WATCO abandoning service on Washington State owned lines! (read: BNSF does it again!)

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

As opposed to a set amout of time irregardless of train type?

So you DON'T know.

How surprising. (OK, where's the sarcastic smilie?)

[Anonymous]

zardoz,

I was only illistrating the "ed" treatment, doing to "ed" basically what he does to me every single time. If such "edishness" offends you, I suggest you contact "ed" and tell him how you feel. I'm just playing the messenger here.

Obviously, you do not know the real "ed".

[zardoz]

I suppose I shouln't be sticking my nose in here, but this argument has been going on for so long, and does not seem to be going anywhere. It seems as though futuremodal and tomdiehl are enjoying this diatribe, copying and pasting such involved postings; however, when you mega-posters get done trying to impress us (and each other) with 'knowledge', perhaps you could actually take the time to read and comprehend what the other is trying to say. In this way, you may actually have a discussion, rather than an insult exchange thread.

And speaking of insults, futuremodal, you have gone too far with your condemnation of Ed's observations. Sure, Ed "merely" operates railroad equipment rather than a calculator at work, and thinks on his feet rather than on his ***, but he is one of the most rational, intelligent, and observant posters we have on this site. Ed is concise and to the point; he does not hide behind a smokescreen of overwhelming factoids. Your diatribe against Ed is tantamount to a derision against every working railroader on this site.

We all have our areas of expertise, and we all have to work together to make things function. And if want anyone to ever take you seriously, I suggest you get off your high horse and realize you are no better (or no worse) than anyone else.

There is a saying: He only listens when he is speaking. Think about it, please.

[Anonymous]

As opposed to a set amout of time irregardless of train type?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom, it's real simple (regarding operations through Cascade Tunnel). An empty heading eastbound through the tunnel (the 1.7% upgrade direction) will not need as much horsepower as a fully loaded double stack, thus the engines are not working as hard, thus there is less emissions to be cleared out, thus the tunnel is ready in much less time for the next train. That's why the Quincy dedicated intermodal train would leave such a small footprinto on current BNSF operations via Stevens Pass.

For the record, most eastbounds are loads (usually double stacks of Asian imports), so if it takes a hour to clear the tunnel after each loaded double stack, adding more eastbound loads will be difficult. But westbounds, regardless of tonnage, are effectively just drifting downgrade, so the tunnel is usually available for the next train shortly thereafter. The only type of eastbound that wouldn't require the usual 40 minutes would be one that's not working so hard going upgrade, e.g. an empty.

So you're claiming to know the rulebook entry on this tunnel.

[Anonymous]

Tom, it's real simple (regarding operations through Cascade Tunnel). An empty heading eastbound through the tunnel (the 1.7% upgrade direction) will not need as much horsepower as a fully loaded double stack, thus the engines are not working as hard, thus there is less emissions to be cleared out, thus the tunnel is ready in much less time for the next train. That's why the Quincy dedicated intermodal train would leave such a small footprinto on current BNSF operations via Stevens Pass.

For the record, most eastbounds are loads (usually double stacks of Asian imports), so if it takes a hour to clear the tunnel after each loaded double stack, adding more eastbound loads will be difficult. But westbounds, regardless of tonnage, are effectively just drifting downgrade, so the tunnel is usually available for the next train shortly thereafter. The only type of eastbound that wouldn't require the usual 40 minutes would be one that's not working so hard going upgrade, e.g. an empty.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AMTK200

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

- Foss Maritime, one of the four competing barge lines that use the Columbia-Snake River waterway system, is in favor of more rail to barge transloading, since capacity on the river is nowhere near the congestion point, while rail capacity in the Gorge is at the breaking point for both UP and BNSF.

"Rail capacity near the breaking point for both UP and BNSF," sounds like something I suggested earlier.

I feel if the Government would be willing to pay for the USA Rail Improvments.

The same way they're planning on paying for the NEC improvements?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

- Foss Maritime, one of the four competing barge lines that use the Columbia-Snake River waterway system, is in favor of more rail to barge transloading, since capacity on the river is nowhere near the congestion point, while rail capacity in the Gorge is at the breaking point for both UP and BNSF.

"Rail capacity near the breaking point for both UP and BNSF," sounds like something I suggested earlier.

I feel if the Government would be willing to pay for the USA Rail Improvments.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

- Foss Maritime, one of the four competing barge lines that use the Columbia-Snake River waterway system, is in favor of more rail to barge transloading, since capacity on the river is nowhere near the congestion point, while rail capacity in the Gorge is at the breaking point for both UP and BNSF.

"Rail capacity near the breaking point for both UP and BNSF," sounds like something I suggested earlier.

Gee the evil BNSF is at capacity so they want to reduce volume. I am shocked!

Again, to clarify, for all rail operations, only the Gorge route is at the breaking point in terms of congestion. 2.2% grades over Stampede and Stevens preclude heavy trainsets. Stampede has ample capacity, but clearances through that tunnel do not allow double stacks, autoracks, or high cube boxcars. Stevens Pass isn't congested per se, but it takes so long to clear the exhaust out of the tunnel after a loaded eastbound goes through that it limits the daily number of trains to 25 or 30. They could run a dedicated shorthaul intermodal shuttle (e.g. the Quincy-Puget Sound idea that BNSF dissed) through Stevens without too much difficulty, because the eastbound leg of such a shuttle would be running mostly empty, so it wouldn't take much time at all to clear the exhaust out of the tunnel for the next train.

Got that straight, Tom?

Yes, I do have it straight. You have an obvious habit of contradicting yourself. The original quote above is from your post.

And also you're of the opinion that you know how to run the railroad better than the people running it now.

Example:

"They could run a dedicated shorthaul intermodal shuttle (e.g. the Quincy-Puget Sound idea that BNSF dissed) through Stevens without too much difficulty, because the eastbound leg of such a shuttle would be running mostly empty, so it wouldn't take much time at all to clear the exhaust out of the tunnel for the next train."

Suddenly, the operation rules have been suspended for clearing exhaust from this tunnel?

[bobwilcox]

Gee, maybee they have a place to make more money with their equipment or shouldn't the evil BNSF be interested in making more money. I notice you have had a lot of jobs. How often do you change jobs?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

- Foss Maritime, one of the four competing barge lines that use the Columbia-Snake River waterway system, is in favor of more rail to barge transloading, since capacity on the river is nowhere near the congestion point, while rail capacity in the Gorge is at the breaking point for both UP and BNSF.

"Rail capacity near the breaking point for both UP and BNSF," sounds like something I suggested earlier.

Gee the evil BNSF is at capacity so they want to reduce volume. I am shocked!

No, Bob, BNSF wants to force grain to be trucked to Ritzville, not to reduce volume. If BNSF wantd to reduce volume through the gorge, they should start trasnloading some export grain to barge at Pasco or Wallula, and thus take those long slow grain trains out of the gorge to free up capacity. As I explained earier, to do so would for the most part make the Ritzville facility superflous, and the only question then is if BNSF is willing to abandon their agreement with Templin LLC and leave them in the lurch the way they did the Whitman County GG's Fallon facility.

There is ample capacity available over the Stampede Pass line, and the only limiting factor over Stevens Pass is that albatross of a tunnel. But they'd be fighting long 2.2% westbound grades, and with grain trains that operating nightmare would virtually shut down the Stevens Pass route, while sending a grain train over Stampede might take two days. If the traffic is bound for the lower Columbia ports, that's another day or so, and now the cycle has increased in time costs.

Again, to clarify, for all rail operations, only the Gorge route is at the breaking point in terms of congestion. 2.2% grades over Stampede and Stevens preclude heavy trainsets. Stampede has ample capacity, but clearances through that tunnel do not allow double stacks, autoracks, or high cube boxcars. Stevens Pass isn't congested per se, but it takes so long to clear the exhaust out of the tunnel after a loaded eastbound goes through that it limits the daily number of trains to 25 or 30. They could run a dedicated shorthaul intermodal shuttle (e.g. the Quincy-Puget Sound idea that BNSF dissed) through Stevens without too much difficulty, because the eastbound leg of such a shuttle would be running mostly empty, so it wouldn't take much time at all to clear the exhaust out of the tunnel for the next train.

Got that straight, Tom?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

* It is the State that forced the $870 surcharge, because the money is delayed for a few years, and WATCO needs it right now.

Explain this. What is going on here??

I think the WATCO rep was just doing a little lobbying for an expedient cash outlay from the State. To blame the State for the surcharge is borderline ridiculous. Remember though, WATCO is a relatively small company without the benefit of deep pockets. They claim to be losing money on these lines even as they now are relieved of certain debt payments and property tax liabilities. It would have been nice if he could have admitted that the lack of car supply from BNSF was the cause of the twice as high variable cost result of P & L traffic, and he did later acknowledge the difficulties of getting car supply, but he did not (or was not willing) to connect the obvious dots.

The more ominous statement was his hint that they would need long term contractual commitments from shippers if they wanted WATCO's business, which is another way of saying "Don't you dare truck your grain down to the river". Of course, no one in their right mind would make such contractual commitments as long as BNSF won't supply cars, and there is no reason to ever think BNSF will start supplying cars as needed. Also, it was pointed out that the average truck haul from the Palouse to Ritzville is twice as long as the average truck haul from the Palouse to the river. The whole point of the State taking over these lines is to "keep trucks off State and County roads" as much as possible, and the Ritzville facility is counterintuitive to that end.

QUOTE:
* Everyone at the meeting pretty much agreed that BNSF has no business incentive to supply grain cars to the area shortlines since such could detract from the Ritzville facility.

This is a surprise?

No, but it was nice that the railroad folk at least acknowledge this fact.

QUOTE: ***For the record, a four barge tow on the Columbia-Snake river system carries 14,400 tons, basically a unit train equivolence, and they can run the cycle from Pasco to Kalama and back in under 72 hours if need be, whereas the railroads often take a week or more to recycle the Ritzville shuttle.

What was it -- about page 1 or 2 of this thread this very point was expounded upon? The simple example of what is happening here is that the barge line can do with "100 cars" what the railroad can not do with even "300 cars". That's 200 cars that could go to another shipper such as the PCC.

But..........oh never mind. I was going to say that BNSF gets all the revenue from the Ritzville shuttle cycle, but then again most people at the meeting think BNSF is (or was) actually losing money on that operation, because in order to compete with the barge rates they have to charge a rate that may not cover the variable costs of the shuttle itself, and the Templin LLC oufit is scrambling to make their debt payments on that expensive new facility. At least elevators on the PCC are all paid for, except the Fallon 26 car facility, which is still trying to pay off their debt from 20 years ago.

It is ironic that BNSF might be better off transloading at Pasco, which would make the Ritzville shuttle turn one of the shortest corridors in the world, around 75 miles. Then again, they are only competing with truck rates on this segment, and could concievably up their rate on the rail portion and still offer a lower overall rate by the rail/barge combo. But they could never accumulate enough business at Ritzville via shorthaul (local) grain deliveries to justify the over capacity of the facilty, e.g. if they stop at Pasco and up rates to match truck rates, they lose business outside a 25 mile radius of Ritzville, because those guys would then probably truck directly to Pasco.

In the end, the Ritzville facility may end up being a big waste of money, not because the concept isn't sound, but the realities of the economies of barging, combined with the growing (and apparently unforeseen when the facililty was planned) rail congestion in the Columbia gorge. It should also be noted that with the dredging of the Snake and Columbia rivers finally occuring, the barge lines may be able to lower rates on grain shipments, which could concievably put the Templins out of business.

Nah, on second thought, as long as BNSF is willing to subsidize the rate out of Ritzville with their earnings from Montana grain shippers, the facility will probably stick.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

- Foss Maritime, one of the four competing barge lines that use the Columbia-Snake River waterway system, is in favor of more rail to barge transloading, since capacity on the river is nowhere near the congestion point, while rail capacity in the Gorge is at the breaking point for both UP and BNSF.

"Rail capacity near the breaking point for both UP and BNSF," sounds like something I suggested earlier.

Gee the evil BNSF is at capacity so they want to reduce volume. I am shocked!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

It should also be noted that there is now a rumor that UP wants to have a shuttle facility on it's Washy mainline, which might change their willingness to supply cars to the PCC. So far that's just a rumor, and there were no Class I reps at the meeting, although there were a few other shortline reps there.

So there's also a rumor that we'll soon see a post that "UP does it again."

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

- Foss Maritime, one of the four competing barge lines that use the Columbia-Snake River waterway system, is in favor of more rail to barge transloading, since capacity on the river is nowhere near the congestion point, while rail capacity in the Gorge is at the breaking point for both UP and BNSF.

"Rail capacity near the breaking point for both UP and BNSF," sounds like something I suggested earlier.

[kenneo]

* It is the State that forced the $870 surcharge, because the money is delayed for a few years, and WATCO needs it right now.

Explain this. What is going on here??

* Everyone at the meeting pretty much agreed that BNSF has no business incentive to supply grain cars to the area shortlines since such could detract from the Ritzville facility.

This is a surprise?

***For the record, a four barge tow on the Columbia-Snake river system carries 14,400 tons, basically a unit train equivolence, and they can run the cycle from Pasco to Kalama and back in under 72 hours if need be, whereas the railroads often take a week or more to recycle the Ritzville shuttle.

What was it -- about page 1 or 2 of this thread this very point was expounded upon? The simple example of what is happening here is that the barge line can do with "100 cars" what the railroad can not do with even "300 cars". That's 200 cars that could go to another shipper such as the PCC.

[Anonymous]

Results of WSDOT/WATCO transportation summit:

Not much, since they decided during the meeting that they need to wait for some more study results to come in before they can provide a clearer picture of the situation.

What was discussed relevent to the railroad situation in the State of Washington:

- Truck traffic in the State of Washington has grown at three times the rate of automobile traffic, which suggests a loss or at least a stagnation of the railroads' willingness to move this traffic. Remember, trucks are the default transportation mode after the more efficient modes decline the business.

- Only 50% of Washington grain growers expressed satisfaction with the State's transporation system, including rail, barge, and truck. And only 40% of grain associations are satisfied.

- Of grain shipments in Washington, 51% move by truck/barge combinations, 19% move by truck/rail combinations (bulk rail e.g. multiple carload lots), and 30% are trucked to storage or moved by carload (most of which is pulses and canola). Don't ask me why they combine storage and carload into one catagory, they just do.

- As of now the railroads have completely abandoned the shipping of malting barely domestically from the State.

- The Columbia Basin sends 1400 trucks per day over to the Puget Sound ports. On a related subject, a representative of the Port of Quincy related that they had spent $6 million dollars to prepare for opening an intermodal terminal with BNSF, only to have BNSF pull out of the deal. Obviously, they question why BNSF orally agreed to participate in the deal, only to pull out much later after the Port and others had spent so much money on the deal.

- WATCO stated that their revenues per carload for the ex-BN and ex-UP lines are $424 and $447 respectively, but the variable costs per carload are $530 and $269 respectively. Why such a disparity comes down to their Class I connections. UP is expedient in supplying requested cars, BNSF is slow and unresponsive. The WATCO man theorized that BNSF acted thus to encourage such traffic to be trucked to the Ritzville facility. It should also be noted that there is now a rumor that UP wants to have a shuttle facility on it's Washy mainline, which might change their willingness to supply cars to the PCC. So far that's just a rumor, and there were no Class I reps at the meeting, although there were a few other shortline reps there.

- A rep from the 26 car grain facility at Fallon (just north of Pullman) complained how BN encouraged them to invest in this facility 20 years ago, and now BNSF won't even allow the current owner to utilize the facility in that manner. They are now looking at bankruptcy because of BN's con job. ("Con job" is my wording, not his).

- On a progressive note, Ken Cassavant of WSU took note of the advantages of rail to barge transfer to solve the problems of rail congestion in the Gorge, and that this type of "new technology" (his phrasing, not mine) should be the focus for the State in addressing the freight transportation issues. In other words, it doesn't have to be truck/barge vs truck/rail.

- He also noted that rail rates initially went down when the Ritzville facility was opened, but now the rail rates have risen to the point of being equal with the old carload rates from the early to mid 1900's (inflation adjusted).

- Foss Maritime, one of the four competing barge lines that use the Columbia-Snake River waterway system, is in favor of more rail to barge transloading, since capacity on the river is nowhere near the congestion point, while rail capacity in the Gorge is at the breaking point for both UP and BNSF. They suggest that instead of the State's taxpayers paying for rail capacity improvements for BNSF, they instead "encourage" more rail to barge transloading. For the record, a four barge tow on the Columbia-Snake river system carries 14,400 tons, basically a unit train equivolence, and they can run the cycle from Pasco to Kalama and back in under 72 hours if need be, whereas the railroads often take a week or more to recycle the Ritzville shuttle.

- Other WATCO talking points include
* It is the State that forced the $870 surcharge, because the money is delayed for a few years, and WATCO needs it right now.
* WATCO is also considering a $250 surcharge on it's ex-UP lines
* They confirm that car supply from UP is starting to show signs of lagging behind orders, while BNSF car supply is now almost non existant
* Everyone at the meeting pretty much agreed that BNSF has no business incentive to supply grain cars to the area shortlines since such could detract from the Ritzville facility.

I'll add my commentary later.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

As if you don't have the brains to read a profile.....

Cheers!

I've read your profile. Pretty devoid of info.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy, more fun analyzing "ed's" latest bile.....

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Get it straight, Dave...
I said you were an office weenie, not an executive...man, talk about self promotion…as if I would ever assume you could manage to do anything but switch hands…

Okay, more useless pointless baseless insults from a useless pointless baseless shred of human debris. Keep going....

QUOTE:
And you are a troll.

And yet you keep trolling my posts, as if your very useless pointless baseless life depends upon it.....

QUOTE:
As for being a foamer...I don’t think you qualify, you actually have to like railroads to be a foamer.

Hmmm, so if one has an appreciation for railroad technology but a disdain for the way US railroads debase the nation's rail shippers, that means I'm not a foamer. Gee, "ed" you're breaking my heart.....

QUOTE:
Scab railroader...I don’t think I would ever elevate you to that position...you wouldn’t know the A end from the B end of a railcar if someone read you the instructions while you looked for the hand brake.

Don't forget the C, D, and E portions, which for some reason lie between the A and B ends in railroad lexicon.

Obviously, this is just more subscab crap from a subscab crap railroader....

QUOTE:
Real names?
You have mine, and my place of employment.
Edward M Blysard,
Port Terminal Railroad Association.
Switchman/engine foreman, job 152, lead switching job morning shift.

.....don't care, useless info.......

QUOTE:
Just type it into Google, you will find me, my dad, my uncle, and one of my fathers cousins...its not like Blysard is a real common name.

Ohhh, one of those one branch family trees the South is so famous for! Now I get it!

QUOTE:
I an Edward M Blysard, III, my uncle is Edward M Blysard, my grandfather is Levi E Blysard, his father was Edward M Blysard…My dad is Fred Guy Blysard,

.....don't care, useless info.....

QUOTE: .... and there was something about his cousin, Fritz too

Hey, they made a movie about that. It was called "Something About Mary" or something like that!

QUOTE: …not to hard to chase us down.

.....don't care, useless info....

QUOTE: Type in PTRA and you also find a lot of info about the railroad where I work.

....don't care, useless info....

QUOTE: As for the others, well, blah blah blah ad nauseum.......

....don't care, useless info......

QUOTE: As if you had the courage to actually tell us who you are…

As if you don't have the brains to read a profile.....

QUOTE: As usual, you managed to say a lot in your last post, without really saying anything at all...and of course, you didn’t answer a single question asked of you.

Baseless pointless insults are not questions, ergo not deserving of an "answer"....

QUOTE: Which lead me to think that you are too afraid…after all, I get the feeling that you toe the line and stick with the status quo at work, to frightened to back up your nonsense by applying it in the real world where such foolishness would most likely get you canned from your job.

Yep, if I don't behave I might have to fire myself!

Reallly, "ed", are you really that much of an idiot?

QUOTE: Typical coward action…in private, hidden behind a made up name, you run your mouth loud and long…in the real world, your are so afraid you wouldn’t say squat out loud where someone important might hear.

Hey now, don't be dragging LC and ironken into this!

QUOTE: Too afraid to practice your convections in the real world, where you could be held accountable for your words?

Yep, when I attended the WATCO meeting this afternoon I had to wear a disguise so no one would find out my real identity..........

Yep, you really are an idiot.

QUOTE: Good job proving you are just that, a cowardly troll.…

Again, is that the best you can do? You are a coward for hiding behind your keyboard and farting out these subscab insults, and you are a troll for having nothing better to do with your unprecious time.

Cheers!

[TomDiehl]

BTW, did we ever get an answer to what "BNSF did again?"

[techguy57]

Call them immoral, evil or robber-barrons if you like, but this is business, pure and simple. Do you think that McDonalds isn't trying to "siphon" patrons from other restaurants? Businessmen may tell you otherwise but many corporations still live by the Gordon Gecko mantra, "Greed is Good." Need I cite Enron, Halliburton, Arthur Andersen, Tyco or a host of others? Of course, most corporations are not dishonest and not all are greedy but the idea is still for them to turn a profit in a matter that conincides with the company's business plan. That just may not always conincide with how each of us think the company should be run. If they really wanted our opinions we'd be on their boards. Alas, I don't know about you all but I've yet to receive my invitation. I guess they like how they are currently running things!


Mike Vanlandingham,
dam* glad to meet you!

[ALCOC415]

To do a little backtracking here. The amount of fuel used in a locomotive verses a truck is not a good example. with the little 7 miles I operate here I also have to take into account fuel usage along with maintenance on both the engines and the track. in 2004 we hauled 14,000 cars to the BNSF and when the numbers are in for 2005 will be close to 12,000 cars. We still had days when we only moved four cars and that does not even include the cost for our crews. To move 1 car 90 miles by rail is not cheaper than operating 3-4 trucks that distance. I have 1 customer that is on the very end our line. I have to send a crew 1 mile to pickup 1 car and run around it to get it into there train to make the trip back to our yard. We have a special rate for that and the customer is willing to pay that in hopes that they can build up more bussiness and get there rates down. and I will not hide behind any screen names.
David Fredrick
Manager of Operations
Burlington Jct. Railway
Quincy Division

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
I do have a suggestion for you. If you are so concerned with forum members suspected anonymity, you should first find out the real names and real jobs of members such as ironken, LC, CSSHEGEWISCH, jeaton, Tom Diehl, et al, e.g. those folks who ALWAYS feel a need to **** on everyone else's posts, and then post them on this forum for the sake of your problem. Oh, and don't forget to include your real name and real job, with independent documentation, okay "Ed"? (insert fake coughing sound "scabrailroader")

Wow, glad I kept all that info about me out of my profile. (They'll never guess my REAL name) LOL

As far as knowledge of business, at least I understand that all businesses need to make a profit. And just because they're making one and getting the best utilization from their assets, doesn't make them "evil," just successful.

[edblysard]

Get it straight, Dave...
I said you were an office weenie, not an executive...man, talk about self promotion…as if I would ever assume you could manage to do anything but switch hands…

And you are a troll.

As for being a foamer...I don’t think you qualify, you actually have to like railroads to be a foamer.

Scab railroader...I don’t think I would ever elevate you to that position...you wouldn’t know the A end from the B end of a railcar if someone read you the instructions while you looked for the hand brake.

Real names?
You have mine, and my place of employment.
Edward M Blysard,
Port Terminal Railroad Association.
Switchman/engine foreman, job 152, lead switching job morning shift.

Just type it into Google, you will find me, my dad, my uncle, and one of my fathers cousins...its not like Blysard is a real common name.
I an Edward M Blysard, III, my uncle is Edward M Blysard, my grandfather is Levi E Blysard, his father was Edward M Blysard…My dad is Fred Guy Blysard, and there was something about his cousin, Fritz too…not to hard to chase us down.

Type in PTRA and you also find a lot of info about the railroad where I work.


As for the others, well, two of them do use their real name...although I expected you to use other peoples behavior to justify your own.
As if you had the courage to actually tell us who you are…

As usual, you managed to say a lot in your last post, without really saying anything at all...and of course, you didn’t answer a single question asked of you.

Which lead me to think that you are too afraid…after all, I get the feeling that you toe the line and stick with the status quo at work, to frightened to back up your nonsense by applying it in the real world where such foolishness would most likely get you canned from your job.
Typical coward action…in private, hidden behind a made up name, you run your mouth loud and long…in the real world, your are so afraid you wouldn’t say squat out loud where someone important might hear.

Too afraid to practice your convections in the real world, where you could be held accountable for your words?

Good job proving you are just that, a cowardly troll.…
Ed

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM only needs to look at my profile to find the things he wants to know about me. It appears that he does not suffer criticism too well, especially when he steps into an area of somebody else's expertise. Based on his previous posts and point of view, his report on the above-mentioned meeting will lack any objectivity and credibility with me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Energy consultant, huh…
Is that sorta like claiming to be international sales representive, when what you’re really doing is selling Amway to a friend in Canada?

If it works like that, then I am a switching service consultant and transportation advisor…after all, at least once a day the yardmaster consults with me…he asked me just the other day, “What the *ell did you just do?” and I advised him…I said “If it was to flashy for you to follow, then go get a cup of coffee and don’t watch, I will call you later and explain”.

Seriously, what qualifies you to comment on how we do our job, and how a railroad should be run?

Because it is obvious you never worked for a railroad, at least not in T&E service, although your arrogance and stubbornness, and you ability to make statements that fly in the face of facts and reality, coupled with your refusal to see anything other than what you want to sounds a lot like most of the trainmasters I have met.

Did BN can you?
Because it is obvious you have a grudge against them and most railroads in general, despite your statement to the contrary.

About the only railroad you seem to like, the Milwaukee Road is gone, due in large part to horrible management decisions.

You and your soul mate, Mike, seem to think the Milwaukee was the only railroad that ever did things right, but funny thing is, the Milwaukee is gone, while all these other dumb, evil, self serving railroads, like the BNSF and UP, survive, and some are even flourishing, despite not having you two on their board of directors.

Let you in on something all the other posters, sans one, already know.

BNSF is in the business of making money…nothing else.

If that means hauling container after container of plastic dog crap made in Taiwan from LA to Chicago, and ignoring the five car load of wheat sitting on a siding out in the middle of no where, well, that’s just the way it works, no matter how much you come on this and other forums and whine about it.

Your claim on having two patents is great…I have part ownership in a few myself, for a mandrel system and a lath tool/ end drive bearing system, but that in no way qualifies me to tell other tool manufactures how to run their business.

I would suggest that if you feel your patents are so good, then show us what they are, after all, if the patent office accepted them, they should stand up to the scrutiny of us uneducated slobs here on the forum!

The fact is, you’re not much more that a simple forum troll, granted, a little more educated, and a lot more verbose than most, but a troll none the less.

You hide in anonymity, make, for the most part, subtly off kilter claims, insult those that don’t agree with you, and have yet to post a thread or participate in any topic, unless it is about open access or an anti- BNSF/ UP thread….most of which you seem to start yourself.

You make incredible statements, back them up with misleading or incomplete evidence, and then you insult anyone who calls on you to back up your nonsense with clean, clear facts…
You do present “evidence”, but so heavily edited and of such a cut and paste nature as to be worthless.

If you do attend this meeting, and post any “notes” from it, I, and I suspect many others, would find almost all of what you present as useless and untrustworthy, because you will, after all, omit anything presented there that fails to support your stance and claims, and what you do return with and post will be so heavily edited, biased and slanted as to be worthless.

After all, you have presented no bona fides to qualify yourself as anything other than a troll; you won’t even give us your real name.

Don’t want your boss to know what you’re really thinking?
Who are you afraid of?

Ed

I have to admit, Ed, you do make me laugh more often than not.

If we take all the accuations you've made towards me, and add them up, then I am a.....

(clear throat)

A self-employed Montana power company executive/lineman/cable guy/Montana farmer/elevator manager/former BN employee/forum troll/foamer/scab railroader/et al, et al.

I do have a suggestion for you. If you are so concerned with forum members suspected anonymity, you should first find out the real names and real jobs of members such as ironken, LC, CSSHEGEWISCH, jeaton, Tom Diehl, et al, e.g. those folks who ALWAYS feel a need to **** on everyone else's posts, and then post them on this forum for the sake of your problem. Oh, and don't forget to include your real name and real job, with independent documentation, okay "Ed"? (insert fake coughing sound "scabrailroader")

And then sit back and find out how little everyone on this forum cares about your "real" name and "real" situation. It's "third nipple" information.

In the meantime, I will take your usual negative pus-laden dribble into account when I post the results of this meeting on this forum.

Cheers!

[edblysard]

Energy consultant, huh…
Is that sorta like claiming to be international sales representive, when what you’re really doing is selling Amway to a friend in Canada?

If it works like that, then I am a switching service consultant and transportation advisor…after all, at least once a day the yardmaster consults with me…he asked me just the other day, “What the *ell did you just do?” and I advised him…I said “If it was to flashy for you to follow, then go get a cup of coffee and don’t watch, I will call you later and explain”.

Seriously, what qualifies you to comment on how we do our job, and how a railroad should be run?

Because it is obvious you never worked for a railroad, at least not in T&E service, although your arrogance and stubbornness, and you ability to make statements that fly in the face of facts and reality, coupled with your refusal to see anything other than what you want to sounds a lot like most of the trainmasters I have met.

Did BN can you?
Because it is obvious you have a grudge against them and most railroads in general, despite your statement to the contrary.

About the only railroad you seem to like, the Milwaukee Road is gone, due in large part to horrible management decisions.

You and your soul mate, Mike, seem to think the Milwaukee was the only railroad that ever did things right, but funny thing is, the Milwaukee is gone, while all these other dumb, evil, self serving railroads, like the BNSF and UP, survive, and some are even flourishing, despite not having you two on their board of directors.

Let you in on something all the other posters, sans one, already know.

BNSF is in the business of making money…nothing else.

If that means hauling container after container of plastic dog crap made in Taiwan from LA to Chicago, and ignoring the five car load of wheat sitting on a siding out in the middle of no where, well, that’s just the way it works, no matter how much you come on this and other forums and whine about it.

Your claim on having two patents is great…I have part ownership in a few myself, for a mandrel system and a lath tool/ end drive bearing system, but that in no way qualifies me to tell other tool manufactures how to run their business.

I would suggest that if you feel your patents are so good, then show us what they are, after all, if the patent office accepted them, they should stand up to the scrutiny of us uneducated slobs here on the forum!

The fact is, you’re not much more that a simple forum troll, granted, a little more educated, and a lot more verbose than most, but a troll none the less.

You hide in anonymity, make, for the most part, subtly off kilter claims, insult those that don’t agree with you, and have yet to post a thread or participate in any topic, unless it is about open access or an anti- BNSF/ UP thread….most of which you seem to start yourself.

You make incredible statements, back them up with misleading or incomplete evidence, and then you insult anyone who calls on you to back up your nonsense with clean, clear facts…
You do present “evidence”, but so heavily edited and of such a cut and paste nature as to be worthless.

If you do attend this meeting, and post any “notes” from it, I, and I suspect many others, would find almost all of what you present as useless and untrustworthy, because you will, after all, omit anything presented there that fails to support your stance and claims, and what you do return with and post will be so heavily edited, biased and slanted as to be worthless.

After all, you have presented no bona fides to qualify yourself as anything other than a troll; you won’t even give us your real name.

Don’t want your boss to know what you’re really thinking?
Who are you afraid of?

Ed

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

We will be waiting. Hopefully, you will have taken good notes with accurate attributions?

I would be quite surprised if he actually did that.
FM seems to be disappointed to have found out that BNSF is trying to maximize its profits, like any business. He also seems to expect a railroad to provide all sorts of transportation services, even if some of them are no longer profitable due to competition from other modes.

[kenneo]

We will be waiting. Hopefully, you will have taken good notes with accurate attributions?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

UPDATE!

WSDOT, WATCO and other officials are holding a public meeting in Colfax WA Friday at 1pm regarding the surcharge and other service complaints related to WATCO;s operation of the ex-BN portion of the PCC. Basically, you'll have a room full of pissed off rail shippers having at it with the State and WATCO reps. As far as I know, no UP[:o)] nor BNSF[}:)] officials will be in attendance, so it looks like WATCO[D)] will be "taking one for the team".[B)]

Yep, yours truly will be in attendance, and will issue the follow-up commentary.[soapbox]

PS - Tom, I'll save you a seat if you decide to show up as a BNSF rep. (It'll be on the opposite side of the room from me.[:D])

Some of us have something called a JOB.

Or a life.

[Anonymous]

UPDATE!

WSDOT, WATCO and other officials are holding a public meeting in Colfax WA Friday at 1pm regarding the surcharge and other service complaints related to WATCO;s operation of the ex-BN portion of the PCC. Basically, you'll have a room full of pissed off rail shippers having at it with the State and WATCO reps. As far as I know, no UP[:o)] nor BNSF[}:)] officials will be in attendance, so it looks like WATCO[D)] will be "taking one for the team".[B)]

Yep, yours truly will be in attendance, and will issue the follow-up commentary.[soapbox]

PS - Tom, I'll save you a seat if you decide to show up as a BNSF rep. (It'll be on the opposite side of the room from me.[:D])

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

You are the one who is making acusations. The burden of proof is therefore on you, not me.

Mac

That's fine. I just wondered if you might offer your take on why the $870 surcharge is only taking place on the ex-BN line shippers of the PCC and not the ex-UP line shippers. Surely you have some insight or theory for this rate discrepency.

But, if you pass, you pass.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Who is this "evil BNSF" to which you refer? The BNSF I am refering to is an amoral corporation that seems predicated on empowering the importation of overseas goods into the US while conversely making it more and more costly for US producers to get their goods to port.

Talk about answering your own question.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AMTK200

Can the state file an injunction against WATCO so the line can be saved or force BNSF to lower rates?

Rates are not the problem, hee. It is service, car supply, and traffic raiding. The BN does not care if the PCC survives or not. It is intent on raiding its traffic base to reload locations. Simple robber-baron economics. When there is no longer any viable competition, BN will raise its rates just like they did in Montana

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

You are the one who is making acusations. The burden of proof is therefore on you, not me.

Mac

[Anonymous]

Can the state file an injunction against WATCO so the line can be saved or force BNSF to lower rates?

[Anonymous]

Who is this "evil BNSF" to which you refer? The BNSF I am refering to is an amoral corporation that seems predicated on empowering the importation of overseas goods into the US while conversely making it more and more costly for US producers to get their goods to port.

I ask this in all honesty: Do you, Mac, have an explanation for why WATCO's PCC is only implementing the $870 surcharge on the ex-BN line shippers, and not on the ex-UP line shippers? Keep in mind that both the ex-UP and ex-BN lines of the PCC Palouse service area are now owned and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Washington, not WATCO nor the former Class I owners. Wouldn't you think a reduction in WATCO's costs for maintaining fixed assets would result in a subsequent reduction in online rates, not a massive per car surcharge?

[PNWRMNM]

And how is the evil BNSF responsible for Watco's surcharging the line to kill the business???

Mac

[Anonymous]

Update: According to radio news reports from KCLX AM 840 out of Colfax Washington, the surcharge increase for the WATCO operations over the ex-BN Marshall to Pullman lines goes from $250 per car to $870 per car. Since KCLX does not have a website, I contacted the Rail Frieght Office of the Washington State DOT to further clarify the information. They stated that the $250 surcharge was imposed in November of 2005 (just a few months ago), and that has been subsequently increased to $870 starting sometime in January of 2006, e.g. right now. It should also be noted that this surcharge only applies to the shippers on the ex-BN lines of the PCC, and not the ex-UP lines.

Apparrently, the $250 surcharge just wasn't enough to kill off the pesky service........

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by UnionPacificRR6737

Does anybody remember sometime back in the early 90's when they abandoned the BN line from Wallula to Pendleton? At first I didn't know why they took the overhead bridge, years later I found out that they no longer use that line, it wasn't a very well used line either cause I've never seen a train go by there.

I can barely remember seeing a train go up Vansycle canyon when I was a tot back in the 1960's. Nowdays I know that the Port of Walla Walla is campaigning to convert the old ROW into a new highway between Wallula and Pendleton.

The UP line from Pendleton to Washington is the original Spokane main line. It's has a couple of bad operating spots on it, so the line from Hinkle to Wallula was built to replace it and also make a better connection with the WWV and the WVT. The running time for the express high speed service between Pendleton and Spokane was 11 hours - most of which was spent between Pendleton and Walulla.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by UnionPacificRR6737

Does anybody remember sometime back in the early 90's when they abandoned the BN line from Wallula to Pendleton? At first I didn't know why they took the overhead bridge, years later I found out that they no longer use that line, it wasn't a very well used line either cause I've never seen a train go by there.

I can barely remember seeing a train go up Vansycle canyon when I was a tot back in the 1960's. Nowdays I know that the Port of Walla Walla is campaigning to convert the old ROW into a new highway between Wallula and Pendleton.

[Anonymous]

Does anybody remember sometime back in the early 90's when they abandoned the BN line from Wallula to Pendleton? At first I didn't know why they took the overhead bridge, years later I found out that they no longer use that line, it wasn't a very well used line either cause I've never seen a train go by there.

[TomDiehl]

Well, I guess the "evil BNSF" has struck again.

[Anonymous]

Yep, it's definitely the water!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Hmmmm, must be the water in the Poconos...........

The BNSF did something to the water in the Poconos?

No wonder you consider them "evil."

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm, must be the water in the Poconos...........

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And the losing battle isn't with trucks per se, it's with the lack of car supply from BNSF. Because apparently UP has no problem competing with the truck/barge combination nor the truck/BNSF shuttel loader combination over this short haul. In fact, sometimes UP cooperates with the barge lines to get grain from the Palouse to the Pacific. In fact it has been pointed out ad naseum that WATCO has had no problem getting car supply from UP, it's only BNSF that has held back on the deal.

Cut and paste directly from the article YOU provided the link:

"On the lines its ending service on Watco says it can’t compete for grain shipments against trucks to river barge and grain trucked to a 110-car rail shuttle facility at Ritzville."

In fact, as many times as I go back to read the article, I have yet to see anything about the supply of cars from BNSF or anyone else who may have been contracted to supply them. The only place I've seen that is in posts from someone that "doesn't have a vendetta against BNSF" or what they did again.

BTW, what DID they do again?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

What is this obsession with BNSF defenders ascribing the words "evil" with BNSF or BNSF facilities? Can you find even one example of myself or any other BNSF critic actually using the word "evil" in describing BNSF?

I guess anybody that "doesn't have a vendetta" against BNSF could be considered a defender since what they say doesn't fit the tone of the original posters "interpretation" of the article he posted.

*giving me flashbacks to "Jim Crow" and defending "those people"*

And BTW, the word "evil" was implied quite clearly.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

Man, all this talk about grain makes me want a couple more bowls of corn flakes! [:D]

Let me get this straight:

You want me to haul your 29 privately owned( and payed for by taxpayers money) grain hoppers all over the country and bring them back to you as a unit? SURE! All of them can't possibly be going to the same destination, by any chance, would they? Ooops! Theres 29 more brightly colored cars in the nation's pool. [:I] Hey, heres some of our very own cars till we find yours. [;)]

No, it's all going as a unit to the same area as the grain from the Ritzville shuttle loader. The lower Columbia River deep draft ports, Grays Harbor, or Puget Sound. All over Western Washington? Yes, but not all over the country. And the hoppers in question are either State of Washington owned 264k and 286k, or PCC 264k hoppers, or (rarely) Cascade Green 264k hoppers.

QUOTE:
Oh and by the way, if I were in Watcos shoes I would rather take the 27 million in taxpayers money and the money for the scrap rails etc, rather than continue a lossing battle with the trucks, the "Evil Loading Facility", and further losses from contractual obligations that may already exsist or may develop from any sale of the line to the state. Not really rocket science, there.[:I]

What is this obsession with BNSF defenders ascribing the words "evil" with BNSF or BNSF facilities? Can you find even one example of myself or any other BNSF critic actually using the word "evil" in describing BNSF?

And the losing battle isn't with trucks per se, it's with the lack of car supply from BNSF. Because apparently UP has no problem competing with the truck/barge combination nor the truck/BNSF shuttel loader combination over this short haul. In fact, sometimes UP cooperates with the barge lines to get grain from the Palouse to the Pacific. In fact it has been pointed out ad naseum that WATCO has had no problem getting car supply from UP, it's only BNSF that has held back on the deal.

QUOTE:
In the midwest, it was a very surprising season considering the drought. It's quite possible that BNSF just doesn't have that many cars to spare, if that really is the case. I saw a comment somewhere about grain cars just sitting around here in the Heartland. Is it possible they are full of grain waiting for transit or awaiting the call for a refill? This part of railroading is almost as intriuging to me as the coal aspect.

Yes, I am just as intrigued as you regarding the perception of masses of grain cars seemingly sitting around while demand for hoppers is at an all time high. A while back BNSF was storing about 50 286k hoppers down in Lewiston while Midwest grain coops were screaming for cars. An anonomous tip [}:)] resulted in BNSF suddenly "discovering" those extra cars, and they were moved East forthwith.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmm....."

QUOTE:
Besides, coal most likely tastes horrible. Nor can you run a car on it, that I know of.

Well, that's a whole 'nother topic, but technically yes, you can run your car on coal deriviatives. Coal can now be commercially processed into methanol, diesel and other distillates for the liquid transportation fuel market. As long as the price differential between coal and oil stays as wide as it is now, that's where we're headed.

[Anonymous]

Man, all this talk about grain makes me want a couple more bowls of corn flakes! [:D]

Let me get this straight:

You want me to haul your 29 privately owned( and payed for by taxpayers money) grain hoppers all over the country and bring them back to you as a unit? SURE! All of them can't possibly be going to the same destination, by any chance, would they? Ooops! Theres 29 more brightly colored cars in the nation's pool. [:I] Hey, heres some of our very own cars till we find yours. [;)]

Oh and by the way, if I were in Watcos shoes I would rather take the 27 million in taxpayers money and the money for the scrap rails etc, rather than continue a lossing battle with the trucks, the "Evil Loading Facility", and further losses from contractual obligations that may already exsist or may develop from any sale of the line to the state. Not really rocket science, there.[:I]

In the midwest, it was a very surprising season considering the drought. It's quite possible that BNSF just doesn't have that many cars to spare, if that really is the case. I saw a comment somewhere about grain cars just sitting around here in the Heartland. Is it possible they are full of grain waiting for transit or awaiting the call for a refill? This part of railroading is almost as intriuging to me as the coal aspect. Besides, coal most likely tastes horrible. Nor can you run a car on it, that I know of.

[TomDiehl]

The only facts or hard data I've seen is the article linked in the first entry. For example:

What is actually in the contract, not what you "suppose."

If BNSF lived up to the contract, of course, that would be hard to tell unless you know what's in the contract.

Or an answer to what "BNSF did again."

[Anonymous]

The facts as you see them or the facts as they are? Because there is a huge gulf between the two.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Hmmmm, I guess Tom wants a copy of the BNSF/WATCO contract before he can be convinced that BNSF is a party to service problems on a WATCO line formerly owned by BNSF. I guess Tom wants to hear directly from the elevator owners and other shippers on the line to confirm that BNSF has veto power over any rail usage that does not soley interchange with BNSF at Marshall. Because it seems that is the only way to convince him that BNSF is the source of the service problems on the ex-BNSF portion of the PCC.

Well, Tom, I'm done wasting my time with you (at least on this thread), but if anyone else with insider information on this ongoing situation wants to give it a try, go right ahead, knock yourself out!

Facts and/or hard data WOULD be a nice change. I usually base my opinions or decisions on them.

I'm funny that way.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm, I guess Tom wants a copy of the BNSF/WATCO contract before he can be convinced that BNSF is a party to service problems on a WATCO line formerly owned by BNSF. I guess Tom wants to hear directly from the elevator owners and other shippers on the line to confirm that BNSF has veto power over any rail usage that does not soley interchange with BNSF at Marshall. Because it seems that is the only way to convince him that BNSF is the source of the service problems on the ex-BNSF portion of the PCC.

Well, Tom, I'm done wasting my time with you (at least on this thread), but if anyone else with insider information on this ongoing situation wants to give it a try, go right ahead, knock yourself out!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

TomDiehl

This is the only article I have found so far regarding this news item. If others come to my attention I will post them. I have not found any more regarding this item, ergo there have been no more posts. I will do so in spite of your insolence and unwarranted impatience.

It costs about 105%-110% of a single car rate to couple up, pull, transport, switch and then spot at destination 2 or more cars (at the same time) from a single origin shipper to and single destination shipper. This is not rocket science. Something on the order of 3/4ths the costs of hauling a shipment is wrapped up in origin and destination service costs.

Generally speaking, unit train railroading is less expensive for the railroad to accompli***han traditional "loose car" railroading. But for the BN, it is "cost neutral" on this point. It costs the BN the same to wait for the PCC to tender 110 cars for a given destination and consignee and then run an extra to pick up the cars as it does to "shuttle" those cars back and forth. For the BN, here, there is no transportation economies issue. And if W-DOT or the PCC ownes the equipment, it could cost the BN even less.

But that is not the issue of this thread, as the rest of us have come to see. I am not sure why Tom is focusing so closely on this point, but that he certainly is doing.

So the plot thickens. If BNSF doesn't originate or terminate the load(s), 3/4 of the shipping charge goes to other railroads. Even if they only terminate or originate the loads, they lose 3/8 of the shipping charge.

Sounds like a financial incentive for the railroad to encourage shippers to terminate and originate freight with them rather than another railroad.

So the "big evil BNSF" is out to maximize their profit? You'd think we have a capitolistic system in this country or something.

How dare they (sarcastic grin)!!!!

[rrandb]

Abandon instead of sell????

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

If, according to FM, the service is maybe 10-25 cars, usually once a week, I could see why WATCO would want out. Based on this, the line sees NO service over 80% of the time, and I'm sure that the same would apply to the locomotive assigned to this line. A lot of capital is being tied up in this line not earning much of a return.

All the other traffic was there when the BN shed the line, knowing that they were going to attempt to drain the line of its traffic to the Ritzville facility. The line may not have been "profitable" to BN with BN being the operator, but it was profitable with PCC doing the work for them. It WAS profitable for the PCC also. The former UP part of the PCC still is because the UP is not trying to siphon off the traffic.

This is not a question of economics. It is a question of greed, power lust and politics run-amok in the best 1880's "robber-baron" style.

The problem, and the point of my argument, is we've only seen the one link to an article that doesn't even mention BNSF, or any other connection for that matter. The man interviewed simply states, "we couldn't compete with the trucks." Everything else is someone's impressions, suppositions, or imagining.

Sorry, but this forum will need more than that to believe the "big bad BNSF" story.

You sure have a different way of asking!! FM has said that he will post new when (and if) it is a) published or b) he finds out the answers. You can't ask for more than that. My personal opinion - this is likely all that we will see or hear about this issue, perhaps for some time. This conclusion is based on experience of working for BN, for other roads that needed to recieve service from the BN, and my knowledge of how the BN wrote up its "shedding agreements".

Eric, the point is, time and again, he's made these kinds of statements without any supporting evidence. Adding the "read: BNSF does it again" to the title without them even being mentioned in the linked article shows that he's trying to stir up bad feelings without any shread of evidence. He keeps refering to "contractual obligations" that BNSF has to the WATCO line. What's in the contract? Did BNSF live up to the contract? If they did, his entire argument is blown to pieces. So since he doesn't give a link to the details of the contract or statemnts that BNSF didn't live up to that contract, it begs the further question: How does he know what's in the contract? And if he did, why doesn't he post it?

Since guessing seems to be his mode, let me guess that he doesn't because it WOULD "blow his argument to pieces."

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

You are the only person I know who can be given a straight answer to a question, only to claim that the question has not been answered.

You ask and re-ask for a connection between the news article and BNSF, (paraphrasing) "'cause the article doesn't mention BNSF, so how do you know BNSF is involved in WATCO's decision to pull up?" Well, for the umteenth time, THE LINE IN QUESTION IS EX-BNSF, SOLD BY BNSF TO WATCO WITH A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT ONLY BNSF CAN SUPPLY CARS TO THE LINE'S SHIPPERS. You have to have more the 5 brain cells to make the connection between WATCO's service problems and the fact that BNSF is the sole determinant of what level of service is provided on this line. I assume you have more than 5 brain cells, please don't prove me wrong.

You ask and re-ask what the quantity of traffic is on the line in question. I tell you "Usually once a week, 10 to 25 cars at a time." You then ask "How often is 'usual?'" I suppose I should be grateful that you haven't (yet) asked "How often is once a week?"

Let me take a wild guess, but are you one of those guys that dials the operator and asks "What's the number for 911"? Just curious.

"How long?" I don't know exactly, but it is around 80 to 90 miles from Marshall to Moscow via the ole' P & L. That's why I used the 100 mile figure in the fuel usage example as a rounded up version. I'm just trying to keep it simple for you, Tom.
[}:)]

I'm glad you THINK you've answered the question in a straight or even complete way, but as I've said, the only link I've seen between the TROUBLE that WATCO is having and the BNSF is in your mind. And again, the link is there for former ownership and interchange, so it automatically makes it the fault of BNSF that the WATCO line can't compete with trucks on the same haul? This is a direct quote from the article, not something pulled from your guesses or imagination, which have been proven in other posts to be less than reliable.

Since you insist in your feeble mind that BNSF is to blame:

1. How many cars a week is BNSF supposed to supply to the WATCO line according to this contract that isn't mentioned in your linked article?

2. How often is BNSF supposed to pick up these cars from the interchange point according to this contract that isn't mentioned in your linked article?

3. If the line was a profitable business, why did the BNSF want to sell it off in the first place?

Or let me expand on the earlier statement: If you had made the same claim in a newspaper article with only the linked article as a reference, BNSF could easily sue you for libel. And most likely win. The link fails to show that BNSF had anything to do with the failure.

It seems my "5 brain cells" have asked more than you can answer without resorting to guesses and imagination.

If we're going to imagine traffic levels and interchange contracts, maybe we should move ths post to the Model Railroader forum board where imagination of such things is welcome.

Maybe BNSF is to blame, but you've failed to prove anything except that your mind links things without any evidence. I'm not insisting they're innocent, I'm insisting that you haven't proven they're not.

And your juvenile name calling has only shown your lack of facts is annoying you, too.

[rrandb]

I am stiill confused why abandon and not sell??? Am I interupting a personel discussion[?]

[Anonymous]

Tom,

You are the only person I know who can be given a straight answer to a question, only to claim that the question has not been answered.

You ask and re-ask for a connection between the news article and BNSF, (paraphrasing) "'cause the article doesn't mention BNSF, so how do you know BNSF is involved in WATCO's decision to pull up?" Well, for the umteenth time, THE LINE IN QUESTION IS EX-BNSF, SOLD BY BNSF TO WATCO WITH A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT ONLY BNSF CAN SUPPLY CARS TO THE LINE'S SHIPPERS. You have to have more the 5 brain cells to make the connection between WATCO's service problems and the fact that BNSF is the sole determinant of what level of service is provided on this line. I assume you have more than 5 brain cells, please don't prove me wrong.

You ask and re-ask what the quantity of traffic is on the line in question. I tell you "Usually once a week, 10 to 25 cars at a time." You then ask "How often is 'usual?'" I suppose I should be grateful that you haven't (yet) asked "How often is once a week?"

Let me take a wild guess, but are you one of those guys that dials the operator and asks "What's the number for 911"? Just curious.

"How long?" I don't know exactly, but it is around 80 to 90 miles from Marshall to Moscow via the ole' P & L. That's why I used the 100 mile figure in the fuel usage example as a rounded up version. I'm just trying to keep it simple for you, Tom.
[}:)]

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

If, according to FM, the service is maybe 10-25 cars, usually once a week, I could see why WATCO would want out. Based on this, the line sees NO service over 80% of the time, and I'm sure that the same would apply to the locomotive assigned to this line. A lot of capital is being tied up in this line not earning much of a return.

All the other traffic was there when the BN shed the line, knowing that they were going to attempt to drain the line of its traffic to the Ritzville facility. The line may not have been "profitable" to BN with BN being the operator, but it was profitable with PCC doing the work for them. It WAS profitable for the PCC also. The former UP part of the PCC still is because the UP is not trying to siphon off the traffic.

This is not a question of economics. It is a question of greed, power lust and politics run-amok in the best 1880's "robber-baron" style.

The problem, and the point of my argument, is we've only seen the one link to an article that doesn't even mention BNSF, or any other connection for that matter. The man interviewed simply states, "we couldn't compete with the trucks." Everything else is someone's impressions, suppositions, or imagining.

Sorry, but this forum will need more than that to believe the "big bad BNSF" story.

You sure have a different way of asking!! FM has said that he will post new when (and if) it is a) published or b) he finds out the answers. You can't ask for more than that. My personal opinion - this is likely all that we will see or hear about this issue, perhaps for some time. This conclusion is based on experience of working for BN, for other roads that needed to recieve service from the BN, and my knowledge of how the BN wrote up its "shedding agreements".

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

If, according to FM, the service is maybe 10-25 cars, usually once a week, I could see why WATCO would want out. Based on this, the line sees NO service over 80% of the time, and I'm sure that the same would apply to the locomotive assigned to this line. A lot of capital is being tied up in this line not earning much of a return.

All the other traffic was there when the BN shed the line, knowing that they were going to attempt to drain the line of its traffic to the Ritzville facility. The line may not have been "profitable" to BN with BN being the operator, but it was profitable with PCC doing the work for them. It WAS profitable for the PCC also. The former UP part of the PCC still is because the UP is not trying to siphon off the traffic.

This is not a question of economics. It is a question of greed, power lust and politics run-amok in the best 1880's "robber-baron" style.

The problem, and the point of my argument, is we've only seen the one link to an article that doesn't even mention BNSF, or any other connection for that matter. The man interviewed simply states, "we couldn't compete with the trucks." Everything else is someone's impressions, suppositions, or imagining.

Sorry, but this forum will need more than that to believe the "big bad BNSF" story.

[Anonymous]

FM's figure of 10-25 cars per line once a week might qualify for an annual average, but to really see what these branches are capable of, you've got to seem them during post-harvest grain rush. Train lengths can get closer to 50-plus cars per branch per trip (potentially twice a week), and instead of one Geep and a switcher, they'll use three or four Geeps.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

If, according to FM, the service is maybe 10-25 cars, usually once a week, I could see why WATCO would want out. Based on this, the line sees NO service over 80% of the time, and I'm sure that the same would apply to the locomotive assigned to this line. A lot of capital is being tied up in this line not earning much of a return.

All the other traffic was there when the BN shed the line, knowing that they were going to attempt to drain the line of its traffic to the Ritzville facility. The line may not have been "profitable" to BN with BN being the operator, but it was profitable with PCC doing the work for them. It WAS profitable for the PCC also. The former UP part of the PCC still is because the UP is not trying to siphon off the traffic.

This is not a question of economics. It is a question of greed, power lust and politics run-amok in the best 1880's "robber-baron" style.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

If, according to FM, the service is maybe 10-25 cars, usually once a week, I could see why WATCO would want out. Based on this, the line sees NO service over 80% of the time, and I'm sure that the same would apply to the locomotive assigned to this line. A lot of capital is being tied up in this line not earning much of a return.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

TomDiehl

This is the only article I have found so far regarding this news item. If others come to my attention I will post them. I have not found any more regarding this item, ergo there have been no more posts. I will do so in spite of your insolence and unwarranted impatience.

What Tom wants us to say is that a railroad can haul multiple carloads from a single origin to a single destination cheaper than it can haul a single carload from that same origin to that same destination when figured on an equal unit, such as a bushel, or ton. Of course it can. It costs about 105%-110% of a single car rate to couple up, pull, transport, switch and then spot at destination 2 or more cars (at the same time) from a single origin shipper to and single destination shipper. This is not rocket science. Something on the order of 3/4ths the costs of hauling a shipment is wrapped up in origin and destination service costs.

Generally speaking, unit train railroading is less expensive for the railroad to accompli***han traditional "loose car" railroading. But for the BN, it is "cost neutral" on this point. It costs the BN the same to wait for the PCC to tender 110 cars for a given destination and consignee and then run an extra to pick up the cars as it does to "shuttle" those cars back and forth. For the BN, here, there is no transportation economies issue. And if W-DOT or the PCC ownes the equipment, it could cost the BN even less.

But that is not the issue of this thread, as the rest of us have come to see. I am not sure why Tom is focusing so closely on this point, but that he certainly is doing.

Actually, I'd like FM to say that. The reason I keep bringing up that question is the fact that he keeps avoiding the question of quantity of freight moving.

He's also denied having a vendetta agains BNSF, but the statements he makes without supporting evidence makes this harder to believe.

Perhaps the reason that BNSF sold off this line was the fact that it wasn't profitable to operate. A lesson that WATCO learned the hard way. If that be the case, I fail to see what "BNSF does it again" would mean (in the title).

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

TomDiehl

Regarding single carload vs the four truckload equivalent, I use that as a point of reference. It does not imply that any of the lines mentioned in the story are only shipping single carloads at a time. Service on these lines is usually once a week, averaging 10 to 25 cars at a time. They often run a geep in tandem with an SW model, probably an SW 1500.

So what IS the quantity, either in carloads or tonnage, being shipped from these elevators? I notice that this question is one that you continually avoid. "Usually once a week, 10 to 25 cars at a time." How often is "usual?" Over what distance? Who is providing the freight movement service? Who is supposed to provide the cars for this service?

As Joe Friday on Dragnet might say "Just the facts." You can leave your imagination behind.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

TomDiehl

This is the only article I have found so far regarding this news item. If others come to my attention I will post them. I have not found any more regarding this item, ergo there have been no more posts. I will do so in spite of your insolence and unwarranted impatience.

So now I'm "insolent and impatient" because the link between the WATCO line being abandoned and the BNSF service only exists in your head. Even in the opening post, you admit that you're guessing.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

TomDiehl

This is the only article I have found so far regarding this news item. If others come to my attention I will post them. I have not found any more regarding this item, ergo there have been no more posts. I will do so in spite of your insolence and unwarranted impatience.

What Tom wants us to say is that a railroad can haul multiple carloads from a single origin to a single destination cheaper than it can haul a single carload from that same origin to that same destination when figured on an equal unit, such as a bushel, or ton. Of course it can. It costs about 105%-110% of a single car rate to couple up, pull, transport, switch and then spot at destination 2 or more cars (at the same time) from a single origin shipper to and single destination shipper. This is not rocket science. Something on the order of 3/4ths the costs of hauling a shipment is wrapped up in origin and destination service costs.

Generally speaking, unit train railroading is less expensive for the railroad to accompli***han traditional "loose car" railroading. But for the BN, it is "cost neutral" on this point. It costs the BN the same to wait for the PCC to tender 110 cars for a given destination and consignee and then run an extra to pick up the cars as it does to "shuttle" those cars back and forth. For the BN, here, there is no transportation economies issue. And if W-DOT or the PCC ownes the equipment, it could cost the BN even less.

But that is not the issue of this thread, as the rest of us have come to see. I am not sure why Tom is focusing so closely on this point, but that he certainly is doing.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still curious why WATCO could possibly preffer abandonment as opposed to the sale of theline. The article says WATCO withdrew the sale not that Washinton state was no longer interested. [?]

Since the original lines were former NP (now BNSF), the BN may be creating a dditional trouble behind the sceans. This is just a suspision. I would expect such a response from them.

But having been involved with other Class 1 to short line divestments, I would expect there to be cavets in the original sales contract so that BN can control what happens to that line even though they no longer have a financial intrest in it. Since one of the implied issues is diversion of traffic, I would expect the BN to view any origin point other than one on-line to BNSF to view the reroute for traffic from their line-haul to anyone else (except by their desire and instruction otherwise) to be a violation.

Stated another way, if BN doesn't get 100%, nobody gets any %. They offer a transload facility at Ritzville, therefore they will not supply cars to the short line (PCC) for those elevators that BN considers "captive" to their transload facility. Therefore, no empty cars will be supplied to PCC for those elevators, nor will BN permit anyone else (including the PCC itself) to supply cars. I would also not be suprised if BN has a marketing agreement with the Ritzville facility that prohibits the BN, PCC or UP from handling any grain from these elevators unless it is transloaded through Ritzville. They effectivly embargo these elevators.

From this point all the other problems flow. If the PCC can't haul sufficient traffic to meet its costs, then it must resort to "self-help" - in this case, ending survice. And, since the BN (presumably) has blocked all grain traffic from the PCC elevators, the state will not buy the property.

No legal action (either criminal or civil) can proceed to correct this situation unless somebody has been "legally injured", and by that time, all of those injured parties will be out of business and unable to finance a suit and with the current political situation, I doubt that any action by any government entity will proceed.

[rrandb]

I am still curious why WATCO could possibly preffer abandonment as opposed to the sale of theline. The article says WATCO withdrew the sale not that Washinton state was no longer interested. [?]

[Anonymous]

TomDiehl

This is the only article I have found so far regarding this news item. If others come to my attention I will post them. I have not found any more regarding this item, ergo there have been no more posts. I will do so in spite of your insolence and unwarranted impatience.

Regarding single carload vs the four truckload equivalent, I use that as a point of reference. It does not imply that any of the lines mentioned in the story are only shipping single carloads at a time. Service on these lines is usually once a week, averaging 10 to 25 cars at a time. They often run a geep in tandem with an SW model, probably an SW 1500.

So, if you have a reference for your claim that a 2000 HP geep pulling one 110 ton carload is less efficient that four trucks pulling 27.5 tons each, supply it. If you have no reference, at least provide us with some math to make your case. We do have the "Locomotive Gallons Per Mile" thread......

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51885

....which should help you make your case. For the WATCO scenario, if they did pull a single carload it would be with the SW 1500. If they are using 10 gallons per hour at 25 mph to pull that one 110 ton hopper, that's 2.5 miles per gallon. If it's 20 gallons per hour, that's 1.25 mpg......

http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm

For a 100 mile run, that's 80 gallons. The trucks are probably getting between 3 to 5 mpg for heavy loads, let's call it 4 mpg. 4 mpg divided into 100 miles, that's 25 gallons per truck, times four that's 100 gallons.

So, in this scenario, it takes 80 gallons to move 110 tons by rail, and 100 gallons to move 110 tons by truck. Therefore, using the SW model, it is easily possible for the shortline operator to beat the truckers in fuel efficiency for a single carload.

(PS - thanks to Hugh Jampton for posting the Al Krug fuel use link)

[rrandb]

We seem to have forgotten about the poor grain farmers that are now "forced" to ship by truck for less money. I am sorry what was the original problem here???[?] There is something about this story that I am haviing real trouble following. Why would WATCO rather abandon the line than sell it to the state. When was the last time a rail operator said "NO!!! NO MONEY!!" We would rather just abandon the line. Something does not add up. Something smells like fi***o me. [2c]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

"A locomotive pulling one car is certainly nowhere near as efficient as two trucks hauling the same quantity of grain." - TomDiehl

Trucks can haul between 25 tons and 33 tons of product, depending on which state's regs are the limiting factor. A modern rail hopper is going to haul from 100 to 110 tons of product. Thus it takes usually four truckloads to equal one rail hopper. Despite your unsubstantiated statement, it is not axiomatic that single carload freight is less efficient than corresponding truckloads. More to the contrary, a single engine pulling a single loaded grain hopper is still more efficient if the point of origin, distance haul, and destination are the same e.g. no intermodal transloading taking place. More than likely, the rails are running over gentle grades, while the truckers may be pulling up a 6% or 7% grade enroute.

No, it is not more efficient to haul stuff by truck than by train when origin and destination are directly accessed by both modes.

In the Washington State case, your argument becomes almost comical, in that the State owns both the roads and the railroad lines in question, so the maintenance/tax/etc issues become moot for the railroad.

No, what it comes down to is contractual limitations which do not allow the shortline to use their own crews and their own (or the State's) cars to haul multiple carloads of grain from online elevators on the ex-BNSF trackage to willing buyers located along UP ROW.

The only rail-related inefficiency here is the paper barrier imposed by BNSF. Is that what you're talking about in your statement above, Tom?

I haven't checked BNSF's loco roster lately, but I don't believe they own many GE 44 tonners. A 2000 HP diesel (probably the smallest on the roster) pulling one car is a heck of a lot less efficient that FOUR trucks on that 95 mile backhaul. And I doubt that the small diference in grades you state would make that much difference. And yes, the quantity (a point you have totally ignored) does make a difference in which is more efficient.

You seem to be the only one that thinks that railroads are the most efficient haulage in all circumstances. If we were to take your statement to a MORE ridiculous level, I guess they should build a rail siding to my house to pick up packages so I can ship a two pound package at a lower price than FedEx because the railroads are more efficient. Especially since FedEx uses trucks and they're less efficient than trains.

So Washington or WATCO is the owner? Seems to me that was the whole gist of the article in the link. Neither one wants it. And the article (still the only one linked, no evidence of your earlier "claims") simply states "can't compete with trucks." Talk about comical.

"Contractual Obligations?" Exactly who signed these supposed "contracts?" Must have been a really stupid shipper or agent if the provisions are as bad as you say. This wouldn't be a "paper barrier" that you're talking about. How about a link to that. Or is this something you "suppose" is happening, too?

I guess it was some quirk of business or fate that caused the granger railroads to go out of business. Can you say "Rock Island?" For someone with a progressive sounding screen name, you really seem to be living in the past.

[Anonymous]

"A locomotive pulling one car is certainly nowhere near as efficient as two trucks hauling the same quantity of grain." - TomDiehl

Trucks can haul between 25 tons and 33 tons of product, depending on which state's regs are the limiting factor. A modern rail hopper is going to haul from 100 to 110 tons of product. Thus it takes usually four truckloads to equal one rail hopper. Despite your unsubstantiated statement, it is not axiomatic that single carload freight is less efficient than corresponding truckloads. More to the contrary, a single engine pulling a single loaded grain hopper is still more efficient if the point of origin, distance haul, and destination are the same e.g. no intermodal transloading taking place. More than likely, the rails are running over gentle grades, while the truckers may be pulling up a 6% or 7% grade enroute.

No, it is not more efficient to haul stuff by truck than by train when origin and destination are directly accessed by both modes.

In the Washington State case, your argument becomes almost comical, in that the State owns both the roads and the railroad lines in question, so the maintenance/tax/etc issues become moot for the railroad.

No, what it comes down to is contractual limitations which do not allow the shortline to use their own crews and their own (or the State's) cars to haul multiple carloads of grain from online elevators on the ex-BNSF trackage to willing buyers located along UP ROW.

The only rail-related inefficiency here is the paper barrier imposed by BNSF. Is that what you're talking about in your statement above, Tom?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Another question that begs investigation: If it makes sense for BNSF to build and operate the 110 car shuttle facility at Ritzville (the Templin Terminal) for a short haul to the coast, why hasn't UP also built a similar facility on it's Washy line rather than handling the various carloads off of PCC? Come to think of it, building a 110 car grain facility in Hooper would make sense, especially if it was designed to also unload the lighter hoppers off the PCC into the mainline hoppers on the UP.

If you consider that the BNSF is a profitable railroad that keeps things flowing in most situations and that the Union Pacific has a major breakdown in service after swallowing up another railroad (remember the most recent service breakdown article in Trains Magazine) and still hasn't come up to speed after the most recent one, I'd say that BNSF is in a better position to set an example of efficient operation than UP. UP most likely doesn't have the investment capitol to build a facility like that.

The UP has the capitol. They also don't have the swelled heads that can't see reality byond their own ideas. They haven't built a shuttle terminal at Hooper (or anywhere else) because it is more efficient to have the PCC (and other short-line spin-offs) do the work. The UP just makes a set-out and a pick-up. The relative return is greatest and probably the actual return is also.

Unfortunately, since we can't see inside the BOD's heads at BNSF or UP, we don't know what's behind the decisions. Hard to say if we're talking practical heads or swelled heads. And since we're talking about two different BOD's, their way of interpreting "greatest return" could also be based on different formulas. UP could have the capitol, but decide to invest it elsewhere. Without facts, we might as well get out the crystal ball.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Tom

How are we going to define effeciency? We can have different kinds of effeciency.

For example, Coolie City to Ritzville by truck is 50 miles, by rail (after going nearly all the back to Spokane) it is 145 miles. The inefficiency is not 145 miles, but 95 miles. That relative eficiency ratio means that the railroad needs to be twice as effecient as the truck and there will be no ineffeciency. The railroads relative effeciency is 4 times that of the truck on a large volume basis, twice the 2 times needed.

Since the BN built the Ritzville facility, the cost of land, building and its construction are part of the cost structure that needs to be included into the rail rate in addition to the normal operating costs of fuel, engines, cars, crews, MofW and the normal overhead and debt service and taxes. The other facilities that are on the PCC are owned and operated by the farmer co-ops. The PCC takes care of the gathering costs.

The highest costs have been shifted to someone other than BN in that manner so setting out empties at Marshall or Cheney and then having a Pasco bound train make a pause and pick up the loads is a whole lot more effecient for the BN. And if the BN really wanted to make a Ritzville operation effecient, they could have the PCC interchange at Ritzville and the pick-ups would only need to be made at one spot and not two.

And the BN could have its "power play" cake and eat it, too, by having the rail transfer occurr at Ritzville whether by actual steel wheel interchange or by reload through the elevator. It would take a real sharp pencil, but on the surface, reloading from PCC to BN via the Ritzville elevator may actually be the most total cost effecient method. It certainly won't be much more expensive than the way BN is doing it now and probably a lot less expensive, and the car utilization opportunity costs would drop through the floor.

As of now, the farmer is accepting higher costs and lower returns to use the Ritzville Shuttle Elevator because he still must bear the costs of his rail served elevators and then also the transport charges to Ritzville, where the BN charges a higher rate (proportional on mileage). His costs would return to "normal" (along with his rate of return) if he could load at his own elevators. The farmers transportation costs to Ritzville are going to be at least 2 times the rail rate and could reach as much as 4 times (per bushel, delivered, Ritzville) when done by truck.

So, how are we to define "efficiency" here? For BN, it will probably be a wa***o slightly higher for all costs, cheaper on an operational basis; for the farmer, nothing but higher costs and lower returns; for the PCC, out of business.

True efficiency, takes into account ALL COSTS, not just for the business involved (BN), but ALL COSTS, intended and unintended, for all parties concerned. Just to name a few there are property taxes, sales taxes, business license taxes, income taxes not only for the railroad, but for the governments and businesses line-side. Remaining land owners will pay higher taxes to replace those lost taxes. All costs except for the vairable opportunity costs remain and someone must still pay them. The BN certainly will refuse even though they are the cause of the cost shifts.

As for UP's service problems, they stem from swallowing the SP whole which ended up giving them a near terminal case of "food poisioning". The problems have much less to do with UP's management style than the physical condition of the SP. The SP was going to grind to a slow halt anytime relatively soon no matter if UP came to the rescue or not. UP's management of the merger certainly played a negative part in their service, but it was a minor part compared to the part the physical condition of the SP played. And the UP is still paying that price -- it's just that the price gets smaller over time.

Very simple. Railroads are more efficient when they move LARGE QUANTITIES of freight between the same endpoints. I've noted time and again that Dave hasn't mentioned a thing about HOW MANY CARS of grain (or any other commodity) have been shifted to truck for the short haul. A locomotive pulling one car is certainly nowhere near as efficient as two trucks hauling the same quantity of grain. But no answer to the quantity question.

In your example, you give the efficiency of a truck running empty 95 miles. How efficient or inefficient is a train moving the same distance? Again, back to the quantity question. Does the grain gathering Co-op own and maintain the tracks and provide the locomotives and crews for this grain gathering? The company providing the transportation service, be it railroad or truck, will be looking at the cost to THEM to determine a rate.

All your grain gathering scenerios don't answer:

1. Who owns and maintains the track for the gathering?
2. Who provides locomotives and crews for the gathering.
3. Who owns the cars needed for the shipment?

And I still haven't seen any links to independent stories that add to or contradict what was said in the original link, which said the shortline couldn't compete with the trucking rate. It doesn't mention car supply, or interline connections.

[MichaelSol]

BNSF lists those elevators and quotes rates for them, and is required by law to serve them. These are still common carrier requirements. But, who can afford to officially complain? The only "study" I have seen on this was that Montana farmers forced to haul to the shuttle at Collins saved about $120 on RR rates, but incurred an average of about $500 per carload in additional trucking costs. But, as you point out, if BNSF simply refuses to supply the cars, not much choice.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

It sounds as if Ritzville Warehouse and Odessa Union Warehouse are probably trucking grain from their elevators at Odessa, Edwall, Ritzville (assuming these are the older elevators closer to downtown than the new shuttle facility), Sprague, Warden, Irby, Davenport, Downs, Ephrata, Harrington, Lamona, Mohler, and Rocklyn to the shuttle facility near Ritzville. The question then is if they do so because the combination truck / shuttle rate is such that it beats direct carload and carset rates from those other elevators located on active BNSF and BNSF-served railroads, or (as I presume) that BNSF simply won't quote a rate from those other elevators, basically forcing them to truck the grain to the shuttle facility?

[MichaelSol]

Hi Dave,

Odessa Trading Co., now part of Ritzville Warehouse, had elevators at Batum, Moody, and Ruff. About 1,000 carloads in 1978. Odessa Union Warehouse had elevators at Jantz, Lauer, Packard, Reiman and Schoonover, about 800 carloads. Western Grain had the elevator at Malden, 340 carloads. Ritzville Warehouse had elevators at Marcellus and Ralston, 250 carloads. Wolf Kill at McDonald, 89 carloads. Western Farmer's Assoc at Othello, Lynden, about 1,000 carloads, Rosalia Producers Co. at Pine City and Squaw Canyon, about 70 carloads, Lamont Grain Growers at Lamont, 36 carloads, Berger & Plate at Tekoa, 100 carloads, Rockford Grain Growers at Worley, ID and Setters, ID, 260 carloads, Cougar Elevator, Spokane, 107.

Bunge, Cargill, Continental Grain, Dreyfus, FUGTA, United Grain, show carloads in the thousands, originating Milwaukee Road in Washington State, but the "shipper" billing addresses don't show the origin elevators. Presumably these were shipping from some of the elevators listed above, but also elevators at Ewan, Pizarro, Lind, Marengo and places like that.

On BNSF, Ritzville Warehouse owns elevators at Odessa, Edwall, Ritzville, Sprague, and Warden. Odessa Union Warehouse owns elevators at Irby, Davenport, Downs (2), Ephrata, Harrington (2), Lamona, Mohler (2), Odessa, and Rocklyn.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

MIchael,

Regarding Ritzville Warehouse, et al, you mentioned that Milwaukee used to handle quite a few carloads from them. Are they the ones then with the elevators in Ralston, Pizzaro, Roxboro on the mainline, and/or Marcellus, Jantz, et al on the Marcellus branch? Would that loss of rail service due to the Milwaukee retrenchment have played a part in their involvement in the new shuttle terminal at Ritzville? Did they (and do they still) also own any of the current elevators on the BNSF mainlines via Ritzville and Odessa?

[Anonymous]

Michael,

My thoughts and prayers go out to you in the passing of your friend.

[jeaton]

Michael

Condolences to the family and friends of George Kronberg.

Jay Eaton

[MichaelSol]

Bob, I don't know if you or Jay Eaton or some others might have known him, but George Kronberg, Milwaukee Road's Vice President Traffic, died this morning in his sleep, suffering from prostate cancer.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Michael-Can grain shippers and railroads sign rate contracts? I seem to recall something that grain had to move on tariffs.

Bob, Grain is indeed one of the commodities that has to move on published tariffs.

USC 49, IV, A, Chap 111, Sub 1,

Sec. 11101. Common carrier transportation, service, and rates

(a) A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request. A rail carrier shall not be found to have violated this section because it fulfills its reasonable commitments under contracts authorized under section 10709 of this title before responding to reasonable requests for service. Commitments which deprive a carrier of its ability to respond to reasonable requests for common carrier service are not reasonable.

(b) A rail carrier shall also provide to any person, on request, the carrier's rates and other service terms. The response by a rail carrier to a request for the carrier's rates and other service terms shall be--
(1) in writing and forwarded to the requesting person promptly after receipt of the request; or
(2) promptly made available in electronic form.

(c) A rail carrier may not increase any common carrier rates or change any common carrier service terms unless 20 days have expired after written or electronic notice is provided to any person who, within the previous 12 months--
(1) has requested such rates or terms under subsection (b); or
(2) has made arrangements with the carrier for a shipment that would be subject to such increased rates or changed terms.

(d) With respect to transportation of agricultural products, in addition to the requirements of subsections (a), (b), and (c), a rail carrier shall publish, make available, and retain for public inspection its common carrier rates, schedules of rates, and other service terms, and any proposed and actual changes to such rates and service terms. For purposes of this subsection, agricultural products shall include grain as defined in section 3 of the United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 75) and all products thereof, and fertilizer.

(e) A rail carrier shall provide transportation or service in accordance with the rates and service terms, and any changes thereto, as published or otherwise made available under subsection (b), (c), or (d).

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

Michael-Can grain shippers and railroads sign rate contracts? I seem to recall something that grain had to move on tariffs.

I was involved with several projects in chemicals and petroleum where the deals would have only happened if the shipper could protect his risk with a rate/service contract. As an example, most people here probably remember Shell's crude oil trains from Saco to Wilmington, CA over the Tehachapis.

[MichaelSol]

Well, that's interesting. Could be, although BNSF doesn't reveal any ownership interest in its 10K filing. Ritzville Warehouse and Odessa Trading Co. used to be big shippers on the Milwaukee Road, even at the end it was three or four thousand carloads a year or so. Over the years I've always maintained a sort of distant, paternalistic interest in what they're doing.

Every summer, when I go through Eastern Washington to visit the kids in Seattle, I usually visit the various facilities. Pretty recognizable: big open-top, off-road International Scout, baseball cap, shorts, sunglasses and a cigar. The sunburn is usually setting in about the time I get to Ritzville. I like the austere beauty of that country.

The Templin Terminal LLC is a fairly typical organization for a big project like that, both for financing and insurance purposes. Not sure why, but BNSF lists it in two parts on its elevator directory, Templin Terminal LLC, a 762,000 bu capacity shuttle, elevator no. 2355, and Ritzville Warehouse Co, a 3.7 million bu capacity shuttle, elevator no. 1523

RW's website says the following: "Ritzville Warehouse Co. opened its' 110-car shuttle loading facility known as Templin Terminal in April 2002. This facility allows greater economies of scale to Ritzville Warehouse Company and its' members. Maintaining five of our own trucks ensures the prompt delivery of bushels to grain terminals for mostly export sales. These trucks also allow farm stored grain to be hauled to market in a timely and efficient manner. "

A reprint from the July/August, 2004 Grain Journal doesn't shed any more light on it. http://www.keigleyco.com/news_industry_links/EasternWashington.pdf

"New 2.5-million-bushel rail terminal for Ritzville Warehouse Co. two miles east of Ritzville, WA, including a 760,000-bushel slipform concrete elevator"

"With 30 locations and 18 million bushels worth of storage capacity around eastern Washington, Ritzville Warehouse Co. is one of the major players in the region’s grain industry. But for all its origination power, the farmer-owned cooperative lacked the ability to load 110-car shuttle trains on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe main line to Portland, OR, and Kalama, WA, says CEO John Anderson.

The 25-plus-year grain industry veteran, who served in 2000-02 as chairman of the ational Grain and Feed Association’s Country Elevator Council, joined the company as CEO about a year ago, having previously been with Central Washington Grain Growers.

At that time, construction of the new 2.5-million-bushel slipform concrete rail terminal had just broken ground, about two miles east of Ritzville, WA. Anderson oversaw completion of the project in April 2002, and the facility began shipping grain shortly thereafter.

The elevator consists of four 178,000-bushel slipform concrete tanks standing 48 feet in diameter and 134 feet tall. Grain sits atop above-ground, 37-degree concrete hopper bottoms, which eliminates the need for a sweep auger. Because of fast turnover, the tanks have no aeration or grain temperature monitoring systems. The complex also includes a 50,000-bushel interstice bin. In addition, the facility includes a 330-foot-diameter, 1.7-million bshel ground pile. A 15,000-bph InterSystems drag conveyor carries grain out to the pile. Incoming grain arrives by truck at a roughly 1,000-bushel mechanical receiving pit, which feeds a 40,000- bushel, 187-foot-tall Schlagel leg."

Tried to call this morning to see what the BNSF connection was, but no one was answering the phone. Can't imagine why a grain elevator isn't answering the phone on a Saturday morning in the middle of winter.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Since the BN built the Ritzville facility, the cost of land, building and its construction are part of the cost structure that needs to be included into the rail rate in addition to the normal operating costs of fuel, engines, cars, crews, MofW and the normal overhead and debt service and taxes. The other facilities that are on the PCC are owned and operated by the farmer co-ops. The PCC takes care of the gathering costs.

I understood that the Ritzville Warehouse Co , a farmer-owned co-op, built the shuttle elevator. I am not aware that BNSF has ever built a shuttle elevator.

Best regards, Michael Sol

You couldn't prove it by me either way. The substance of others remarks about the operation was that it was a BN deal. It did sound a bit odd to me that the BN would fund and operate such a facility if there was even a chance of getting someone else to fund it.

The word from the grapevine ever since the facility was built is that it is a BNSF sponsored project. That leads me to believe that BNSF was responsible for funding and/or other indirect involvement. The facility itself is owned by an LLC. The fact that BNSF no longer provides cars for the large and long standing elevators at Sprague, Ritzville proper, Lind, Paha, and Tokio (though they do continue to serve the fertilizer plant in Tokio), that would lead me to conclude that BNSF itself has a financial stake in the failure or success of the Ritzville shuttle facility, since business given to an existing elevator is business taken away from the shuttle facility.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829
Regarding shuttle elevators, aren't there new OSHA regulations going into effect to prevent grain elevator explosions

The OSHA Grain Handling Facilities Standard was published December 31, 1987 (52 FR 49592) with an effective date of March 30, 1988. This was in response to some horrendous elevator explosions in the late 1970s. According to OSHA: "Grain dust explosions are often severe, involving loss of life and substantial property damage. In the last 40 years, there were approximately 600 explosions in grain handling facilities across the United States, which killed 250 people and injured more than 1000. As recently as June 8, 1998, the nation's deadliest explosion in 15 years at the DeBruce Grain Elevator in Wichita, Kansas, left seven people dead and ten others injured."

"National attention focused on the destructiveness of explosions in grain handling facilities when a series of explosions occurred in late 1977 and early 1978; in December 1977, alone, 59 deaths and 49 injuries resulted from five grain elevator explosions (52 FR 49592). These catastrophic grain explosions of the late 1970's led to increased national awareness of the hazards associated with the grain handling industry. Actions and research that began in the late 1970's, both inside and outside government, led to the promulgation of OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard. This Standard requires various safety improvements."

In February, 2003, OSHA published a Regulatory Review of OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard [29 CFR 1910.272], pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866.

Based on analyses performed for this 610 Review, "OSHA concludes that the Grain Handling Facilities Standard should continue without major change. The Standard should not be rescinded because it is necessary to carry out statutory objectives to protect worker safety, and changes are not needed to minimize significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Fatalities from grain explosions and suffocations have decreased greatly since promulgation of the Grain Handling Facilities Standard. Furthermore, testimony at the public meetings and written comments submitted to the OSHA Docket, as well as economic analysis, indicate no negative economic impact resulting from the Standard. "

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

I suspect the issues go deeper than just trucking the grain farther over little used country roads.

Regarding shuttle elevators, aren't there new OSHA regulations going into effect to prevent grain elevator explosions as well as DoA/WTO regulations for all grain handling facilities on the comingling of GM crops? What about the costs of compliance for all the local county elevators - if it's even possible, and how many extra grain hoppers would be needed to prevent co-mingling?

I understand other parts of this issue include a fear that large multinational-owned elevators will be able to control pricing and that concern even crosses the border where Canadian farmers fear the multinationals will store grain just across the border in the U.S.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
They also don't have the swelled heads that can't see reality byond their own ideas. They haven't built a shuttle terminal at Hooper (or anywhere else) because it is more efficient to have the PCC (and other short-line spin-offs) do the work. The UP just makes a set-out and a pick-up. The relative return is greatest and probably the actual return is also.

UP's policy outlined above, if correct, is interesting. UP currently is moving its trains at an average speed of 28.8 mph, while BNSF is operating at 26.6 mph which is a conisderable difference. I haven't seen UP do much right the past few years, but they must be doing something right these days.

Best regards, Michael Sol

For all of their faults (and they do have a number ), these are not stupid people and they do learn from their errors. It may take some time, sometimes, but they do not have the attitude problem so evident at the BNSF since the BN swallowed up the SLSF. The Frisco management moved over to the BN and repeated their masterfull job they did to the Frisco.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Since the BN built the Ritzville facility, the cost of land, building and its construction are part of the cost structure that needs to be included into the rail rate in addition to the normal operating costs of fuel, engines, cars, crews, MofW and the normal overhead and debt service and taxes. The other facilities that are on the PCC are owned and operated by the farmer co-ops. The PCC takes care of the gathering costs.

I understood that the Ritzville Warehouse Co , a farmer-owned co-op, built the shuttle elevator. I am not aware that BNSF has ever built a shuttle elevator.

Best regards, Michael Sol

You couldn't prove it by me either way. The substance of others remarks about the operation was that it was a BN deal. It did sound a bit odd to me that the BN would fund and operate such a facility if there was even a chance of getting someone else to fund it.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Since the BN built the Ritzville facility, the cost of land, building and its construction are part of the cost structure that needs to be included into the rail rate in addition to the normal operating costs of fuel, engines, cars, crews, MofW and the normal overhead and debt service and taxes. The other facilities that are on the PCC are owned and operated by the farmer co-ops. The PCC takes care of the gathering costs.

I understood that the Ritzville Warehouse Co , a farmer-owned co-op, built the shuttle elevator. I am not aware that BNSF has ever built a shuttle elevator.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

another exBN WATCO line that might be in trouble is the Eureka (MT) branch...the large mill in Eureka closed and had a big auction...one small lumber operation in between Stryker and Eureka....the Kalispell branch is very busy using a BAR GP38 and a ,incedentally, PCC GP35...

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente
[BTW, recent reports by the State of Washington indicate the problems for Watco have indeed been car supply, even the delivery of PCC's own Grain Train cars coming back from the ports. In that regard, BNSF is indeed to blame.

This is fairly typical of this particular company. The shippers and the taxpayers do everything the railroad says is necessary to preserve service. The shippers chip in for a car fleet; the taxpayers chip in to buy the line. At the cost of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, they absorbed all of the alleged costs of operating the line, gathering the traffic and delivering it to BNSF. Everything BNSF said they needed to do, they did.

And BNSF walked away from the business anyway, knowing that those same taxpayers will be forced to upgrade the road system because the shippers need to sell. The taxpayers become the automatic default funding for broken BNSF promises, even as BNSF reaps -- yes, reaps -- the profits from its own broken promises, at taxpayer expense.

This particular company has found an interesting way to earn income by using the government to tax taxpayers to fund part of its operating costs, even as it imposes enormous inefficiencies onto the transportation system -- more trucks, more use of highways, more commodity handling -- by its actions.

No business that insults its customers is going to thrive in the long run. Memories run deep.

When the real push for re-regulation comes and succeeds, BNSF is going to whine and cry and kick and scream that it's not "fair," even after nearly three decades of corroding any meaning out of the word and corrupting the concept itself.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
They also don't have the swelled heads that can't see reality byond their own ideas. They haven't built a shuttle terminal at Hooper (or anywhere else) because it is more efficient to have the PCC (and other short-line spin-offs) do the work. The UP just makes a set-out and a pick-up. The relative return is greatest and probably the actual return is also.

Shuttle facilities are enormously expensive compared to a typical "country" elevator located on a siding on a mainline somewhere. It is interesting, with all the talk of "free market capitalism," that railroads are attempting to force the unwilling taxpayer to bear the burden of what used to be the function of the rail transportation system, with heavy grain trucks using country roads to get from a perfectly good elevator on a perfectly good siding where trains routinely take the hole anyway to an enormously expensive shuttle elevator many miles away. This of course requires the taxpayers to rebuild the roads and maintain them to higher standards so that the railroads can continue to get the grain business.

The same hypocrites who scoff at farmers getting subsidies out of "hard earned tax payer dollars" always lose their voice when railroads force the expenditure of those taxpayer dollars to support railroad schemes to shift their alleged costs from the railroad to the taxpayer. It's always "more corporate welfare" except when the railroads do it: then it's astute business practice.

UP's policy outlined above, if correct, is interesting. UP currently is moving its trains at an average speed of 28.8 mph, while BNSF is operating at 26.6 mph which is a conisderable difference. I haven't seen UP do much right the past few years, but they must be doing something right these days.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

"Yep, that 3% (albeit short) grade west of Colfax has been a problem, but not for westbound trains. It is the eastbound (downhill) trains that have had problems of late. Remember, we're not talking about 110 car unit trains here, rather 25 car (at most) shuttle trains, so if the head end power is sufficient, the 3% isn't a problem uphill."

But if you drag all that grain over from the Coulee City line, you're no longer talking 25-car trains. They often deliver 50-plus cars at Cheney in one trip during grain rush. Same thing on the P&L at Marshall. So, the only way they'd take all of that grain in 25-car trains up the 3% is in multiple moves (i.e. double, triple, quadruple the hill), rebuilding it all on the top before going on to Hooper Jct. Gotta be a better way. BTW, recent reports by the State of Washington indicate the problems for Watco have indeed been car supply, even the delivery of PCC's own Grain Train cars coming back from the ports. In that regard, BNSF is indeed to blame.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Another question that begs investigation: If it makes sense for BNSF to build and operate the 110 car shuttle facility at Ritzville (the Templin Terminal) for a short haul to the coast, why hasn't UP also built a similar facility on it's Washy line rather than handling the various carloads off of PCC? Come to think of it, building a 110 car grain facility in Hooper would make sense, especially if it was designed to also unload the lighter hoppers off the PCC into the mainline hoppers on the UP.

If you consider that the BNSF is a profitable railroad that keeps things flowing in most situations and that the Union Pacific has a major breakdown in service after swallowing up another railroad (remember the most recent service breakdown article in Trains Magazine) and still hasn't come up to speed after the most recent one, I'd say that BNSF is in a better position to set an example of efficient operation than UP. UP most likely doesn't have the investment capitol to build a facility like that.

The UP has the capitol. They also don't have the swelled heads that can't see reality byond their own ideas. They haven't built a shuttle terminal at Hooper (or anywhere else) because it is more efficient to have the PCC (and other short-line spin-offs) do the work. The UP just makes a set-out and a pick-up. The relative return is greatest and probably the actual return is also.

[kenneo]

Tom

How are we going to define effeciency? We can have different kinds of effeciency.

For example, Coolie City to Ritzville by truck is 50 miles, by rail (after going nearly all the back to Spokane) it is 145 miles. The inefficiency is not 145 miles, but 95 miles. That relative eficiency ratio means that the railroad needs to be twice as effecient as the truck and there will be no ineffeciency. The railroads relative effeciency is 4 times that of the truck on a large volume basis, twice the 2 times needed.

Since the BN built the Ritzville facility, the cost of land, building and its construction are part of the cost structure that needs to be included into the rail rate in addition to the normal operating costs of fuel, engines, cars, crews, MofW and the normal overhead and debt service and taxes. The other facilities that are on the PCC are owned and operated by the farmer co-ops. The PCC takes care of the gathering costs.

The highest costs have been shifted to someone other than BN in that manner so setting out empties at Marshall or Cheney and then having a Pasco bound train make a pause and pick up the loads is a whole lot more effecient for the BN. And if the BN really wanted to make a Ritzville operation effecient, they could have the PCC interchange at Ritzville and the pick-ups would only need to be made at one spot and not two.

And the BN could have its "power play" cake and eat it, too, by having the rail transfer occurr at Ritzville whether by actual steel wheel interchange or by reload through the elevator. It would take a real sharp pencil, but on the surface, reloading from PCC to BN via the Ritzville elevator may actually be the most total cost effecient method. It certainly won't be much more expensive than the way BN is doing it now and probably a lot less expensive, and the car utilization opportunity costs would drop through the floor.

As of now, the farmer is accepting higher costs and lower returns to use the Ritzville Shuttle Elevator because he still must bear the costs of his rail served elevators and then also the transport charges to Ritzville, where the BN charges a higher rate (proportional on mileage). His costs would return to "normal" (along with his rate of return) if he could load at his own elevators. The farmers transportation costs to Ritzville are going to be at least 2 times the rail rate and could reach as much as 4 times (per bushel, delivered, Ritzville) when done by truck.

So, how are we to define "efficiency" here? For BN, it will probably be a wa***o slightly higher for all costs, cheaper on an operational basis; for the farmer, nothing but higher costs and lower returns; for the PCC, out of business.

True efficiency, takes into account ALL COSTS, not just for the business involved (BN), but ALL COSTS, intended and unintended, for all parties concerned. Just to name a few there are property taxes, sales taxes, business license taxes, income taxes not only for the railroad, but for the governments and businesses line-side. Remaining land owners will pay higher taxes to replace those lost taxes. All costs except for the vairable opportunity costs remain and someone must still pay them. The BN certainly will refuse even though they are the cause of the cost shifts.

As for UP's service problems, they stem from swallowing the SP whole which ended up giving them a near terminal case of "food poisioning". The problems have much less to do with UP's management style than the physical condition of the SP. The SP was going to grind to a slow halt anytime relatively soon no matter if UP came to the rescue or not. UP's management of the merger certainly played a negative part in their service, but it was a minor part compared to the part the physical condition of the SP played. And the UP is still paying that price -- it's just that the price gets smaller over time.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Another question that begs investigation: If it makes sense for BNSF to build and operate the 110 car shuttle facility at Ritzville (the Templin Terminal) for a short haul to the coast, why hasn't UP also built a similar facility on it's Washy line rather than handling the various carloads off of PCC? Come to think of it, building a 110 car grain facility in Hooper would make sense, especially if it was designed to also unload the lighter hoppers off the PCC into the mainline hoppers on the UP.

If you consider that the BNSF is a profitable railroad that keeps things flowing in most situations and that the Union Pacific has a major breakdown in service after swallowing up another railroad (remember the most recent service breakdown article in Trains Magazine) and still hasn't come up to speed after the most recent one, I'd say that BNSF is in a better position to set an example of efficient operation than UP. UP most likely doesn't have the investment capitol to build a facility like that.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
That being said, is it "inefficient" to haul grain 145 miles out of the way compared to trucking that same grain 50 miles? If rail is 4 times as efficient as trucking, wouldn't the railroad have to run at least 200 miles out of the way to be comparable to a 50 mile truck haul?

What I suggest the State do is to connect all the State owned lines in such a way as to be independent of forced interchange with either BNSF or UP, e.g. State grain trains could interchange with UP or BNSF if the price is right, but they wouldn't be totally dependent on that option. The way to do this is to build a rail connection down to the nearest Snake River barge port, allowing for rail to barge transload for grain exports if for some reason BNSF and UP can't or won't supply the cars or pick them up onto their networks.

The efficiency question would also have to take the quantity of grain (how many carloads) into consideration. Remember, trucks are more efficient on smaller quantities, rail more efficient on large quantities. Also, yes, it is more efficient to truck grain 50 miles than to rail it 145 miles, using your figures above. Especially if it's "out of the way."

How much track (mileage) would the state have to build to accompli***his? How much of the right-of-way land do they own or would they have to buy? Also remember, the granger railroads of old folded up and went out of business because there wasn't enough quantity of freight to haul to offset the cost of maintaining the mileage of track they needed to haul it. The larger transloading facilities (the 110 car facilities you refer to) are more efficient because they go to the railroad's strong point, moving large quantities of freight.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
The State went to all this trouble to purchase the PCC lines with the thought that by doing so they could keep rail service on those lines viable and keep trucks off State and county roads. Then BNSF refuses to provide the promised service levels for their former share of the State purchased lines

You make it sound as if the state would have grounds for a lawsuit. I mean, they did get get this *promised service levels* issue in writing? Right?[}:)]

Actually, it's a little more tricky than that, and Gabe could do a better job of explaining the legallese involved in such situations, but my understanding is thus:

When WATCO bought the ex-BN lines from BN, BN is alleged to have made certain car supply promises, which I am told is normal SOP for such line sales, otherwise the potential short line buyer would walk. Of course, the information is confidential, so then WATCO turned and sold the trackage to the State while maintaining operating rights, WATCO retained the contractual rights and obligations of the original sale. And now that WATCO wants out of operating rights altogether, the State would probably have to get a court order to see what is contained in the original sales contract. Without that, the State can only go on hearsay when calculating what BNSF did or did not promise in terms of guaranteed car supply to WATCO, and hearsay usually won't hold up in court! And WATCO probably is too afraid of retribution from BNSF on it's hundreds of other shortlines throughout North America to bring forth this info themselves.

AKA, it's all probably in legal limbo right now!

Let me wager a couple of months wages here -- SOP for such line sales and/or leases for the SP's and BN's of the world is captive traffic clauses. That means that traffic originating or terminating on the shed lines must, without fail, be interchanged with the original owner - just as if the shed line were still operating as a branch of its original owner. That means that Coulee City traffic goes PCC-BNSF, Marshall traffic goes PCC-BNSF and Moscow traffic goes PCC-UP. If this were not so, I really think that the PCC and W-DOT would have the cars going PCC-Pullman-PCC-Hooper-UP.

What the BNSF has done is to shed lines that the BN does not wi***o operate but does want to have the traffic from/to. They get rid of all costs and keep all revenues (that they can). They can't simply contract out with a private switch crew for the service because of scope rules, so they do the next best thing. To maximize their effort (cost cutting) the provide only what a court or regulatory agency forces them to do. And the little short line can't afford to do that for business and financial reasons.

PCC could, in theory, buy covered hoppers for their customers, but since the grain won't be travelling in BN supplied equipment, the BN is not obligated to provide the rate and division agreeded to in the purchase contract.

The W-DOT can fix the situation, but it probably would take the STB and definetly a court action backed up by a "obey or we shut you down" order against BNSF. It would take at least five things - cancelling of the restricted interchange clauses, accounting any PCC owned or leased rail equipment as "home-road supplied" for rate purposes, through routing for traffic off the "foreign road" to the "home road" (traffic off ex-NP lines can interchange at Pullman to the PCC for delivery to UP and traffic off ex-UP lines can interchange with the BNSF at Marshall or at Cheney via Pullman), lost business opportunity penalties to be paid by the line-haul carrier for car supply and service failures, and all local traffic is exempt from any service, rate or routing interference by the BN or UP.

Those are some excellent points for WSDOT to consider!

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

If grain from the Marshall line (aka the P&L) is now either being trucked to barge terminals or to the Templin Terminal in Ritzville as stated above, does that mean they no longer load blocks of PCC/Washington State Grain Train cars at Plaza, Oakesdale, and other places on the P&L? If they built a connection from the Coulee City line (aka the CW) to the P&L, as was also stated above, in order to connect with UP instead of BNSF, do you really think the additional 145-plus miles of slow, short line routing would be beneficial? (That's more than the entire length of the CW itself.) Don't forget that this longer routing would also put a 3% grade west of Colfax in the face of all those grain loads.

What we are talking about here is survival. In economic terms, the "reroute" would be a bad decision, but by doing this with the BN's attitude here, it means staying in business or quitting. What the BN is doing is quite simply putting the PCC out of business by providing just enough cost cuts to kill off the PCC (something they can not do if they still own the lines) and not supplying the necessary equipment, and then when they have "done their deed", raise the rates. If you don't believe this, take a look at Montana grain rates and service structure compared to where BN has competition.

To be sure, it's more complicated than this, but this is the basic attitude(s) causing the problem.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

If grain from the Marshall line (aka the P&L) is now either being trucked to barge terminals or to the Templin Terminal in Ritzville as stated above, does that mean they no longer load blocks of PCC/Washington State Grain Train cars at Plaza, Oakesdale, and other places on the P&L? If they built a connection from the Coulee City line (aka the CW) to the P&L, as was also stated above, in order to connect with UP instead of BNSF, do you really think the additional 145-plus miles of slow, short line routing would be beneficial? (That's more than the entire length of the CW itself.) Don't forget that this longer routing would also put a 3% grade west of Colfax in the face of all those grain loads.

Yep, that 3% (albeit short) grade west of Colfax has been a problem, but not for westbound trains. It is the eastbound (downhill) trains that have had problems of late. Remember, we're not talking about 110 car unit trains here, rather 25 car (at most) shuttle trains, so if the head end power is sufficient, the 3% isn't a problem uphill.

Whether the 145 miles of extra distance is a problem may also be moot, since the Coulee City to Cheney line runs west to east, while grain is moving south and west. At one time the Coulee City line ran south of Coulee City down to Connell where it reconnected to the BN mainline, but for reasons that escape me when BN was looking for lines to chop, they took out the logical connection to the Coulee City high line in deference to the illogical connection at Cheney. Don't ask me why!

That being said, is it "inefficient" to haul grain 145 miles out of the way compared to trucking that same grain 50 miles? If rail is 4 times as efficient as trucking, wouldn't the railroad have to run at least 200 miles out of the way to be comparable to a 50 mile truck haul?

What I suggest the State do is to connect all the State owned lines in such a way as to be independent of forced interchange with either BNSF or UP, e.g. State grain trains could interchange with UP or BNSF if the price is right, but they wouldn't be totally dependent on that option. The way to do this is to build a rail connection down to the nearest Snake River barge port, allowing for rail to barge transload for grain exports if for some reason BNSF and UP can't or won't supply the cars or pick them up onto their networks.

Another question that begs investigation: If it makes sense for BNSF to build and operate the 110 car shuttle facility at Ritzville (the Templin Terminal) for a short haul to the coast, why hasn't UP also built a similar facility on it's Washy line rather than handling the various carloads off of PCC? Come to think of it, building a 110 car grain facility in Hooper would make sense, especially if it was designed to also unload the lighter hoppers off the PCC into the mainline hoppers on the UP.

Just for the record, I had suggested that BNSF allow PCC trains to access directly the Templin facility by rail over BNSF's mainline via Marshall, wherein the PCC cars could either be added to the shuttle train consist or the PCC cars could be unloaded in deference to the BNSF shuttle cars. Makes a lot more sense than having truckers haul the grain to Ritzville. In fact, I introduced this idea to the TRAINS mag staff a while back, and yada yada yada Larry Kauffman no longer writes for TRAINS! Hmmmm.....

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Not much of a question as to the motive BNSF had in doing that. Increased efficiency in the grain collecting and shipping system. How many cars did one of the older elevators ship a day? The cost of collecting smaller quantities of cars from smaller elevators and loading facilities will take the cost of shipping the grain UP, not down. By having trucks do the short haul (from farm to loading facility) to a larger capacity facility, they are playing to the efficiencies of the different modes. Trucks are more efficient in short haul, small shipment situations. Rail is more efficient in long haul, large shipments. These efficiencies of scale aren't "alleged," they're well documented. Do you think a potential new rail service provider will want to build lines into all the smaller elevators, or will they want to build a large 100+ car facility, served by one spur? Would it have been cheaper to have BNSF give a subsidy to the smaller elevators to upgrade their facilities? What advantage would it have been to the railroad? As a for-profit company, BNSF, or any railroad, would have to see a return on investment in a reasonable amount of time, either in larger shipping quantities, or reduced costs.

The amount spent in upgrading a line over 30 years ago has probably been written off the financial books long ago, and has deteriorated back to the pre-upgrade level. Rail facilities don't last forever, and exposed to the weather in that part of the country, it DEFINATELY don't last.

Rail lines ripping out low use tracks to prevent competition is nothing new. Locally, several years ago Conrail ripped out a section of the line known as the Lackawanna Cutoff through northern New Jersey to prevent sale to a competetor. It would have competed with the old New York Central water level route into NYC. Now they want to use it for commuter rail service, and have to rebuild it. And I'm sure that wasn't a new idea when Conrail did that.

I've still seen nothing that indicates BNSF is doing anything that another corporation won't do.

Tom

It's not any vendeta on BN's part except - it's plain stupidity, stiff-necked stupidity - except the pulling-up that part of the Marshall (P&L) line.

It will cost the BN the same or possibily less to supply the cars to tthe PCC than to build and operate the Ritzville facility, so it's not an economic decision as you say.

It's politics and "power play" on the part of some who have "power" and insist on doing things their way whether it's the correct way or not.

[Anonymous]

If grain from the Marshall line (aka the P&L) is now either being trucked to barge terminals or to the Templin Terminal in Ritzville as stated above, does that mean they no longer load blocks of PCC/Washington State Grain Train cars at Plaza, Oakesdale, and other places on the P&L? If they built a connection from the Coulee City line (aka the CW) to the P&L, as was also stated above, in order to connect with UP instead of BNSF, do you really think the additional 145-plus miles of slow, short line routing would be beneficial? (That's more than the entire length of the CW itself.) Don't forget that this longer routing would also put a 3% grade west of Colfax in the face of all those grain loads.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well Tom, I live right in the midst of the PCC network, and I have had conversations with PCC employees, so I know a little more about it than the average outsider. There's certainly more to the story than the link I posted, as more mainstream news sites pick up the story I'll try and post them for you so you'll have a clearer picture. Suffice to say my suspicions and critizisms of BNSF usually end up being vindicated.

One has every right to question BNSF's motives in indirectly building a brand new grain shuttle loader for 110 car unit trains that are moving that grain less than 300 miles, when there are already plenty of large elevators with sidings right next to the BNSF mainline. Was the capital cost of the 110 car facility justified in light of established elevators having multicar loading capabilities? Is it worth it to **** off every single one of the elevators all along the BNSF mainline, denying them all service now, when most of those elevators are owned in whole or in part by the area grain growers themselves? Does BNSF really think the area grain growers will screw themselves out of their shares of ownership in those online elevators just to take advantage of the alleged "efficiencies" of 110 car shuttle operations. Wouldn't BNSF have been better off simply converting the existing elevators into shuttle facilities?

You should also know that BN spent a lot of money to upgrade the Marshall line in the late 1970's all the way down to Lewiston in anticipation of running shuttles down there, only to do a 180 and embargo the last 30 miles of the line, choosing then to build a brand new 26 car grain loader in Fallon, only to give up on that when the line sale was finalized, of course first taking the precaution of ripping out that last 30 miles to Lewiston to keep all Palouse rail traffic interchanged at Marshall, only to forego any meaningful Marshall interchange...............

It's not a "vendetta" as you alleged, more like a case study in why monopolistic entities can get away with making nominally wasteful business decisions. BNSF continues to amaze me in so many ways, and it's a wonder how much longer they can keep up this line of behaviour before it bites them in the FRED.

Not much of a question as to the motive BNSF had in doing that. Increased efficiency in the grain collecting and shipping system. How many cars did one of the older elevators ship a day? The cost of collecting smaller quantities of cars from smaller elevators and loading facilities will take the cost of shipping the grain UP, not down. By having trucks do the short haul (from farm to loading facility) to a larger capacity facility, they are playing to the efficiencies of the different modes. Trucks are more efficient in short haul, small shipment situations. Rail is more efficient in long haul, large shipments. These efficiencies of scale aren't "alleged," they're well documented. Do you think a potential new rail service provider will want to build lines into all the smaller elevators, or will they want to build a large 100+ car facility, served by one spur? Would it have been cheaper to have BNSF give a subsidy to the smaller elevators to upgrade their facilities? What advantage would it have been to the railroad? As a for-profit company, BNSF, or any railroad, would have to see a return on investment in a reasonable amount of time, either in larger shipping quantities, or reduced costs.

The amount spent in upgrading a line over 30 years ago has probably been written off the financial books long ago, and has deteriorated back to the pre-upgrade level. Rail facilities don't last forever, and exposed to the weather in that part of the country, it DEFINATELY don't last.

Rail lines ripping out low use tracks to prevent competition is nothing new. Locally, several years ago Conrail ripped out a section of the line known as the Lackawanna Cutoff through northern New Jersey to prevent sale to a competetor. It would have competed with the old New York Central water level route into NYC. Now they want to use it for commuter rail service, and have to rebuild it. And I'm sure that wasn't a new idea when Conrail did that.

I've still seen nothing that indicates BNSF is doing anything that another corporation won't do.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
The State went to all this trouble to purchase the PCC lines with the thought that by doing so they could keep rail service on those lines viable and keep trucks off State and county roads. Then BNSF refuses to provide the promised service levels for their former share of the State purchased lines

You make it sound as if the state would have grounds for a lawsuit. I mean, they did get get this *promised service levels* issue in writing? Right?[}:)]

Actually, it's a little more tricky than that, and Gabe could do a better job of explaining the legallese involved in such situations, but my understanding is thus:

When WATCO bought the ex-BN lines from BN, BN is alleged to have made certain car supply promises, which I am told is normal SOP for such line sales, otherwise the potential short line buyer would walk. Of course, the information is confidential, so then WATCO turned and sold the trackage to the State while maintaining operating rights, WATCO retained the contractual rights and obligations of the original sale. And now that WATCO wants out of operating rights altogether, the State would probably have to get a court order to see what is contained in the original sales contract. Without that, the State can only go on hearsay when calculating what BNSF did or did not promise in terms of guaranteed car supply to WATCO, and hearsay usually won't hold up in court! And WATCO probably is too afraid of retribution from BNSF on it's hundreds of other shortlines throughout North America to bring forth this info themselves.

AKA, it's all probably in legal limbo right now!

Let me wager a couple of months wages here -- SOP for such line sales and/or leases for the SP's and BN's of the world is captive traffic clauses. That means that traffic originating or terminating on the shed lines must, without fail, be interchanged with the original owner - just as if the shed line were still operating as a branch of its original owner. That means that Coulee City traffic goes PCC-BNSF, Marshall traffic goes PCC-BNSF and Moscow traffic goes PCC-UP. If this were not so, I really think that the PCC and W-DOT would have the cars going PCC-Pullman-PCC-Hooper-UP.

What the BNSF has done is to shed lines that the BN does not wi***o operate but does want to have the traffic from/to. They get rid of all costs and keep all revenues (that they can). They can't simply contract out with a private switch crew for the service because of scope rules, so they do the next best thing. To maximize their effort (cost cutting) the provide only what a court or regulatory agency forces them to do. And the little short line can't afford to do that for business and financial reasons.

PCC could, in theory, buy covered hoppers for their customers, but since the grain won't be travelling in BN supplied equipment, the BN is not obligated to provide the rate and division agreeded to in the purchase contract.

The W-DOT can fix the situation, but it probably would take the STB and definetly a court action backed up by a "obey or we shut you down" order against BNSF. It would take at least five things - cancelling of the restricted interchange clauses, accounting any PCC owned or leased rail equipment as "home-road supplied" for rate purposes, through routing for traffic off the "foreign road" to the "home road" (traffic off ex-NP lines can interchange at Pullman to the PCC for delivery to UP and traffic off ex-UP lines can interchange with the BNSF at Marshall or at Cheney via Pullman), lost business opportunity penalties to be paid by the line-haul carrier for car supply and service failures, and all local traffic is exempt from any service, rate or routing interference by the BN or UP.

[Anonymous]

Well Tom, I live right in the midst of the PCC network, and I have had conversations with PCC employees, so I know a little more about it than the average outsider. There's certainly more to the story than the link I posted, as more mainstream news sites pick up the story I'll try and post them for you so you'll have a clearer picture. Suffice to say my suspicions and critizisms of BNSF usually end up being vindicated.

One has every right to question BNSF's motives in indirectly building a brand new grain shuttle loader for 110 car unit trains that are moving that grain less than 300 miles, when there are already plenty of large elevators with sidings right next to the BNSF mainline. Was the capital cost of the 110 car facility justified in light of established elevators having multicar loading capabilities? Is it worth it to **** off every single one of the elevators all along the BNSF mainline, denying them all service now, when most of those elevators are owned in whole or in part by the area grain growers themselves? Does BNSF really think the area grain growers will screw themselves out of their shares of ownership in those online elevators just to take advantage of the alleged "efficiencies" of 110 car shuttle operations. Wouldn't BNSF have been better off simply converting the existing elevators into shuttle facilities?

You should also know that BN spent a lot of money to upgrade the Marshall line in the late 1970's all the way down to Lewiston in anticipation of running shuttles down there, only to do a 180 and embargo the last 30 miles of the line, choosing then to build a brand new 26 car grain loader in Fallon, only to give up on that when the line sale was finalized, of course first taking the precaution of ripping out that last 30 miles to Lewiston to keep all Palouse rail traffic interchanged at Marshall, only to forego any meaningful Marshall interchange...............

It's not a "vendetta" as you alleged, more like a case study in why monopolistic entities can get away with making nominally wasteful business decisions. BNSF continues to amaze me in so many ways, and it's a wonder how much longer they can keep up this line of behaviour before it bites them in the FRED.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
The State went to all this trouble to purchase the PCC lines with the thought that by doing so they could keep rail service on those lines viable and keep trucks off State and county roads. Then BNSF refuses to provide the promised service levels for their former share of the State purchased lines

You make it sound as if the state would have grounds for a lawsuit. I mean, they did get get this *promised service levels* issue in writing? Right?[}:)]

Actually, it's a little more tricky than that, and Gabe could do a better job of explaining the legallese involved in such situations, but my understanding is thus:

When WATCO bought the ex-BN lines from BN, BN is alleged to have made certain car supply promises, which I am told is normal SOP for such line sales, otherwise the potential short line buyer would walk. Of course, the information is confidential, so then WATCO turned and sold the trackage to the State while maintaining operating rights, WATCO retained the contractual rights and obligations of the original sale. And now that WATCO wants out of operating rights altogether, the State would probably have to get a court order to see what is contained in the original sales contract. Without that, the State can only go on hearsay when calculating what BNSF did or did not promise in terms of guaranteed car supply to WATCO, and hearsay usually won't hold up in court! And WATCO probably is too afraid of retribution from BNSF on it's hundreds of other shortlines throughout North America to bring forth this info themselves.

AKA, it's all probably in legal limbo right now!

And again, you seem to be reading "information" that's not in the article. And you are the one that supplied the link.

You are "supposing" that the BNSF is not living up to the contractual obligations to supply empty cars on a timely basis. If the contract is to be disputed by either party, the terms won't be confidential once it hits the courts. And if the state can prove "involved party," they'll be able to get the contract terms spell out and made public. You're making an assumption because the WATCO Company no longer wants to be the operator of the line. Again, I see no mention of shipping volume. Remember, railroads achieve their best efficiency when hauling larger quantities of freight. Smaller quantities would be more efficient to haul by truck, a point your assumption doesn't even view as a remote possibility.

Sounds more like you have a vendetta against BNSF.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
The State went to all this trouble to purchase the PCC lines with the thought that by doing so they could keep rail service on those lines viable and keep trucks off State and county roads. Then BNSF refuses to provide the promised service levels for their former share of the State purchased lines

You make it sound as if the state would have grounds for a lawsuit. I mean, they did get get this *promised service levels* issue in writing? Right?[}:)]

Actually, it's a little more tricky than that, and Gabe could do a better job of explaining the legallese involved in such situations, but my understanding is thus:

When WATCO bought the ex-BN lines from BN, BN is alleged to have made certain car supply promises, which I am told is normal SOP for such line sales, otherwise the potential short line buyer would walk. Of course, the information is confidential, so then WATCO turned and sold the trackage to the State while maintaining operating rights, WATCO retained the contractual rights and obligations of the original sale. And now that WATCO wants out of operating rights altogether, the State would probably have to get a court order to see what is contained in the original sales contract. Without that, the State can only go on hearsay when calculating what BNSF did or did not promise in terms of guaranteed car supply to WATCO, and hearsay usually won't hold up in court! And WATCO probably is too afraid of retribution from BNSF on it's hundreds of other shortlines throughout North America to bring forth this info themselves.

AKA, it's all probably in legal limbo right now!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
The State went to all this trouble to purchase the PCC lines with the thought that by doing so they could keep rail service on those lines viable and keep trucks off State and county roads. Then BNSF refuses to provide the promised service levels for their former share of the State purchased lines

You make it sound as if the state would have grounds for a lawsuit. I mean, they did get get this *promised service levels* issue in writing? Right?[}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The issue that FM and others have not mentioned is: What is the traffic volume on the line to be abandoned?

Actual, historical, or potential? Actual is dependent on willing car supply from the connecting Class I's, historical is an indicator of customers lost due to the usual shenanigans of railroads over the years, while potential is based on what would move on the lines in a normal scenario if car supply/bottlenecks/et al could be ameliorated.

Since BNSF isn't willing to supply cars when WATCO desires them, it is logical that traffic volumes will be low. If BNSF supplied the cars when needed, volumes would be high enough to allow the operator to make money on the enterprise (after all, the State is footing the bill for track maintenance!), as witnessed by the car supply from UP and subsequent higher traffic volumes on the ex-UP lines. Are you willing to use circular reasoning to suggest a chicken and egg justification for potential abandonment?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

I think it is the evil, monopolistic, captive shipper, anti open access BNSF making bad business decisions that only benefit BNSF instead of the grain shippers...this is after failing in their moral debt to the public, stealing all that free land through abusing government land grants, and failing to rebuild the Milwaukee Road...

Of course, it could just be that lose car load railroading , outside of heavy industrial hubs/locations, is a thing of the past, and no one wants the expense of dispatching a crew and locomotives to gather up five and ten grain cars from a bunch of elevators scattered all over the place...
Ed

Ed -- do I detect a tongue firmly planted in cheek here? I hope?[:p]

Of course Jamie. Funny but the link led me to an article that said: "On the lines its ending service on Watco says it can’t compete for grain shipments against trucks to river barge and grain trucked to a 110-car rail shuttle facility at Ritzville."

"Can't compete against truck and river barges" has a bit of a different meaning than "BNSF being a poor mentor."

I didn't even see BNSF, or any connecting railroad, even mentioned. I must have linked to a different article than the one mentioned in the original post.

Tom,

WATCO via the PCC currently runs (1)the ex-UP branch from Hooper Junction (on the UP "Washy" mainline) to Pullman and Moscow in the wheat country called "The Palouse", (2) the ex-BN line from Marshall (near Spokane on the BNSF mainline to Pasco) to Pullman/Moscow, and (3) the ex-BN line from Cheney (near Spokane) to Coulee City through the "Big Bend" wheat country. You should note that it is only the ex-BN lines that are "not profitable" for WATCO to run, while the ex-UP line is generating some nice profits. You should also note that WATCO works in conjunction with the barge lines by running grain trains west to Hooper then onto the UP Washy mainline to the barge port at Wallula, or else they transfer those grain shuttles to UP for the trip on to the lower Columbia River deep water ports.

Clearly, the problem is one of willing car supply - UP does a good job of getting to the PCC the necessary cars in expedient fashion, and picking them up as well. Subsequently, those elevators located on the ex-UP lines are able to ship grain by rail at competitive prices with the local truck/barge option. BNSF on the other hand has been a poor supplier of requested cars. Consequently, those elevators on the ex BN lines have had to truck their grain to the nearest mega terminal (Ritzville for the Coulee City line). The elevators on the ex-BN Marshall line are either trucking their grain down to the barge port at Lewiston or Almota on the Snake River, or in some cases are trucking their grain to elevators on the ex-UP lines, even though the ex-BN and ex-UP lines interconnect in Pullman!

What is being missed by some is the gist of the conundrum for the State of Washington. The State went to all this trouble to purchase the PCC lines with the thought that by doing so they could keep rail service on those lines viable and keep trucks off State and county roads. Then BNSF refuses to provide the promised service levels for their former share of the State purchased lines, forcing grain to be trucked over State and county roads anyway. Clearly, it was a wasted effort for the State to have any dealings with property formerly owned by BNSF, while it is turning out beautifully for the ex-UP lines.

Some of you have stated in other threads that (paraphrasing) "if states and localities want to keep lines from being abandoned they should put their money where their collective mouth is and buy the lines themselves." Well, the State of Washington did just that, and got burned.

At this point, the best thing the State could do would be to go ahead and buy the Coulee City line, then physically connect the Coulee City line to the Marshall line (bypassing any interchange with BNSF) and allow grain trains to be run down to interchange with the UP, or even better - continue to build a new line that connects the Palouse lines to the local barge ports, thereby capturing almost all grain hauls from the truckers in that corridor. If BNSF threatens lawsuit, then the State shoud use it's power to countersue on the grounds of non-compliance with the caveats of the purchase regarding car supply. Then the state should take out the road crossing that allows trucks to access the Ritzville mega terminal under the guise of the crossing removal program![}:)]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

... and somehow trying to make it economical to move five 25 cars trains across the country as opposed to a single 120 car unit train....

Using typical rates for 1-25 car movements and typical shuttle rates over the past five years, and a Shelby to Portland move, crew cost for four short trains represents approximately 13.4% of the total cost of a 785 mile move, and for a shuttle train, represents 3.7%.

In both cases labor is obviously a small portion of the total cost of labor, equipment and fuel. Because of the rate differential, however, the four short trains generate 170.7% revenue of the direct variable cost of the service, while the shuttle only generates 169.7% revenue of the direct variable cost of the service, even though its labor costs are considerably cheaper.

As a specific for instance, four short trains, 112 carloads, generates $343,392 in gross revenue, while the shuttle, 112 carloads, generates $304,192 in gross revenue.

For each additional day that the shuttle takes to reach its destination, deduct approximately 1.2% from the revenue to the direct variable cost of service percentage.

If, for any reason the shuttle is slower than the shorter trains, the railroad loses more money by comparison at the 1.2% rate for each additional day. Current average grain train car cycle time, BNSF, suggests a percentage of approximately 164.7%. for shuttle trains. In order to achieve the same profitability of the four shorter trains, the shuttle will have to arrive in Portland two days earlier than the four short trains.

Unlikely.

In theory, shuttle trains should be more economical than four separate, shorter trains. They are indeed more "economical." However, achieving lowest operating cost is not the same thing as maximizing profitability.

On an annual basis, four short trains beating a unit train by only day on each cycle generates a profit in excess of $1 million over the unit train.

If you see "profit" as a more useful measure than "economical," the four short trains are probably the way to go.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

In addition to the BLMR/PCC shuttle which runs on UP between Hooper Junction and Wallula, there are cuts of grain left at Hooper Junction for UP to pick up. The same scenario takes place on BNSF at Cheney and Marshall. Car counts vary throughout the shipping season. What's markedly different is that a UP train doing work at Hooper Junction might delay just one or two other trains ahead of or behind it. (In many cases, the train doing the work will be scheduled behind other trains so as not to cause such delays.) On BNSF, however, doing work off the main at Marshall or Cheney can back up a large number of trains during peak traffic. The option of two main tracks at Marshall is only slight help when there's traffic coming both directions. For BNSF, it's easy money grabbing a couple of cuts of grain without actually having to work the branch and switch the elevators. But that money can not balance the loss when you've got Z, Q, and S trains held up in the process.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

I think it is the evil, monopolistic, captive shipper, anti open access BNSF making bad business decisions that only benefit BNSF instead of the grain shippers...this is after failing in their moral debt to the public, stealing all that free land through abusing government land grants, and failing to rebuild the Milwaukee Road...

Of course, it could just be that lose car load railroading , outside of heavy industrial hubs/locations, is a thing of the past, and no one wants the expense of dispatching a crew and locomotives to gather up five and ten grain cars from a bunch of elevators scattered all over the place...
Ed

Ed -- do I detect a tongue firmly planted in cheek here? I hope?[:p]

Of course Jamie. Funny but the link led me to an article that said: "On the lines its ending service on Watco says it can’t compete for grain shipments against trucks to river barge and grain trucked to a 110-car rail shuttle facility at Ritzville."

"Can't compete against truck and river barges" has a bit of a different meaning than "BNSF being a poor mentor."

I didn't even see BNSF, or any connecting railroad, even mentioned. I must have linked to a different article than the one mentioned in the original post.

[edblysard]

If I chew, I am in big trouble!
The rub is the shippers want to pay the same rate for the ten or 25 car pickup as the big elevators pay for the 120 car load out that can turn a unit train in about 3 or 4 hours...

If you add up the cost of gathering them all up, dedicating a few yard tracks to build a train in, pay a road crew(s) to go get all these short, small cuts, and drag them to a yard, then pay a yard crew(s) to build the train...any profit to the railroad disappears long before the yard crews get to touch the cars.

Of course, this entire post is a prelude to Dave pitching his version of open access, again, and somehow trying to make it economical to move five 25 cars trains across the country as opposed to a single 120 car unit train....forgetting all the time that railroads are experts at squeezing every dime out of every move, so if it could be done cheaper for the railroad to move the short ones, they already would be doing so.

Ed

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

I think it is the evil, monopolistic, captive shipper, anti open access BNSF making bad business decisions that only benefit BNSF instead of the grain shippers...this is after failing in their moral debt to the public, stealing all that free land through abusing government land grants, and failing to rebuild the Milwaukee Road...

Of course, it could just be that lose car load railroading , outside of heavy industrial hubs/locations, is a thing of the past, and no one wants the expense of dispatching a crew and locomotives to gather up five and ten grain cars from a bunch of elevators scattered all over the place...
Ed

Ed -- do I detect a tongue firmly planted in cheek here? I hope?[:p]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The issue that FM and others have not mentioned is: What is the traffic volume on the line to be abandoned?

[daveklepper]

Very sad news, at least they ought to bank the line!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Do the math....5 grain cars. What does a 140 ton car cost to ship? Figure a three man crew on a basic yard day. Approx $500- $550 in just wage, no arbitraries. Fuel. An engine or two (which we are power short these days). Storage space if there is to be a unit train built or switching if it will go on a junker. Time to spot the cars once delivered. Where is the profit?

Perhaps from the higher rate charged?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Do the math....5 grain cars. What does a 140 ton car cost to ship? Figure a three man crew on a basic yard day. Approx $500- $550 in just wage, no arbitraries. Fuel. An engine or two (which we are power short these days). Storage space if there is to be a unit train built or switching if it will go on a junker. Time to spot the cars once delivered. Where is the profit?

[edblysard]

I think it is the evil, monopolistic, captive shipper, anti open access BNSF making bad business decisions that only benefit BNSF instead of the grain shippers...this is after failing in their moral debt to the public, stealing all that free land through abusing government land grants, and failing to rebuild the Milwaukee Road...

Of course, it could just be that lose car load railroading , outside of heavy industrial hubs/locations, is a thing of the past, and no one wants the expense of dispatching a crew and locomotives to gather up five and ten grain cars from a bunch of elevators scattered all over the place...
Ed

[bobwilcox]

It is the evil BNSF again or is that just a "guess".

[kenneo]

If WATCO would handle 110 car grain trains, the BN would be johnny on the spot ---- to take the RR back!!!!!

I'm not a bit suprised.