QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 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., Bob - Who are those people who think BNSF is the devil incarnate? Why don't you name names and provide references to prove such an absurd allegation?
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 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 TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 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., Bob - Who are those people who think BNSF is the devil incarnate? Why don't you name names and provide references to prove such an absurd allegation? OMG Bob, can I lend you a mirror to hold up in front of futuremodal so he can get a hint who you're talking about?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 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., Bob - Who are those people who think BNSF is the devil incarnate? Why don't you name names and provide references to prove such an absurd allegation? OMG Bob, can I lend you a mirror to hold up in front of futuremodal so he can get a hint who you're talking about? Well, this is getting to be pretty chidish stuff from someone who didn't understand that the delivery time is not the car cycle time, and who didn't understand that the rate is not the revenue. If there was a constructive discussion to be had, it got lost long ago. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s. Yep, it's always constructive when some East Coast bluehair [:o)] disparages people who actually work for a living. In retrospect, I'm suprised you even know what an apple is.[;)] As for living in the 1920's, that would be railroad logisticians. Except for Amtrak, which runs on 1930's logistics.[8]
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then, in 2003, shippers and USDA were warning of a bumper crop but BNSF, using planning tools still a mystery to the industry, "decided" the crop would not be bumper, and hopper cars were left on bad order, cleanup and servicing started late. Then the bumper crop hit. The whole transportation system fell apart. COTS was running 30 and 45 days late. So much for contracts. What do you do to enforce them? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then, in 2003, shippers and USDA were warning of a bumper crop but BNSF, using planning tools still a mystery to the industry, "decided" the crop would not be bumper, and hopper cars were left on bad order, cleanup and servicing started late. Then the bumper crop hit. The whole transportation system fell apart. COTS was running 30 and 45 days late. So much for contracts. What do you do to enforce them? Best regards, Michael Sol "cleanup and servicing started late" ?????? I thought all your figures claimed this traffic was constant?
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox Apparently the BNSF and COOPs at Fort Benton have made a deal to upgrade the branchline and build new elevators. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051209/NEWS01/512090321/1002 Michael-If this was a chemical company making an investment they would do a contract with the railroad to protect their investment. Do you know of any methods for a grain shipper to protect their risk? If not, do you think it would make sense for contract rates on grain when their is a capital investment?
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr I would be curious to know what percentage of production is by the independent ("family") farm, and what percent is by the corporate farm, in a state like Montana or Washington. Does anyone have an idea? I know it is irrelevant to the topic, but it does affect my thinking about this discussion in that I am more apt to feel sorry for the independent farmer than I am the corporation -- one like, say, Archer Daniels Midland.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Average age of operator .... 55.4 ............ 53.7
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Reminds me of the time long ago (well, four years ago) when I was involved in trying to arrange a dedicated single stack container service between Yakima and Puget Sound over the little used trackage over Stampede Pass. Everything was a go, but BNSF said no. No explanation given.
QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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.
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............[}:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Originally posted by futuremodal Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it. If the railroads are able to compete successfully against trucks in this market then why not use this "bone" as opportunity to prove themselves to the industry. If they are successful then any smart shipper will push more business in their direction. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. "Seduced"? How did the trucking industry "seduce" shippers away from railroads? Do you consider more consistent, faster service to add up to "seduction"? Do you consider the business coal producers provide to be a "steady freight flow"? As I understand it many of the coal shippers aren't too excited by the "better service" they are receiving either. Of course, that plus lower rates. Now that the truckers want higher prices because fuel and wages have gone up, plus in this case, the truckers were relying on a single section of road that was blocked by a rockslide. Suddenly, the produce shippers want to go back to the rails and offer them freight trafic AS A BACKUP FOR TRUCKS, not as a primary hauler. 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. 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. They struggled by cutting their network of unprofitable branches, as well as rolling stock and personnel to support it. They finally got it to a point where they were marginally profitable and started building from there. Coal fired power plants require a steady flow of coal traffic. The network is strained to say the least, now that traffic is coming back to the rails and from new points of origin and destination. Rebuilding and expansion takes time and money, lots of it. The network to support this traffic is receiving large investments. It's like getting caught in a trafic jam around a road construction site. Traffic moves slowly and occasionally stops, but if you can think a few months ahead, when the construction is done, things will move better than before if the design was proper. Construction on the railroads takes a bit longer. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:38 PM 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. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Originally posted by futuremodal Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it. If the railroads are able to compete successfully against trucks in this market then why not use this "bone" as opportunity to prove themselves to the industry. If they are successful then any smart shipper will push more business in their direction. The railroads aren't in the business of proving anything. The "bone" they were tossed was a crappy one and requesting premium service just to get that one. The shippers statement "we have all our eggs in one basket" shows that they recently saw the errors of past thinking. Now the railroad is supposed to kiss their a** to get a scrap of business and provide it as a premium service to boot? Notice the article cleverly omits the quantity or percentage of this freight that was offered to the railroads. When bidding a rate, >I< would definately want to know how much I was bidding on. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:45 PM 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. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:48 PM 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? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:51 PM 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. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 9:51 AM 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 Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:09 AM 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. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:56 AM 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 Reply 1234567 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by futuremodal Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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. "Seduced"? How did the trucking industry "seduce" shippers away from railroads? Do you consider more consistent, faster service to add up to "seduction"? Do you consider the business coal producers provide to be a "steady freight flow"? As I understand it many of the coal shippers aren't too excited by the "better service" they are receiving either.
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............[}:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Originally posted by futuremodal Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it. If the railroads are able to compete successfully against trucks in this market then why not use this "bone" as opportunity to prove themselves to the industry. If they are successful then any smart shipper will push more business in their direction. The railroads aren't in the business of proving anything. The "bone" they were tossed was a crappy one and requesting premium service just to get that one. The shippers statement "we have all our eggs in one basket" shows that they recently saw the errors of past thinking. Now the railroad is supposed to kiss their a** to get a scrap of business and provide it as a premium service to boot? Notice the article cleverly omits the quantity or percentage of this freight that was offered to the railroads. When bidding a rate, >I< would definately want to know how much I was bidding on. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:45 PM 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. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:48 PM 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? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:51 PM 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. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 9:51 AM 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 Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:09 AM 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. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:56 AM 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 Reply 1234567 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Originally posted by futuremodal Now some Washington shippers offer BNSF a short haul bone and wonder why the railroad doesn't jump at it. If the railroads are able to compete successfully against trucks in this market then why not use this "bone" as opportunity to prove themselves to the industry. If they are successful then any smart shipper will push more business in their direction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.