QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal As usual, the Bobsey twins spew forth their collective illogic. I will correct. 1. It was greyhounds who first brought up the issue of open access in this case, stating that since PP can haul in coal by truck it *proves* that PP is not captive. Again, the accepted definition (by both the railroads and rail shippers) of a "captive shipper" is one in which said shipper only has physical access to one Class I railroad, or one in which a major supplier only has physical access to one Class I, e.g. somewhere along the line haul there is opportunity for monopolistic rate setting by one or more of the railroads. If the entire line haul is handled under competitive bid by the railroads, there is no captivity. 2. It was assumed by greyhounds and myself that PP only had access to one Class I (UP). Apparently, PP also has a new spur courtesy of CP according to zardoz, so they are only captive in the duopolistic sense. However, for this particular move, it is not clear if either CP and/or UP can have coal transloaded from barge to rail via Jones Island. I would think that if they can load trucks from barge, they should be able to load rail hoppers from barge. In the larger picture, what usually happens when the big boys decline business, someone else simply steps in to take advantage of the niche opportunity. But since those rail lines are not open for such niche players, the default action always ends up on the highways at taxpayer expense.
Originally posted by zardoz Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply ndbprr Member sinceSeptember 2002 7,481 posts Posted by ndbprr on Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:08 AM I suspect that coal is moving by rail since I have never heard of canals or rivers that are navigable in Wyoming. If I were to bet it is coming into Chicago at the old Rail to Water Transfer company now owned by Koch Industries on 106th St. and barged to many places on the lake. Koch is a broker and it is their resposnibility to get the coal to the plant the cheapest way possible. So before anybody gets their shorts in a knot it's business guys and the idea is to make money and there is nothnig wrong with that or else we should all be turning down our paychecks. Reply CShaveRR Member sinceJune 2001 From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois 13,681 posts Posted by CShaveRR on Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:14 AM As Paul mentioned a page or so ago, it doesn't take too many trains to carry 800,000 tons of coal to the plant. He figured 80 trains, based on a 10,000 ton net payload (100 cars carrying 100 tons each). Well, try 135 cars carrying 120 tons each, and you're getting about 16,000 tons net. That's down to 50 trains now. One train a week, for a year. As we speak, there are two trains headed toward Pleasant Prairie on the former CNW east-west main. Carl Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!) CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:26 PM Greyhounds - I will copy and paste your name as it appears in the upper lefthand corner: greyhounds Hmmm, not capitalized. If capitalizing the first letter of your forum name is that important, you might want to make some changes on your profile page. On to more important issues. I did not quote you, rather I took the gist of your first post in this thread and commented on it. Again, the definition of "captive shipper" is of a rail shipper that only has direct rail access (rates and services) to one Class I. This is the accepted definition by both shippers and the railroads. Only you a a few others on this forum have contrived a new definition that better fits your narrow (dare I say closed access?) view of the railroading world. My definition is based on the generally accepted terms used by both the rail industry and rail shippers. What's your definition based on? Clearly, it is you who cannot argue OA in any kind of honest fashion. 30 years ago the railroads were still regulated, and multi-carrier line hauls were governed by a set of rules that prohibited paper barriers and bottlenecking, e.g. each railroad's rates were based on actual percentage of miles each hauled the item. That's why you could utilize rail carriers other than only the one with the physical connection to your facility. Do you really think in this day and age that BNSF would offer a mileage based rate from your plant to CP or UP? Of course not, what BNSF will do is offer a bottleneck rate whose total charge for a few miles is probably more than the long haul charge of the connecting Class I. Oh well, more business for the trucking industry, more cheap imports to replace shut down domestic production! Granted, intermodalism has changed the definition of captive for certain commodities in certain areas. These days, those multimodal supply chain combinations allow those select commodities to be drayed short distances to an alternate railroad, if any alternatives have availed themselves in the area. That might work in the MIdwest with it's close proximity to 7 Class I's. It doesn't work in Montana, Southern Idaho, or most of the rest of the West where there is only one Class I within short to medium trucking distance, and at best two Class I's both of which are running "full" right now and really don't want the extra business (see the thread entitled "Wanted: A third Class I to serve the West"). It also doens't work for commodities like coal and aggregates that have to be loaded at the mine by unit train to make the economics work. Even you cannot deny or demean the simple truth regarding open access and how it would apply to the Pleasant Prairie sitution. OA would open the door of opportunity for niche players to create new rail business, in this case running shorthaul shuttle trains from the barge port to the plant. BTW, these shuttles don't have to be and logically should not be 100+ units of 286k cars, they would work much better as 25 unit shuttles - fewer cars to buy or lease (or get up to service levels in the case of decommissioned but still servicable 264k or even 220k hoppers/gondolas), better utilization of cars and crews, yet still getting 200 trips per year (e.g. no idle cars and crews for much of the year). Reply Edit greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,370 posts Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:32 PM Well, FM I suggest that if you ever get a dog you don't get a Greyhound. They make wonderful pets but you need something else. You need a bloodhound that can snif out your sense of humor - you really need to find that. To quote the great, imortal Longhorn Leghorn: "It's a Joke Son". To get on to your argument, there was little, if any, regulation of divisions of revenue between rail carriers. Sometimes railroads had to agree to establish rates over "gateways" in order to get approval for other actions. (The infamous Milwaukee Road "gateways" granted as a condition of the BN merger come to mind.) But generally the revenue splits were unregulated and left to carrier's discretion and negotiation. This made "Plan 1" piggyback a lot of fun. This was a common carrier truckline using TOFC. Technically, we, the railroad, were taking a "division" of the trucker's revenue. We could do anything without regulatory interferance as long as it was a common carrier truckline. We'd haul the freight, then negotiate the charge, do all kinds of fun things. Shoot, we hauled air freight. If the airplane couldn't fly because of weather they'd give it to a trucker, then the trucker would give it to us because the trucker also couldn't move because of the weather. We'd work out the money after the fact. Despite what you say, divisions of revenue between carriers were pretty much free from regulation. In general, no sane management would undercut its long haul business by establishing a shuttle to facilitate a competing mode's movement. At the ICG we hauled grain over the Ohio River and on down to the Gulf. We weren't about to establish rates that made barge movement more economical. Now there may be a special case that justifies such a thing - but generally, it ain't gonna' happen. Now you may say that under OA a train operator would establi***hose rates to the barges on the Ohio. But that's all you'd be doing, you'd just be saying it. What you do not understand is that a huge portion (I heard Ed Burkhart say it was 70% and my experience tells me he's not far off) of rail costs are fixed. The track owner would want every revenue ton-mile moving over its plant that it could handle. The track owner wouldn't logically establish a charge to the train operator that diverted needed revenue from the track owner. He'd set the usage charge so as to encourage long haul movement over his physical plant to the Gulf. And the power plant we are talking about IS in the Midwest, it is located on the UP maybe 5 miles from Lake Michigan and within easy, economical trucking distance of the CP, CN and EJ&E as well as the lake transportation. If it's within ecnomical trucking distance from competing carriers it just ain't "captive" to any railroad. You just keep making unsupported claims for OA. I'm not opposed to the concept. But I see problems with it. Are there any papers you can cite supporting the idea. Nothing by lawyers please. They get paid to advance an idea. Have you got anything from an economist? "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:04 PM Greyhounds(or greyhounds): Since we're in a *corrective* mood, it's Foghorn Leghorn [:)]. Coincidentally, my kids call passing gas at our house "doing a foghorn".[;)] futuremodal(or Futuremodal) has a sense of humor. I've seen it. He does need to excercise it a little more.[;)] Foghorn Leghorn is a hero of mine.[^] "I say....Isay....son....."[:-^] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:32 PM greyhounds - go the the Open Access thread, there you will find all the papers you need. And like we've also discussed, under OA you are more likely to see trains operated in the "shorter, faster" model, because track owners not only want as many revenue units as possible, they also want expedite those revenue movements so more capacity is available for more revenue units. Secondly, there is no law against transportation companies acting as multimodal transportation companies. UPS and FedEx understand this, why not J.B. Hunt, Tidewater, and Kansas City Southern? Don't be just a trucking company or a railroad company, instead be a transportation company with trucking, barging, and railroad divisions. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kurtconi M.S. About 25% goes to Detroit Edison at St Clair MI .(Port Huron area) 25% to Monroe MI.(Lake Erie). 15% to Ontario Power Generation Nanticoke ON.. (Lake Eire) less than 5% to Lambton ON. (Sarnia ON.)..... Was scheduled to close next year, but not now. The rest goes to Consumers Power, WE, MN.Power and local industry. We only ship out about 20 million tons per year. All of the customers we ship to blend the PRB coal with Eastern//Southern Coal to get the best burn. The Eastern Coal tonage is about 5 to 1. If this thread is going to go wacky on us....let it die. Kurt. We vacation on the northshore every year, and always take a boat trip around the Duluth Harbor.(Well, this year we took 4 boat trips around the harbor, but that's just because my wife likes boat rides!) I'm always impressed with the BIG piles of coal and everything else on the docks at Duluth. Are you saying that the coal on the docks from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, that gets shipped out of the twin ports gets mixed 1 part to 5 parts eastern coal? That's weird. Alot of threads get wacky. Sometimes they drift back, and sometimes they ride off into the sunset.[:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply UP_North Member sinceJuly 2004 From: chicagoland 48 posts Posted by UP_North on Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:59 AM Being an engineer that delivers trains to Pleasant Prairie, I can tell you they run with 135 cars at 143 tons each. They are just over 19,000 tons a train. Has anyone thought that the dumper at P-4 was broke and their stockpile was getting low. Wisconsin Electric didn't have the spare equipment (about 8 sets between P-4 and Oak Creek), and the UP with major track going on the Geneva sub, maybe it decided this was the best way to repleni***he stockpile was to truck it in. Also note that all empty hopper trains from Pleasant Prairie, Oak Creek, and Sheboygan are going north via the twin cities, which adds a couple days to a cycle. Or maybe not. Reply CShaveRR Member sinceJune 2001 From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois 13,681 posts Posted by CShaveRR on Monday, October 24, 2005 12:06 AM Thanks for the info, Mr. North. The 120-ton figure I gave was for net tonnage, based on the 242000-pound (or so) load limit I've seen on most of the newer WEPX cars (of course, you're right for the gross tonnage, which is what you have to handle all the time). Carl Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!) CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM) Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:46 PM I see on the Boatnerd website (http://www.boatnerd.org) that Oglebay Norton's Steamer "Middletown" is scheduled to haul two loads of coal from MERC to WE Energies in Milwaukee next week. 17,500 tons each trip. This could be some of that coal. Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:45 PM beaulieu, you may be correct. I talked with my nephew today; he said the place where he is picking up the coal is empty now, with some due in a few days. He was only able to find out that the coal is DEFINITELY coming from Superior! Is there any way to get coal to Superior other than by train? And if it is coming to Superior by train, why is it being transloaded for the short trip from there to Kenosha? That seems very inefficient to me. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,514 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:02 AM As mentioned elsewhere, the shipper calls the shots. If Wisconsin Electric is getting a better rate for a rail/boat shipment by way of Superior, then that's the way the coal will move. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz beaulieu, you may be correct. I talked with my nephew today; he said the place where he is picking up the coal is empty now, with some due in a few days. He was only able to find out that the coal is DEFINITELY coming from Superior! Is there any way to get coal to Superior other than by train? And if it is coming to Superior by train, why is it being transloaded for the short trip from there to Kenosha? That seems very inefficient to me. All coal except the rare load of Met Coal comes into Superior by train. Mostly by BNSF but UP gets a small amount. MERC is a subsidiary of Detroit Edison, and WE Energies may have bought the coal from them. Also much of the coal at MERC comes from Montana mines which haven't been affected by the problems in Wyoming. Finally boat shipping rates are lower even with the longer distance especially since there is overcapacity on the Lakes right now with the drop off in Iron Ore shipping. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:01 PM Are you sure this is PRB coal, or even domestic coal? I recall that a few years back you could get low sulfer 11,000 Btu/Lb coal out of Indonesia and China for around $5.00/mt. Even if that price has doubled since then, it's still alot cheaper on a $$/Btu basis than even PRB coal. If it is from overseas, that would make more sense than that coal coming from the PRB via BNSF or UP to Superior, then by barge down to Kenosha (which I assume is also conected to rail via UP and/or BNSF). The only scenario I can see that fits that somewhat convaluted routing is if one of the PRB players doens't have a direct rail connection to the WE facility, and doesn't want to let it's competitor play "spin the bottleneck" aka shorthaul rate manipulation. Reply Edit beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Are you sure this is PRB coal, or even domestic coal? I recall that a few years back you could get low sulfer 11,000 Btu/Lb coal out of Indonesia and China for around $5.00/mt. Even if that price has doubled since then, it's still alot cheaper on a $$/Btu basis than even PRB coal. If it is from overseas, that would make more sense than that coal coming from the PRB via BNSF or UP to Superior, then by barge down to Kenosha (which I assume is also conected to rail via UP and/or BNSF). The only scenario I can see that fits that somewhat convaluted routing is if one of the PRB players doens't have a direct rail connection to the WE facility, and doesn't want to let it's competitor play "spin the bottleneck" aka shorthaul rate manipulation. The coal coming from Superior isn't a guess, it is directly from the MERC website via a link on the Boatnerd website. MERC exists because several of Detroit Edisons powerplants are located on the Detroit River and the St. Clair River and not connected to any Railroad. Therefore all coal to these plants must come from Great Lakes vessels. Any coal coming from Overseas would most likely have to be transshiped as most Oceangoing Bulkers are too large for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Coal from Colombia is commonly imported into the US but mainly goes to plants in Florida and via the Port of Norfolk. The cost to move it into the interior of the US is too high. To give you an example of an odd move of Lake Coal there is a shipment of Colorado coal coming into MERC next week via the UP. It will be loaded into the Laker Presque Isle at MERC and will move from there to CLM's Limestone Dock in another part of the harbor and be unloaded. All this to avoid interchanging the coal trains to BNSF for a move of less than one mile. MERC does have automated car-dumping equipment which CLM lacks,but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Are you sure this is PRB coal, or even domestic coal? I recall that a few years back you could get low sulfer 11,000 Btu/Lb coal out of Indonesia and China for around $5.00/mt. Even if that price has doubled since then, it's still alot cheaper on a $$/Btu basis than even PRB coal. If it is from overseas, that would make more sense than that coal coming from the PRB via BNSF or UP to Superior, then by barge down to Kenosha (which I assume is also conected to rail via UP and/or BNSF). The only scenario I can see that fits that somewhat convaluted routing is if one of the PRB players doens't have a direct rail connection to the WE facility, and doesn't want to let it's competitor play "spin the bottleneck" aka shorthaul rate manipulation. The coal coming from Superior isn't a guess, it is directly from the MERC website via a link on the Boatnerd website. MERC exists because several of Detroit Edisons powerplants are located on the Detroit River and the St. Clair River and not connected to any Railroad. Therefore all coal to these plants must come from Great Lakes vessels. Any coal coming from Overseas would most likely have to be transshiped as most Oceangoing Bulkers are too large for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Coal from Colombia is commonly imported into the US but mainly goes to plants in Florida and via the Port of Norfolk. The cost to move it into the interior of the US is too high. To give you an example of an odd move of Lake Coal there is a shipment of Colorado coal coming into MERC next week via the UP. It will be loaded into the Laker Presque Isle at MERC and will move from there to CLM's Limestone Dock in another part of the harbor and be unloaded. All this to avoid interchanging the coal trains to BNSF for a move of less than one mile. MERC does have automated car-dumping equipment which CLM lacks,but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move. So my latter suspicions turn out to be true? Railroads would rather give traffic to "competitor(s)" of a different mode via a roundabout, convaluted routing than to interchange in a more logical routing intramodally with another rail competitor? Doesn't this strike rail observers as odd behaviour, given AAR press releases about "taking trucks off the highways and onto rails" et al? If railroads really see other railroads as their main competition, and not barge lines and truckers, doesn't that confirm my suspicions that barge lines and trucking companies are actually enablers of rail traffic rather than competitors for rail traffic? Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this? Reply Edit beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So my latter suspicions turn out to be true? Railroads would rather give traffic to "competitor(s)" of a different mode via a roundabout, convaluted routing than to interchange in a more logical routing intramodally with another rail competitor? Doesn't this strike rail observers as odd behaviour, given AAR press releases about "taking trucks off the highways and onto rails" et al? If railroads really see other railroads as their main competition, and not barge lines and truckers, doesn't that confirm my suspicions that barge lines and trucking companies are actually enablers of rail traffic rather than competitors for rail traffic? Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this? That's a very simplistic response. In the case I cited, this will be the fourth time this year that this has happened. There is a bit more to this than you suggest. First the coal has to be higher BTU coal as that is what the kiln is designed to burn. Second the combination of price and availability from the mine and freight rate means that the coal will come via the UP. If one of the mines located on the Utah Railway had offered a better price, enough better to offset the slightly longer haul, and could have provided it at the right time, then BNSF could have gotten the long haul. That is a lot of Ifs. Second, while Coal Companies complain about freight rates being high, it IS relative, the bulk rates per ton per mile are lower than merchandise rates. The company buying the coal doesn't care whether the coal is cheap and the freight rate high or vice versa, he just cares about how much it will cost him to have a load of the right type of coal sitting on his dock. Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,370 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this? No, it's trivial. A few thousand tons of coal by lake boat doesn't mean a thing. Although you make claims that it does. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:41 PM You did type...."but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move"..., didn't you? Reply Edit greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,370 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:46 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You did type...."but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move"..., didn't you? Not I. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:51 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So my latter suspicions turn out to be true? Railroads would rather give traffic to "competitor(s)" of a different mode via a roundabout, convaluted routing than to interchange in a more logical routing intramodally with another rail competitor? Doesn't this strike rail observers as odd behaviour, given AAR press releases about "taking trucks off the highways and onto rails" et al? If railroads really see other railroads as their main competition, and not barge lines and truckers, doesn't that confirm my suspicions that barge lines and trucking companies are actually enablers of rail traffic rather than competitors for rail traffic? Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this? Two further points, as I said earlier this is probably coal puchased from Detroit Edison, they stockpile coal at MERC in Superior, and haven't been seriously affected by the problems in the PRB. Second, the UP has a major track renewal project going on in western Illinois which is affecting a lot of trains, on a daily basis UP is detouring traffic via CN/IC, IAIS, IC&E, and via their own route through the Twin Cities because of daytime track work. So even if WE Energies could find the extra coal cars to handle the 800,000 tons of coal in a timely manner UP probably couldn't handle the extra trains right now, and perhaps the mines in the main part of the PRB couldn't even supply the coal right now. Superior receives about 80 - 85 percent of its coal from mines in Montana, most of which are not operating at maximum capacity. Reply beaulieu Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NW Wisconsin 3,857 posts Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:16 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You did type...."but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move"..., didn't you? Yes, I did. For a spot, non-unit train movement like this BNSF's price would be higher as would be their costs. It is very hard to beat the lakers prices for moves like this, they are currently operating below capacity unlike the railroads. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 28, 2005 12:08 PM beaulieu - Thanks for the clarifications. It does make sense that temporary capacity problems on UP and BNSF would result in a temporary "give-away" of cargo to a mode of a different feather. greyhounds - I was hoping for somethink more general, not limited to this particular operation. Why would the railroad industry as a whole give blessing to the idea of one railroad transfering freight to a barge line and a trucking outfit rather than interchanging that freight with another railroad? "A house divided against itself cannot stand...." Reply Edit CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,514 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 28, 2005 12:38 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Why would the railroad industry as a whole give blessing to the idea of one railroad transfering freight to a barge line and a trucking outfit rather than interchanging that freight with another railroad? "A house divided against itself cannot stand...." Since it's the shipper's money, he gets to call the shots. It would appear that the lake boat operator gave a better rate (in part because of the aforementioned overcapacity) as part of a joint rail/boat rate than an all-rail rate. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 28, 2005 2:02 PM Paul, That's interesting, in that here you say it's the shipper who calls the shots, yet in other threads you say it's the railroad who calls the shots and if the shipper doesn't like it, tough. What you're missing in this particularity, is that the line haul to Superior is probably longer than the line haul directly to the power plant, and in addition to the Superior line haul we also have a barge haul and a truck haul, all adding unnecessary mileage (and fuel use) to the entire venture. Would it suprise you to learn if this move is actually costing UP more to run it to Superior than to run it within a stone's throw of the power plant itself, all because UP doesn't want to give traffic to a rail competitor who just happens to have the last mile? There's a bigger problem going on here, one that is wasteful of precious resources, and all because we still cling to this anachronism of closed access railroading. I am all for the various modes working in unison to optimize supply chain efficiencies, but when we have convaluted routings (whether via multimodal or a single railroad) it begs the question as to whether it is government policy that is allowing something that would not occur in a truly deregulated free market transportation industry. It has been true since the beginning of time, is still true today, and will be true until the end of time, that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. When this very basic premise is violated, it means someone somewhere is paying an added cost that should not have been incurred. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 28, 2005 2:19 PM The most economical distance isn't necessarily the straight line between two points. Have you seen the computer generated electricity transmission maps that determine the most efficient location patterns? Linear Algebra is what it was called when I studied it. Transportation entails many variables, too. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 28, 2005 2:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain The most economical distance isn't necessarily the straight line between two points. Have you seen the computer generated electricity transmission maps that determine the most efficient location patterns? Linear Algebra is what it was called when I studied it. Transportation entails many variables, too. Capacity between two points certainly plays a role. That's why a modern transportation system should have redundancy and dispersion between two points that may be of a longer distance than the straightest line. I'm not entirely sure capacity issues played a role in this particular case so much as intramodal squabbling. Reply Edit CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,514 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 28, 2005 2:35 PM Redundancy is an expensive option, especially since there is no guarantee that it would be used, which could make it a wasted investment, which in turn is something upon which large shareholders frown. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kurtconi M.S. About 25% goes to Detroit Edison at St Clair MI .(Port Huron area) 25% to Monroe MI.(Lake Erie). 15% to Ontario Power Generation Nanticoke ON.. (Lake Eire) less than 5% to Lambton ON. (Sarnia ON.)..... Was scheduled to close next year, but not now. The rest goes to Consumers Power, WE, MN.Power and local industry. We only ship out about 20 million tons per year. All of the customers we ship to blend the PRB coal with Eastern//Southern Coal to get the best burn. The Eastern Coal tonage is about 5 to 1. If this thread is going to go wacky on us....let it die. Kurt.
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz beaulieu, you may be correct. I talked with my nephew today; he said the place where he is picking up the coal is empty now, with some due in a few days. He was only able to find out that the coal is DEFINITELY coming from Superior! Is there any way to get coal to Superior other than by train? And if it is coming to Superior by train, why is it being transloaded for the short trip from there to Kenosha? That seems very inefficient to me.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Are you sure this is PRB coal, or even domestic coal? I recall that a few years back you could get low sulfer 11,000 Btu/Lb coal out of Indonesia and China for around $5.00/mt. Even if that price has doubled since then, it's still alot cheaper on a $$/Btu basis than even PRB coal. If it is from overseas, that would make more sense than that coal coming from the PRB via BNSF or UP to Superior, then by barge down to Kenosha (which I assume is also conected to rail via UP and/or BNSF). The only scenario I can see that fits that somewhat convaluted routing is if one of the PRB players doens't have a direct rail connection to the WE facility, and doesn't want to let it's competitor play "spin the bottleneck" aka shorthaul rate manipulation.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Are you sure this is PRB coal, or even domestic coal? I recall that a few years back you could get low sulfer 11,000 Btu/Lb coal out of Indonesia and China for around $5.00/mt. Even if that price has doubled since then, it's still alot cheaper on a $$/Btu basis than even PRB coal. If it is from overseas, that would make more sense than that coal coming from the PRB via BNSF or UP to Superior, then by barge down to Kenosha (which I assume is also conected to rail via UP and/or BNSF). The only scenario I can see that fits that somewhat convaluted routing is if one of the PRB players doens't have a direct rail connection to the WE facility, and doesn't want to let it's competitor play "spin the bottleneck" aka shorthaul rate manipulation. The coal coming from Superior isn't a guess, it is directly from the MERC website via a link on the Boatnerd website. MERC exists because several of Detroit Edisons powerplants are located on the Detroit River and the St. Clair River and not connected to any Railroad. Therefore all coal to these plants must come from Great Lakes vessels. Any coal coming from Overseas would most likely have to be transshiped as most Oceangoing Bulkers are too large for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Coal from Colombia is commonly imported into the US but mainly goes to plants in Florida and via the Port of Norfolk. The cost to move it into the interior of the US is too high. To give you an example of an odd move of Lake Coal there is a shipment of Colorado coal coming into MERC next week via the UP. It will be loaded into the Laker Presque Isle at MERC and will move from there to CLM's Limestone Dock in another part of the harbor and be unloaded. All this to avoid interchanging the coal trains to BNSF for a move of less than one mile. MERC does have automated car-dumping equipment which CLM lacks,but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So my latter suspicions turn out to be true? Railroads would rather give traffic to "competitor(s)" of a different mode via a roundabout, convaluted routing than to interchange in a more logical routing intramodally with another rail competitor? Doesn't this strike rail observers as odd behaviour, given AAR press releases about "taking trucks off the highways and onto rails" et al? If railroads really see other railroads as their main competition, and not barge lines and truckers, doesn't that confirm my suspicions that barge lines and trucking companies are actually enablers of rail traffic rather than competitors for rail traffic? Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You did type...."but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move"..., didn't you?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Why would the railroad industry as a whole give blessing to the idea of one railroad transfering freight to a barge line and a trucking outfit rather than interchanging that freight with another railroad? "A house divided against itself cannot stand...."
QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain The most economical distance isn't necessarily the straight line between two points. Have you seen the computer generated electricity transmission maps that determine the most efficient location patterns? Linear Algebra is what it was called when I studied it. Transportation entails many variables, too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.