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
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH To futuremodal: What's the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
23 17 46 11
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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
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
QUOTE: Originally posted by adrianspeeder Man the 70's seem like a looooooog time ago. What were the dinosaurs like then? Adrianspeeder ps: hehehehehehe
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 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. Reply Edit SALfan Member sinceApril 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. Reply rockisland4309 Member sinceOctober 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. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 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 Reply Edit CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 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 Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 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/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 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 Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.