Legislation intoduced to make railroads subject to antitrust laws.

[jeaton]

Futuremodal

Even if you don't like to be placed with people of that ilk, I think that most experts in the fields of political and economic systems would put you, with your open access concept, pretty far to the left.

As much as you have convinced yourself that what you propose would have a good outcome, I think you are missing at least one key element. Even if any operating company could use the tracks and facilities of the infrastructure company and accordingly could compete for traffic with any other operating company that wanted to work the same market, the infrastructure company, in the vast majority of cases, would now be the monopoly. What do you think would keep your friends at BNSF Infrastructure Co, Inc from charging anything they felt like for an operator that wanted to do business between Wolf Point and Cut Bank? Last I looked, nobody has tracks running anywhere near those points. So where is the is the competition as the necessary "rational pricing" constraint for that element of the service? Should we extablish regulations to control the price for the use of tracks? As much as you would like, absent a good dose of government socialistic type regulation, you are not going to have something that will automaticly be fair to every shipper at every location.

By the way, with my limited vocabulary, the only way that I can describe your assertion that the railroads have been a big cause for the shift of manufacturing overseas is stupid.

Jay Eaton

[MP173]

Wow...we are all sorta getting along again, kinda like a big family.

Or, at least being civil.

For the record, I will take this kinda topic and the disagreements that go with it over favorite paint schemes or locomotives (nothing wrong with those topics...for the record my favorites would be E7's or 8's in Erie Lackawanna paint).

Dave, I think you are looking at things thru the energy company's eyes. Open access would work GREAT for them. Nice movements of unit trains in which they could own their own equipment and bid down the rates. Who ever is most hungry gets the business.

I really like what Ameren has done in a couple of cases and invested in Open Access by building out to reach competition.

You guys really are losing me on the economic/political discussions. I always thought I was for less government and felt I was a conservative, but at times labels get blurred.

ed

[edblysard]

RE: The "numbers" thing - As I've stated before, I don't believe there are any publicly accessable studies that analyze the prospective comparison of converting the current U.S. rail picture into some form of open access vs leaving things as they are and/or reregulating railroad rates and services. I have scanned all the Class I websites, the AAR website, the FRA website, the STB website, and have not found any studies on the issue.

They did, and found it wouldn’t work. No, they don’t publish it, or offer it publicly, why would they, does your industry release to the public any study that doesn’t promote it or create a positive response, like the correct amount of hazardous discharges, or the true amount of overcharges?

Gabe - I have a fundamental disagreement with the way you have framed your last post, and I won't go to much into your assertion that I am the one being rude (brings to mind the little analogy about a pot and a kettle.....).
You mean you don’t like his question?

The only one on this forum to whom it can legitimately be said that I was rude would be Ed B.
That was you being rude?
No, really, you need to practice more.

Needless to say, the real major point of contention between the two of us seems to exist not in any debates about railroad operations or regulations, but of the role a representative democracy-type government is supposed to play in an ostensible free market environment.
You mean we have different political views.

I know this is probably going to exasterbate your patience, but could you please tell me if you favor the Electoral system for electing a president or do you favor direct popular vote?
Spell check works really well.
Was that a Freudian slip?

Ed aka MP173: I have said this before, but I'll repeat it for your benefit. I do not believe an open access infrastructure company could make it on it's own without some form of ROW cost equalization to better reflect the aspects of public support for highways and waterways beyond user fees.
You mean a federal subsidy?.

Murphy: Thanks for the compliment, but my college days are long gone. However, I do still get carded at grocery stores if I wear a hat.
Try Groucho glasses and a funny hairdo…
EdB
-------------

[Murphy Siding]

Future Model: Would you entertain the idea of a seperate thread started to calmly discuss the ideas and challenges that pertain to any kind od open access system?

[Anonymous]

Oh, yeah, regarding the "moral obligation" statement I made - On reflection I admit it is in error for me to say that the railroad companies have a moral obligation to provide payback to the public in exchange for the land grants into perpetuity. Corporations are amoral, thus not inclined to moralisms one way or the other. For that statement I deserve the criticism.

What I should have said (and will probably still get criticism) is that the government has a moral obligation to the public to make sure railroads give payback to the public in exchange for the land grants, and should do so into perpetuity, e.g. there is no time limit for return consideration. The land is gone from the public coffers forever, why shouldn't the return favor also last forever?

[Anonymous]

To all:

I apologize for allowing myself to get drawn into the personal attacks. I'll try to keep my posts above the sea of insults from now on.

RE: The "numbers" thing - As I've stated before, I don't believe there are any publicly accessable studies that analyze the prospective comparison of converting the current U.S. rail picture into some form of open access vs leaving things as they are and/or reregulating railroad rates and services. I have scanned all the Class I websites, the AAR website, the FRA website, the STB website, and have not found any studies on the issue. Trust me on this, I truly wi***he AAR or FRA would come out with some initial analysis of open access, even if it was (predictably) skewed to discount any positive effects, either on the railroads or on the U.S. economy. At the very least, it would be something to critique beyond the current dependence on logic and reason. Perhaps some of you might want to ask them why they have no numbers to prove once and for all that open access won't work.

Gabe - I have a fundamental disagreement with the way you have framed your last post, and I won't go to much into your assertion that I am the one being rude (brings to mind the little analogy about a pot and a kettle.....). The only one on this forum to whom it can legitimately be said that I was rude would be Ed B. Needless to say, the real major point of contention between the two of us seems to exist not in any debates about railroad operations or regulations, but of the role a representative democracy-type government is supposed to play in an ostensible free market environment. If I read your words accurately, you do not believe that a true conservative would be in favor of any government oversight of markets to ensure a maintenance of competitive markets, thus anyone who favors some form of check and balance regarding monopolistic behaviour would be labeled a socialist in your book. I know this is probably going to exasterbate your patience, but could you please tell me if you favor the Electoral system for electing a president or do you favor direct popular vote? Do you favor each state having two Senators irregardless of population, or do you feel the number of Senators a state has should be based more on the population of that state? The reason I ask is that I recognize that in order for Democracy to work (and by association a free market), there has to be some checks and balances in place to prevent Democracy (and/or the free market) from imploding into mob rule.

I do not believe there are any realistic checks on the monopolistic characteristics of the current Class I railroad oligarchy when it comes to captive shippers. I think it is unrealistic to avow that trucks are any viable form of competition for today's railroads, rather that as things stand now trucks are the primary feeder system for railroads, and without the willing participation of the trucking industry today most railroads would go under in short time. And for the record, I honestly do not have any dogs in this fight, and yes I am currently working for an energy company.

CSSHEGEWISCH: I do not believe I have personally attacked you in any way, rather I have issued a challenge to you to provide evidence of any trucking firm providing a real challenge to a current rail haul between two terminals. I know that you can't provide the sufficient number of examples to completely blow my assertion out of the water, but I expect you to be able to come up with at an example or two to at least buttress the long standing myth of trucks being de facto competition for railroads. Keep trying.

Ed aka MP173: I have said this before, but I'll repeat it for your benefit. I do not believe an open access infrastructure company could make it on it's own without some form of ROW cost equalization to better reflect the aspects of public support for highways and waterways beyond user fees. That being said, if a rail line has insufficient usage to continue under private operation, I believe that line should go to the local government by default, and that way the decision to continue operations or to abandon the line falls on the shoulders of the local government. I do not believe that any rail company that receives some form of government support should be allowed to liquidate that line (e.g. no more scrapping of the rails and ties), that should be one of the caveats of public support for railroads whether they convert to open access or not.

Murphy: Thanks for the compliment, but my college days are long gone. However, I do still get carded at grocery stores if I wear a hat.

[MP173]

Dave:

I would like to see your thesis for the local pickups, and how that would occur.

To me, an open access system would require open access to all for all. And the "for all" would be difficult. Note the low density line that generates very little business but does have a grain elevator that will ship a few cars per year. At some point the open access intrastructure company (OAIC) will be required to either close the line or raise the rates for that customer to cover fixed costs.

At that point Michael Sohl (or similar proponents for the grain elevator) will charge "FOUL" because either the rates are too high or the line is being abandoned.

It really cant be sold to another line...since that line would also require "open access."

Confused? I am. Help me see the light.

Promise I wont call you any names, but please try to keep the number of syllables to a minimum!

ed

[gabe]

FM,

Why do you have to be that way? You are such a paradox for me, in that you say something that most people on here disagree with, and you have—some—rationality to your assertions. In that vein, I think you are very valuable to the forum—as we will learn a lot more and enhance our collective knowledge to a greater degree disagreeing with one another much more so than patting one another on the back saying how right one another is.

In the same breath, you get very rude when people do not accept your assertion that none of us know what we are talking about, and it seems completely lost on you that you are anything but an objective proponent of your ideas. You clearly have a dog in the fight in which you espouse, and it seems to me that your ideas do not follow a free-flowing intellectual argument—but follow your perception of self-interest.

Why don't you just say, “I like conservative ideals and minimum government interference, because my company and my position regularly use them to make a profit. But I do not like them when government involvement and regulation would allow my company to make a greater profit at the expense of other private enterprise.”

I may very well be wrong, but in my heart-of-hearts I believe that is your philosophy.

Also, you seem to intimate that you are in an energy/petrol-chemical industry. I hope the humor is not lost on other members of the forum that someone from that industry is complaining about price fixing and monopolistic practices. Are you going to assert that railroads are too hard on Grandma Nelly next?

Gabe

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM is taking these arguments very personally and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has noticed that any semblance of intellectual rigor in his responses is slowly fading away into the abyss of personal innuendo and attacks on me and others who dare to point out that what's happening in the real world does not always coincide with the theories to which he clings so tightly.

[edblysard]

Ouch, must have hit a nerve!

No, I would fall into the conservative democrat, or liberal republican category.
Railroads do compete; I get to see it every day.
And if you keep sour grapes bottled long enough, you can end up with some really nice wine.
House divided, hummm, sound like there is more than one of you in there,
right, Sybil.


Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

To Ed B:

Enjoy your sour grapes, and revel in your ignorance.

PS - just because a word is more than two syllables doesn't mean it's made up. Have someone look up the hard words for you in a big book of words we call a dictionary (pronounced DIK-SHUN-AIR-EE). Of course, it will be harder to explain to you how a root word can be changed from a noun to an adjective, verb to an adverb, etc.

BTW - One cannot be an espouser of market based solutions to remedy socio-fascist monopolism, and at the same time be a de facto socialist. "A house divided against itself..........", etc. Given your rabid opposition to the idea of railroads actually engaging in true head to head competition, methinks it is you who bears the likeness of furrow-browed socialist.

[Murphy Siding]

My honest guess would be that Future Model is a college student now. When I was in college, a lot of things looked differently than they do now!
Ed-poke fun at me any time. I'll revel in my ignorance too!

[jeaton]

Market based solutions?

In addition to getting a refund, you ought to get the guy fired.

[Anonymous]

To Ed B:

Enjoy your sour grapes, and revel in your ignorance.

PS - just because a word is more than two syllables doesn't mean it's made up. Have someone look up the hard words for you in a big book of words we call a dictionary (pronounced DIK-SHUN-AIR-EE). Of course, it will be harder to explain to you how a root word can be changed from a noun to an adjective, verb to an adverb, etc.

BTW - One cannot be an espouser of market based solutions to remedy socio-fascist monopolism, and at the same time be a de facto socialist. "A house divided against itself..........", etc. Given your rabid opposition to the idea of railroads actually engaging in true head to head competition, methinks it is you who bears the likeness of furrow-browed socialist.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Some clarification is in order:

1. If I said anything about BNSF being willing to lower rates in Montana on their own, it has nothing to do with the moral obligation of the land grants, rather I believe such a move would be wise for BNSF if for no other reason than to get the regulators off their backs, not to mention better customer relations. Of course, they won't take such action, because it is irrational for a monopolist to do so. Only competition or regulation will result in such action.



(or until the Left has completely emasculated our nation into the dust bin of history),

If you paid money to someone to teach you that rational pricing will only occur in a competitive environment, you should ask for a refund.

Don't you have your directions confused? I rather doubt that you will find a conservative economist that will argue for anti-trust laws. Those kinds of laws are usually proposed by the "Left". The only reason Green, a Republican, would but a bill like his into the hopper is for a little grandstanding for his constiuency, who don't like the fact that a "foreign" railroad owns the track in the district. And if you think he put the bill in without an OK from House Republican Leaders, let me show you a nice little bridge, cheap.

Jay Eaton

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by goat

How would "open access" handle something like when train operater A gets the bid to run down the track at 8 o'clock so operater B settles for an earlier departure at 7. Train B breaks down out on the mainline for several hours, train A who is your major compeditor can't get around you. Boats and trucks can easily just drive or sail around (usualy), but a train can't. Wouln't this type of thing be a major problem in a highly compedative environment? Or what if train B runs at a slower more ecconomical speed then track speed?

At least the way things are right now it would be CSX own fault for delaying another CSX train on a CSX line.

Assuming the breakdown causes financial loss for the other entities, then whomever is found responsible for the breakdown would be liable to the other entities. If the fault lies with the track owner, they will have to compensate B and A. If the fault lies with transporter B, they will have to compensate A and the track owner. This is why you carry liability insurance. You could conciebably have the same situation on a highway, wherein a wreck caused by trucking firm A that blocks traffic long enough to cause financial harm to trucking firm B, could result in firm B filing a claim against firm A. Only the government and an Act of God are exempt from liability.

[edblysard]

Murphy,
Wasn’t poking fun at you, but at the open access holy man...
Moral obligation...and free land...funny, but if you ever get the chance to read one of the land grants, and see what the railroads had to do, what they were obligated to create and the money they were required to spend, you would realize quite quickly that none of it was free land at all.
Any you are correct, Dave is never at a loss for words, in fact, he seems to have made up a few of his own along the way.
He is a socialist in sheep’s clothing, and I bet if he does actually "consult" for any business, they would be rather aghast at some of his concepts on how the market works.
He has public utilities and railroads confused with each other, and assumes that some where along the line, business should be "fair"... for all parties.
I am also quite sure he bears some personal grudge against one or more of the railroads in his area...maybe he worked for one and got canned for his off the wall concepts.

Either way, its fun to read his attempts to mask his socialist views in extended verbiage, and his ability to never really answer the questions on how he would accomplish all of his “concepts” is astounding.
Note in his last posting where he was asked to produce solid figures, and a firm proposal, he begged off….and has done so every time he is asked.
He will, on the other hand, point you towards someone else’s work or concept, from which he gathers his hodge podge grab basket of ideas for “open access”, and quote them in great length.
I think he believes this makes him seem more of an expert on the idea, even though I have yet to read an original idea about it that can be credited to him directly.
He never really explains how it would work in the real world, only goes on and on about how it should be implemented to give some special interest groups a “fair” deal on railroad shipping cost.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'm not computer savy enough to know how to quote things off the forum.so.....
CSSHEGEWISCH: I feel your pain! My city is at the crossroads of two busy interstate hiways. I can't for the life of me figure out why all these non-competitive semi trucks are wizzing by at all times of the day and night? The lumber yard I work for gets about half of it's material from un-competitive suppliers that ship on un-competitve semi trucks. What's the world coming to?

edblysard: I'm glad you got a laugh out of "moral obligation". Just remember,that wasn't my thought, I just "borrowed" it from a local wiz.[;)]

Future Model: You're never at a loss for words.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

I think that I just might toss in the towel at this point since in FM's opinion I am making the mistake of seeing the world as it is rather than as he feels it ought to be. I have a friend who was a traffic manager, and most of their traffic went by truck, even on long hauls, because they provided better service for the rate they charged. This may not fit with FM's view of the world, but it IS reality.

You're looking at the world as you think it is rather than as it really is. It is a facile conclusion to say that your friend's firm shipped by truck because the truck rates were the best rates. As has been discussed elsewhere, railroads are now infamous for their refusal to provide carload service, and it is this refusal to provide carload service that has created a whole new market for trucks. If you had read my post carefully, I pointed out that trucks are only taking up the business railroads have rejected, or business for which railroad service simply does not exist. This is hardly the type of example you should be using to extoll the claim that trucks are railroads' competition.

Tell me this if you have the information: Did your friend's firm ship out 100's of truckloads from the plant to the same specific destination every few days? If so, then your claim of trucks being competition for trains would be legitimate, because then the trucks would be vying for something for which railroads are superior. But I doubt that's what your friend's firm did. Did they formerly ship out a few carloads by long haul rail, only to have a trucking firm or two come in and offer lower rates or more expedient service to the same destinations? If so, then my ascertion would be faulty, because then you'd have an example of an established long haul rail carload service being replaced by long haul truckload service. But I doubt that's what happened, more than likely such an example would only come about by a change in railroad service levels.

In every single instance of trucks taking over traffic that formerly moved by rail, it only came about because the railroad stopped providing the service for some reason, e.g. no longer wanting to provide the service at the logical rate, change in operating priorities, "pre-abandonment" tactics used to oust traffic from lesser used lines, actual abandonments that end up increasing the rail mileage between two points to the effect of negating the rail efficiency advantage, aging equipment that the railroad did not wi***o replace, or simply no longer wanting the "hassle" of dealing with small lot customers.

If you can provide me with an example of a situation in which both a railroad(s) and trucking firm(s) bid competitively for a service between two long distance points (at the same relative mileage for both the railroad and highways), and the trucking firm won out, I'd appreciate the information. Then and only then will I grant you a nod of legitimacy regarding the claim of trucks being the competition for railroads.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who doesn't think elements of competition are involved between truckers and other modes of transportation should dig up an article about three months ago in THE NEW YORKER--sorry I can't be more specific but the folks in editorial are usually very nice about locating these things. The article dealt at length with two Canadian lobstermen whose job it was to get live lobsters from Nova Scotia to the UPS hub in Lexington, KY. They knew EXACTLY how long air freight took (it included a change, I believe) and the cost comparisons pro and con. By sleeping in tandem and using a U.S. all-Interstate route, they remained competitive. Note that they are driving over partially subsidized roads (I'm not sure but that the Ohio Turnpike exacts its pound of flesh in terms of tolls), and competing with subsidized airlines considering building of air terminals, etc. But note also that the federal government doesn't have to worry about bailing out FedX's or UPS's airlines--they are quite solvent!

Now, however level or steep the playing field is, if that isn't competition I don't know what is.

[Anonymous]

How would "open access" handle something like when train operater A gets the bid to run down the track at 8 o'clock so operater B settles for an earlier departure at 7. Train B breaks down out on the mainline for several hours, train A who is your major compeditor can't get around you. Boats and trucks can easily just drive or sail around (usualy), but a train can't. Wouln't this type of thing be a major problem in a highly compedative environment? Or what if train B runs at a slower more ecconomical speed then track speed?

At least the way things are right now it would be CSX own fault for delaying another CSX train on a CSX line.

[Murphy Siding]

I'm not computer savy enough to know how to quote things off the forum.so.....
CSSHEGEWISCH: I feel your pain! My city is at the crossroads of two busy interstate hiways. I can't for the life of me figure out why all these non-competitive semi trucks are wizzing by at all times of the day and night? The lumber yard I work for gets about half of it's material from un-competitive suppliers that ship on un-competitve semi trucks. What's the world coming to?

edblysard: I'm glad you got a laugh out of "moral obligation". Just remember,that wasn't my thought, I just "borrowed" it from a local wiz.[;)]

Future Model: You're never at a loss for words.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I think that I just might toss in the towel at this point since in FM's opinion I am making the mistake of seeing the world as it is rather than as he feels it ought to be. I have a friend who was a traffic manager, and most of their traffic went by truck, even on long hauls, because they provided better service for the rate they charged. This may not fit with FM's view of the world, but it IS reality.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

Dave:

Ok, so address this please...

As an advocate of open access, would it apply to all lines? In other words, would all rail lines be owned by the "rail toll roads"?

It is very easy to make a case for the high tonnage lines such as BNSF Transcon, UP Overland, and others. However, at what point does the open access system cease to apply.

Lets say you have the following lines:

CN's ex Grand Trunk Western line from Canada to Chicago. It generates very little on line business, at least in Indiana. In essence it would be a tollway.

The EJE line in Indiana generates and terminates HUGE amounts of trafffic, thanks to the steel mills. It's roll would be much differnent than the CN line.

What about the EJE branch that serves only a couple of customers, perhaps only twice a week?

Do you think the "toll road" will want to purchase this line and maintain it?

Further, if you guarantee open access for some customers, doesnt it mean that all customers would therefore be given the right to service? How would lines be abandoned? Lets say a company moves away from rail service, but wants to keep it's options open...wouldnt they be given "open access", albeit in a form of required service by the "toll road"?

ed

I probably won't be able to answer to your satisfaction, but here't goes....

First, as stated elsewhere I would prefer the fuel tax/maintenance tax credit method of financing open access lines rather than the toll idea, but since you focused on the toll concept.....

I am not familiar with the example lines you mentioned, but I expect that one of them is preferable to the other in terms of point to point transit. I'll sidestep the online traffic question for now. Since railroad "slots" are a much rarer commodity than the available slots for highways and waterways, it is likely a bid process would determine who uses what slots when. Say you have three transport companies who want to leave Point A with a consist at 8 am, and it takes five hours to transit from Point A to Point B via the prefered line vs seven hours via the secondary line. Each company bids for the "prime" slot, but only one company gets it. What do the other two transport companies do? They can either bid for the 8 am slot on the secondary line, move their departure time earlier for the prefered line ahead of the 8 am prime departure time, or bid for a second section slot right behind the first.

If one infrastructure entity owns both lines, they may want to offer a discount on the secondary line if the primary line is nearing capacity. If two separate entities own one line each, the owner of the lesser line may want to provide similar incentives and/or a different operating format that favors their load factor costs over the load factor costs of the transporter. If the prime line is predicated for long heavy trains, the owner of the secondary line may want to host shorter faster consists, and make up for the lesser premium with more trains per time period. Perhaps one infrastructure company will find that the prefered maximum axle weight is 66,000 lbs per (spreading the consist's weight over more axles) while the other may prefer 78,750 lbs per (concentrating the most weight on the fewest axles possible), it all would depend on rail weight, curvature, track profile, relative superelevation, etc. It is my belief that the free market in this case will not designate one winner and one loser with regard to the infrastructure companies (as has been expounded by TRAINS staff when referencing why certain lines survived while others were torn out), but will rather force the "lesser" lines to adjust to differing market aspects, and thus survive and prosper with creative cognitive adjustments. Since you now have a number of transporters needing lines to traverse, rather than having one transporter owning it's own infrastructure, the economic laws regarding absolute advantage and comparative advantage would guarantee all lines would find sufficient clients.

Throw in the differential of online traffic or the lack thereof, and now you have additional concerns for doling out slots. I would think that through traffic would get preference over local traffic, but I may be wrong depending on how the local traffic affects the total revenue picture. Still, the highest bidder would get the most leeway.

So I guess to answer your question, for the toll concept there would be two avenues of revenue - the fixed revenue of the slot, and the variable revenue via a ton/mile fee predicated on allowable weight per axle. The fixed revenue portion is something that would be unique for railroads compared to highways and waterways, which have no such concerns. Depending on how much of the cost is borne by the public via tax credits, federal loan guarantees, or a receipt of a larger porportion of an intermodal trust fund outlay than what was paid in, the fixed revenues would vary thuswise, and the degree of the variable revenues likewise.

Take a look at the TrackShare link. They have devised a way of accounting for usage of track for open access (or some other shared use) which is predicated on full ownership financial responsibility, e.g. no public aid for supporting infrastructure costs. Their program would be a good basis for determining both fixed and variable revenue adequacy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Nothing here convinces me to even contemplate changing my opinion that the open access people are wearing blinders ( and borderline insane) as well as the fact that the Ag and Power people are still just looking for a way to hide their ineptitude and poor business practice.

Reality says Green and Burns have already lost. I don't want to be in the shoes of a track maintenance official if they ever got their way. (1960's revisited)

Not just Ag and Power people, but also domestic manufacturers/industrys e.g. just about everyone in the USA involved in providing home-grown value-added output for domestic consumption and/or export, in other words the "meat and potatos" of the US economy (including the remaining members of the AFL-CIO) are being screwed by monopolist railroad policy. It's amazing that such a large segment of the economy is "inept" while the railroads (an infinately miniscule segment of the economy) are hosting Mensa conventions in their union halls. If indeed U.S. producers are engaged in poor business practices, I guess the worst decision of all is to even try to build up a value-added business within the borders of the country.

Got news for you Mudchicken, it ain't that U.S. producers are inept or engaged in poor business practices, it's that the current closed access rail system is a major source of unnecessary inhibitance to their success potential. Railroads seem to go out of their way to screw U.S. producers, all the while rolling out the red carpet for Communist Chinese imports.

Doesn't it amaze you that railroads are "reinvesting" those skinflint revenues from intermodal operations into making it even easier to import into this country, while at the same time ***-slapping the U.S. producers who provide the greater revenue margins? If it doesn't, they perhaps you're the one who's making time toward the border of insanity.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Geez, so many off the wall retorts, so little time.....

CSSHEGEWISCH - For the umpteenth time, trucks are best at shorthaul, railroads best at medium to long haul of bulk commodities, intermodal combines the two aspects, thus railroad's true competition is other railroads........wait a minute, I just realized I'm kicking a dead horse!

This all sounds quite nice in theory and it may be true but that's not how it's working out in the real world. Long-haul trucking, efficient or not, is a reality and, short of regulatory restrictions, is not going to go away. FedEx uses team drivers on its double bottoms to provide competition for UPS intermodal trains, again the FedEx operation may be as theoretically efficient as the UPS operation, but it is the competition and they do have a share of the market.

Insisting that long-haul trucking is less efficient than rail does not mean that it isn't real competition to rail for business.

Also remember, the Laffer Curve was an interesting economic theory, but the reality proved to be quite different.

CSSHEGEWISCH,

Consider this - Is trucking really "competition" for railroads, or is trucking in fact the primary feeder system for today's railroads? If not for trucks, what besides coal could be moved independently by railroads from source to destination? Grain? Gotta get it from the farm to the unit train facilty somehow. Containers? Worthless unless you can back them up to the loading dock. Chemicals? Perhaps in industry to industry moves, but probably not for retail applications beyond the occassional carload. Maybe auto parts, etc. but the point is that trucks are not the competition for moving auto parts or industrial chemicals, instead they are the feeders for just about everything but coal. Independent of the role as feeder for railroads/barges, trucks are mostly moving time sensitive cargos and/or small lot shipments and/or filling in the gaps left by railroad retrenchment/service denials. Truckers are not out there trying to bid for commodities currently being moved by railroads between nominal railroad terminals. They are bidding for such in combination with barge lines and/or other railroads, but certainly not head to head independently.

Put away you AAR manifesto, because the idea that trucks are THE competition for railroads is just patently false.

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

The power industry has had more investment due to deregulation than would otherwise have occured. The macro economy has benefited by allowing power marketers to use existing capacity rather than each being obligated to build their own lines, e.g. there has been a much more efficient use of capital. Without this energy open access, there would be much less power generation, thus much higher energy prices, and there would be no current incentives to expand and synchronize the once disparate transmission lines. What mark in utah was pointing out regarding the irksomeness of demand for transmission over his company's lines which sometimes results in maxed capacity, is clearly a situation which is tendable and will be absolved when new transmission capacity comes on line. You have to remember, energy regulation is still in it's infancy, yet if we had not had it, the supply intended to meet today's surging demand would be much smaller, and rate increases/blackouts would be much more prevalent.

Do you have a better idea for meeting energy demand? Let me guess, solar, wind, biomass, and above all, government imposed energy rationing aka "conservation". I'll let you in on a not so secret - these feelgood solutions make nice PC headlines and fill the fodder of detached academia, but in reality will only lead to a major recession.

The electric utility for which I am currently consulting has taken advantage of their available capacity (both on a constant basis and demand basis) and resultant cash inflow coming in from the other users of their transmission lines, and using that ca***o upgrade their transmission lines (which should be online by early next year). If not for open access, they would have to raise that cash via a rate increase imposed upon it's members. I would venture a guess that mark in utah's firm is also taking advantage of their available capacity and selling "time" on it's lines for some nice revenues.

[edblysard]

Several,
In many different shapes, sizes and colors...
Overnight shipping is extra...
Ed[:D]

[Anonymous]

Hey Ed,

Didja git yer elk yet?

[edblysard]

"Moral obligation"?

Ha ha ha....
Whew...if there ever was one, it was paid in full the first time a railroad carried a train load of settlers across the Mississippi....
The very farms, ranches and cities you folks live in are the direct result of railroads and their ability to carry huge amounts of product, and people.


Moral obligation.....thats a hoot!
I guess Verizon has a moral obligation to provide cell phone service?

Ha ha ha ...wait...thats also a double ding!

Ed

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Geez, so many off the wall retorts, so little time.....

CSSHEGEWISCH - For the umpteenth time, trucks are best at shorthaul, railroads best at medium to long haul of bulk commodities, intermodal combines the two aspects, thus railroad's true competition is other railroads........wait a minute, I just realized I'm kicking a dead horse!

This all sounds quite nice in theory and it may be true but that's not how it's working out in the real world. Long-haul trucking, efficient or not, is a reality and, short of regulatory restrictions, is not going to go away. FedEx uses team drivers on its double bottoms to provide competition for UPS intermodal trains, again the FedEx operation may be as theoretically efficient as the UPS operation, but it is the competition and they do have a share of the market.

Insisting that long-haul trucking is less efficient than rail does not mean that it isn't real competition to rail for business.

Also remember, the Laffer Curve was an interesting economic theory, but the reality proved to be quite different.

[MP173]

Dave:

Ok, so address this please...

As an advocate of open access, would it apply to all lines? In other words, would all rail lines be owned by the "rail toll roads"?

It is very easy to make a case for the high tonnage lines such as BNSF Transcon, UP Overland, and others. However, at what point does the open access system cease to apply.

Lets say you have the following lines:

CN's ex Grand Trunk Western line from Canada to Chicago. It generates very little on line business, at least in Indiana. In essence it would be a tollway.

The EJE line in Indiana generates and terminates HUGE amounts of trafffic, thanks to the steel mills. It's roll would be much differnent than the CN line.

What about the EJE branch that serves only a couple of customers, perhaps only twice a week?

Do you think the "toll road" will want to purchase this line and maintain it?

Further, if you guarantee open access for some customers, doesnt it mean that all customers would therefore be given the right to service? How would lines be abandoned? Lets say a company moves away from rail service, but wants to keep it's options open...wouldnt they be given "open access", albeit in a form of required service by the "toll road"?

ed