Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal A short haul is considered anything under 300 miles, and today railroads won't touch shorthauls [/quote] The fact that railroads gave up this business means they couldn't compete for the business-the trucks won, in this case.[:)] [/quote] What you are missing is the fact that railroads under regulation had to offer a bid for such services. Just because they did haul oddities 300 miles doesn't mean they wanted to. When trucks and decent highways came along, the railroads were more than happy to pawn this type of haul onto the mode of last resort. And I will tell you this - If for some reason trucking companies no longer wanted this business, it would no longer get hauled. Do you really think the railroads would want this back? HEdoubletoothpicks No! The mode of last resort. Learn it, memorize it, engrain it. [/quote] I worked in pricing for the ICG. We didn't have to "bid" on anything. We had to have a rate in place. The rates we had "in place" were called "class rates". They were "classification rates", inherited from the 19th centruy and based on the value of the commodity shipped. They became obsolete with the advent of truck competition. Dave doesn't understand this. We just let 'em be subject to general increase after general increase. They got so freaking high that no freight moved on them. We moved freight on "commodity" rates tailored to what we analized was in our best interest. Dave, again, is oh so wrong. Ken Strawbridge [/quote] A rate offering is a bid. If you offered a rate, you offered a bid. Didn't they teach you about how multiple words can have the same meaning back there in Deliverenceville?[:o)] And those class rates became obsolete long before highways were built and trucks began to haul the stuff railroads didn't want (as per their collective actions toward shippers). You should read a wonderful book I've been reading. It's entitled "The Box That Changed The World" by Arthur Donovan and Joseph Bonney. In it, you will see that it wasn't McClean's intention to compete with railroads (from an economics standpoint an impossible thing), rather it was to take advantage of the railroad's rate regulation quagmire by offering to ship those freight items disenfranchised by the regulatory nightmare. If not for the ICC, practically all truck trailers would have been carried via TOFC even back in the 1930's. Of course, it would be fooli***o blame the ICC for all the railroads' resistence to TOFC. Mostly, the railroads should blame the railroads themselves. You will notice that McClean never considered that his trucking venture was competing with the railroads. In fact, all he wanted was for the railroads to carry his product (which happened to be trailers full of goods), and you know what? The railroads could even profit from that venture! But noooooooo! The railroads decided to try and make a *competition* out of what by all natural and economic accounts was the perfect cooperative venture. Perhaps this explains why even today railroad types are always refering to the "rail vs truck" ghost rivalry, while today's trucking companies just see railroads as another option (along with highways and waterways) for moving their trailers from Point A to Point B. No one who still considers trucks as *competition* for railroads can be considered an elightened individual in this day and age.
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