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

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[TomDiehl has offered an evaluation of the original article. No answer.

TomDiehl has asked many questions, and even offered possible answers, obviously he needs to put them in as multiple choice questions. No answers.

MichaelSol has offered condesending remarks at anyone who doesn't share his views that BNSF is the "big evil railroad." But still no answers.

TomDiehl has even tried sarcasm, obviously wasted on people that are SO proud that they've taken Economics 101. But can offer no answers.

Since the answers can't come from MichaelSol, TomDiehl must be arrogant. Or is that frustration that all he gets is a run-around?

How DARE he defend the BNSF. Or is he asking questions completely outside the realm of love-hate for a certain railroad?

Or was he asking questions that someone can't answer, so they insult him?

Should we pity the plight of the "poor shipper" that suddenly wants rail service, but on THEIR terms, not what the railroad offers? Why?

Bizarre, simply bizarre.

Now it's poor TomDiehl, just asking questions that no one can answer, instead of the TomDiehl who knew everything about the situation and all about Econ 101, and how railroads were spiraling downward, and how much money was made based on rates, etc etc.

The point of the original article: shippers offered that BNSF could get some trucking business back.

BNSF: no. we cannot offer even the same service we did 40 years ago.

Futuremodal: Bad PR move, also shows decline in RR ability compared to historical capacity and ability. Don't criticize the trucks if you aren't actually willing to meet their competition.

TomDiehl: everyone is stupid that opposes anything the BNSF says, does or
promises.

TomDiehl: I know all about Eco 101.

TomDiehl: Rairloads have been spiralling downhill.

TomDiehl: $300 is the same as $1500 even though they aren't the same.

TomDiehl: 100 hour delivery time is the same as equipment cycle time of 200 hours or more.

TomeDiehl: I'm only asking questions.

TomDiehl: Michael Sol says BNSF "is big,evil railroad" even though Michael Sol never said any such thing.

TomDiehl, you have a problem, and it has nothing to do with this thread.

Bst regards, Michael Sol

And poor MichaelSol, you have a problem with reading ability.

All you've proven is you have no idea how to answer ANY questions. If you even KNOW the answers, which is becoming apparent, you don't.

Your entire reply is so far from the actual statements, it's just laughable.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[TomDiehl has offered an evaluation of the original article. No answer.

TomDiehl has asked many questions, and even offered possible answers, obviously he needs to put them in as multiple choice questions. No answers.

MichaelSol has offered condesending remarks at anyone who doesn't share his views that BNSF is the "big evil railroad." But still no answers.

TomDiehl has even tried sarcasm, obviously wasted on people that are SO proud that they've taken Economics 101. But can offer no answers.

Since the answers can't come from MichaelSol, TomDiehl must be arrogant. Or is that frustration that all he gets is a run-around?

How DARE he defend the BNSF. Or is he asking questions completely outside the realm of love-hate for a certain railroad?

Or was he asking questions that someone can't answer, so they insult him?

Should we pity the plight of the "poor shipper" that suddenly wants rail service, but on THEIR terms, not what the railroad offers? Why?

Bizarre, simply bizarre.

Now it's poor TomDiehl, just asking questions that no one can answer, instead of the TomDiehl who knew everything about the situation and all about Econ 101, and how railroads were spiraling downward, and how much money was made based on rates, etc etc.

The point of the original article: shippers offered that BNSF could get some trucking business back.

BNSF: no. we cannot offer even the same service we did 40 years ago.

Futuremodal: Bad PR move, also shows decline in RR ability compared to historical capacity and ability. Don't criticize the trucks if you aren't actually willing to meet their competition.

TomDiehl: everyone is stupid that opposes anything the BNSF says, does or
promises.

TomDiehl: I know all about Econ 101 and it teaches congestion modeling.

TomDiehl: Railroads have been spiralling downhill.

TomDiehl: $300 is the same as $1500 even though they aren't the same.

TomDiehl: 100 hour delivery time is the same as equipment cycle time of 200 hours or more.

TomeDiehl: I'm only asking questions.

TomDiehl: Michael Sol says BNSF "is big,evil railroad" even though Michael Sol never said any such thing.

TomDiehl, you have a problem, and it has nothing to do with this thread.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Economics 101, which you need to retake, also states that a given section of rail mainline can only handle so many trains a day, limited by dispatching, number of tracks, sidings, and train speed restrictions, to name just a few of the most obvious.

This wasn't a question.

It was pure arrogance, and plainly wrong, like everything else TomDiehl has represented. This wasn't an honest discussion to begin with, and it wasn't an honest discussion throughout. This is someone willing to accuse, misrepresent, and distort, in some unfathomable effort to do something to defend the BNSF.

This is someone who 1) has no idea what he is talking about, 2) talks harshly about how d*** dumb other people are for not taking Econ 101, and 3) offers nothing useful as to the ongoing struggle between shippers and the railroads in non-competitive environments.

TomDiehl hasn't done anything for this discussion, but he has offered a lot about TomDiehl.

Best regards, Michael Sol

TomDiehl has offered an evaluation of the original article. No answer.

TomDiehl has asked many questions, and even offered possible answers, obviously he needs to put them in as multiple choice questions. No answers.

MichaelSol has offered condesending remarks at anyone who doesn't share his views that BNSF is the "big evil railroad." But still no answers.

TomDiehl has even tried sarcasm, obviously wasted on people that are SO proud that they've taken Economics 101. But can offer no answers.

Since the answers can't come from MichaelSol, TomDiehl must be arrogant. Or is that frustration that all he gets is a run-around?

How DARE he defend the BNSF. Or is he asking questions completely outside the realm of love-hate for a certain railroad?

Or was he asking questions that someone can't answer, so they insult him?

Should we pity the plight of the "poor shipper" that suddenly wants rail service, but on THEIR terms, not what the railroad offers? Why?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Economics 101, which you need to retake, also states that a given section of rail mainline can only handle so many trains a day, limited by dispatching, number of tracks, sidings, and train speed restrictions, to name just a few of the most obvious.

This wasn't a question.

It was pure arrogance, and plainly wrong, like everything else TomDiehl has represented. This wasn't an honest discussion to begin with, and it wasn't an honest discussion throughout. This is someone willing to accuse, misrepresent, and distort, in some unfathomable effort to do something to defend the BNSF.

This is someone who 1) has no idea what he is talking about, 2) talks harshly about how d*** dumb other people are for not taking Econ 101, and 3) offers nothing useful as to the ongoing struggle between shippers and the railroads in non-competitive environments.

TomDiehl hasn't done anything for this discussion, but he has offered a lot about TomDiehl.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

In other words,

1) You know nothing about BNSF's track capacity.

2) You know nothing about relative rates to Chicago vs Quincy, Wa

3) You have no idea what "revenues" short haul vs long haul are.

4) You have no idea what is taught in Econ 101

5) You have no idea whether BNSF would be advantaged or disadvantaged by getting traffic it once had back from trucks

6) You have no idea whether 100 hour service from Quincy, Washington is reasonable or not.

OK, let me get to the point. When you lectured as to what would be learned in "Econ 101" you simply lied about that, didn't you? You didn't phrase it as a question, and you can't evade by that current interesting evasion of what you actually said.

You never learned that in Econ 101, never took Econ 101, and in fact have no familiarity at all with any of it?

Right?

How about an honest answer this time?

Best regards, Michael Sol

An honest answer is what I've been asking for since the beginning of this thread.

Obviously, it can't come from you due to lack of knowledge.

With the circular conversation and "no answer" replies, it's almost like talking to a lawyer instead of someone that has even a vague idea of how a railroad works, or why the BNSF isn't falling all over themselves to be a backup for the truckers.

[MichaelSol]

In other words,

1) You know nothing about BNSF's track capacity.

2) You know nothing about relative rates to Chicago vs Quincy, Wa

3) You have no idea what "revenues" short haul vs long haul are.

4) You have no idea what is taught in Econ 101

5) You have no idea whether BNSF would be advantaged or disadvantaged by getting traffic it once had back from trucks

6) You have no idea whether 100 hour service from Quincy, Washington is reasonable or not.

7) You've gone out of your way to insult anyone that disagrees with you, in the name of the BNSF, even though you don't have a clue what you are disagreeing with since you actually don't know either side of the story.

OK, let me get to the point. When you lectured as to what would be learned in "Econ 101" you simply lied about that, didn't you? You didn't phrase it as a question, and you can't evade by that current interesting evasion of what you actually said.

You never learned that in Econ 101, never took Econ 101, and in fact have no familiarity at all with any of it?

Right?

How about an honest answer this time?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
YOU are the one that claimed you knew the behind-the-scenes thoughts and abilities of the BNSF on this subject, but obviously you feel this info is classified because neither of you can answer the questions.

You have constantly lectured as to "why" BNSF "had" to offer the service it did. Historically, on poorer rail and with obsolete motive power, it offered approximately 10 times the level of service, historically, as now.

How that dovetailed with your "knowledge" of rates was merely interesting.

How that dovetailed with your "knowledge" of car cycle times was intriguing.

How that dovetailed with your explanation of rates, comparing a 200 hour rate with a 22 day rate, was fascinating.

How that all dovetailed with your explanation that it was all because of track capacity, something that is taught in "Econ 101" was simply hilarious.

The article said that BNSF offered 100 hour delivery on a 200 mile route.

That is ridiculous. It means, at the end of the day, one of two things: they are discouraging business they used to complain was "stolen," or they cannot operate their system as efficiently as 40 years ago.

Now, since you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you have no idea what is even going on in the rail industry, mathematics, economics, modeling, engineering or marketing, or any of the other myriad weird things you brought up and fell flat on your face on,

EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I constantly asked what "BNSF did again." No answer.

"Rates" wasn't mentioned in the article, or by me.

"Car cycle time" was an example of a question that I asked, and again wasn't answered.

Where you're getting that "22 day or 200 hour rate" thing is another person's post.

My "explaination of track capacity" was again an example for a question that I asked that AGAIN was not answered. Even the sarcasm of repeating your reference to Economics 101 seems to be lost with the answers to the questions.

Where you're reading the part about BNSF "complaining about business they lost 40 years ago" is another mystery.

Any reference to the "efficiency" of a railroad 40 years ago compared to today is yours, and seems to neglect that 1) when it "went away" the RR developed other freight and 2) the RR didn't solicit the produce business's freight, it was the other way around. And that's according to the article.

If I "don't know what's going on in the railroad industry" and you do, why is it so impossible for you to answer the questions placed before you?

Or are you going to post another list of books you have on your desk that probably don't have the answers in them either?


MY POINT IS WHEN QUESTIONS AREN'T ANSWERED, THE PEOPLE YOU'RE ASKING DON'T KNOW.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
YOU are the one that claimed you knew the behind-the-scenes thoughts and abilities of the BNSF on this subject, but obviously you feel this info is classified because neither of you can answer the questions.

You have constantly lectured as to "why" BNSF "had" to offer the service it did. Historically, on poorer rail and with obsolete motive power, it offered approximately 10 times the level of service, historically, as now.

How that dovetailed with your "knowledge" of rates was merely interesting.

How that dovetailed with your "knowledge" of car cycle times was intriguing.

How that dovetailed with your explanation of rates, comparing a 200 hour rate with a 22 day rate, was fascinating.

How that all dovetailed with your explanation that it was all because of track capacity, something that is taught in "Econ 101" was simply hilarious.

The article said that BNSF offered 100 hour delivery on a 200 mile route.

That is ridiculous. It means, at the end of the day, one of two things: they are discouraging business they used to complain was "stolen," or they cannot operate their system as efficiently as 40 years ago.

Now, since you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you have no idea what is even going on in the rail industry, mathematics, economics, modeling, engineering or marketing, or any of the other myriad weird things you brought up and fell flat on your face on,

EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So rather than admit that you have NO idea whether the tracks can handle the new freight at any higher frequency, you throw out a bunch of book titles, trying once again to go farther from the subject. This is an easy conclusion, you have no idea how to prove that BNSF has done anything but show a good business decision.

You couldn't dazzle me with your brilliance, and you DEFINATELY didn't baffle me with your BS.

Well, if spelling was a criteria ...

Actually, I have been over these lines for 40 years. My most recent review -- as in physically going over them -- of both the Stevens Pass route and the Columbia River route was two months ago. I am quite familiar with the lines, historically and currently.

What do you know about them? You've represented that you know the BNSF position on all this.

That's not true at all, is it? You actually have no idea why they offered a 100 hour cycle time on a 200 mile route. It "could" have been line capacity, it "could" have been a desire to discourage the service, it "could" have equipment -- although they did actually offer the service .... but you don't really know, do you?

You've already answered the question.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I've NEVER represented anything like that. I've asked questions and given examples of what I meant, but you and futuremodal have avoided them because a straight answer to them wouldn't go with your "non-vendetta" against the BNSF.

YOU are the one that claimed you knew the behind-the-scenes thoughts and abilities of the BNSF on this subject, but obviously you feel this info is classified because neither of you can answer the questions.

The only answer I've seen to the question is in the linked article. BNSF offered their best service, the growers wanted something better. They couldn't get it so they cried to the media.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So rather than admit that you have NO idea whether the tracks can handle the new freight at any higher frequency, you throw out a bunch of book titles, trying once again to go farther from the subject. This is an easy conclusion, you have no idea how to prove that BNSF has done anything but show a good business decision.

You couldn't dazzle me with your brilliance, and you DEFINATELY didn't baffle me with your BS.

Well, if spelling was a criteria ...

Actually, I have been over these lines for 40 years. My most recent review -- as in physically going over them -- of both the Stevens Pass route and the Columbia River route was two months ago. I am quite familiar with the lines, historically and currently.

What do you know about them? You've represented that you know the BNSF position on all this.

That's not true at all, is it? You actually have no idea why they offered a 100 hour service time on a 200 mile route. It "could" have been line capacity, it "could" have been a desire to discourage the service, it "could" have equipment -- although they did actually offer the service .... like many of the other things on this thread that you pretended to know something about, in this instance it's the same: you don't really know, do you?

You've already answered the question.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl.
Economics 101, which you need to retake, also states that a given section of rail mainline can only handle so many trains a day, limited by dispatching, number of tracks, sidings, and train speed restrictions, to name just a few of the most obvious. You have yet to show that the BNSF has the rail capacity (that means room in the schedule) to offer this premium, on demand service, that the article admits would be a backup for the trucks.

OMG now he's an expert on track capacity too.

And what was your grade in Econ 101?

This is beyond ridiculous. Congestion modeling, for those who might know something about it, is not taught in Econ 101. Economics, for those who might know something about it, very rarely gets into congestion modeling. TomDiehl once again proves without a doubt he has never done either.

TomDiehl, you take the cake. You clearly don't know anything about rates or revenues, nor car cycle times, nor the railroads' "downward spiral" in the 1970s that didn't actually happen, now you are lecturing on track capacity??? Are you for real?

These are a few of the representative publications used in capacity, constraint, and congestion modeling, and none, repeat, none would be found in an Economics class. And these aren't even the specialty publications related specifically to railroading for which there is an extensive list. You will note the distinct lack of Economics journals.

Aashtiani, H. Z. and Magnanti, T. L. (1981) Equilibria on a Congested Transportation Network, SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods 2, (3) 213-226.

Andreatta, G. and Romeo, L. (1988) Stochastic Shortest Paths with Recourse, Networks 18, 193-204.

Ali, A.I., Kennington J.L. and Shetty, B. (1988) The Equal Flow Problem, European Journal of Operational Research 36,107-115.

Assad, A. A. (1978) Multicommodity Network Flows - A Survey, Networks 8, 37-91.

Barnhart, C. and Sheffi, Y. (1993) A Network-Based Primal-Dual Heuristic for the Solution of Multicommodity Network Flow Problems, Transportation Science 27 (2) 102-117.

Barr, R. S., Glover, F. and Klingman, D. (1974) An Improved Version of the Out-of-Kilter Method and a Comparative Study of Computer Codes, Mathematical Programming 7, 60-86.

Bradley, S. P., Hax, A.C. and Magnanti, T. L. (1977) Applied Mathematical Programming, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Brown, G. G. and McBride, R. D. (1984) Solving Generalized Networks, Management Science 30 (12) 1497-1523.

Chen, S. and Saigal, R. (1977) A Primal Algorithm for Solving a Capacitated Network Flow Problem with Additional Linear Constraints, Networks 7, 59-79.

Chen, C. J. and Engquist, M. (1986) A Primal Simplex Approach to Pure Processing Networks, Management Science 32 (12) 1582-1598.

Dantzig, G. B., Orden, A. and Wolfe, P. (1955) The Generalized Simplex Method for Minimizing a Linear Form under Linear Inequality Restraints, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5, 183-195.

Dial, R., Glover, F., Karney, D.and Klingman, D. (1979) A Computational Analysis of Alternative Algorithms and Labeling Techniques for Finding Shortest Path Trees, Networks 9, 251-248.

Dijkstra, E. W. (1959) A note on two problems in connexion (sic) with graphs, Numer. Math 1, 269-271.

Divoky, J. J. and Hung, M. S. (1990) Performance of Shortest Path Algorithms in Network Flow Problems, Management Science 36 (6).

Elam, J., Glover, F. and Klingman, D. (1979) A Strongly Convergent Primal Simplex Algorithm for Generalized Networks, Mathematics of Operations Research 4 (1) 39-59.

Farvolden, J.M., Powell W.B. and Lustig, I. J.(1993) A Primal Partitioning Solution for the Arc-Chain Formulation of a Multicommodity Network Flow Problem, Operations Research 41 (4) 669-693.

Florian, M., Nguyen, S. and Pallottino, S. (1981) A Dual Simplex Algorithm for Finding all Shortest Paths, Networks 11, 367-378.

Frederickson, G. N. (1987) Fast Algorithms for Shortest Paths in Planar Graphs, With Applications, SIAM Journal of Computing 16 (6) 1004-1022.

Fukushima, M. (1984) On the Dual Approach to the Traffic Assignment Problem, Transportation Research B 18 (3) 235-245.

Geoffrion, A. M. and Graves, G. W. (1974) Multicommodity Distribution System Design by Benders Decomposition, Management Science 20 (5) 822-844.

Giordiono, F, et al, Mathematical Modeling, Pacific Grove, CA, Thompson, 2003.

Glover, F. and Klingman, D. (1981) The Simplex SON Algorithm for LP/Embedded Network Problems, Mathematical Programming Study 15, 148-176.

Glover, F., and Laguna, Manuel, Tabu Search, Boston: Kluwyer Academic Publishers, 1997.

Gopalan, R., Batta, R. and Karwan, M. H. (1990) The Equity Constrained Shortest Path Problem, Computers in Operations Research 17 (3) 297-307.

Grigoriadis, M. D. and White, W. W. (1972) A Partitioning Algorithm for the Multicommodity Network Flow Problem, Mathematical Programming 3, 157-177.

Hajek, B. and Ogier, R. G. (1984) Optimal Dynamic Routing in Communication Networks with Continuous Traffic, Networks 14, 457-487.

Halder, A.K. (1970) The Method of Competing Links, Transportation Science 4, 36-51.

Hartman, J. K. and Lasdon, L. S. (1972) A Generalized Upper Bounding Algorithm for Multicommodity Network Flow Problems, Networks 1, 333-354.

Hassin, R. (1984) On Multicommodity Flows in Planar Graphs, Networks 14, 225-235.

Hu, T. C. (1963) Multi-Commodity Network Flows, Operations Research 11, 344-360.

Jones, K.L., Lustig, I.J., Farvolden, J.M. and Powell, W.B. (1993) Multicommodity network flows: The Impact of formulation on decomposition, Mathematical Programming 62, 95-117.

Kennington, J. L. and Shalaby, M. (1977) An effective subgradient procedure for minimal cost multicommodity flow problems, Management Science 23, 994-1004.

Kennington, J. L. (1978) A Survey of Linear Cost Multicommodity Network Flows, Operations Research 26 (2) 209-236.

Marsten, R., Subramanian, R., Lustig, I. and Shanno, D. (1990) Interior Point Methods for Linear Programming: Just Call Newton, Lagrange, and Fiacco and McCormick!", Interfaces 20 ( 4) 105-116.

McBride, R. D. (1985) Solving Embedded Generalized Network Problems, European Journal of Operational Research 21, 82-92.

McBride, R. D. and Mamer, J. W. (1993) Solving Multicommodity Flow Problems with a Primal Embedded Network Simplex Algorithm, presented at Phoenix AZ ORSA/TIMS conference, November 1993.

Moss, F. H. and Segall, A. (1977) An Optimal control approach to dynamic routing in data communication networks, Part I: Principles, EE Publication 312, Technion- Israel Institute of Technology.

Moss, F. H. and Segall, A. (1978) An Optimal control approach to dynamic routing in data communication networks, Part II, Geometrical interpretation, EE Publication 319, Technion- Israel Institute of Technology.

Pape, U. (1974) Implementation and Efficiency of Moore-Algorithms for the Shortest Route Problem, Mathematical Programming 7, 212-222.

Pinar, M.C. and Zenios, S.A. (1993) Solving Nonlinear Programs with Embedded Network Structures, in Network Optimization Problems, edited by D.Z. Du and P. M. Pardalos, World Scientific Publishing Company, 177-202.

Powell, S.G. The Art of Modeling with Spreadsheets, Danvers, MA, Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Powell, W.B. (1989) A Review of Sensitivity Results for Linear Networks and a New Approximation to Reduce the Effects of Degeneracy, Transportation Science 23 (4) 231-243.

Schrage, L. (1975) Implicit Representation of Variable Upper Bounds in Linear Programming, Mathematical Programming Study 4, 118-132.

Schultz, G.L. and Meyer, R.R. (1991) An Interior Point Method for Block Angular Optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization 1.

Shapiro, J. F. (1977) A Note on the Primal-Dual and Out-of-Kilter Algorithms for Network Optimization Problems, Networks 7, 81-88.

Shier, D. R. (1979) On Algorithms for Finding the K Shortest Paths in a Network, Networks 9, 195-214.

Tobin, R. L. and Friesz, T. L. (1988) Sensitivity Analysis for Equilibrium Network Flow, Transportation Science 22 (4) 242-250.

Wardrop, J. G. (1952) Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research, Proceedings, Institute of Civil Engineers Part II 1, 325-378.

These are the ones on my desk....

Happy reading, TomDiehl. Good luck in that Econ 101 class!

Best regards, Michael Sol

So rather than admit that you have NO idea whether the tracks can handle the new freight at any higher frequency, you throw out a bunch of book titles, trying once again to go farther from the subject. This is an easy conclusion, you have no idea how to prove that BNSF has done anything but show a good business decision.

You couldn't dazzle me with your brilliance, and you DEFINATELY didn't baffle me with your BS.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl.
Economics 101, which you need to retake, also states that a given section of rail mainline can only handle so many trains a day, limited by dispatching, number of tracks, sidings, and train speed restrictions, to name just a few of the most obvious. You have yet to show that the BNSF has the rail capacity (that means room in the schedule) to offer this premium, on demand service, that the article admits would be a backup for the trucks.

OMG now he's an expert on track capacity too.

And what was your grade in Econ 101?

This is beyond ridiculous. Congestion modeling, for those who might know something about it, is not taught in Econ 101. Economics, for those who might know something about it, very rarely gets into congestion modeling. TomDiehl once again proves without a doubt he has never done either.

TomDiehl, you take the cake. You clearly don't know anything about rates or revenues, nor car cycle times, nor the railroads' "downward spiral" in the 1970s that didn't actually happen, now you are lecturing on track capacity??? Are you for real?

These are a few of the representative publications used in capacity, constraint, and congestion modeling, and none, repeat, none would be found in an Economics class. And these aren't even the specialty publications related specifically to railroading for which there is an extensive list. You will note the distinct lack of Economics journals.

Aashtiani, H. Z. and Magnanti, T. L. (1981) Equilibria on a Congested Transportation Network, SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods 2, (3) 213-226.

Andreatta, G. and Romeo, L. (1988) Stochastic Shortest Paths with Recourse, Networks 18, 193-204.

Ali, A.I., Kennington J.L. and Shetty, B. (1988) The Equal Flow Problem, European Journal of Operational Research 36,107-115.

Assad, A. A. (1978) Multicommodity Network Flows - A Survey, Networks 8, 37-91.

Barnhart, C. and Sheffi, Y. (1993) A Network-Based Primal-Dual Heuristic for the Solution of Multicommodity Network Flow Problems, Transportation Science 27 (2) 102-117.

Barr, R. S., Glover, F. and Klingman, D. (1974) An Improved Version of the Out-of-Kilter Method and a Comparative Study of Computer Codes, Mathematical Programming 7, 60-86.

Bradley, S. P., Hax, A.C. and Magnanti, T. L. (1977) Applied Mathematical Programming, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Brown, G. G. and McBride, R. D. (1984) Solving Generalized Networks, Management Science 30 (12) 1497-1523.

Chen, S. and Saigal, R. (1977) A Primal Algorithm for Solving a Capacitated Network Flow Problem with Additional Linear Constraints, Networks 7, 59-79.

Chen, C. J. and Engquist, M. (1986) A Primal Simplex Approach to Pure Processing Networks, Management Science 32 (12) 1582-1598.

Dantzig, G. B., Orden, A. and Wolfe, P. (1955) The Generalized Simplex Method for Minimizing a Linear Form under Linear Inequality Restraints, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5, 183-195.

Dial, R., Glover, F., Karney, D.and Klingman, D. (1979) A Computational Analysis of Alternative Algorithms and Labeling Techniques for Finding Shortest Path Trees, Networks 9, 251-248.

Dijkstra, E. W. (1959) A note on two problems in connexion (sic) with graphs, Numer. Math 1, 269-271.

Divoky, J. J. and Hung, M. S. (1990) Performance of Shortest Path Algorithms in Network Flow Problems, Management Science 36 (6).

Elam, J., Glover, F. and Klingman, D. (1979) A Strongly Convergent Primal Simplex Algorithm for Generalized Networks, Mathematics of Operations Research 4 (1) 39-59.

Farvolden, J.M., Powell W.B. and Lustig, I. J.(1993) A Primal Partitioning Solution for the Arc-Chain Formulation of a Multicommodity Network Flow Problem, Operations Research 41 (4) 669-693.

Florian, M., Nguyen, S. and Pallottino, S. (1981) A Dual Simplex Algorithm for Finding all Shortest Paths, Networks 11, 367-378.

Frederickson, G. N. (1987) Fast Algorithms for Shortest Paths in Planar Graphs, With Applications, SIAM Journal of Computing 16 (6) 1004-1022.

Fukushima, M. (1984) On the Dual Approach to the Traffic Assignment Problem, Transportation Research B 18 (3) 235-245.

Geoffrion, A. M. and Graves, G. W. (1974) Multicommodity Distribution System Design by Benders Decomposition, Management Science 20 (5) 822-844.

Giordiono, F, et al, Mathematical Modeling, Pacific Grove, CA, Thompson, 2003.

Glover, F. and Klingman, D. (1981) The Simplex SON Algorithm for LP/Embedded Network Problems, Mathematical Programming Study 15, 148-176.

Glover, F., and Laguna, Manuel, Tabu Search, Boston: Kluwyer Academic Publishers, 1997.

Gopalan, R., Batta, R. and Karwan, M. H. (1990) The Equity Constrained Shortest Path Problem, Computers in Operations Research 17 (3) 297-307.

Grigoriadis, M. D. and White, W. W. (1972) A Partitioning Algorithm for the Multicommodity Network Flow Problem, Mathematical Programming 3, 157-177.

Hajek, B. and Ogier, R. G. (1984) Optimal Dynamic Routing in Communication Networks with Continuous Traffic, Networks 14, 457-487.

Halder, A.K. (1970) The Method of Competing Links, Transportation Science 4, 36-51.

Hartman, J. K. and Lasdon, L. S. (1972) A Generalized Upper Bounding Algorithm for Multicommodity Network Flow Problems, Networks 1, 333-354.

Hassin, R. (1984) On Multicommodity Flows in Planar Graphs, Networks 14, 225-235.

Hu, T. C. (1963) Multi-Commodity Network Flows, Operations Research 11, 344-360.

Jones, K.L., Lustig, I.J., Farvolden, J.M. and Powell, W.B. (1993) Multicommodity network flows: The Impact of formulation on decomposition, Mathematical Programming 62, 95-117.

Kennington, J. L. and Shalaby, M. (1977) An effective subgradient procedure for minimal cost multicommodity flow problems, Management Science 23, 994-1004.

Kennington, J. L. (1978) A Survey of Linear Cost Multicommodity Network Flows, Operations Research 26 (2) 209-236.

Marsten, R., Subramanian, R., Lustig, I. and Shanno, D. (1990) Interior Point Methods for Linear Programming: Just Call Newton, Lagrange, and Fiacco and McCormick!", Interfaces 20 ( 4) 105-116.

McBride, R. D. (1985) Solving Embedded Generalized Network Problems, European Journal of Operational Research 21, 82-92.

McBride, R. D. and Mamer, J. W. (1993) Solving Multicommodity Flow Problems with a Primal Embedded Network Simplex Algorithm, presented at Phoenix AZ ORSA/TIMS conference, November 1993.

Moss, F. H. and Segall, A. (1977) An Optimal control approach to dynamic routing in data communication networks, Part I: Principles, EE Publication 312, Technion- Israel Institute of Technology.

Moss, F. H. and Segall, A. (1978) An Optimal control approach to dynamic routing in data communication networks, Part II, Geometrical interpretation, EE Publication 319, Technion- Israel Institute of Technology.

Pape, U. (1974) Implementation and Efficiency of Moore-Algorithms for the Shortest Route Problem, Mathematical Programming 7, 212-222.

Pinar, M.C. and Zenios, S.A. (1993) Solving Nonlinear Programs with Embedded Network Structures, in Network Optimization Problems, edited by D.Z. Du and P. M. Pardalos, World Scientific Publishing Company, 177-202.

Powell, S.G. The Art of Modeling with Spreadsheets, Danvers, MA, Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Powell, W.B. (1989) A Review of Sensitivity Results for Linear Networks and a New Approximation to Reduce the Effects of Degeneracy, Transportation Science 23 (4) 231-243.

Schrage, L. (1975) Implicit Representation of Variable Upper Bounds in Linear Programming, Mathematical Programming Study 4, 118-132.

Schultz, G.L. and Meyer, R.R. (1991) An Interior Point Method for Block Angular Optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization 1.

Shapiro, J. F. (1977) A Note on the Primal-Dual and Out-of-Kilter Algorithms for Network Optimization Problems, Networks 7, 81-88.

Shier, D. R. (1979) On Algorithms for Finding the K Shortest Paths in a Network, Networks 9, 195-214.

Tobin, R. L. and Friesz, T. L. (1988) Sensitivity Analysis for Equilibrium Network Flow, Transportation Science 22 (4) 242-250.

Wardrop, J. G. (1952) Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research, Proceedings, Institute of Civil Engineers Part II 1, 325-378.

These are the ones on my desk....

Happy reading, TomDiehl. Good luck in that Econ 101 class!

Best regards, Michael Sol

[rrandb]

[#ditto] [bow] nice summary. I guess we don't have to admit they have gone out of there way to make bad press for themselves. But some of us are willing to. [B)]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Oh wait, you DON'T work for them, so your suppositions and views from he outside-looking-in carry about as much authority as anybody elses guesses.

Well, let's see, you've demonstrated how little you know about the history of this particular service in this area, how little you know about how the railroad works, next to nothing about planning functions, zero about public relations and marketing.

I've been involved professionally with all of the above.

When is your next performance?

Best regards, Michael Sol

My next performance won't be able to top your tap dancing around the original topic but it will be to bring you back to the original subject. I hope you've got the "facts and figures" demon off your backs, especially the ones that have nothing to do with the original question.

The article linked doesn't refer to the history of the service, and in case you're not aware of it, railroads don't make a profit off of the history of freight, only that which they haul now. So how much of this produce traffic were they hauling before the shippers decided to move "all the eggs from one basket" and look into another transit method?

How much room in the schedule do they have to put in this new traffic?

According to the article, the railroad didn't approach the produce shippers, it was the other way around. Since you seem to know more about BNSF's line capacity, available rolling stock and operating personnel than the people that are running the BNSF, why aren't you running the show since you've "been involved professionally with all of the above."

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Guess again, oh canine comic,

You're suggesting that government regulation forced railroads to provide slower service e.g. 4 days into 8 days.

Regulation may have constrained adaptation to changing market conditions, but the regs didn't force the railroads to provide slower, less dependable service. That is something the railroads chose to do of their own volition.

And we're 25 years past Staggers enactment, so how is it railroads shippers are expected to accept service times that are twice as long as the days of the steamers and 40' boxcars?

Bow, wow, wow.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm flat out stating that.

The US Federal Government began to starve the railroads for capital investment before WWI. It did that basically by holding their rates down, preventing them from devloping an efficent intermodal system, diverting the high value lcl to trucks and also diverting the long haul perishable business to economically unregulated truckers. Along with other things such as forcing them to provide money loosing passenger service.

So now we've got capacity problems. As the railroads work their way back, which is going to take some time, they've got to pick the most lucrative freight to haul on their limited capacity network or they'll never be able to expand the network.

You seem to have a problem with that.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

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.

The sting of competition from another northern transcon railroad would wake up the sales and marketing people at BNSF. Imagine another competing railroad run by young agressive people saying to the growers and the Yakima shippers you mention, "sure, we can do that for you!" Competition is what's absent in the railroad landscape today.

There WAS competition in the railroads in all parts of the country. However, the competing railroads went out of business or merged with each other due to a lack of freight volume to support more than one railroad. Too many shippers were seduced away by trucks, so the railroads cut back service and infrastructure that was no longer needed. Now that this decision is burning them, they're complaining about the railroads not being able to provide service at the drop of a hat.

Unless they talked to me about being more than a backup shipper when the truckers fall flat, I wouldn't go out of my way to help them. Show me a steady freight flow on a predictable schedule, then maybe the railroads would be more serious in bidding to provide a better service, not the setup that's stated in the article.

Tom, Tom, Tom........

The trucker's didn't "seduce" traffic away from railroads (at least for the mid to long haul), rather the railroads gave up on providing the service the customer desired, and subsequently the shippers HAD to turn to trucks as a last resort.

You know, like when former 4 day service in the days of steamers becomes 8 day service with all those fancy diesels............[}:)]

Unfortunately you're still living in the past. How many route miles of track were there in Washington State in the days of the steamers? How many today? How many railroads provided service in the state? How many today? How many railroads back in those days have merged into the one(s) providing service today?

Sorry, but if you bring your thinking into the latter half of the 20th century, your argument falls flat.

Primer No. 313
Recipient: TomDiehl

In the statement "The trucker's didn't 'seduce' traffic away from railroads (at least for the mid to long haul)" there is a clear if indirect acknowledgement of the loss of route miles, albeit via retrenchment of various branchlines. So tell me, how does a reduction of such lightly used route miles translate into service dynamics that have doubled the amount of service time required? If anything, such a trackage retrenchment should show up as reduced rail service time, not increased service time!

Your second set of questions......

"How many railroads provided service in the state? How many today? How many railroads back in those days have merged into the one(s) providing service today?"

....is simply an acknowledgement on your part that a reduction in the number of rail service providers will result in reduced incentive to provide the desired service levels, as witnessed by BNSF's actions over the last few decades.

Economics 101, that's what you've stumbled across.

Again you're applying your reverse mathmatics. The railroads didn't remove or abandon those lines UNTIL they were no longer profitable to operate and maintain.

Economics 101, which you need to retake, also states that a given section of rail mainline can only handle so many trains a day, limited by dispatching, number of tracks, sidings, and train speed restrictions, to name just a few of the most obvious. You have yet to show that the BNSF has the rail capacity (that means room in the schedule) to offer this premium, on demand service, that the article admits would be a backup for the trucks.

Oh, I'm sorry, am I getting back to the original question too soon? We have only gone through 7 pages of posts, most of which are off the original subject.

If it ISN'T too soon, what did "BNSF do again?"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

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.

The sting of competition from another northern transcon railroad would wake up the sales and marketing people at BNSF. Imagine another competing railroad run by young agressive people saying to the growers and the Yakima shippers you mention, "sure, we can do that for you!" Competition is what's absent in the railroad landscape today.

There WAS competition in the railroads in all parts of the country. However, the competing railroads went out of business or merged with each other due to a lack of freight volume to support more than one railroad. Too many shippers were seduced away by trucks, so the railroads cut back service and infrastructure that was no longer needed. Now that this decision is burning them, they're complaining about the railroads not being able to provide service at the drop of a hat.

Unless they talked to me about being more than a backup shipper when the truckers fall flat, I wouldn't go out of my way to help them. Show me a steady freight flow on a predictable schedule, then maybe the railroads would be more serious in bidding to provide a better service, not the setup that's stated in the article.

Tom, Tom, Tom........

The trucker's didn't "seduce" traffic away from railroads (at least for the mid to long haul), rather the railroads gave up on providing the service the customer desired, and subsequently the shippers HAD to turn to trucks as a last resort.

You know, like when former 4 day service in the days of steamers becomes 8 day service with all those fancy diesels............[}:)]

Unfortunately you're still living in the past. How many route miles of track were there in Washington State in the days of the steamers? How many today? How many railroads provided service in the state? How many today? How many railroads back in those days have merged into the one(s) providing service today?

Sorry, but if you bring your thinking into the latter half of the 20th century, your argument falls flat.

Primer No. 313
Recipient: TomDiehl

In the statement "The trucker's didn't 'seduce' traffic away from railroads (at least for the mid to long haul)" there is a clear if indirect acknowledgement of the loss of route miles, albeit via retrenchment of various branchlines. So tell me, how does a reduction of such lightly used route miles translate into service dynamics that have doubled the amount of service time required? If anything, such a trackage retrenchment should show up as reduced rail service time, not increased service time!

Your second set of questions......

"How many railroads provided service in the state? How many today? How many railroads back in those days have merged into the one(s) providing service today?"

....is simply an acknowledgement on your part that a reduction in the number of rail service providers will result in reduced incentive to provide the desired service levels, as witnessed by BNSF's actions over the last few decades.

Economics 101, that's what you've stumbled across.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



Tom, Tom, Tom........

The trucker's didn't "seduce" traffic away from railroads (at least for the mid to long haul), rather the railroads gave up on providing the service the customer desired, and subsequently the shippers HAD to turn to trucks as a last resort.

You know, like when former 4 day service in the days of steamers becomes 8 day service with all those fancy diesels............[}:)]

Nope, No Way.

The railroads were not allowed to compete for the business by Federal Government economic regulation. This regulation shifted freight from rail to highway.

This was particularly evident in the transportation of fresh fruit and vegetables where rail rates were held fixed and truck rates were totally unregulated. The truckers could move with the market - the railroads could not.

The rail rates were held artificially high during slack shipping periods, allowing the truckers to undercut the rail charges and keep their equipment busy. The refrigerated railcars sat idle. During peak demand times, the truckers charged what the market would bear, and made their money. The rails had to charge below market rates.

It became impossible for the railroads to make any money hauling FF&V and they pretty much left the business. It was not that they didn't want the business, it was that the stupid Federal Government wouldn't let them make a buck hauling it.

Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it.

Guess again, oh canine comic,

You're suggesting that government regulation forced railroads to provide slower service e.g. 4 days into 8 days.

Regulation may have constrained adaptation to changing market conditions, but the regs didn't force the railroads to provide slower, less dependable service. That is something the railroads chose to do of their own volition.

And we're 25 years past Staggers enactment, so how is it railroads shippers are expected to accept service times that are twice as long as the days of the steamers and 40' boxcars?

Bow, wow, wow.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

futuremodal is right. Those d__n diesels that travel twice as slow and require twice as much service are the culprits here. May be if we get the steamer's back we can get the produce business too.!!! [:o] P..S keep subject under 100 characters please

Try not to confuse locomotive performance parameters with service parameters, okay?

PS - If you learn how to count one of these days, you'll see that the original subject heading IS under 100 characters, but when you keep replying you add a bunch of "RE:'s", and that pushes the original title over 100 characters.

Here is an EASY button for you: Just delete part of the subject heading when you reply. That'll take care of it.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Oh wait, you DON'T work for them, so your suppositions and views from he outside-looking-in carry about as much authority as anybody elses guesses.

Well, let's see, you've demonstrated how little you know about the history of this particular service in this area, how little you know about how the railroad works, next to nothing about planning functions, zero about public relations and marketing.

I've been involved professionally with all of the above.

When is your next performance?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So they peaked sometime between 1970 and 1980. And those numbers don't go down between 1980 and 1985?

But it still doesn't answer the original question: why should BNSF make special provisions for a shipper that abandoned them years ago
...
Plus, add your figures to the fact that much rail mileage was abandoned in the years since WWII and the result is an loaded-to-the-limit or overloaded network.

Well, miss the point, then change the subject.

What you will note is that Railroad Class I revenue ton miles grew during the 20 year period between 1960 and 1980 a total of 161%. The following 20 year period increased 160% despite the impact of the Staggers Act.

The tonnage growth 1980-2000 could not have been a surprise to the railroad industry: it was the same rate as between 1960 and 1980, even though this is the period which TomDiehl claimed "just like the railroad's fortunes started into their downward spiral at that time." Of course, that is post-Staggers Act.

Now TomDiehl claims that the problem is not "downward spiral" but rather that "much rail mileage was abandoned in the years since WWII and the result is an loaded-to-the-limit or overloaded network." Opinions can change fast in a day.

Between the downward spiral and the overloaded networks, confusing the revenue with the rate, and not knowing what equipment cycle times are, this is gettiing to be quite a thread record of interesting commentary.

However, what the latest off-the-wall comment suggests is that the railroads cannot provide service to shippers because of an overloaded network resulting from .... being unable to anticipate completely normal growth?

An interesting proposition.

Besrt regards, Michael Sol

Well, if there WAS a point there. Steering you two back to the original subject isn't always easy. Since you couldn't answer, either you or futuremodal changed the subject, I was just trying to change it back to the "evil BNSF not kissing the butts of the produce shippers to get their just-in-case freight contracts." This and my original analysis of the article in the link, has been conceeded by both of you as "unable to argue the point(s)."

And since you seem to have the inside track to what management of the BNSF or any railroad is using for the projected freight in the future and how to obtain financing for the upgrades.

Oh wait, you DON'T work for them, so your suppositions and views from he outside-looking-in carry about as much authority as anybody elses guesses.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So they peaked sometime between 1970 and 1980. And those numbers don't go down between 1980 and 1985?

But it still doesn't answer the original question: why should BNSF make special provisions for a shipper that abandoned them years ago
...
Plus, add your figures to the fact that much rail mileage was abandoned in the years since WWII and the result is an loaded-to-the-limit or overloaded network.

Well, miss the point, then change the subject.

What you will note is that Railroad Class I revenue ton miles grew during the 20 year period between 1960 and 1980 a total of 161%. The following 20 year period increased 160% despite the impact of the Staggers Act.

The tonnage growth 1980-2000 could not have been a surprise to the railroad industry: it was the same rate as between 1960 and 1980, even though this is the period which TomDiehl claimed "just like the railroad's fortunes started into their downward spiral at that time." Of course, that is post-Staggers Act.

Now TomDiehl claims that the problem is not "downward spiral" but rather that "much rail mileage was abandoned in the years since WWII and the result is an loaded-to-the-limit or overloaded network." Opinions can change fast in a day.

Between the downward spiral and the overloaded networks, confusing the revenue with the rate, and not knowing what equipment cycle times are, this is gettiing to be quite a thread record of interesting commentary.

However, what the latest off-the-wall comment suggests is that the railroads cannot provide service to shippers because of an overloaded network resulting from .... being unable to anticipate completely normal growth?

An interesting proposition.

Besrt regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Saying the traffic levels were high in the 70's is like saying the federal budget surplus was highest under the Bush administartion. It's true, but only applies to the first days of the adminstration, just like the railroad's fortunes started into their downward spiral at that time.

U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight (Millions), Class I Railroads
1960........572,309
1970...... 764,809
1980...... 918,958
1985...... 876,984
1990... 1,033,969
1995.....1,305,688
1998... 1,376,802

Downward spiral, huh?

Best regards, Michael Sol

So they peaked sometime between 1970 and 1980. And those numbers don't go down between 1980 and 1985?

But it still doesn't answer the original question: why should BNSF make special provisions for a shipper that abandoned them years ago when all the shipper is offering is the chance to be a "backup" for the trucks?

Remember the old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bushes."

Since they've got the Chicago-Seattle intermodal traffic "in hand" why should they go beating the"bushes" for traffic, or offer premium service for a shipper that is only interested in a "just in case" scenerio?

Plus, add your figures to the fact that much rail mileage was abandoned in the years since WWII and the result is an loaded-to-the-limit or overloaded network.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Saying the traffic levels were high in the 70's is like saying the federal budget surplus was highest under the Bush administartion. It's true, but only applies to the first days of the adminstration, just like the railroad's fortunes started into their downward spiral at that time.

U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight (Millions), Class I Railroads
1960........572,309
1970...... 764,809
1980...... 918,958
1985...... 876,984
1990... 1,033,969
1995.....1,305,688
1998... 1,376,802

Downward spiral, huh?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
After the mass exodus of the freight from the railroads, and the subsequent downsizing of the network and rolling stock, not to mention personnel, where the railroads invest the money can be picked from what will bring them the best return on investment, without applying "creative mathmatics." I read Trains and Railroad magazines in the '70's and followed the hard times that railroads struggled through.

Most railroads were reaching their all-time highs of traffic by 1975.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That may very well be true, but how much was being brought down to the bottom line, which is the figure that really matters.

Well, that's a platitude.

The gentleman's claim about a "mass exodous" being responsible for railroading's plight in the 1970s is, in what is becoming an ongoing series of misrepresentations and misunderstandings on his part, difficult to reconcile with the reality of high traffic levels.

The point being that other factors were responsible for railroading's plight in the 1970s, and just for a counterintuitive point that I am sure will generate the usual paroxysms of name-calling and finger pointing, that high traffic levels were responsible for the plight of railroading in the 1970s.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Not only a mass exodus, but a major change in the shipping landscape. This is also the period that many US steel mills closed down, making what became known as the "rust belt." The US stared a major downturn from a manufacturing country to a consumer country. The heavy haulage needed between the points of manufacturing provided a good source of revenue. Look around your house, or even worse, go to any local store and look for the "Made in USA" label.

Good luck finding it.

Saying the traffic levels were high in the 70's is like saying the federal budget surplus was highest under the Bush administartion. It's true, but only applies to the first days of the adminstration, just like the railroad's fortunes started into their downward spiral at that time.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
After the mass exodus of the freight from the railroads, and the subsequent downsizing of the network and rolling stock, not to mention personnel, where the railroads invest the money can be picked from what will bring them the best return on investment, without applying "creative mathmatics." I read Trains and Railroad magazines in the '70's and followed the hard times that railroads struggled through.

Most railroads were reaching their all-time highs of traffic by 1975.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That may very well be true, but how much was being brought down to the bottom line, which is the figure that really matters.

Well, that's a platitude.

The gentleman's claim about a "mass exodous" being responsible for railroading's plight in the 1970s is, in what is becoming an ongoing series of misrepresentations and misunderstandings on his part, difficult to reconcile with the reality of high traffic levels.

The point being that other factors were responsible for railroading's plight in the 1970s, and just for a counterintuitive point that I am sure will generate the usual paroxysms of name-calling and finger pointing, that high traffic levels were responsible for the plight of railroading in the 1970s.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
After the mass exodus of the freight from the railroads, and the subsequent downsizing of the network and rolling stock, not to mention personnel, where the railroads invest the money can be picked from what will bring them the best return on investment, without applying "creative mathmatics." I read Trains and Railroad magazines in the '70's and followed the hard times that railroads struggled through.

Most railroads were reaching their all-time highs of traffic by 1975.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That may very well be true, but how much was being brought down to the bottom line, which is the figure that really matters.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
After the mass exodus of the freight from the railroads, and the subsequent downsizing of the network and rolling stock, not to mention personnel, where the railroads invest the money can be picked from what will bring them the best return on investment, without applying "creative mathmatics." I read Trains and Railroad magazines in the '70's and followed the hard times that railroads struggled through.

Most railroads were reaching their all-time highs of traffic by 1975.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Sorry folks,, but bringing the problem up to the full scale world, you can't just run down to the LHS, buy a bunch of flex tracks and switches, throw it down, and pick up some Athearn kits and build the cars you need in the real world. There's such a thing as lead time and investment, both just a BIT more than we need for our layouts.

True, but I bet I know a certain trucking company that would be willing to sell some roadrailers for real cheap after their Portland - LA service met an untimely demise.

But at what price, and what condition are they in?

Then that still leaves the question of rail capacity.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



Tom, Tom, Tom........

The trucker's didn't "seduce" traffic away from railroads (at least for the mid to long haul), rather the railroads gave up on providing the service the customer desired, and subsequently the shippers HAD to turn to trucks as a last resort.

You know, like when former 4 day service in the days of steamers becomes 8 day service with all those fancy diesels............[}:)]

Nope, No Way.

The railroads were not allowed to compete for the business by Federal Government economic regulation. This regulation shifted freight from rail to highway.

This was particularly evident in the transportation of fresh fruit and vegetables where rail rates were held fixed and truck rates were totally unregulated. The truckers could move with the market - the railroads could not.

The rail rates were held artificially high during slack shipping periods, allowing the truckers to undercut the rail charges and keep their equipment busy. The refrigerated railcars sat idle. During peak demand times, the truckers charged what the market would bear, and made their money. The rails had to charge below market rates.

It became impossible for the railroads to make any money hauling FF&V and they pretty much left the business. It was not that they didn't want the business, it was that the stupid Federal Government wouldn't let them make a buck hauling it.

Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it.

Interesting. So the traffic was gone from the rails BEFORE the Staggers act.

Gee, I wonder WHY the railroads left this freight go?