QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317 I think the most interesting part of the article states how shippers where caught putting their eggs in one basket by using the trucking industry. After November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic, they suddenly realized the importance of rail as an "alternative" solution. Now they want to suddenly hype BNSF's response as unreasonable. Sounds to me as if BNSF felt like they were being treated as some kind of transportation "safety valve" when shippers are caught with their pants down. Anyway, they said they needed 4 day service. That is 96 hours. BNSF came back with a quote of 100hrs or 4.16 days. That's a 4 hour difference. Granted, produce is a time sensitive commodity, but come on. Especially when the stuff is probably taking the slow boat to China, anyway? There has to be more than meets the eyes here.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb It is very dificult to make an informed opinion when you have only one side of the story.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Reminds me of the time long ago (well, four years ago) when I was involved in trying to arrange a dedicated single stack container service between Yakima and Puget Sound over the little used trackage over Stampede Pass. Everything was a go, but BNSF said no. No explanation given.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb It is very dificult to make an informed opinion when you have only one side of the story. Well, the writer does allow BNSF spokesperson Gus Melonas to tell BNSF's side of the story, so that contention is askew. Really, I do not go out of my way to find anti-BNSF articles, rather they just pop up on the region's news websites on a regular basis. I almost wish some newspaper would write a disparaging news item about UP or one of the area's shortlines, just so I could be "fair" to BNSF supporters. But there aren't any.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb The title of the article is " Quincy, Tacoma rail time growing". What you posted is taken out of the article and could be considered as old fashioned "RAIL BASHING" whether its BNSF or anyother railroad. I hardly consider the few quotes from this reporter BNSF's side of the story.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb The title of the article is " Quincy, Tacoma rail time growing". What you posted is taken out of the article and could be considered as old fashioned "RAIL BASHING" whether its BNSF or anyother railroad. I hardly consider the few quotes from this reporter BNSF's side of the story. The forum entry could be considered railbashing, the article in the link was pretty well balanced. See my analysis of it above. I simply read it with an open mind.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH One question needs to be asked of the shippers. Do they intend to use BNSF on a regular basis or only when truck service is unavailable? I can't see BNSF (or any other carrier) investing in facilities that shippers will only use on a very occasional basis.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb The title of the article is " Quincy, Tacoma rail time growing". What you posted is taken out of the article and could be considered as old fashioned "RAIL BASHING" whether its BNSF or anyother railroad. I hardly consider the few quotes from this reporter BNSF's side of the story. The forum entry could be considered railbashing, the article in the link was pretty well balanced. See my analysis of it above. I simply read it with an open mind. Tom ..I am not reffering to your reply but the original post It seems to have a very anti-railroad tilt to it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu One other factor is that ship schedules are less reliable than Railroad schedules. I presume that the shippers wait until they know the ship is in port in LA and then ship their produce to Tacoma to meet the ship. Which means that they won't be shipping on any kind of regular schedule, but will give the railroad a short notification of their need and then expect the railroad to have a train ready.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317 I think the most interesting part of the article states how shippers where caught putting their eggs in one basket by using the trucking industry. After November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic, they suddenly realized the importance of rail as an "alternative" solution. Now they want to suddenly hype BNSF's response as unreasonable. Sounds to me as if BNSF felt like they were being treated as some kind of transportation "safety valve" when shippers are caught with their pants down. Anyway, they said they needed 4 day service. That is 96 hours. BNSF came back with a quote of 100hrs or 4.16 days. That's a 4 hour difference. Granted, produce is a time sensitive commodity, but come on. Especially when the stuff is probably taking the slow boat to China, anyway? There has to be more than meets the eyes here. NS2317, I admit it is sometimes hard to discern what these reporters are trying to say, and I do wish such articles would be put out by professional transportation writers rather than these cub reporters, but that being said.... I believe the "4 day service" in the article refers to rail service being made available every four days e.g. that would be a four day cycle for a dedicated train, two days over and two days back. I think 48 hours is about the minimum time produce shippers can accept before their stuff is subject to rejection dockside. That being said, is there any reason a dedicated train can't run on a 30 hour cycle time on such a short corridor? It's close to being a single crew district between Quincy and Seattle, why can't these trains run 10 hours over, 10 hours to unload the outbound containers and reload the empties, and 10 hours back? 10 hours between Quincy and Seattle is only 20 miles per hour in transit time, less than the standard 25 mph *required*[}:)] by the Class I's.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo Tom --- you're not supposed to understand the math. It's "new math" where 2+2=anything you want it to. The complainers are trying to tag someone else for their short commings, in this case the produce boys are trying to tag the BN.
"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 jeaton There is so very little in the article, it could hardly be called the "whole" story. Granted many years ago, but having been involved in setting up specialized, just for one customer, train services, I can say that it takes much more than "OK, we can do that", even if there very good bucks in the deal. Looking at this story on the surface, it very much appears that the shippers have the attitude the the freight railroads must do anything they are asked to do, without regard to revenue adequacy. To me that is like telling GM they must sell Cadillacs at Chevrolet prices.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton There is so very little in the article, it could hardly be called the "whole" story. Granted many years ago, but having been involved in setting up specialized, just for one customer, train services, I can say that it takes much more than "OK, we can do that", even if there very good bucks in the deal. Looking at this story on the surface, it very much appears that the shippers have the attitude the the freight railroads must do anything they are asked to do, without regard to revenue adequacy. To me that is like telling GM they must sell Cadillacs at Chevrolet prices. No, it's about THE basic principle of business - Give the customer what they want, and you'll have their business.
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton There is so very little in the article, it could hardly be called the "whole" story. Granted many years ago, but having been involved in setting up specialized, just for one customer, train services, I can say that it takes much more than "OK, we can do that", even if there very good bucks in the deal. Looking at this story on the surface, it very much appears that the shippers have the attitude the the freight railroads must do anything they are asked to do, without regard to revenue adequacy. To me that is like telling GM they must sell Cadillacs at Chevrolet prices. No, it's about THE basic principle of business - Give the customer what they want, and you'll have their business. There is nothing in the desires of the produce shippers or the intermodal firm doing all the leg work that is not easily achievable on BNSF's part. All BNSF is being asked to do is the run a dedicated consist from Point A to Point B every four days at 5 miles an hour less than the industry average transit speed of 25 mph. Hardly an outrageous demand, except perhaps for an industry seemingly dedicated to fostering inefficiencies when it comes to freight that originates domestically. The implication being haphazardly thrown out by BNSF's defenders is that the customer is being unreasonable, a contention that is laughable in face of the basic facts.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.