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

[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.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

"Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said."

Hmmm, let's see. On a ton/mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per ton/mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per ton/mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation.

This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates, not high end truck rates.

Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar!

Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500.

Must be all that "excess capacity" that exists in your imagination.

C'mon Tom, I know you are not THAT dense! You obviously must be in a constant state of facetiousness.

Aside from the clerical error (wherein "ton/mile" should read just plain "mile", since corrected), there is nothing in that analysis that you cannot understand. The revenue per mile for the desired Washington state service ranges from $1.00 to $1.50, while the revenue per mile for intermodal to Chicago ranges from $0.50 to $0.70 on a net basis. If each cycle is getting constant utilization, the shorthaul would be getting from $40,000 to $60,000 per platform per year ($200 to $300 per container x 100 cycles per year x 2 slots per well), while the long haul is getting $30,000 to $45,000 per platform per year ($1000 to $1500 per container x 15 cycles per year x 2 slots per well).

Now, if the Puget Sound to Chicago double stack was earning revenues both ways, that would make a difference. But it ain't. Most westbound double stacks to Puget Sound are running mostly empties, because as you know, we have a trade deficit with the Pacific Rim, and most of what we do export to the Pacific Rim is in bulk rather than ISO containers. The fact that some ag producers are willing to fill up those otherwise empties with revenue producing freight which the railroads seem to go out of their way to turn down should tell you something about the mentality of our great "American" railroads.

Speaking of dense, how about explaining why the BNSF should give up $1500 in hand revenue to pick up $300, and a $300 that's only a potential income IF the produce growers are disappointed by the truckers again. And where did you get the idea that the produce traffic will be a constant cycle?

So what would be the revenue loaded into the produce containers when they're returned to Eastern Washington?

And then there's something called "backhaul." When those containers get to Chicago (or the final destination) and are unloaded, the empties need to be returned to the point of origin. I guess these will just be piled up at the produce shippers loading point , since they're not cleared for shipping food products. So who would be libel for the delay charges for not returning the containers promptly?

I guess I need to factor in a "non-vendetta" against the BNSF to see your illusions. I guess not hating the BNSF anytime I see the name in print would make me dense in your biggoted mind.

[TomDiehl]

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.,

Gee, I wonder who he's talking about?

[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.,

[rrandb]

Iti s BNSF's inability to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. If they could they would.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
There is not a business in America that has "made it" by slowing its operations down by a factor of ten, reducing its ability to take advantage of opportunities, and aggravating its customers, both real and potential.

Oops, yes there is ...

And there are people that will argue that is a "good" thing.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Slowed down by a factor of ten??? The produce shippers slowed down the sevice on the rails to ZERO when they moved the freight to the trucks. Now they want to move it back and SURPRISE, the railroads have downsized their physical plant and personnel and developed OTHER traffic.

How DARE they not maintain the capacity to haul this freight just in case the produce shippers changed their minds. (sarcastic grin)

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The moral of the story is that the Produce shippers offered the BNSF an "opportunity."

And nowhere is there a hint that it was unprofitable; rather than BNSF claims/admits that it could not deliver the service needed, offering instead something more than ten times slower than what the same railroad's predecessors were able to offer on the same route.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I guess since you're in the Operating Department of the BNSF for this region, I guess you would know what the capacities and the capabilities are for this area better than the rest of us that only read the article. The rest of your comparison, you're just living in the past.

In the days before intermodal was big.

In the days before unit trains were big.

In the days when railroads had more track mileage.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The 100 hour service "offer" underscores both the state of the rail industry, and the reasons that the posters here don't "get it."

Former produce trains and head-end produce service was on the order of 6-8 hours over the same lines and same routes, but with poorer track facilities.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So this means that Amtrak (The only passenger service left) should offer more head end service. And the claim of "poorer track facilities?" What speeds were these tracks rated for then and now?

[rrandb]

I mearly asked if this could be a factor in BNSF being unable to take on additional traffic. No one hauls empty containers for free. That double stack is earning revenues both ways.There is just as much of a demand for the empty containers as there are for loaded ones. I am sure that BNSF at $50 million needs to invest more to keep pace with demand. This could be said of most class 1's that are close to reaching a saturation point with how much traffic they can stand. This is a basic fact and not a problem that is limited to BNSF's managment. This a growing problem for all major lines. I am personelly sad they are not able help reduce the ratio from empty to loaded. I just do not believe the reporter was interected in WHY BNSF could not meet there shipping needs.Do you believe BNSF has excess capacity and is unwilling to market it because they would make more money on loaded containers instead of empties.??? [?]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Could it be the time is ten times longer due to the volume of intermodal traffic now flowing to WA ports the state has invested money in.

Well, is it? What are your numbers to back this up? How has tonnage changed over the years? Are you suggestng that BNSF has not made the commensurate investment to keep pace with the demand?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

"Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said."

Hmmm, let's see. On a ton/mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per ton/mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per ton/mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation.

This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates, not high end truck rates.

Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar!

Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500.

Must be all that "excess capacity" that exists in your imagination.

C'mon Tom, I know you are not THAT dense! You obviously must be in a constant state of facetiousness.

Aside from the clerical error (wherein "ton/mile" should read just plain "mile", since corrected), there is nothing in that analysis that you cannot understand. The revenue per mile for the desired Washington state service ranges from $1.00 to $1.50, while the revenue per mile for intermodal to Chicago ranges from $0.50 to $0.70 on a net basis. If each cycle is getting constant utilization, the shorthaul would be getting from $40,000 to $60,000 per platform per year ($200 to $300 per container x 100 cycles per year x 2 slots per well), while the long haul is getting $30,000 to $45,000 per platform per year ($1000 to $1500 per container x 15 cycles per year x 2 slots per well).

Now, if the Puget Sound to Chicago double stack was earning revenues both ways, that would make a difference. But it ain't. Most westbound double stacks to Puget Sound are running mostly empties, because as you know, we have a trade deficit with the Pacific Rim, and most of what we do export to the Pacific Rim is in bulk rather than ISO containers. The fact that some ag producers are willing to fill up those otherwise empties with revenue producing freight which the railroads seem to go out of their way to turn down should tell you something about the mentality of our great "American" railroads.

[Anonymous]

I'm still chuckling over FM's "railroad kool-aid drinker" remark.

But, yes, I get it now. Maybe this thread was not intended as a vendetta against BNSF, but more of a way to point out the fact that there is a problem with not only the current management of said railroad, but a basic misunderstanding of the railroads future role in a globalizing economy. Pointing out short comings of railroad management in no way implies hatred for the industry.

Moreover, I think conclusions might have been drawn because of the atmosphere of this forum. Some need to realize that posters here come from all walks of life, and all have a right to post whatever view they have of a topic (within forum rules of course) without fear of some self proclaimed proffessor of railroad economics, demeaning them. It would be nice, just once, to see someone learn something on this forum, instead of being treated like some kind of second class citizen for being a little hard-headed or misinformed. Some of the best leaders come from the very bottom of the pile.

[rrandb]

Could it be the time is ten times longer due to the volume of intermodal traffic now flowing to WA ports the state has invested money in. It is unrealistic to compare apples to oranges. You seeem to imply that BNSF does not want the business and that would require an investigation by stock holders as they would be guilty of finacial irresponsibilty.

[MichaelSol]

The 100 hour service "offer" underscores both the state of the rail industry, and the reasons that the posters here don't "get it."

Former produce trains and head-end produce service was on the order of 6-8 hours over the same lines and same routes, but with poorer track facilities.

When Milwaukee was approached by Yellow Freight to offer expedited service, Chicago-Twin Cities, Milwaukee jumped at the opportunity -- on an 8 hour schedule, 414 miles -- with a total cycle time of 20 hours. It was profitable. It brought the "evil" truck traffic back to the rails.

The moral of the story is that the Produce shippers offered the BNSF an "opportunity."

And nowhere is there a hint that it was unprofitable; rather than BNSF claims/admits that it could not deliver the service needed, offering instead something more than ten times slower than what the same railroad's predecessors were able to offer on the same route.

There is not a business in America that has "made it" by slowing its operations down by a factor of ten, reducing its ability to take advantage of opportunities, and aggravating its customers, both real and potential.

Oops, yes there is ...

And there are people that will argue that is a "good" thing.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So it is clear what BNSF wants is to absolve itself of liability if the normal 4 day cycle is delayed up to an 8 day cycle. This shows two things: (1) the 4 day cycle is paramount to the produce guys, it is an inflexible time window due to the characteristics of the product in question, and (2) apparently BNSF can offer a twice a week schedule some of the time, so it's not even a question of BNSF having no interest in the business, rather it's an example of BNSF wanting the right to disregard the business at random times through the year, perhaps when those Asian imports are a callin'.

What's clear to the rest of us without the "BNSF vendetta" is that the railroad offered their best service availability. The shippers weren't satisfied. So why do they want to cry to the media instead of just staying with the current shippers?

I've also notice that you have conceeded to my original analysis of the article. At least you've shown SOME judgement.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Regarding the 4 day vs 8 day cycle debate, the article states this:

"Trains would run twice a week, but it could take up to 100 hours for produce to reach the Tacoma port."

From this, it is clear to all that BNSF wants a potential cycle time of up to 200 hours, since the one way trip may need 100 hours "to reach the Tacoma port". Only a railroad kool-aid drinker would assume this particular sentence pertaining to the 100 hour statement means a maximum 100 hour/4 day cycle time, because that would mean the produce was originating in Tacoma, with 50 hours out to Quincy and 50 hours back. Tom and rrandb may not be able to grasp this simple math, but most of the rest of us can, even with the occasional typo.

So there's only one trainset and container set that will be providing this service? Who is providing the containers and cars? More of the "excess capacity and equipment" that BNSF has in your imagination? The lack of "ability to grasp simple math" seems to be yours. Math require REAL figures. Like adding the potential dwell time in the yard or siding waiting for the "twice a week train." The other question, why do we multiply BNSF's figure of 100 hour service by two and not the shipper's number of 4 days by two? Maybe you need to quit mixing that "funny sugar" with your kool-aid.

Actually, most of the rest of us think you should go back and remove the "Honestly, I don't have a vendetta against BNSF" from the title. With every post, you're proving that to be wrong.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

"Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said."

Hmmm, let's see. On a ton/mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per ton/mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per ton/mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation.

This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates, not high end truck rates.

Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar!

Funny how you can make $300 sound like more than $1500. That must be the new math. ALL industry, not just railroads, look at the bottom line, not a short term profit that you're looking at. Only so many trains will be able to run over that one section of track. So they should just terminate all that traffic from Chicago at the produce shippers doorstep and pick up theirs? More like tripping over $300 to pick up $1500.

Must be all that "excess capacity" that exists in your imagination.

[rrandb]

It appears that BNSF was very responsible in not making promises to produce shippers they feel they would be unable to deliver on. That would have been a good reason to "bash" BNSFand I will be the first to get on board. TOFC and intermodal are the two fastest growing areas of rail traffic but it must be logistaclly feassable for both shipper and railroad. Not just one or the other. I hope this is polite enough not to offend anyone. Signed "armchair critic". [2c]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Oh good grief. Lou Menk personally offered me my first job in the rail industry, August 18, 1969. There, you've name-dropped, I've name-dropped. What does it have to do with the conversation?

"...BNSF bend the limitations of the physical plant?"

The point first made was, it seems clear to me, to point out what is simply a small example of a continuing set of shipper-related problems, across multiple important industries, regarding rate unfairness and service breakdowns, in an industry which has spent more on phyiscal plant at any time in our history, and what that industry has to show for it in terms of the kind of productivity that railroads ostensibly exist to provide: service.

Washington State's produce shippers are a drop in the bucket. So's the canary in the coal mine.

The "100 hour service" promise is so historically discordant with service previously provided to these shippers and those similarly placed, it is almost beyond comprehension. As the physical plant gets more expensive, and more expensive to maintain, service keeps declining.

An opportunity arose to address a specific problem, frequently identified by railroads as something "unfair" namely competition by the trucking industry.

Here was a chance to show the merits of the railroad case.

They couldn't/wouldn't do it.

They acknowledged that notwithstanding billions and billions of dollars of investment , they cannot offer the service to shippers they offered sixty years ago in the days of jointed track and steam power.

The point of the article, which has been blown way out of proportion by the usual process of sarcasm and distortion common on these threads is that yet another opportunity was dropped, by an industry that insists on its credibility when it comes to claims that it is service oriented and developing a "responsive" structural and organizational combination of assets when, in fact, it seemingly goes out of its way to shoot itself in the foot and prove the opposite.

That's the point of both the historical context, and current examples of rate and service discriminations: by any standard of comparison, historical or modern, a strong case can be made that the railroad industry cannot manage its franchise: the operation of the national rail system. Now, whether that case is true or not is beside the point: Congress rarely reaches ultimate truths, it deals with popular perceptions.

What Futuremodal was pointing out is that this is yet another in a long string of examples, across multiple industries, by small shippers as well as big shippers, that the needs of the rail industry are not being met by the existing railroad companies. In this particular case, the service offered to the shippers seemed almost pointedly designed to get bad publicity by its offer of service so patently ridiculous.

The problem that Futuremodal points to is that these complaints, from shippers small and large, sound inordinately like the complaints raised that ultimately caused the regulation of the railroad industry in the first place.

And the arguments raised in the defense of the railroads sound identical to the arrogant and even irrational arguments offered then by the self-appointed defenders of the rail industry.

Well, who lost that debate?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Easy one, the produce shippers lost the debate. The BNSF, or any other railroad, is not in the business of proving any points, they're in the business of providing transportation AT A PROFIT. According to the linked article, BNSF did offer service, even though the produce shippers admitted that the rail service would be an option or "saftey valve" if the truckers slipped up again. You quote the "100 hour" service offer in the article, but no mention of the shipping time on the older trains. Heck, I'd like to travel the 50 miles to work in a half hour. So what if Interstate 80 is clogged with traffic at that point in time. So what if a railroad hasn't provided this service for years. I'll just ask the BNSF to do it for me and cry to the media when I don't get my way. I fail to see how that is different than what the produce shippers want done.

What your entire comparison has ignored in trying to compare the situation now and in the past, is the fact that railroads fell out of favor and lost a large market share to the trucks, starting after WWII. In response to this loss, the railroads cut back what property and other assets they had to still maintain a profit with the reduced business. Choose any 20th century, pre-WWII date and compare the US rail mileage to that of today. It's a bit less, to say the least.

The whole point of this being a shipper related problem, in this case, is also laughable. The BNSF isn't handling this freight now so the produce shippers aren't a customer. The railroads didn't go after this freight because they know their capacities and capabilities with the current network. To refuse the higher profit (Chicago to west coast) traffic in favor of the shorter haul, lower profit (across Washington State) traffic will give them LESS money to invest in the improvement of their network. The sudden demand for what amounts to a priority rail service wasn't there for the railroad to plan for it, according to the article, it showed up 6 months ago. Sorry to inform you of this, but the railroad will need a bit more than 6 or 8 months to make improvements to their physical plant. Ordering cars and locomotives requires more lead time than that.

I guess the BNSF should have used their crystal ball to predict this and convince investors to fund this expansion so they could handle the traffic that just MIGHT show up on their doorstep.

The only thing that futuremodal has pointed out, time and again, is that in spite of the title, he DOES have an anti-BNSF agenda. Whether this is based on lack of knowledge of the realities of the railroad industry, or being burnt in a dealing with them (hinted in the opening post) remains to be seen.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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

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

That, two.
200?

$200 maybe.[%-)]

The "200" figure is a typo on my part. It should read "100 hour" window. I have gone back and edited in the right figure.

Regarding the 4 day vs 8 day cycle debate, the article states this:

"Trains would run twice a week, but it could take up to 100 hours for produce to reach the Tacoma port."

From this, it is clear to all that BNSF wants a potential cycle time of up to 200 hours, since the one way trip may need 100 hours "to reach the Tacoma port". Only a railroad kool-aid drinker would assume this particular sentence pertaining to the 100 hour statement means a maximum 100 hour/4 day cycle time, because that would mean the produce was originating in Tacoma, with 50 hours out to Quincy and 50 hours back. Tom and rrandb may not be able to grasp this simple math, but most of the rest of us can, even with the occasional typo.

So it is clear what BNSF wants is to absolve itself of liability if the normal 4 day cycle is delayed up to an 8 day cycle. This shows two things: (1) the 4 day cycle is paramount to the produce guys, it is an inflexible time window due to the characteristics of the product in question, and (2) apparently BNSF can offer a twice a week schedule some of the time, so it's not even a question of BNSF having no interest in the business, rather it's an example of BNSF wanting the right to disregard the business at random times through the year, perhaps when those Asian imports are a callin'.

The other item of note:

"Cardwell said BNSF is more concerned with booking "long-haul" freight from the Midwest than short hauls of regional commodities. "They would get $200 to $300 a move for us and $1,000 to $1,500 to Chicago," he said."

Hmmm, let's see. On a revenue per mile basis, that comes to $1.00 to $1.50 per mile for the shorthaul freight, while only $0.50 to $0.70 per mile for the long haul. Since it is the 3PI and the ports who are doing all the legwork and gruntwork, if BNSF is getting the same relative car mileage utilization per year, they'd be making twice as much revenue on the shorthaul as the long haul. Again, this isn't carload freight with all the inherent switching and shunting costs, it's unit train operation.

This idea that long haul is more profitable than short haul doesn't fly when terminal costs have been mitigated on the railroad's behalf. And the reason BNSF could make more on this shorthaul intermodal than the long haul intermodal is that they only have to compete with trucking rates on the shorthaul to Puget Sound, while on the long haul they are competing with other railroads. And yet, the only dedicated shorthaul service BNSF is offering right now in the PNW is the Ritzville grain shuttle to the lower Columbia River ports, which is having to compete with the lowest of the low barge rates (at $0.02 per ton mile), not high end truck rates (at $0.10 per ton mile).

Talk about an extreme example of Ed "Ilk" B's tripping over a $1000 pile of money to pick up a dollar!

[MichaelSol]

Oh good grief. Lou Menk personally offered me my first job in the rail industry, August 18, 1969. There, you've name-dropped, I've name-dropped. What does it have to do with the conversation?

"...BNSF bend the limitations of the physical plant?"

The point first made was, it seems clear to me, to point out what is simply a small example of a continuing set of shipper-related problems, across multiple important industries, regarding rate unfairness and service breakdowns, in an industry which has spent more on physical plant at any time in our history, and what that industry has to show for it in terms of the kind of productivity that railroads ostensibly exist to provide: service.

Washington State's produce shippers are a drop in the bucket. So's the canary in the coal mine.

The "100 hour service" promise is so historically discordant with service previously provided to these shippers and those similarly placed, it is almost beyond comprehension. As the physical plant gets more expensive, and more expensive to maintain, service keeps declining.

An opportunity arose to address a specific problem, frequently identified by railroads as something "unfair" namely competition by the trucking industry.

Here was a chance to show the merits of the railroad case.

They couldn't/wouldn't do it.

They acknowledged that notwithstanding billions and billions of dollars of investment , they cannot offer the service to shippers they offered sixty years ago in the days of jointed track and steam power.

The point of the article, which has been blown way out of proportion by the usual process of sarcasm and distortion common on these threads is that yet another opportunity was dropped, by an industry that insists on its credibility when it comes to claims that it is service oriented and developing a "responsive" structural and organizational combination of assets when, in fact, it seemingly goes out of its way to shoot itself in the foot and prove the opposite.

That's the point of both the historical context, and current examples of rate and service discriminations: by any standard of comparison, historical or modern, a strong case can be made that the railroad industry cannot manage its franchise: the operation of the national rail system. Now, whether that case is true or not is beside the point: Congress rarely reaches ultimate truths, it deals with popular perceptions.

What Futuremodal was pointing out is that this is yet another in a long string of examples, across multiple industries, by small shippers as well as big shippers, that the needs of the rail industry are not being met by the existing railroad companies. In this particular case, the service offered to the shippers seemed almost pointedly designed to get bad publicity by its offer of service so patently ridiculous.

The problem that Futuremodal points to is that these complaints, from shippers small and large, sound inordinately like the complaints raised that ultimately caused the regulation of the railroad industry in the first place.

And the arguments raised in the defense of the railroads sound identical to the arrogant and even irrational arguments offered then by the self-appointed defenders of the rail industry.

Well, who lost that debate?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

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

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

Best regards, Michael Sol

So rrandb, I guess the answer is no, he's not going to share this "information" with us, whether it exists or not.

Of course, he's ready with the insults if you don't agree with him and his "secret information."

Michael, we ALL are looking for information, so where is it?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

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

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

The railroad lost the traffic.

The railroad had a chance to get it back.

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

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

They could get that traffic back.

It is high revenue freight.

Opportunity knocked.

The Railroad did not open the door.

Clear?

Best regards, Michael Sol

You skipped a few steps here Michael:

After "The railroad lost the traffic"

The railroad developed other traffic

Since there was less demand for rail service, the railroad shrunk the network because it was too expensive to keep maintaining an underused network

Then "the railroad had a chance to get it back" but as a backup for the trucks hauling the freight currently.

The railroad opened the door.

The railroad made the best offer they could with the current size network and the traffic potential.

The shipper felt this offer was unsatisfactory.

The shipper got the media to write the article.

The railroad closed the door.

I guess they just didn't want "high revenue freight" that would only show up if the produce shippers had the trucking cut off, like the rockslide did.

Now, if the shippers had approached the BNSF with the possibility of taking all the freight from the trucks, they may have stood a better chance, and received a better offer.

The produce trains back in the early 1900's were effective because they easily beat out the trucks, mainly because trucks and roads at the time were primative and unreliable, if they existed at all.

BTW, what was the cycle time for these trains back in the early 1900's?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

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

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

The railroad lost the traffic.

The railroad had a chance to get it back.

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

Best regards, Michael Sol

"8 Day cycle time???" This is taking on the life of a real fish story, it gets longer every time the story is told.

[rrandb]

Mr Sol , I am sorry. Where are my manners. I believe this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I did not enjoy dinner on The Southern Railways Buisness car #1 followed by stimulating conversation with Mr Carter president of said road if I had been raised without manners. I can think of nothing I enjoy more than intelligent and stimulatting conversation. Who do you beleive I am being critical of. Produce shippers in WA who would have BNSF bend the limitations of there physical plant to suit there needs??? [?] I think BNSF has been very up front with these shippers and for that they get bad press both in WA and here..[2c]

[Anonymous]

Maybe BNSF knows something none of us know.

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

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

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

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

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

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

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

Best regards, Michael Sol

[rrandb]

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

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

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

Yes.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[rrandb]

How is offering 2 trains and 100 hr service an 8 day cycle. Are you using some sort of information that I can not see in the article. Is there a special math I am not aware of. The service they "lost" was not intermodal export to the Pacific Rim. I think this could be considered "new". I do not remember intermodal export during steam.??? [?] Did you mean the produce trains that were domestic. !!! I remember that this was endemic to all railroads and not a BNSF issue.!!![2c]