OAT : Open Access Thread

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

We'd probably end up triple tracking the Alaskan railroad rather than fixing Chicago & Houston. But the bigger question is where is this money coming from? It's not free, rather if I understand corectly it's being paid by the shipping companies and the costs would be included in their rates, and ultimately pased on to the consumer. Rather than a railraod CEO deciding what segments of the Transcon need to be upgraded as BNSF is doing, John McCain will be making that decision instead.

The purpose of my notes on the topic was not to suggest that nationalization of the rail right of way was necessarily a solution, although Conrail, Amtrak and the USPS are more typical of how something like that would be set up than the Interstate Highway System. Gets the politicians out of the stew.

Even though, yes, Amtrak is considered by many to be one of the pork barrels.

However, more generally, the purpose was to point out that user-funded, Open Acess systems have demonstrated themselves to be enormously successful, serving the general economy in an outstanding way, and that most of the hostile commentators on this thread suggesting OA was unworkable were overlooking the obvious: that they were probably themselves beneficiaries -- on a daily basis -- of one of the most successful Open Acess transportation systems in the history of the world, and don't even realize it.

Now, as to that transcon construction.

I am still amazed that people think that it is good, under the current Closed Access system, that captive shippers in North Dakota, Montana and elsewhere supply the profit so that BNSF can add more capacity somewhere else to carry even more traffic that yields less than the marginal cost, subsidizing even more shippers from China, completely distorting the markets so as to put more people in Indiana and Illinois out of work.

To borrow the phrase, modern market share pricing strategies in the freight rail industry rob Peter to pay Chen to put Paul out of work.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by MichaelSol
...add more capacity somewhere else to carry even more traffic that yields less than the marginal cost...

Prove it. Show us the data and where it comes from.

[Anonymous]

up829 - If it is true that today's railroads are too big to effectively maximize economies of scale to the point of exhibiting diseconomies of scale, then there would be a great benefit to the industry if some of these companies are split. The question then is whether it is better to split them horizontally or vertically. If we split them horizontally, we basically go back to a rail picture similar to the 70's and 80's, e.g. dozens of Class i's operating in the closed access system. If we split them vertically, we get a half dozen Class I transporters and a half dozen Class I infrastructure owners. I prefer the latter because it opens the door for public participation in infrastructure maintenance, others may prefer the former, while some would insist the current makeup is fine for the time being.

The point is, it may be in the best interests of the rail industry to disperse of some managerial responsibilities into separate entities, and in the process rid themselves of that managerial layer needed to placate the inherent disfunction between MOW divisions and transporter divisions.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



The point is, it may be in the best interests of the rail industry to disperse of some managerial responsibilities into separate entities, and in the process rid themselves of that managerial layer needed to placate the inherent disfunction between MOW divisions and transporter divisions.

futurmodal

If you by chance wonder why you don't get any respect on this forum, the above paragraph is a good example. You could say that there are inherent "conflicts" between MOW divisions and transporter divisions, but to suggest that it is anyway "disfunctional" implies that nothing is ever accomplished.

I would further add that if infrastructure and operating companies were separated there will still need to be managers on each side to work out the conflicts. Otherwise you have this example of disfunction. Infrastructure Company: "Sorry about your hot freight and other trains, we are taking the track out for a week so we can perform the maintanence at minimum cost to us." Operating Company: "Are you kidding? Get your machines and people out of the way, because we are coming through anyway!"

Sorry, but your proposal does not get rid of the "inherent" part.

[Murphy Siding]

Just as a point of reference, I don't consider myself a hostile commentator on this thread.[:)]. I do find it neccesary to ask a lot of questions.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by MichaelSol
...add more capacity somewhere else to carry even more traffic that yields less than the marginal cost...

Prove it. Show us the data and where it comes from.

I've provided plenty of data and references. You can do some of the work for once. If you think its profitable, show us the data and prove it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by MichaelSol
...add more capacity somewhere else to carry even more traffic that yields less than the marginal cost...

Prove it. Show us the data and where it comes from.

I've provided plenty of data and references. You can do some of the work for once. If you think its profitable, show us the data and prove it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I do not beleve you.

[PNWRMNM]

Futuremodal,

For the benefit of those on this forum who are willing to learn I will elaborate on Mark Hemphill's post of August 5, found on Page 6 of this thread.

His statement, paraphrased, was that high rail rates (transportation costs) encourage local manufacturing and low rail rates encourge distant manufacturing.

You responded on the 9th demanding a source for this "theory", and in a later post the same day you claimed that his statement made no sense.

His original statement is a one paragraph summary of Chapter 1 of "Economics of Transportation" by D. Phillip Locklin Ph. D., Emeritus Professor of Economics University of Illinois. I have the 6th Edition published in 1966 by Richard D. Irwin. Inc Homewood IL. I suspect the book is available in most University librarys.

Some extracts follow:

The application of the steam engine to navigation in 1807, and to land transportation, through the invention of the locomotive in 1829, opened an era of cheap transportation. This cheap transportation was one of the basic facts on which the economic life of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was built. - Page 1

The most obvious effect of cheap transportation is to make available to a community the goods which must of necessity be produced elsewhere. A community without cheap transportation must be largely self sufficing. - Page 2

Cheap transportation reduces the price of goods by lowering the cost of producing them. The most obvious way in which this is brought about is through the reduction in the cost of getting goods from the point of production to the consumer. The freight rates on goods are in reality costs of production. The process of production is not complete until goods are placed in the hands of consumers. - Page 4

As usual your statements are at variance with the economic facts as stated by the distinguished professor and taught in the transportation classes I took at the University of Washington.

Mark - I know you do not need my protection but figured you didn't cart your Locklin to Baghdad.

Ed - Proudly of your ilk!

Mac

[Anonymous]

Jay - Only someone with his head stuck in the mud would not respect the diversity of opinion on this forum, mine included. You have every right to disagree with any of my posts and still keep your self respect, but if you cannot fathom the meaning of what is being said that is your fault, not mine. Whether you deserve any respect for your opinions is a highly subjective matter. Obviously, when you abase yourself with cheap pot shots, your level of deserved respect will fall precipitously.

BTW, "conflict" and "disfunction" are synonymous. We all know railroading's sorry history of using deferred ROW maintenance to keep the stock price attractive. If you don't think deferred maintenance is a sign of disfunction, I've got a bridge at Riparia I'd like to sell you.

This can only happen because company revenues are dependent on transporter operations, not on any rents collected from track usage which would occur under OA.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Futuremodal,

For the benefit of those on this forum who are willing to learn I will elaborate on Mark Hemphill's post of August 5, found on Page 6 of this thread.

His statement, paraphrased, was that high rail rates (transportation costs) encourage local manufacturing and low rail rates encourge distant manufacturing.

You responded on the 9th demanding a source for this "theory", and in a later post the same day you claimed that his statement made no sense.

His original statement is a one paragraph summary of Chapter 1 of "Economics of Transportation" by D. Phillip Locklin Ph. D., Emeritus Professor of Economics University of Illinois. I have the 6th Edition published in 1966 by Richard D. Irwin. Inc Homewood IL. I suspect the book is available in most University librarys.

Some extracts follow:

The application of the steam engine to navigation in 1807, and to land transportation, through the invention of the locomotive in 1829, opened an era of cheap transportation. This cheap transportation was one of the basic facts on which the economic life of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was built. - Page 1

The most obvious effect of cheap transportation is to make available to a community the goods which must of necessity be produced elsewhere. A community without cheap transportation must be largely self sufficing. - Page 2

Cheap transportation reduces the price of goods by lowering the cost of producing them. The most obvious way in which this is brought about is through the reduction in the cost of getting goods from the point of production to the consumer. The freight rates on goods are in reality costs of production. The process of production is not complete until goods are placed in the hands of consumers. - Page 4

As usual your statements are at variance with the economic facts as stated by the distinguished professor and taught in the transportation classes I took at the University of Washington.

Mark - I know you do not need my protection but figured you didn't cart your Locklin to Baghdad.

Ed - Proudly of your ilk!

Mac

A solid introduction to the impact of transprotation costs on plant location can be found in Chapter 4; Freight Rates and the Location of Industries and Market Centers.

Those interested in differenal railroad pricing would be well served if the got to know Locklin. We used Locklin for Transportation 101 at the University of Tennesse.

[edblysard]

Benefit?
You mean the benefit where I can’t drive the 5 miles from loop 610 out IH10 to Katy after 3:00pm, because of the 60,000 cars trying to dive on the open access 3 lane highway?
Or the benefit of the pollution that causes my city to be in the top ten worst air city list?

You mean the benefit where they have been building IH45, the Gulf Freeway, from Houston to Galveston, since 1965, and it still isn’t complete?

You mean the system that’s is so crowded and so dangerous that my auto insurance is twice the national average, even though I haven’t had a accident, ever, nor had a traffic citation in over 25 years?

You mean the open access system that is so bad, that over 30000 drivers have given up driving on it, and instead take the light rail system, even though it is a single line from South Houston to downtown?

Funny, but from what I see, that wonderful open access system seems to be stumbling along, maintained by so many different local DOTs that, driving from Houston to Austin, you can encounter everything from bad, old wore out black top, to patched concrete laid in the late 60s, to new, grooved hybrid materials, all of which are installed on a county by county basis...none of it uniform, most of it needing repair, with bridges and overpasses already hitting the end of their user lifespan, and with no plans to even inspect them, much less repair them...that system?

The one where the benefit of the double trailer, the pup trailer of the UPS guys, ripped a hunk of concrete out of and nailed the grill of my Jeep...the one that, since I have started driving back in the 70s, has been obsolete to the point that, by the time the contractors manage to bribe the right guys, and start on their rebuilding program, the traffic density has tripled beyond the capacity of the new project to carry...that open access system?

Not hostile, Mike, just a realist....the rails can only hold so many trains, the yards hold only so many cars, the traffic can only run at a set rate of speed.
Unless you have the worlds deepest pockets, none of what you guys propose can even begin to be paid for, the Federal Government can’t afford it, investors can’t, and won’t even consider it.

This is all a great exercise in the game of "what if" but it still won’t work in the real world, under our current form of government.

Trust me, greed and profit have motivated all forms of business, if there was a better and faster way to make even more money, the railroads would have gone for it long ago...

You guys have gotten so deep into your wish list that you have lost sight of the fact that railroads are not public utilities, regardless of how much you want them to be, or how you interpret the common carrier act, or how your massage a balance sheet, nor how much you ignore the realities of the enormous size of the national railroad structure, they are a for profit businesses, and the cost of your wonder sidings, global logistic parks, super cars and stack and a half containers.....so forth and so on, is far beyond the ability of anyone, or any government to pay for, nationalized railroad or not....

Ed

[Anonymous]

Mac,

As usual, you miss the point. Mark made his statement in the context of an open access thread, and only the cheap shot artists on this forum cannot or will not make the connection of Mark's statement with the topic title. The hypothesis is this: Open access will result in lower rail rates for captive shippers. If you can take this hypothesis and willingly give it a level of credibility, then the next logical step to discuss is how those lower rates for captive shippers will affect the national trade scene. Since there are no captive importers outside North America (since all avenues of importation are availed of multiple rail carrier options), then that means that for the most part only domestic and exporting producers are captive. If those captive producers are then gifted with lower rail rates due to OA, what possible reason would there be for any of them to pull up stakes and move their operation overseas, specifically reasons that they do not take advantage of now? If you would kindly come up with some potential examples of this happening, I'd be glad to take back my assertion that Mark's statement makes no sense in this context. Until then, to say my statement is at variance with economic theory is not credible.

[edblysard]

So your saying that, unless someone argues with you only on your theories, address only what you wi***o have addressed, and are pro open access, their posting are irrelevant.

In other words, it’s your ball, and if you can’t be the quarterback, no one else can play?

Talk about having a set of blinders on...

Silly, I though you were going to follow the rules of organized debate, I forgot this is your personal soapbox, where the only rules that apply are the rules you decide employee on any given day.

So this all boils down to the fact that this is the only place where you can write all this stuff, and actually have someone with more intelligence that an empty cat food can read it, and when people point out the holes in your theory, you get to decide what they said is not credible...and claim they either have to be ignored, or that what they really meant is whatever you decide they mean...

The ilk are laughing so hard I can’t hear the TV....

This entire thread is a farce, your one of those people that can never be argued with, because you refuse to ever, even on the smallest point, concede that you could ever be wrong on anything...which means your mind is so closed to other ideas that you’re blind.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Bob,

Unless you've been duct-taped in Ed's basement these past few decades, you probably would admit that imports into this country excede exports, which means inbound containers are all full while many outbound containers run empty. You would also know that intermodal profit margins for railroads are extremely thin and have been since the first piggyback experiments. Finally, take a look at where the railroads are spending money for track upgrades - it's the intermodal lanes, not the grain or coal lanes. One can only conclude that railroads are taking the money earned from grain and coal, spending it on improving intermodal lanes which will make it even easier to bring in goods from overseas, which will only put more pressure on the remaining U.S. producers who compete with imported goods to move or close shop. It is axoimatic at this point that the railroads are responsible to a certain degree for contributing to the trade deficit. They certainly aren't making it any easier to export out of the country.

[PNWRMNM]

Futuremodal,

You miss the point. Mark was responding to the previous post, and suggested that Jay look at it in a different way.

You questioned Mark's basis. I supplied Mark's basis and you accused me of missing the point.

That is the reason I do not generally bother with your blather. The reason I responded was to educate those follwing this thread who are capable of thinking, both to the economic point Mark made, and to your consistent nonsense. Your response was perfect.

The ilk thank you.

Mac

[Murphy Siding]

Zoom! Went right over my head in a hurry.I can see hoe it is put forth that "captive" shippers *might* receive lower rates due to OA. I haven't seen yet, a plausible explanation as to how OA would improve the rest of the rail system. In fact, I've read lots of plausible explanations as to why we could expect rail rates to go up.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Bob,

You would also know that intermodal profit margins for railroads are extremely thin and have been since the first piggyback experiments.

Suggest you do another thing after you get a copy of Locklin. Get up to date on intemodal. I presume you have heard of double stacks. In the last ten years margins on intermodal containers have been just fine.

[edblysard]

Dave, I live in Houston.

We dont have basements...
too wet and soggy, but then you know all about wet and soggy, right?

Now, out in the barn is a different story!

And no one is ever duct taped in the barn without prior mutual consent...

Ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by MichaelSol
...add more capacity somewhere else to carry even more traffic that yields less than the marginal cost...

Prove it. Show us the data and where it comes from.

I've provided plenty of data and references. You can do some of the work for once. If you think its profitable, show us the data and prove it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I do not beleve you.

And I don't believe you either. Now, don't you feel much better. But, you can do your own homework, you didn' t purchase this data set.

And I would suggest something more current than Phil Locklin, good grief that was first written during the Depression. One of my profs had it with his antique books, next to Keynes ....

Things have changed .... there was never an edition of that book written that didn't involve highly regulated, stable railroad rates.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Futuremodal,

You miss the point. Mark was responding to the previous post, and suggested that Jay look at it in a different way.

You questioned Mark's basis. I supplied Mark's basis and you accused me of missing the point.

That is the reason I do not generally bother with your blather. The reason I responded was to educate those follwing this thread who are capable of thinking, both to the economic point Mark made, and to your consistent nonsense. Your response was perfect.

The ilk thank you.

Mac

Mac,

Sorry you decided to become one of Ed's disciples. I pity you.

Here's Mark's last sentence, unedited:

"Those who want even lower rail rates than we already have would encourage the offshoring of even more things that are still manufactured in the U.S. of A."

Fine. Keep it in that context if it makes you feel good about yourself, and ignore the fact that the statement was made in a thread regarding open access and after previous posts that equate OA with lowering rates for captive shippers.

But unless you are an idiot, you also know that lowering the outbound costs of U.S. producers will make them more competitive in the domestic and export markets. I asked for an example of an industry captive to one railroad that would take flight overseas if their outbound rail transportation costs were lowered. None was offered. How about the U.S. steel industry? the U.S. auto industry? plastics? chemicals? If they were given lower outbound rail rates, would anyone dare say that such would be an impetus for them to move their operations overseas?

Mark dared to say it without any further clarification on his part, though some of you have taken it upon yourselves to clarify on Mark's behalf. Do us all a favor, and let Mark speak for himself if he so chooses.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
But, you can do your own homework, you didn't purchase this data set.

I have a freind in Washington who might like to buy this data set. Who can he get it from?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Zoom! Went right over my head in a hurry.I can see hoe it is put forth that "captive" shippers *might* receive lower rates due to OA. I haven't seen yet, a plausible explanation as to how OA would improve the rest of the rail system. In fact, I've read lots of plausible explanations as to why we could expect rail rates to go up.

And those "plausible" explanations for rail rates going up under OA are what? Multiple users causing higher costs? Funny, we already have situations of multiple users here in the U.S., and no one has offered any evidence that such multiple use results in higher costs on a tonnage moved basis. Come to think of it, I was the only one who offered a counterargument to my own statement that OA would result in lower rates, in that it would be harder for host railroads to engage in and get away with deferred maintenance. After all, it costs more to keep the tracks in optimal shape day in and day out.

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Bob,

Unless you've been duct-taped in Ed's basement these past few decades, you probably would admit that imports into this country excede exports, which means inbound containers are all full while many outbound containers run empty.

Do RR's run outbound cars empty?

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Bob,

Unless you've been duct-taped in Ed's basement these past few decades, you probably would admit that imports into this country excede exports, which means inbound containers are all full while many outbound containers run empty.

Do RR's run outbound cars empty?

I'm not sure I understand your question but with carload traffic the cars usually return empty. If you can work out a loaded move in both directions the costs go way down.

In the packaged trucking industry a great deal of attention is paid to having a load in both directions. Truckers hate markets where they can not find backhauls. As an example the use to say that for every ten southbound loads into Houston their was one load northbound. The few shippers with Northbound loads, such as packaged polypropylene, got very attractive rates from Houston to the North and East.

[edblysard]

I have disciples too?
Cool!
(And all this time I though I just had ilk!)

They don’t make like a shot or a spray for this stuff, do they?

You know, just in case I decide to go over to the Dark Side!

Ed[:D]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Zoom! Went right over my head in a hurry.I can see hoe it is put forth that "captive" shippers *might* receive lower rates due to OA. I haven't seen yet, a plausible explanation as to how OA would improve the rest of the rail system. In fact, I've read lots of plausible explanations as to why we could expect rail rates to go up.

And those "plausible" explanations for rail rates going up under OA are what? Multiple users causing higher costs? Funny, we already have situations of multiple users here in the U.S., and no one has offered any evidence that such multiple use results in higher costs on a tonnage moved basis. Come to think of it, I was the only
one who offered a counterargument to my own statement that OA would result in lower rates, in that it would be harder for host railroads to engage in and get away with deferred maintenance. After all, it costs more to keep the tracks in optimal shape day in and day out.

Geez, Dave don't get cranky with me, I didn't throw down any gauntlet ![:)]. So explain to me how OA is going to save any money on non-captive customers.
Thanks ( watch that blood pressure- I'm not the enemy, I'm just asking .)

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
But, you can do your own homework, you didn't purchase this data set.

I have a freind in Washington who might like to buy this data set. Who can he get it from?

Well, first, you get a shipper, or someone anyway, willing to pay for the effort of obtaining and analyzing the data. Then you get a recommendation from a former BN President, and a recommendation from a former BN Vice President who created BN's Marketing Dept to vouch for your bona fides,and this has to move the then-current VP finance BNSF to provide the data.

The "data set" is then created from the information provided.

Otherwise, it is proprietary, and remains so after analysis.

Hence the remark: "do your own homework."

Good luck. Let us know how you do.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Zoom! Went right over my head in a hurry.I can see hoe it is put forth that "captive" shippers *might* receive lower rates due to OA. I haven't seen yet, a plausible explanation as to how OA would improve the rest of the rail system. In fact, I've read lots of plausible explanations as to why we could expect rail rates to go up.

And those "plausible" explanations for rail rates going up under OA are what? Multiple users causing higher costs? Funny, we already have situations of multiple users here in the U.S., and no one has offered any evidence that such multiple use results in higher costs on a tonnage moved basis. Come to think of it, I was the only
one who offered a counterargument to my own statement that OA would result in lower rates, in that it would be harder for host railroads to engage in and get away with deferred maintenance. After all, it costs more to keep the tracks in optimal shape day in and day out.

Geez, Dave don't get cranky with me, I didn't throw down any gauntlet ![:)]. So explain to me how OA is going to save any money on non-captive customers.
Thanks ( watch that blood pressure- I'm not the enemy, I'm just asking .)

I guess subtle references to "blond jokes" and the like don't count as any gauntlet, right?

To answer your topic question, it depends on just how "non-captive" those non-captive customers are. Do they have access to two railroads? If so, they are paying much lower rates than captive customers, but are still subject to duopoly actions. If it is three or more, then the rates probably won't be subject to any more downward pressure from de facto competition, but the ability of outsider transportation companies to provide more responsive transportation services (e.g. J.B. Hunt running their own consists by their rules, not the railroad's) may result in lowering shipping costs as they relate to expediency. I say "may" result, because there is no way to test this theory under the current closed access system, we can only observe how responsiveness is characterized by the open access highway system and try to transpose that onto a hypothetical OA rail system.

[jeaton]

Futuremodal

I am going to begin this by stating flatly that I DO NOT dispute you primary contention an increase of two or more rail operators at points now served by only one carrier will result in reduced rail rates. In fact, it is entirely possible that the lowest rate being offered in such circumstances may fall below the marginal cost to provide the service, however the business entity posting such a low rate may choose not to show up to pick up the load or may find itself unable to provide the business due to the lack of ca***o pay the crews. However that is but a minor problem, because with an "anybody can use the tracks" system, another entity can go get a locomotive, a driver or two, round up some cars and go in business at rates lower than necessary to stay in business. That is the kind of thing that happens in the trucking business all the time.

You suggest that the open access highway system should be the observable model for an open access rail system. You would be correct if the highway infrastructure primarily consisted of one lane in each direction and was built in a way that physically restricted the ability of the trucker to change lanes at anything less than say 10 mile intervals. OK, I'll throw in some stretches with two or three lanes each way, but won't give you much greater opportunities for lane changes.

Are there any differences worthy of note? I submit that you are attempting to have an open access operation on a structure which is, at least compared to other modes, a physically limited access system. Now you can make the trains shorter, longer or even stack them one on top of another, but unlike any other mode where a lane change can be made virtually any time it is safe, your train of any size can only make a lane change when track is in place to allow the change.

I guess if my head wasn’t stuck in the mud, I could come up with the solution for that problem. Perhaps replacing all the track with a ten foot wide slab of concrete and taking the flanges off the wheels would work.

If you happen to find this post a little contemptuous, then I will tell you it reflects my view of people who are convinced that only their opinions are correct and an as necessary choose to overlook the possibility that the solutions they promote might cause problems worse than the issue they want to solve. Politicians have a dodge by calling it “unintended consequences”, or in other words, we really didn’t think this thing through.

By the way, I suppose my dictionary could be obsolete, but I could not locate any suggestion that conflict and dysfunction are synonymous. Yes, I am well aware of the sorry history of railroad managers sending money to the railroad owners rather than putting the money into track maintenance. I am also aware of the many cases where, in spite of the recognition of the need and the best effort to fill the need, railroads were unable to generate the ca***o do the work. Which raises a side question. Will the regulations for your infrastructure companies specify when, where and how much is to be spent on track maintenance? Will the regulations be able to reconcile any cost differences between competitive points?

Back to the two words. There is always a "conflict" between the needs of the maintanence of way and the operating departments. Conflict will not go away even if these departments belong to two separate entities. If there are no managers in place to resolves the conflicts, then you will have disfunction.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
But, you can do your own homework, you didn't purchase this data set.

I have a freind in Washington who might like to buy this data set. Who can he get it from?

Well, first, you get a shipper, or someone anyway, willing to pay for the effort of obtaining and analyzing the data. Then you get a recommendation from a former BN President, and a recommendation from a former BN Vice President who created BN's Marketing Dept to vouch for your bona fides,and this has to move the then-current VP finance BNSF to provide the data.

The "data set" is then created from the information provided.

Otherwise, it is proprietary, and remains so after analysis.

Hence the remark: "do your own homework."

Good luck. Let us know how you do.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Once again you say something and can not back it up. I assume just about everything you say can not be backed up.