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 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 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 10:33 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 andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:31 PM 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 greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:23 PM 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. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:04 PM 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. Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:51 PM 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 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:38 PM 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............[}:)] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:37 PM 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. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:18 AM 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Average age of operator .... 55.4 ............ 53.7 The age statistic is eye-opening. Sorry group for getting off the subject. Michael, thanks for looking that up. Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:21 AM 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. MONTANA .............YEAR..............2002 ..............1997 Family or individual ..... 22,448 ............21,674 Partnership ................. 2,192 .............2,250 Corporation .............. ...2,730 ..............3,317 Other-cooperative, estate or trust, institutional ......... 500 .............. 391 Average age of operator .... 55.4 ............ 53.7 WASHINGTON STATE Family or individual ........ 30,525 Partnership ..................... 2,280 Corporation, Co-op, etc..... 1,711 Average age of operator .... 52.8 Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:48 AM 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. Michael or Dave, either you guys have a rough idea on this one? Thanks much. Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Monday, December 26, 2005 11:35 PM 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? This just another blantant case of BNSF offering to invest millions of dollars so they can generate more "BAD" press. HUH Wait that wouldn't make sense??? Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, December 26, 2005 11:11 PM 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? Bumper crops are not "constant" or normal. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, December 26, 2005 10:47 PM 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? 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 Monday, December 26, 2005 10:19 PM Bob, notwithstandng my earlier remark, contracts are available, for so long as they are published like a tariff. In the case of a service contract, perfectly legal. However, BNSF a few years ago began offering a "COTS" program -- for a premium, BNSF would guarantee an agreed upon number of cars, on an agreed upon date. Service was so otherwise poor that shippers were participating -- it was a popular program. Service is important to these people. 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? In the case of a service contract, the damages would amount to interest charges on delays. Plaintiff might win, then pay their own attorney fees, after years of litigation. BNSF litigates with a vengeance. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, December 26, 2005 7:23 PM 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? Bob Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, December 26, 2005 6:59 PM 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] FM-You just love to step in it! I was born in The Dalles, OR and spent my first sixteen years in Oregon. My Dad was raised on his fathers apple farm near Yakima. We spent many Christmasses and vactations at my grandfathers farm in the 1950s. My mothers family came from Chinook, MT. Here Grandfather was a development agent for the GN. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 26, 2005 2:26 PM 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] Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Sunday, December 25, 2005 7:25 PM Well I don' t know about that. If we keep our heads about us and I would hope that many of our remarks can be taken as tounge in cheek then we may be okay. I also long for the days when Mr Hill would have ordered rail and track ganges to lay more track (passing sidings), ordered baldwin to stoke the furnacecs( leased power), and more wooden reefers ( well cars and reefer containers) because those growers need him too. I thought Bill Gates was the devil incarnate??? I'm sorry did someone try to insult me. I will apoligise for the blantant name dropping but you drew " FIRST BLOOD." [;)] Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, December 25, 2005 7:07 PM 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 It did. As soon as you and futuremodal started reading the story through your anti-BNSF glasses. 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 Sunday, December 25, 2005 4:16 PM 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 Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:41 PM 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? 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 Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:38 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up. Well, this thread has obviously turned into a self-gratification session. However, let me depart what has become pointless with the following: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Of course, the key component missing is that, ordinarily, the cycle times on a 200 mile run are considerably different than the equipment cycle times on a 2200 mile run. TomDiehl believes that the railroad only earns $300, compared to a shipment to Chicago earning $1500. Take it out to a 30 day report and comparable, if hypothetical, performance. The $300 car cycle time of 4 days can earn $2250 in a month. The 2200 mile run offers a car cycle time of, say 22 days, earns only $1500 on the monthly billing cycle, or $2,045 in a 30 day accrual accounting period. This offers that the 200 mile run averages 100 miles per day and the 2200 mile run averages 100 mles a day. Yard dwell time wreaks havoc on short/long comparisons like this, usually a disadvantage to the longer run, but this is a hypothetical to make the point that TomDiehl doesn't understand the proper comparison on a rate, because the amount earned by the railroad is not defined by the rate, but by the accounting period (that's how we count money). It is clear from his comments above he does not understand this. I think we get the picture. Best regards, Michael Sol Yeah, the picture is that I only understand what I read and don't have hard feelings against the BNSF or any other railroad, so i have a tendency to look at things with an open mind instead of a biggoted one. Of course YOU'RE assuming that the produce traffic is a continuous cycle, which would make your figures a bit more valid. The article doesn't say that any more than it says the traffic from the produce shippers is more than a backup for the trucks. The shippers in their approach to BNSF weren't serious about changing the traffic over to the rails so why should BNSF be any more serious going after a business just to be a backup shipper? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Sunday, December 25, 2005 2:49 PM Or they should hire better forum lobbyist!QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s. 23 17 46 11 Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:48 PM This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:34 PM 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? I guess you never heard of tough love. rrandb, You will at least ackowledge the fact that sometimes management, irredardless of which business sector they occupy, will continue to tread the path of outdated thinking rather than risk newer ways of thinking. This characteristic becomes more pronounced the more monopolistic a business becomes. There is no intramodal competition there to force BNSF to adapt and change, ergo they will continue to stick to the "long haul is more profitable than shorthaul" mentality. Apparently, they cannot put two different tried and true philosophies side by side to make the discovery that dedicated unit train railroad operations can make shorthauls as profitable (or in this case more profitable) than long haul unit train operations. Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up. Well, this thread has obviously turned into a self-gratification session. However, let me depart what has become pointless with the following: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Of course, the key component missing is that, ordinarily, the cycle times on a 200 mile run are considerably different than the equipment cycle times on a 2200 mile run. TomDiehl believes that the railroad only earns $300, compared to a shipment to Chicago earning $1500. Take it out to a 30 day report and comparable, if hypothetical, performance. The $300 car cycle time of 4 days can earn $2250 in a month. The 2200 mile run offers a car cycle time of, say 22 days, earns only $1500 on the monthly billing cycle, or $2,045 in a 30 day accrual accounting period. This offers that the 200 mile run averages 100 miles per day and the 2200 mile run averages 100 mles a day. Yard dwell time wreaks havoc on short/long comparisons like this, usually a disadvantage to the longer run, but this is a hypothetical to make the point that TomDiehl doesn't understand the proper comparison on a rate, because the amount earned by the railroad is not defined by the rate, but by the accounting period (that's how we count money). It is clear from his comments above he does not understand this. I think we get the picture. Best regards, Michael Sol 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:23 PM 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. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:04 PM 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. Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:51 PM 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 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:38 PM 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............[}:)] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:37 PM 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. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:18 AM 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Average age of operator .... 55.4 ............ 53.7 The age statistic is eye-opening. Sorry group for getting off the subject. Michael, thanks for looking that up. Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:21 AM 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. MONTANA .............YEAR..............2002 ..............1997 Family or individual ..... 22,448 ............21,674 Partnership ................. 2,192 .............2,250 Corporation .............. ...2,730 ..............3,317 Other-cooperative, estate or trust, institutional ......... 500 .............. 391 Average age of operator .... 55.4 ............ 53.7 WASHINGTON STATE Family or individual ........ 30,525 Partnership ..................... 2,280 Corporation, Co-op, etc..... 1,711 Average age of operator .... 52.8 Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:48 AM 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. Michael or Dave, either you guys have a rough idea on this one? Thanks much. Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Monday, December 26, 2005 11:35 PM 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? This just another blantant case of BNSF offering to invest millions of dollars so they can generate more "BAD" press. HUH Wait that wouldn't make sense??? Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, December 26, 2005 11:11 PM 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? Bumper crops are not "constant" or normal. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, December 26, 2005 10:47 PM 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? 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 Monday, December 26, 2005 10:19 PM Bob, notwithstandng my earlier remark, contracts are available, for so long as they are published like a tariff. In the case of a service contract, perfectly legal. However, BNSF a few years ago began offering a "COTS" program -- for a premium, BNSF would guarantee an agreed upon number of cars, on an agreed upon date. Service was so otherwise poor that shippers were participating -- it was a popular program. Service is important to these people. 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? In the case of a service contract, the damages would amount to interest charges on delays. Plaintiff might win, then pay their own attorney fees, after years of litigation. BNSF litigates with a vengeance. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, December 26, 2005 7:23 PM 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? Bob Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, December 26, 2005 6:59 PM 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] FM-You just love to step in it! I was born in The Dalles, OR and spent my first sixteen years in Oregon. My Dad was raised on his fathers apple farm near Yakima. We spent many Christmasses and vactations at my grandfathers farm in the 1950s. My mothers family came from Chinook, MT. Here Grandfather was a development agent for the GN. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 26, 2005 2:26 PM 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] Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Sunday, December 25, 2005 7:25 PM Well I don' t know about that. If we keep our heads about us and I would hope that many of our remarks can be taken as tounge in cheek then we may be okay. I also long for the days when Mr Hill would have ordered rail and track ganges to lay more track (passing sidings), ordered baldwin to stoke the furnacecs( leased power), and more wooden reefers ( well cars and reefer containers) because those growers need him too. I thought Bill Gates was the devil incarnate??? I'm sorry did someone try to insult me. I will apoligise for the blantant name dropping but you drew " FIRST BLOOD." [;)] Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, December 25, 2005 7:07 PM 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 It did. As soon as you and futuremodal started reading the story through your anti-BNSF glasses. 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 Sunday, December 25, 2005 4:16 PM 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 Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:41 PM 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? 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 Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:38 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up. Well, this thread has obviously turned into a self-gratification session. However, let me depart what has become pointless with the following: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Of course, the key component missing is that, ordinarily, the cycle times on a 200 mile run are considerably different than the equipment cycle times on a 2200 mile run. TomDiehl believes that the railroad only earns $300, compared to a shipment to Chicago earning $1500. Take it out to a 30 day report and comparable, if hypothetical, performance. The $300 car cycle time of 4 days can earn $2250 in a month. The 2200 mile run offers a car cycle time of, say 22 days, earns only $1500 on the monthly billing cycle, or $2,045 in a 30 day accrual accounting period. This offers that the 200 mile run averages 100 miles per day and the 2200 mile run averages 100 mles a day. Yard dwell time wreaks havoc on short/long comparisons like this, usually a disadvantage to the longer run, but this is a hypothetical to make the point that TomDiehl doesn't understand the proper comparison on a rate, because the amount earned by the railroad is not defined by the rate, but by the accounting period (that's how we count money). It is clear from his comments above he does not understand this. I think we get the picture. Best regards, Michael Sol Yeah, the picture is that I only understand what I read and don't have hard feelings against the BNSF or any other railroad, so i have a tendency to look at things with an open mind instead of a biggoted one. Of course YOU'RE assuming that the produce traffic is a continuous cycle, which would make your figures a bit more valid. The article doesn't say that any more than it says the traffic from the produce shippers is more than a backup for the trucks. The shippers in their approach to BNSF weren't serious about changing the traffic over to the rails so why should BNSF be any more serious going after a business just to be a backup shipper? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Sunday, December 25, 2005 2:49 PM Or they should hire better forum lobbyist!QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s. 23 17 46 11 Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:48 PM This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s. Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:34 PM 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? I guess you never heard of tough love. rrandb, You will at least ackowledge the fact that sometimes management, irredardless of which business sector they occupy, will continue to tread the path of outdated thinking rather than risk newer ways of thinking. This characteristic becomes more pronounced the more monopolistic a business becomes. There is no intramodal competition there to force BNSF to adapt and change, ergo they will continue to stick to the "long haul is more profitable than shorthaul" mentality. Apparently, they cannot put two different tried and true philosophies side by side to make the discovery that dedicated unit train railroad operations can make shorthauls as profitable (or in this case more profitable) than long haul unit train operations. Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up. Well, this thread has obviously turned into a self-gratification session. However, let me depart what has become pointless with the following: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Of course, the key component missing is that, ordinarily, the cycle times on a 200 mile run are considerably different than the equipment cycle times on a 2200 mile run. TomDiehl believes that the railroad only earns $300, compared to a shipment to Chicago earning $1500. Take it out to a 30 day report and comparable, if hypothetical, performance. The $300 car cycle time of 4 days can earn $2250 in a month. The 2200 mile run offers a car cycle time of, say 22 days, earns only $1500 on the monthly billing cycle, or $2,045 in a 30 day accrual accounting period. This offers that the 200 mile run averages 100 miles per day and the 2200 mile run averages 100 mles a day. Yard dwell time wreaks havoc on short/long comparisons like this, usually a disadvantage to the longer run, but this is a hypothetical to make the point that TomDiehl doesn't understand the proper comparison on a rate, because the amount earned by the railroad is not defined by the rate, but by the accounting period (that's how we count money). It is clear from his comments above he does not understand this. I think we get the picture. Best regards, Michael Sol 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 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 MichaelSol Average age of operator .... 55.4 ............ 53.7
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 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 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 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 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 bobwilcox This thread proves that WA apple growers are either a joke or living in the 1920s.
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 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 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 MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up. Well, this thread has obviously turned into a self-gratification session. However, let me depart what has become pointless with the following: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500. Of course, the key component missing is that, ordinarily, the cycle times on a 200 mile run are considerably different than the equipment cycle times on a 2200 mile run. TomDiehl believes that the railroad only earns $300, compared to a shipment to Chicago earning $1500. Take it out to a 30 day report and comparable, if hypothetical, performance. The $300 car cycle time of 4 days can earn $2250 in a month. The 2200 mile run offers a car cycle time of, say 22 days, earns only $1500 on the monthly billing cycle, or $2,045 in a 30 day accrual accounting period. This offers that the 200 mile run averages 100 miles per day and the 2200 mile run averages 100 mles a day. Yard dwell time wreaks havoc on short/long comparisons like this, usually a disadvantage to the longer run, but this is a hypothetical to make the point that TomDiehl doesn't understand the proper comparison on a rate, because the amount earned by the railroad is not defined by the rate, but by the accounting period (that's how we count money). It is clear from his comments above he does not understand this. I think we get the picture. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL". Re the above, what's the irony? I agree Cementmixr. Isn't it GREAT that we have all these people from the Operating Department of the BNSF that knows intimately what the capabilities and capacities of the railroad are. They should tell all this to their bosses. Or maybe, THEY don't know what they're talking about. When the insults start flying, it's a good indication that their line of BS is being challenged and they have no facts or evidence to back it up.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL". Re the above, what's the irony?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is obvious from this thread that this is something you don't actually know anything about, but enjoy being an armchair critic. By your means of addressing fellow correspondents, you give the distinct impression you were raised without manners. And I get the impression you aren't really looking for any information. You're too busy "LOL".
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500.
23 17 46 11
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.