Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Energy, Powder River Basin, and the DM&E

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Murphy Siding"][quote user="futuremodal"]  The question put forth in this thread is whether the PRB is better off with two railroad companies simply trying to add track to existing lines or with a new third railroad coming in with a uniquely located new line.  I of course vote for the latter.  I would amend that basic question with a scenario of my own:  The PRB would also be better off if UP and/or BNSF added new trackage on new corridors out of the PRB than if a third railroad company was added but was instead granted trackage rights over the present set of lines. Of these four choices, I choose a third player over new trackage in new corridors.  Next would be UP/BNSF adding new trackage on new corridors.  Next would be adding a third player over present trackage with added sidings et al, and last is UP/BNSF simply adding trackage on present lines.I have to go to work.  I'll explain it later.[/quote]There's the unique reason you and I disagree on some things.  I'm all in favor of a Cinderella story.  Small, ad-hoc,struggling regional railroad builds dream line into fat city coal market, steal business away from two big Class 1's, and saves the day!  That has Disney movie written all over it.     The reality, as I see it, is different.  UP and BNSF already go to the mines, and to the power plants.  Use whatever number you wish-$6 billion for example.  $6Billion invested in infrastructure investments by BNSF,UP, or both, would yield far more capacity growth than the same amount invested in a new route.  Unique-yes.  Logical-no.  I think the market is proving that.  Warrn Buffet isn't buying big chunks of DM&E.[/quote]Well, I don't see DM&E as a Cinderella.  They are already nearly a Class I, it's the proposed PRB line that would put them over the top.  It's not like they're the next Murphy Siding & Pacific![;)]You're still not differentiating between a dollar spent on or by BNSF/UP and a dollar spent on or by someone other than BNSF or UP.  How does capacity growth on BNSF help UP, CP or KCS?  Are you looking at the end game, namely getting lots of coal to power plants in a timely manner and at a competitive rate?  Or are you only looking at it as a big homogenous pie?Remember, that's the same logical fallacy made by Olgilvie in allowing the PCE to be torn up west of Miles City - "Hey, BN can more than make up the slack in Montana, we don't need no stinkin' New Milwaukee!"  Well, do you think Montana is better off today with only BNSF as a primary rail service provider, or would the state be better served if New Milwaukee was there competing with BNSF?If indeed we the taxpayers have to make up the shortfall in our nation's rail capacity improvements, aren't we better off if that money is allocated for more encouraging more intramodal competition rather than subsidizing a few monopolistic entities?
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