Good News for DM&E

[Anonymous]

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.

So it's back to being a cheap shot artist, huh CSSHEGEWISCH? Obviously, it is you who lacks scruples. What "case" do you think I am making?

All I wanted was some specifics on the South Dakota / BNSF trackage deal. Is one party or the other going to cut and run from this deal? Will BNSF find a loophole that puts a paper barrier or two in front of DM&E or DS?

[petervonb]

Instead of shooting at each other, see if you can find the news article. I spent 10 minutes monkeying with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader website trying to find the story(s) to no avail. Maybe one of you will have better luck - or maybe it's in some other periodical.

Ciao

[beaulieu]

No need the deal is done, all agreements have been signed see BNSF Press Release here;
http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2005/11/2005-11-23a.html

[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.

[beaulieu]

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.

Wrong I was, the agreement prohibits the movement of export grain via Aberdeen to the PNW, and only Dakota Shortline, Dakota Southern, and D&I get access to other railroads at Sioux City. BNSF pays what South Dakota paid to purchase, repair and upgrade the line, no interest and no repayment of Federal money.
My reading is that South Dakota didn't get much, but the three Shortlines will benefit some. DM&E, Dakota Southern, and Dakota Shortline can access the DMV&W, and hence CP, at Aberdeen. The State will build a new siding at Aberdeen to facilitate the interchange. DM&E cannot interchange Coal?, Intermodal?, or export grain via CP-UP.

[Murphy Siding]

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.

I saw this for what it was: a request for more info, not the missing link in a cospiracy theory[:)]

[Anonymous]

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 of South Dakota messed up big time. Welcome to Montana's world, South Dakota!

[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.

[Anonymous]

Businessman says talks moving ahead in state rail line sale
(The Associated Press circulated the following article on November 23.)

YANKTON, S.D. -- Progress is being made in negotiations to work out the details of a proposed sale of the state-owned railroad line, the head of the Dakota Southern Railway said Tuesday.

In April, Gov. Mike Rounds said a general agreement had been reached under which the Burlington Northern Santa Fe would buy the state-owned rail line for about $41 million.
But state and BNSF officials said the sale hinged on whether details of the plan could be worked out.

Alex Huff, president of Dakota Southern, said a deal must be getting closer because he signed his part of the agreement on Monday. Under the plan, Huff said his company gains trackage rights to Sioux City, Iowa.

Huff said Rounds deserves credit for "sticking to his guns" in a long and drawn out process.

State Transportation Secretary Judy Payne told The Associated Press on Monday that negotiations with BNSF were continuing.

Payne previously has said the settlement will not become final unless BNSF works out operating agreements with a number of short-line railroads that want to use the track. The settlement also requires the state to make improvements to some parts of the line if the sale becomes final, she said.


Wednesday, November 23, 2005
From BLET Site

[Anonymous]

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?

[Murphy Siding]

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?

The DS ends(?) in Mitchell, 100+ miles from any connection with CN or UP at Sioux City, Iowa. The interchange with CP(?) that DM&E has through Aberdeen is by way of , I *think* the Missouri River Valley(?) Railroad. The problem, is that the two roads don't actually touch rails. There is a few miles of BNSF tracks, in the Aberdeen yard that must be used to connect. BNSF was in a lawsuit over just that issue. DM&E could haul grain through it's "core" system, east into Minnesota, until it can interchange with UP,CN, or CP, I suppose.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Murphy Siding]

Truth be known, you can probably see DM&E rails from DMV&W rails, from opposite ends of BNSF's yard. Because the city of Aberdeen is built around the yard, a parallel connection would be difficult. I'm not sure why the state is being so pliable about all this.

[Anonymous]

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?

[beaulieu]

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?

It will be more difficult than that for DM&E, first they won't be able to use the Orin Line for their trains so their PRB extension will look like a hand with the arm coming to a point just east of the coal fields and then spreading out like fingers to each of the mine loadouts which are along a line over many miles, and since many of the mines are on the east side of the Orin Line with the loadouts located on the west side of the area being mined, the DM&E will have separate branches for each mine and they will have to loop around the mine area. The second problem is that they would have to build an interchange yard somewhere in the PRB. near Bill, WY probably. And of course BNSF may be able to nix the operation of non-coal traffic over the Orin Line by UP. Next we have the fact that UP has been exploring the idea of routing some export grain from Southern Minnesota and Northern Iowa via the CP to avoid capacity problems on the Overland Route and the Oregon Short Line. The UP and CP ran an inspection train over the route in early November of this year.

[beaulieu]

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?

A couple of things so you understand the situation better. First BNSF's shuttle train rate is competitive with CP's, as is their trainload non-shuttle rate. Where the elevators prefer CP comes with the fact that CP's 52 car rate is noticeably cheaper than BNSF's rate and CP did, at least last year, offer a 26-car rate. Each was proportionally higher but was viewed as reasonably so. BNSF would not allow two nearby elevators to split a 52 car shipment. while CP would, and so on. Most South Dakota elevators cannot load Shuttle trains.

Now to give you an idea of the geography of the Aberdeen area. Aberdeen was served by three railroads, The GN's branch arriving from the NE, the Milwaukee's mainline running E-W through town with a secondary line running N-S on the west side of Aberdeen, and the C&NW coming in from the South but coming in on the east side of town. Prior to the Milwaukee bankruptcy the only changes were the GN becoming BN, and the C&NW becoming DM&E. In 1980 when the Trustee closed the Pacific extension the State of South Dakota bought all of the former Milwaukee, if the State bought the portion of the secondary line north of the mainline it was quickly abandoned. The BN bought the E-W mainline in the mid '80s from the State and it is not part of the current transaction. The BN operated the State owned trackage as a leaseholder. In the '90s the DM&E abandoned their trackage in favor of Trackage Rights over the BN since they had no customers in Aberdeen of their own and the only reason to come to Aberdeen was to interchange with BN. The reason they come to Aberdeen rather than just interchange at Wolsey is to preserve their share of the freight rate division , and Wolsey has no facilities. So DM&E now comes into town over the "Core" on the west side of Aberdeen. Then around the year 2000 BN decides to abandon the former GN branch into Aberdeen and the State decides to buy the line rather than allow it to be abandoned as there are several small elevators that could ship by rail with lower rates. The DMV&W was the State's chosen operator of the former GN line since they operated the Soo Line branch that connects this GN line to the CP (Soo) mainline. The **** hit the fan when the DM&E tried to interchange several 52 car blocks of grain to the DMV&W. The first two trains moved OK, it probably took that long for Ft. Worth to hear about it, but nothing further has been interchanged between DM&E and DMV&W since.

[Anonymous]

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!

[Murphy Siding]

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?

I *think* I recall reading, that someone locally, in Aberdeen, allowed the first run-through, before someone higher up actually approved it. I think it only happened once.

[Murphy Siding]

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?

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?

[beaulieu]

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!

The tiny ex-GN yard in Aberdeen was alongside the ex-Milwaukee yard in Aberdeen, and during the time between the BN acquiring the ex-Milw. Rd mainline and then selling the ex-GN branch, BN reconfigured them into one yard. So what happened is the DM&E brought their train into the yard and spotted the cars for BNSF on one track and those for DMV&W on the track set aside for the DMV&W on their track. Both shortlines shared the BNSF ex-Milw yard in Aberdeen for interchange with the BNSF. Note that the are no BNSF switch cres assigned to the yard and only a local crew that does yard switching as needed. Believe me a scanner is vital to spot trains on the East - West mainline, patience helps too. Three trains each way is typical with a fourth train when grain is moving heavier. So it can be hours between any BNSF employees being present in the yard. Did I mention that there is only one supervisor assigned to Aberdeen? So the DM&E comes and drops the cars for DMV&W and some time later the DMV&W picks them up.

[Anonymous]

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!

[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.

[Anonymous]

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.

It is kind of interesting regarding some of the nuances of multiple-connection sidings. Apparently DM&E can park it's cars on this siding(s) owned by BNSF, DMV&W can park it's cars on the very same siding(s), they could probably even park both DM&E and DMV&W cars on the same siding(s) at the same time, BNSF may not even want to bother with them some of the time, yet woe to them if they actually exchanged cars between themselves. This is the kind of thing that makes re-regulation almost a certainty, because it begets such an absurdity of legalese, kind of like the property owner who swears out a trespassing warrant if someone takes two steps across the corner of his property.

It is my view that baiting BNSF to take the small guys to federal court for exchanging normal business may be just the thing to exemplify the inefficiencies of paper barriers and bottleneck rate gouging. Somewhere along the line common sense needs to be enforced by the STB for the good of the transportation community.

Does BNSF gain anything by preventing DM&E and DMN&W from doing business with each other? Does BNSF gain anything by preventing MRL and UP from exchanging traffic without BNSF acting as a 100 yard go-between in Spokane.

It is absurdity, pure absurdity in my view.

[route_rock]

Thats my road for you FM, hell they are suing an engineer for damages in that FT Mad wreck.. Maybe that would explain why DM&E's road in Iowa ( the ICE) took the switch lock off one of the industries here and put their own on it. Everywhere else on their line where the BNSF works is a contraption with both their lock and our lock,except for here. Oh well more buisness for them thats good for them, they just stick us in the hole for forever and a day.

[edbenton]

With the DM&E hauling powder rivr coal there are alot of power plants in WI that are served by the CN and get the coal from the UP. Those are possible loads for the DM&E and there are a few other roads that could also gain with the ICE for the east coast plants to. Remember the DM&E started off as a regional spun off of old line even the CN&W did not want and yet they are making it work!!!

[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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[bobwilcox]

The NS, CSXT and UP have the same view as the BNSF. Instances of closed access have come up with all of these carriers. However, the railroads involved often settle the issues. If you would like specifics suggest you do a search of old Traffic Worlds or Wall Street Journals over the last 25 years.

[Murphy Siding]

The newspaper (Sioux Falls, S.D. Argus Leader) yesterday said that DM&E got the go-ahead for their $2.5 billion dollar government loan, but has to wait another 30 days for another hurdle of some sort. Interesting, though, is DM&E President's statement that they wouldn't proceed on the PRB extention untill they got some cotracts from utilities to haul coal. My own thought is: they have now reached a point, where the utility companies can use them to beat down the prices from BNSF and UP. Why buy the cow, when you can force down the price of milk? Now is when the whole thing is apt to fizzle out.[xx(]