QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal CSX, I honestly looked over every post you made to try and ascertain a reasonable construction of a de facto question, perchance to take a stab at providing an answer, and (sigh)..... All I can advise you is, you really need to lay off the juice and the jane.
QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The filing fee for STB disputes is $65,000. Add in all the other legal fees and other costs, not to mention the threat of retaliation by BNSF for which you must come up with a rainly day fund, and you'll accumulate 10 times that filing fee. Then, with all that, the likelyhood that the STB will actually take the time to hear your case is still quite remote. Anyone still want to question why the multitude of victims are loath to take such legal actions against the Class I's? There is a proposal to reduce the filing fee from the $65,000 to a more logical $150. The STB is vehemiently opposed to this, for they fear they will subsequently be flooded with cases to ajudicate, which of course they will. Take note of this one seemingly small item, for it alone is the one thing that will cause the Class I's and the STB to start sweating bullets. BTW - no matter what your stand is on this issue, making references to the Anti-Christ and such only makes such posters look like complete imbeciles. You are an embarassment to the entire railfan community. oh come on now..... you mean to tell me that with all the blood sucking lawyers out thier..that thier isnt 1 out thier that wants to make a name for himself..and collect a nice legal free for "punitive"damages....come on.... if they had a chance in hell...a class action lawer would have jumped at this a long time ago....but since it dont seem to have happend.... they are just going to blackmail the carrier by trying to get the goverment to "punish" the carrier.... csx engineer CSX, you missed the vital point here - there is no guarantee that the STB will hear your case, even if you manage to find a bloodsucking lawyer [}:)] that isn't on BNSF's payroll[:D]. The question you have to ask yourself is, will it cost more to fight this thing than it will to pay the higher rates? come on now.... that argument is weak.... thier are intire practices that focuse on class action law suits.... and charge only if they win.... your statement that finding a lawer that isnt on the BNSF payroll is also a weak arrgument... (read above agin)...... the vital point that you keep making is that blackmail is ok as long as its the government doing it.... csx engineer
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The filing fee for STB disputes is $65,000. Add in all the other legal fees and other costs, not to mention the threat of retaliation by BNSF for which you must come up with a rainly day fund, and you'll accumulate 10 times that filing fee. Then, with all that, the likelyhood that the STB will actually take the time to hear your case is still quite remote. Anyone still want to question why the multitude of victims are loath to take such legal actions against the Class I's? There is a proposal to reduce the filing fee from the $65,000 to a more logical $150. The STB is vehemiently opposed to this, for they fear they will subsequently be flooded with cases to ajudicate, which of course they will. Take note of this one seemingly small item, for it alone is the one thing that will cause the Class I's and the STB to start sweating bullets. BTW - no matter what your stand is on this issue, making references to the Anti-Christ and such only makes such posters look like complete imbeciles. You are an embarassment to the entire railfan community. oh come on now..... you mean to tell me that with all the blood sucking lawyers out thier..that thier isnt 1 out thier that wants to make a name for himself..and collect a nice legal free for "punitive"damages....come on.... if they had a chance in hell...a class action lawer would have jumped at this a long time ago....but since it dont seem to have happend.... they are just going to blackmail the carrier by trying to get the goverment to "punish" the carrier.... csx engineer CSX, you missed the vital point here - there is no guarantee that the STB will hear your case, even if you manage to find a bloodsucking lawyer [}:)] that isn't on BNSF's payroll[:D]. The question you have to ask yourself is, will it cost more to fight this thing than it will to pay the higher rates?
QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The filing fee for STB disputes is $65,000. Add in all the other legal fees and other costs, not to mention the threat of retaliation by BNSF for which you must come up with a rainly day fund, and you'll accumulate 10 times that filing fee. Then, with all that, the likelyhood that the STB will actually take the time to hear your case is still quite remote. Anyone still want to question why the multitude of victims are loath to take such legal actions against the Class I's? There is a proposal to reduce the filing fee from the $65,000 to a more logical $150. The STB is vehemiently opposed to this, for they fear they will subsequently be flooded with cases to ajudicate, which of course they will. Take note of this one seemingly small item, for it alone is the one thing that will cause the Class I's and the STB to start sweating bullets. BTW - no matter what your stand is on this issue, making references to the Anti-Christ and such only makes such posters look like complete imbeciles. You are an embarassment to the entire railfan community. oh come on now..... you mean to tell me that with all the blood sucking lawyers out thier..that thier isnt 1 out thier that wants to make a name for himself..and collect a nice legal free for "punitive"damages....come on.... if they had a chance in hell...a class action lawer would have jumped at this a long time ago....but since it dont seem to have happend.... they are just going to blackmail the carrier by trying to get the goverment to "punish" the carrier.... csx engineer
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The filing fee for STB disputes is $65,000. Add in all the other legal fees and other costs, not to mention the threat of retaliation by BNSF for which you must come up with a rainly day fund, and you'll accumulate 10 times that filing fee. Then, with all that, the likelyhood that the STB will actually take the time to hear your case is still quite remote. Anyone still want to question why the multitude of victims are loath to take such legal actions against the Class I's? There is a proposal to reduce the filing fee from the $65,000 to a more logical $150. The STB is vehemiently opposed to this, for they fear they will subsequently be flooded with cases to ajudicate, which of course they will. Take note of this one seemingly small item, for it alone is the one thing that will cause the Class I's and the STB to start sweating bullets. BTW - no matter what your stand is on this issue, making references to the Anti-Christ and such only makes such posters look like complete imbeciles. You are an embarassment to the entire railfan community.
QUOTE: Greyhounds: Your own numbers on freight rates flat out show that the BNSF charges sigficantly less to move wheat from Montana to Portland than it does from Minneapolis to Portland, yet you claim they charge more.. How is less more?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Sol: If you actually "do the math" it shows that it is possible to have an average of 14.3 carloads per train, in the case of 282 unit trains of 100 cars, 1 unit train of 67 cars, and 1,831 single carloads are handled on mixed trains. In that case, 28,267 carloads are handled by unit trains, and 1,831 carloads handled by mixed trains. That translates to 95% of tonnage handled by unit trains "averaging" 100 carloads, to the signifcant decimal place, and 5% of the tonnage handled on mixed trains. A statistical average can show 14.3 carloads per train, and still misrepresent the fact that 95% of the tonnage is handled on unit trains of 100 carloads. QUOTE: Greyhounds: Yes, if they're making single car shipments. Which is as much fantisyland as the rest of your arguments. In your example 1,831of 2,114 shipments were made in single car lots. That's 86.6%. Carry anything to an extream and you can produce an absurd result. Please, 86.6% of "shipments" shades the argument. 1,831 single carload movements also represents less than 5% of total tonnage which is probably more useful in terms of understanding small movements of grain, and probably representing primarily elevator cleanups and cleanouts (recalling there are different types of wheat grown in Montana and different seasons of wheat), and those processes are not "unit train" compatible. But, without understanding the industry, you go on to criticize even cleanouts: QUOTE: Greyhounds:If Montana shippers are so stupid as to be moving that many single car shipments of a bulk commodity going to a common destination, then they deserve to pay through the nose. Loose car railroading is really inefficient. Yes it is. That doesn't mean there are not completely legitimate reasons to do it. Hopefully without being labeled "stupid" by someone who doesn't understand what you do to clean out an elevator. But, it's not just that. BNSF is typically the car supplier. In the Fall, 2003, when a combination of increased equipment cycle times (slower trains), increased terminal dwell times, and failure to heed warnings about a bumper crop resulted in a grain car supply crisis, everything fell apart for the shippers, because of the railroad. The COT program collapsed. The company spotted a single car. Your elevator might have had 20 carloads ready to load, but you only had one hopper car sitting there because the railroad couldn't deliver any more. You loaded and shipped. Inefficient? Yes. Shipper's fault? No, the railroad was dictating single car and small car movements because that's how they were delivering equipment to the shippers. Of course that increases inefficiency, and creates a vicious cycle. What did the railroad do? Imposed a surcharge on captive shippers and none on non-captive shippers. QUOTE: Greyhounds: Exactly. Can you image a local crew stopping 1,831 times a year to pick up a single car shipment of grain, as Sol postulated. On the nothern Transcon they'd have the close to capacity main line tied up. Hot trains delayed. Ain't worth it. But to him, this rational decision "proves" the BNSF is out to "Get" the Montana farmers. Well, this confirms what I have been thinking about your various remarks, which seem to be generated by a self confidence in your own "logic" without any practical or operating experience in the areas upon which you freely comment. The single carload figure, although presented as a hypothetical to show that reliance on "averages" as an analytical tool is typically misplaced, actually works out as follows: 1) Montana has something on the order of 2,135 miles of BNSF trackage; 2) Montana originates just under 400,000 carloads of freight from those 2,135 miles of track. 3) 1,831 carloads of wheat represents less than one-half of one percent of all freight originated. 4) It represents five carloads a day, spread across between 18-27 through Hi-Line freights per day plus others through other parts of Montana, say 35 trains total typically. 5) Five single carloads of wheat also would be one hopper car for every 427 miles of BNSF Montana line. 6) It is part of a normal yard crew or patrol's job to assemble fertilizer, potash, wheat, furniture, lumber products and whatever else the local economy produces, and put them into blocks (probably larger than one single hopper car) and available for the next appropriate through freight. 7) A single hopper car of wheat would probably be part of 10 or 20 mixed cars for a normal set out in Great Falls for the next train. This is pretty standard stuff for railroads to [still] do. 8) You are saying that adding five carloads of freight a day in a state that originates nearly 1,100 per day will grind BNSF or their Montana yard crews to a standstill. Let me get this straight, as another one of those statements you make which is just bizarre: you are suggesting to me and this Thread that five cars of wheat spread across 2,135 miles of Montana line on a normal day presents insurmountable problems for yard crews and patrols and is going to tie up the entire Burlington Northern Santa Fe Main line in Montana. QUOTE: Greyhounds: I try to base my arguments in reality. PICKING UP FIVE HOPPER CARS A DAY SPREAD ACROSS 2,135 MILES OF LINE IS GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE BNSF!!?? HOT TRAINS DELAYED!!!??? QUOTE: Greyhounds: Can you image a local crew stopping 1,831 times a year to pick up a single car shipment of grain, as Sol postulated? Even if all such single carload lots originated in Great Falls alone, and none in the rest of Montana, the yard crew there would have to pick up a single hopper car nearly once every five hours each day. I can well imagine the mainline shutting down with that crisis! You have got to be kidding on this one ... I can understand that you might not be well versed in statistics and think "averages" are reality, but you're not really serious on this, are you? Good day. Michael Sol
QUOTE: Sol: If you actually "do the math" it shows that it is possible to have an average of 14.3 carloads per train, in the case of 282 unit trains of 100 cars, 1 unit train of 67 cars, and 1,831 single carloads are handled on mixed trains. In that case, 28,267 carloads are handled by unit trains, and 1,831 carloads handled by mixed trains. That translates to 95% of tonnage handled by unit trains "averaging" 100 carloads, to the signifcant decimal place, and 5% of the tonnage handled on mixed trains. A statistical average can show 14.3 carloads per train, and still misrepresent the fact that 95% of the tonnage is handled on unit trains of 100 carloads.
QUOTE: Greyhounds: Yes, if they're making single car shipments. Which is as much fantisyland as the rest of your arguments. In your example 1,831of 2,114 shipments were made in single car lots. That's 86.6%. Carry anything to an extream and you can produce an absurd result.
QUOTE: Greyhounds:If Montana shippers are so stupid as to be moving that many single car shipments of a bulk commodity going to a common destination, then they deserve to pay through the nose. Loose car railroading is really inefficient.
QUOTE: Greyhounds: Exactly. Can you image a local crew stopping 1,831 times a year to pick up a single car shipment of grain, as Sol postulated. On the nothern Transcon they'd have the close to capacity main line tied up. Hot trains delayed. Ain't worth it. But to him, this rational decision "proves" the BNSF is out to "Get" the Montana farmers.
QUOTE: Greyhounds: I try to base my arguments in reality.
QUOTE: Greyhounds: Can you image a local crew stopping 1,831 times a year to pick up a single car shipment of grain, as Sol postulated?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I say it might be better to use UP or build up Montana Rail link up with some investment. Don't think Rail America would mind that-trying to make them bigger-could be wrong though. BNSF might respond better to direct and threatening competition rather than go about things through something more Canadian in style. Better to stick with what currently works in the U.S and that is get aggressively capitalist and blow the competition out of the water. If the State of Montana is truly unhappy with BNSF and if other states aren't that please either, the states could have a referendum to see if the majority of the citizens would support the financial sponsership of shortlines like Montana Rail link and form a network through the financial alliance of both the shortlines and the states and the operational alliance between the shortlines effected. Several shortlines connected to each other to form a large network to serve your needs is much more American and constitutional friendly than going forth with a non-constitutional bill that will go nowhere other than in the courts-very anti productive I'm afraid. Just curious; Does anybody else feel this way? MRL can not act independently of the BNSF on these types of issues. Why? Does MRL have their own track or is it mostly running rights on BNSF?
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I say it might be better to use UP or build up Montana Rail link up with some investment. Don't think Rail America would mind that-trying to make them bigger-could be wrong though. BNSF might respond better to direct and threatening competition rather than go about things through something more Canadian in style. Better to stick with what currently works in the U.S and that is get aggressively capitalist and blow the competition out of the water. If the State of Montana is truly unhappy with BNSF and if other states aren't that please either, the states could have a referendum to see if the majority of the citizens would support the financial sponsership of shortlines like Montana Rail link and form a network through the financial alliance of both the shortlines and the states and the operational alliance between the shortlines effected. Several shortlines connected to each other to form a large network to serve your needs is much more American and constitutional friendly than going forth with a non-constitutional bill that will go nowhere other than in the courts-very anti productive I'm afraid. Just curious; Does anybody else feel this way? MRL can not act independently of the BNSF on these types of issues.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I say it might be better to use UP or build up Montana Rail link up with some investment. Don't think Rail America would mind that-trying to make them bigger-could be wrong though. BNSF might respond better to direct and threatening competition rather than go about things through something more Canadian in style. Better to stick with what currently works in the U.S and that is get aggressively capitalist and blow the competition out of the water. If the State of Montana is truly unhappy with BNSF and if other states aren't that please either, the states could have a referendum to see if the majority of the citizens would support the financial sponsership of shortlines like Montana Rail link and form a network through the financial alliance of both the shortlines and the states and the operational alliance between the shortlines effected. Several shortlines connected to each other to form a large network to serve your needs is much more American and constitutional friendly than going forth with a non-constitutional bill that will go nowhere other than in the courts-very anti productive I'm afraid. Just curious; Does anybody else feel this way?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I say it might be better to use UP or build up Montana Rail link up with some investment. Don't think Rail America would mind that-trying to make them bigger-could be wrong though. BNSF might respond better to direct and threatening competition rather than go about things through something more Canadian in style. Better to stick with what currently works in the U.S and that is get aggressively capitalist and blow the competition out of the water. If the State of Montana is truly unhappy with BNSF and if other states aren't that please either, the states could have a referendum to see if the majority of the citizens would support the financial sponsership of shortlines like Montana Rail link and form a network through the financial alliance of both the shortlines and the states and the operational alliance between the shortlines effected. Several shortlines connected to each other to form a large network to serve your needs is much more American and constitutional friendly than going forth with a non-constitutional bill that will go nowhere other than in the courts-very anti productive I'm afraid.
QUOTE: Originally posted by LRSMITH The last paragraph of the news story pretty much sums up the way the railroad taxation bill will go. It will not pass the legislature just like it did not in N. Dakota. The legal entanglements could last for years. BNSF needs to take a look at the ethical and unfair business practices for charging high prices to grain shippers. There is very little competition in Montana but having a monopoly on shipping grain is no excuse to charge overtly high prices. It is difficult to apply the market economy in Montana when there is hardly any competition. This is a good example of a business not being a good community member and is detrimental to BNSF. It is poor public relations on the part of BNSF to stand by their high rates. This type of issue needs to go directly to the CEO of BNSF and its board of directors.
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Remember the BNSF is the anti-christ and Armageddon is somewhere near Essex, MT.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton MP 173 That rate differential of $976 per car Minnesota vs. Montana to the PWC also leaves me a little confused. That should mean that the Montana farmer can get about 29 cents a bushel more at the elevator than his Minnesota counter part. That ought to be a decent up. As near as I can tell, those saying that the Montana rate are discriminatory base their argument on the fact that the per mile revenue Montana to PWC is higher than Minnesota to PWC. That may be an indication that the Montana rates are too high, but I don't believe it is the evidence that can prove the case. If I am not mistaken, the evidence to prove the case has to show that the ratio of the rate to the long run variable cost exceeds a statuatory limit. Michael Sol noted here what I had heard before that bringing a case to the STB is a very expensive project. Well, just how much is very expensive? He has also noted here that his study showed that Montana farmers and grain merchants suffered great financial damage. Isn't there enough there to proceed with the case? Or is it possible that there is not a case? Jay
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Let me add a comment about costs in rate making. The cost comes into play at the final step in the process. First you determine what the customer will pay for your service. That requires a total phycical distribution system anaylsis in light of competition from other carriers, transportation modes, optional origins or option materials (such as chemicals) or protiens (such as animal feed). Only when you have an idea what the customer will pay do you think about costs, margins and ultimatly if you are interested in handling the traffic. In the excess capacity enviroment before about 1995 you would willing to take anything over a 10% markup over your long run varible cost (LRVC) if you were sure the rate was as high as possible. If you were pricing today, on a corridor with limited capacity, you should be very reluctant with anything below a 50% markup. Looking at major commodity movements(>$1,000,000 per year) you will see markups that go higher. Exactly. Can you image a local crew stopping 1,831 times a year to pick up a single car shipment of grain, as Sol postulated. On the nothern Transcon they'd have the close to capacity main line tied up. Hot trains delayed. Ain't worth it. But to him, this rational decision "proves" the BNSF is out to "Get" the Montana farmers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Let me add a comment about costs in rate making. The cost comes into play at the final step in the process. First you determine what the customer will pay for your service. That requires a total phycical distribution system anaylsis in light of competition from other carriers, transportation modes, optional origins or option materials (such as chemicals) or protiens (such as animal feed). Only when you have an idea what the customer will pay do you think about costs, margins and ultimatly if you are interested in handling the traffic. In the excess capacity enviroment before about 1995 you would willing to take anything over a 10% markup over your long run varible cost (LRVC) if you were sure the rate was as high as possible. If you were pricing today, on a corridor with limited capacity, you should be very reluctant with anything below a 50% markup. Looking at major commodity movements(>$1,000,000 per year) you will see markups that go higher.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Well, this is absurd, what I quoted you on is exactly what I quoted you on, and not something different. This is exactly like the above: when you stated, "I refered to the average number of cars per shipment, not per state ," when in actual fact you said " In 2002 the average wheat shipment from Montana was only 14.24 cars. From Minnesota it was 50.64 cars, and from Nebraska it was 50.43 cars." which is exactly what you said. If you only said that switch crews were part of the rate structure, there is nothing in my comments to disagree with the observation insofar as compensatory rates are concerned. However, since this whole thread has been about the discriminatory difference in rate structures, your vigorous assertion that somehow this overlooks the element of yard costs is patently absurd unless there is some reason that Montana wheat is handled differently than both long haul and short haul wheat. If not, then it is a constant across all shipping alternatives and does not -- get that -- does not explain anything about why Minneapolis [long haul] and Spokane [short haul] wheat is offered rates lower than Montana wheat by the same company usng the same equipment on the same tracks to the same destinations. If you were offering nothing that illuminates that rate differential, and taking plenty of words to do it, what then was your point, and what is it now? If there is not an economic justification, then the alternative and probable explanation is what Futuremodal intially suggested: outright exploitation and discrimination against helpless shippers. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Yes there is. The average I cited was the average cars per shipment. Now according to the Banks Study, in 2002 there were 30,111 carloads of wheat shipped from Montana in 2,114 seperate shipments - an average of 14.25 cars/per shipment. This is significantly below the average shipment sizes for wheat originating in Minnesota and Nebraska. ... And if "Most" Montana wheat moves in 100 car blocks, as you claim, then the average shipment size would be much higher than 14.25 cars. Again, do the math. If you actually "do the math" it shows that it is possible to have an average of 14.3 carloads per train, in the case of 282 unit trains of 100 cars, 1 unit train of 67 cars, and 1,831 single carloads are handled on mixed trains. In that case, 28,267 carloads are handled by unit trains, and 1,831 carloads handled by mixed trains. That translates to 95% of tonnage handled by unit trains "averaging" 100 carloads, to the signifcant decimal place, and 5% of the tonnage handled on mixed trains. A statistical average can show 14.3 carloads per train, and still misrepresent the fact that 95% of the tonnage is handled on unit trains of 100 carloads. Futuremodal is correct that "averages" are often deceptive analytical tools, and more often disguise statistical truths than they reveal them. Greyhounds, the admonition to "do the math" is sometimes enlightening when you actually do it, instead of treating it merely as a cliche'. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Yes there is. The average I cited was the average cars per shipment. Now according to the Banks Study, in 2002 there were 30,111 carloads of wheat shipped from Montana in 2,114 seperate shipments - an average of 14.25 cars/per shipment. This is significantly below the average shipment sizes for wheat originating in Minnesota and Nebraska. ... And if "Most" Montana wheat moves in 100 car blocks, as you claim, then the average shipment size would be much higher than 14.25 cars. Again, do the math.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.