greyhounds Paul_D_North_Jr I'll try to go easier on the Kneiling quotes and references in the future. But other than you, who else is there to look to for incisive commentary ? Anyway, have a good one. - Paul North. Aw, go ahead and stick with Kneiling. Yes, he did poke people in the eye. Most of 'em needed poking. It was his job to stir things up. He was good at that. I don't know what specifically RWM objects to about Kneiling - but during my time with the railroad I found Kneiling to be more right than wrong.
Paul_D_North_Jr I'll try to go easier on the Kneiling quotes and references in the future. But other than you, who else is there to look to for incisive commentary ? Anyway, have a good one. - Paul North.
I'll try to go easier on the Kneiling quotes and references in the future. But other than you, who else is there to look to for incisive commentary ?
Anyway, have a good one.
- Paul North.
Aw, go ahead and stick with Kneiling.
Yes, he did poke people in the eye. Most of 'em needed poking.
It was his job to stir things up. He was good at that. I don't know what specifically RWM objects to about Kneiling - but during my time with the railroad I found Kneiling to be more right than wrong.
This reminds me that while John was often substantively right - more often than he was given credit for, I think - he was nevertheless a real "bull in a china shop" when it came to communicating with people and persuading them, and did not "get along well with others" in other settings, such as the several political and governmental forums and bodies with which railroads are inextricably intertwined. He may have had good or excellent ideas, concepts, and proposals, but it is a truism in the engineering business (and others) that those great ideas are worthless if you can't communicate them effectively. John was just scary at how he went about that - some of that may have been merely for dramatic effect (I recall that he was an amateur thespian) - but if not, then he was dangerously naive about how some of society's generally accepted and hallowed institutions function (or don't), and how to work within their limitations to nevertheless achieve the desired goal. If he were in my shop, I would not have let him attend - let alone speak at - any meeting on other than purely technical matters, and maybe not even those. The risk of him inflaming people whose cooperation was needed would be too great.
A little personal story might illustrate this better: One of my professors at Lafayette College - the now late Dr. William G. McLean, P.E., then Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Dept. - knew John through a professional society in New York City. While I was taking a sophomore year 2nd semester course (Spring 1973) in Dynamics from Dr. McLean, he learned of my interest in railroads, and at my request, asked John for any advice he might have for me regarding a career in railroading. John told Dr. McLean to tell me to - in just about these exact words, too - "Forget about dynamics - study economcs instead !" Perhaps needless to say, that advice wasn't too popular with the messenger, but it was nevertheless faithfully conveyed back to me by Dr. McLean, and led to an interesting discussion as I recall. Now, 30 years later, the best I can say is that I did finish the Dynamics course with an A, and also went on to take and "ace" 3 Economics Dept. courses (including 1 in Antitrust) and the Engineering Science Dept.'s course in Engineering Economics (interest rates, the various time values of money, etc.), as those of you here could probably already tell. I continued to read John's writings - much more critically, though - and following the advice of the Marquis de Lafayette, “I read, I study, I examine, I listen, I reflect, and out of all of this I try to form an idea into which I put as much common sense as I can.”
Murphy Siding Can someone explain the meaning and use of the term *gateway*, as it pertains to this, and other discussions? Thanks
Can someone explain the meaning and use of the term *gateway*, as it pertains to this, and other discussions? Thanks
It may be more an advertising / marketing term than an actual railroad term. M-Saint-L promoted itself as "The Peoria Gateway" meaning that cars going say west to east could use the M-St.L's connections in Peoria to go around Chicago rather than thru it, thereby saving about a day's worth of time (and money) to get where they were going. It was a 'gateway to the east coast' I guess.
BTW the M-St.L used to pick up Santa Fe reefer blocks going to the Twin Cities and take them north from western Illinois (somewhere around Galesburg), allowing the fruit to get there much faster than if they had to go to Chicago and then go back northwest to get there.
wjstixMurphy Siding Can someone explain the meaning and use of the term *gateway*, as it pertains to this, and other discussions? Thanks It may be more an advertising / marketing term than an actual railroad term. M-Saint-L promoted itself as "The Peoria Gateway" meaning that cars going say west to east could use the M-St.L's connections in Peoria to go around Chicago rather than thru it, thereby saving about a day's worth of time (and money) to get where they were going. It was a 'gateway to the east coast' I guess.
It's absolutely a railway term not a mere marketing term in my 30 years in the business. Beyond its generic use -- a location where routes come together and a new route can be selected -- it also had a technical term to refer to the location where lines passed through rate territory boundaries. Thus, at a gateway, rates changed, route choices appeared, and things happened.
RWM
How does/did a gateway function? To get approval from the Milwaukee Road for the BN merger, Milwaukee Road was given new gateways in, I *think* Louisville, and in Montana(?). So before that, if Milwaukee wanted to exchange westbound cars with NP or GN in Montana, they were just out of luck, if the Northern lines didn't want to ?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding How does/did a gateway function? To get approval from the Milwaukee Road for the BN merger, Milwaukee Road was given new gateways in, I *think* Louisville, and in Montana(?). So before that, if Milwaukee wanted to exchange westbound cars with NP or GN in Montana, they were just out of luck, if the Northern lines didn't want to ?
Let's see if I read/remember this correctly... Somewhere, buried in the many Milwaukee Road and Pacific Coast Extension threads, I believe it was said that the Milwaukee was limited to interchanging westbound traffic to the GN & NP at the Twin Cities. That meant that a car originating in Chicago on the MILW to, say, Maple Valley, WA, on the GN would have to be turned over to the GN in Minneapolis/Saint Paul, rather than the MILW carrying it to Seattle on its own rails and delivering it to the GN there. Opening up additional "gateways" allowed the MILW to carry westbound traffic farther along its lines before surrendering it (and its cut of the rate) to BN. Did I understand correctly?
If so, how on earth did the MILW agree to such a remote western traffic gateway as the Twin Cities in the first place?
Kevin C. SmithMurphy Siding How does/did a gateway function? To get approval from the Milwaukee Road for the BN merger, Milwaukee Road was given new gateways in, I *think* Louisville, and in Montana(?). So before that, if Milwaukee wanted to exchange westbound cars with NP or GN in Montana, they were just out of luck, if the Northern lines didn't want to ? Let's see if I read/remember this correctly... Somewhere, buried in the many Milwaukee Road and Pacific Coast Extension threads, I believe it was said that the Milwaukee was limited to interchanging westbound traffic to the GN & NP at the Twin Cities. That meant that a car originating in Chicago on the MILW to, say, Maple Valley, WA, on the GN would have to be turned over to the GN in Minneapolis/Saint Paul, rather than the MILW carrying it to Seattle on its own rails and delivering it to the GN there. Opening up additional "gateways" allowed the MILW to carry westbound traffic farther along its lines before surrendering it (and its cut of the rate) to BN. Did I understand correctly? If so, how on earth did the MILW agree to such a remote western traffic gateway as the Twin Cities in the first place?
There was/is no legal barrier to interchange between two Class 1s at almost all locations, but there might be a rather large financial disincentive. The shipper can specify any route he wishes through any interchange. However, there may not be a "through" or "interline" rate available at that location for the commodity offered by the shipper, only a combination of two local rates. That's because no Class 1 is obligated by law (so far) to short-haul itself.
For example, if a car was originating on NP at Auburn, Washington, in 1955, and waybilled to Chicago, the NP was under no obligation to quote a through rate via the Milwaukee Road interchange at Miles City, Montana, only via the Milwaukee Road interchange at St. Paul, Minnesota (and the same rate via the CB&Q or the C&NW), because otherwise it would be short-hauling itself. If the shipper insisted, "No, I want to get Milwaukee Road service east of Miles City," the agent would quote a combination of two local rates instead, raising the transportation price by maybe 2 or 3 times. That did happen sometimes.
Thus when someone says, "such and such gateway was opened," that means that the ICC required the long-haul carrier to quote a through rate at an intermediate gateway enabling the short-haul carrier to participate in the through rate. The ICC was thus requiring the long-haul carrier to short-haul itself, if requested by the shipper. The long-haul carrier would accept this condition in order to get something more important it wanted from the ICC, such as approval for a merger.
Some shipper groups today such as CURE are asking the STB to invalidate the short-hauling prohibition to remove what are termed "bottleneck rates," which is the refusal of a long-haul carrier to short-haul itself. For example, suppose coal originates in the PRB on Railroad A and moves to a power plant in Texas served by Railroad A. Railroad B also serves the PRB, but only gets within 20 miles of the power plant in Texas. Railroad A does the move at present at $22/ton. The power plant asks Railroad B to quote it a rate. Railroad B offers, say $18/ton from the PRB to its nearest interchange to the power plant with Railroad A, and asks Railroad A for a rate for the last 20 miles. Railroad A quotes $22/ton -- the same rate as its long-haul rate, because it has no desire to short-haul itself. At present, that is legal.
Railway ManIt's absolutely a railway term
From NS's home page, referring to the Mem Day shutdown: "Interline gateways will remain open for traffic delivered from connecting carriers..."
The term is used all the time on the operating side of the house.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.