that an important featue of the Missouri dams built in the Dakota I live in was to provide flood control in the spring. This seems to be a useful tool on the Nebraska / South Dakota border. Further north, where the river is contined in deep valleys, maybe not so much. What resources were destoyed by the ND dams?
Murphy is absolutely correct that the main idea was flood control, and Dakguy that the flood control enabled a lot of commercial and residential development in the valley.
However, as I see it -- certainly as it played out in my city of Bismarck -- the development was mainly for the enrichment of a few well-placed farmers and would have taken place elsewhere in the vicinity without the dams. And, of course, it allowed housebuilders to fill up the valley with trophy houses where there used to be cottonwood trees.
We flooded out no end of archaeology and natural landmarks. As usual, the worst damage was sustained by Indians. (A wag once suggested that the fastest way to locate Indian reservations on a map is to look for the big puddles of water.) The farming Indians of Ft. Berthold -- previously an exception to the poverty rule -- were relocated to the hilly heights and now host all the modern reservation problems.
P.S. Sure, we're off topic. And the damage to the common weal is ... what?
True. One thing you see from the statistics is that intermodal represents almost as many carloadings as all other sources combined.
MookieAs we all reach a certain age, I think this is what happens to everyone....
True, but for a different reason...
While we seem to have wandered off topic, there is still relevance to railroads. In addition to flood control, dams have been used to control navigability of rivers. Removal of dams may have an effect on river traffic, and it's possible that traffic would go by rail.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
A lot of dams built last century are now inadaquatly maintained. Small hydro plants are closed as inefficient, and some backwaters have filled up with sediment. Your tax dollars now have to go to a ferderal program to remove them, restore rivers thru former resevoirs, and buy out properties in flood plains.
Murphy Siding I've always read that an important featue of the Missouri dams built in the Dakota I live in was to provide flood control in the spring. This seems to be a useful tool on the Nebraska / South Dakota border. Further north, where the river is contined in deep valleys, maybe not so much. What resources were destoyed by the ND dams?
Much of the industrial and residential development that has occured around here since the early 1950's would be in a frequent flood plain without those dams. We got just a taste of what would be an annual event here without the dams a few years ago. A freak rain storm system combined with unusually heavy winter snows in the upper Rockies and lousy reservoir management by the Corps of Engineers overcame the storage capacity of the system.
As a bonus, we get cheap and non-polluting hydropower.
Nearly all of the bank stabilization material used on the river as rip rap is those "pink rocks" that Murphy sees on the trains that go by his workplace.
So, to keep this neutral - what if we, the people, can't come to an agreement on a particular type of energy - will we find ourselves one day lighting the last ounce of coal and saying "now what"?
I will leave it at that and enjoy all the different answers everyone has.(No, I have no answers, but I won't be around for the above either!)
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
tree68 Hydropower is clean and efficient, but has its detractors as well. There's one version of hydropower that requires other sources of power, and that's stored. Water is pumped uphill into a reservoir, then released to generate power during peak demand. ...
Hydropower is clean and efficient, but has its detractors as well.
There's one version of hydropower that requires other sources of power, and that's stored. Water is pumped uphill into a reservoir, then released to generate power during peak demand.
...
In Michigan they recently built a wind farm next to a pumped storage plant. A great way to even out the variability of wind.
Mookie So - we go to wind turbines. Birds and noise, so far. Is there anything that has less drawbacks than coal, electricity, wind, nuclear - probably a dirt that can make energy - I don't know. Everything has its drawbacks, but what would be the least in the drawback department? (I know - depends on who you talk to about this)
So - we go to wind turbines. Birds and noise, so far. Is there anything that has less drawbacks than coal, electricity, wind, nuclear - probably a dirt that can make energy - I don't know. Everything has its drawbacks, but what would be the least in the drawback department? (I know - depends on who you talk to about this)
There is also solar. Germany gets a lot of energy from solar (I think it's 30%) and Germany is not really a very sunny place.
tree68Unfortunately, there are those who would prefer we go back to eating roots and berries, and using available daylight only.
As we all reach a certain age, I think this is what happens to everyone....
It does require some manner of elevation, however, and that's kinda rare out on the plains as well.
Unfortunately, there are those who would prefer we go back to eating roots and berries, and using available daylight only.
BaltACD Mookie So - we go to wind turbines. Birds and noise, so far. Is there anything that has less drawbacks than coal, electricity, wind, nuclear - probably a dirt that can make energy - I don't know. Everything has its drawbacks, but what would be the least in the drawback department? (I know - depends on who you talk to about this) Tidal movement can generate energy. However, there isn't too much tidal movement in Iowa and Nebraska.
Tidal movement can generate energy. However, there isn't too much tidal movement in Iowa and Nebraska.
Johnny
Coal now. Gas next. Sierra Club and others were successful in lobbying to get the Northwest's two remaining coal-fired powerplants (Centralia, WA; Boardman, OR) to agree to a phase-out of coal in the coming years. And they've no doubt been successful in shutting down coal plants elsewhere. But they're not stopping at coal. They're already targeting natural gas. Sierra Club got themselves regretably entangled in a scandal involving collusion with the gas industry as part of their "Beyond Coal" campaign. Now they've cut those gas ties and are turning against gas. This could have implications not just for the nation's production of electricity, but for the efforts by some railroads to develop LNG-fueled locomotives.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sierra+club+natural+gas+campaign&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts
http://content.sierraclub.org/creative-archive/sites/content.sierraclub.org.creative-archive/files/pdfs/100_58-Natural-Gas_FactSheet_11_low_0.pdf
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304363104577390432521371296
Etc....
Ah - I hadn't thought of natural gas! Of course! And, Tree - if you ever watch House Hunters, people are so finicky about not looking out their window and seeing either neighbor's houses or electrical lines anywhere near the property. This is the United States, not the United Islands!
I love that this is a teaching forum!
Mookie Since I always ask simple questions... If you shut down a majority or even some of the coal-fired plants, what is the alternative. They want to cut back on coal, but I haven't seen any replacements yet. Wind turbines are a solution, but the general public is complaining about the noise. (With our constant wind, we should be able to be over-energized!) I think we have 2 - maybe 3 here in area.
Since I always ask simple questions...
If you shut down a majority or even some of the coal-fired plants, what is the alternative. They want to cut back on coal, but I haven't seen any replacements yet. Wind turbines are a solution, but the general public is complaining about the noise. (With our constant wind, we should be able to be over-energized!) I think we have 2 - maybe 3 here in area.
MookieWind turbines are a solution, but the general public is complaining about the noise. (With our constant wind, we should be able to be over-energized!) I think we have 2 - maybe 3 here in area.
Many areas have seen significant pushback on wind, some because of problems with birdstrikes, some for visual reasons, and even some because of jealousy (they'll benefit and I won't...).
A locale near here saw a summer resident change his residency to this area, and he ran (successfully) for town supervisor. Wind is a dead issue there - mostly due to people who didn't want to see the turbines. Ironically, the Canadians (who didn't have to seek approval on this side of the river) built a large wind farm which the anti-wind folks have to look at every time they gaze on the river...
As for traffic levels, sometimes we tend to forget the cyclical nature of many types of traffic. Grain we get, but others may be less obvious.
We have seen wind turbine parts travelling by rail here.
Mookie- Simple answer is that there is a plentiful supply of (relatively) cheap natural gas right now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.