BNSF borrows my idea! (but will they pay me a consultant's fee?)

[Anonymous]

From the Washington State DOT's rail office:

"New rail shuttle opportunity for the CW Line: On March 2, BNSF formally proposed a haulage arrangement to the Watco/PCC Railroad over the CW Line for no more than 78-car unit trains of wheat, originating on the PCC between Cheney and Coulee City and terminating on the BNSF line at the grain shuttle facility at Ritzville/Temple. There are various parameters within the proposal to be negotiated between BNSF and the PCC Railroad/Watco."

I proposed this very idea five years ago, aka allowing the shortlines to haul their 264k car lots onto Class I trackage as far as the nearest shuttle train facility, wherein the 264k cars would be unloaded either into the mega terminal elevators or directly into the 286k shuttle cars. This would allow the shortlines to compete in the shorthaul with trucks from country elevators to mega grain loading facilities. I was called "a communist in capitalists' clothes" by a fella named Kauffman for suggesting such a thing. And here BNSF is apparently embracing that very idea just a few years later!

Is there a check in the mail for ol' FM?[:p]

[Anonymous]

no

[trainboyH16-44]

Ouch, that's blunt..

[doghouse]

Where is the part about the unloading and reloading. Is it in the original article? You are a man ahead of his time. Maybe BNSF should send you a check. Shoot, I would!

[mudchicken]

(1) Odd, Scoular Grain/NKCR-BN, Seabord/CVRR-ATSF and Garvey-Continental/CKR -UP might beg to differ....RE:54 car unit grain trains going offline to big elevators to dump
(2) If that was TAK, what aren't you telling us?

[Anonymous]

doghouse - it's not an article but an information release from WSDOT. Just contact the rail office of WSDOT to get on their email list.

mudchicken - what is "TAK"? And yes, I did offer this idea to BNSF 5 years ago as a way for them to work more synchronistically with their shortline "partners". It took pressure from WSDOT to get them to "bone" the idea in order to keep on WSDOT's good side. After all, BNSF is counting on WSDOT to help pay for the clearance project on Stampede Pass.

Not to take things our of context, but the idea of using shortline hoppers to dump at mega terminals is not new, shortlines and bargelines have been doing such for years. But when Class I's build new 110 car facilities, they generally do not consider the idea of shorthauling grain to the terminal via rail. After all, it might seem superfluous to rail grain to a terminal, dump it, and then refill other rail cars with the same grain for the next leg of the journey. Logic says keep it in the original hopper until you reach port. But when viewed from the supply chan perspective, it makes more sense to deliver grain via 264k hoppers over cojoining rails than 120k trucks via county roads.

[samfp1943]

Dave;
Recomend you not hold your breatth.. Something about chances, snowball, and perdition come to mind.. Sound like a reasonable idea and well thought out on your part, the main fallacy being in it, it was not the BNSF's Ideeeee.
Sam

[bobwilcox]

Dave - What is the date on your copywright? No copywright? whoops. Then there is the little problem about it not being an original idea.

[TomDiehl]

Maybe they're waiting for their land grant in Alaska to give you some of that for your fee. [:D]

[MP173]

Dave:

Nice idea. I wont pile on because even tho I agree with you about 10% of the time, I always enjoy reading your ideas.

Actually, you should approach the farmers for your commission. Obviously, it is cheaper for them to move the grain via smaller hoppers to the terminal than by truck, hence saving them $$$ and allowing them to go buy some Montana farmland that is on sale!

One comment I beg to differ with you...120K truck loads? Are you sure? Thought the load limit was 80K, but I might be mistaken.

ed

[Anonymous]

Bob - Copyright?! I don't need no stinkin' copyright![}:)]

Besides, I do have time dated emails that give a date of origination of the idea in context of conversations with RR officials. But really, I'm not pursuing anything against BNSF, just would be nice to get some acknowledgement that it turns out the idea has merit.

ed - 120k is allowed in Montana and parts of Idaho at least for ag commodities. For the record, the GVW limit in Washington is 105k.

What is intriguing about this proposal is this: If it works out to do this for the CW line, why not try the same for the PCC (ex - P & L) line customers?

[eastside]

Of course you took the precaution of patenting it so that no one would copy it, right? [:D] Patenting novel algorithms and methodologies is a standard practice in the software industry.

[MP173]

I dont think that sort of idea could be copywritten or patented. But, it is a good idea.
Cant believe the weight limit is so high in that area. But only on agricultural products? Hmmm, special lobbying. If I were a trucking company, I would be all over that with my state government.

ed

[PBenham]

Homer Simpson said it many times. D'Oh!

[Anonymous]

An idea isn't necessarily a tangible thing, not something that is easily protected like tech or brick and mortar stuff.

I will relate something about those conversations that are still valid today. Outside of political pressure, customer satisfaction parameters, and some additional marginal revenue, BNSF really has nothing to gain and much to lose by adding this traffic to it's lines. All BNSF is really interested in is hauling the grain from shuttle facility to port, and therefore they don't care how the grain gets from farm to shuttle facility. If it all arrives by truck, so what? It's the counties and the State who are responsible for repairing the road damage, not BNSF. But if BNSF starts forwarding shortline traffic from junction to shuttle facilty over the mainline (or if they allow the shortline operator to deliver the railcar loads to the shuttle facility), they are adding traffic in the form of older cars to an already busy line, so the possibility of delays to TOFC or a derailment or such has just gone up. Five years ago there was still additional capacity available on the Cheney-Ritzville line so the likelyhood of delays was low, but now that line is nearing capacity so adding some shortline/shorthaul unit trains might add interference. Maybe they will time the delivery to those hours in which line congestion is at it's typical lowest?

[Anonymous]

Not to create any sidetracking but 120k limits imposes a one hell of a load on a standard Class 8 vehcile found anywhere in Interstate Commerce in the USA.

[Anonymous]

i could only imagine the belly aching Gov. Rod (IL) would do if someone approached him about raising the load limit to 120,000 from 80,000. he won't even let a semi truck do 65 along w/the cars.

[Anonymous]

RE: 80k vs 120k trucks - I will only relate the logical responses: (1) Load factor plays a part in optimizing truck load weights the same as it does for railroads. (2) Two 120k trucks carry more payload (by weight) than three 80k trucks, so in essence you get more payload with fewer trucks on the highway. Makes sense when talking about reducing congestion. (3) The spread axle theory works well for trucks, in that 120k riding on 32 wheels/9 axles has less weight per axle than 80k riding on 18 wheels/5 axles, so in this case the higher GVW actually causes less relative road damage.

If only those stupid politicians would take stock in #'s 2 and #'s 3 above, they could improve their local economies and mitigate traffic problems at the same time.

That's all I have to say about that for now.

[Anonymous]

I highly doubt BNSF will pay you the fee there marketing people proraby thought of it.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Dave - What is the date on your copywright? No copywright? whoops. Then there is the little problem about it not being an original idea.

Copywright? Is that someone who makes copies?[;)]

[Anonymous]

Take BNSF to "The Peoples Court"

[tormadel]

Not unless you had gotten legal rights to the idea, like a trademark or patent or some thingie

[jeaton]

Original idea?

In 1969 the Illinois Central, in cooperation with the T&E unoins, conducted a demonstration project to haul short trains from branch line country elevators to one of the first high volume grain storage/transloading facilities designed for out bound unit train operations. The unions agreed to the use of reduced crews for the demonstration, but ultimately did not go along with a permanent arrangement.

It sure isn't very much of a conceptual leap to go from the 1969 experiment to the plan being discussed here.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Original idea?

In 1969 the Illinois Central, in cooperation with the T&E unoins, conducted a demonstration project to haul short trains from branch line country elevators to one of the first high volume grain storage/transloading facilities designed for out bound unit train operations. The unions agreed to the use of reduced crews for the demonstration, but ultimately did not go along with a permanent arrangement.

It sure isn't very much of a conceptual leap to go from the 1969 experiment to the plan being discussed here.

Some significant differences. The IC idea was all IC trains. This new idea involves possibly allowing the shortline to access the Class I rails to the mega terminal.

[jeaton]

Oh! You mean about the part where one railroad has the right to operate over the tracks of another railroad?

Now there's a concept.