Trains.com

That Seventies Issue - TRAINS

4132 views
73 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: Sulzerland, UK
  • 337 posts
Posted by Simon Reed on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 4:52 AM
From a UK perspective - I won't get the March issue until the end of this month, so can't comment on the content of the issue.

My main reason for being on this site, however, is for the Newswire which has pretty much supplanted Trains Magazine for information on contemporary issues. I'm surprised no previous posts have mentioned it.

I'll read the magazine regardless of it's content, but won't expect much current information.

Possibly an inflamatory statement but there are at least 8 monthly rail magazines published in the UK (population 58 million) so the availability of magazines to you North American folk seems disproportionately low. Might it not be time for some healthy competition?

On that basis Trains can't be blamed for trying to be all things to all men until there's a viable alternative.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 9:23 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear



Mitch-

You are missing my point. It is not one feature about the past we are talking about here. It is a change of direction. First, ALL the feature articles in the March issue are from the 70s. By my count there are 14 feature articles inthe issue all dealing with the 70s. I find some quite interesting, but I read Classic TRAINS when I want a complete magazine about the past. Also, as others have noted Railroad Reading has disappeared, Mark Hemphill's column is gone (although Mark did write the SP article which is most interesting) and the look and feel is definitely changing.

Obviously Jim Wrinn needs to find his footing as Editor and perhaps future issues will be different, but I hope we're not seeing a new trend that will again split TRAINS core audience both railfans and railroaders.

LC


Here we are a year later...how do you feel, now?
  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 77 posts
Posted by NW_611 on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4:31 PM
Well, I don't know anything about Montana and grain rates, but I thoroughly enjoyed "That Seventies Issue". Admittedly, the period is one of my favorite to begin with (that is, until 01 April 1976!) but I enjoyed reading it.

Having the Chessie System on the cover never hurts. I just sort of wi***here'd been more coverage on the Chessie System as a whole.

I also appreciated the Penn Central fold; it was a welcome find after recently reading Jim Boyd's juvenile rant ("I led the cheering section when it failed") in one of his book reviews. I had been worried that any PC coverage would mostly read, "OMG the livery is black!!!!! Ewwww!!!!!!" but fortunately not.

"The Conrail Bunch" was laugh-out loud funny; things like that add spice to the issue. It's not every Trains article that inspires one to try and write lyrics to a song; luckily, the music's already done for this one. The piece seemed like whimsical, light-hearted humor, but perhaps everyone didn't "get" the joke. I read it to a friend of mine over the phone; despite the fact that she's never heard of any of these railroads, thought it was hilarious.

For what it was worth, and with no malice towards the EL fans, linking Marcia Brady to Phoebe's Road was amusing. I'd been wondering how the EL had such a broad base of interest, and now I know. It's all about the blond. [:D]

The Bicentennial locomotives feature was an enjoyable read; just looking at those locomotives harkened back to an era that I'm not entirely sure we'll see again. In a way, it kind of tugged at the heartstrings, not something easily done. I wi***hat book had gotten published. And yes, I'll have to hold out until 2026. Bother!

The Southern Pacific article was informative and engaging, even though I haven't a whit of interest in that fallen flag. If I'm to understand this industry, it won't be from reading Railfan & Railroad or The Railroad Press ; I regard the "business-light" (no disrespect intended) component of every issue as necessary so that one day I can read Railway Age for something other than the pictures.

I also appreciated the Rock Island article; sprinkling the articles with a bit of personal linkage doesn't hurt in my opinion. I just kind of wi***he author would have told us where they came up with that "ROUTE ROCK" bit.

All in all, a "theme" issue can be a good thing, and Trains seems to have done well with this one.
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: West Coast
  • 4,122 posts
Posted by espeefoamer on Saturday, February 5, 2005 5:03 PM
I finally recieved my issue in the mail yesterday.So far I have only read the SP article by Mark Hemphill.It really showed what happened to SP and why.
Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 4, 2005 2:01 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

To futuremodal: What's the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography?


Montana factoid: In the 8 years between 1995 and 2003 MT farmers got $3,097,849,833 in USDA subsidies( see www.ewg.org/farm/regionsummary.php?fips=30000). Something to ponder between now and April 15 fellow US taxpayers.


That's amazing, Bob! Only Montana farmers received USDA subsidies!

Seriously, Bob, why would you use skewed data from an environmental extremist group like the so-called "Environmental Working Group"? Yet another taxpayer-subsidized anti-American econazi faction whose lawyers get a six-figure gift from you and I everytime they file a frivolous lawsuit intended to destroy the U.S. economy. You would do better to get your information from the USDA.

As has been pointed out by those of us who work in agriculture, commodity payments do nothing more than counteract the artificial cost increases that accumulate due to over regulation of the ag sector. Take away the regulations, and you can think about reducing crop payments. As for conservation and disaster payments, those are separate issues, and are available to all land owners regardless of occupation. I'm sure Ted Turner gets a fair share of conservation payments so he can afford to fence off the Milwaukee corridor through Sixteenmile Canyon.

Of course, if we're going to talk about farm subsidies, we should also point out that BNSF gets one third of those subsidies paid to Montana farmers, so not only are we subsidizing BNSF through the lack of STB oversight regarding it's directive of maintaining rail competition, we are subsidizing BNSF via USDA payments to Montana farmers!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 4, 2005 1:45 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

To futuremodal: What's the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography?


1. What subsidization? Why do you insist that federal action to institute rail competition is a subsidy? A subsidy for who, and from whom? If the federal action simply requires another railroad access to BNSF's lines, how is that a subsidy if not one dime of taxpayers money is used? If the feds offer a second railroad a land grant to rebuild the Milwaukee corridor, how would that be a subsidy if not one dime of taxpayers money is used? If BNSF's forefathers got their start with a land grant, was that a subsidy? If not, then it is neither for a modern rail construction project. If so, then why is it wrong for another railroad to get the same benefit? Or do you think that federal institution of market based competition is all subsidy? Was the STB's insistence that BNSF get access over UP's central corridor in Utah, Nevada, Colorado a subsidy for BNSF, or a subsidy for rail shippers who might play UP and BNSF against each other? Was the breakup of Standard Oil a subsidy? Was the AT&T breakup a subsidy?

2. How is Montana "constrained by geography"? Montana is closer to PNW ports than Nebraska, Iowa, or Minnesota, yet the rates Montana shippers pay to access PNW ports are higher than those paid by those other states. You might want to look at a map of the U.S. before you utter such a ridiculous statement. Montana is not constrained by geography, it is constrained by the BNSF rail monopoly, a situation brought about by the "subsidization" to BNSF granted by the STB/ICC.

Try thinking outside the box of the rail industry hacks and their subsequent propaganda. You might enlighten yourself.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Crozet, VA
  • 1,049 posts
Posted by bobwilcox on Friday, February 4, 2005 10:06 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

To futuremodal: What's the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography?


Montana factoid: In the 8 years between 1995 and 2003 MT farmers got $3,097,849,833 in USDA subsidies( see www.ewg.org/farm/regionsummary.php?fips=30000). Something to ponder between now and April 15 fellow US taxpayers.
Bob
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, February 4, 2005 8:24 AM
To futuremodal: What's the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography?
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 4, 2005 2:18 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.


1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we.


Not believable unless you can show some facts.


Don,

I don't have the time to do a complete study (unless you are willing to pay for my time to do so), but in the mean time just use a little common sense regarding the trade postition of the U.S. vs the rest of the world when in comes to transportation costs from the interior to the ocean ports.

For example, it costs roughly $80 m/t to transport grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim. Via New Orleans its roughly $20 m/t by rail Minneapolis to NO, then $60 m/t by ship. Via PNW, its roughly $45 m/t by rail, then $40 via ship to Pacific Rim nations. The cost to ship by rail is double Minneapolis to PNW what it is Minneapolis to NO/Gulf ports. If the railroads charged a similar rate on both routes, the cost of shipping grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim would fall to around $60 m/t. (Source: Grain Transportation Report from the USDA). That would in turn make U.S. grain sales to the Pacific Rim much more attractive to those buyers, and thus it would do it's part to decrease the imbalance of trade between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim.

The reason for this disparity has been explained at length in this forum, since BNSF is the only real rail shipping option between Minneapolis and PNW, with UP only adding marginal competition due to the duopolistic existence of the Western U.S. rail network, and thus they can charge monopolistic/duopolistic rates between the two areas. Compare this to the subsidies both CP and CN get to ship grain from the Prairies to Vancouver, or the rates charged on Australia's open access rail system for carriage of similar distances, and it becomes obvious that this situation is one of the reasons for the U.S. trade deficit.

The solutions to this problem include (1)reregulating the Class I railroads,
(2)open access of the current U.S. rail network, (3)addition of a second or third Northern Tier transcon via federal aid/land grants e.g. fostering rail based competition similar to what exists in the Midwest's North-South corridors, (4)or having a federal agency such as the Corps of Engineers or FRA do the building of new open access rail lines between the Midwest and PNW, all of which would aid the U.S. in ameliorating the imbalance of trade.

I would like to take the time to do a survey of the number of U.S. exporting firms who have their production facilities captive to one Class I vs those who have access to more than one Class I and/or other viable shipping alternatives such as barging, and then compare this list to firms in other nations and their shipping options. The null hypothesis would be that there is no statistical difference in domestic shipping costs, a notion that would be easy to disprove. Common sense would indicate there is a significant difference, both in terms of U.S. export domestic transport costs vs import costs, and in terms of U.S. export costs vs other nation's export costs.


Once again you forget the little fact that the railroads have competition. In this case grain will flow from the Twin Cities to New Orleans on something called a barge using the Miss. River.
Do you suppose that has something to do with the rail rate level on the same od pairs?


Apparently you haven't read my previous posts regarding what constitutes rail competition. You have to employ the "three or more" rule to gauge a realistic level of competition on typical long hauls. Again, a sole service provider constitutes a monopoly, two service providers constitutes a duopoly. Three service providers would constitute a "triopoly", a word that doesn't exist in the popular lexicon since with three competitors you have de facto competition, with the "odd man out" providing the price risk. That means real long haul competition requires either a minimum of three Class I's from point of origin to destination, two railroads and at least one barge line, or one railroad and two or more barge lines. You really can't include trucks on long hauls for anything other than high value, single load items, they just can't compete for bulk commodities over the long haul.

The Minneapolis to Gulf corridor has the "three or more" characteristic in place with or without competition from the barge lines, while the Minneapolis to PNW does not. That explains why the cost to transport a bushel of wheat by rail Minneapolis to PNW is twice the rail rate from Minneapolis to Gulf. The grain rate Minneapolis to PNW is around $1.24/bushel, compared to $0.64/bushel to the Gulf. So even though the distance to PNW is only one fifth longer, the rate is double. This would not occur if there was de facto competition.

The ocean rates Gulf to Pacific Rim are double the ocean rates PNW to Pacific Rim, concurrent with the fact that the distances are also double respectively. By comparison, the fact that the increase in rail rates Minneapolis to PNW is three times the increase in distance over the Minneapolis to Gulf route is startling from an economists perspective, and wipes out the advantages one would think would be in effect in terms of total mileage from Upper Midwest to Pacific Rim, effectively erasing the logic inherent in the old adage "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line".

I would have thought the Canadian railroads would have been able to provide some rate relief Minneapolis to PNW with their intrusions into the Upper Midwest, but apparenly they aren't interested in playing that game, since U.S. grain marketers don't have the same access to transport subsidies as their Canadian counterparts. Plus, the Canadian railroads have no interest in ameliorating the U.S.'s trade imbalance with Pacific Rim nations, as a U.S. firm would be assumed to embody.
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:17 PM
And the monkey flips the switch....
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.


1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we.


Not believable unless you can show some facts.


Don,

I don't have the time to do a complete study (unless you are willing to pay for my time to do so), but in the mean time just use a little common sense regarding the trade postition of the U.S. vs the rest of the world when in comes to transportation costs from the interior to the ocean ports.

For example, it costs roughly $80 m/t to transport grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim. Via New Orleans its roughly $20 m/t by rail Minneapolis to NO, then $60 m/t by ship. Via PNW, its roughly $45 m/t by rail, then $40 via ship to Pacific Rim nations. The cost to ship by rail is double Minneapolis to PNW what it is Minneapolis to NO/Gulf ports. If the railroads charged a similar rate on both routes, the cost of shipping grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim would fall to around $60 m/t. (Source: Grain Transportation Report from the USDA). That would in turn make U.S. grain sales to the Pacific Rim much more attractive to those buyers, and thus it would do it's part to decrease the imbalance of trade between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim.

The reason for this disparity has been explained at length in this forum, since BNSF is the only real rail shipping option between Minneapolis and PNW, with UP only adding marginal competition due to the duopolistic existence of the Western U.S. rail network, and thus they can charge monopolistic/duopolistic rates between the two areas. Compare this to the subsidies both CP and CN get to ship grain from the Prairies to Vancouver, or the rates charged on Australia's open access rail system for carriage of similar distances, and it becomes obvious that this situation is one of the reasons for the U.S. trade deficit.

The solutions to this problem include (1)reregulating the Class I railroads,
(2)open access of the current U.S. rail network, (3)addition of a second or third Northern Tier transcon via federal aid/land grants e.g. fostering rail based competition similar to what exists in the Midwest's North-South corridors, (4)or having a federal agency such as the Corps of Engineers or FRA do the building of new open access rail lines between the Midwest and PNW, all of which would aid the U.S. in ameliorating the imbalance of trade.

I would like to take the time to do a survey of the number of U.S. exporting firms who have their production facilities captive to one Class I vs those who have access to more than one Class I and/or other viable shipping alternatives such as barging, and then compare this list to firms in other nations and their shipping options. The null hypothesis would be that there is no statistical difference in domestic shipping costs, a notion that would be easy to disprove. Common sense would indicate there is a significant difference, both in terms of U.S. export domestic transport costs vs import costs, and in terms of U.S. export costs vs other nation's export costs.

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Crozet, VA
  • 1,049 posts
Posted by bobwilcox on Thursday, February 3, 2005 7:52 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.


1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we.


Not believable unless you can show some facts.


Don,

I don't have the time to do a complete study (unless you are willing to pay for my time to do so), but in the mean time just use a little common sense regarding the trade postition of the U.S. vs the rest of the world when in comes to transportation costs from the interior to the ocean ports.

For example, it costs roughly $80 m/t to transport grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim. Via New Orleans its roughly $20 m/t by rail Minneapolis to NO, then $60 m/t by ship. Via PNW, its roughly $45 m/t by rail, then $40 via ship to Pacific Rim nations. The cost to ship by rail is double Minneapolis to PNW what it is Minneapolis to NO/Gulf ports. If the railroads charged a similar rate on both routes, the cost of shipping grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim would fall to around $60 m/t. (Source: Grain Transportation Report from the USDA). That would in turn make U.S. grain sales to the Pacific Rim much more attractive to those buyers, and thus it would do it's part to decrease the imbalance of trade between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim.

The reason for this disparity has been explained at length in this forum, since BNSF is the only real rail shipping option between Minneapolis and PNW, with UP only adding marginal competition due to the duopolistic existence of the Western U.S. rail network, and thus they can charge monopolistic/duopolistic rates between the two areas. Compare this to the subsidies both CP and CN get to ship grain from the Prairies to Vancouver, or the rates charged on Australia's open access rail system for carriage of similar distances, and it becomes obvious that this situation is one of the reasons for the U.S. trade deficit.

The solutions to this problem include (1)reregulating the Class I railroads,
(2)open access of the current U.S. rail network, (3)addition of a second or third Northern Tier transcon via federal aid/land grants e.g. fostering rail based competition similar to what exists in the Midwest's North-South corridors, (4)or having a federal agency such as the Corps of Engineers or FRA do the building of new open access rail lines between the Midwest and PNW, all of which would aid the U.S. in ameliorating the imbalance of trade.

I would like to take the time to do a survey of the number of U.S. exporting firms who have their production facilities captive to one Class I vs those who have access to more than one Class I and/or other viable shipping alternatives such as barging, and then compare this list to firms in other nations and their shipping options. The null hypothesis would be that there is no statistical difference in domestic shipping costs, a notion that would be easy to disprove. Common sense would indicate there is a significant difference, both in terms of U.S. export domestic transport costs vs import costs, and in terms of U.S. export costs vs other nation's export costs.


Once again you forget the little fact that the railroads have competition. In this case grain will flow from the Twin Cities to New Orleans on something called a barge using the Miss. River.
Do you suppose that has something to do with the rail rate level on the same od pairs?
Bob
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 4:06 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.


1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we.


Not believable unless you can show some facts.


Don,

I don't have the time to do a complete study (unless you are willing to pay for my time to do so), but in the mean time just use a little common sense regarding the trade postition of the U.S. vs the rest of the world when in comes to transportation costs from the interior to the ocean ports.

For example, it costs roughly $80 m/t to transport grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim. Via New Orleans its roughly $20 m/t by rail Minneapolis to NO, then $60 m/t by ship. Via PNW, its roughly $45 m/t by rail, then $40 via ship to Pacific Rim nations. The cost to ship by rail is double Minneapolis to PNW what it is Minneapolis to NO/Gulf ports. If the railroads charged a similar rate on both routes, the cost of shipping grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim would fall to around $60 m/t. (Source: Grain Transportation Report from the USDA). That would in turn make U.S. grain sales to the Pacific Rim much more attractive to those buyers, and thus it would do it's part to decrease the imbalance of trade between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim.

The reason for this disparity has been explained at length in this forum, since BNSF is the only real rail shipping option between Minneapolis and PNW, with UP only adding marginal competition due to the duopolistic existence of the Western U.S. rail network, and thus they can charge monopolistic/duopolistic rates between the two areas. Compare this to the subsidies both CP and CN get to ship grain from the Prairies to Vancouver, or the rates charged on Australia's open access rail system for carriage of similar distances, and it becomes obvious that this situation is one of the reasons for the U.S. trade deficit.

The solutions to this problem include (1)reregulating the Class I railroads,
(2)open access of the current U.S. rail network, (3)addition of a second or third Northern Tier transcon via federal aid/land grants e.g. fostering rail based competition similar to what exists in the Midwest's North-South corridors, (4)or having a federal agency such as the Corps of Engineers or FRA do the building of new open access rail lines between the Midwest and PNW, all of which would aid the U.S. in ameliorating the imbalance of trade.

I would like to take the time to do a survey of the number of U.S. exporting firms who have their production facilities captive to one Class I vs those who have access to more than one Class I and/or other viable shipping alternatives such as barging, and then compare this list to firms in other nations and their shipping options. The null hypothesis would be that there is no statistical difference in domestic shipping costs, a notion that would be easy to disprove. Common sense would indicate there is a significant difference, both in terms of U.S. export domestic transport costs vs import costs, and in terms of U.S. export costs vs other nation's export costs.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 3:30 PM
Got my copy of That Seventies Issue of Trains, along with the 5th anniversary issue of Classic Trains yesterday ( Feb. 2). I found both magazines more interesting than the State of the Union speech. [;)]
Mark Hemphill's story on why SP went down in flames is a good read. I'll have to reread it to pick up on the things that I missed. The story on the Erie Lakawanna is another fun read. For those interested, pick up a copy of H. Roger Grant's book on the life and death of EL. True, it would have been nice if there was more on Penn Central, and I thought the story on the Rock Island could have been longer, but that's my opinion. I don't think there was anything wrong with the article on the Rock. It's just one person's view/ feelings on his adventure to find out what the Rock Island was about weeks before its demise. What's wrong with that?? If anything, the moral of the story is to not take things for granted.
By the way, how about that photo of the Lehigh Valley GP38 with the going out of bussiness sign taped to the front of the loco's front end?
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 3, 2005 3:06 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.


1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we.


Not believable unless you can show some facts.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 2:47 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

Thanks to the staff and writers at TAINS magazine for the latest issue dealing with the 1970's. I lived right through that decade and it was my first full decade of being a railfan, so I especially recall it with fondness. The issue brought back many fond memories of a very colorful and interesting time in railroading where I lived at the time (Wausau, WI and Chicago, IL). Jim
[#ditto][#ditto][#ditto][bow][:D] I was born in that era,and to this day I am glad I got pix of the Milwaukee Road and the CNW,in Wausau,Wi.
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Tulsa, OK
  • 140 posts
Posted by joesap1 on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 11:38 PM
Mookie's comments that about the value of our disagreements that make the forums so much fun was well put.
Upon first reading the comments about the 70's issue, I thought all of us were going around like Chicken Little.
Now that I have received the issue in the mail(we get it last out west), I see that we may have misinterpreted the editors intentions. In Jim's column at the beginning of the issue he made it clear that he was going back to the 70's because he thinks that from that decade we can learn and better comphrehend the state of railroading in America today.
Therefore, I think it may be safe to say that the 70's issue will not be a style repeated again real soon.
This reminds me of the days when I was a Safety Engineer for the Kwikset Lock Company. I worked with employees and foremens from all the departments in the plant to develop one set of safety rules for the whole plant. After over one year of meetings and many revisions I published the rules and had them posted plantwide. Then, I took a stroll through the plant and was jumped upon by countless employess in every department wanting to know why I changed the rules. They were mad. I crept into my bosses office and explained the situation. He dismissed their reactions by saying," They'll get over it." He was right, they did.
The moral of the story, nobody likes change, myself included. Thus all the hub-bub over the 70's issue is good fodder for the forum, but we won't desert TRAINS, we love the magazine and the real trains too much.
Joe Sapwater
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Midwest
  • 718 posts
Posted by railman on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 8:55 PM
Yep- give it a little time before passing judgement.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 8:50 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Here is a perfect example of what a good forum should be: The grass is green/purple, the sun is yellow/blue, Trains is/isn't.

When we quit disagreeing, there will be no more forum.

Long live the forum and Trains Magazine!

Mook
Hear - Hear - Well said and a pleasure to hear from you as always.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 4:12 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by adrianspeeder

Man the 70's seem like a looooooog time ago. What were the dinosaurs like then?

Adrianspeeder

ps: hehehehehehe


BAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!

Scaley, reptile like- much like you read in history books-

But seriously, and i'll have to really focus on doing that- I should buy this issue.
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 4:06 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

To futuremodal: Your plea for subsidized grain rates out of Montana and your rant against BNSF's so-called monopoly is starting to wear thin, especially when you place it in every thread imaginable. There may be many unanswered questions about MILW's retrenchment and since the clock can't be reversed, they will probably stay that way. The statute of limitations has long since expired if any criminal matters are involved.


C'mon, CSSHE, don't be so blatantly disingenuous regarding what I say.

Cool deal CSSHEGEWISCH,
Last week, I was disingenuous, this week its your turn...

Must be the new big word of the month...

As for the March issue,
Come on guys, the 70s were the cute and perky decade...we had Disco...Donna Summers, Grand Funk Railroad and Saturday night Fever, all in ten years....

I wouldnt mind if, in say four months, they do a 80s issue, so that the younger readers, or thoses new to this hobby, can see the difference just ten yards can make, and see that some things havent changed one bit in 30 years.

I got my first hankering for train in the 70s, got to watch BN take over the rail line just down the street....

I doubt the magazine has changed direction, but I bet it has a slightly different flavor with the new guy on board.

Lets see how it taste for a few issues, before we get too upset about any changes...
After all, I used to despise mushrooms and onions....
Ed

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 1:04 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.


1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we.
  • Member since
    April 2002
  • From: Northern Florida
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by SALfan on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 11:20 AM
I enjoyed the '70's issue. Wouldn't want a steady diet of it, but as stated above the '70's were a pivotal decade. The Staggers Act of 1980 (in my opinion anyway) was a direct result of the Penn Central bankruptcy and the railroad deterioration that took place in the '60's and '70's, and without Staggers and the changes in the regulatory climate that took place in the '70's we wouldn't have railroads to enjoy today. To steal an idea from an earlier poster, it's easier to understand today if you know something about yesterday.
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: Phoenix
  • 128 posts
Posted by rockisland4309 on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 10:41 AM
Kudos to TRAINS!! I really enjoyed reading Paul D. Schneider's article on the Rock Island. I still have the March 1983 issue of TRAINS with his "In The Violet Hour" when he traveled the Rock and interviewed it's employees.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 9:59 AM
great great issue. liked it all, even if the routes of ns and csx were mixed up in a
part of central ohio. classic trains arrived the same day, hibernated to read the two.
pls send a makeup issue to keel middleton, a subscriber in wellington, kans, whose
copy is lost in the mails. he is a bnsf egr from there to amarillo tex. i liked the sketch
maps and recalling where i have been across the country and seen trains.
theo sommerkamp crosstie@wowway.com
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 9:46 AM
Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 9:06 AM
If the rail map of the 70s was intact, we'd have no RRs now.

You want to regulate ROW maintenance?

A punative tax on deferring maintenance? Wouldn't that have forced the RI, MILW, et. al. out of business faster? If I only have money for groceries and can't afford to paint the house, you want to take some of my grocery money away as punishment?

A tax incentive for ROW upkeep? Based on what? Income? RRs in the 70s paid very little income tax. Property tax is also a drop in the bucket compared to what it would have taken to keep all the 70s routes.

Artificial restrictions on trucks? What's artificial about them?

Manufacturing is located away from population centers? Huh? Ever look at a map of where the auto plants are? Steel mills? Paper mills?

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 7:56 PM
Don,

For the record, I have no connection with anything or anyone in Montana. What I'm trying to point out is that there is a national interest in the feds forming regulatory policy that enhances and encourages competitive market pricing for our exporters. As we all know, the railroad industry is a fraction of the GDP, while the folks who make things to be shipped by rail represent a far larger portion of the economy. It makes no sense for a nation to establish regulations and/or take regulatory actions that benefit an economic minority to the detriment of an economic majority.

One of the reasons the USA has a trade deficit is that it costs more to ship an export commodity from the interior to a deep water port than it is to import commodities from port to population centers, and it is more expensive for US exports to ship from interior to port than it is for exporters to do the same in other nations. There are two major reasons for this: Massive consolidation of our franchise owned rail infrastructure (e.g. purposeful capacity limitations to allow greater pricing power for railroads), and artificial restrictions of trucks GVW and length that limit the viability of the competitive transport alternative of last resort. Some may say container repositioning may play a part, but that is also an adjunct of the fact that import containers are usually bound for population centers, while export production and manufacturing areas are more often than not located away from population centers.

What I have said from the start is this: It would be better for rail regulators to address the cost of capital/ROW disequalization of rail vs highway/waterway by keeping rail competition intact and instead afford tax incentives for ROW upkeep, including a surtax on railroads that defer maintenance. If the rail map from the 70's was intact, we would have rail competition in just about every area of the country. Now that the ICC/STB has failed to maintain comprehensive access to competitive rail services, something else has to be done.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 6:52 PM
I haven't had time to read every article yet, but what I have read so far I'm enjoying thoroughly! It's a great issue! I've always thought that the 70's were a cool era for railroading and like 'em or not, they were an important decade for the industry. If you think about it, there is pre-1970's railroading and post-1970's railroading. The 70's, as the magazine itself said, was "the decade that changed everything." It was the last decade that many things from railroading's past existed and it was also the first decade that many things that make up railroading today started to come (with a few exceptions of course). The Conrail Bunch feature did look rather dumb at first glance, but actually reading it, it isn't too bad. There were some very good observations made in it. Another thing is that the "That 70's Issue" logo is quite noticable and the theme unique that it might attract non-readers' attention/interest enough to buy the magazine.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 4:33 PM
Even though I also get Classic Trains, I don't object at all to TRAINS running articles about the past; after all, the series "Railroad Reading" is always about the past. But I have never been happy with an issue entirely devoted to one topic. I like the stories in the 70's issue but it's the 'onlyness' that I'm disappointed with; it's like having a dinner with beef roast, ham, chicken, and mutton but with no 'taters, beans, and dessert!!
Art

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy