QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Increasingly, it seems the railroads are developing a business strategy that consists of running solid trains of containers, trailers, grain, whatever from point to point. This is far more efficient than traditional carload railroading. It makes sense. Serving small country grain elevators has always been inefficient. Equipment utilization is terrible and the cost of terminal handling (locals, endless switching into blocks, etc.) drives expenses through the roof. Railroads have to compete for capital in a world maket. Obtaining financing for grain cars has to compete with obtaining financing for a shirt factory in China. The investment will go to the most productive use. There is absolutely no way any corporate or government action can realistically change this. It's not a question of the BNSF not "wanting" to do something. It doesn't matter what they "want" to do. It's a question of what they have to do to remain competitive for investment funding. BNSF investors will get a better return on shuttle operations than they will on individual carload shipments. If BNSF would try to pay these investors less in order to serve the carload markets, the investors would go elsewhere. Would you rather see them invest in the US or China? If the government tries to force the BNSF to serve the inefficient small grain elevator market, they'll drive the railroad into the ground. It won't be able to attract investment and China will get a new shirt factory. You can't take pain out of the economy. Trying to do so will just make things worse over time. It's a sad thing that some people will loose money on investments they made in inefficent grain terminal facilities. But making business investments is no guarantee of success. Profit is a reward for risk, and sometimes the risk goes against the investor. And there is absolutely no way to change that. None.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
QUOTE: Originally posted by Peterson6868 But is this legal? Under Common carrier obligations the railroad has to traet everyone the same. Its just that the farmers dont knwo this and cant afford to hire a law firm to figure this out. Effeciant? What about all those trucks going all over the place to pick up grain from the small elevaters
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Of course it's legal. And farmers aren't ignorant. And they have lawyers. And farmers are going through this same process. My father worked 160 acers in central Illinois. That was what one man could handle. Today, that would be a "hobby farm". (disclaimer: I did not grow up on a farm, he was evicted the year I was born and I grew up in a small town.) The farms have gotten much larger, along with the equipment. The government can not pass a law that changes economics, just as they can not pass a law that water will run up hill.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal RE: The recent Supreme Court Ruling - Don't forget your railroad history. When the railroads were building West in the late 1800's and early 1900's, they were granted the right of Eminent Domain to allow the ROW across established private property. This is nothing new.
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe BNSF does not want to serve small anythings. The discount for shippers using the shuttle services is about $300 in many locations, that makes it hard for the smaller elevators to be competitive. Depending upon where BNSF supports construction of a shuttle elevator it can decimate all smaller elevators in quite an area. All that investment by smaller companies, co-ops and farmers wiped out by a couple of large American conglomerates.
QUOTE: Originally posted by broncoman I am born and raised in the central valley of CA, so I am curious as to the "stranded" grain elevators of the midwest. There are some fairly large farms still left in the greater sacramento area but it seems that they truck the grain to a siding where it is transferred to anywhere from 2-6 cars. There are still bigger elevators around I would say you wouldn't have to go more than 60-80 mi to go from one to another from Redding almost all the way down to Los Angeles. Is this scenerio different from the midwest? I am just curious as to the scope. I am sure the distances between "train load" elevators is substantial. And out of curiosity what is the standard "train load", 30-50 cars? Thanks for the info.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Gabe, I'll grant you that there is a fundamental difference between the public needs of a railroad/pipeline/transmission line et al and the public needs of a big box store or new multi family dwellings. However, in spirit (and from a legal perspective) a new private development is a new private development regardless of function or intent. In other words, I'm not sure the law sees a difference between local/regional juristiction that supports UP and local/regional juristicition that supports WalMart. The Supreme Court recognized that it would be discriminatory to allow Corporation A the right to eminent domain but not allow Corporation B the same right, regardless of what it is those corporations are involved. It is up to Congress to make the distinction between those corporations which absolutely need to access certain private property to function, and those which could effectively "shop around" for the right location. Of course, I have argued in other topic lines that railroads are not the same as other private ventures, therefore it is ridiculous to allow railroads the same levels of "hands off" government approach, especially given the importance of preserving and expanding transportation infrastructure to meet the demands of an ever growing economy. If I remember correctly, even you Gabe presented the "McDonalds" analogy in defending the current railroad closed access status quo system. So therefore, if railroads are no different from McDonalds when it comes to what governments allow in terms of price or access regulation, then it can also be argued that McDonalds is no different from railroads in what governments allow when it comes to eminent domain. For the record, I am all for allowing railroads the right of eminent domain, but with that right comes the necessary oversight of regulation to assure optimal citizen access to that ROW that utilized the right of eminent domain. Otherwise, we are just granting fiefdoms to discriminatory entities.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Gabe, I'll grant you that there is a fundamental difference between the public needs of a railroad/pipeline/transmission line et al and the public needs of a big box store or new multi family dwellings. However, in spirit (and from a legal perspective) a new private development is a new private development regardless of function or intent. In other words, I'm not sure the law sees a difference between local/regional juristiction that supports UP and local/regional juristicition that supports WalMart. The Supreme Court recognized that it would be discriminatory to allow Corporation A the right to eminent domain but not allow Corporation B the same right, regardless of what it is those corporations are involved. It is up to Congress to make the distinction between those corporations which absolutely need to access certain private property to function, and those which could effectively "shop around" for the right location. Of course, I have argued in other topic lines that railroads are not the same as other private ventures, therefore it is ridiculous to allow railroads the same levels of "hands off" government approach, especially given the importance of preserving and expanding transportation infrastructure to meet the demands of an ever growing economy. If I remember correctly, even you Gabe presented the "McDonalds" analogy in defending the current railroad closed access status quo system. So therefore, if railroads are no different from McDonalds when it comes to what governments allow in terms of price or access regulation, then it can also be argued that McDonalds is no different from railroads in what governments allow when it comes to eminent domain. For the record, I am all for allowing railroads the right of eminent domain, but with that right comes the necessary oversight of regulation to assure optimal citizen access to that ROW that utilized the right of eminent domain. Otherwise, we are just granting fiefdoms to discriminatory entities. Dave, I am not trying to be contumacious, but to quote the Court in its reference to the new land use "Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers." The Court just kicked out one of the chief restrictions on the use of the doctrine. This will not only allow the greatly expanded view of public benefit to be used as a sword by the rich; it will also allow the doctrine to be used CONSIDERABLY more than it is now. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp The grain trains I see are probably about 75 to 100 cars. All of the grain elevators around here are receivers. Do they load any grains besides rice up there? Eric rice is a big export, but I am not sure what the other grain is that is shipped. I know I have seen a lot of cars at the elevators up highway 99 above Yuba City. The cars were being loaded outside of rice season, but I didn't know with what. Anyone else care to venture a guess. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:27 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Chris30 One thing to add to the small grain elevators that are disappearing. A lot of small elevators are/were located on old, lightweight rail that is/was maintenance deffered branch trackage. As the weight of a loaded grain car continues to get heavier, the lightweight, maintenance deffered track can no longer support the weight of those cars. To continue serving these small elevators the railroads would have to continue using smaller/lighter cars, or the branch trackage would have to be completely rebuilt at a great cost that would never be repaid to support the newer, heavier grain cars. Don't foreget about the cost of crew and equipment to serve the lightweight branches that might only produce a few cars a week for one season of the year. It just makes more sense for the small elevators take the discount offered and truck their product to a large elevator on the main line. The railroads are more than willing to give a discount to the small elevator vs. the expense of the branch lines. CC This all goes back to argument of whether it is more effective to deliver grain from country elevator to unit train terminal via a 105k truck (129k in some states) over country roads, or whether it might be better to make that same short haul using old 264k (or even older 220k) hoppers over a still intact branch line. There are some shortline guys who even claim they can haul 286k cars over lightweight trackage if they just keep it under 10 mph. So it comes down to the idea that branchlines can continue to remain functional (and thus profitable) if the branchline owner can (1) carry grain from the elevators on his line to the unit train facility in the lighter weight 220k and 264k hoppers (which probably requires access to mainline rails to get to the unit train facility), or (2) fill up 286k hoppers with branchline grain and then go real slow over the branchline rails until the shortline can reach mainlline rails wherein they can speed it up to get to the unit train facility, wherein the 286k cars are added to the unit train consist. The former could be a problem if the older cars are no longer FRA compliant off the home rails, and the whole enterprise is dependent on the shortline operator being able to gain access to the unit train facility, often over mainline rails. When the Class I's owned and operated the the branchlines, this was no problem, but if they've spun off the branchline they are probably less accomodating of the branchline consists occupying the mainline rails. The bottom line is that it is still more efficient to move grain via 220k hoppers than it is to move grain in 105k truck trailers, and unless the rail move is no more than a few hoppers per year, it should still pay to move this product via rail rather than truck. For the most part the branchline is already paid for, only maintenance required to keep it minimally functional. With diesel fuel prices looking like they'll stay high for the time being, and the truck driver shortage means current drivers will begin to earn higher wages to stop loss for trucking firms, the idea of running lightweight freight trains over the lightweight rails could make a comeback. But it will still depend on the access issue to make it work. Reply Edit greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:33 AM Yes, but. The grain isn't originating at a country elevator. It's originating in a farm field. I remember watching a Wisconsin farmer harvest his corn. It was dark and the John Deere combine just went back and forth, it's headlights showing the way through the corn field. The hopper on the combine would get full, then he'd ( or she'd, I don't know which gender was driving) unload into a semi in the field. Semi's can go into farm fields where the freight originates. Trains can't. When the semi got full, it drove off. Now once you've got the grain in a truck, does it make sense to take it to a small country elevator, then transfer it to that elevator, hold it there, then transfer it to smaller rail cars for shortline movement, then transfer it again to a larger elevator, hold it there, then transfer it to a main line shuttle train? Or do you just drive the truck to the large elevator in the first place? It will depend on the specific situation, but if I had to bet ( and I do bet on things ), I'd bet that it will be generally more efficient to just drive the truck to the large elevator. "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 kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:39 AM In a certain aspect, the BN in Montana is simply reacting to basic economics. As Greyhounds just stated, once the farmer has the product loaded in an OTR truck, you don't want to take it out and then reload it into a covered hopper unless the cost of that transload and two transportation charges will be less than keeping it in the truck all the may to the POE. And Futuremodel is correct about the effeciencies of grain loading on branchlines. My last RR position was as a Station Agent and we had several single farmer and small grain consolidator elevators in my district. The export terminal was less than 100 miles distant (mostly between 60 and 85 miles) from the elevators, yet I could compete on single car-load rates with the EXEMPT (ie farmer owned and operated) trucker who could haul directly from the field 60-85 miles to the POE. The exempt trucker could eat my lunch and dinner getting from the field to the export elevator, but one there, he started charging "delay fees" for waiting to unload. And then, about 1/2 the time, the truckers load was rejected because of "junk" in the grain that the branchline elevator filtered out. So the truckers had to locate a new sale for the grain. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Some things, while seeming to be non-cost effective, perform hidden functions that create greater economies further down the production chain. The farmer and the exporter were both better served by the small local elevator and the extra cost he inserted into the system was eliminated later in the production chain as illustrated above and the net result was a better operating system costing equal or less than any alternative. Consistancy and regularly fullfilled expections sell big time. Eric Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:07 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [Now once you've got the grain in a truck, does it make sense to take it to a small country elevator, then transfer it to that elevator, hold it there, then transfer it to smaller rail cars for shortline movement, then transfer it again to a larger elevator, hold it there, then transfer it to a main line shuttle train? Or do you just drive the truck to the large elevator in the first place? It will depend on the specific situation, but if I had to bet ( and I do bet on things ), I'd bet that it will be generally more efficient to just drive the truck to the large elevator. No. Equipment cycle times are as crucial to the farmer as to the railroad. The truck has to be back in time to transload from the Combine to the truck, or else the Combine operator just sits there waiting. On smaller farms, the Combine operator often IS the truck driver and he is not going to get his crop in if he spends his time in the truck driving cross country somewhere with a load of wheat. Time is of the essence on a grain operation. The Combines operate as near to 24/7 as operator availabilty and fatigue will permit. The trucks are by and large used only during harvest, and there are neither excess trucks nor excess teenagers sitting around to drive them. And these are NOT 105k trucks that are out working between the elevator and the Combine. Those trucks don't load from Combines. They load at elevators. This is hot and dusty work and to preserve the crop against rain, hail and insects, the crop has to get in as quickly as possible. Custom cutters make their money harvesting as quickly as possible in order to follow the crop ripening north. Ideally, the trucks and Combine operate as a unit, one Combine, two trucks, two truck drivers. Small operators don't have the luxury so time is even more critical. A truck wants to be there by the time the bin is full on the Combine. The requirement for a truck at the Combine can be as short as 45 minutes. The farther the elevator, the more trucks and the more drivers needed to keep the Combine operating continuously. The closer the elevator is to the farm, the better. There is no efficiency whatsoever in long distance driving of grain trucks off the farm to an elevator many miles distant just because it is larger. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply 123456 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
The grain trains I see are probably about 75 to 100 cars. All of the grain elevators around here are receivers. Do they load any grains besides rice up there?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Chris30 One thing to add to the small grain elevators that are disappearing. A lot of small elevators are/were located on old, lightweight rail that is/was maintenance deffered branch trackage. As the weight of a loaded grain car continues to get heavier, the lightweight, maintenance deffered track can no longer support the weight of those cars. To continue serving these small elevators the railroads would have to continue using smaller/lighter cars, or the branch trackage would have to be completely rebuilt at a great cost that would never be repaid to support the newer, heavier grain cars. Don't foreget about the cost of crew and equipment to serve the lightweight branches that might only produce a few cars a week for one season of the year. It just makes more sense for the small elevators take the discount offered and truck their product to a large elevator on the main line. The railroads are more than willing to give a discount to the small elevator vs. the expense of the branch lines. CC
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [Now once you've got the grain in a truck, does it make sense to take it to a small country elevator, then transfer it to that elevator, hold it there, then transfer it to smaller rail cars for shortline movement, then transfer it again to a larger elevator, hold it there, then transfer it to a main line shuttle train? Or do you just drive the truck to the large elevator in the first place? It will depend on the specific situation, but if I had to bet ( and I do bet on things ), I'd bet that it will be generally more efficient to just drive the truck to the large elevator.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.