BNSF shuttle grain trains, Does this mean that BNSF does not want to serve small elevators?

[MP173]

ITW is a GREAT company. They are a well managed portfolio of medium sized companies that actually manufacture stuff here.

I concur with what they say. As a salesman, I often get bogged down with potential customers which really take my time and energy. The key is to stay focused on the key accounts. Not only in sales, but in life. Figure out what is important and then take care of it.

ed

[arbfbe]

Here's a link to a news story about the effects on the Montana economy of BNSF's actions:

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=14151

BNSF's love of the larger elevators will dry up the capital investment made by the local farmers, ranchers and elevators as well as tearing up the Montana secondary and lower level roads. Fine for their profits but at the cost of many other people. I am not a fan of open access but this example of the BNSF bull in the Montana china (grain) shop sets a fine example of why such an idea is so popular amongst shippers, especially captive shippers. Fie to the BNSF and their piggish ways.

[Anonymous]

I sometimes wonder if Mr. Rose ever gets to see these forums??

[Anonymous]

Here is good old Morris, MN the BNSF West local still serves all the local elevators on this subdivision (even with just a couple cars in many cases). So from my end the BNSF still serves the small guy as well as the large shippers.

[Anonymous]

From the TRAINS newswire August 5, 2005:

"BNSF softens some Montana grain shipping rates

HELENA, Mont. – BNSF Railway said Thursday it will reduce a planned increase in grain-shipping rates at 52-car grain elevators, which are critical to many Montana agricultural towns, according to a story in the Great Falls (Mont.) Tribune. But state leaders said the railroad's concession is minimal, and that the rate increase still threatens to shut down the 52-car loading terminals.

"It's better than what we had yesterday, but we still do not have a rate that would help to ensure viability of the 52-car facilities," said Richard Owen, executive vice president of the Montana Grain Growers Association.

Owen, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, and Sen. Conrad Burns, (R-Mont.), said they will continue to pressure the railroad to set the 52-car shipping rates at a level that is affordable and fair. Schweitzer said even if BNSF further adjusts the 52-car rates, it's still using its monopoly status to overcharge farmers for shipping grain to Portland, Ore., for export.

The immediate controversy is over BNSF's rates for grain shipped at 52-car elevators in Montana, versus what it charges for grain shipped at 110-car "shuttle" terminals. The railroad wants to move more grain traffic to the 110-car loading terminals, and announced in June it would lower the per-car rate for shipping on these longer trains. At the same time, BNSF said it would increase the rates for grain shipped from 52-car elevators, effective this month.

Montana farmers and political leaders said the higher rate would kill the state's three dozen 52-car terminals, which serve towns such as Fort Benton, Big Sandy, Cut Bank, and Chester. Their demise would mean higher costs for farmers and more wear and tear on state roads, since farmers would have to truck grain to the 110-car loading facilities. The initial rate change would have made 52-car rates about 15 cents per bushel higher than the 110-car rates."

Question: How hard would it be for BNSF to time the 52 car shuttle loadings so that two different 52 car trains could be loaded at the same time, then have both consists meet down the line somewhere and form a single 104 car unit train that could be handled by a single crew from that point on? Is BNSF alleging that it can't make any money on 52 car shuttles in Montana without a 15% rate increase? Meanwhile, there would be a significant loss of investment for those co-ops that built the 52 car facilties at BN(SF)'s insistence, and of course if those lines are lost then we'll have even more tonnage being reluctantly shifted to the mode of last resort, aka trucks.

If BNSF doesn't want to serve the 52 car facilities, then let someone else serve them. Perhaps this is the situation that might inspire the State of Montana to finally exert the power of eminent domain over BNSF's lines and take them over for an assessed value rather than a seller's market value. It would probably be less expensive for Montana to do this than to pay the guaranteed increase in road maintenance costs to handle a whole new batch of trucks on their roads.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: I would have a hard time believing that Montana, or any other state would take over any railroad's tracks.[xx(]

[Anonymous]

No, but the threat probably seems a bit more credible ever since the Supreme Court radically expanded the concept of imminent domain several weeks ago.

[Murphy Siding]

Isn't it a little bit of a stretch of logic? Taking a piece of property to sell it to a developer who would produce more property taxes is one thing. Taking over of a profitable,up and running business by a state to "correct" percieved pricing unfairness is quite another. The first example would be eminent domain gone astray. The second example has already been tried, and doesn't work- it's called communism.[:(!]

[Anonymous]

I agree that capitalism makes more sense than communism or socialism. Still, for reasons that elude me, there are plenty of "solid citizens" and politicians out there who think that state ownership is the answer for everything. Not as many as in the Seventies, but enough!

[Anonymous]

When dealing with monopolists actions, a laize faire approach does not work. Society simply has to be proactive in response, or lose any chance of enabling a free market mechanism to ameliorate the societal costs of monopoly empowerment. It is unfortunate that the State of Montana has been forced into a situation of having to construct solutions to a problem that is having a major negative effect on their economy. And the State will grow old and die before the feds come to the rescue. After all, the feds are the ones who created and allowed this situation to fester when the Milwaukee PCE was ordered torn up. Hmmmm, the Northeast gets bailed out by the creation of Conrail, while the Northern Tier gets the shaft!

When the Supreme Court ruled on the eminent domain issue, they ruled that states have the right to use this power if it had a positive effect on tax revenues. Since BNSF has pushed the State of Montana to the brink of an ag recession, the state must respond in a way that best corrects the negative affects BNSF's actions will have on the State's bottom line. Using eminent domain to take over certain of BNSF's lines, an action that will result in other Class I's such as CP and UP being able to provide connections and thus play a true free market game in competing for the priviledge of hauling Montana grain, is certainly one response that will provide a viable solution.

And if you think that's "communism", please tell when in the history of Marxism has there ever been an example of a communist action intended to foster competition? The answer is of course there hasn't, because fostering competition is a violation of communists tenets. Same for socialist and fascist governments. Only under a representative government can actions be taken that serve to break up monopolist power for the benefit of the free market.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Owen, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, and Sen. Conrad Burns, (R-Mont.), said they will continue to pressure the railroad...

Sen. Burns burned all of his bridges to Ft. Worth many years ago. Maybee he should intoduce some more transportation bills that no one is interested in supporting?

[Anonymous]

As long as Senators send newsletter to their constituents making hay of the fact that they wrote or sponsored such-and-such legislation, but the people don't realize that without House support it couldn't possibly become law, then that kind of hypocrisy will go on.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: That would be a first-it wouldn't be a hostile nationalization of an industry, it would be a hostile state takeover of an industry? How many years could this be tied up in court? Could Montana then "sieze" the gas stations that were charging more than the citizens thought they should?How about the seed dealers? The grocery stores? And on and on......I don't even see this as being a real cure for anything.

And if some of the citizens didn't think the farmers were doing a good enough job, they could always pitch them out, and collectivise the farms right? It's been done before.[B)][;)][:)]

[Anonymous]

Communism is when they shoot the former owners of the private industry. Socialism is when they buy-out the owners. Have you guys never heard of the TVA, which took over electric generation and distribution for one-fifth the country in the 1930s and 1940s
and still reigns supreme? Or Conrail, for that matter. I will concede, though, that Conrail retained enough of the appurtenences of private industry (trading shares on the NYSE, for example) that it is a poor example of "state socialism."

Urban renewal is when they buy out the poor to subsidize rich corporations. In essence, it's a reverse-welfare giveaway that transfers "rents" from the poor to the rich. It also has a dubious record of rescuing poor areas. There are reasons they were poor to begin with. I don't think there is too much outcry over "eminent domain" to four-lane a highway, but many people are shocked, appalled and angry at the Supreme Court's decision, as am I.

[Murphy Siding]

Tell me it isn't so, that we'd let a small group of (party) members sieze control of a profitable,tax paying business to turn it over to a group (The State) that offers more preferential (rate) treatment to the wounded, third party? Where did this notion come from? We're not talking about eliminating a railroad to replace it with a 500 mile long shopping mall are we?[:)]

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

FM: That would be a first-it wouldn't be a hostile nationalization of an industry, it would be a hostile state takeover of an industry? How many years could this be tied up in court? Could Montana then "sieze" the gas stations that were charging more than the citizens thought they should?How about the seed dealers? The grocery stores? And on and on......I don't even see this as being a real cure for anything.

And if some of the citizens didn't think the farmers were doing a good enough job, they could always pitch them out, and collectivise the farms right? It's been done before.[B)][;)][:)]

First the BNSF then on to WalMart!

[Murphy Siding]

FM: I was thinking [:)] The electricity in my house comes from a source that has to buy power sometimes. I'm sure that some of it must come from the power company that you "consult" for. I'm just not happy with the electricity they've been sending me lately. It's just not strong enough sometimes, and ,come to think of it, it's way overpriced. In some cases, it costs nearly 100% more than electricity that costs half as much. How does one go about having the "State" buy this company (for the good of the people of course), and give it to someone else who could fix this problem?[}:)][;)]

[Anonymous]

Murphy:

1. Even under your "communist" takeover scenario, BNSF would still be able to serve all it's traditional customers. All that is being taken from them is the right to gouge.

2. If you don't like the quality of the electricity you've been getting lately, I would encourage you to complain to the FERC. Given that your part of the country is dependent on coal fired generation, they will probably direct your complaint to those entities responsible for delivering coal to the power plants. Go ahead, knock yourself out!

[Murphy Siding]

FM: 1. So, BNSF could still serve their customers? What does that mean? So now if a state took over a business just to improve rates for the customers the state deemed were being gouged,wouldn't all customers claim they're being gouged? Upon reflection, communism probably isn't the correct description,fascism is probably a more correct one.
2. I don't want to go through some govenmental gcency. I don't want to follow the established rules. I don't want to get the rates that the market sets. I just want to have a state take over a huge,profitable business and run it ( or now, apparantly just some portions of it?) in a way that benefits me!!! I'm sure there are many others who feel the same way. So,after that power company gets put in line,then we can focus on BNSF for the same reasons.[}:)][:)] Note the less than serious tone in this post, and don't take it too seriously.

[Anonymous]

Murphy,

The government already is engaged in developing portions of the transmission infrastructure. Up here in the PNW we have the BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) with transmission lines to supplement the utility lines. I think the TVA is the same way. Perhaps now we can focus on creating a BRA (Bonneville Rail Administration) to construct supplementary rail lines as an addendum to the PNW rail network, once it has converted to OA.

[Anonymous]

I have a feeling that if you dislike the BNSF's choices of what lines to serve, you'll really hate it if 535 pork-minded politicians in Washington spend the money on their "high priority" projects--just look at the new infrastrure act.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626

I have a feeling that if you dislike the BNSF's choices of what lines to serve, you'll really hate it if 535 pork-minded politicians in Washington spend the money on their "high priority" projects--just look at the new infrastrure act.

At least pork projects start services and build things, as opposed to stopping services and tearing things out.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: Sometimes they do both. My sister worked for a contractor at a navy base that was being dismantled. They were dismantling the south end, while another contractor was building on the north end! Four years later, they got to the north end to tear down things that were only 4 years old. Sometimes, government = duh!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626

I have a feeling that if you dislike the BNSF's choices of what lines to serve, you'll really hate it if 535 pork-minded politicians in Washington spend the money on their "high priority" projects--just look at the new infrastrure act.

At least pork projects start services and build things, as opposed to stopping services and tearing things out.

Well, here was the "pork" for Montana. Our Senior Senator stood on one of our local city bridges yesterday and presented the mayor with a "check" for $6 million to rebuild the bridge from two lane to four lane. It was a hopelessly outdated bridge that connected the Interstate, two Federal highways, state highways, and was important to city traffic flow as well. It was hopelessly outdated but the City didn't have the kind of money to rebuild it, and the bridge happened to be a "city" bridge, not a "federal" bridge, mainly by historical accident.

The "pork" in the Highway Transportation bill in this instance went directly to a highway transportation improvement project which assisted the federal, state, and local highway systems all in one fell swoop.

Not bad for "pure pork."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626

I have a feeling that if you dislike the BNSF's choices of what lines to serve, you'll really hate it if 535 pork-minded politicians in Washington spend the money on their "high priority" projects--just look at the new infrastrure act.

At least pork projects start services and build things, as opposed to stopping services and tearing things out.

Well, here was the "pork" for Montana. Our Senior Senator stood on one of our local city bridges yesterday and presented the mayor with a "check" for $6 million to rebuild the bridge from two lane to four lane. It was a hopelessly outdated bridge that connected the Interstate, two Federal highways, state highways, and was important to city traffic flow as well. It was hopelessly outdated but the City didn't have the kind of money to rebuild it, and the bridge happened to be a "city" bridge, not a "federal" bridge, mainly by historical accident.

The "pork" in the Highway Transportation bill in this instance went directly to a highway transportation improvement project which assisted the federal, state, and local highway systems all in one fell swoop.

Not bad for "pure pork."

Best regards, Michael Sol

Poor Montana, the victim state.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Well, here was the "pork" for Montana. Our Senior Senator stood on one of our local city bridges yesterday and presented the mayor with a "check" for $6 million to rebuild the bridge from two lane to four lane. It was a hopelessly outdated bridge that connected the Interstate, two Federal highways, state highways, and was important to city traffic flow as well. It was hopelessly outdated but the City didn't have the kind of money to rebuild it, and the bridge happened to be a "city" bridge, not a "federal" bridge, mainly by historical accident.

The "pork" in the Highway Transportation bill in this instance went directly to a highway transportation improvement project which assisted the federal, state, and local highway systems all in one fell swoop.

Not bad for "pure pork."

Best regards, Michael Sol

Not everything is pork and there are a lot of bridges that need to be rebuilt. But I wonder how many more could have been done for the money that will be spent on the new suspension bridge which will connect 2 islands in Alaska. I understand it's to be longer than the Golden Gate and the populations of the 2 islands are 2,000 and 50 people.

[jeaton]

Gabriel Roth writes for the Cato Institute ("We're against everything.") that the Federal Government should end the Federal Gas Tax, get out of the business of building and maintaining highways and turn the whole thing over to the individual states. If that were to occure, it would be fun to see just how many highway improvement projects would produce a very nice road that would suddenly turn into a dirt trail as it crossed a state line.

Anyway, he makes a note that the number of separate "earmarks" in the appropriations have gone through the roof. "Earmarks" are the provisions in the law that establish funding for a specific project and are derided as "pork" even if the project is of high value by any standard. Roth implies that the reason for the rise in the number of earmarks is strictly political. Congressman X tells his constituents that he has brought big bucks to the district and don't forget that at the next election.

Not to say that the highway planners in the Department of Transportation are always going to be highly objective in prioritizing projects, but if there is a $75 billion backlog in work that should be done, should anyone be surprised that someone with the power to do so would order his project be handled first?

Jay

[Anonymous]

Don't laugh! Just a few years ago the State of Montana had a very nice two lane highway that ran up to Thompson Pass at the Idaho/Montana border. When you crossed over the border to Idaho, it basically turned into a narrow twisting logging road!

They've fixed up the Idaho side of the road since then.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Jay,

Don't laugh! Just a few years ago the State of Montana had a very nice two lane highway that ran up to Thompson Pass at the Idaho/Montana border. When you crossed over the border to Idaho, it basically turned into a narrow twisting logging road!

They've fixed up the Idaho side of the road since then.

It wasn't a joke.

Wisconsin had a plan to have a freeway between the Illinois state line near Richmond, IL and Madison. It would have been part of a freeway running off I-90 at Schaumburg, IL, which would have provided an excellent short route between northwest surburban Chicago and points in the southeast Wisconsin and beyond. The route 53 freeway ends 6 miles north of the origin point because the state of Illinois bowed to political pressure from Lake County, Illinois residents that did not want to loose their "rural" environment. The Wisconsin freeway segment runs from the state line to Elkhorn, WI. and serves three communities with populations of less than 10,000, plus the odd driver that wants to take the "scenic" route.

The joke is on the Lake County residents, as the population there has exploded. I have no sympathy for their complaints about traffic.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone maintains that ALL of the recent omnibus infrastructure act is made of pork, but I have heard estimates of thirty percent or more--pet projects, usually.