Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 2. It would require cooperation for a short haul move by the two connecting lines (BNSF and DM&E) - ain't gonna happen.[/quote] From what I have been told it happens all the time up here in Canada. RRs partner and do hand-offs all ther time...if they didn't they would lose more business.[/quote] Anecdotal pap. Out west here in the USA, trying to get BNSF and UP to cooperate on anything is nearly impossible. Otherwise, there'd be trains aplomb running from Sweetgrass MT to LA via CP, BNSF, ,MRL, Montana Central, and UP (in that order, north to south). Facts are this: In Murphy's Gillette to Rapid City example, there is a railroad in Gillette called BNSF. There is a railroad in Rapid City called DM&E. BNSF and DM&E do interconnect with each other. So why no BNSF/DM&E coal trains between these two fine cities? [quote]QUOTE: [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Doesn't matter that there is inherent profit in this business, the fact is BNSF and other Class I's aren't as motivated by the profit motive as they are the political motive.[/quote] That's a pile of 'BS'. Today they are exceptionally motivated by profit.[/quote] More anecdotal BS. You have no understanding of the non-profit motivated actions of railroads. I have offered first hand accounts time and again of how BNSF turned down perfectly good business opportunities over underutilized tracks. Why? Because they have a political agenda that trumps the pure profit motive. In most cases, the new business would also benefit other railroads, or trucking companies, or barge lines, or start up 3pl's. BN tore up tracks that connected to barge ports just to keep a lucrative rail/barge multimodal move from taking place, which eventually forced the business onto trucks. Even now, BNSF and UP refuse to offload certain grain trains at available barge ports to free up rail capacity in the Columbia Gorge, even though having a waterway division would make sense if indeed BNSF and UP are true transportation companies. BNSF spent big bucks upgrading a major brancline in the late 1970's, only to embargo that same line five years later after a change of management. The welds on the rails had barely had time to cool, the new clean ballast barely had time to get a coat of farm dust on it. And you calll that being "exceptionally motivated by profit"? Any sane person would call it what it was and is - political motivation trumping profit motive. [quote]QUOTE: [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Trucks are no competition for railroads.[/quote] Yeah right, and cable companies are no competition for telephone companies. Up here in Canada the trucking industry is very real hard competition for the RR business. The trucking companies acquired a bunch of business the RR used to have. How they do that? They went door-to-door and show businesses how their transport model was better. Depending on the specifics it was likely either cheaper, and/or faster, and/or more reliable. In some cases it could have been a bit more expensive but way way faster, and in today's world of get to market the next day this can be reason alone to switch your transporter.[/quote] Specifics? What is this "traffic" that both railroads and truckers are competing for? Coal? Grain? TOFC? COFC? Chemicals? Lumber? Autos? Hmmmm, that's most of what is profitable for railroads to move, and we're assuming such is moving in bulk over decent distances. Trucks only get such business when the dynamics do not jive with railroad fundamentals - 1. In corridors where railroads do not exist 2. In corridors where rail service is not direct 3. In corridors where rail capacity issues force traffic onto highways 4. In small amounts where it isn't worth the time and effort to use rail [quote]QUOTE: But futuremodeal does have a point although I'm not sure he has presented it the way I think he meant to. Not all business is good business. Yes a run from A to B might be a bit profitble, it might employe a few people but the possible long term consequences could be risky enough to draw the conclusion of not going down that road. In today's very aggressive very calculated business world, building a solid business plan and sticking to it is absolutely mandatory.[/quote] I notice you've mentioned nothing of truck/railroad cooperation in TOFC and domestic COFC. I have stated before that the trucking companies don't give a rat's***if a trailer moves over the highway or by TOFC. All they care about is if the trailer makes it in time from Point A to Point B. Trucking companies are true comprehensive transportation companies, railroads are modally limited transporation companies. If railroads were true transportation companies, they wouldn't care how a commodity got from Point A to Point B as long as they got the profit. Railroad tracks and highways are different modal pathways. One is beter suited for multiplicity, the other is best suited for expediency. Combine the two and you get intermodalism. If and only if highway's were allowed by law to host multiple trailer combinations of tens and twenties could highways be seen as true competition for railroads. It isn't, so it ain't. What you guys are missing is the fundamental difference in closed access vs open access transportation systems, which is why you are stuck in this railroads vs trucks mythology. Because railroad companies own both the transporter equipment and the tracks, they have to have goods move over tracks for them to get any benefit. Trucking companies only need the goods to be placed in their trailers and containers to get the benefits. They don't care if the trailer moves by highway or rail, in the end they get their piece of the pie. Contrarily, railcars can only move by rail. There is no Railcar On Flatbed Trailer moves out there that I know of. [quote]QUOTE: But the comment about the trucking industry being the mode of last resort.......rubbish. [/quote] You are showing that you have no conception of the context of the statement. Trucks via highways are the mode of choice for small lot shorthauls and expedient deliveries. Other than that, sending trailers by highways over long distances thar are also covered by railroads makes no sense. You see, it's not really about trucks vs railroads, it's about highways vs railroads. Once you understand the infrastructural modal ideal can you truly appreciate the "mode of last resort" tenet. Since railroads really only care about the long haul, if a company has to choose between loading a railcar or a truck trailer for long distance delivery, they have no idea if that trailer is going over the road or by TOFC at some intermodal terminal. So they are not making a conscious decision of railroads vs highways, they are only making a decision on the type of container their product is moving in. If they put it in a trailer it can still move by rail, but if they put it in a railcar it can only move by rail. For most long distance deliveries, they would prefer the railcar over the trailer since they can fit more onto a railcar than onto a trailer, but if the railcar is not available to them in an expedient fashion, they go to truck trailers as a last resort. After trailers there are no more options. It's a hierarchy, and it goes in descending order railcar - trailer - squat.
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