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 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.
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 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.
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. [?]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
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.
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.
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
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 Regarding shuttle elevators, aren't there new OSHA regulations going into effect to prevent grain elevator explosions
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.