LETS DEBATE OPEN ACCESS

[Junctionfan]

It's on the other pages of this thread and it might be able to be applied with several other lines other than a rebuilt CASO.

[Anonymous]

One other point of clarification: The rail operations benefits due to an L-M rail link would accrue mostly to those BNSF lines along and south of the I-90/I-94 corridor. Most of the grain producing areas of the Upper Midwest are in this region. High Line grain traffic rerouted to the L-M rail link would be dependent on congestion on this line west of Havre, and if BNSF managers determine that more higher margin intermodal could be had with lesser risk of time delays due to other traffic, they would have to seriously consider this alternate routing. The income potential of the garuanteed delivery times minus the risk of not making those times and having to pay back the premiums could be crucial.

Junctionfan, what was your idea? If it has to do with Eastern Canadian railroading, that is something I am not familiar with. Are there any missing rail links that could ascribe to an open access policy?

[Anonymous]

Mac, Mark, arbfbe, and others;

I don't believe the salient point to all this is that such projects are out of the realm of reality, so much as I am certain that transporation planners do not read this forum and base their decisions on the ideas and critisisms put forth here. This entire forum is fantasy.

That being said, what I would like Mac to address is:
-My contention that an open access venture could not go it alone without some form of modal ROW equalization with highways and waterways via tax benefits or federal/state aid.
-Why you chose the SP&S corridor as your example of an open access venture vs the MIlwaukee corridor.
-If you include as a caveat more than one user being needed before you'd engage in such a venture or if you are content with being proxy for a single operating company.
-I would also like your opinion on potential corridors and missing rail links that you think need to be studied, regardless of whether they be open access, joint ventures, or proprietary lines.

Mark, I will concede I need to correct the reduced unit grain cycle times from Midwest to Portland/Pasco/and Lewiston under my scenario of the L-M rail link. I was using carload transit data that is not appropriate for unit train operations, and to be fair I should use projections that assume best modal operations. Therefore, I would say the reduced cycle times would be 18 to 24 hours for transload at Pasco vs Portland under the current rail situation, and an estimated 48 hours for transload at Lewiston via the new rail link. The L-M rail link would reduce rail mileage by 200 or so miles, so the time savings difference Lewiston vs Portland by rail via this new link would be less than 48 hours. This would add four more cycles from Midwest to Portland per year, assuming 2 weeks current (and ten days Lewiston via new link). This time savings does not include grain originating on the High Line, since even with the Silver City spur and the rebuild of the Great Falls-Havre corridor with a fly by west of Ft Benton to avoid the river, the time savings Havre-Lewiston would be negligible compared to Havre-Pasco.

Also, when I refer to "tidewater", understand that is a commonly used venacular in this area, and does not refer to any oceanic characteristic

The mileage savings via the new link are thus: Havre-Pasco via new link (including Silver City spur and Great Falls-Havre rebuild/fly-by: 10 to 20 miles e.g. insignificant
Great Falls - Pasco: 100+ miles
Missoula - Pasco: 100+ miles
Missoula to first "tidewater": 220 miles

There obviously is no time savings Midwest to Portland using a rail to barge transload, but we are talking about commodities that are not necessarily time sensitive. There may be a time savings Missoula to Portland by rail using this new link.

The estimated fuel use savings by transloading rail to barge (based on 1500 ton/miles per gallon by barge and 600 ton/miles per gallon by rail) are thus:
Pasco vs Portland via current system: 2/10 of a gallon per ton of cargo
Lewiston vs Portland via new link: 1/2 gallon per ton of cargo
Lewiston via new rail link vs Pasco under current: 3/10 gallon per ton of cargo

Thus, it depends on how much the parties in question would use this new link and transload option to determine how much fuel savings would acrue. Even as little as 10 million tons moved this way would result in 3 to 5 million gallons of fuel use per year.

Regarding rail to barge transloads on the Mississippi, there are some unit trains that transload on Mississippi River ports according the the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative. Obviously, there would be more if there was a common ownership of both rail and barge properties, because then the company could charge a lesser rate to the originating shipper and still get a larger ROI by utilizing lower barge rates.

The other advantages of the L-M rail link include the idea of national economic security and the subsequent idea of corridor dispersion and redundancy. As you know, currently all rail traffic off the Norther Tier rail corridors is funnelled over a series of viaducts in Spokane WA. If there was a natural or man made disaster that disrupted rail traffic through Spokane for a time, in addition to the costs of repair there would be a significant cost to the economy caused by the disruption in commodity flow. The options currently are rail bypass via UP through Southern Idaho or CP through BC, both longer and already congested lines. The L-M rail link (including the connections to Great Falls and Havre) would alleviate this disruption and save the economy millions if not billions. That insurance in and of itself could justify the cost of the link to U.S. taxpayers.

Also, although not of concern to you or others outside this area, there has been a fraudulent campaign waged by environmental extremists to destroy the hydroelectric dams on the Snake River. Since 1992, the federal government was complicent in this movement, and the resulting loss of industrial investment born by North Central Idaho and Southeast Washington has had a devasting effect on industrial business recruitment to this area. Now that sound science is being implemented in regards to this issue, there is a movement by this area to force the feds to provide mitigation for the lost investments. Although most people would prefer the construction of an Interstate throught the area to entice econimic development, it is my view that the L-M rail link would be more beneficial to the natural resource-based economy of the region, and could be built at a fraction of the cost of a new Interstate, and alot quicker.

arbfbe, the L-M rail link would supplement BNSF's network, not compete with it. I doubt BNSF would provide much oppostition if such a project came to fruition.

The U.S. has always been and will always be a net exporter of grain. The idea of enhancing the export infrastructure would only strengthen the position of U.S. exporters vs the rest of the world. Consequently, to not do so will only weaken U.S. trade postions.

As for financing in a time of budget cuts, can anyone argue against the use of a land grant to aid construction of such a project? The U.S. owns 800,000,000 acres of land, the State of Idaho has over 50% of its land under federal ownership, all economic studies have shown that federal land ownership tends to induce recessionary pressures on the local economies relative to state and private land ownership, and this federal land ownership is costing the U.S. taxpayers more than it should. Since much of the Western U.S. rail system was aided by land grants, it would be apt to do the same for new rail construction.

[arbfbe]

Here are a trio of points to ponder.

For the Corps of Engineers to build such infrastructure projects they would have to fight the conservative Republican bias against Gov'ment money competing against private capital. It is their view that if it was such a good idea then private capital would have already built it. Private capital has not yet seen that need and would indeed fight it tooth and nail to protect their current investments. In short, it ain't going to happen.

MRL has a railroad operation. Their right of way is owned by and leased from BNSF. I doubt MRl would want to get involved in any major project to cut BNSF off at the knees. In short, it ain't going to happen.

Your construction plans assume that the US will remain a net exporter of grains. The pendulum has already started to shift with other coutries increasing their surplus of cheaper grain supplies. Even Russia is becoming a net grain exporter in world markets. The contraveling needs of a strong US dollar for cheaper imports to keep inflation at bay and a weak US dollar to keep exports strong is going to be a huge factor in any such investments such as the railroads you have proposed. Add to that the huge export subsidies the US has paid to keep US grain competitive on the world markets against increasing US budget deficiets currently being run up and you have to wonder how long all this US grain can continue to move into foreign markets. You can figure that a large portion of the $4.5 billion of Iraqi debt just 'forgiven' by the US government was for US grain purchases by Iraqi interests.

[VerMontanan]

Mac,

Well, your high bridge over the Columbia would be nice, and would provide a much shorter route. However, while fantasy projects are great (I think everyone has them) the bottom line is that railroads need more capacity out of the Puget Sound area. A tunnel below Stampede Pass would be very expensive, and therefore not as apt be considered, although the Washington DOT is studying this too. The really weird thing about the current Stampede Pass line is that had BNSF spent as much money fixing the ventilation problems in Cascade Tunnel than they did opening Stampede Pass (whcih still can't accommodate stack trains), they could probably handle as much traffic on that one route as they do on the two now because most of the time restriction for Cascade Tunnel is consumed with tunnel flushes.

As for constructing new railroad on the east side of the Cascades in Washington state...again it would be nice, but not the priority. As someone that deals with this situation regularly, the big problem is just getting the train out of the Puget Sound area. Once the train makes it Wenatchee or Pasco, you're home free. Capacity problems are not a big deal beyond those locations.

--Mark

[PNWRMNM]

Mark,

Thank you for confirming my recollection of grades on the MILW between Ellensburg and the River. I was pretty close.

Admitting this is all in the realm of fantasy land, you over looked my "high" bridge at Vantage. It would be high, about the same elevation as the freeway on east side of the river where it starts the long downgrade westbound to the river. It is probably at least 600 feet above the river. Would have to be a suspension bridge of span comparable to the Golden Gate, maybe longer. This would mimimize grade by eliminating the drop to River level.

I was unaware of the possibility of a reasonable connection in the Ravensdale area. I knew the BN considered keeping Snoqaulmie. Thank you for telling me why. A connection at Ravensdale would be cheaper than a long tunnel under Stampede for sure but since this is a fantasy, I would go for the tunnel.

Mac

[Junctionfan]

How about my idea?

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM
[
Rebuilding the MILW makes far less sense then does the NP. Yes, last time I looked the bridge is still in over the Columbia River. MILW has two big strikes against it. It is a mountain railroad between the river and Ellensburg 2.2% westbound, and 1.5% (maybe) eastbound. The other is the street running in Renton.

For the kind of money you are talking, it would make mores sense to put a long tunnel under Stampede and a new line from Ellensburg to Quincy or Ephrata. I would stay North of I-90 and put in a high bidge 2-5 miles north of Vantage. That would give me a 1% ruling grade in straightest possible line between Tacoma and Spokane. It would be a great intermodal route.

Mac,

The Milwaukee route east of Ellensburg does have a 2.2% grade climbing out of the Columbia River at Beverly westbound, but eastbound from Kittatas is also 1.6%. Crossing the Cascades, the grade is .8% westbound and 1.74% eastbound. Therefore, unless the eastbound climb to Snoqualmie was changed dramatically, one percent eastbound would not be possible. However, the 1.74% is less than the 2.2% in use now via Cascade Tunnel, so it would still be an improvement. Westbound, such a line from Quincy to Ellensburg, I believe, would still have to have a stiff grade climbing out of the Columbia River. While this would not be any worse now than is the case west from Wenatchee, I think the beauty of Snoqualmie Pass would be that it would ideal for unit trains, such as grain. That's why enhancing the capacity of the current route between Pasco and Easton, and then rebuilding the ex-MILW line beyond there would create not only a good route for intermodal (and most of the stuff going to Tacoma isn't time-sensitive anyway), but would also provide the ultimate route for grain. As for the street running in Renton, this could be avoided (and there actually was a state study done on this), by constructing a connecting line between the ex-MILW and ex-NP mains in the vicinity of Ravensdale. Here, the two lines are only about three miles apart, and trains could receive the benefit of using Snoqualmie, but would avoid Renton, and enter the Seattle-Tacoma main at Auburn instead of Black River. This would be much cheaper than a long Stampede Pass tunnel, though I suppose we'd have to rebuild the hiking trail that is currently the Milwaukee line over Snoqualmie....oh well, that would be less expensive than a railroad!

Mark

[VerMontanan]

Dave,

I admit that I don't think your proposal is a good idea, and I am completely certain it will never happen. As for it being negative, yes, comments on bad ideas tend to appear that way. However, as for me taking things out of context, I also disagree. To make the proposal you have done requires a knowledge of current operations and the how and why things are done as they are. Some of the statements you have made have been completely inaccurate; others reflect a lack of understanding of operations. I asked many questions in the discussion, and received no answer. If you think my response to these inaccuracies is taking it out of context, so be it. I believe that before we have an open discussion something this far-reaching that grandiose proposals such as yours need to have all the ground work done...and knowing how things are done now and why, physical characteristics of rail lines, and the like. You have displayed a distinct lack of knowledge in some of these areas, and therefore gives the perception of a cart-before-the-horse proposal, hence the skepticism on my part. These aspects are the basics of any proposal such as yours. When you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basics as you have done, it does tend to erode the entire proposal, and that's why they're so important. But evidently you disagree, and that's your option to do so.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

You missed my point. I choose the SP&S between Pasco and Spokane because there is the possibility of reasonable demand. Even in that case it takes a lot of volume, 20 trains per day, to look reasonable. The problem is it is not reasonable even with that happy assumption.

Whoever owns the ex-NP line has an investment of about $500,000 per mile. Ours was $2,000,000 per mile. To get the same ROI, we have to either have four times the traffic or charge 4 times the rate. Under open access whoever is operating the trains, BNSF, KCS, or Fed Ex will go where rates are cheaper.

This is a variation on the long standing weak road/strong road theme. In this case the economically strong road is the one with the lower capitalization, which has been true ever since someone built the first parallel line. The superior grades of SP&S are no match for the variation in capitalization until or unless the operators are compelled to use the high cost line.

Rebuilding the MILW makes far less sense then does the NP. Yes, last time I looked the bridge is still in over the Columbia River. MILW has two big strikes against it. It is a mountain railroad between the river and Ellensburg 2.2% westbound, and 1.5% (maybe) eastbound. The other is the street running in Renton.

For the kind of money you are talking, it would make mores sense to put a long tunnel under Stampede and a new line from Ellensburg to Quincy or Ephrata. I would stay North of I-90 and put in a high bidge 2-5 miles north of Vantage. That would give me a 1% ruling grade in straightest possible line between Tacoma and Spokane. It would be a great intermodal route.

The problem is where is the money to come from and why. Until we get a rational transportation policy, which I do not expect to see in my lifetime, this is the stuff of dreams. I believe Open access is more likely to retard investment in railroad infrastructure than encourage it.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

There is an error in my cost analysis. The $100 is per loaded car trip. It would be about 80 cents per loaded car mile. While that is a rate BNSF could afford to pay, they question of why would they still dominates the question.

Mac

Mac,

Regarding the old SP&S line, yes it is the better route, and I don't know why BN chose the NP route when they retrenched the Spokane-Pasco line. If your analysis is of an infrastructure entity adding new capacity to the existing rail situation, I'm not sure that is a good example. One, the right of way is owned by the State, and if they determined a need to rebuild the rail line, they would probably do it as a state owned operation. If I was an investor and your company wanted to purchase the ROW from the State for your project, I would not be convinced that it would be a good idea, simply because of existing proprietary lines the already exist on this corridor. You are correct in that without government aid for your project, it would probably fail.

A better prospect in this scenario would be the Milwaukee from Marengo/Lind to the Puget Sound. I don't know the official mileage, so I'll estmate it at 220 miles. If we keep most of the rebuild over the old ROW, at $2,000,000 a mile is $440,000,000, at 15% plus maintenance we need about $70,000,000 per year. Of course, we need to rebuild some viaducts (I don't know, but is the Columbia River bridge still there?), and if we try and mitigate the 2.2 % up the Saddles to a 1.5% that adds another 10 or so miles to the length, or a 1% with another 10 ,miles of track, so let's say we need an even $1 billion, or $160,000,000 per year. At $47 per mile (from your $5555 for 120 miles SP&S example) we would need just under 40 trains per day to break even at roughly $11,200 per train.

Another alternative is to build over the other old Milwaukee/U.S. Government branchline railroad through Hanford from Tri-Cities to the old mainline opposite Beverly, maybe starting the Saddle Mountain climb down by Priest Rapids to achieve the desired 1% up the Saddles. This line would allow both UP and BNSF for use, although probably only UP would use it from Tri-Cities to Ellensburg, and BNSF from Ellensburg west. No real mileage savings from Spokane, but higher usage of UP from Eastern Oregon.

Now, sticking with the first line, we have some more incentives for BNSF, and maybe UP, as well as possible a 3PL or two to use this line. For BNSF it represents an opportunity to send heavier trains over the Cascades instead of down the Gorge, and now they can send double stacks this way.

At 100 cars per train, it is costing $200 per loaded car at 55% loaded, equal to 0.83 per mile for 240 miles over our tracks. For the Lind connection, BNSF has the added costs over their own line from Spokane. If this is the 2nd example out of Tri-Cities, it is roughly the same for UP.

Now there is the chance that BNSF would find it cheaper to buy or lease the Milwaukee corridor, either from Easton, or maybe from Lind, from the State and rebuild this line and abandon the Stampede line. They looked at this at one time, and found it too expensive, or at least more expensive than the current alternative.

It's getting late, and my mind is fried. Mac, do some math on this scenario vs the SP&S scenario you provided. There had been some discussion by others that the Snoqualmie line might make a good open access line to supplement the current proprietary PNW rail grid.

As I have stated before, I do not believe an infrastructure company could go it alone without some form of government aid, in order to help equalize the playing field among rail, highways, and waterways. It can be argued that such aid could just as easily be given to the current proprietary rail scene without the need for open access. That would not be something I believe would benefit the nation, unless relief was also proffered to the captive shippers.

[Anonymous]

Mark,

I don't know why you have to be such a constant negative voice on this thread. I am tired of having to respond to things which you have taken out of context or twisted to try and demean the original meaning. You also add words to my statements to change the meaning of the points I am trying to get across.

The whole point of this discussion was to take a project for an open access experiment that could be implemented by the Corps of Engineers. The L-M idea fits it to a tee, including things I have not yet mentioned regarding federal mitigation and economic development.

I am sorry about your father, and I am sincere when I say you are in my prayers.

[VerMontanan]

Dave states:
1. The barge lines are less constrained by crew issues
**
Possibly, but you make it sound like once the product is delivered to the barge, all need for labor ends. And you're also assuming that no gains in rail labor productivity could ever happen.

Dave continues:
2. It is more cost effective to unload bulk commodities from barge to ship. Barges are lower maintenance and lower impact than rail hoppers. Labor costs are lower in Pasco and Lewiston than at the deep water ports. The advent of LA***ype shipping can provide a bypass of expensive longshore labor. LIke I said, extra capacity already exists on the Columbia-Snake Waterway, capacity in the Gorge and the Funnel is already constrained.
***
But is it more efficient to transload from train to barge just for a couple hundred miles and then load it in a ship? And if it's so much cheaper, I just don't understand why it isn't being done now. As for the "funnel" being at capacity, it isn't. As for the Gorge, while it is approaching capacity, a better solution would be to reactivate the ex-Milwaukee route over Snoqualmie Pass. This would be much cheaper than your proposal for hundreds of miles of brand new railroad through a precipitous wilderness. This would take all the grain destined for Seattle and Tacoma, as well as merchandise traffic off the Gorge.

Dave continues:
3. Helper crews? Have you ever heard of powering a consist to eliminate helper districts? Isn't that what BN did on the 1.8% west side of Maries?
***
No, Dave, that's NOT what BN/BNSF has done on MariAs. BNSF still has three sets of helpers at Essex to use, mostly on eastbound trains. And, yes, I am well aware of what it would take to power a train to eliminate helper districts. And, unlike you, I know that it would take a helluva lot more power on all the trains that currently need helpers than is currently stationed at Essex.

Dave continues:
Also, by reducing the westbound grade to Mullan with the Silver City bypass, that only leaves Bozeman Pass. The grades and curvature of the Billings-Great Falls-Shelby line are not much better.
***
Wow. Wrong again. The maximum westbound grade between between Billings and Shelby is .6. The westbound grade at Bozeman Pass is 1.8%. That's a substantial difference.

Dave continues:
4. The idea of simpy adding more capacity to existing rail lines ignores the relative incompatibility of heavy haul cargos with intermodal cargos. It is more prudent to have one line designated for more time sensitive freights and passenger operations, and one designated for heavy haul drag type freights.
***
Well, I guess that's what train dispatchers are for, and you'd obviously make a really poor one with that attitude. But, as someone that's done it for 17 years, it is possible and BNSF seems to be able to handle it. The BNSF route across Northern Montana is a good example. That doesn't mean that things couldn't be better, but it would be more logical to add capacity to existing routes so that all trains could benefit, especially instead of spending billions on completely new routes.

Dave continues:
5. As stated, even a Havre-Missoula-Lewiston route would be shorter to tidewater than the Havre-Spokane-Pasco line. It would be about equal distance Havre-Pasco on either route. If westbound grades on the former are at 1% or below, then it becomes the best line for heavy haul, whether the commodity is transloaded to barge at Lewiston or continues down the Gorge to the deep water ports.
**
Actually, because the line veers far to the south to Helena, the mileage would not be significantly less and of course you are aware that curvature along the Missouri River between Great Falls and Helena would signficantly add running time to this route. But I suppose that since you assume that money is no object, your proposal would allow for 60 MPH where it is now 25. And I know that since money is no object, you know that pretty much the entire railroad would have to be rebuilt between Havre and Helena (in some places it's abandoned, and many places, there are stability concerns with the soil), so counting the new line over Mullan Pass and a tunnel here to reduce the grade to one percent that would probably be as long as the one you propose in Idaho, and we're looking at 450 miles of new or rebuilt railroad. Wow. Zero percent chance any of this will ever happen.

Dave continues:
6. At least you acknowledge that railroaders have enough business sense to utilize government provided capacity if it becomes available.
***
That's only because it's already happening in places like the Puget Sound area with commuter rail enhancements.

Dave continues:
7. From Websters - "Corrupt: To change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; to cause disintergration or ruin; characterized by bribery, the selling of political favors, or other improper conduct." The loss of a vital rail link, one in which WDOT consultant studies favored for ideal intermodal transloading from rail to barge, certainly begs such a description. If an electric utility tried to tear down a power line prior to selling assets, the FERC would be on them in an instant. Apparently, the railroads are exempted from such oversight.
***
Well, as long as we're quoting the dictionary here, you need to look up "Tidewater" as your referenced earlier. Lewiston does not qualify. As for the bribery claim, and the like, I assume that you have specific knowledge of this and there is no other side to it. You have the right to use whatever word you see based on your need to support your theory. However, you still failed to state what grain MRL would be hauling to Lewiston, and why, once it got to Spokane, it would be better to take it to Lewiston and put it on a barge and ship it through Pasco than to simply ship it to Pasco and put it on a barge. That's the most important point: If they had been able to do it, what would they be hauling?

Dave continues:
8. The economic fundamentals of the Mississippi waterway are not in the same ballpark as that of the Columbia-Snake River waterway. You may also note that BNSF does offer a grain rate to Pasco, but it is priced so that the combined rail barge price is more than the all rail route. If it was priced on a ton mile basis such as existed before Staggers, then the rail barge option would probably be used more. This is part of the corruption of the railroad: ignore the lowest cost option in favor of the higher cost option by pricing to skew the natural market, and if hanging on to the grain as long as possible to the deep water port results in rail car shortages back in the Midwest, just charge those folks demurage charges if they can't arrange for a loading crew at 3 am on a weekend.
***
But it is the same because you claimed that it is always cheaper to ship by barge than rail. My question is simply: if this is the case, why isn't it always utilized? And if BNSF's rate doesn't favor transloading at Pasco, what is the reason? Unless we're talking conspiracy theories here, railroads rarely do anything that costs them more money. I can see where turning grain trains at Pasco would be a great benefit just keeping them out of the Vancouver/Portland terminal from an operations standpoint. So logic dictates there must be a reason it isn't done if, on top of the operations benefits, it's that much cheaper.

Dave continues:
9. As an aside, your crocodile tears over budget deficits and the like ring hollow with your continued support for Amtrak. At least the projects of the Corps have provided significant economic benefits in lower energy costs, lower transportation costs, and improved recreational benefits, and this rail link would certainly fit into those societal benefits in conformity with the first two benefits mentioned. As for Amtrak, after nearly $40 billion of my tax dollars going into an abyss of no economic benefits, it is hard to ascribe credibility to your criticisms of ostensible "debacle" spending on the part of the feds. That $40 billion not only could have paid for the L-M rail link and its assiciated line upgrades in Montana, but also a Billings-Rapid City rail link, the Alaskan rail link, a Conrail-esque preservation of the MIlwaukee's PCE, your aforementioned Chicago rail bypass, and any other rail capacity improvement projects you care to mention.
***
I knew you would make this comment and that's why I included it. First of all, I have no doubt that you have found no benefit in the money used for Amtrak. I disagree, as do most people in this country, and probably most of the 25 million people that rode it this year alone. I could go on in depth about the benefits of Amtrak ranging from the fact that it is a vital transportation link in the Northeast United States to my own personal experience allowing me to traverse five mountain ranges between Seattle and Montana in safety and comfort when living in Seattle and traveling to see my father dying of cancer in 1991. But this would be lost on you. As proven in a previous topic, when you suggested rerouting Amtrak trains for another of your pie-in-the-sky proposals, your complete lack of knowledge about Amtrak and the service it provides makes any comments like yours of no consequence.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Futuremodel-What the BNSF has probably done is make rates to Pasco and the PNW deep water ports equal when they look at the contribution to overhead (ie. revenues less long run varible cost). Their stockholders would be very upset if the looked at revnue per mile rather than contribution per mile. You are probably right that pre Staggers the rates to Pasco were very similar on a $/mile basis to the rates to the ports. Of course the BN's stockholders got screwed and they decided to put their money into lumber, etc.

Bob,

There are other cost savings with a Pasco transload. Reducing rail line congestion in the Gorge is one. Better rail hopper utilization is another.

What I'm getting at is this: If BNSF ran itself more as a comprehensive transportation company and less like a rail only company, their stockholders would derive benefits from a BNSF Truck Division transloading into a Rail Division unit train, then a Rail Division transload into a BNSF Barge Division at Pasco, i.e. convering from one relatively low cost operation to an even lower cost operation where available and appropriate. BNSF could then offer a tri-modal (truck to rail to barge) rate package to it's Midwest customers, perhaps at a price that will reduce the overall costs to it"s shippers but still add somewhat to the BNSF comprehensive bottom line.

Futuremodal
I agree fully with your scenario and hope it will work sometime in the future.

However, for a lot of seperate reasons it has not worked in the last 25 years. UP paid too much for Overnight, tried to run it like a railroad and bailed out after the Teamsters tied things up at the NLRB for years. NS(NW?) bought North American Van Lines when the owned the houshold goods market and sold it after several un-happy years of losses. CSXT bought ACBL and had some success in the barge business, especially on rail/barge coal moves, but sold it to raise ca***o buy CR.

It could be that a fully integrated transportation/logistics company is just too complex to operate in the modern economy. I notice succesful big network operators like UPS buy a lot of service from contractors rather than operate it themselves.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Futuremodel-What the BNSF has probably done is make rates to Pasco and the PNW deep water ports equal when they look at the contribution to overhead (ie. revenues less long run varible cost). Their stockholders would be very upset if the looked at revnue per mile rather than contribution per mile. You are probably right that pre Staggers the rates to Pasco were very similar on a $/mile basis to the rates to the ports. Of course the BN's stockholders got screwed and they decided to put their money into lumber, etc.

Bob,

There are other cost savings with a Pasco transload. Reducing rail line congestion in the Gorge is one. Better rail hopper utilization is another.

What I'm getting at is this: If BNSF ran itself more as a comprehensive transportation company and less like a rail only company, their stockholders would derive benefits from a BNSF Truck Division transloading into a Rail Division unit train, then a Rail Division transload into a BNSF Barge Division at Pasco, i.e. convering from one relatively low cost operation to an even lower cost operation where available and appropriate. BNSF could then offer a tri-modal (truck to rail to barge) rate package to it's Midwest customers, perhaps at a price that will reduce the overall costs to it"s shippers but still add somewhat to the BNSF comprehensive bottom line.

[bobwilcox]

Futuremodel-What the BNSF has probably done is make rates to Pasco and the PNW deep water ports equal when they look at the contribution to overhead (ie. revenues less long run varible cost). Their stockholders would be very upset if the looked at revnue per mile rather than contribution per mile. You are probably right that pre Staggers the rates to Pasco were very similar on a $/mile basis to the rates to the ports. Of course the BN's stockholders got screwed and they decided to put their money into lumber, etc.

[Anonymous]

Mark,

1. The barge lines are less constrained by crew issues
2. It is more cost effective to unload bulk commodities from barge to ship. Barges are lower maintenance and lower impact than rail hoppers. Labor costs are lower in Pasco and Lewiston than at the deep water ports. The advent of LA***ype shipping can provide a bypass of expensive longshore labor. LIke I said, extra capacity already exists on the Columbia-Snake Waterway, capacity in the Gorge and the Funnel is already constrained.
3. Helper crews? Have you ever heard of powering a consist to eliminate helper districts? Isn't that what BN did on the 1.8% west side of Maries? Also, by reducing the westbound grade to Mullan with the Silver City bypass, that only leaves Bozeman Pass. The grades and curvature of the Billings-Great Falls-Shelby line are not much better.
4. The idea of simpy adding more capacity to existing rail lines ignores the relative incompatibility of heavy haul cargos with intermodal cargos. It is more prudent to have one line designated for more time sensitive freights and passenger operations, and one designated for heavy haul drag type freights.
5. As stated, even a Havre-Missoula-Lewiston route would be shorter to tidewater than the Havre-Spokane-Pasco line. It would be about equal distance Havre-Pasco on either route. If westbound grades on the former are at 1% or below, then it becomes the best line for heavy haul, whether the commodity is transloaded to barge at Lewiston or continues down the Gorge to the deep water ports.
6. At least you acknowledge that railroaders have enough business sense to utilize government provided capacity if it becomes available.
7. From Websters - "Corrupt: To change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; to cause disintergration or ruin; characterized by bribery, the selling of political favors, or other improper conduct." The loss of a vital rail link, one in which WDOT consultant studies favored for ideal intermodal transloading from rail to barge, certainly begs such a description. If an electric utility tried to tear down a power line prior to selling assets, the FERC would be on them in an instant. Apparently, the railroads are exempted from such oversight.
8. The economic fundamentals of the Mississippi waterway are not in the same ballpark as that of the Columbia-Snake River waterway. You may also note that BNSF does offer a grain rate to Pasco, but it is priced so that the combined rail barge price is more than the all rail route. If it was priced on a ton mile basis such as existed before Staggers, then the rail barge option would probably be used more. This is part of the corruption of the railroad: ignore the lowest cost option in favor of the higher cost option by pricing to skew the natural market, and if hanging on to the grain as long as possible to the deep water port results in rail car shortages back in the Midwest, just charge those folks demurage charges if they can't arrange for a loading crew at 3 am on a weekend.
9. As an aside, your crocodile tears over budget deficits and the like ring hollow with your continued support for Amtrak. At least the projects of the Corps have provided significant economic benefits in lower energy costs, lower transportation costs, and improved recreational benefits, and this rail link would certainly fit into those societal benefits in conformity with the first two benefits mentioned. As for Amtrak, after nearly $40 billion of my tax dollars going into an abyss of no economic benefits, it is hard to ascribe credibility to your criticisms of ostensible "debacle" spending on the part of the feds. That $40 billion not only could have paid for the L-M rail link and its assiciated line upgrades in Montana, but also a Billings-Rapid City rail link, the Alaskan rail link, a Conrail-esque preservation of the MIlwaukee's PCE, your aforementioned Chicago rail bypass, and any other rail capacity improvement projects you care to mention.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

There is an error in my cost analysis. The $100 is per loaded car trip. It would be about 80 cents per loaded car mile. While that is a rate BNSF could afford to pay, they question of why would they still dominates the question.

Mac

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

I have and claim no particular knowledge or expertise about DME and their proposed Powder River Extension.

I think the DME covered hopper cars are transporting soybeans or soybean meal which originates on DME.

Mac

The DM&E cars handle a variety of products, including soybeans, corn and wheat. The D&ME interchanges entire unit trains with BNSF at Huron, SD for movement west, and recently completed is a connection between BNSF and DM&E at Florence, Minnesota (on BNSF's Willmar-Sioux City line) to allow interchange there. This will actually shorten the haul for DM&E for many of its BNSF-destined trains, which load in SouthCentral Minnesota.

[VerMontanan]

Originally posted by futuremodal

Current rail mileage Missoula to Pasco (the first available transload location) is 431 miles = 2 crew districts.
Estimated rail mileage Missoula to Lewiston 220(?) via new line = one crew district

***Well, wouldn't the barge handling the product from Lewiston to Pasco have a "crew" on it?

Dave continues:
Cycle times for grain shuttles from Midwest to Portland = x number of days
Cycle times from Midwest to Pasco = x -2 days
Cycle times Midwest to Lewiston via new line = x - 4 days
Assuming standard cycle time is 2 weeks now, availability of hopper cars via new line increases to 96 days per year = 10 extra trips per year = better capital utilization.

***Let's get this straight. You're saying it takes 2 days for a grain shuttle to run from Pasco to Portland? It's on crew district, less than 12 hours! If you meant 2 days for a roundtrip, that's still a day too much, and it also ignores the amount of time that it would take to transload the produce in Pasco (or Lewiston). In the case of Pasco, that train could be just about at the port facility and unloading its product into the oceangoing vessel (that it would end up using regardless) by the time it was even unloaded there at Pasco. And that even more time and fuel could be saved going to Lewiston is nonesense because you have failed to address the issue that running westbound over the MRL to access this new railroad takes an additional 2 or 3 helper crews per train. In the case of the fantasy railroad from Havre to Missoula to get the Hi-Line grain in position, this would require two crews (minimum) and of course billions and billions of dollars. Even if barging is the way to go, the best course would be to transload at Pasco using existing routes.

As for better capital utilization, how about the capital required to acquire all the barges to haul the grain in lieu of rail cars?
***
Dave continues:
Fuel economy of grain shuttle trains = 600 ton/miles at best
Fuel economy of grain barges on Columbia Snake Waterway = 1500 ton/miles at best

Capacity issues: The cost of any expansion of rail capacity in the Gorge and/or via Marias Pass would have to be shouldered by BNSF. There is no precident for the Corps to fund capacity improvements for a proprietary railroad. There is precident for the Corps to fund transportation capacity improvements that do not favor one single entity. The open access L-M rail link would fit this criteria, the BNSF line needs would not. As we know, both the UP and BNSF lines through the Gorge are nearing maximum capacity, the waterway through the Gorge has plenty of excess capacity, so from a national transportation policy analysis, it makes sense to transfer commodities from the rails to the barge lines where appropriate. And yes, it does make sense for a railroad to shift heavy haul traffic off its prime intermodal line to a secondary line, we've discussed this in other threads. This is especially true if another entity is shouldering the cost of new construction for this secondary route, saving BNSF from having to spend it's own money.
***
What you're basically saying is that railroads would be happy to shift traffic to government-maintained route. Well this is probably true, providing there would not be too many restrictions on its operation. As for shifting traffic off a primary intermodal route, it appears that you continue to ignore that not only is the Marias Pass route BNSF's prime intermodal route, it's also the best east-west route in the country for handling heavy trains. So it sounds like you're making excuses simply because it doesn't directly serve the port of Lewiston, and therefore doesn't fit nicely in your plan.
***
Dave continues:
As for the 1.5% eastbound ruling grade on the new line, this is the lowest cost option. It is possible to engineer a 1% eastbound ruling grade, it would just be more expensive. And the Corps of Engineers are well known to spare no expense.
***
The lowest cost option? No way. You stated an 8-mile tunnel and the like. The Milwaukee Road with numerous high trestles and a 1.7 percent grade was the lowest cost option. And I'm sure it would possible to engineer a one percent grade....heck, even a nearly flat situation if money was no option. I don't know about you, however, but I live in a country with a spiraling budget deficit and an administration that seems blissfully oblivious to that fact. The Army Corps of Engineers are funded by taxpayers, and as one of them, I would certainly voice my input that we'd receive more "bang for our buck" providing increased capacity on existing lines. That anything could happen if enough money was pumped into it is hardly a good argument.

Dave continues:
There are currently no grain trains going to Lewiston from Montana because the rail link does not exist at this time, that's why we're discussing it now. At one time MRL made an offer for the BN's Palouse lines, and according to sources at the former Camas Prairie RailNet, MRL officials were interested in utilizing the barge ports for MRL grain trains out of Montana. That was before corrupt BN officials severed the northern rail link from Spokane to Lewiston prior to selling the lines to Watco.
***
Define "corrupt". Another flippant statement reminiscent of those you made about Amtrak in a previous post. Now of course, you're saying that if MRL could have purchased the line from Marshall (Spokane) to Lewiston (and could have received trackage rights on BN from Spokane to Marshall), they would have run their grain trains to Lewiston to utilize barges. The tremendous cost of upgrading this route for heavy trains notwithstanding, why would they do this? Assuming that the goal is to get everything into barge at the first available point (which it isn't), transit time from Spokane to Pasco is faster than Spokane to Lewiston would be, and about the same distance. There would no incentive to run grain to Lewiston when it could more easily to to Pasco because the Lewiston grain would have to traverse an extra 100+ miles by water through Pasco to destination. But you again missed the point of my original statement. Specifically, what MRL grain trains would be using this route, or your hyperexpensive fantasy railroad through the Idaho wilderness? There is very little grain loading activity on the MRL. The only shuttle loading facility they have is at Billings. All others in Montana are on BNSF, and there is minimal other grain loaded on the MRL otherwise...it just doesn't traverse Montana's primary grain producing areas. And, the grain trains currently operating across MRL aren't MRL grain trains...they're BNSF trains, so MRL would have no say as how they're routed.

Dave continues:
Your statement about grain barging not being cost effective is pure nonsense. It's at least twice as efficient as hauling by unit train, and much more environmentally friendly.

***
Pure nonesense? 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.

Mark Meyer

• Reply