Two more articles on rail incapacity = trouble for RR's

[Anonymous]

This whole thread is now a waste of time and populated with egos. I say it is time to move on.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Dave:
You are proving yourself to be a major disappointment to me and many others. I offered you some useful personal advice on another thread which I assumed by your response that you would take to heart and earn my respect.

I have noted in several postings made by you since that time that you continue to respond with a shrillness and self-righteousness that comes across like a combination of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, neither of whom can open their mouths without attempting to subtract from the sum of human knowledge. Your putdowns of all who dare to disagree with you demonstrate a lack of respect for any opinion other than your own. As a result, you have lost my respect and any semblance of credibility with me.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

And the award for the fist insult of the thread goes to (drum roll, please):

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So now banjo boy is saying Wall Street rail analysts aren't part of the rail industry overview? Does anyone expect the AAR to produce these kinds of analysis?

Ed, stick your head back up your anal pore. That's the only way the synapses between your right and left brain can make the connection.

Wrong again, Tom. You are sure selective when it comes to pointing out the first insult barrage on all of these threads. As has been the case each and every time, the first insult comes from one of your type:

QUOTE: Dave, you may want to go back to reading the National Enquirer and Globe.
At least no one will be bothered with anything you misrepresent out of those two resource publications, and you might find out where the government and BNSF is hiding Elvis.

(Pretty sure they have him stashed in one of those abandoned wheat silos in Montana...)

Ed

Tom, you need to get a life. Join the Army. Do something useful with your life besides professional obfuscation.

So the fact that you misrepresent what was said in the links that YOU posted is an insult? Are you saying that you made a mistake posting them?

Or not reading them BEFORE you posted them?

FYI, I've done my 20 in the Air Force. Maybe when you graduate from high school you should try a hitch in some branch of the military. You'd learn how easy it is to spot the BS factor in posts like yours.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Some one has Opinions confused with Facts. It ain't ED. But there is an obvious case of a rectal cranial inversion.

Someone has reality confused with fantasy. It is ed whose brain don't work unless it is stimulated by fecal matter, and you who has not thought this thing through. Eddyboy has now stated that one HAS to be employed by the railroad industry in order for his or her views to be counted as being in the railroad industry POV.

I guess that leaves TRAINS, Railway Age, ProgressiveRailroading.com, et al out of the mix, eh?

These above posted publications all state that railroads are in the proccess of increasing there capacity. If they were "incapadable of doing so" then that would qualify as there "incapacity" to expand. Figure it out. I would love to see the facts that say unable to expand. Or are they just not doing so fast enough to make you happy.

Well, could you please point out where I said railroads were "incapadable of doing so" regarding the ability to increase capacity? Never said it.

What I have stated in past threads is that monopolistic actions are of a minimilist tendency. The profit for monopolists is predicated on careful control of the marketplace, prefering fewer customers with higher markups, e.g. high margins of small volume. The counter to this approach is the true competitive marketplace, where participants try and expand their customer base, making profit via small margins of high volume.

Since railroads are by their very nature high volume businesses, the monopolistic approach would seem counterintuitive to that end, but at the same time the anachronistic closed access system used by US railroads is predicated on that monopolistic approach.

What you get from this implicit internal polar opposite operational approach is the mess we have today - too few assets for the level of demand for rail services, a level of demand that was always there implicitly over the last few decades, but now is exhibited explicitly.

If only the rail industry had actually gone out over the last few decades and sold the use of those assets to those who would use them the way the potential user wanted to use them, and not necessarily use them the way the rail industry dictated it should be used.

Staggers should have instead paved the way for open access, then all those assets would have been preserved, and we wouldn't be here today facing a multi-billion dollar capacity deficit.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

And the award for the fist insult of the thread goes to (drum roll, please):

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So now banjo boy is saying Wall Street rail analysts aren't part of the rail industry overview? Does anyone expect the AAR to produce these kinds of analysis?

Ed, stick your head back up your anal pore. That's the only way the synapses between your right and left brain can make the connection.

Wrong again, Tom. You are sure selective when it comes to pointing out the first insult barrage on all of these threads. As has been the case each and every time, the first insult comes from one of your type:

QUOTE: Dave, you may want to go back to reading the National Enquirer and Globe.
At least no one will be bothered with anything you misrepresent out of those two resource publications, and you might find out where the government and BNSF is hiding Elvis.

(Pretty sure they have him stashed in one of those abandoned wheat silos in Montana...)

Ed

Tom, you need to get a life. Join the Army. Do something useful with your life besides professional obfuscation.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Some one has Opinions confused with Facts. It ain't ED. But there is an obvious case of a rectal cranial inversion.

Someone has reality confused with fantasy. It is ed whose brain don't work unless it is stimulated by fecal matter, and you who has not thought this thing through. Eddyboy has now stated that one HAS to be employed by the railroad industry in order for his or her views to be counted as being in the railroad industry POV.

I guess that leaves TRAINS, Railway Age, ProgressiveRailroading.com, et al out of the mix, eh?

These above posted publications all state that railroads are in the proccess of increasing there capacity. If they were "incapadable of doing so" then that would qualify as there "incapacity" to expand. Figure it out. I would love to see the facts that say unable to expand. Or are they just not doing so fast enough to make you happy.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

I hear footsteps...could they be Bergie's?

Oh please!......or it's FM's alma-mater out looking for his ego inflated carcass so it can take back a degree that has been horribly mis-applied. ( or is it something created to pad a resume?)[}:)][}:)][}:)]

????????????

[daveklepper]

Can it and get back to the railroading facts, please!

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

I hear footsteps...could they be Bergie's?

Oh please!......or it's FM's alma-mater out looking for his ego inflated carcass so it can take back a degree that has been horribly mis-applied. ( or is it something created to pad a resume?)[}:)][}:)][}:)]

[zardoz]

I hear footsteps...could they be Bergie's?

[edblysard]

Enjoy!
(although truth, or manner for that matter, is not something either one of them are faintly familar with...)

[TomDiehl]

I think the biggest problem is that neither of them realize that I've been in positions for many years that have taught me to spot BS a mile away.

And they do have a problem when you shine the light of truth on their arguments.

Better run and recharge my beacon. [swg]

[edblysard]

Yes,
But he is good at a first year law student trick...starting a fight, screaming foul and then accusing you of throwing the first punch.
He is pretty good with misdirection too...
Once you start taking his argument apart, or picking up on his mistakes, he redirects the thread, or insults you in an attempt to steer you away from his mistake and focus you on something else.

He plays the aggrieved and injured party quite well too.

You know what a real estate liquidation attorney does....so it is quite ironic he plays the part of having some great concern about the farmers losing their lands....seems that is what keeps him in business.

Plus, he seems to subscribe to the well know ploy of,
"If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull...."
Which is why he throws out reams of old, out dated statistics, claiming it is valid 30 years after the fact, pound after pound of junk from a railroad that went bankrupt...as if that should be a bench mark of sorts...or twist current data to fit his pitiful conspiracy theory.

And he is smarter than anyone here on the forum, just ask him!
He won’t, or cant back it up, but he will sure tell you he is…

Let’s see, steam locomotives are more cost efficient than diesels, the Milwaukee Road went bankrupt because it had too much business…(if that’s the way it works, then Microsoft and Honda America ought to be closing down sometime tomorrow!), 2+2=6 when you factor in (fill in the blank with this weeks government or BNSF conspiracy, or use the new and improved Michael Sol math, available on DVD soon!)….Long haul trucks help pay for, and in reality subsidize railroads, not to mention they pay for the complete repair and maintenance of the interstate highway system…BNSF is evil and their railroad lobbyist control Congress, and I bet he was abducted and probed at least once!
Shame the mind implant didn’t take!

In reality, he and Dave are just trolls, both get their pleasure from arguing with and insulting people, it allows them to feel as if they are smarter and better than anyone else...which is why both employ the shifting point of contention and variable data trick...they don’t really care about the subjects they discuss, all they are after is the arguments they can start....they both use it for self gratification.
What’s sad is how many people get suckered into arguing with them...you can never win, because they are not arguing a point or a concept, they are just arguing for arguments sake and the sick pleasure they derive from it.
What a pitiful existence, such sad and empty lives they both must live.

Both are kinda like my ex wife, she has never been wrong in her life either, never ever.
Just ask her....

Ed[:D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Tom,
He is even wrong here...
Humans are one of the few mammals which do not have anal pores, (musk glands located near on in the rectum) to leave scent marks.

Most mammals do, the common house cat has several sets, even a set located on either side of their eyes, above the cheek bone next to the eyes...(ever wonder why your cat like to rub it head against you? It is marking you with its scent as “their” person or property...)

Humans, though have no anal pores to "scent" their waste....it is one of our defense mechanisms to help us hide from predators.

He can’t even get the facts right in his adolescent themed insults.

Sad, just flat out pitiful….

It also proves a certain Montana Lawyer wrong when he tries to paint David, male, from the Pacific Northwest, as a victim in the insult tossing.

[edblysard]

Tom,
He is even wrong here...
Humans are one of the few mammals which do not have anal pores, (musk glands located near on in the rectum) to leave scent marks.

Most mammals do, the common house cat has several sets, even a set located on either side of their eyes, above the cheek bone next to the eyes...(ever wonder why your cat like to rub it head against you? It is marking you with its scent as “their” person or property...)

Humans, though have no anal pores to "scent" their waste....it is one of our defense mechanisms to help us hide from predators.

He can’t even get the facts right in his adolescent themed insults.

Sad, just flat out pitiful….

[TomDiehl]

And the award for the fist insult of the thread goes to (drum roll, please):

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So now banjo boy is saying Wall Street rail analysts aren't part of the rail industry overview? Does anyone expect the AAR to produce these kinds of analysis?

Ed, stick your head back up your anal pore. That's the only way the synapses between your right and left brain can make the connection.

[edblysard]

Yup,
Born stupid and a little anal retentive to boot...
Guess that makes him a dumb...?
(bet his mom kept the leash a little to tight when he was young)

Note Dave changed slightly what he is claiming; originally that this is “the” point of view from industry leaders now has changed to “in” the point of view of the railroad industry…which just makes him a liar and an idiot.

Then by following Dave’s logic or the total lack of, the opinion of a Kentucky coal miner on Alaska crab fishing is “the” point of view of the seafood industry.
How moronic!
Get a life, David.

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Some one has Opinions confused with Facts. It ain't ED. But there is an obvious case of a rectal cranial inversion.

Someone has reality confused with fantasy. It is ed whose brain don't work unless it is stimulated by fecal matter, and you who has not thought this thing through. Eddyboy has now stated that one HAS to be employed by the railroad industry in order for his or her views to be counted as being in the railroad industry POV.

I guess that leaves TRAINS, Railway Age, ProgressiveRailroading.com, et al out of the mix, eh?

[rrandb]

Some one has Opinions confused with Facts. It ain't ED. But there is an obvious case of a rectal cranial inversion.

[edblysard]

Dave,
Tony Hatch is a Wall Street broker, not a spokesman for the rail industry.
He recommends stock purchases.
He is not a industry leader, anymore than you are.
Thank god for small favors.

And you just pointed out it is an "overview" of the rail industry,
(which anyone, including you, could write)
not the "point of view" of the industry itself.

Is it a genetic defect, you know, the idiot gene, or were you just born stupid and have gotten better at it through practice?

Ed

[Anonymous]

So now banjo boy is saying Wall Street rail analysts aren't part of the rail industry overview? Does anyone expect the AAR to produce these kinds of analysis?

Ed, stick your head back up your anal pore. That's the only way the synapses between your right and left brain can make the connection.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by falconer

Everybody tells me, "Just go out, make more money, and pay for it yourself."
Are you now telling the railroads, "Just go out, make more money, and lay some new heavy tracks?"
Andrew N.F.

The railroads are "laying some new heavy track" when they are needed due to capacity constraints based on todays traffic patterns. It's what they do.

[Anonymous]

Everybody tells me, "Just go out, make more money, and pay for it yourself."

Are you now telling the railroads, "Just go out, make more money, and lay some new heavy tracks?"

Andrew N.F.

[n012944]

This is getting sad, just sad. How many people in the early 1970's when the CNW abandoned most of the old CGW across Iowa and Illinois sat back and said, "the company that buys the CNW is going to wi***hey had this track back in 30 years?" NO ONE. Dave, do you have a job on sports talk radio? You are doing exactly what those people make a living doing, sitting back on Monday, saying how you could have done a better job coaching the football team the day before. I seem to have a feeling that you were not around in the 70''s/early 80's when most of the cutting occured. It was bleak times for the railroad industry. I don't think that you understand what they were going thru and what they were facing. But just keep being a monday morning quarterback, it seems to be what you do best.

Bert

[edblysard]

He's good at it?
Naww…I think it is just what he does best.
But at least he is consistent.
[:D]Ed

[rrandb]

It's what he does best. Hey everybody has to be good at something.[banghead]

[edblysard]

Well,
Re read both articles again, and can find nothing new, in fact, both seem to be almost carbon copies of similar articles written last year, and the year before.
Nor can I find where Mr. Hatch spoke with or interviewed a single railroad's CEO, CFO, President, Superintendent, or even a switchman.

Ditto for the Oxford Group, whose analysis does not attribute any input from an officer of any major railroad, shortline, regional or switching/terminal road.

Mr. Hatch did state he sat in on the STB fuel surcharge meeting, and visited with a rail shippers group, (really an unbiased group, I am sure) but beyond that, his contact with a railroad or railroad officers seem to be zero.
If he did have contact, he failed to mention it.

How David can present this as the railroad industry's point of view is absurd, as it clearly is the point of view from a Wall Street investment analysis and an investment advisory group.
Both clearly state who they are, and who they represent at the end of their respective articles.

Dave, you may want to go back to reading the National Enquirer and Globe.
At least no one will be bothered with anything you misrepresent out of those two resource publications, and you might find out where the government and BNSF is hiding Elvis.

(Pretty sure they have him stashed in one of those abandoned wheat silos in Montana...)

Ed

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
We have also pointed out the fallacy of "unprofitability" and "marginality" of underutilized trackage. The timber industry has mega-units of "unprofitable" assets right now, yet they keep these assets at a marginal cost for decades, because they know these assets will become profitable in time. Perhaps that's because the timber industry likes being in the timber industry and is willing to invest the time and cost of maintaining assets until such can be utilized more profitably, whereas the railroad industry seems to have had a distain for itself and the concept of moving bulk commodities at speed, at least for the last four decades. The contrary thing of it is, demand for transporation services is a steadily growing market segment, has been for the last four decades, yet the railroads have treated their assets like an anachronism that is no longer demanded. The point has been made ad nauseum that there has always been an implicit demand for shippers to use so-called marginal rail lines, but the methods and styles preferred by the shippers did not fit into the narrow strictures of railroad SOP. The railroads en masse seemed more willing to scrap it than to allow others to innovate profitable usage of the track.

It should strike you as profound that folks on top of the industry are finally willing to admit the mistakes incorporated in Staggers, mistakes that were obvious from day 1 to those outside the industry.

So are you saying that railroads should grow trees on their unused right of way and sell it to timber companies. Maybe I should dig up some links photos of the unused portions of the East Broad Top Railroad here in PA. That would be about the ONLY relationship in what you're saying. It's like comparing a wheat field to a highway.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

What you're missing Tom is that both these articles are from the railroad industry's POV. Why else would they also incude the fallacy of "subsidized" trucking, since we all know (even if folks like you can't admit) that trucking is the key link for getting the goods to the consumers and/or from the point of origin? Since it is this link that is most likely "subsidized" via non-user fees, and since the rail industry is completely dependent on this vital link, the rail industry itself is a beneficiary of that "subsidy", so why should they continue to obfuscate the issue ("trucks are subsidized, but we pay for our own ROW. Waaaaah.") to solicit pity from the general citizenry?

First of all, your claim of this being the railroads POV is refuted by your original post, final paragraph. Since it's obvious you still can't read even what you post, let me quote it for you:

"Oxford Analytica is an independent strategic-consulting firm drawing
on a network of more than 1,000 scholar experts at Oxford and other
leading universities and research institutions around the world. For
more information, please visit www.oxan.com."

An "independent strategic-consulting firm" that repeats the railroads POV??? Sounds pretty contradictory.

Second, what debate is there on subsidized trucking? Many threads have stated that taxes and fees that trucking pays doesn't cover the cost of the highway infrastructure. Our taxes pay for trucking, but what point are you trying to make with "that trucking is the key link for getting the goods to the consumers and/or from the point of origin?" That's rarely been disputed. Or are you arguing with yourself again?