QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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. 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. Best regards, Michael Sol
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Are you going to share with us or is proprietary????[?] LOL [2c]
QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317 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.[%-)]
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?
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Oh good grief. Lou Menk personally offered me my first job in the rail industry, August 18, 1969. There, you've name-dropped, I've name-dropped. What does it have to do with the conversation? "...BNSF bend the limitations of the physical plant?" The point first made was, it seems clear to me, to point out what is simply a small example of a continuing set of shipper-related problems, across multiple important industries, regarding rate unfairness and service breakdowns, in an industry which has spent more on phyiscal plant at any time in our history, and what that industry has to show for it in terms of the kind of productivity that railroads ostensibly exist to provide: service. Washington State's produce shippers are a drop in the bucket. So's the canary in the coal mine. The "100 hour service" promise is so historically discordant with service previously provided to these shippers and those similarly placed, it is almost beyond comprehension. As the physical plant gets more expensive, and more expensive to maintain, service keeps declining. An opportunity arose to address a specific problem, frequently identified by railroads as something "unfair" namely competition by the trucking industry. Here was a chance to show the merits of the railroad case. They couldn't/wouldn't do it. They acknowledged that notwithstanding billions and billions of dollars of investment , they cannot offer the service to shippers they offered sixty years ago in the days of jointed track and steam power. The point of the article, which has been blown way out of proportion by the usual process of sarcasm and distortion common on these threads is that yet another opportunity was dropped, by an industry that insists on its credibility when it comes to claims that it is service oriented and developing a "responsive" structural and organizational combination of assets when, in fact, it seemingly goes out of its way to shoot itself in the foot and prove the opposite. That's the point of both the historical context, and current examples of rate and service discriminations: by any standard of comparison, historical or modern, a strong case can be made that the railroad industry cannot manage its franchise: the operation of the national rail system. Now, whether that case is true or not is beside the point: Congress rarely reaches ultimate truths, it deals with popular perceptions. What Futuremodal was pointing out is that this is yet another in a long string of examples, across multiple industries, by small shippers as well as big shippers, that the needs of the rail industry are not being met by the existing railroad companies. In this particular case, the service offered to the shippers seemed almost pointedly designed to get bad publicity by its offer of service so patently ridiculous. The problem that Futuremodal points to is that these complaints, from shippers small and large, sound inordinately like the complaints raised that ultimately caused the regulation of the railroad industry in the first place. And the arguments raised in the defense of the railroads sound identical to the arrogant and even irrational arguments offered then by the self-appointed defenders of the rail industry. Well, who lost that debate? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal "Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said." Hmmm, let's see. On a ton/mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per ton/mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per ton/mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation. This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates, not high end truck rates. Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Regarding the 4 day vs 8 day cycle debate, the article states this: "Trains would run twice a week, but it could take up to 100 hours for produce to reach the Tacoma port." From this, it is clear to all that BNSF wants a potential cycle time of up to 200 hours, since the one way trip may need 100 hours "to reach the Tacoma port". Only a railroad kool-aid drinker would assume this particular sentence pertaining to the 100 hour statement means a maximum 100 hour/4 day cycle time, because that would mean the produce was originating in Tacoma, with 50 hours out to Quincy and 50 hours back. Tom and rrandb may not be able to grasp this simple math, but most of the rest of us can, even with the occasional typo.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So it is clear what BNSF wants is to absolve itself of liability if the normal 4 day cycle is delayed up to an 8 day cycle. This shows two things: (1) the 4 day cycle is paramount to the produce guys, it is an inflexible time window due to the characteristics of the product in question, and (2) apparently BNSF can offer a twice a week schedule some of the time, so it's not even a question of BNSF having no interest in the business, rather it's an example of BNSF wanting the right to disregard the business at random times through the year, perhaps when those Asian imports are a callin'.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal "Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said." Hmmm, let's see. On a ton/mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per ton/mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per ton/mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation. This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates, not high end truck rates. Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar! Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Must be all that "excess capacity" that exists in your imagination.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Could it be the time is ten times longer due to the volume of intermodal traffic now flowing to WA ports the state has invested money in.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The 100 hour service "offer" underscores both the state of the rail industry, and the reasons that the posters here don't "get it." Former produce trains and head-end produce service was on the order of 6-8 hours over the same lines and same routes, but with poorer track facilities. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The moral of the story is that the Produce shippers offered the BNSF an "opportunity." And nowhere is there a hint that it was unprofitable; rather than BNSF claims/admits that it could not deliver the service needed, offering instead something more than ten times slower than what the same railroad's predecessors were able to offer on the same route. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol There is not a business in America that has "made it" by slowing its operations down by a factor of ten, reducing its ability to take advantage of opportunities, and aggravating its customers, both real and potential. Oops, yes there is ... And there are people that will argue that is a "good" thing. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Futuremodal: Yours is a most interesting form of being "pro-railroad". I suggest you walk a mile in there moccasins. While you or I may not understand or agree with ther decisions, They are there desicions and theres alone. After an investment of $50M I seriously doubt that BNSF has a deliberate policy of trying to generate negative press in Washington. That would be a job for the local press to do.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Futuremodal: Yours is a most interesting form of being "pro-railroad". I suggest you walk a mile in there moccasins. While you or I may not understand or agree with ther decisions, They are there desicions and theres alone. After an investment of $50M I seriously doubt that BNSF has a deliberate policy of trying to generate negative press in Washington. That would be a job for the local press to do. You need to understand that some think the BNSF is the devil incarnate.,
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal "Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said." Hmmm, let's see. On a ton/mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per ton/mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per ton/mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation. This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates, not high end truck rates. Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar! Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Must be all that "excess capacity" that exists in your imagination. C'mon Tom, I know you are not THAT dense! You obviously must be in a constant state of facetiousness. Aside from the clerical error (wherein "ton/mile" should read just plain "mile", since corrected), there is nothing in that analysis that you cannot understand. The revenue per mile for the desired Washington state service ranges from $1.00 to $1.50, while the revenue per mile for intermodal to Chicago ranges from $0.50 to $0.70 on a net basis. If each cycle is getting constant utilization, the shorthaul would be getting from $40,000 to $60,000 per platform per year ($200 to $300 per container x 100 cycles per year x 2 slots per well), while the long haul is getting $30,000 to $45,000 per platform per year ($1000 to $1500 per container x 15 cycles per year x 2 slots per well). Now, if the Puget Sound to Chicago double stack was earning revenues both ways, that would make a difference. But it ain't. Most westbound double stacks to Puget Sound are running mostly empties, because as you know, we have a trade deficit with the Pacific Rim, and most of what we do export to the Pacific Rim is in bulk rather than ISO containers. The fact that some ag producers are willing to fill up those otherwise empties with revenue producing freight which the railroads seem to go out of their way to turn down should tell you something about the mentality of our great "American" railroads.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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". Re the above, what's the irony?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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".
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s.
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol 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". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up. Well, this thread has obviously turned into a self-gratification session. However, let me depart what has become pointless with the following: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Of course, the key component missing is that, ordinarily, the cycle times on a 200 mile run are considerably different than the equipment cycle times on a 2200 mile run. TomDiehl believes that the railroad only earns $300, compared to a shipment to Chicago earning $1500. Take it out to a 30 day report and comparable, if hypothetical, performance. The $300 car cycle time of 4 days can earn $2250 in a month. The 2200 mile run offers a car cycle time of, say 22 days, earns only $1500 on the monthly billing cycle, or $2,045 in a 30 day accrual accounting period. This offers that the 200 mile run averages 100 miles per day and the 2200 mile run averages 100 mles a day. Yard dwell time wreaks havoc on short/long comparisons like this, usually a disadvantage to the longer run, but this is a hypothetical to make the point that TomDiehl doesn't understand the proper comparison on a rate, because the amount earned by the railroad is not defined by the rate, but by the accounting period (that's how we count money). It is clear from his comments above he does not understand this. I think we get the picture. Best regards, Michael Sol
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.