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

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Stil not impressed that you know anything.

Compared to your vast experience and knowledge, of course not.

And I don't blame you.

Tell us again how railroads began their downhill spiral in the 1970s?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Still no answers? From the man that "knows it all??"

Not surprised.

You claimed the title first.

Then started talking, surrendering all claim to the title.

However, I think the answers are in the article and the historical perspective provided herein as a background to the article. Yes, the background provides answers. BNSF had an opportunity. It passed. The reasons for passing relate to capability. Most corporations do not relate their existing capability to what existed 50 years ago. Railroads do. Therein lies the story.

TomDiehl's contributions have nothing to do with BNSF or the Produce shippers since he finally admits he doesn't know the Railroad's actual situation, and he is obviously not a shipper.

Beyond that, he has demonstrated factual incompetence on nearly every specific topic he himself has initiated. So, what is his contribution to this lengthy thread? Only about himself, his obvious arrogance, and his utter lack of knowledge about this industry.

Oh, and he likes to talk.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I don't know about anybody else but I think it's time to get another beer. Does anybody have the popcorn and pretzels?

[daveklepper]

Can we just have a calm and complete and accurate summary statement from both Michael and Tom as to the facts as both see it without any personal rhetoric? Please?

THANKS!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Stil not impressed that you know anything.

Compared to your vast experience and knowledge, of course not.

And I don't blame you.

Tell us again how railroads began their downhill spiral in the 1970s?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Still no answers? From the man that "knows it all??"

Not surprised.

You claimed the title first.

Then started talking, surrendering all claim to the title.

However, I think the answers are in the article and the historical perspective provided herein as a background to the article. Yes, the background provides answers. BNSF had an opportunity. It passed. The reasons for passing relate to capability. Most corporations do not relate their existing capability to what existed 50 years ago. Railroads do. Therein lies the story.

TomDiehl's contributions have nothing to do with BNSF or the Produce shippers since he finally admits he doesn't know the Railroad's actual situation, and he is obviously not a shipper.

Beyond that, he has demonstrated factual incompetence on nearly every specific topic he himself has initiated. So, what is his contribution to this lengthy thread? Only about himself, his obvious arrogance, and his utter lack of knowledge about this industry.

Oh, and he likes to talk.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Since you like to show off your lack of reading ability, let me try to draw you a map.

Go back to the first page of posts, the fifth entry.

SOMEBODY stated (must not be TomDiehl, he's arrogant) that he interpreted the article in the link differently. He listed these differences.

No one disputed his points.

TomDiehl didn't draw a parallel between capabilites 50 years ago and today. He disputed them.

TomDiehl didn't initiate this post, he disputed the original interpretation of the article.

TomDiehl never claimed to know more about the BNSF or the produce shippers than what was stated in the article.

SOMEONE later in the posts (can't be MichaelSol, he knows everything and has 40 books on his desk, we know because he listed them) claimed to have all kinds of knowledge of the inner workings of the railroads.

You'd think SOMEONE could answer SOMEBODY's post.

The only FACT he's brought out is that noone can explain why the decision of the BNSF to offer no better than the service listed in the article was any less than a good business decision from their point.

Guess SOMEONE doesn't really have any knowledge.

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

I don't know about anybody else but I think it's time to get another beer. Does anybody have the popcorn and pretzels?

Yea, make mine a 40oz.

[Murphy Siding]

Why all this talking in the third person? "Bob Dole does not eat pop tarts."[;)]

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Why all this talking in the third person? "Bob Dole does not eat pop tarts."[;)]

Mabee they are driveing eachother crazy.[;)] Isn't this thread fun.[8D]

[MP173]

I grew tired long ago of discussing the Montana/Washington economic climate, which is a shame, because it is an interesting lesson.

Tom, I feel badly that you got suckered into this, what you have to realize is that anything you say (or write) will be completely twisted and turned around. You will be sent chasing after "data" that doesnt exist.

You will analyze economic data that is supplied to you, only to find that when you break down the numbers and question the questioner, "the data doesnt apply."

You will be treated as a second class citizen because you dont have an MBA, even tho you might possess years of business experience, including negotiations and high level sales.

When you question a statement, the name calling will begin. When you offer a possibility to the existing conditions, you will be dismissed with a comment of having only been a switchman, rather than work in the office of the President of a railroad.

This is a slippery slope which can never be attained, only get muddied.

ed

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

I grew tired long ago of discussing the Montana/Washington economic climate, which is a shame, because it is an interesting lesson.

Tom, I feel badly that you got suckered into this, what you have to realize is that anything you say (or write) will be completely twisted and turned around. You will be sent chasing after "data" that doesnt exist.

You will analyze economic data that is supplied to you, only to find that when you break down the numbers and question the questioner, "the data doesnt apply."

You will be treated as a second class citizen because you dont have an MBA, even tho you might possess years of business experience, including negotiations and high level sales.

When you question a statement, the name calling will begin. When you offer a possibility to the existing conditions, you will be dismissed with a comment of having only been a switchman, rather than work in the office of the President of a railroad.

This is a slippery slope which can never be attained, only get muddied.

ed

So I guess I'm not the ONLY one that noticed this.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

I grew tired long ago of discussing the Montana/Washington economic climate, which is a shame, because it is an interesting lesson.

Tom, I feel badly that you got suckered into this, what you have to realize is that anything you say (or write) will be completely twisted and turned around. You will be sent chasing after "data" that doesnt exist.

You will analyze economic data that is supplied to you, only to find that when you break down the numbers and question the questioner, "the data doesnt apply."

You will be treated as a second class citizen because you dont have an MBA, even tho you might possess years of business experience, including negotiations and high level sales.

When you question a statement, the name calling will begin. When you offer a possibility to the existing conditions, you will be dismissed with a comment of having only been a switchman, rather than work in the office of the President of a railroad.

This is a slippery slope which can never be attained, only get muddied.

ed

Ed, I'm sorry you feel badly about your experiences and now resort , like some, to interrupting threads to dish somebody or another. Not like you, previously.

However,

QUOTE: You will analyze economic data that is supplied to you, only to find that when you break down the numbers and question the questioner, "the data doesnt apply."

You had asked me for an awful lot of data on that thread. While I do sometimes find it interesting that people can't do their own homework, I looked up just about everything you requested. Yeah, you're welcome. Then you launched into a lengthy "analysis" to prove something, I couldn't really tell what. What I could see was that you had plainly mixed the data sets and so arrived at conclusions that simply made no sense. I did not say that the "data did not apply" but that you can't mix data, such as total Montana farm acreage, and total Montana wheat acreage, and use them interchangeably. Not all Montana farms are wheat farms. Far from it. But that was the type of discussion you were having. It was inadvertent on your part, and I did say that I bore some of the burden for that by discussing two separate topic threads at once and, while I did identify the data correctly, I was using them in conjunction with the two separate topics.

Sorry you feel so bitter about your experience that it needs to become part of your ongoing Trains forum character. But, your analysis just mixed things up. Nothing I could do about that. I wasn't quite sure what you were mining so hard for the data in the first place, or what revelation you thought you were making, but , unfortunately, while I am sure it would have been interesting with the proper data, it was just a mishmash as it was, and that was demonstrable on its face by a straightforward reference to the data once I pointed out the differences in that data.

Interesting though, I did not once say I had an MBA. Interesting that somebody made you feel that way. While I did on one occasion note some relevant academic background, I have never discussed my full academic background here, and I'm pretty sure I didn't mention that one.

TomDiehl was "suckered" into this discussion? Now, that is interesting.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

Looks like you drew some of the "fire" yourself Ed.

This from the guy who's first entry on this thread was:

"USC 49, IV, A, Chap 111, Sub 1,
Sec. 11101. Common carrier transportation, service, and rates
(a) A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request. "

Now according to the article, the railroad DID offer service, but the shipper wanted more often or faster service than was offered.

So, how else would this apply to the subject?

Note: this is a repeat of the original question, which led into MichaelSol posting a LOOONNNGG winded blab about grain shippers in North Dakota. I guess they're shipping the grain to Washington state for the produce shippers to put on their trucks. I'm not seeing any other link between the two.

[Anonymous]

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Micheal, if you're a Bible student of any regard, take heed of Mathew 7:6 when trying to reason with Tom.

[TomDiehl]

Dave.

I wondered where you got to.

I don't think he has the Bible on his desk. It certainly wasn't in the long list he posted.

Since we have yet to see any "pearls" from Michael, might I suggest Matthew Chapter 7 verses 9 and/or 10. We've only seen "stones" and "serpents."

He hasn't tried to reason with me at any time, just posted "answers" that had nothing to do with the questions.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Wasn't that the original intention of this thread in the first place? Nothing like turning a small article in a newspaper into a 9 page boxing match over just who it is that should be running railroads. After some of the threads I've seen in the past, there are some here that have no other purpose than creating bizarre, twisted mountains out of insignificant, petty mole hills.


And in the distance, the singing of thousands of steel wheels rolling over cold, hard rail is heard......

[greyhounds]

Oh, I've seen some "Pearls" from Michael.

Let's see, these include.....

1) The Milwaukee Road was in receivership because it had too much business

2) Supply and demand have nothing to do with pricing

3) The BNSF is practicing predatory pricing against the Mississippi River barges from Minneapolis, which given the location of Minneapolis, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, and the competitive railroad situation in Minneapolis -is pretty much impossible. But then the first two are pretty much impossible too.

But don't you dare disagree with the man. He'll look up the per mile maitenance of way expenditures for the Milwaukee and GN from 1950 through 1971, post them, and think it proves something. And then he'll tell you how you shouldn't even bother posting. After all, you disagree with him. How dare you.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Micheal, if you're a Bible student of any regard, take heed of Mathew 7:6 when trying to reason with Tom.

Are you starting to see a pattern deveolping here. Have you made any discoveries about a cause and effect scenario Can any of the main players sum this up or should the verbal diarrea go on and on and on...????[?]. While intertaining it can seem droll. Very Truly your "armchair" critic ENJOY

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Micheal, if you're a Bible student of any regard, take heed of Mathew 7:6 when trying to reason with Tom.

Are you starting to see a pattern deveolping here. Have you made any discoveries about a cause and effect scenario Can any of the main players sum this up or should the verbal diarrea go on and on and on...????[?]. While intertaining it can seem droll. Very Truly your "armchair" critic ENJOY

Well, the title pretty much sums it up, especially the part after the dash.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Are you starting to see a pattern deveolping here.

Yes, there is a pattern that is well defined, and that is one of a certain group of forum participants who seem bent on intentionally trying to force a lockdown, because their arguments fall short and they're only left with obfuscation as a last resort.

Oh well, I'll just keep on posting items of interest relating to railroads, some of which will ruffle some feathers, because the light needs to shine on certain railroad corporate practices that are detrimental to genre I love.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Are you starting to see a pattern deveolping here.

Yes, there is a pattern that is well defined, and that is one of a certain group of forum participants who seem bent on intentionally trying to force a lockdown, because their arguments fall short and they're only left with obfuscation as a last resort.

Oh well, I'll just keep on posting items of interest relating to railroads, some of which will ruffle some feathers, because the light needs to shine on certain railroad corporate practices that are detrimental to genre I love.

Unfortunately for your argument, the "light that being shone" is on the fact that you try to throw a negative spin on even the articles YOU provide the link to read, even introduce your version of "facts" that don't show up anwhere in the article. Especially the ones that relate to a certain railroad that you "don't have a vendetta against, honest."

It seems your arguments are the ones that "fall short" in the verifiable facts department.

[Anonymous]

Don't let the turkeys get you down, Tom.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

Don't let the turkeys get you down, Tom.

I never do. [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Are you starting to see a pattern deveolping here.

Yes, there is a pattern that is well defined, and that is one of a certain group of forum participants who seem bent on intentionally trying to force a lockdown, because their arguments fall short and they're only left with obfuscation as a last resort.

Oh well, I'll just keep on posting items of interest relating to railroads, some of which will ruffle some feathers, because the light needs to shine on certain railroad corporate practices that are detrimental to genre I love.

Unfortunately for your argument, the "light that being shone" is on the fact that you try to throw a negative spin on even the articles YOU provide the link to read, even introduce your version of "facts" that don't show up anwhere in the article. Especially the ones that relate to a certain railroad that you "don't have a vendetta against, honest."

It seems your arguments are the ones that "fall short" in the verifiable facts department.

Well, the article itself takes an upfront negativism regarding BNSF's actions. No spin needed.

And if you think that facts about a railroad company are limited to what is presented in the occasionaly news article, then you are living somewhere in the deepest recesses of the universe.

Gee, Tom. The article says nothing about BNSF having orange and green locomotives, yet I will state that BNSF does. Is that a fact or a "fact"?

The article mentions nothing about which route BNSF uses to get from Quincy to Tacoma, yet I aver that BNSF's route between Quincy and Tacoma goes by way of the Cascade Tunnel. Is that a fact, or is it a "fact"?

The Quincy produce article mentions nothing about the WATCO problems on the Palouse, and the WATCO Palouse article mentions nothing about the Quincy produce problems. So does that mean that neither problem exists in the other article's realm? Heady stuff there, Tom.

You seem to imply that since a posted article fails to mention all relevant facts about BNSF's p.r. problems throughout the Paciric Northwest and the Northern Tier states, such unmentioned facts do not exist. If that's your POV, you're beyond any reasonable help.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Oh well, yet another of my threads in danger of a Bergie Lockdown.

Are you starting to see a pattern deveolping here.

Yes, there is a pattern that is well defined, and that is one of a certain group of forum participants who seem bent on intentionally trying to force a lockdown, because their arguments fall short and they're only left with obfuscation as a last resort.

Oh well, I'll just keep on posting items of interest relating to railroads, some of which will ruffle some feathers, because the light needs to shine on certain railroad corporate practices that are detrimental to genre I love.

Unfortunately for your argument, the "light that being shone" is on the fact that you try to throw a negative spin on even the articles YOU provide the link to read, even introduce your version of "facts" that don't show up anwhere in the article. Especially the ones that relate to a certain railroad that you "don't have a vendetta against, honest."

It seems your arguments are the ones that "fall short" in the verifiable facts department.

Well, the article itself takes an upfront negativism regarding BNSF's actions. No spin needed.

And if you think that facts about a railroad company are limited to what is presented in the occasionaly news article, then you are living somewhere in the deepest recesses of the universe.

Gee, Tom. The article says nothing about BNSF having orange and green locomotives, yet I will state that BNSF does. Is that a fact or a "fact"?

The article mentions nothing about which route BNSF uses to get from Quincy to Tacoma, yet I aver that BNSF's route between Quincy and Tacoma goes by way of the Cascade Tunnel. Is that a fact, or is it a "fact"?

The Quincy produce article mentions nothing about the WATCO problems on the Palouse, and the WATCO Palouse article mentions nothing about the Quincy produce problems. So does that mean that neither problem exists in the other article's realm? Heady stuff there, Tom.

You seem to imply that since a posted article fails to mention all relevant facts about BNSF's p.r. problems throughout the Paciric Northwest and the Northern Tier states, such unmentioned facts do not exist. If that's your POV, you're beyond any reasonable help.

The only so called "evidence" you submitted in this discussion was the article. How the fact that: "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. " hardly sounds negative toward BNSF, especially to the BOD. Why would any business pass over $1500 to pick up $300 and expect to stay in business?

And it doesn't really matter what color locomotive moves the freight over the BNSF. Is this your example of a "pertinent fact?" Or a lame attempt to throw useless info into the discussion? There's 100 cents to a dollar, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? About as much as the color of the locomotives.

The choice of routing for the freight would be the BNSF operating department. Are you saying you know more about moving ALL the trains over the BNSF mainlines than them? Or any knowledge of the trains that already move over them? Or another attempt to throw useless information into the discussion?

Confusing your threads again I see. The WATCO problem is a couple threads back. But that would draw away from your "non-vendetta" against the BNSF.

Would this be one of the "facts from the deepest recesses of the universe?:
"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."
Or if you WERE given an explanation, admiting it here would put another hole in your argument.

What the article implies, and your spin on the "facts" has failed to disprove, is the decision by the BNSF to offer the listed service was anything but a good business decision. And you have also failed to prove that they could offer any better service with the existing rail network, equipment, and current freight contracts.

I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And if you think that facts about a railroad company are limited to what is presented in the occasionaly news article..

First you and Mr. Sol say all the facts we need to know are in the article. And now you say there are not enough facts in the article to understand what's going on.

Round and round we go!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr
First you and Mr. Sol say all the facts we need to know are in the article. And now you say there are not enough facts in the article to understand what's going on.Round and round we go!

I said no such thing.

Please get it right.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

The only so called "evidence" you submitted in this discussion was the article. How the fact that: "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. " hardly sounds negative toward BNSF, especially to the BOD. Why would any business pass over $1500 to pick up $300 and expect to stay in business?

Still stuck on the $300 vs $1500 per container per trip argument? Do you even have any idea what a car cycle is?

QUOTE:
And it doesn't really matter what color locomotive moves the freight over the BNSF. Is this your example of a "pertinent fact?" Or a lame attempt to throw useless info into the discussion? There's 100 cents to a dollar, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? About as much as the color of the locomotives.

So now you know which unmentioned facts are pertinent and which ones are not? Your entire argumentive basis, such as it is, is predicated on your ascertion that if a fact is not mentioned in the specific article posted in this thread, it is not pertinent to the discussion, indeed it's probably made up by ole futuremodal. So BNSF's actions in Eastern Washington have no relation with BNSF's actions in Central Washington, which have no relation with BNSF's actions in Montana, which have no relation to BNSF's actions in the PRB, etc., etc, .etc.

You are indeed the poster child for a rail industry kool-aid drinker, because apparently railroads can do no wrong, even when they do.

QUOTE:
The choice of routing for the freight would be the BNSF operating department. Are you saying you know more about moving ALL the trains over the BNSF mainlines than them? Or any knowledge of the trains that already move over them? Or another attempt to throw useless information into the discussion?

I've considered providing you a brief synopsis of BNSF's routes between eastern and western Washington and the relative usage of those routes, but I think I'll leave that to someone else lest I be accused of making up more stuff. Suffice it to say that BNSF has apparently found a way to add more trains to it's single-tracked with some double-track "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint (via the addition of UP's traffic in the near future), but it can't add a single dedicated train to it's Stevens Pass line, nor it's Stampede Pass line, nor it's Columbia River Gorge line. Hmmm, more traffic on the single and double-tracked bottleneck, but no more traffic on what is an effective triple track that at times can be seen as a quintuple track.

QUOTE:
Confusing your threads again I see. The WATCO problem is a couple threads back. But that would draw away from your "non-vendetta" against the BNSF.

So now referencing a related article to supplement the talking points of the specifc topic article is "confusing" to you? So sorry.

QUOTE:
Would this be one of the "facts from the deepest recesses of the universe?:
"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."
Or if you WERE given an explanation, admiting it here would put another hole in your argument.

If BNSF is so kind as to provide me and the others involved the rational for preventing a third party from arranging more business for BNSF over what is a grossly underutilized line over Stampede Pass, then I will gladly post it barring any confidentiallity agreement prohibitions. Surely there is someone from BNSF's Seattle office who reads this forum and who can provide such information to the public?

QUOTE:
What the article implies, and your spin on the "facts" has failed to disprove, is the decision by the BNSF to offer the listed service was anything but a good business decision. And you have also failed to prove that they could offer any better service with the existing rail network, equipment, and current freight contracts.

Existing rail network - sufficient, since BNSF was able to offer a service that takes twice as long.

Equipment - all but the locomotives and engine crews are provided by the third party.

Current freight contracts - all owned by the truckers, ostensibly the "competition" that BNSF is trying to beat.

QUOTE:
I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there.

No, what you need to do is to stop treating rail corporations as some sort of infallable godhead. Try independent thinking for once in your life, Tom.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

The only so called "evidence" you submitted in this discussion was the article. How the fact that: "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. " hardly sounds negative toward BNSF, especially to the BOD. Why would any business pass over $1500 to pick up $300 and expect to stay in business?

Still stuck on the $300 vs $1500 per container per trip argument? Do you even have any idea what a car cycle is?

The question is, do you? And how many of those "cycles" that they already have on contract for the $1500 per trip. Or how many of these "cycles the produce shippers would be promising them?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

And it doesn't really matter what color locomotive moves the freight over the BNSF. Is this your example of a "pertinent fact?" Or a lame attempt to throw useless info into the discussion? There's 100 cents to a dollar, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? About as much as the color of the locomotives.

So now you know which unmentioned facts are pertinent and which ones are not? Your entire argumentive basis, such as it is, is predicated on your ascertion that if a fact is not mentioned in the specific article posted in this thread, it is not pertinent to the discussion, indeed it's probably made up by ole futuremodal. So BNSF's actions in Eastern Washington have no relation with BNSF's actions in Central Washington, which have no relation with BNSF's actions in Montana, which have no relation to BNSF's actions in the PRB, etc., etc, .etc.

You are indeed the poster child for a rail industry kool-aid drinker, because apparently railroads can do no wrong, even when they do.

No, my entire argument is that it's obvious that this is just another lame attempt to muddy the discussion with facts that you tried unsucessfully to present in other threads on other topics. The only co-relation in any of them is they all involve the BNSF.

At least I'm not the poster child for bigotry. Especially coming from somebody who's feelings are so obvious that they feel the need to add "honestly, I don't have a vendetta against the BNSF" to the title.

Too bad, you have done your best to disprove that part of your own statement.

So exactly how DOES the color of the locomotives relate to this discussion, other than prove the railroad is the "evil BNSF."

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

The choice of routing for the freight would be the BNSF operating department. Are you saying you know more about moving ALL the trains over the BNSF mainlines than them? Or any knowledge of the trains that already move over them? Or another attempt to throw useless information into the discussion?

I've considered providing you a brief synopsis of BNSF's routes between eastern and western Washington and the relative usage of those routes, but I think I'll leave that to someone else lest I be accused of making up more stuff. Suffice it to say that BNSF has apparently found a way to add more trains to it's single-tracked with some double-track "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint (via the addition of UP's traffic in the near future), but it can't add a single dedicated train to it's Stevens Pass line, nor it's Stampede Pass line, nor it's Columbia River Gorge line. Hmmm, more traffic on the single and double-tracked bottleneck, but no more traffic on what is an effective triple track that at times can be seen as a quintuple track.

So you ARE saying you know more about the routing and scheduling of the trains than the Operating Department. I guess the BNSF should hire "Dave the expert."

And to think >I< was accused of being arrogant.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Confusing your threads again I see. The WATCO problem is a couple threads back. But that would draw away from your "non-vendetta" against the BNSF.

So now referencing a related article to supplement the talking points of the specifc topic article is "confusing" to you? So sorry.

It seems YOU'RE the one confused. I'm the one keeping the discussion on track (pun intended).

Of course, I'm sure YOU could tell me how to route that better.