LETS DEBATE OPEN ACCESS

[Anonymous]

Alan,

I do appreciate the points you are making. I would just add that the rail scene today is a juxtaposition from what it was just a few years ago. Back then, there was excess capacity, so a Class I like BNSF selling or leasing redundant mainlines to lower cost operators made sense, since BNSF still could access the property and control the gateways. Now, capacity is close to being contrained, and BNSF is in a position to have to spend it's stockholder's stake to add sidings and double track. Of course, under the theory of dispersed redundancy, BNSF ideally would want that new trackage to be built where it could still be accessed if something happened on it't current trackage. Just double tracking the "Funnel" is not a panacea, for if there is even one derailment (still a common occurance in railroading) the entire set of trackage is taken out of service. This may not be so costly for low value commodities, but can be very costly for time sensitive traffic.

BNSF has (or has access to) five separate sets of mainlines (converging into two) out of the Dakotas and Wyoming coming into Idaho, and three separate sets of mainlines (convering into two) coming out of Washington into Idaho. That leaves just the single mainline ROW between Sandpoint and West Spokane. It would certainly fit into BNSF's Northern Tier lines philosophy if a second parallel but distant mainline is added between Washington and Montana, especially if another entity is charged with it's construction and maintenance, removing a cost liability should traffic levels fall in the future. Even if that same new trackage was accessable by UP, it is unlikely such access would amount to even a dent in BNSF's business. As you so succinctly state, only raw paranoia (and I might add, pure idiocy) would foster opposition to this new line by BNSF. If a caveat of open access (and a corresponding array of tax breaks to the open access infrastructure entity) were dependent on more than one railroad accessing the property, BNSF would be wise to simply allow one or tow token accesses onto MRL by UP or some shortline if it means a new secondary mainline paid for by someone other than BNSF stockholders.

[bobwilcox]

This may have all ready been mentioned but the MRL is unable to shorthaul the BNSF unless the traffic was moving via the shorthaul gateway prior to the creation of the MRL. If the BNSF does not like the route it does not happen per its contract with the MRL.

[arbfbe]

The two touted reasons for rail mergers are economies of service and enhanced service to the customers. All methods of effeciencies in the railroad industry revolve around ton miles and train ton miles. The most effecient railroads by their own measure is one that has the most tons per mile with the fewest trains on the shortest route. Service to customers is not even a considertion in this equation. It sounds good and makes good politics but it is counter to increasing the bottom line. The BN merger was driven by the desire to reduce route miles in order to concentrate as much traffic as possible on the best engineered portions of the NP and GN mainlines. That is still BNSFs goal and so building another line to move traffic from existing trackage will be opposed by the BNSF.

Terminal costs incurred by the railroads are not from revenue generating functions. Line haul costs are related to revenue generating activities. Transportation only adds value and thus gets paid for moving the freight. That makes long haul the part of the equation that pays for all the fixed costs. The longer the haul the more the revenue. The BNSF will not shorten it's haul on it's own track as well as add to the terminal costs. It would spread the terminal costs across a shorter line haul reducing the revenue per mile of the freight. BNSF does not want that to happen. BNSF is not in the barge business and will not likely be in the future. It is too easy for another company to get started in the tug boat business leading to competition, rate wars and reduced profits. BNSF is pretty happy to be in a business where the extremely high costs to start a competing rail line leave it in a monopoly or oligopoly position.

Missoula is not a grain center and that is the point. If it were then the MRL might be interested in another way to get grain to Portland. The grain the MRL hauls originates on the BNSF or the DM&E. BNSF controls the delivery of that grain to MRL at Laurel or has the ability to reroute it all via Mossmain (east of Laurel) to Great Falls and Shelby eliminating the MRL entirely. There is no way the BNSF will move grain to Missoula if it will not return to the BNSF at Spokane for furthurance via BNSF to Portland.

BNSF did not purchase the Montana Western, they owned, actually leased it all along. The Silver Bow (Butte) to Garrison was built by the Utah Northern before the NP line was completed in 1883. This UP subsidiary cooled it's heels at Garrison while the NP got it's act together to fini***he line. to the Pacific ocean After the UN was converted to a standard gauge line so the NP could get access to Butte there was a period when the NP and UP tried a joint operation called the Montana Union Ry. One railroad ran it for a period and then the other took over for a like period. Results were not favorable and when the UP was in financial distress they leased the Silver Bow to Garrison line to the NP for 999 years. The BN inturn, subleased the line to local investors who named their operation the Montana Western, not to be confused with the earlier Montana Western between Conrad and Valier off the GN. The newer MW was not making lease payments to the UP and they threatened to take the line back from BNSF. I am sure the MRL evaluated the situation and might have been willing to operate or lease the line for the BNSF or UP. As far as I know that was not offerred to them. While it would give the MRL and UP a direct connection it would not be very practical from an operational perspective. Any grain MRL might route that way would be a very long haul to ID inorder to get to export markets. The MRL/UP connection at Sandpoint would involve using the BNSF main and junction switches to make an interchange move there. Still, BNSF is very protective of their territory and traffic and would not encourage such an interchange. Probably this protection borders on paranoia but it is part of the MRL lease contract and I doubt that will change any time soon.

Dennis Washington is involved in tug and barge operations on the lower Columbia so it is not inconcievable he could move up river to haul grains on the river. Perhaps if I run into Kyle Washington on the street in Missoula I can ask him his plans with regard to that. <G>

Simply I see such a major construction project would only benefit two or three major grain companies, it would work cross purpose to what BNSF wants to achieve and would require massive amounts of public funds for a line mostly dedicated to seasonal use and not likely able to generate additional traffic since it is beholden on both ends to other railroads to provide traffic that would just short haul themselves.

Alan

[Anonymous]

Alan,

Missoula is used as a point of reference, not as an example of a grain growing mecca.

As for your contention that the railroads don't want new publicly built rail links, the bottom line on that is dependent on the bottom line of the railroads in question. Assuming BNSF is a company run by logical rational people, any support, opposition, or disregard all together for a public rail link will depend on their analysis and perceptions of the link being an asset or liability to it's profit enhancing operations. If the Texas plan looks like it might become a reality, we'll have to wait and see what BNSF's response to that is before we can decipher their response to a potential Missoula Lewiston rail link.

As an adjuct, whether BNSF would then employ rail to barge transload also would depend on whether they have invested in the barge lines. If so, they would utilize a BNSF barge line in conjunction with a BNSF rail line to provide the most optimal movement. No one is suggesting BNSF (the transportation company, not necessarily the railroad) would shorthaul themselves if it resulted in less revenue.

If MRL has access to grain loading facilities, it also would probably take advantage of a rail to barge transload, regardless if Dennis Washington invested in a barge line or not. It all depends on how much real autonomy MRL has separate from BNSF, or how much BNSF would allow MRL to run its own affairs. The rail line west of Lewiston has connections to both BNSF and UP. Would the threat of MRL interchange with UP at Ayer Junction really cause concern at BNSF? BNSF's exorbitant purchase of the Montana Western, if indeed implemented to keep MRL from interchanging with UP, would suggest so.

[arbfbe]

That is about it, over 2100 net ton miles per gallon. The fuel metering is from taking fuel gauge readings from the three locomotives at Missoula and Spokane. Not factored in is the fuel used for the tare weight, fuel used for the return empty haul nor the fuel burned while the locos are idling between runs.

The run from Missoula to Spokane is not all down hill and even the downhill segments are more undulating than river grade.

Land grants? Let's see, you want to build a rail line the railroads do not want, you want to use money from water interests they do not want to share and now you want to give away forest lands the environmentalists will have in court for years. Does this give you any clue why I doubt your idea will achieve viability?

If it would get built where will the traffic come from? The new line has no as in 0 access to any grain elevators. BNSF controls that. Missoula is not in the grain belt of Montana and it never will be. Every one of the new flood evelators is on the BNSF. They will control the rate to the shippers to insure the grain will go via their rail lines rather than to the barge operators. The big elevator owners, Cargill, Conagra and Peavey would be the ones to want to operate the open access trains but what pressure can they bring towards the BNSF to make the rate attractive to them? The shippers cannot withhold the grain since they will quickly run out of storage capacity and they need to sell the grain to make a profit. They will either pay the BNSF what they want or get out of the Montana grain business. It is called monopolistic pricing and the BNSF has it in Montana. They will retain it so long as they own the tracks to the elevators. That is why it costs less to ship grain from Minnesota to Seattle than it does to ship grain from Montana to Seattle.

Your line needs to get to the elevators taking over abandoned MILW trackage acquiring other row to be viable. Even then it is a single purpose line to ship seasonal grain with little potential for a back haul and no major markets at either end. It will only benefit a few shippers and they seem to be unwilling to build it themselves.

Alan

[Anonymous]

arbfbe,

Your figures would suggest over 2,000 gross ton/miles per gallon! (What is the net?) Do you have metered figures to back that up? Even if true (and it is possible since it is downgrade from Missoula to Spokane), it is apparent that the railroad is not passing these savings onto the Montana grain shipper, otherwise the current long haul grain trucking business between Lewiston and Montana would not exist.

The figures I am using come from the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative <http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/grain/publications/buspub/baumel01.html> which shows 437 ton/miles for West Coast moves and 640 ton/miles for New Orleans moves. The 1500 net ton/miles for barges on the Columbia Snake River waterway come from metered fuel use statictics provided by Foss Maritime at my request. Both the latter and the former data sets are several years old, and it can be safely assumed that fuel efficiency has increased since then for both modes.

If indeed fuel consumption for unit trains is lower than that for barges, then there would be no fuel savings via a rail to barge transload. Common sense would dictate that fuel use for barges on the Columbia-Snake River Waterway will still be lower than that for unit grain trains, since efficiency technologies are generally available to both modes. It is also useful to think in terms of energy use, and the energy used to maintain a prime railroad bed is significantly higher than that used to maintain a waterway.

There is still a vastly greater savings of barge over rail in terms of maintenance and captital costs of grain moving units. There is also a savings currently inherent in that capacity is abundant on the river system, while the rail system is nearing capacity limits. Then again, issues of rail car availability would be ameliorated with a rail to barge transload since the cycle times for the rail segment would be reduced. All these factors would have to be analyzed for a proper consensus of whether rail/barge intermodalism would be viable. The fact that rail to barge transload already exist in the PNW between shortline operators and the barge lines is further evidence that such could work on a larger scale.

The shipping portion of the C of E budget is very small, most of it goes to maintenance of the hydropower system and the subsidy of commercial and tribal fisheries. The barge lines do pay a user fee to use the navigation system, while recreational users do not, thus the barge lines are subsidizing the recreational users of the locks.

Lastly, let's not forget that the entire MRL system came about due to some of the largest land grants ever commissioned by the feds. If not for the land grants, the current MRL alignment would not even exist. If land grants were appropriate for past rail construction, why are they not appropriate for new rail construction today? Indeed, is it not appropriate that the feds continue to provide the necessary incentives to constantly enhance it's transportation infrastructure, whatever form it entails?

[arbfbe]

Futuremodal,

"reduce fuel consumption by up to half a gallon per ton mile", no way.
Here are the figures from the MRL. Grain trains run up to 16,500 tons which means about 13,000 tons of grain. The run to Spokane is almost 300 miles. The trains run with three units that burn between 500 and 600 miles each for the 300 mile run. So that is 3,900,00 ton miles with less than 1800 gallons of fuel which works out to 0.0004615 gallons per ton mile. That is fractions of an ounce per ton mile not gallons.

Reducing the rail haul by 200 to 300 miles only increases the barge haul by the same ammount and increases the handling and storage charges as well as the transit times markedly.

If the river shipping interests didn't have the Corps of Engineers to build and manage their infrastructure projects there would be very little barge traffic on the rivers. Portland would not be a deep water port. Take the entire C of E annual budget and split 75% of it's total annual budget between every barge load and boat load on their system and watch that traffic move quickly to the rails whenever possible. After that is all gone from the river system the traffic remaining vs the costs spread over the loads will prove uneconomic to the shipper..

[Anonymous]

dave,
i think compartments could be set within the hold of the barge. this is not infrequently done on ocean vessels for grain hauls (plywood/poly/2x4 partitions). this allows vessels principally loaded with , let's say, corn to be "topped off" with wheat or soybeans. the question with barge transport would be whether the cost in time, effort and money would ever be worth while for movements of 200 to 750 miles. my feeling is that cost would be prohibitive.
...as to the rest of the thread, it's a great exchange of ideas.

[Anonymous]

cbt141,

The points made regarding movements of export grain and the points regarding open access are not really related per se. The synthesis of the two subjects came about regarding a specific running argument of the potential viability of constructing an open access rail link between Missoula MT (and MRL/BNSF) and the barge port at Lewiston ID (where further westbound transportation options include UP and BNSF via the GNR nee-Camas Prairie RailNet, as well as Tidewater, Foss Maritime, Shaver, and Bernert barge lines to Portland OR and the deep water ports of the Lower Columbia River, hence the export grain angle).

The point I had touched upon was the statement made on yet another thread regarding the potential role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in developing new rail lines, much as they currently do with waterways, and my contention that the Lewiston-Missoula rail link would be the "perfect" testing ground for a Corps sponsored open access rail link. In short, the rail link would reduce overall rail mileage from the Midwest (areas south of the I-90/I-94 nee U.S. 10/ex-NP corridor) to the Lower Columbia by 100 miles vs MRL via Missoula and 200 mile vs BNSF via Shelby MT; would reduce rail mileage to "first" barge port by 200+ miles via Missoula and 300+ miles via Shelby; reduce fuel consumption by up to half a gallon per ton mile for unit grain trains/barge transload at Lewiston; and provide a vastly improved heavy haul transportation corridor through North Central Idaho. A few of the participants vehemently opposed this idea as a threat to BNSF and/or a rip off of the taxpayers, while I maintain that the link would be a boon to BNSF and would more than pay back it's costs in an improved fluidity of the nation's export infrastructure. As far as I know, there have been no official feasability studies of the idea, so either postition is heresay.

That being said, I do understand the point you are trying to make. Whether barge lines on the Columbia-Snake Waterway currently have compartmentilization of their grain barges, or have the capability to compartmentalize if the need arises is something to research in more detail as time permits.

[Anonymous]

dave,
the statements you have made are correct in as far as they go, however, there is further to go. i will respectfully try to answer the points with "reply " statements. i hope this will be able to match the points to the counter points.
as i said earlier many of the ideas which writers to this thread have regarding grain trade are correct, but not fully understood. this failure to appreciate the complexity of the grain trade can cause a writer to miss the mark even while making a statement which is undeniably true.
cbt141

"If you are refering to identity protected grains, those generally more by container. "

reply: very, very little grain moves by container.

"As for rail/barge/ship, you do know that grain segregation is manifested on the barge lines too, with one barge holding soft white, one hard red, etc. "

reply: segregation by class,ie, soft white, hard red (winter and spring) etc. is the first step in the process. there is a very specific grading system as to general quality and then the customer specific specifications relating to the chemistry of the flour expected from the chemistry of the wheat in question. these quality and identification requirements make breaking cargo from original warehousemans' load out a job demanding care and expertise. the problem comes in needing to keep specs on 3500bu hoppers identified when mixed in the 52,000bu barge.

"The storage facilities along the river do the same thing as the storage facilities at the deep water ports. "

reply: absolutely true. but once taken into the elevator and sorted, dried, blended matched to customer specs for test weight, protien, falling numbers etc, et al the wheat outloaded must stay with wheat of similar specification. this may well preclude breaking cargo from rail to barge or from truck to rail or barge on the way to final transport.

"I'm glad you mentioned the weather retrictions of the MIdwest waterway systems. Although there is some grain that moves to New Orleans by rail/barge combos, during the winter months all must move by rail. By constrast, the Columbia Snake system is open year 'round."

reply: grain moves to the gulf via barge all year round. there are c.i.f. quotes posted for barge grain delivered NOL every single day of the year. ice and water levels create delays and problems during the winter months, but only in the upper river is the problem bad enough to create a major problem with barge movement. most barge grain begins it's trip south as grain truck delivered to a river elevator facility and is loaded to barge and arrives in NOL without ever being rail handled. there are certainly rail movements to barge in the mississippi system, but the greatest fraction of grain movement finishing as barge will begin as barge grain as well.

i have no opinion worth noting about "open access". i have , however, noticed comments about grain transportation being offered as support or opposition to the idea of open access. often these comments have not appreciated the subtleties of marketing grain. i would not characterize the statements made as incorrect, but they just don't really make the point that the writer is trying to illustrate.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cbt141
[br
#1 it might be of some help to realize that in the wheat trade grain is never just wheat. this especially true in the white wheat market and an iron rule when selling to asia from the pnw.
i suggest that some of the questions and apparent inconsistencies which you folks are discussing about all rail and rail/barge from pasco and lewiston are would be less puzzling if you take into consideration that the quality specifications and order sizes of the wheat in question will not allow it to be "mixed" in the hold of a barge. it has been carefully chosen and segregated at the sourcing elevator and that segregation has an economic value to the customer which will be preserved even through the ocean portion of the shipment. in short,
the rail wheat is most likely not a true "bulk" cargo. the portland export elevators are going to be the best place to break cargo. they will have the expertise to preserve the identity of the wheat. this is a value added component of price which the customer requires.

cbt141,

If you are refering to identity protected grains, those generally more by container.

As for rail/barge/ship, you do know that grain segregation is manifested on the barge lines too, with one barge holding soft white, one hard red, etc. The storage facilities along the river do the same thing as the storage facilities at the deep water ports. The facilities in Lewiston and vicinity are the only barge loading facilities I know of that take and store grain varieties from beyond the PNW, most other barge facilities along the Columbia Snake River system are predicated toward varieties specific to PNW.

I'm glad you mentioned the weather retrictions of the MIdwest waterway systems. Although there is some grain that moves to New Orleans by rail/barge combos, during the winter months all must move by rail. By constrast, the Columbia Snake system is open year 'round.

[Junctionfan]

The problem with having all those folk on the line is having to check on them being compliant to the rules. The only reason why highway rules are even remotely followed is because a state/ provincial police or some kind of highway patrol keeps the motorist in line. With an open access line, it will require a police to monitor all thease different engineers from different companies. I also believe that the railroads who appreciate the "acts of god" and other factors that can make railroading difficult both profit wise and safety wise would be missed on thease non-railroad experienced entities. I am also concerned that thease same new folk would end up violating rules of safety and the line to save money or time and thus cause an accident. It also means that issurance for anything having to do with this line would be difficult to aquire as there would be too many possible negligent parties on the line.

Now for example, if Maersk Sealand has an intermodal yard in New York and also in Chicago, I am not against a host railroad (class 1) locomotive crew taking the train. Basically the non-traditional rail users could hire a crew through the railroads and move the train with the option of the railroads locomotives or the private company's locomotives. Basically the railroads would be turned into a licenced leasing company for that line.

That is the only way I would be in favour of open access. I can't see anyway open access would be safer without the class 1s or shortlines running things on the line. Also there is quote on one of the pages here that deals with who runs things and cost of maintainance that deserves to be taken into consideration as well.

[edblysard]

Mac,
Both of the email addresses you provided in your contact didnt work, what I sent to them came back as undeliverable...

Email me direct at
[e-mail]
or go to
http://store.renaissancewritinginstruments.com/index.html
and use the email link...

The short answer to your question is:
Yes, no and no...
I think it exsist only as a wish fulfillment/dream.
Ed[8D]

[Anonymous]

"Pure nonsense? Then I guess I would ask you to explain why all grain destined for Portland, Vancouver, and Kalama doesn't right now terminate its rail journey at Pasco and is transloaded to a barge. I would ask why grain is shipped by rail out of North Dakota to the St. Louis area through St. Paul, Minnesota, instead of being shipped only to St. Paul and then finishing its journey on a barge. And I would ask why grain from Central Nebraska for the New Orleans area is moved via an all-rail route when it could be simply moved to Omaha and put on a barge. As for more environmentally friendly? Probably true, but if you take a poll, I suggest not asking any salmon."

#1 it might be of some help to realize that in the wheat trade grain is never just wheat. this especially true in the white wheat market and an iron rule when selling to asia from the pnw.
i suggest that some of the questions and apparent inconsistencies which you folks are discussing about all rail and rail/barge from pasco and lewiston are would be less puzzling if you take into consideration that the quality specifications and order sizes of the wheat in question will not allow it to be "mixed" in the hold of a barge. grain destined for the asian market has been carefully chosen and segregated at the sourcing elevator and that segregation has an economic value to the customer which will be preserved even through the ocean portion of the shipment. in short,
the rail wheat is most likely not a true "bulk" cargo. the portland export elevators are going to be the best place to break cargo. they will have the expertise to preserve the identity of the wheat. this is a value added component of price which the customer requires.

#2 grain coming from the dakotas will have problems moving via the upper mississippi rv during winter. freeze up creates problems with reliability on middle and upper river. even in good weather frequent "locking" needs to be contended with above st.louis. also when grain does run to st.paul this may be a marketing effort at "positioning" for a move to the river or the lakes. these things are hard to anticipate or understand without inside information as to strategy.

#3 omaha, ne is on the missouri rv. i don't think this waterway has ever been a major conduit for grain to the gulf. rail is always the way grain from the western wheat belt is quoted, and nebraska and kansas bushels seem to flow easiest to the texas gulf not the mississippi side of the gulf. the missouri rv is navigable, but is not a source for export grain. in fact i believe that less than ten million bushels moved this way as late as 1998.

in another comment a gentleman asked about bnsf to tacoma. there is an elevator at tacoma run by cargill, but portland has a much more developed elevator infrastructure (7 facilities). i think tacoma has lost that battle.
at new orleans and portland the elevator capacity is not built to store and hold vast quantities of grain as it is in toledo, duluth, kansas city, hutchinson. the point of these ocean ports is to draw grain on call from country line elevators and to preform the "fobbing" task of loading a vessel. these export elevators hold grain for a relatively short time working for a quick turn over.

also russia will probably not be a major disruption to the pnw wheat economy. russia is a red wheat producer with black sea ports. australia and china will have more to do with pnw.

lastly the usa will be a net exporter of grain as long as she produces more grain than the domestic market can absorb. foreign competition will reguire lower relative pricing of our exports, but only internal balance of supply with demand can shut exporting off.

a lot of the comments i read here about the grain trade make perfect sense and would seem to a be a reasonable expectation of how the trade works, but they are not quite on the mark. grain is a very peculiar beast. it always surprises. there is always some quirk upsetting the logic of the problem.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I am not particularly in favour of private companies running their own trains on open access tracks. My idea for open access is a double or triple track mainline that is open to multiple class 1s, passenger and shortlines with mainline worthy locomotives. I believe running the trains themselves should be left to the pros.

Andrew,

What is your opinion of having trucking companies, third party intermodal firms, or utilities running their own trains on such a line?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[Also, isn't this the scenario for which I was lambasted by the BNSF Kool-Aid drinkers?

I am truly disappointed in myself for participating in a discussion with anyone that would stoop to using such a childish and insulting phrase. It shall not happen again.

--Mark

And a Merry Christmas to you too!

[Junctionfan]

I am not particularly in favour of private companies running their own trains on open access tracks. My idea for open access is a double or triple track mainline that is open to multiple class 1s, passenger and shortlines with mainline worthy locomotives. I believe running the trains themselves should be left to the pros.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[Also, isn't this the scenario for which I was lambasted by the BNSF Kool-Aid drinkers?

I am truly disappointed in myself for participating in a discussion with anyone that would stoop to using such a childish and insulting phrase. It shall not happen again.

--Mark

[arbfbe]

Well, the idea of this thread was open access. Your M-L line using MRL mainline trackage leased from BNSF would thus be open access. The most likely users would be the large grain companies like Cargill, ConAgra and Peavey that are building the flood elevators in Montana. Why would BNSF be open to these companies running their own trains across BNSF tracks cutting the railroad out of the picture entirely?

The BN merger was made to reduce expenses by cutting overlapping jobs in four railroad companies and moving traffic from parallel lines to a single line in order to increase cars per mile and tons per mile on that one track in order to amortize costs over a greater number or revenue units. Adding parallel tracks was not and is not in the BNSF plan. You can count on them fighting the idea of open access tooth and nail as well as the use of public funds to short haul thier captive grain markets in Montana and western North Dakota. There is a reason that the flood elevators are not being built on branchlines like the BNSF line between Havre and Great Falls. That line is severed at Fort Benton and Big Sandy. BNSF wants that line gone and no investor would be prudent to try to change BNSFs mind by constructing a new elevator there. Instead the elevators will be built on the GN mainline or the line between Shelby and Laurel the BNSF is interested in keeping. They will make the rates that will insure that is where the grain will move in order to concentrate traffic on that line. The BNSF does not want any competing elevators on the MRL or on the lines they want to see abandoned. They certainly do not want another line they do not control to haul grain out of their service area.

Water interests like to think of the Corps of Engineers as their own government agency. They will not look kindly if the Corps budget is diverted to build a competing mode of transportation instead of maintaining and enlarging dams, locks and channels they depend upon for their lively hood.

The idea of moving grain via rail, barge and open shipping involves a lot of transloading operations. You do not just handle it a couple of times but the usual sequence is field to elevator, elevator to train, train to elevator, elevator to barge, barge to elevator and elevator to ship. Each transfer adds to the cost of the shipping as well as damage to the product. Each transfer results in storage costs while the product is held for transfer as well as demurrage on the car or barge it is being removed from or being reloaded into. Each transfer adds to the transit time of the load and someone is paying the inventory costs associated with the delay. Someone purchasing a boat load of grain will have to save an inordinate amount on the purchase price for grain they will own for 30 days in transit vs 15 days in transit since they will get a lower selling price due to the damage to the grain as well as the risk of contamination at any of the transfer operations, storage facilities and transportation vehicles.

Seems to me that transportation of wood products via water in the form of raw logs and wood chips is doing quite well in costal areas in the Pacific Northwest. Part of the Washington Corporations empire. There is no reason this could not have been done on the Columbia.

One of the reasons the mentioned truck to barge shuttles work is this grain can be presold and loaded in the field in the same truck that will deliver it to the barge, well the elevator that will load it into the barge. Going from the field to a railroad grain car will add the costs and time delays of an additional elevator to the costs.

Alan

[PNWRMNM]

Mark,

Thanks for the tip on the Port document. Will make for some interesting Christmas reading.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

The lines in SE Washington were built to haul grain to Portland and Tacoma. About the only other traffic that developed was fertilizer (for grain) and coal for WSU steam plant at Pullman. The river killed the grain business within 50 miles and depressed rates beyond that range. The river killed the grain business which killed the branches. That was the direct intended result of US Government policy.

I can not imagine why you think BN should have thrown good money down the rat hole trying to compete with the trucks on a short haul on a network that was never oriented toward the river. Look at the map of rail network as it was in 1970 and location of barge loading stations and then tell me the railroads could have competed to the river.

Watco has a short haul move to the River. If it is making so much money why did the State of Washington have to buy a bunch of the cars for it? Why is most of their network operating at 10MPH? Why did they threaten to abandon the half of their lines closest to the river? Why did the State of Washington recently have to buy Watco's lines for over $7,000,000?

Mac

Mac, you are correct that some of the Palouse branch lines were built for westward haul, but that would limit it to the Connell-Colfax branch. The UP lines through the area were once part of UP's predecessor main to Spokane until the "Washy" was built in the early 1900's, and access to the Silver Valley mines. The ex-NP line from Spokane to Lewiston was built for general freight as it ran north-south. The ex-GN line from Spokane to Colfax and Moscow was originally an interurban that evolved into a grain hauling branch. You have to go outside the Palouse to find the westward grain hauling alignment of branchlines. The ex-NP Central Washington line which west westward from Cheney and then turned south to Connell is a true grain hauling branch. GN's Mansfield branch and Milwaukee's Marcellus line were true grain haulers. All the lines south of the Snake River can also be declared primarily grain haulers in their original intent, sans UP's Alto line.

Since BN's Spokane to Lewiston branch is (was) north-south, it would have fit perfectly as a grain hauling branch down to Lewiston once the barge lines came into play at Lewiston, as the WSDOT study alluded to in it's Eastern Washington Rail Plan. The branch definately would have made more money doing so than what BN eventually did, which was cut the branch off at Moscow. The grain loading barge facilities in Lewiston were in place by the late 1970's, and BN stopped serving Lewiston from the north shortly thereafter, so BN never did try to run such shuttles even though the rails remained in place until the late 1990's. You have to question BN's motives in not trying to utilize this network, and why it took 20 years until CSP in Idaho and Watco in the Walla Walla Valley began such a service. BN's actions also forced BN's eastbound cargos out of Lewiston to run west to Pasco before they began their trip east, adding days to the schedule, not a model of efficiency there.

Yes, one should look at the railroad map of the region in the late 1970's and see that the barge loading stations are located right at the southern end of BN's Spokane-Lewiston branch, the P & L.

I should also mention that Watco was also running short haul shuttles from the Palouse to Wallula via Hooper over UP haulage rights. I'm not sure if they have continued this, as UP began to have problems with the CP run throughs that somewhat congested this line.

As for why the State of Washington had to buy hoppers for use on the Eastern Washington branchlines, it is well known that those lines were having a terrible time trying to get hoppers from UP and BN, and they were going to go bust unless they could get such hoppers elsewhere. My view at the time was that the barge lines should have taken the initiative and bought the hoppers for them, virtually ensuring that they would be used soley in the shorthaul shuttles. By leaving that option to the State, it denied the barge lines the opportunity to really control grain movements in the region, and if those cars were sequestered for haulage down the Gorge, it meant those cars would be less available for use in the shorthaul shuttles. In the end, the barge people end up blowing it as badly as the Class I railroaders in this respect.

I also believe the Walla Walla lines are actually owned by the Port of Walla Walla, and were in such bad shape when they took over it made it inevitable that the State would have to come in and bail them out. The short haul shuttles probably saved that line from going under competely.

As for the Palouse lines, understand that 70% of the export grain from the area is being hauled by truck down to the barge lines. If BN hadn't taken out the Moscow-Arrow line, the owners of the P & L probably could have cornered the market on this shorthaul shuttle. If so, it would have precluded the necessity of the State purchasing the lines. Since it was the State of Idaho that signed off on the eventual rail removal from this line, the State of Washington would be justified in my view to send the bill to Idaho to recoup at least part of the purchase price.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

The lines in SE Washington were built to haul grain to Portland and Tacoma. About the only other traffic that developed was fertilizer (for grain) and coal for WSU steam plant at Pullman. The river killed the grain business within 50 miles and depressed rates beyond that range. The river killed the grain business which killed the branches. That was the direct intended result of US Government policy.

I can not imagine why you think BN should have thrown good money down the rat hole trying to compete with the trucks on a short haul on a network that was never oriented toward the river. Look at the map of rail network as it was in 1970 and location of barge loading stations and then tell me the railroads could have competed to the river.

Watco has a short haul move to the River. If it is making so much money why did the State of Washington have to buy a bunch of the cars for it? Why is most of their network operating at 10MPH? Why did they threaten to abandon the half of their lines closest to the river? Why did the State of Washington recently have to buy Watco's lines for over $7,000,000?

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan


In case you haven't seen this, and you're interested in something that really might someday happen (or at least has merit as a catalyst for it happening), check out the Washington DOT report on rail capacity at:

www.washingtonports.org

When you get to the home page, then click on "Trade", and then click on "2004 WPPA Rail Capacity Study".

Interesting, but with obvious omissions that would indicate heavy Class I involvement in the analysis:

1. The study mentions the Lind-Ellensburg rebuild, but no mention of the 2.2% grades, or the possibility of UP/CP intermodals using this route if it extends to Marengo and the "quid pro quo" is aleviated with BNSF.

2. Even more glaring, there is no mention of rebuilding the Milwaukee corridor Easton to Cedar River Valley/Ravensdale (perhaps so as to not embarass BN brass who mucked up that opportunity)

3. There is no mention of rail to barge transload at Pasco and vicinity for cargos to/from the Lower Columbia ports. As has been pointed out, capacity on the river is widely available, while rail capacity through the Gorge is constrained.

Also, the authors do mention having UP run over Stampede:

"A scenario we investigated concerned the movement of UP priority intermodal traffic between
Puget Sound and Hinkle OR via the Stampede Pass, Kennewick, Wallula and Hinkle. We
believe this scenario can only be accomplished if an entity other than BNSF #8220;owns#8221; the control
of the Stampede Pass Route. We do not believe BNSF would be agreeable to allowing UP
access to the route unless significant #8220;quid pro quos#8221; were available."

Seems to me this absolutely begs the question of open access on that corridor. Also, isn't this the scenario for which I was lambasted by the BNSF Kool-Aid drinkers?

Since this study is focused on the State of Washington and not the Northern Tier Corridor, one can question why it is okay for BNSF to have three lines from the Coast to Spokane, and two lines branching out into 5 lines east of Sandpoint ID, but between these two regions all rail traffic must absolutely go via the "Funnel".

[Anonymous]

Mark,

I'll answer your question if you answer mine: What is your background in economics?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

The reference to the dams killing the roalroad network in SE Washington has to do with the Walla Walla lines of BN and UP and Palouse lines of the same carriers. I said nothing about the CSP. So CSP put together a short haul move to Lewiston, big deal. The River has drained over 10,000 cars from Palouse and Walla Walla areas. I think 15,000 is more like it. I repeat, the dams killed the branch line network in SE Washington just as it was intended to do by to Federal Government.

If the Moscow line was so important to Idaho, why did they not buy it for NL:V as is their statutory right?

Mac

Mac,

What caused the loss of branch lines in areas outside the river's influence, say Montana, Colorado, Utah, etc? You know the anwer. The same economic forces that shut down those lines would have done the same to the lines you mention which ostensibly were affected by the river. It's a sophistric argument.

What killed railroading on the Palouse was the loss of the rail connections to the barge ports due to the actions of BN and UP. Think of it this way: Which modal competition provides for higher per ton/mile revenue margins for railroads? Barges or trucks? If the railroads could have run shorthaul shuttles from the Palouse to the river, they would have been able to price at a margin just under the truck rates, say around 0.06 per ton mile. Instead, they try to compete head to head with the combined truck/barge rate, say down around 0.02 per ton/mile. If you engaged in the former, you wouldn't even have to match the annual car mile figures, you would only have to exceed one third of the usage to derive higher yearly revenues from the rail/barge combo.

Lest you think this isn't happening elsewhere, you might be interested to know that Watco has been running shorthaul shuttles from the Walla Walla valley to the barge port at Wallula, and they are able to derive a higher profit margin from that move compared to handing off grain hoppers to the Class I's for continuation down the Gorge. In the short haul example, they only have to price at or below the truckers rates, while in the other they are having to share only a portion of the revenues, and those revenues are diminished by having to be priced at barge competitive rates.

BTW, if you want to have a primer on open access, read the article in the November 1990 issue of TRAINS by Isabel H. Benham, at that time the most respected senior railroad financial anaylyst on Wall Street. In her example, she espouses a TTX-type infrastructure company owned by all the railroads called the Roadway Company, and the operating companies are called Transporter Companies. She envisioned a stand alone private rail infrastructure entity with no federal tax support. What I have done is to take that basic idea and transpose the need for infrastructure financing equalization among rail, highway, and waterway sectors by use of tax exemptions and credits, and other federal incentives.

[VerMontanan]

Dave,

Have you any operating experience with a railroad? Your last post includes several errors and misperceptions on your part, but I'll not interject fact or experience lest I be again labeled as "negative". Please submit your proposal to the Army Corps of Engineers, and let us all know their response. I would, however, advise against terms like "poster child of Class I corruption" in your final draft, as it sounds rather unprofessional.

Mac,

In case you haven't seen this, and you're interested in something that really might someday happen (or at least has merit as a catalyst for it happening), check out the Washington DOT report on rail capacity at:

www.washingtonports.org

When you get to the home page, then click on "Trade", and then click on "2004 WPPA Rail Capacity Study".

--Mark

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

The reference to the dams killing the roalroad network in SE Washington has to do with the Walla Walla lines of BN and UP and Palouse lines of the same carriers. I said nothing about the CSP. So CSP put together a short haul move to Lewiston, big deal. The River has drained over 10,000 cars from Palouse and Walla Walla areas. I think 15,000 is more like it. I repeat, the dams killed the branch line network in SE Washington just as it was intended to do by to Federal Government.

If the Moscow line was so important to Idaho, why did they not buy it for NL:V as is their statutory right?

Mac

[Anonymous]

Mac,

You are absolutely wrong regarding the alleged effect the Snake River Dams had on the CSP. The advent of barge shipping allowed for the implementation of short haul grain shuttles, e.g. better utilization of existing hoppers. CSP did start such a short haul shuttle from the Camas Prairie to the Port of Lewiston in the 1980's. BN on the other hand arbitrarily shut down the Moscow Arrow branch (after spending quite a bit to rehab the entire line) for the sole purpose of preventing such a shuttle, severely diminishing the value of the Palouse lines to the point of now the State of Washington had to buy them to maintain rail service, while millions of bushels of grain are carried by trucks to the barge ports. Both BN and UP shortly thereafter all but gave up on hauling grain from Eastern Washington to the Coast, regardless of whether it originated on lines with barge competition or not. See the piece by Bruce Kelly on Eastern Washington railroads from TRAINS back in the late 1990's to confirm this.

The fact is that the majority of loads on the CSP were and are wood products related, not grain, and what grain moved before by rail is still moving by rail. The region experienced an increase in grain coming into the valley from outside the area when the waterway came to fruition, and some of that increase was a benefit to CSP. To suggest that barge shipping was the cause of rail retrenchment in the area makes one hard pressed to explain the retrenchment of raillines in other areas not served by barge competition. The fact is, rail retrechment in Southeastern Washington would have happed barge lines or not, and the area's shippers were given a lifeline for continuity with the begining of barge shipping. To blaim such abandoments on the dams is just laughable.

The barges are best at carrying grain, they are not used for transport of wood products, unless you count containerization. And the containerization would never had happened without the barge lines and the formation of the Port of Lewiston. The fact is the advent of barge shipping allowed a golden opportunity for CSP to increase carloadings out of the LC valley. The Port tried to work with BN for intermodal service to the Sound, but the service was so sloppy that the main customer for container movements switched entirely to COB. It actually took longer to move a container by rail to Seattle than by barge to Portland!

To suggest that the Moscow Arrow line was just sitting their with no one using it is a complete denial of the fact that BN would not LET anyone use it! The ports tried again and again to get BN to either reopen the line or sell it, but BN being the poster child of Class I corruption never even met with port officials to discuss the thing. MRL made a bid for it, but BN put the kibbosh on that since they hold MRL by the proverbial testicles. Finally, parts of the line were flooded out, not enough to take it completely out of service, but enough to allow Idaho's DOT to force abandonment of certain portions so they could expand Highway 3 in the Potlach River canyon. As I pointed out in other threads, IDOT claimed it would take $2.5 million to rehab the line ("not cost effective"), and now they have spent 10 times that much to turn much of the former right of way into a paved (and constantly deserted) pedestrian trail.

BTW, I never said rates should be mileage based in relation to the L-M rail link. Rather, it is appropriate to associate costs with mileage. What I pointed out is that such a link would reduce rail mileage 100 miles Billings to Portland (200 miles of reduction over the Shelby route), would provide the necessary redundancy and dispersion for the Northern Tier rail corridor to the current funnelling of all rail traffic through Spokane, would allow for rail to barge transload that would reduce congestion on the Gorge lines and allow modal differentiation to a lower cost method (which could then be passed on to the shippers, and provide the morally due federal mitigation to a hard hit region for the whole phony dam breaching scam to begin with. All the dam breaching scare did was turn away several industrial investment plans in the LC valley that would have resulted in both traffic for the barge lines and the railroads. UP and BN's Northwest management only ended up slitting their own throats in the process.

What I also pointed out is that reducing mileage and introducing line dispersion has several cost savings on high maintenance equipment such as grain hoppers, a cost savings by reduced fuel useage via the mileage savings, a cost savings on eliminating one whole crew district, and a reduction in the likelyhood of high value intermodal being disrupted by problems on the line due to low value train congestion or destructive disruptions. The added potential savings of transloading low margin commodities to barge is just icing.

Just because BNSF charges a rate that incrementally shrinks with added distance is not germain to modern transportation theory when applied to differentiation of co-owned modal forms. BNSF could just as well charge a Midwest to Portland rate that is slightly lower overall than current but could be increased on the rail portion, and make up the difference on the barge rates to actually add to the bottom line. If BNSF acted like a true transportation company and owned both a rail and barge division, they could do this.

The idea of "simply adding capacity" to existing lines denies the fundamentals of dispersion of vital corridors to prevent economic hardship due to disruptions "funnelled" traffic. Adding capacity to existing lines is redundant, but if something happens to the parallel line, that added capacity is also taken out. Adding capacity also denies the need to differentiate between time sensitive cargos and heavy haul cargos, in which the lines are designed and signalled for their corresponding speed and axle loading concerns. In case you hadn't noticed, such line differentiation already exists between Spokane and the Sound, with intermodal going over Stevens while grain goes down the Gorge then up I-5. If differentiation wasn't a factor and adding capacity to existing lines was the anwer, then all grain and intermodal bound for the Sound would use Stevens with a few extra sidings thrown in.

What strikes me as most absurd is you advocacy of taking out the dams while opposing adding new rail capacity via the L-M rail link. Taking out the dams would cost billions, would eliminate 3000 megawatts of low cost energy generation, would disrupt a vital transportation lifeline to the area, would destroy the region's economy, and most astonishing of all would be money spent to denegrate the U.S. infrastructure. The L-M rail link would cost a fraction of that, would be adding transportation capacity rather than detracting from the nation's best interests, would allow for better transmodal syncronicity, would encourage economic growth, would enhance the export infrastructure of the U.S., would provide a fail safe redundancy to the current Northern Tier rail network, would benefit BNSF, MRL, and any other transportation company with ambitions for the area, and could be done so without giving taxpayer money directly to a monopolistic entity due to the open access status of the line.

You can lead BNSF to water, but you cannot make it drink.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

You are the advocate for open access. If it is your contention that open access will not work without a taxpayer subsidy so be it. Remember, I think open access is a bad idea to begin with.

I chose the SP&S rather than MILW becuase there is a need for capacity between Pasco and Spokane. I see no need or demand for for a mountain railroad between Lind and Ellensburg.

Multiple vs. single user. Again you are the advocate, not me. You have yet to explain what your vision is for open access and how we would get there.

I do not see a demand for new construction. It will always be cheaper to add incremental capacity on existing routes. The only time new construction is likely is if you turn rail infrastructure into a public works project. If that is the objective, the most cost effective way to do it is through the existing railroad organizations. If the Feds offered BNSF $150 million for capacity enhancements in Washington they would put it into the list of projects that did not make their ROI cut. They know what they need far better than you or I do.

I certainly would not advocate a line to Lewiston Idaho. Your basic premise that rates should be mileage based is absurd. Typically rates taper with distance, that is they increase at a decreasing rate as mileage increases. The reason is that as mileage increases the fixed terminal costs are spread over more miles. Any student of the economics of transportation knows this.

Be careful about projecting the past into the future "always has been and always will be a net exporter of grain". If the Russians ever get their agriculture fixed they could swamp the world market for grain. Does the term Russian Steepes mean anything to you? Another example, E. H. Harriman is reported to have said about the turn of the century that locomotives (2-8-0) were as large as they would get because they were at the limit of what the fireman could shovel. Then somebody started burning oil and somebody else invented the stoker.

If you are interested in the railroad infrastructure of Southeast Washington you would be advocating removal of the dams and subsidized barge competition. The Snake River dams killed all those lines, including the ones that still limp along, and including the Moscow to Lewiston segment you accuse the railroads of abandoning due to corruption. The damn thing set idle for at least 10 years. No body used it! Routing long haul grain that way vs. to the Lower Cloumbia River would have been stupid beyond all belief.

Mac