QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that's the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades. You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt range. It doesn't take a rocket economist to know that this practice is monopolistic, cut and dried. When the profits from every third crop are going straight into BNSF's bank account, something is seriously amiss. Rocket Economist? Come on Future - give it a rest. The Milwaukee Road is gone. It ain't comming back. You don't make arguements, you make unsupported/unsubstantiated claims. The same ones over and over and over. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 31, 2005 3:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: 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. No one said anything about subsidizing grain rates out of Montana, rather we lament the fact that there is no real rail competition out of Montana since the retrenchment of Milwaukee. If what you are inferring is that the wish for the feds to mitigate the situation and provide the groundwork for a second Class I across the Norther Tier would somehow be a subsidy, you are wrong. Mitigation is not subsidy, and there is no statute of limitations on righting a wrong. Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that's the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades. You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt range. It doesn't take a rocket economist to know that this practice is monopolistic, cut and dried. When the profits from every third crop are going straight into BNSF's bank account, something is seriously amiss. FM- You surely must be joking... Subsidizing a Class 1 railroad to compete with another Class 1 doesn't constitute a subsidy because you call it "mitigation". GET REAL... A subsidy is a subsidy and a pretty label won't change that a bit. How can trying to rebuild the MILW be "righting a wrong"??? Hogwash. Subsidizing a railroad that didn't exist then to move into Montana to compete with an existing line. That is a taking of property without due process of law. LC Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, January 31, 2005 3:39 PM I think this--healthy--debate kind of makes a good point initially discussed by LC. I don't have the current issue of Trains yet; so, I don't know how the issue tied the changes of the 70s to the affect on today’s railroading. Accordingly, I cannot and would not disagree with LC's conclusions. However, my first training is as an historian, and I think history is so much more than a hobby. It tells us why the laws we have today are what they are, it tells us why foreign policy of today is what it is, and it tells us why railroads are what they are, etc. I am really looking forward to "that 70s issue" in the hope that the issue will be rife with examples of how railroading that happened largely before I was born affects railroading today, and would like to see more historical analysis. I agree with LC’s conclusion of the "fluff;" but hey, you got to sell magazines. Sadly, some people like fluff. I am willing to sift through fluff to get to substance if that means that Trains can sell more magazines and have more money to bring me a better product. I don’t disagree with the gravamen of LC’s position, but GO HISTORY! A poster formerly known as "Gabe." Reply rockisland4309 Member sinceOctober 2003 From: Phoenix 128 posts Posted by rockisland4309 on Monday, January 31, 2005 4:12 PM I grew up in the 70's when there used be tons of railroads railfan. I remember as a kid seeing the Frisco, Milwaukee Road, Rock Island and the Katy. Now, there only four major railroads not counting all of the regional and shortlines. I can't wait to get my copy!! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 31, 2005 7:17 PM Its a good read but maybe it should have been a "Classic Trains" issue. Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, January 31, 2005 7:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese Its a good read but maybe it should have been a "Classic Trains" issue. Does Classic Trains issues typically relate the importance of the past on today's railroading? A poster formerly known as "Gabe" Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, January 31, 2005 9:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: 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. No one said anything about subsidizing grain rates out of Montana, rather we lament the fact that there is no real rail competition out of Montana since the retrenchment of Milwaukee. If what you are inferring is that the wish for the feds to mitigate the situation and provide the groundwork for a second Class I across the Norther Tier would somehow be a subsidy, you are wrong. Mitigation is not subsidy, and there is no statute of limitations on righting a wrong. Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that's the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades. You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt range. It doesn't take a rocket economist to know that this practice is monopolistic, cut and dried. When the profits from every third crop are going straight into BNSF's bank account, something is seriously amiss. FM- You surely must be joking... Subsidizing a Class 1 railroad to compete with another Class 1 doesn't constitute a subsidy because you call it "mitigation". GET REAL... A subsidy is a subsidy and a pretty label won't change that a bit. How can trying to rebuild the MILW be "righting a wrong"??? Hogwash. Subsidizing a railroad that didn't exist then to move into Montana to compete with an existing line. That is a taking of property without due process of law. LC He makes me dizzy....and to think he doesn't like Amtrak because it's not a "free market" solution![:D] -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 31, 2005 10:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM- You surely must be joking... Subsidizing a Class 1 railroad to compete with another Class 1 doesn't constitute a subsidy because you call it "mitigation". GET REAL... A subsidy is a subsidy and a pretty label won't change that a bit. How can trying to rebuild the MILW be "righting a wrong"??? Hogwash. Subsidizing a railroad that didn't exist then to move into Montana to compete with an existing line. That is a taking of property without due process of law. LC LC, First of all, returning rail competition to the Northern Tier doesn't require any government money, just government action. The point is, it took a government action to eliminate rail competition up this way, and it will take government action to ameliorate the situation. If the BNSF apologists insist on calling any such amelioration a subsidy, then why not take that logic to the next level and call the government mandated retrenchment of Milwaukee a subsidy for BN? Of course, the bigger question is why so many railfans are opposed to inducing rail-based competition? Do you insist that the only way railroads can lower their operating ratio's and endear themselves to Wall Street is by empowering railroads with monopolistic pricing power? What is extremely amusing is LC's insistence that any action that results in de facto competition for BNSF is taking of private property. A whole lot of farmers in Montana have had their property taken from them due to BNSF's monopolistic pricing practices at the blessing of the regulators. I guess it only counts as private property if it has "Property of BNSF" signs on it. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 31, 2005 11:20 PM Either you liked the issue or you didn't. That's all that's necessary. The editor surelyreads this stuff or gets wind of it some how. Enough negative and things change, positive get the style perpetuated. Put Limitedclear down as "didn't like the issue" anything else is just plain thinking tooooo much. Reply Edit locomutt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Louisville,Ky. 5,077 posts Posted by locomutt on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 12:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by tdtess Either you liked the issue or you didn't. That's all that's necessary. The editor surelyreads this stuff or gets wind of it some how. Enough negative and things change, positive get the style perpetuated. Put Limitedclear down as "didn't like the issue" anything else is just plain thinking tooooo much. I agree with the fact,"you either like it or don't". And if you don't like it,don't subscribe,or buy it. As to the editor part,it takes alot of people,alot of time to get an issue of any magazine ready to be printed,so all of us can pick it apart. (usually around 3-4 months,sometimes a lot longer;things change!) Being Crazy,keeps you from going "INSANE" !! "The light at the end of the tunnel,has been turned off due to budget cuts" NOT AFRAID A Vet., and PROUD OF IT!! Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 12:28 AM Just got it today (31st); liked it (though I agree it's a bit heavy on cutesy). The 70s were ok for me...that's when I started buying Trains... The 70s were also when I was old enough to railfan on my own...I lived in Cambridge, MA (Boston) from '70-'73 and saw the poor condition of the Boston & Maine and the dreary Penn Central. We were able to take day trips on the B&M to various historic sites...Concord, Lexington {that line is gone -- now a bikeway}, Rockport...rode the "T" Green Line PCC cars out to Riverside on what I later learned was a former New York Central/Boston & Albany line...all for under $1... I didn't mind this "single theme" issue. In all the years I have read Trains, there were a few single-issue ones that I didn't care for that much, but there are always the regular columns and news items. And as for cutesy -- way back in the 70s one cover featured the Rock Island and they titled it "Rock-A-Bye-Bye", and a reader letter (or two) gave them grief for that. MP Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 9:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM- You surely must be joking... Subsidizing a Class 1 railroad to compete with another Class 1 doesn't constitute a subsidy because you call it "mitigation". GET REAL... A subsidy is a subsidy and a pretty label won't change that a bit. How can trying to rebuild the MILW be "righting a wrong"??? Hogwash. Subsidizing a railroad that didn't exist then to move into Montana to compete with an existing line. That is a taking of property without due process of law. LC LC, First of all, returning rail competition to the Northern Tier doesn't require any government money, just government action. The point is, it took a government action to eliminate rail competition up this way, and it will take government action to ameliorate the situation. If the BNSF apologists insist on calling any such amelioration a subsidy, then why not take that logic to the next level and call the government mandated retrenchment of Milwaukee a subsidy for BN? Of course, the bigger question is why so many railfans are opposed to inducing rail-based competition? Do you insist that the only way railroads can lower their operating ratio's and endear themselves to Wall Street is by empowering railroads with monopolistic pricing power? What is extremely amusing is LC's insistence that any action that results in de facto competition for BNSF is taking of private property. A whole lot of farmers in Montana have had their property taken from them due to BNSF's monopolistic pricing practices at the blessing of the regulators. I guess it only counts as private property if it has "Property of BNSF" signs on it. FM - You are taking all of this rather personally. Sounds like you have a personal connection to some family farms in Montana. It's coloring your perspective. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 11:23 AM Instead of a column, Mark has a story in the March issue explaining why the SP went down hill. It is a great article. That picture of the lumber train winding up the 3% grade is truly awesome. His article was what I was thinking about when I said I thought the stories of the 70s help me understand why today's railroads are what they are. I don't really think one can understand the current problems of UP without knowing the information in this article. A poster formerly known as "Gabe" Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,008 posts Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 12:15 PM Folks keep repeating "If I wanted old trains I'd buy CLASSIC TRAINS. Consider this perspective: CLASSIC TRAINS is really a purely railfan's magazine. Not much for contemporary railroaders there, including ads, other than what a poster formerly known as "Gabe" pointed out: QUOTE: His article was what I was thinking about when I said I thought the stories of the 70s help me understand why today's railroads are what they are. I don't really think one can understand the current problems of UP without knowing the information in this article. "Those that fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it." Words apparently too often true in the RR business. While a purely contemporary magazine might be a nice item, it's sometimes necessary to know how things got how they are. If you've been a railfan or railroader for years, through all of the mergers and abandonments and bankruptcies and everything else, then you don't need the background information. How many railfans are there, though, for whom Penn Central is just the distant past, like Erie, or Central Pacific. I'm not saying that every issue should be on a par with "That 70's Thing," but it does shed light on railroading today, and next time an article about today's railroads mentions a CNJ or RI, the reader will be less likely to shake their head and wonder where the author is coming from... Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it... Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 2:45 PM ...I guess it takes all kinds of us: Having just received my March issue of TRAINS today and just now thumbed through it for a first look....I happen to think it has a bunch of real and different railroad photos through out the issue. I enjoyed my first look through. something different. Noted Mark's article and will go back and read that an absorb more of the written matter. I give the issue a plus this time. Quentin Reply 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 edblysard Member sinceMarch 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 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. Reply Edit railman Member sinceJanuary 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. Reply joesap1 Member sinceNovember 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 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. 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 Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that's the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades. You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt range. It doesn't take a rocket economist to know that this practice is monopolistic, cut and dried. When the profits from every third crop are going straight into BNSF's bank account, something is seriously amiss.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: 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. No one said anything about subsidizing grain rates out of Montana, rather we lament the fact that there is no real rail competition out of Montana since the retrenchment of Milwaukee. If what you are inferring is that the wish for the feds to mitigate the situation and provide the groundwork for a second Class I across the Norther Tier would somehow be a subsidy, you are wrong. Mitigation is not subsidy, and there is no statute of limitations on righting a wrong. Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that's the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades. You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt range. It doesn't take a rocket economist to know that this practice is monopolistic, cut and dried. When the profits from every third crop are going straight into BNSF's bank account, something is seriously amiss.
QUOTE: 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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese Its a good read but maybe it should have been a "Classic Trains" issue.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: 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. No one said anything about subsidizing grain rates out of Montana, rather we lament the fact that there is no real rail competition out of Montana since the retrenchment of Milwaukee. If what you are inferring is that the wish for the feds to mitigate the situation and provide the groundwork for a second Class I across the Norther Tier would somehow be a subsidy, you are wrong. Mitigation is not subsidy, and there is no statute of limitations on righting a wrong. Unless you think that any government action that benefits one party to the detriment of another is a subsidy. If that's the case, then it can also be argued that the decision by the feds to allow the Milwaukee to pull up its tracks west of Miles City is a direct subsidy to BN/BNSF, since it allowed BN to basically double its grain moving charges, all other things being equal. No one at this time is saying that anything criminal occurred, rather misplaced regulatory action was taken that resulted in extreme hardship for these folks over the last two decades. You can call it a rant or whatever term you need to help you alleviate your collective guilt over the situation, but the fact remains that the rates BNSF charges out of Montana are double what they should be given a truly competitive market. Logic dictates grain moving rates should be in the $20/mt range, not the $40/mt range. It doesn't take a rocket economist to know that this practice is monopolistic, cut and dried. When the profits from every third crop are going straight into BNSF's bank account, something is seriously amiss. FM- You surely must be joking... Subsidizing a Class 1 railroad to compete with another Class 1 doesn't constitute a subsidy because you call it "mitigation". GET REAL... A subsidy is a subsidy and a pretty label won't change that a bit. How can trying to rebuild the MILW be "righting a wrong"??? Hogwash. Subsidizing a railroad that didn't exist then to move into Montana to compete with an existing line. That is a taking of property without due process of law. LC
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM- You surely must be joking... Subsidizing a Class 1 railroad to compete with another Class 1 doesn't constitute a subsidy because you call it "mitigation". GET REAL... A subsidy is a subsidy and a pretty label won't change that a bit. How can trying to rebuild the MILW be "righting a wrong"??? Hogwash. Subsidizing a railroad that didn't exist then to move into Montana to compete with an existing line. That is a taking of property without due process of law. LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by tdtess Either you liked the issue or you didn't. That's all that's necessary. The editor surelyreads this stuff or gets wind of it some how. Enough negative and things change, positive get the style perpetuated. Put Limitedclear down as "didn't like the issue" anything else is just plain thinking tooooo much.
Being Crazy,keeps you from going "INSANE" !! "The light at the end of the tunnel,has been turned off due to budget cuts" NOT AFRAID A Vet., and PROUD OF IT!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM- You surely must be joking... Subsidizing a Class 1 railroad to compete with another Class 1 doesn't constitute a subsidy because you call it "mitigation". GET REAL... A subsidy is a subsidy and a pretty label won't change that a bit. How can trying to rebuild the MILW be "righting a wrong"??? Hogwash. Subsidizing a railroad that didn't exist then to move into Montana to compete with an existing line. That is a taking of property without due process of law. LC LC, First of all, returning rail competition to the Northern Tier doesn't require any government money, just government action. The point is, it took a government action to eliminate rail competition up this way, and it will take government action to ameliorate the situation. If the BNSF apologists insist on calling any such amelioration a subsidy, then why not take that logic to the next level and call the government mandated retrenchment of Milwaukee a subsidy for BN? Of course, the bigger question is why so many railfans are opposed to inducing rail-based competition? Do you insist that the only way railroads can lower their operating ratio's and endear themselves to Wall Street is by empowering railroads with monopolistic pricing power? What is extremely amusing is LC's insistence that any action that results in de facto competition for BNSF is taking of private property. A whole lot of farmers in Montana have had their property taken from them due to BNSF's monopolistic pricing practices at the blessing of the regulators. I guess it only counts as private property if it has "Property of BNSF" signs on it.
QUOTE: His article was what I was thinking about when I said I thought the stories of the 70s help me understand why today's railroads are what they are. I don't really think one can understand the current problems of UP without knowing the information in this article.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Quentin
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.
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 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. Reply Edit railman Member sinceJanuary 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. Reply joesap1 Member sinceNovember 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 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 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. 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.
23 17 46 11
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 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 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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.