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

[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 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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.
[}:)]

[rrandb]

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

[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.

[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."

[rrandb]

Abandon instead of sell????

[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)!!!!

[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 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]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Anonymous]

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

[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]

Yep, it's definitely the water!

[TomDiehl]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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........

[PNWRMNM]

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

Mac