Trains.com

BNSF draws ire of Washington produce shippers - Honestly, I don't have a vendetta against BNSF.....

7283 views
203 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, December 23, 2005 2:51 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

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.


But what you fail to grasp, or are being obviously obtuse about, is the fact that BNSF doesn’t WANT that business.
It isn’t worth it to them.
...
Is it that hard an idea to grasp?

"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. "

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 3:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

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.


But what you fail to grasp, or are being obviously obtuse about, is the fact that BNSF doesn’t WANT that business.
It isn’t worth it to them.
...
Is it that hard an idea to grasp?

"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. "

Best regards, Michael Sol


So "reasonable request" seems to be the debate here, even though BNSF did offer to provide service.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, December 23, 2005 3:49 PM
North Dakota Inverse Rail Rates: An Illustrative Example

The influence that Class I railroad strategies can have on the grain delivery system is illustrated in North Dakota. The practice of so-called “inverse rate” pricing by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad drew a lot of attention in the state and was the subject of a congressional field hearing. At the hearing, a grain farmer located near Gladstone in the southwestern part of the state described how he trucked his grain to a subterminal elevator in Jamestown located 160 miles to the east, even though his local elevator was located only 20 miles from his farm. The reason he trucked his grain to the more distant elevator was because he received a better price for his grain at that elevator than from his local elevator. The subterminal elevator gave him a better price because grain farmers are paid the price of grain minus the cost of transportation, which in this case was the cost of rail transportation to a seaport in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). The BNSF Railroad charged less to ship grain from eastern North Dakota than western North Dakota to PNW ports even though the distance is farther (hence the term “inverse rates”). From the subterminal elevator in Jamestown, the BNSF would then haul the grain back west, passing through the grain farmer’s yard located near Gladstone on its way to a PNW port.

Source: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Field Hearing entitled Rail Freight Transportation in North Dakota, March 27, 2002, Bismarck, ND. S. Hrg. 107-1057.

The extent of North Dakota’s captivity is exemplified by the rates that we pay. North Dakota’s rail rates are among the highest and most profitable anywhere. While the Stagger’s Rail Act sets 180 as a reasonable and profitable revenue-to-variable-cost ratio, many of North Dakota’s rates generate ratios of 300 or more. If there was effective competition in the local transportation marketplace, the railroads would not be able to achieve ratios of this magnitude. We estimate that these excessively high rates cost North Dakota farmers and shippers between $50 and $100 million annually.

BNSF’s inverse rates were implemented aboutin 2000. During 2001, a 110-car shuttle train rate from southwestern North Dakota to the PNW was about 28 cents per bushel higher than the rate paid by shippers in eastern North Dakota, even though the shippers in western North Dakota were over 250 miles closer to the market.

United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Presented by: Commissioner Tony Clark North Dakota Public Service Commission. Date: March 27, 2002

To the ridiculous proposition that BNSF doesn't think grain traffic is profitable:

A 2000 waybill analysis of revenue-to-variable cost ratios and the analysis of current revenue-to-variable cost ratios for BNSF wheat movements to Portland and Minneapolis paint a similar picture. ... For all service levels in either analysis, the average revenue-to-variable cost ratio to either market is at or above 1.85. Moreover, for all service levels of 26 cars or more to either market, the average revenue-to-variable cost ratios exceed 2.43. For all service levels of 52 cars or more to either market, the average revenue-to-variable cost ratios exceed 2.7.

Besides ignoring traffic that is substantially more profitable than its central corridor traffic, BNSF is ignoring the needs of the specific market.

North Dakota Wheat Commission Administrator Neal Fisher states, “BNSF is pushing shuttle trains at a time when wheat buyers are demanding more quality specificity and segregation of different wheat qualities, not less. To compete with alternative wheat supplies from Canada and other sources, we must tailor wheat shipments to meet the individual needs of flour mills.”

The situation is ditto for barley, according to John Mittleider, executive administrator of the North Dakota Barley Council. “There are differentiations in quality to different buyers and for different purposes,” he says. As in spring wheat and durum, Mittleider notes that most buyers don’t want the 110-car shuttle trains.

Partly, as with WATCO, the railroad is changing the rules in the middle of the game:

In a letter sent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe on Aug. 30, 2005 North Dakota state officials and ag industry leaders complained that the state's farmers are getting less service from the railroad while paying more money in freight rates.

"Fewer cars are available, and the costs of shipping grain are up significantly in many areas. Just a few short years after BNSF strongly encouraged shippers to build facilities capable of loading 52-car trains, the railroad is now penalizing those same shippers."

Programs allegedly designed to improve shipping inevitably seems to have the opposite effect:

"The most controversial aspect of the Scoots program is that only elevators handling 100- to 110-railcar shuttle trains will be allowed to participate, excluding unit-train loading stations from participation.22 In addition, as currently proposed, elevators will not be allowed to upgrade their facilities to meet all of BNSF’s requirements concerning 58-railcar shipment sizes, loading times, and other terms. Grain elevators that had upgraded their facilities to 52- and 54-railcar loading stations at BNSF’s behest believe this to be unfair. Although 52- to 54-railcar loading stations may be allowed to participate in some instances, as the program is currently designed, this will occur only if that elevator is not within the draw territory of a shuttle-train loader. Many of those elevator operators excluded from the Scoots program believe that it allows the railroad to force grain to a given location, thereby giving the railroad the ability to decide which firms survive in the grain business. Thus, in its present form, adversely affected shippers believe Scoots to be anticompetitive."

Marvin Prater, Keith Klindworth " Long-Term Trends in Railroad Service and Capacity for U.S. Agriculture" USDA, 2000.

As a result, railroads are slowly losing one of their most profitable businesses in the quest for short term profit. That cow will be milked for only so long.

In 1980, railroads handled fully 50% of all grain transport, trucks carried 30%. Now, that is reversed. Railroads carry only 30% of grain, while trucks carry 50%. Railroads have shown themselves repeatedly unable to effeciently and effectively manage the nation's railroad transportation needs, and this invokes the question of the manner and extent of federal re-intervention into the rail industry. "Grain Transport: Modal Trends and Infrastructure Implications," January 5, 2005, John F. Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 4:36 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

North Dakota Inverse Rail Rates: An Illustrative Example

The influence that Class I railroad strategies can have on the grain delivery system is illustrated in North Dakota. The practice of so-called “inverse rate” pricing by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad drew a lot of attention in the state and was the subject of a congressional field hearing. At the hearing, a grain farmer located near Gladstone in the southwestern part of the state described how he trucked his grain to a subterminal elevator in Jamestown located 160 miles to the east, even though his local elevator was located only 20 miles from his farm. The reason he trucked his grain to the more distant elevator was because he received a better price for his grain at that elevator than from his local elevator. The subterminal elevator gave him a better price because grain farmers are paid the price of grain minus the cost of transportation, which in this case was the cost of rail transportation to a seaport in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). The BNSF Railroad charged less to ship grain from eastern North Dakota than western North Dakota to PNW ports even though the distance is farther (hence the term “inverse rates”). From the subterminal elevator in Jamestown, the BNSF would then haul the grain back west, passing through the grain farmer’s yard located near Gladstone on its way to a PNW port.

Source: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Field Hearing entitled Rail Freight Transportation in North Dakota, March 27, 2002, Bismarck, ND. S. Hrg. 107-1057.

The extent of North Dakota’s captivity is exemplified by the rates that we pay. North Dakota’s rail rates are among the highest and most profitable anywhere. While the Stagger’s Rail Act sets 180 as a reasonable and profitable revenue-to-variable-cost ratio, many of North Dakota’s rates generate ratios of 300 or more. If there was effective competition in the local transportation marketplace, the railroads would not be able to achieve ratios of this magnitude. We estimate that these excessively high rates cost North Dakota farmers and shippers between $50 and $100 million annually.

BNSF’s inverse rates were implemented aboutin 2000. During 2001, a 110-car shuttle train rate from southwestern North Dakota to the PNW was about 28 cents per bushel higher than the rate paid by shippers in eastern North Dakota, even though the shippers in western North Dakota were over 250 miles closer to the market.

United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Presented by: Commissioner Tony Clark North Dakota Public Service Commission. Date: March 27, 2002

To the ridiculous proposition that BNSF doesn't think grain traffic is profitable:

A 2000 waybill analysis of revenue-to-variable cost ratios and the analysis of current revenue-to-variable cost ratios for BNSF wheat movements to Portland and Minneapolis paint a similar picture. ... For all service levels in either analysis, the average revenue-to-variable cost ratio to either market is at or above 1.85. Moreover, for all service levels of 26 cars or more to either market, the average revenue-to-variable cost ratios exceed 2.43. For all service levels of 52 cars or more to either market, the average revenue-to-variable cost ratios exceed 2.7.

Besides ignoring traffic that is substantially more profitable than its central corridor traffic, BNSF is ignoring the needs of the specific market.

North Dakota Wheat Commission Administrator Neal Fisher states, “BNSF is pushing shuttle trains at a time when wheat buyers are demanding more quality specificity and segregation of different wheat qualities, not less. To compete with alternative wheat supplies from Canada and other sources, we must tailor wheat shipments to meet the individual needs of flour mills.”

The situation is ditto for barley, according to John Mittleider, executive administrator of the North Dakota Barley Council. “There are differentiations in quality to different buyers and for different purposes,” he says. As in spring wheat and durum, Mittleider notes that most buyers don’t want the 110-car shuttle trains.

Partly, as with WATCO, the railroad is changing the rules in the middle of the game:

In a letter sent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe on Aug. 30, 2005 North Dakota state officials and ag industry leaders complained that the state's farmers are getting less service from the railroad while paying more money in freight rates.

"Fewer cars are available, and the costs of shipping grain are up significantly in many areas. Just a few short years after BNSF strongly encouraged shippers to build facilities capable of loading 52-car trains, the railroad is now penalizing those same shippers."

Programs allegedly designed to improve shipping inevitably seems to have the opposite effect:

"The most controversial aspect of the Scoots program is that only elevators handling 100- to 110-railcar shuttle trains will be allowed to participate, excluding unit-train loading stations from participation.22 In addition, as currently proposed, elevators will not be allowed to upgrade their facilities to meet all of BNSF’s requirements concerning 58-railcar shipment sizes, loading times, and other terms. Grain elevators that had upgraded their facilities to 52- and 54-railcar loading stations at BNSF’s behest believe this to be unfair. Although 52- to 54-railcar loading stations may be allowed to participate in some instances, as the program is currently designed, this will occur only if that elevator is not within the draw territory of a shuttle-train loader. Many of those elevator operators excluded from the Scoots program believe that it allows the railroad to force grain to a given location, thereby giving the railroad the ability to decide which firms survive in the grain business. Thus, in its present form, adversely affected shippers believe Scoots to be anticompetitive."

Marvin Prater, Keith Klindworth " Long-Term Trends in Railroad Service and Capacity for U.S. Agriculture" USDA, 2000.

As a result, railroads are slowly losing one of their most profitable businesses in the quest for short term profit. That cow will be milked for only so long.

In 1980, railroads handled fully 50% of all grain transport, trucks carried 30%. Now, that is reversed. Railroads carry only 30% of grain, while trucks carry 50%. Railroads have shown themselves repeatedly unable to effeciently and effectively manage the nation's railroad transportation needs, and this invokes the question of the manner and extent of federal re-intervention into the rail industry. "Grain Transport: Modal Trends and Infrastructure Implications," January 5, 2005, John F. Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Best regards, Michael Sol


The linked article only mentioned the timing of service offered. The question of rates for the service never came up.

Or is this posted under the wrong heading?
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, December 23, 2005 5:24 PM
No.

See: Karl Sigmund, Ernst Fehr, and Martin Nowak, "The Economics of Fair Play," Scientific American, January 2002., pp. 83--87.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 6:12 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

No.

See: Karl Sigmund, Ernst Fehr, and Martin Nowak, "The Economics of Fair Play," Scientific American, January 2002., pp. 83--87.

Best regards, Michael Sol



I'm sure I have that laying around here somewhere. (sarcastic grin)

The "Economics of fair play" would apply to the existing agreements, ie. the trucking of the produce to the ports. The railroads aren't "changing the rules in the middle of the game," because they're not part of the game. None of this freight has moved by rail for many years. The entire game is currently in the back of a truck.

In all "fairness" the produce shippers approached the railroad and demanded a level of service that wasn't possible to add to the existing rail network. The railroad informed them of this and offered the best they could provide. Since this wasn't satisfactory to the produce shippers, they went crying to the press with an article that tried to make the railroad the heavy.

Sorry, I'm just able to read things with an open mind.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:02 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
None of this freight has moved by rail for many years.


Source? Because there is another 3PI (Columbia Rail Intermodal) that is running a similar service over BNSF out of Wenatchee to Seattle last I heard.

QUOTE:
In all "fairness" the produce shippers approached the railroad and demanded a level of service that wasn't possible to add to the existing rail network.


Not possible? What's your source on that claim? Again, we're talking about a service that only has to average 20 mph over a short haul, so it doesn't require every other train going in the hole for it. Only one dedicated train added to the existing rail network. What is your source for the contention that BNSF can't add one more train to the Stevens Pass corridor on a 4 day cycle rather than an 8 day cycle?

QUOTE:
Sorry, I'm just able to read things with an open mind.


LOLWMCOOMN! You're not presenting the output of an open mind, rather you are just regurgitating the spin from BNSF.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:08 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.


The article seems quite clear to everybody else reading it. Sorry it doesn't fit the agenda of your "non-vendetta."

Twice a week would be an average of 3-1/2 days between trains. One train every four days would be even less often. Not following the math here.


The article mentions BNSF's desire for a "100 hour" window for delivery to Tacoma from Quincy. That means the cycle time is about 8 days. The produce shippers need a 4 day cycle maximum, otherwise the service is useless to them.
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:17 PM
"Not possible? What's your source on that claim? Again, we're talking about a service that only has to average 20 mph over a short haul, so it doesn't require every other train going in the hole for it. Only one dedicated train added to the existing rail network. What is your source for the contention that BNSF can't add one more train to the Stevens Pass corridor on a 4 day cycle rather than an 8 day cycle?"


And where is your source that they can?
You own supposition, or a statement frm BNSF that they can handle one more dedicated train.
Last I checked, you were not a dispatcher, so how do you "know" if opposing trains will or will not have to go in the hole?
Your just presenting guesses and supposition as fact, again.
Ed

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:19 PM
Spoke with an associate from the Bennett lumber mill connected to the WATCO Marshall to Pullman line via the ex-Milwaukee/WI&M line, e.g. the line owned by the State of Washington but for which WATCO no longer wants to operate. He stated that the charge per lumber car has gone up from $250 to $750 in the last few years. On top of that, they usually only receive half the cars they order per week.

Yep, that's BNSF in a nutshell - higher rates for poorer service.
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:45 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
None of this freight has moved by rail for many years.


Source? Because there is another 3PI (Columbia Rail Intermodal) that is running a similar service over BNSF out of Wenatchee to Seattle last I heard.



How about the artile you linked in your original entry. You really should read them AFTER you put your "non-vendetta" against BNSF aside.

The second paragraph of said article:

"BNSF executives have sent a letter to Northwest Container Service in Portland saying the railroad will expand service between Quincy and Tacoma in January. "

"Expand service" meaning increase or introduce new service.

If Columbia Rail International is already running such a service, why are the produce growers even talking to BNSF?

The 15th, 16th, and 17th paragraphs of said article:

"The importance of the rail service was evident in November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic.

"When the pass closed in November, shippers were caught flat-footed and they realized rail service is a good alternative, a good backup plan," Boss said. "But right now what we have is very erratic service."

"Loveland said regular service is imperative and would help ease highway traffic. "We have all our eggs in one basket," she said. "We need to expand our modes of transportation."

Does the rail line run through Snoqualmie Pass and also get closed by the rockslide?
What "one basket" do the shippers have all their "eggs" in? (Pssst.. the answer is TRUCKS, not trains)
And they "realized that rail service was a good ALTERNATIVE." How in the world did you EVER get the idea that the BNSF already provides transportation for this?

Of course, I'm granting you that there even is a "3PI running a similar service," even if it isn't on the same tracks as the one the produce growers want for their service.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:50 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
In all "fairness" the produce shippers approached the railroad and demanded a level of service that wasn't possible to add to the existing rail network.


Not possible? What's your source on that claim? Again, we're talking about a service that only has to average 20 mph over a short haul, so it doesn't require every other train going in the hole for it. Only one dedicated train added to the existing rail network. What is your source for the contention that BNSF can't add one more train to the Stevens Pass corridor on a 4 day cycle rather than an 8 day cycle?



Again, reading the article in the link: This is a new service, and the shipper approached BNSF with the proposal. I think BNSF knows the capabilities and capacities of their network better than you. YOU'RE the one that seems to think they have unlimited capacity on this particular part of the network. Maybe you should be running the BNSF, but let everyone know you'll be doing it, the value of the stock under such mismanagement will take a nosedive more steeply than the federal budget surplus under Bush.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:55 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.


The article seems quite clear to everybody else reading it. Sorry it doesn't fit the agenda of your "non-vendetta."

Twice a week would be an average of 3-1/2 days between trains. One train every four days would be even less often. Not following the math here.


The article mentions BNSF's desire for a "200 hour" window for delivery to Tacoma from Quincy. That means the cycle time is about 8 days. The produce shippers need a 4 day cycle maximum, otherwise the service is useless to them.


The article does NOT mention a "200 hour" figure anywhere but in your vivid, "non-vendetta" mind. Pulling more numbers out of your "suppositions" or "imagination?"

If the BNSF can't offer a service that is useful to the produce shippers, why are they crying to the media instead of just staying with the trucks that are currently serving them.

If the article is so BNSF slanted, why didn't they interview a representative from the trucking company currently providing the service?
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 8:58 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, I'm just able to read things with an open mind.


LOLWMCOOMN! You're not presenting the output of an open mind, rather you are just regurgitating the spin from BNSF.



YOU were the one that posted the link to the article in the first entry. Obvioulsy you need to learn to read these things before you post a link, so it doesn't conflict with your agenda. You're so biased against the BNSF you can't even read an article without prejudging them to be the "big evil BNSF."

ROTFLMFAO
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 9:01 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Spoke with an associate from the Bennett lumber mill connected to the WATCO Marshall to Pullman line via the ex-Milwaukee/WI&M line, e.g. the line owned by the State of Washington but for which WATCO no longer wants to operate. He stated that the charge per lumber car has gone up from $250 to $750 in the last few years. On top of that, they usually only receive half the cars they order per week.

Yep, that's BNSF in a nutshell - higher rates for poorer service.


Trying to change the subject again? The WATCO one was a few posts back.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 23, 2005 9:01 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The article mentions BNSF's desire for a "200 hour" window for delivery to Tacoma from Quincy. That means the cycle time is about 8 days. The produce shippers need a 4 day cycle maximum, otherwise the service is useless to them.


[%-)] I've re-read that article many times and I still don't see any implication of a 4 day cycle. 4 day service yes, but not 2 days there and two days back. Maybe I need glasses?
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 9:04 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.


The article seems quite clear to everybody else reading it. Sorry it doesn't fit the agenda of your "non-vendetta."

Twice a week would be an average of 3-1/2 days between trains. One train every four days would be even less often. Not following the math here.


The article mentions BNSF's desire for a "200 hour" window for delivery to Tacoma from Quincy. That means the cycle time is about 8 days. The produce shippers need a 4 day cycle maximum, otherwise the service is useless to them.


And again, you're reading between the lines with your anti-BNSF glasses on. Which paragraph of that article in your original link does it even MENTION a "200 hour" window?
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 9:07 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Not possible? What's your source on that claim? Again, we're talking about a service that only has to average 20 mph over a short haul, so it doesn't require every other train going in the hole for it. Only one dedicated train added to the existing rail network. What is your source for the contention that BNSF can't add one more train to the Stevens Pass corridor on a 4 day cycle rather than an 8 day cycle?
QUOTE:

And where is your source that they can?
You own supposition, or a statement frm BNSF that they can handle one more dedicated train.
Last I checked, you were not a dispatcher, so how do you "know" if opposing trains will or will not have to go in the hole?
Your just presenting guesses and supposition as fact, again.
Ed


Looks like we have ANOTHER volunteer that can "run the BNSF better than the current management."

Run it right into the ground with theories rather than practical logistics.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 23, 2005 9:09 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The article mentions BNSF's desire for a "200 hour" window for delivery to Tacoma from Quincy. That means the cycle time is about 8 days. The produce shippers need a 4 day cycle maximum, otherwise the service is useless to them.


And again, you're reading between the lines with your anti-BNSF glasses on. Which paragraph of that article in your original link does it even MENTION a "200 hour" window?


That, two.
200?

$200 maybe.[%-)]
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 9:10 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The article mentions BNSF's desire for a "200 hour" window for delivery to Tacoma from Quincy. That means the cycle time is about 8 days. The produce shippers need a 4 day cycle maximum, otherwise the service is useless to them.


[%-)] I've re-read that article many times and I still don't see any implication of a 4 day cycle. 4 day service yes, but not 2 days there and two days back. Maybe I need glasses?


Your vision and reading skill are just fine. you have to read between the lines and make up things to see that in the article.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, December 23, 2005 10:53 PM
It's ironic, after reading railroad industry complaints for 30 years that truckers were competing "unfairly" and "stealing" railroad traffic, that railroads now express no interest in an opportunity to "recover" lost traffic.

Luther Miller, Railway Age

"A coal-shipper lawyer said the railroads' treatment of captive customers "is like selling $3 Cokes in the ballpark because there's no competition." He added that you might not mind paying that much for a ballpark soda if you got a good game to go along with it--but coal shippers, he said, were getting only "high prices, poor service" and the disinterest of "unresponsive rail employees."

Congress may be hearing a lot of that kind of talk if coal customers feel they have no choice but to take their case to Capitol Hill.

If coal customers do make war on the railroads in Congress, they may find themselves fighting shoulder to shoulder with some real adversaries of the railroads, big trucking interests.

That's right: American Trucking Associations threatened last month to join big railroad customers in seeking to roll back some of the railroads' market freedoms. ATA said its board had empowered it to do this if the railroads persisted in resisting the introduction of heavier, longer trucks on the highways.

What kind of allies are these?

If motor carriers succeed in their effort to put veritable trains-of-trucks on the highways, the railroads will lose another layer of relatively high-rated traffic. What remains on the railroads--low-rated bulk commodity traffic that the truckers don't want, traffic like coal--will have to bear a greater share of costs."

Railroads continue to alienate its shippers, shipper by shipper. Coal producers, chemical shippers, auto manufacturers, grain shippers -- all with the same complaints. Those who suggest that railroads need to look more closely to the long term benefits to the industry of fair pricing and good service, I think are far more interested in the health of the industry than those who parrot the current line that today's buck is worth tomorrow's ten.

Historical industry expediency led one federal judge to remark that, "there is neither justification for, nor satisfaction in, [actions today] which tomorrow bring only a harvest of barren regrets." "In re the Reorganization of the Chicago, M.St.P.&P.R. Co. (1942) 124 F.2nd, 754, 757.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 11:15 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

It s ironic, after reading railroad industry complaints for 30 years that truckers were competing "unfairly" and "stealing" railroad traffic, that railroads no express no interest in an opportunity to "recover" lost traffic.

Luther Miller, Railway Age

"A coal-shipper lawyer said the railroads' treatment of captive customers "is like selling $3 Cokes in the ballpark because there's no competition." He added that you might not mind paying that much for a ballpark soda if you got a good game to go along with it--but coal shippers, he said, were getting only "high prices, poor service" and the disinterest of "unresponsive rail employees."

Congress may be hearing a lot of that kind of talk if coal customers feel they have no choice but to take their case to Capitol Hill.

If coal customers do make war on the railroads in Congress, they may find themselves fighting shoulder to shoulder with some real adversaries of the railroads, big trucking interests.

That's right: American Trucking Associations threatened last month to join big railroad customers in seeking to roll back some of the railroads' market freedoms. ATA said its board had empowered it to do this if the railroads persisted in resisting the introduction of heavier, longer trucks on the highways.

What kind of allies are these?

If motor carriers succeed in their effort to put veritable trains-of-trucks on the highways, the railroads will lose another layer of relatively high-rated traffic. What remains on the railroads--low-rated bulk commodity traffic that the truckers don't want, traffic like coal--will have to bear a greater share of costs."

Railroads continue to alienate its shippers, shipper by shipper. Coal producers, chemical shippers, auto manufacturers, grain shippers -- all with the same complaints. Those who suggest that railroads need to look more closely to the long term benefits to the industry of fair pricing and good service, I think are far more interested in the health of the industry than those who parrot the current line that today's buck is worth tomorrow's ten.

Historical industry expediency led one federal judge to remark that, "there is neither justification for, nor satisfaction in, [actions today] which tomorrow bring only a harvest of barren regrets." "In re the Reorganization of the Chicago, M.St.P.&P.R. Co. (1942) 124 F.2nd, 754, 757.

Best regards, Michael Sol


You really need to start a new thread here Michael. It's hard enough keeping futuremodal's mind on the actual article he linked.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Friday, December 23, 2005 11:16 PM
I sorry I missed the part in the article that said BNSF was in danger of losing a customer. I was under the impression they were unable to prvide a level of service to pick up a new customer. There is no indication that these shippers had any interest in BNSF untill a slide closed the road. Unless an industry is willing and able to work within the constraints of existing rail infrastruture they may not be a good candidate to ship by rail. Rails cannot be everything to everyone. Who is going to pay for these trains when it is not potatoe or apple season. [2c]
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
BNSF draws ire of Washington produce shippers onestly, I don't have a vendetta against BNSF.
Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 23, 2005 11:24 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I sorry I missed the part in the article that said BNSF was in danger of losing a customer. I was under the impression they were unable to prvide a level of service to pick up a new customer. There is no indication that these shippers had any interest in BNSF untill a slide closed the road. Unless an industry is willing and able to work within the constraints of existing rail infrastruture they may not be a good candidate to ship by rail. Rails cannot be everything to everyone. Who is going to pay for these trains when it is not potatoe or apple season. [2c]


First, you have to start with an anti-BNSF agenda (but not a vendetta against the BNSF, as it says in the title). Mix in a total lack of reading the article that you provide with a link in the opening post. Add a dash of "supposition" and "imagining," Then mix with the sting of a failure to get BNSF to accept what you think is the greatest deal in freight shipping over their totally unused railroad.

Then you can see the same thing futuremodal sees.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, December 23, 2005 11:35 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

It s ironic, after reading railroad industry complaints for 30 years that truckers were competing "unfairly" and "stealing" railroad traffic, that railroads express no interest in an opportunity to "recover" lost traffic.


QUOTE: posted by rrandbI
sorry I missed the part in the article that said BNSF was in danger of losing a customer. I was under the impression they were unable to prvide a level of service to pick up a new customer.

When you don't know the background, it is really tough to understand the article. The Produce Trains on GN, NP and BN were effective means of transportation for these shippers dating back to the early 1900s.Those trains are part of the tangible railroad history of the Pacific Northwest. Head end business was important as well for these shippers.

The railroad lost the traffic.

The railroad had a chance to get it back.

The railroad says that it would need an 8 day cycle time.

This is approximately at least twice the cycle time it used to offer back in the days when it had 112-115 lb jointed rail and even using Steam power.

They could get that traffic back.

It is high revenue freight.

Opportunity knocked.

The Railroad did not open the door.

Clear?

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Friday, December 23, 2005 11:56 PM
How is offering 2 trains and 100 hr service an 8 day cycle. Are you using some sort of information that I can not see in the article. Is there a special math I am not aware of. The service they "lost" was not intermodal export to the Pacific Rim. I think this could be considered "new". I do not remember intermodal export during steam.??? [?] Did you mean the produce trains that were domestic. !!! I remember that this was endemic to all railroads and not a BNSF issue.!!![2c]
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:04 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Are you using some sort of information that I can not see in the article. Is there a special math I am not aware of.

Yes.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:13 AM
Are you going to share with us or is proprietary????[?] LOL [2c]
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:21 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Are you going to share with us or is proprietary????[?] LOL [2c]

It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL".

Best regards, Michael Sol

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:36 AM
Maybe BNSF knows something none of us know.

Why would the railroad want to start the cycle all over again? There had to be some aspect of the this service that just couldn't compete with trucks to see it die in the first place. A lot has happened since the days of the GN. Instead of shipping this produce in refrigerated cars or box cars that the railroad owned, it is going in private containers on private railcars. Would this make a difference in the amount of revenue? I almost remember some articles in past issues of Trains Magazines talking about how intermodal just isn't a very good cash maker for railroads on shorter hauls. Has some aspect of intermodal suddenly changed?

I hardly see it as ironic. Maybe something more like fool me once, etc.

As far as re-regulation of railroads goes, isn't that what led them to round one in the first place?

Edit: After re-reading the "Fast Freight's Future" article in the Novenber 2001 issue of Trains, I have many more questions now than answers.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy