QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Re-regulation does not have a large enough constituency to be a politically viable concept at this time. Any form of economic nationalism would come in the form of restrictive tariffs on imports, which would result in a trade war, along the lines of the one caused in the 1930's by Smoot-Hawley. The current regime in the Executive Mansion is so incredibly pro-business that re-reg wouldn't come from that source, anyway.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under! And why would the asian importers even use BNSF ports if the UP service is twice as fast. ITS NOT!!! I've listened to many arguements and speculation that BNSF has shown a patter of behavior thar deserves BAD press for trying to run a railroad and turn a profit. This debate will be decided by wall street based on the price & divideds of there stock. Rest assured if what you believe is true about BNSF you will be vindicated by there return on investment. While i belive BNSF is not #1 on stock value they have made good inroads since there last merger. If they are incompitent they will be just another fallen flag. Hopefully it will not be more initials and another reycled paint scheme. "rail-bashing" hmmmm if walks like a duck and sounds like a .........[soapbox] as always ENJOY [8D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under!
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol
Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P]
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] [/quote Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol Yeah, about 10 pages overdue! All of this flaming keeps knoking my trip reports to the second page [V] Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 2, 2006 8:23 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts BNSF draws ire of Washington produce shippers Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 2, 2006 6:03 PM Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts BNSF draws ire of Washington produce shippers - Honestly, I don't have a vendetta against BNSF.. Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 2, 2006 3:18 PM http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=53866 Now THIS post really brings up some questions: Since the UP obviously provides service to this produce growing area (blowing apart the "captive shipper" argument): 1. What was the UP's response to the possibility of providing this service? 2. Was the UP the only railroad receiving this offer to run cargo to the EAST coast? Since no one wants to pay for building up the service to the WEST coast/Pacific Rim: 3. Is this a viable market, providing enough incentive and volume for rail shipment? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 2, 2006 12:49 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under! And I'm sure the BNSF is extremely pleased with the money they are receiving for providing this service. You'd think we had a capitalistic economic system in this country or something. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 2, 2006 12:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal (With apologies to Chad Thomas for "borrowing" the following.......) "All hail the Great and Infallable BNSF!" PS - That's Tom second from the right. In other words: no answers to dispute the "Non-vendetta" Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 2, 2006 12:39 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under! Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 2, 2006 12:29 PM (With apologies to Chad Thomas for "borrowing" the following.......) "All hail the Great and Infallable BNSF!" PS - That's Tom second from the right. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 2, 2006 10:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Yes, the BNSFs need for 100 hour service over the short distance involved, compared to 1) the legal requirement to provide the service, 2) the historical ability of the BNSF to provide a much faster service in the area, 3) railroad complaints of losing business to trucks and 4) an astonishing amount of general publicity that has been generated negative to the BNSF across a wide range of service, rates, shippers groups, over a substantial period of time provdes a "perspective" which is sorely lacking for the gentleman who constantly admits he knows nothing about the matter in the first place, which has not however stopped him from generating ten pages of useless and childish garbage over the original proposition contained in the specific article: more bad publicity for the BNSF. Best regards, Michael Sol Again, you're living in the past. As any good business would do, the BN (before the SF part) had to develop other traffic to replace that lost to the trucks. Now that these shippers want to come back to the rails, they were offered service. As required by law. You are the one interpreting that they can provide better service, since I guess you work for the Operating Department and know what is going over those rails, where all the excess locos and crews are located, and in what time slots. When they moved this traffic off the rails, the railroad didn't just sit back and leave this slot open "just in case" they changed their minds, nor did the railroad approach the produce growers about the traffic. Simple "perspective" from someone without an anti-BNSF bias. Since the only thing you've claimed to do is "inspect the tracks," like any railfan, I fail to see any "expertise" on your part, either. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Monday, January 2, 2006 2:16 AM Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, January 1, 2006 11:27 PM Yes, the BNSFs need for 100 hour service over the short distance involved, compared to 1) the legal requirement to provide the service, 2) the historical ability of the BNSF to provide a much faster service in the area, 3) railroad complaints of losing business to trucks and 4) an astonishing amount of general publicity that has been generated negative to the BNSF across a wide range of service, rates, shippers groups, over a substantial period of time provdes a "perspective" which is sorely lacking for the gentleman who constantly admits he knows nothing about the matter in the first place, which has not however stopped him from generating ten pages of useless and childish garbage over the original proposition contained in the specific article: more bad publicity for the BNSF. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 1, 2006 11:03 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr First you and Mr. Sol say all the facts we need to know are in the article. I said no such thing. Please get it right. Best regards, Michael Sol I guess I was recalling the following statement: QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol However, I think the answers are in the article and the historical perspective provided herein as a background to the article. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:17 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal LOL! Wow, I left him speechless. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:16 PM [bow] "....oh Great and Wonderful BNSF..."[bow] LOL! Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there. 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. The idea of YOU suggesting that someone else exercise "Independent thinking" is almost laughable. You're so immersed in a "non-vendetta" against the BNSF, you can't see anything else but try to make them look bad. You're the one treating them like they can do nothing right. Those anti BNSF glasses must be welded to your head. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. 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. With this level of "expertise" you should be running the BNSF Operating Department." Or does this expertise only exist in your mind? "Sufficient network?" But sufficient to offer any better or faster service? "Locomotives and crews" provided by the BNSF, I guess you KNOW they can provide them on the schedule the produce shippers demand. "Current freight contracts" would be the ones the railroad already has, which are getting in the way of the great business offer from the produce shippers to become a backup for the truckers. And according to the article, the BNSF did NOT approach the produce shippers, it was the other way around. This would mean that the produce shippers are soliciting compettion from a railroad to compete with their current shipper, the trucks. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. 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? Still claiming you know more about the routing and usage of the rail lines than the BNSF Operating Department? And still claiming there's no reason to believe you have, at the very least, hard feelings against the BNSF? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:17 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. So now referencing a related article to supplement the talking points of the specifc topic article is "confusing" to you? So sorry. It seems YOU'RE the one confused. I'm the one keeping the discussion on track (pun intended). Of course, I'm sure YOU could tell me how to route that better. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:15 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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? 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. So you ARE saying you know more about the routing and scheduling of the trains than the Operating Department. I guess the BNSF should hire "Dave the expert." And to think >I< was accused of being arrogant. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. 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. No, my entire argument is that it's obvious that this is just another lame attempt to muddy the discussion with facts that you tried unsucessfully to present in other threads on other topics. The only co-relation in any of them is they all involve the BNSF. At least I'm not the poster child for bigotry. Especially coming from somebody who's feelings are so obvious that they feel the need to add "honestly, I don't have a vendetta against the BNSF" to the title. Too bad, you have done your best to disprove that part of your own statement. So exactly how DOES the color of the locomotives relate to this discussion, other than prove the railroad is the "evil BNSF." Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 1, 2006 2:03 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 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? Still stuck on the $300 vs $1500 per container per trip argument? Do you even have any idea what a car cycle is? The question is, do you? And how many of those "cycles" that they already have on contract for the $1500 per trip. Or how many of these "cycles the produce shippers would be promising them? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 1, 2006 1:49 PM 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? Still stuck on the $300 vs $1500 per container per trip argument? Do you even have any idea what a car cycle is? 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. 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: 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? 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: 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. So now referencing a related article to supplement the talking points of the specifc topic article is "confusing" to you? So sorry. 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. 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: 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. 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: I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there. 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. Reply Edit 1234567 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
Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] [/quote Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal (With apologies to Chad Thomas for "borrowing" the following.......) "All hail the Great and Infallable BNSF!" PS - That's Tom second from the right.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Yes, the BNSFs need for 100 hour service over the short distance involved, compared to 1) the legal requirement to provide the service, 2) the historical ability of the BNSF to provide a much faster service in the area, 3) railroad complaints of losing business to trucks and 4) an astonishing amount of general publicity that has been generated negative to the BNSF across a wide range of service, rates, shippers groups, over a substantial period of time provdes a "perspective" which is sorely lacking for the gentleman who constantly admits he knows nothing about the matter in the first place, which has not however stopped him from generating ten pages of useless and childish garbage over the original proposition contained in the specific article: more bad publicity for the BNSF. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr First you and Mr. Sol say all the facts we need to know are in the article. I said no such thing. Please get it right. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr First you and Mr. Sol say all the facts we need to know are in the article.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol However, I think the answers are in the article and the historical perspective provided herein as a background to the article.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal LOL!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there. 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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. 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: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. 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: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. So now referencing a related article to supplement the talking points of the specifc topic article is "confusing" to you? So sorry.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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? 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: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. 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: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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: Originally posted by futuremodal 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? Still stuck on the $300 vs $1500 per container per trip argument? Do you even have any idea what a car cycle is?
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.