QUOTE: Originally posted by joegreen So if they do get the coal line then will they send that coal to Chicago? I'm wondering because I do a lot of railfanning on the IC&E and I'd like to know if they will go to Chicago that way.
QUOTE: I bet DM&E will have to buy a lot of coal hoppers if they get the line.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626 Does this mean the DM&E won't have to connect with the UP/BNSF line into PRB -- the one that had the washouts? Is the proposed route the original route by Rapid City and Belle Fourche?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Off topic: I know the writer of the article, Peter Harriman. He was one of my old running chums back in Moscow ID. On topic: Of course DME will need public funds. All rail projects today use public funds. And given the liabilities private debt holders would face if the current pro-coal Congress and Admininstration were replaced by an anti-coal party, it's not suprising private cash was scarce for this project.
QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626 as proposed the line would have swung south from Kadoka/Wall area (I think I remember) to hook up with the PRB triple. Which turned out not to be the best idea, maybe, because of the devastation??
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
QUOTE: Originally posted by blhanel QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626 as proposed the line would have swung south from Kadoka/Wall area (I think I remember) to hook up with the PRB triple. Which turned out not to be the best idea, maybe, because of the devastation?? No kidding! How would they avoid the badlands?
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe The lack of private investment says it all. Railroads are already undercutting one another for better rates in the Powder River Basin, this will just make things worse. I think this is going to go down in history as a collasal blunder with lobyists and power companies to blame. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe The lack of private investment says it all. Railroads are already undercutting one another for better rates in the Powder River Basin, this will just make things worse. I think this is going to go down in history as a collasal blunder with lobyists and power companies to blame. Gabe Skeptic me wonders if it will ever get done? As a side note: On a recent thread about bio-diesel in ND, I asked why none of the ethanol plants were coal-fired. This seemed like a perfect compliment for rail operations to me. The newspaper mentions just that thought, without elaboration. Do you think someone is reading this message board, and **stealing** my thoughts?[:-,][}:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe The lack of private investment says it all. Railroads are already undercutting one another for better rates in the Powder River Basin, this will just make things worse. I think this is going to go down in history as a collasal blunder with lobyists and power companies to blame. Gabe Rates out of the PRB are going up, because demand is exceeding the railroads' ability to deliver. The reason for the lack of private investment is due to the political nature of coal. This project has to have long term ROI's just by it's nature, 20 or 30 years. Who knows, in ten years we might be back to politicians seeing coal as an anachronism. Perhaps coal gasification technologies will become much more commerially viable than is predicted, and since gasification precludes the need for low sulfer coals, demand for PRB coal might diminish, making the DME project superfluous. And the idea of new rail construction "making things worse" is straight from the AAR subtext. It does make things worse if you are a monopolist, it makes things better if the railroad industry wants to actually increase business coverage.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Swafford You just may be right but don’t forget the UP and BNSF. They may want to keep their monopoly on the Powder River Basin! Best regards, Swafford
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal If indeed BNSF and UP are competitors for PRB coal haulage, then they are a duopoly. If there is collusion between BNSF and UP to manipulate rates higher, the effect is monopolistic.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe The lack of private investment says it all. Railroads are already undercutting one another for better rates in the Powder River Basin, this will just make things worse. I think this is going to go down in history as a collasal blunder with lobyists and power companies to blame.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside When wind power and tar sands start to become discussed seriously as competitive sources of energy and viable investments (remember the last time?), it's time for investors in energy stocks to start heading for the hills.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe The lack of private investment says it all. Railroads are already undercutting one another for better rates in the Powder River Basin, this will just make things worse. I think this is going to go down in history as a collasal blunder with lobyists and power companies to blame. Gabe Skeptic me wonders if it will ever get done? As a side note: On a recent thread about bio-diesel in ND, I asked why none of the ethanol plants were coal-fired. This seemed like a perfect compliment for rail operations to me. The newspaper mentions just that thought, without elaboration. Do you think someone is reading this message board, and **stealing** my thoughts?[:-,][}:)] Murphy, the new Ethanol plant going in at Heron Lake, MN is going to be coal powered. One of the problems with using coal is that none of the facilities are big enough to receive unit train loads of coal which is the only way to get a good price. Also you need a large area to dump the coal onto. Heron Lake will purchase its coal jointly with other customer via the transload facility near Marshaltown, IA it will be trucked in from there.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Wouldn't you think there would be a power plant somewhere closer to Heron Lake, that they could team up with? What kind of transload facility is at Marshaltown? Thanks
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Wouldn't you think there would be a power plant somewhere closer to Heron Lake, that they could team up with? What kind of transload facility is at Marshaltown? Thanks It is a purpose built facility owned by Alliant Energy one of the big Electric Companies. They have a couple of small powerplants in the area, none of which are large enough for unit train service. Plus Iowa State University gets coal for its heating plant there, and one of the cement plants at Mason City gets its coal there. BTW the only coal fired powerplants that might be closer are at Sergeant Bluff, IA or Minneapolis, MN.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding I thought there was one in Sherburn, MN still?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 3. A rehab of 150 track miles on the DM&E’s western end between Wall, S.D., and Colony, WY Of those four separate projects, the one I find most intriging is actually the rehab of the Colony line, since this line represents the best shot of accessing Montana's PRB resources, as well as "reaching out" to a possible connection with the MRL.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 3. A rehab of 150 track miles on the DM&E’s western end between Wall, S.D., and Colony, WY* Of those four separate projects, the one I find most intriging is actually the rehab of the Colony line, since this line represents the best shot of accessing Montana's PRB resources, as well as "reaching out" to a possible connection with the MRL. Remember, The Washington Group (which owns MRL) was the entity that sold the IC&E to Cedar River Holdings, and as such they may still have an interest in those lines as a way to free up MRL from being captive to BNSF's whims.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 3. A rehab of 150 track miles on the DM&E’s western end between Wall, S.D., and Colony, WY Of those four separate projects, the one I find most intriging is actually the rehab of the Colony line, since this line represents the best shot of accessing Montana's PRB resources, as well as "reaching out" to a possible connection with the MRL. FM- It is about 200 miles from Colony to Huntley, and against the lay of the land. There seems to be a large, well organized opposition already in place fighting the stalled Tongue River Railroad. Would there be a lot of traffic that MRL and DME could interchange ?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 3. A rehab of 150 track miles on the DM&E’s western end between Wall, S.D., and Colony, WY* Of those four separate projects, the one I find most intriging is actually the rehab of the Colony line, since this line represents the best shot of accessing Montana's PRB resources, as well as "reaching out" to a possible connection with the MRL. Remember, The Washington Group (which owns MRL) was the entity that sold the IC&E to Cedar River Holdings, and as such they may still have an interest in those lines as a way to free up MRL from being captive to BNSF's whims. [(-D][(-D][(-D] I'm sorry man, but that's a longshot even bigger than the PRB extention.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH I'll believe that the line into the Powder River Basin is going to be built when I see the contracts being put out for bid. Since there hasn't been any great ru***o lend money to DM&E at a reasonable rate, I don't think that the line will ever be built, unless FM has some financiers lined up that nobody else knows about.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Among other things, the writer says that the state would get money from every ton of coal hauled through the state. Anybody have an idea what that would be about? I don't think any state levies a *transit tax?* on goods moving by rails that happen to be inside their borders, do they?
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Is the BNSF getting public money to build that 3rd main track from East Barstow towards Daggett they are now building[?][ QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Off topic: I know the writer of the article, Peter Harriman. He was one of my old running chums back in Moscow ID. On topic: Of course DME will need public funds. All rail projects today use public funds. And given the liabilities private debt holders would face if the current pro-coal Congress and Admininstration were replaced by an anti-coal party, it's not suprising private cash was scarce for this project.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Future, I presume you would agree that DME coal will all be rail competitive. How is DME going to show any profit hauling competitive coal at 102% of variable cost, even with RRIF funding? Mac
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Future, I presume you would agree that DME coal will all be rail competitive. How is DME going to show any profit hauling competitive coal at 102% of variable cost, even with RRIF funding? Mac Show me any railroad profits sheets where coal is being hauled at 102% of variable cost. You're confusing coal hauling with import intermodal. Import intermodal is where railroads can't come close to meeting revenue adequacy (which doesn't explain why most capacity investments are going to improve the import intermodal corridors). Most power plants are captive, even if the source of the coal is not. Therefore, DM&E will be able to charge a rate that is more than adequate to cover it's portion of the investment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Murphy, The marketing guys may not be disciplined enough to get above 102% but they are disciplined enough not to go under 100% of their own cost. That is why mileage and ruling grade count, they mightily influence your costs, and the other guys. Mac
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Future, Go look at the CURE website where they show the carrier's discrimination against captive coal. You have given us the reference before. Look at the ratio for competitive coal. The 102% is a representative number. Mac
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Future, I presume you would agree that DME coal will all be rail competitive. How is DME going to show any profit hauling competitive coal at 102% of variable cost, even with RRIF funding? Mac Show me any railroad profits sheets where coal is being hauled at 102% of variable cost. You're confusing coal hauling with import intermodal. Import intermodal is where railroads can't come close to meeting revenue adequacy (which doesn't explain why most capacity investments are going to improve the import intermodal corridors). Most power plants are captive, even if the source of the coal is not. Therefore, DM&E will be able to charge a rate that is more than adequate to cover it's portion of the investment. The trouble for DM&E is that there are no captive powerplants of any size on its lines, and only one on the IC&E.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Show me any railroad profits sheets where coal is being hauled at 102% of variable cost. You're confusing coal hauling with import intermodal. Import intermodal is where railroads can't come close to meeting revenue adequacy (which doesn't explain why most capacity investments are going to improve the import intermodal corridors). Most power plants are captive, even if the source of the coal is not. Therefore, DM&E will be able to charge a rate that is more than adequate to cover it's portion of the investment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM How is DME to make any money hauling coal out of the PRB?
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM How is DME to make any money hauling coal out of the PRB? ...with a route twice as long to Kansas City (and KCS)?
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Show me any railroad profits sheets where coal is being hauled at 102% of variable cost. You're confusing coal hauling with import intermodal. Import intermodal is where railroads can't come close to meeting revenue adequacy (which doesn't explain why most capacity investments are going to improve the import intermodal corridors). Most power plants are captive, even if the source of the coal is not. Therefore, DM&E will be able to charge a rate that is more than adequate to cover it's portion of the investment. One other thing Dave, don't assume that Import Intermodal is as revenue inadequate as you presume, relative to its costs it is much better than Domestic Intermodal. The speeds harmonize better with other traffic, unlike the UPS bullets where costs of failure and disruption to other traffic more than offset the potentially higher revenues, after all the containers just spent two plus weeks on a ship that may have been delayed by storms. as long as the train isn't days late the shipper isn't going to get too nervous. You must have noticed that BNSF took a pass on the UPS business when UPS wanted fast trains from LA to Chicago.
QUOTE: Originally posted by a Forummember Until the CN's Prince George container port comes on line, there are no captive container ports in North America.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by a Forummember Until the CN's Prince George container port comes on line, there are no captive container ports in North America. Except Halifax.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal . I don't forsee any cutthroat rates coming down the pike with DM&E's entry to the PRB.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Show me any railroad profits sheets where coal is being hauled at 102% of variable cost. You're confusing coal hauling with import intermodal. Import intermodal is where railroads can't come close to meeting revenue adequacy (which doesn't explain why most capacity investments are going to improve the import intermodal corridors). Most power plants are captive, even if the source of the coal is not. Therefore, DM&E will be able to charge a rate that is more than adequate to cover it's portion of the investment. One other thing Dave, don't assume that Import Intermodal is as revenue inadequate as you presume, relative to its costs it is much better than Domestic Intermodal. The speeds harmonize better with other traffic, unlike the UPS bullets where costs of failure and disruption to other traffic more than offset the potentially higher revenues, after all the containers just spent two plus weeks on a ship that may have been delayed by storms. as long as the train isn't days late the shipper isn't going to get too nervous. You must have noticed that BNSF took a pass on the UPS business when UPS wanted fast trains from LA to Chicago. beaulieu, the difference between Import Intermodal and Domestic Intermodal is that all import intermodal has competitive rail access at all major seaside container ports. Furthermore, overseas importers have a multitude of options regarding which combination of container lines and container ports to utilize. And finally most major US consumption markets are either located seaside, or located within a shorthaul of the major waterways (which all seem to be paralelled by at least three Class I's). Until the CN's Prince George container port comes on line, there are no captive container ports in North America. The point is, since all import intermodal has competition driving down rates, those import intermodal rates have to be at the low end of the RVC spectrum. Contrast that with domestic intermodal. There are many domestic intermodal terminals that are geographically captive to one Class I. The only other options available would require an expensive long truck haul to an alternate intermodal terminal, so the rate alternative would also be high. The monopoly Class I can charge rates from these terminals that are much higher than those rates from import intermodal terminals. And as you point out, since much domestic intermodal is time sensitive aka UPS, the rates for those shipments are on the high end of the RVC spectrum. Yeah, those time sensitive trains will use more fuel, but their crews are less likely to go dead, so the variable costs attributed to those trains cannot be that much higher. I guess if you count the delays to other trains going in the hole for the hotshots as a variable cost of the hothsot, you could make an arguement for a higher VC for the hotshots. But the rates the railroads can charge for hotshots are as high as any such rates can be, because the only alternatives are long haul trucks or airlines, so the rates can be just below those higher cost alternatives. I know BNSF has turned down more UPS business. They terminated the Swift RoadRailers. They are making business decisions that are not making sense. There is no way they can charge rate that exceeds the RVC standard of 180% on import intermodal no matter how much they try to minimize VC on those doublestacks, because there is just too much competition from other railroads and other shipping options to allow any profit mazimization. They are ordering more and more double stack wells. Those new equipment purchases cost money. They are spending an awful lot of money on increasing capacity on the LA to Chicago corridor. That is costing a pretty penny. If we attribute those expenditures as a portion of the doublestack VC, there is no way they are much above recouping 100% of RVC. And I suspect they may actually be below the 100% RVC on those double stack trains if we include the costs of capacity improvements and equipment purchases. We know they're not buying more spine cars for domestic TOFC, there seems to be plenty of those still sitting around stored on various sidings.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Show me any railroad profits sheets where coal is being hauled at 102% of variable cost. You're confusing coal hauling with import intermodal. Import intermodal is where railroads can't come close to meeting revenue adequacy (which doesn't explain why most capacity investments are going to improve the import intermodal corridors). Most power plants are captive, even if the source of the coal is not. Therefore, DM&E will be able to charge a rate that is more than adequate to cover it's portion of the investment. One other thing Dave, don't assume that Import Intermodal is as revenue inadequate as you presume, relative to its costs it is much better than Domestic Intermodal. The speeds harmonize better with other traffic, unlike the UPS bullets where costs of failure and disruption to other traffic more than offset the potentially higher revenues, after all the containers just spent two plus weeks on a ship that may have been delayed by storms. as long as the train isn't days late the shipper isn't going to get too nervous. You must have noticed that BNSF took a pass on the UPS business when UPS wanted fast trains from LA to Chicago. beaulieu, the difference between Import Intermodal and Domestic Intermodal is that all import intermodal has competitive rail access at all major seaside container ports. Furthermore, overseas importers have a multitude of options regarding which combination of container lines and container ports to utilize. And finally most major US consumption markets are either located seaside, or located within a shorthaul of the major waterways (which all seem to be paralelled by at least three Class I's). Until the CN's Prince George container port comes on line, there are no captive container ports in North America. The point is, since all import intermodal has competition driving down rates, those import intermodal rates have to be at the low end of the RVC spectrum. Contrast that with domestic intermodal. There are many domestic intermodal terminals that are geographically captive to one Class I. The only other options available would require an expensive long truck haul to an alternate intermodal terminal, so the rate alternative would also be high. The monopoly Class I can charge rates from these terminals that are much higher than those rates from import intermodal terminals. And as you point out, since much domestic intermodal is time sensitive aka UPS, the rates for those shipments are on the high end of the RVC spectrum. Yeah, those time sensitive trains will use more fuel, but their crews are less likely to go dead, so the variable costs attributed to those trains cannot be that much higher. I guess if you count the delays to other trains going in the hole for the hotshots as a variable cost of the hothsot, you could make an arguement for a higher VC for the hotshots. But the rates the railroads can charge for hotshots are as high as any such rates can be, because the only alternatives are long haul trucks or airlines, so the rates can be just below those higher cost alternatives. I know BNSF has turned down more UPS business. They terminated the Swift RoadRailers. They are making business decisions that are not making sense. There is no way they can charge rate that exceeds the RVC standard of 180% on import intermodal no matter how much they try to minimize VC on those doublestacks, because there is just too much competition from other railroads and other shipping options to allow any profit mazimization. They are ordering more and more double stack wells. Those new equipment purchases cost money. They are spending an awful lot of money on increasing capacity on the LA to Chicago corridor. That is costing a pretty penny. If we attribute those expenditures as a portion of the doublestack VC, there is no way they are much above recouping 100% of RVC. And I suspect they may actually be below the 100% RVC on those double stack trains if we include the costs of capacity improvements and equipment purchases. We know they're not buying more spine cars for domestic TOFC, there seems to be plenty of those still sitting around stored on various sidings. Right Dave, CP just stopped handling TOFC traffic completely, if it isn't in a can they won't handle it. BNSF hasn't gotten there yet but they might. Don't forget that just because its a container doesn't necessarily mean its import business. CP moves lots of domestic business in containers. And if you need to move freight to the West Coast, Maersk, COSCO, Hanjin, Evergreen would love to ship it in one of their boxes even if it isn't leaving the country, saves them paying to move empty boxes. I realize Dave that all six of the Class Is are nuts and you know best.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Future, You are missing the point. According to CURE, competitive traffic of all kinds moves at a RVC ratio of 103% in the West(UP-BNSF Average).
QUOTE: DME coal will be all competitive. One would expect it to move at about the regional RVC ratio in the absence of data to the contrary. If their route is better in terms of mileage, ruling grades, and/or rise and fall, then their RVC would be higher at a given rate than the competition's. If their route is inferior their variable cost will be higher and they will hit the 100% RVC wall before their competitors. I do not know which is true. Odds are these factors will be reasonably close on some moves. I would assume them a push.
QUOTE: DME's problem is that their investment base will be in current dollars, while much of the competitors is in older dollars, some of which has been depreciated. I suspect DME's ratio of investment to revenues will be higher than their competitors. Industry average is $3 investment to generate $1 of annual revenue. If DME ratio will be higher, that will be a big burdem. I suspect it is more likely to be higher than lower. Even if DME is willing to settle for 6% ROI they need a RVC ratio of at least 118% (100% plus 3*.06). I do not think they can get that RVC, BNSF and UP will not let them. They don't let each other get 118%, so why would they let the DME?
QUOTE: The other point is that the private capital markets would not invest in this project even at 6%. They will demand more than that even of a sure investment. DME is far from sure so the market will require a risk premium. The prospect of RRIF money minimizes this problem and could get cost of capital down to 6%, but it will be a very risky business and the FRA does evaluate the borrower's business plan. I would not put my money into it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM For DME what RVC other western carriers are getting for ALL coal is irrelevant. All the coal DME proposes to haul will be noncaptive, by definition. They will loose their shirt hauling noncaptive coal. Mac
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Why doesn't DM&E build a line into the grain country of Montana? I hear talk of a railroad up there making so much money, that they're actively trying to turn some of the business away?[:-,]
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Future, On what basis do you disagree with my contention, which is based on CURE data, that noncaptive coal from PRB is already moving at RVC ratios very little over 100%? Their data shows all noncaptive traffic at an average of 103%. Coal rates per ton are 40-50% of rates for other commodities, again CURE data. I see no data to support your conclusion. For DME what RVC other western carriers are getting for ALL coal is irrelevant. All the coal DME proposes to haul will be noncaptive, by definition. They will loose their shirt hauling noncaptive coal. Mac
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Today's paper has a story that BNSF has hit a *delay* of sorts in it's plan to buy trackage owned by the stat of South Dakota. My guess is that there are some issues with letting other railroads (DM&E, and another up by Aberdeen) use portions of what will be BNSF trackage.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Today's paper has a story that BNSF has hit a *delay* of sorts in it's plan to buy trackage owned by the stat of South Dakota. My guess is that there are some issues with letting other railroads (DM&E, and another up by Aberdeen) use portions of what will be BNSF trackage. Can you post the article, or at least post a few exerpts? Or a link?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Today's paper has a story that BNSF has hit a *delay* of sorts in it's plan to buy trackage owned by the stat of South Dakota. My guess is that there are some issues with letting other railroads (DM&E, and another up by Aberdeen) use portions of what will be BNSF trackage. Can you post the article, or at least post a few exerpts? Or a link? Alas, I am a computer dummy[D)]. The article appears in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Today's paper has a story that BNSF has hit a *delay* of sorts in it's plan to buy trackage owned by the stat of South Dakota. My guess is that there are some issues with letting other railroads (DM&E, and another up by Aberdeen) use portions of what will be BNSF trackage. Can you post the article, or at least post a few exerpts? Or a link? Alas, I am a computer dummy[D)]. The article appears in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. So plagerize a few choice tidbits then. You must plagerize, you must! The information is vital!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So plagerize a few choice tidbits then. You must plagerize, you must! The information is vital!
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So plagerize a few choice tidbits then. You must plagerize, you must! The information is vital! So it appears that FM has no scruples, intellectual or otherwise, when it comes to his attempts to make his case. As it turns out, the information was hardly sufficient to be vital; to what, I don't know.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Another little, filler article about it today in the paper. It says that the state is holding out on selling the trackage to BNSF until the deatails can be worked out concerning shortlines using BNSF trackage. This time, the Dakota Southern is mentioned. I didn't know they were still around.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Another little, filler article about it today in the paper. It says that the state is holding out on selling the trackage to BNSF until the deatails can be worked out concerning shortlines using BNSF trackage. This time, the Dakota Southern is mentioned. I didn't know they were still around. Inspite, of BNSF's single-minded fixation on Shuttle Grain trains, the Dakota Southern has managed to hang on by the skin of their teeth by acting as a switching contractor for one company in Mitchell, SD. The Dakota Southern signed its agreement with BNSF yesterday, this should allow them to reactivate their line to Chamberlain, SD. This agreement will allow South Dakota to avoid the trap that Montana is in.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu ....the agreement prohibits the movement of export grain via Aberdeen to the PNW,
QUOTE: and only Dakota Shortline, Dakota Southern, and D&I get access to other railroads at Sioux City.
QUOTE: DM&E, Dakota Southern, and Dakota Shortline can access the DMV&W, and hence CP, at Aberdeen.
QUOTE: DM&E cannot interchange Coal?, Intermodal?, or export grain via CP-UP.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu ....the agreement prohibits the movement of export grain via Aberdeen to the PNW, That sounds kind of fishy. Doesn't federal statute prohibit restrictions to interstate commerce? DM&E currently sends it's PNW-bound grain trains via BNSF, is this now going to end? QUOTE: and only Dakota Shortline, Dakota Southern, and D&I get access to other railroads at Sioux City. What are the "other" railroads at Sioux City? UP? KCS? CN? QUOTE: DM&E, Dakota Southern, and Dakota Shortline can access the DMV&W, and hence CP, at Aberdeen. But not for export grain? Wasn't the stand taken by the State intended to avoid the whole "Montana problem" regarding captive grain shipping rates to the Pacific Rim? QUOTE: DM&E cannot interchange Coal?, Intermodal?, or export grain via CP-UP. If this is true, and the feds uphold this deal, the State f****d up big time. Welcome to Montana's economic hell, South Dakota!
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu ....the agreement prohibits the movement of export grain via Aberdeen to the PNW, That sounds kind of fishy. Doesn't federal statute prohibit restrictions to interstate commerce? DM&E currently sends it's PNW-bound grain trains via BNSF, is this now going to end? QUOTE: and only Dakota Shortline, Dakota Southern, and D&I get access to other railroads at Sioux City. What are the "other" railroads at Sioux City? UP? KCS? CN? QUOTE: DM&E, Dakota Southern, and Dakota Shortline can access the DMV&W, and hence CP, at Aberdeen. But not for export grain? Wasn't the stand taken by the State intended to avoid the whole "Montana problem" regarding captive grain shipping rates to the Pacific Rim? QUOTE: DM&E cannot interchange Coal?, Intermodal?, or export grain via CP-UP. If this is true, and the feds uphold this deal, the State f****d up big time. Welcome to Montana's economic hell, South Dakota! The other railroads at Sioux City are CN and UP. While some of the grain does move east, the best prices are to the Pacific Rim countries. The three shortlines will come out on this deal, but they don't represent much of a loss to BNSF, The DM&E gets very little. Possibly some grain for Duluth, and small amounts of inbound material, like paper etc. will move via Aberdeen gateway. Basically the BNSF will get all the export grain to the west coast, while giving up a very small amount moving to domestic flour mills, and loses participation in the aggregate movements off of the D&I.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu ....the agreement prohibits the movement of export grain via Aberdeen to the PNW, That sounds kind of fishy. Doesn't federal statute prohibit restrictions to interstate commerce? DM&E currently sends it's PNW-bound grain trains via BNSF, is this now going to end? QUOTE: and only Dakota Shortline, Dakota Southern, and D&I get access to other railroads at Sioux City. What are the "other" railroads at Sioux City? UP? KCS? CN? QUOTE: DM&E, Dakota Southern, and Dakota Shortline can access the DMV&W, and hence CP, at Aberdeen. But not for export grain? Wasn't the stand taken by the State intended to avoid the whole "Montana problem" regarding captive grain shipping rates to the Pacific Rim? QUOTE: DM&E cannot interchange Coal?, Intermodal?, or export grain via CP-UP. If this is true, and the feds uphold this deal, the State f****d up big time. Welcome to Montana's economic hell, South Dakota! The other railroads at Sioux City are CN and UP. While some of the grain does move east, the best prices are to the Pacific Rim countries. The three shortlines will come out on this deal, but they don't represent much of a loss to BNSF, The DM&E gets very little. Possibly some grain for Duluth, and small amounts of inbound material, like paper etc. will move via Aberdeen gateway. Basically the BNSF will get all the export grain to the west coast, while giving up a very small amount moving to domestic flour mills, and loses participation in the aggregate movements off of the D&I. I'm still curious as to how PNW grain exports can be limited to BNSF interchange only. I know that currently DM&E sends it's Pacific Rim grain trains via BNSF anyway, so from a practical standpoint it should be a fairly moot point, but wouldn't federal interstate commerce law supercede a restrictive caveat if DM&E or one of the other shortlines wanted to interchange PNW grain trains with CP via Aberdeen? Doesn't DM&E or DS also have a prior UP or CP interchange not dependent on this agreement, e.g. somewhere other than Aberdeen or Sioux City?
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu Yes the DM&E can interchange with the CP and UP, but it is several hundred miles further east. Raising the costs to route it that way.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Perhaps it may be a moot point for DM&E regarding the paper barrier at Aberdeen. Once the PRB extension is built, won't DM&E have a decent westward connection with UP via the Orin line that could also be used to handle grain trains? Or does the UP-BNSF Orin line agreement prohibit all but coal trains?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu Yes the DM&E can interchange with the CP and UP, but it is several hundred miles further east. Raising the costs to route it that way. So the Aberdeen connection is key? BNSF has contractual "bottleneck" rights dating from their takeover of operations of the State owned ex-Milwaukee tracks including the few miles in Aberdeen between DM&E to the south and DMV&W (and thus onto CP) to the north, if I understand correctly. This CP connection is viable competition mileage-wise with BNSF to the PNW, so naturally BNSF would contest this possible connection from a purely business standpoint e.g. they get to keep all of DM&E's PNW-bound grain on BNSF rails west of Aberdeen. Makes sense for BNSF to go that way, but why would the State acquiesce to this paper barrier if it means higher rates to PNW for its grain growers? Also, is the distance between DM&E and DMV&W so far or obstructed that the State couldn't just build a connection parallel to the Core lines for a few million?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [br And I find it interesting that DM&E and DMV&W actually interchanged a few trains in Aberdeen before BNSF nixed it. How was this done? Did either DM&E and/or DMV&W have keys to the BNSF switches? Or am I missing something regarding the track layouts in Aberdeen? Does someone have a map of Aberdeen via Mapquest they could provide?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So there will be no physical connection between the Orin line and the proposed DM&E PRB extension? That would eliminate the possibility of temporary usage of the DM&E by BNSF and UP should another Orin line flustercluck occur. It doens't suprise me all that much regarding UP wanting to shift traffic over The Crow and on down the Washy rather than mess with the Blue Mountain crossing. That in and of itself would probably nix a DM&E-UP interchange in Wyoming even if there is a physical connection to the Orin line built. UP's problems between Nampa and Hinkle may be worse than advertised. And I find it interesting that DM&E and DMV&W actually interchanged a few trains in Aberdeen before BNSF nixed it. How was this done? Did either DM&E and/or DMV&W have keys to the BNSF switches? Or am I missing something regarding the track layouts in Aberdeen? Does someone have a map of Aberdeen via Mapquest they could provide? This is more intriguing than I first thought!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I'm curious. If DM&E and DMV&W are both using the same BNSF sidings, and tried to pull a fly by night exchange again, what could BNSF do to stop this outside of a terse letter? Could BNSF then prohibit either DM&E or DMV&W from even entering BNSF property, forcing both D's to leave interchange consists on their own respective tracks for BNSF crews to pick up? BTW - Thanks to nanaimo73 for providing an ariel shot of Aberdeen. That clears up alot!
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I'm curious. If DM&E and DMV&W are both using the same BNSF sidings, and tried to pull a fly by night exchange again, what could BNSF do to stop this outside of a terse letter? Could BNSF then prohibit either DM&E or DMV&W from even entering BNSF property, forcing both D's to leave interchange consists on their own respective tracks for BNSF crews to pick up? BTW - Thanks to nanaimo73 for providing an ariel shot of Aberdeen. That clears up alot! FM, I have been informed by a DM&E employee that the two blocks of cars interchanged from DM&E to DMV&W that precipitated this action were not for export out of North America but rather Corn for some feedlots in Alberta. BNSF still didn't like being cut out of the rate. If the DM&E were to try and interchange cars to the DMV&W without authority to do so, the BNSF could bring them to Federal Court.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding IF DM&E gets into the PRB to take coal traffic away from both BNSF and UP, what motivation would either of them have to work very hard to partner up with DM&E for grain shipments?
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding IF DM&E gets into the PRB to take coal traffic away from both BNSF and UP, what motivation would either of them have to work very hard to partner up with DM&E for grain shipments? Since Mike Walsh, 20 years ago, the UP's business groups are run as seperate units. The grain group will be happy to work with the DM&E as long as they can make money for the grain group.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Oh ye of little faith!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Oh ye of little faith! I'll buy you a steak dinner, the day DM&E hauls its first coal train out of PRB on its new extention. You'll be able to take Amtrack from your city to my city, so that will be easy. <<<<<I'll give equal odds on either event happening![;)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding IF DM&E gets into the PRB to take coal traffic away from both BNSF and UP, what motivation would either of them have to work very hard to partner up with DM&E for grain shipments? Since Mike Walsh, 20 years ago, the UP's business groups are run as seperate units. The grain group will be happy to work with the DM&E as long as they can make money for the grain group. . I wonder, is BNSF's corporate makeup anything like UP's? My guess is no given the bend-over-backwards-to-hold-the-bottleneck mentality of BNSF. It also seems to me that the other Class I's do not engage in such bottleneck obsession as exhibited by BNSF, or at least to the same degree. At least I never read any news items about UP/KCS/NS/CSX/CP/CN bottleneck complaints, it all seems to be BNSF. Are there any examples of UP bottleneck hording? CN? CP?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal How was this done? Did either DM&E and/or DMV&W have keys to the BNSF switches? Or am I missing something regarding the track layouts in Aberdeen? Does someone have a map of Aberdeen via Mapquest they could provide? This is more intriguing than I first thought!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Today's local newspaper headline is that DM&E wins approval of STB. Now, all they have to do is find some money, for a loan that Uncle Sam will guarantee.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Who will buy the DM&E if they get into the Powder River Basin? They do not have the market reach to stay independant or do they serve several coal fired utilities?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding samfp1943: I am a total computer dummy. How do you access the entire article on the newswire? I can see headlines, but not the whole story. Can someone help me out? Thanks
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding samfp1943: I am a total computer dummy. How do you access the entire article on the newswire? I can see headlines, but not the whole story. Can someone help me out? Thanks Just click on the TRAINS News Wire for February 15, 2006 Your arrow will turn into a hand when you are on a link.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 90 days for the FRA approval of the 2.5 billion dollar bailout, and then ye of little faith shall be discombobulated.......
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox I was at the C&NW untill 1982...
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox I was at the C&NW untill 1982... Bob: I believe you were mentioned in a Trains a few years ago... Ed Ellis refered to a Bob Wilcox at C&NW who worked with soda-ash pricing and traffic in 1980. Enjoy your posts here. Thanks.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Note the entry in today's (2/17) News Wire. It looks like DM&E is going to have a most difficult time in raising the money to build this line.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.