Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Dave, The reference to the dams killing the roalroad network in SE Washington has to do with the Walla Walla lines of BN and UP and Palouse lines of the same carriers. I said nothing about the CSP. So CSP put together a short haul move to Lewiston, big deal. The River has drained over 10,000 cars from Palouse and Walla Walla areas. I think 15,000 is more like it. I repeat, the dams killed the branch line network in SE Washington just as it was intended to do by to Federal Government. If the Moscow line was so important to Idaho, why did they not buy it for NL:V as is their statutory right? Mac [/quote] Mac, What caused the loss of branch lines in areas outside the river's influence, say Montana, Colorado, Utah, etc? You know the anwer. The same economic forces that shut down those lines would have done the same to the lines you mention which ostensibly were affected by the river. It's a sophistric argument. What killed railroading on the Palouse was the loss of the rail connections to the barge ports due to the actions of BN and UP. Think of it this way: Which modal competition provides for higher per ton/mile revenue margins for railroads? Barges or trucks? If the railroads could have run shorthaul shuttles from the Palouse to the river, they would have been able to price at a margin just under the truck rates, say around 0.06 per ton mile. Instead, they try to compete head to head with the combined truck/barge rate, say down around 0.02 per ton/mile. If you engaged in the former, you wouldn't even have to match the annual car mile figures, you would only have to exceed one third of the usage to derive higher yearly revenues from the rail/barge combo. Lest you think this isn't happening elsewhere, you might be interested to know that Watco has been running shorthaul shuttles from the Walla Walla valley to the barge port at Wallula, and they are able to derive a higher profit margin from that move compared to handing off grain hoppers to the Class I's for continuation down the Gorge. In the short haul example, they only have to price at or below the truckers rates, while in the other they are having to share only a portion of the revenues, and those revenues are diminished by having to be priced at barge competitive rates. BTW, if you want to have a primer on open access, read the article in the November 1990 issue of TRAINS by Isabel H. Benham, at that time the most respected senior railroad financial anaylyst on Wall Street. In her example, she espouses a TTX-type infrastructure company owned by all the railroads called the Roadway Company, and the operating companies are called Transporter Companies. She envisioned a stand alone private rail infrastructure entity with no federal tax support. What I have done is to take that basic idea and transpose the need for infrastructure financing equalization among rail, highway, and waterway sectors by use of tax exemptions and credits, and other federal incentives.
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