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])
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Hmmmm, must be the water in the Poconos...........
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.
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?
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. [;)]
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]
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.
QUOTE: Besides, coal most likely tastes horrible. Nor can you run a car on it, that I know of.
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!
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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. [}:)]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.