NITL's suggestions to STB for rail policy oversight

[Junctionfan]

Just an innocent question out of pure curiosity,

If the railroads could get some kind of subsidy for fuel costs and for capacity increases and some kind of assistance aquiring land to increase yard/ terminal (crew change) space, would that decrease the railroad's need to increase fees of customers? What kind of a case would the government make that would convince the taxpayer that this is what the country needs to you figure? Is it a direction that might be required or at the very least, something to be seriously considered?

(O.k that is more than one question..........[:-^])

[Anonymous]

Junctionfan - Haven't seen you around for awhile.

To answer your question, if the government did as you suggest and subsidize parts of the railroads' cost structure without getting some kind of competitive concession from the railroads, what incentive would they have to lower rates? They would just take the added profits and (pardon me as I am *suffering* from a cold) forward those profits to their (insert fake cough oration "Red!", insert fake sneezing oration "Chinese!") stockholders.[V]

[Junctionfan]

Hi FM,

Been finnishing off my mid-terms; non stop exams lately..........

Back to the topic,

I always believed including now that at least for Canada, it would be advisable to hammer out a deal with CN and CP with the shippers and trucking companies, to maximise rail use as much as possible to reduce highway maintainence and upgrade costs, reduce healthcare costs from accumulative air pollution and accidents and welfare plus unemployment subsidies related to increase car accidents, reduce insurance premium rates (hopefully), and a few other indirect but important costs that is a result of increased highway use.

As CN and CP can't just up and double track and increase overall operation capacity at a whim, the government (me) would help out so also increased commuter and VIA Rail service could come into play without screwing up those railroads current or future operations.

It is a little costly but in theory (need to actually look at the facts and figures before proposing such a potentially contraversial plan), it should save Canadian taxpayers tons of money plus it should make CN and CP more money.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

I

Now, for a simple question. Dave, have you ever sold for a living or been involved in the developement and or marketing of a product or service...anything? Not a trick question, nor am I demeaning you. Just trying to get an idea of your mindset. Actually, it would be interesting to know how many of you do actually sell or market. I know some of you are involved in that function, some in the railroad industry.


ed

ed: This question has come up before. Dave's non-answer tells us the real answer is no. This leads me to view most of his posts as based on *theory*,proven and unproven. While I respect that he puts a little (or a lot ) of thought into some of these theory-based posts, I'll be the first to admit that I must laugh out loud at times.[(-D] To be fair, I'm sure Dave can say the same about some of my posts.[:)]

[bobwilcox]

Dave-Do you know Terry Whiteside?

[MP173]

Murphy:

You know as a fellow salesman, all of the factors involved in pricing.

Dave: please define for me the definition of "average revenue per ton/mile intermodal, captive v noncaptive."

I am having a difficult time visualizing what that might be. Why? By definition, wouldnt intermodal be "noncaptive"? Choices exist.

Another thing...I am not making a serious mistake, as you state. I am simply quoting from a book, which comes from a very reliable source.

I notice that you do not even address the subject of shippers investing their own capital to reduce their transportation costs. We both know why that wont happen. The return on investment threshold will not allow it to happen. It wont even make it to the board room for consideration.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you wanting regulation?

Please give me examples of specific companies or industries which have left the US due to transporation costs only. If railroads were forced to lower rates for captive shippers, then under you reasoning would they be forced to provide all of their traffic to railroads? Heck no...that is rediculous. Yet, that is your reasoning. Why? Because the railroads must be required to lower their rates in order to insure that jobs will remain. Therefore, under the same scenario, the shipper would be required to tender all traffic to railroads to insure jobs would be secure. Not a pleasant thought, that of controlled economy is it?

Or controlled life, something that has failed.

One of the smartest things I have seen was at the Gilman, Il. A new soybean processing plant went into business about 10 years ago. It was located so that both the IC (now CN) and the TPW would have access to the plant. Smart move.
If transportion costs are going to be a critical component of your cost structure, dont box yourself in. Always have options.

ed

[Anonymous]

Ed: As to what I do, and what I've done in the past, I have anwered that before. I have been involved in various acpects of transportation as it relates to grocery and retail pertroleum distribution. I have worked for the USDA as an ag interviewer, and am now working for an energy company. That being said, it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, because the subject matter is one being played out by the players involved, and I am just relaying some of that information and providing my own comments and opinions on the matter(s). My concern lies from the perspective of being an average American, concerned about the ability of U.S. companies to compete on the global stage. You do not have to be employed by or own stock in such companies to know that you may still feel the effects of their downfall, should that occur.

If you want information on companies that have shut down or left the country, or who have had some other negative effects due to rail captivity, I would suggest you contact the NITL, CURE, or any other such shipper organizations. Since you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe it if it comes straight from those effected. Of course, I get my info from them, so you'll just be getting redundant information.

None of your sources you cite would even bother to take the time to differentiate between captive and non captive shippers, and there's the rub. They are part of the pro-rail lobby, and as such to diseminate such information would be counterproductive to their own lobbying efforts. And BTW, I also have taken the time to get their POV as well, unlike you.

And for a "definition of the definition of 'average revenue per ton/mile intermodal, captive v noncaptive' ", I gave the source (the Rail Price Advisory). Feel free to look it up. You can access that information from the source's I provided. Go to the CURE website.

Your statement "If railroads were forced to lower rates for captive shippers, then under you reasoning would they be forced to provide all of their traffic to railroads?" is non sensical to me, and as such I take it to be some attempt at analogy for the purpose of illistrating your counterargument. Under regulation, rates were more equalized between captive and non captive shippers, but no one was "forced" to provide all their traffic to the railroads in return. Perhaps you are suggesting some kind of tit for tat actions should some form of rail reregulation occur. It's a non sequitur, because if they are rail shippers, they're going to ship by rail anyway if such rates come down. They will only ship by truck for the same reason they are forced to do so now - trucking is the mode of last resort, and is only used for those shipments the railroads either can't or won't handle as part of the logical supply chain.

Of course, if your memory served you better, you would recall that I am for a market based reduction in rail rates via the introduction of competitive rail services to all rail shippers. How that will happen is still being played out, but the logical approach is to eliminate the anti-trust exemption railroads have enjoyed, then shippers will be allowed to use the courts to empower a solution to that anachronistic problem of the "natural monopoly" of railroading in North America. So you see, there is no need for your Orwellian "controlled economy" scenario to accompli***his feat, since anti-trust is an apt adjunct of the free market system.

Bob: I do not know Terry Whiteside personally, but I have had email correspondences with his office in the past. He is one of the leading voices for addressing the nationally counterproductive railroad rate discrimination. Last I heard he was working out of Billings MT. Why do you bring him up?

Murphy: Since you yourself don't bother to go to the sources I cite, then the joke"s on you. As such, I will offer to you a little taste of "murphyism": Murphy, shame on you, tsk tsk tsk, etc. etc. etc. [:D][V][:P][*^_^*]

[MP173]

Ok, fair enough. I have not read every post of yours over the years, so I am not aware of your career. Thanks for filling me in.

I asked a simple definition to define captive vs non captive intermodal traffic. I seriously doubt if noncaptive intermodal traffic exists, based on the basics of intermodal. Perhaps I will try and find this.

You list no companies which have moved their operations due to high transportation costs. I seriously doubt if transportation costs from Asia can be less than intercity costs here, but I will keep an open mind to it. I think other factors are in play here, mainly the differential in labor rates. I too worry about that going forward, for my son's future. But my concern is the differences in labor costs as I feel that is the major factor.

Of course my statement of lower rates for captive shippers/forced traffic to railroads was ridiculous...it was meant to be and I even admitted it.

Perhaps you should look at your own energy industry for lessons on captivity. Last time I heard, profits for Exxon Mobile, etc were record high. Disclaimer here...I am both an owner of Exxon Mobile stock and an owner of producing oil wells, so my attitude towards these captive record profits is a bit different from most folks.

I stand by my previous statements of the NITL and other large corporations not wanting to invest in the transportation infrastructure and simply consume other's capital.

Remove anti-trust immunity...sure go ahead, there goes the joint line rates and switching agreements and many other economic factors.

My source which you questioned was the STB, thru Richard Saunder's book.

ed

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And in global terms, U.S. producers have acrued a net loss in rail rates compared to overseas producers since the passage of Staggers. That's the hard cold fact you have to contemplate.

Prove it with data.

On average, the four largest U.S. railroads—the BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific—charged captives rates averaging 237% above their variable costs, while competitive rates average 108% of variable costs. (Revenue adaquacy is determined to be rates that run about 180% above variable costs).

source: STB - 2001 Revenue Shortfall Allocation Methodology Study

From the following, you can clearly see that captive rates for domestic intermodal are over twice the rates for intermodal import rates:

Average revenue/ton mile for intermodal, captive vs non captive -
CSX - $54.11 captive, $26.18 non captive
NS - $45.42 captive, $20.85 non captive
BNSF - $115.70 captive, $48.88 non captive
UP - $91.42 captive, $40.60 non captive
source: Rail Price Advisory, First Quarter 2003, Vol 12, No. 1


"If railroads don't work with their customers to find a solution, continued economic pressure could end up pushing captive shippers out of the country. It's no secret that manufacturing costs are lower overseas, and for captive shippers, it sometimes is cheaper to ship internationally than it is to move product domestically."

Testimony of Roger Nober, as quoted in Logistics Management, November 1 2003.


Now, if you think you have data that shows the opposite, provide it.

"Prove it with data" - source: Bob Wilcox, TRAINS forum, October 29, 2003

What in the world is "captive intermodal"? Lanes where either the orgn or dest city only have one ramp? That's just silly. It's like me being "captive" to Kroger because I'd have to drive 10 miles to get to a Publix!

No doubt those "variable costs" quoted are aggregate for the whole RR - which are meaningless when you're talking specific service in specific lanes. The STB does not have access to that level of detail.

What do you think about capital markets funding OA. If it's a win-win, they'll show up with the $$ to do it.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Murphy: Since you yourself don't bother to go to the sources I cite, then the joke"s on you. As such, I will offer to you a little taste of "murphyism": Murphy, shame on you, tsk tsk tsk, etc. etc. etc. [:D][V][:P][*^_^*]

Now that's funny [(-D]

[MP173]

Just read the 46 page NITL report. Pretty interesting reading. Seriously, I would suggest many of you to read it.

A few points NITL made:
1. Railroad's ROI (return on investment) is currently only 70% of the cost of capital...about 7% ROI vs 10% coc.

2. That ratio (70%) has risen over the past 25 years of Staggers.

3. NS and possibly BNSF will pass the coc this year.

4. Car ownership is now over 50% of the entire fleet, dramitically higher than 25 years ago.

5. Though intermodal was long believed to be carried at rates just above incremental costs, recent anecdotal evidence suggest pricing has moved up significantly. (note: I pretty much quoted this from teh report)

6. Changes in teh trucking industry have increased rail's ability to exercize market power.

7. Lack of capacity has shifted marketing philosopy from incremental to full cost recovery...something not done in the past 50 years.

NITL was very positive in the effects of Staggers. They admit the capacity issue will be very real and very critical to the growth of the economy.

In direct opposition to what Dave has indicated, NITL says that rails now have pricing power on the imported intermodal movements and are experiencing healthy profits on such traffic. Thus, good news! The subsidies to Asia has come to a close.

NITL is very concerned over rail's movement from contract rates to published rates...and obviously so. They have lost control over confidentiality and over stability of rates. That will be a concern as published rates can easily be raised (or lowered) while contract rates are stabilized thru the duration of the contract.

Interesting report.

Dave...direct me to the CURE website please. I ended up at some band's website....dont think they ship their amps, drums, and guitars by rail!

ed

[greyhounds]

I didn't want to quote the entire post, but this is from Futuremodal:

"From the following, you can clearly see that captive rates for domestic intermodal are over twice the rates for intermodal import rates:

Average revenue/ton mile for intermodal, captive vs non captive -
CSX - $54.11 captive, $26.18 non captive
NS - $45.42 captive, $20.85 non captive
BNSF - $115.70 captive, $48.88 non captive
UP - $91.42 captive, $40.60 non captive
source: Rail Price Advisory, First Quarter 2003, Vol 12, No. 1"

Dave,

Breaking your buble - there is no such thing as "Captive Intermodal". It's on a freaking truck to start with. It can move to destination by that truck.. I think you're using made up numbers. And By God, there are people who will make stuff up to "prove" their point.

There's no "Captive" intermodal. All they gota do is get a driver and go with it. Please take a common sense pill.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

I didn't want to quote the entire post, but this is from Futuremodal:

"From the following, you can clearly see that captive rates for domestic intermodal are over twice the rates for intermodal import rates:

Average revenue/ton mile for intermodal, captive vs non captive -
CSX - $54.11 captive, $26.18 non captive
NS - $45.42 captive, $20.85 non captive
BNSF - $115.70 captive, $48.88 non captive
UP - $91.42 captive, $40.60 non captive
source: Rail Price Advisory, First Quarter 2003, Vol 12, No. 1"

Dave,

Breaking your buble - there is no such thing as "Captive Intermodal". It's on a freaking truck to start with. It can move to destination by that truck.. I think you're using made up numbers. And By God, there are people who will make stuff up to "prove" their point.

There's no "Captive" intermodal. All they gota do is get a driver and go with it. Please take a common sense pill.

Greyhounds, you're stuck on stupid. The term "captive" is accepted nomenclature in both the shippers and railroads' lexicon. We've explained this to you a hundred times before. Captive intermodal relates directly to those North American rail intermodal shippers who only have access to one Class I intermodal terminal within a short haul distance for trucks.

Not only are you stuck on stupid, you're apparently stuck on lazy as well. The source was provided, you chose not to access it to verify the numbers. I purposefully did not provde a link just to see if you had an actual initiative to research these things yourself. You don't.

For those who want a web link to those numbers, here is the one I used:

http://www.railcure.org/pdfs/captivevscompetitive.pdf

Now, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would suggest you provide them. And if you are making up numbers, I'm going to challenge the validity of any such statement you provide.

You remind me of an episode of the M*A*S*H* TV series, where Radar is attempting to contact a suit in Seoul to tell him they are being bombed and could Seoul please do something about it. The brass man in Seoul replies, "Our latest information informs me that we have no units in that area. You are not being bombed, young man."

[Anonymous]

Ed,

There are exceptions to every rule, nothing is completely black and white. There's a difference between imports from Canada or Mexico, which also can be relegated to rail captivity, and imports from overseas, wherein importers have a wide choice of ocean carriers, U.S. ports, and subsequent rail connections to those ports. There are also consumption markets in the U.S. that are captive as well, so imports into those markets can be construed as captive imports if it fits your POV. And yes, when the collective rail industry has not kept up with capacity demands, the aggregate demand for intermodal transportation services can exceed aggregate supply of transportation options which will result in increased pricing power for carriers of imports. That is a temporary situation in theory as elasticity brings supply and demand back into equalibrium, akin to the longshoremen strike or the hurricane shutdowns of Gulf Ports, which also changed the demand/supply dynamic for imports on a temporary basis.

Of course, the overseas manufacturer does not bear the brunt of those smaller exceptions, rather it is the consumers in those areas that pay the added costs. With growing markets elsewhere in the world, those overseas manufacturers won't sweat U.S. supply constraints. Contrast that with the captive U.S. manufacturer, who is captive right from the get-go, no matter what market is being sold to.

The whole point of this exercise is to show that those manufacturers that locate overseas will free themselves from U.S. rail captivity. Those producers who cannot physically relocate their land sites (such as Montana farmers) do not have that option and will eventually close their operations unless rate relief or federal aid is provided. If it's the latter, then that aid becomes an indirect subsidy to the railroads. It becomes a big negative for the U.S. economy no matter what happens, outside of actual rate relief via access to competitive rail carriers for all U.S. rail shippers.

http://www.railcure.org

[Murphy Siding]

Gee Whiz greyhounds, it appears that you have become as stupid as I is![;)] When will we ever learn?

[MP173]

You know Dave, you could go a long way towards civility on this forum with just a bit of respect.

We dont all have time to go searching for all of these sources. I really got steamed at our Montana grain expert when he INTENTIONALLY mislead me into wasting about an hour of my time searching for information that he later admitted wasnt there and simply wanted to see, in the spirit of academia, if a good student would prove him wrong.

Well, lets get a couple of things straight...I am no student and my hourly rate is pretty ***ed high. If you want to provide sources, I will check them, if I have time. This internet is pretty big and vague references dont play well.

I enjoy these discussions and would like to think that i lend quite a bit to them, as do the others here...but we have passed the age of 20 and do not spend our entire lives researching, drinking beer and eating pizza.

I asked the same question...what is captive intermodal.? It took a lot of time and energy to get a somewhat vague answer, which I will now have to spend time looking up to verify.

Now, I found the NITL paper very interesting, not only on what they said, but what they didnt. I actually took 30 minutes to search for it and read it. These people sure dont seem to want to go back to regulation. If they do...then I obviously need a refresher course in English.

They are admitting that after 25 years of Staggers the ROI is finally reaching the point of equalization to the COC. That is quite a bit of running into the wind in my book. Huge potential future issue are looming on the horizon, namely how will the railroads be able to finance expansion that will be needed.

For the first time in quite awhile, railroads will be faced with having to invest in capacity. Productivity will no longer yield desired results.

Now, do me and the others on this forum a favor, if you want continued dialog...quit treating me and others as if we are graduate students.

ed

[Anonymous]

Ed - I make assumptions that others on this forum can put two and two together as well as I.

"Captive" is used to describe rail shippers with access to only one railroad. This "access" can be diseminated into two catagories by my estimation: Those rail shippers whose product can only move viably by rail directly from the plant and who only have one physical rail connection at their production facility (e.g. physically captive), and those rail shippers whose product can viably move short distances by truck without losing a competitive edge to their main competitors but whose particular region has only one decent Class I in service (e.g. regionally captive). Chemicals are the best example of the former, while intermodal or grain are good examples of the latter.

Thus, "captive intermodal" refers to intermodal terminals located in regions where there is short haul access to only one Class I. Billings Montana is a good example of a captive intermodal terminal, Nampa Idaho another. If you allow some grey area for the purpose of definition, then you can also say that a captive intermodal terminal is one in which there may be more than one Class I railroad in the area, but only one provides actual intermodal services from this terminal. I think Spokane Washington fits into this second category, both UP and BNSF serves Spokane but only BNSF provides intermodal services. This is probably due to the fact that the UP line is only a Canadian connection, serving primarily as a conduit for potash, grain, mixed freights.

However, for the sake of reference, I will contact CURE and ask them to define what a "captive rail shipper" is so that I won't be putting words and concepts into the lexicon that may not necessarily be part of their efforts. If they do email me back, I will give their definition verbetum.

I take a different opinion on the NITL's position than what you discerned. I believe they are in favor of going back to some form of rate regulation, they just don't want to frame it that way. Because let's face it, there are only two ways to force railroad rate reductions for captive shippers: Either re-regulate rate setting, or introduce head to head rail competition via open access. The NITL makes no mention of Rep. Mark Green's bill (H.R. 3318) to make railroads subject to anti-trust laws that apply to every other industry, and only by anti-trust action can the railroads' natural monopoly be broken up.

I also take a different view on how best to achieve an expansion of the rail system. Because most railroads that exist today were built with some form of public support, they were not built as an adjunct of a succesful business model being exonerated by higher revenues. To assume that if railroads finally are able to more than cover their ROI's they will start building more lines is naive, e.g. it lacks understanding of how monopolies function. Monopolies are natural price discriminators, and as such will take no action that might denigrate their ability to price discriminate. Easing rail congestion is not synonymous with increasing railroad ROI's, at least under the closed access system. Secondly, it is my view that transportation infrastructure development is best left in the hands of the public, as that is the realilty of most transportation systems today. It would be better for railroad ROW's to follow the example of highways and waterways, and allow user fees combined with local and state financing perogatives to pay for much of any new railroad expansion, and let de facto transportation companies do the actual hauling. But that is far beyond what the NITL envisions, too ambitious and far-fetched to be used in lobbying negotiations. It is much easier to lobby for rate regulation than it is to lobby for a complete overhaul of the U.S. rail system.

I am sorry you feel like you are being condescended to, that is not my intent. I would like to have lively conversations, but if is a fact that most participants on this forum too easily slip into sub-par sparring. BTW, it may very well be that being treated like a graduate student is insulting to you, that is your perogative, but for some of the others on this forum being treated like grad students is better than they deserve.

[MP173]

Dave:

Perhaps I came down a bit harsh last night, but frankly, I dont have a lot of time trying to find information on the internet. For example, sometime over the weekend, at your suggestion, I attempted to find the CURE website and gave up. Thus, the call for a reference where a less than astute websurfer can find the information quickly.

Along the same lines, the term captive intermodal was extremely puzzling to me. Your last definition makes sense, but I still maintain that it is not entirely captive as the option to ship via truck exists.

One of your early points was that we are subsidizing Asian imports with low cost intermodal and this is driving jobs from the US. I wont go back and find your exact phrasing but I came away with the impression that the captive rail situation drove the business to Asia. It would be interesting to analyze such "driven away by greedy railroad" case studies. If in fact the product is now coming in via containers from Asia...and the only factor, or even the major factor in the loss of the business was transportation, then the simple solution would have been for the US shipper to ship via intermodal. Perhaps not at the same low rate of overseas container,as pricing benefits do occur based on containerized moves, but still at a rate that would have made it competitive.

One cannot tell me that it costs less to ship a product from China via container to a port, then by boat, then by container to Chicago vs intermodal from Texas to Chicago. Thus, it is more, much more than simple transportation costs.

Regarding the land grant reparations issue, I dont know what the original wording of the contract between the government and the rails were. Plus, how would one now go back and determine a value of the land parcels? How did the railroads know what they were getting (in terms of value) when the land grants were received? You indicated "most" railroads were built thru land grants. What about the ones that were not? How would one reconcile those routes? For example, it is probable that portions of the major lines were land grant based and portions were not. Does that mean that certain portions of the route would be public and the other private? Quite a can of worms to sort thru.

Finally, I hope that I never stop learning. That is why I do spend so much time on this forum. It can be mind numbing talking about your favorite locomotive paint scheme and it can be challenging defending your position...and even enlightening when you realize that there are problems with your position and it needs to be modified. My whole point with the grad student (BTW...no MBA title, behind my name, just a BA, so I am a bit behind the level of all you MBA's) is that I will research and read data (and opinion), but dont make it painful to do so.

Another finally, then off to bed. I am trained in sales. I do very well at it. I am taught to maximize margins, I am paid to maximize margins. I do not sell on volume, but primarily how profitable the sale is. Railroads got into a lot of problems due to "volume" mentality. It was not until they were freed to actually market themselves (and gained productivity thru labor revisions) that the industry started on the road to financial stabilty. My point is that as a trained sales person, I understand the position of leverage (both on the giving and receiving end) and the absolute need to maximize margins on each and every sale.

Business (and life) is not fair. For years transportation companies subsidized manufacturing's returns based on a lack of leverage. Not only railroads, but also truckers. Today, two of my trucking company accounts just beamed when I asked how business is, both responded even with fuel prices at record levels, their business has never been better. They understand the leverage that they possess, as do the rails. The truckers always understood that no one held a gun to their heads and forced them to handle a load...it was always a choice. It meant a very difficult and lean period of time for a number of people. Isnt it ironic that now as railroads are finally on the verge of earning cost of capital, there is this huge explosion calling for reregulation of some kind?

Finally (for the third time), good luck on getting government built infrastructure built in the form of added rail capacity. Thanks to the current group of Rockafeller Republicans in DC we are up to our noses in government debt. Jus t a glimmer of hope tho, there are a few conservatives starting to get it right and make their point known.

good night.

ed

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Gee Whiz greyhounds, it appears that you have become as stupid as I is![;)] When will we ever learn?

Yep - If you disagree with him it's because you're stupid.

The fact that I've got experience going head to head with truckers over frieight doesn't mean a thing to the guy.

FM, when Schlitz closed their Milwaukee brewery and started to supply Chicago out of Memphis we went head to head with a bunch of truckers for the beer movement. That's 500 miles. You ever compete with a trucker at 500 miles? They'll do that in 10 hours easy.

And it's a consumer product. It's temperature protected and if you dent a can you'll buy the six pack. We put that frreight on our railroad and made a buck doing it.

FM, have you ever done that? Have you ever gone head to head with a bunch of truckers and come home with the money in your pocket?

Ever put together a program to haul bananas out of Gulfport? I sure did. Ever found out you've got a load of imported Honduran tomatoes bound for Canada stuck at your Chicago ramp becuase of Customes? Ever worked a Stike and crossed the picket line in Chicago?

How about putting together a proposal for Montgomery Ward on freight from Mississippi to Chicago only to find out Mclean Trucking has matched it word for word and taken the freight? Then having the Monkey Ward traffic manager deny that he ever told them a word about your offer?

And, most important of all, have you ever taken an angry phone call from Caterpillar or UPS, or any other customer, or your sales staff, or a drayman. If they'd a had a phone gun they'd a shot me! I had 'em all. You calmly find out what the problem is and solve it.

Do you know that one of the "hottest" commodities shipped is (or was) telephone books. They held 'em till the last minute to get the number changes in, but they didn't get the yellow page ad revenue until the books were delivered. That make's 'em hot freight. So we got about 20 trailers of New Orleans phone books comming off the Kankakee ramp on Saturday for Monday delivery in New Orleans.

So the last thing I did before leaving on Friday was leave a message that there was a "hot pickup" in Kankakee the next day. I get into work Monday morning and take a phone call from a very irritated RR Donely traffic manger wanting to know why his loads were still sitting in Kankakee.

Now have you ever done anything, or dealt with anything, like the above. If you haven't, please quit making up stuff like "Captive Intermodal". It's garbage.

[Anonymous]

Ed,

The difference between the path the trucking idustry took to get to today's "more business than they can handle" scene, and the path the current U.S. railroad industry is taking to be able to say the same, is that no trucking company has ever had nor will ever have the power to enforce monopolistic actions upon any customer, while that same monopolistic attitude absent from the trucking industry is paramount to the railroads reaching that goal. No one can argue against any business taking actions that maximize profits, but one can argue that giving legal exemptions to that business to facilitate that profit maximization is just plain wrong. I would add that railroads are in a special catagory by themselves for no other reason than it is nearly impossible for any other company to enter that market under the closed access system. Compared to the need to secure new ROW to build new tracks, any other capital investment is a cakewalk. However, if the tracks were already there and available to any qualified operator(s), then entry into the railroading market would take on a whole new perspective.

I'll just add this one thing: It is not necessary to tap the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to aid in constructing new rail capacity. There is still enough federally held land out there that could be doled out in land grants, which wouldn't cost taxpayer's a dime. There are also the options of tax credits and federal loan guarantees, neither of which takes present money out of the Treasury but which can affect future tax collections and spending options. Creative financing would be crucial to the construction of new rail capacity regardless of access issues.

greyhounds - You seem to have emotional problems as well as problems grasping rather simple concepts and ideas. For the record, the term "captive intermodal" was around long before I came on the scene. Now, the links have been provided, but you apparently choose not to access them, so I guess I am just as justified to suggest that you are making up alot of stories about your alleged business. Apply your own standards to yourself, and you can see why any skeptic would doubt the basis of your statements as well. At least I provide the links and the references, you do not. Case closed.

[MP173]

Case closed.

Time to move on.

ed

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


greyhounds - You seem to have emotional problems as well as problems grasping rather simple concepts and ideas. For the record, the term "captive intermodal" was around long before I came on the scene. Now, the links have been provided, but you apparently choose not to access them, so I guess I am just as justified to suggest that you are making up alot of stories about your alleged business. Apply your own standards to yourself, and you can see why any skeptic would doubt the basis of your statements as well. At least I provide the links and the references, you do not. Case closed.

Gee, my ex-wife used to say things like that about me. She said them a lot, and a lot, and a lot.

Yes, you cite sources. Like this one from you:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

From the following, you can clearly see that captive rates for domestic intermodal are over twice the rates for intermodal import rates:

Average revenue/ton mile for intermodal, captive vs non captive -
CSX - $54.11 captive, $26.18 non captive
NS - $45.42 captive, $20.85 non captive
BNSF - $115.70 captive, $48.88 non captive
UP - $91.42 captive, $40.60 non captive
source: Rail Price Advisory, First Quarter 2003, Vol 12, No. 1

Do you really believe that any rail carrier is getting $20.85 per ton mile? (and that's the lowest figure you "cite" from your "source") On a 15 ton load that would be over $300 per mile to move a trailer. That is insane. Any trucker or railroad that got 1/100th of that would be thrilled. But you just quote it like its reality.

People make this stuff up to further thier political goals and personal fantasies.

$20.85 per ton mile - my left foot.

[gabe]

Good point and I am glad someone clarified that for me. I didn't want to say anything because all the people arguing this issue know so much more than me. However, I was really scratching my head when I saw the $54 per revenue ton per mile. Can you imagine how much a 132-car coal train from the Powder River Basin to Florida or something like that would generate?

Futuremodal, I am not saying you are wrong on those numbers, but if you are right can you prove it to me? I only ask because if that is the case, I think I could line up the investors to start laying track.

Gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


greyhounds - You seem to have emotional problems as well as problems grasping rather simple concepts and ideas. For the record, the term "captive intermodal" was around long before I came on the scene. Now, the links have been provided, but you apparently choose not to access them, so I guess I am just as justified to suggest that you are making up alot of stories about your alleged business. Apply your own standards to yourself, and you can see why any skeptic would doubt the basis of your statements as well. At least I provide the links and the references, you do not. Case closed.

Gee, my ex-wife used to say things like that about me. She said them a lot, and a lot, and a lot.

Yes, you cite sources. Like this one from you:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

From the following, you can clearly see that captive rates for domestic intermodal are over twice the rates for intermodal import rates:

Average revenue/ton mile for intermodal, captive vs non captive -
CSX - $54.11 captive, $26.18 non captive
NS - $45.42 captive, $20.85 non captive
BNSF - $115.70 captive, $48.88 non captive
UP - $91.42 captive, $40.60 non captive
source: Rail Price Advisory, First Quarter 2003, Vol 12, No. 1

Do you really believe that any rail carrier is getting $20.85 per ton mile? (and that's the lowest figure you "cite" from your "source") On a 15 ton load that would be over $300 per mile to move a trailer. That is insane. Any trucker or railroad that got 1/100th of that would be thrilled. But you just quote it like its reality.

People make this stuff up to further thier political goals and personal fantasies.

$20.85 per ton mile - my left foot.

[Anonymous]

Ooops, I did make a mistake. It is "revenue per ton", not "revenue per ton mile". The print out copy was smeared on top. The actual caption reads:

"Calculations are based on 2002 Revenue-Per-Ton rates (as submitted to the Surface Transportation Board) and 2001 Railroad Revenue-to-Variable Cost ratios (RVCs), by individual rail carrier"

I'll go back and correct it. My apologies to your left foot.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Ooops, I did make a mistake. It is "revenue per ton", not "revenue per ton mile". The print out copy was smeared on top. The actual caption reads:

"Calculations are based on 2002 Revenue-Per-Ton rates (as submitted to the Surface Transportation Board) and 2001 Railroad Revenue-to-Variable Cost ratios (RVCs), by individual rail carrier"

I'll go back and correct it. My apologies to your left foot.

My left foot declines your apology.

It knows full well you are still using made up, meaningless numbers to try to advance a political point. Nobody records how many actual tons are in an intermodal load. So nobody can produce an accurate "per ton" revenue figure. Every UPS load I ever saw was billed as having 20,000 pounds. They moved on the same rates as some guy shipping 44,000 pounds of aluminum ingots.

So we charged UPS "over twice" as much per ton as the aluminum guy? Well, no, we weren't charging per ton, we were charging "per vehicle used". We charged so much to move a trailer from here to there. And we didn't care if you put one can of dog food in it or 44,000 pounds of aluminum.

"Per ton" revenue figures on intermodal are as meaningless as your "per ton mile" figures. But you're going to use them because you don't have any actual experience to make you know better.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Ooops, I did make a mistake. It is "revenue per ton", not "revenue per ton mile". The print out copy was smeared on top. The actual caption reads:

"Calculations are based on 2002 Revenue-Per-Ton rates (as submitted to the Surface Transportation Board) and 2001 Railroad Revenue-to-Variable Cost ratios (RVCs), by individual rail carrier"

I'll go back and correct it. My apologies to your left foot.

My left foot declines your apology.

It knows full well you are still using made up, meaningless numbers to try to advance a political point. Nobody records how many actual tons are in an intermodal load. So nobody can produce an accurate "per ton" revenue figure. Every UPS load I ever saw was billed as having 20,000 pounds. They moved on the same rates as some guy shipping 44,000 pounds of aluminum ingots.

So we charged UPS "over twice" as much per ton as the aluminum guy? Well, no, we weren't charging per ton, we were charging "per vehicle used". We charged so much to move a trailer from here to there. And we didn't care if you put one can of dog food in it or 44,000 pounds of aluminum.

"Per ton" revenue figures on intermodal are as meaningless as your "per ton mile" figures. But you're going to use them because you don't have any actual experience to make you know better.

You can shove your left foot up your own orifice then. You keep charging that I am making up these numbers, yet anyone else on this forum can verify that they come from the CURE website. If I had presented these figures and claimed them as my own, then I would be a plagiarist, 'cept of course I cited the sources.

The chart presented on the CURE website entitled "The Cost of Captivity, by Industry" lists various commodities. It does not differentiate between "revenue per ton" and "revenue to variable cost ratios" among these commodities. I simply went down the list, found "Intermodal, captive rate" and "Intermodal, non-captive rate", and highlighted it as evidence that there is such a thing as a captive intermodal rail shipper. One can presume that "captive vs non-captive, intermodal" comparisons, if not presented on a revenue per ton basis, is subsequently presented on a revenue to variable cost ratio. Either way, it is presented to provide evidence that discriminatory rates can even affect intermodal. Since the site claims these figures are presented to the STB by the individual railroads themselves, one can only conclude that the railroads themselves acknowledge such a rate differentiation.

So you see, if I'm not making up these numbers, then CURE must be making up these numbers, and if CURE isn't making up these numbers, then the railroads themselves must be making up these numbers.

So basically, what you are doing is accusing your precious railroad dominatri of making up numbers soley for the purpose of inadvertently exposing themselves to public scrutiny. And since you choose not to read the material yourself, you are choosing to remain ignorant. So why don't you just stick your head where your left foot was inserted and give it some company?

[PNWRMNM]

FM

Better read the CURE propaganda again. The item you cite says nothing about intermodal.

Mac

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Methinks that FM is starting to take disagreement with his undisputed truths a bit too personally. This isn't religion; it's economics, self-interest and a fair amount of politics.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

FM

Better read the CURE propaganda again. The item you cite says nothing about intermodal.

Mac

Try this one:

http://www.railcure.org/pdfs/captivitychart.pdf

You know you could have found this yourself since it's on the issue papers link.......

http://www.railcure.org/issuepapers.htm

......under "The Cost of Captivity, by Industry" link.

Not that it does any good, since this is obviously just propaganda by those evil shipper groups. But since CURE is using numbers submitted to the STB by the Class I's themselves, perhaps you'll go so far as to lay the "propaganda" label on the railroads themselves. Or would that just blow your mind?

[PNWRMNM]

FM

You are the one who always hyperventilates about sources. You either can not cite them or can not read them. Here you have made both mistakes and made an***of youself to boot.

I sincerly hope that the ilk herd is growing!!!!

Mac