Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
BNSF draws ire of Washington produce shippers - Honestly, I don't have a vendetta against BNSF.....
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by greyhounds</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br /> <br /> <br />Tom, Tom, Tom........ <br /> <br />The trucker's didn't "seduce" traffic away from railroads (at least for the mid to long haul), rather the railroads gave up on providing the service the customer desired, and subsequently the shippers HAD to turn to trucks as a last resort. <br /> <br />You know, like when former 4 day service in the days of steamers becomes 8 day service with all those fancy diesels............[}:)] <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Nope, No Way. <br /> <br />The railroads were not allowed to compete for the business by Federal Government economic regulation. This regulation shifted freight from rail to highway. <br /> <br />This was particularly evident in the transportation of fresh fruit and vegetables where rail rates were held fixed and truck rates were totally unregulated. The truckers could move with the market - the railroads could not. <br /> <br />The rail rates were held artificially high during slack shipping periods, allowing the truckers to undercut the rail charges and keep their equipment busy. The refrigerated railcars sat idle. During peak demand times, the truckers charged what the market would bear, and made their money. The rails had to charge below market rates. <br /> <br />It became impossible for the railroads to make any money hauling FF&V and they pretty much left the business. It was not that they didn't want the business, it was that the stupid Federal Government wouldn't let them make a buck hauling it. <br /> <br />Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Guess again, oh canine comic, <br /> <br />You're suggesting that government regulation forced railroads to provide slower service e.g. 4 days into 8 days. <br /> <br />Regulation may have constrained adaptation to changing market conditions, but the regs didn't force the railroads to provide slower, less dependable service. That is something the railroads chose to do of their own volition. <br /> <br />And we're 25 years past Staggers enactment, so how is it railroads shippers are expected to accept service times that are twice as long as the days of the steamers and 40' boxcars? <br /> <br />Bow, wow, wow.
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy