Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317 [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The article mentions BNSF's desire for a "200 hour" window for delivery to Tacoma from Quincy. That means the cycle time is about 8 days. The produce shippers need a 4 day cycle maximum, otherwise the service is useless to them. [/quote] And again, you're reading between the lines with your anti-BNSF glasses on. Which paragraph of that article in your original link does it even MENTION a "200 hour" window? [/quote] That, two. 200? $200 maybe.[%-)] [/quote] The "200" figure is a typo on my part. It should read "100 hour" window. I have gone back and edited in the right figure. Regarding the 4 day vs 8 day cycle debate, the article states this: "Trains would run twice a week, but it could take up to 100 hours for produce to reach the Tacoma port." From this, it is clear to all that BNSF wants a potential cycle time of up to 200 hours, since the one way trip may need 100 hours "to reach the Tacoma port". Only a railroad kool-aid drinker would assume this particular sentence pertaining to the 100 hour statement means a maximum 100 hour/4 day cycle time, because that would mean the produce was originating in Tacoma, with 50 hours out to Quincy and 50 hours back. Tom and rrandb may not be able to grasp this simple math, but most of the rest of us can, even with the occasional typo. So it is clear what BNSF wants is to absolve itself of liability if the normal 4 day cycle is delayed up to an 8 day cycle. This shows two things: (1) the 4 day cycle is paramount to the produce guys, it is an inflexible time window due to the characteristics of the product in question, and (2) apparently BNSF can offer a twice a week schedule some of the time, so it's not even a question of BNSF having no interest in the business, rather it's an example of BNSF wanting the right to disregard the business at random times through the year, perhaps when those Asian imports are a callin'. The other item of note: "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." Hmmm, let's see. On a revenue per mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation. This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates (at $0.02 per ton mile), not high end truck rates (at $0.10 per ton mile). Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar!
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