QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl 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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I guess I need to borrow your anti-BNSF glasses to read the article and see the "upfront negativism" in there.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal LOL!
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr First you and Mr. Sol say all the facts we need to know are in the article. I said no such thing. Please get it right. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr First you and Mr. Sol say all the facts we need to know are in the article.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol However, I think the answers are in the article and the historical perspective provided herein as a background to the article.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Yes, the BNSFs need for 100 hour service over the short distance involved, compared to 1) the legal requirement to provide the service, 2) the historical ability of the BNSF to provide a much faster service in the area, 3) railroad complaints of losing business to trucks and 4) an astonishing amount of general publicity that has been generated negative to the BNSF across a wide range of service, rates, shippers groups, over a substantial period of time provdes a "perspective" which is sorely lacking for the gentleman who constantly admits he knows nothing about the matter in the first place, which has not however stopped him from generating ten pages of useless and childish garbage over the original proposition contained in the specific article: more bad publicity for the BNSF. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal (With apologies to Chad Thomas for "borrowing" the following.......) "All hail the Great and Infallable BNSF!" PS - That's Tom second from the right.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under!
QUOTE: Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P]
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] [/quote Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol Yeah, about 10 pages overdue! All of this flaming keeps knoking my trip reports to the second page [V] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 2, 2006 10:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol Now coming from you the "long overdue" is definately an LOL. Run out of "facts" now that Dave has thrown a major monkey wrench into your argument? 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 Monday, January 2, 2006 10:27 PM And the flame war continues.. [xx(] Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Monday, January 2, 2006 11:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under! And why would the asian importers even use BNSF ports if the UP service is twice as fast. ITS NOT!!! I've listened to many arguements and speculation that BNSF has shown a patter of behavior thar deserves BAD press for trying to run a railroad and turn a profit. This debate will be decided by wall street based on the price & divideds of there stock. Rest assured if what you believe is true about BNSF you will be vindicated by there return on investment. While i belive BNSF is not #1 on stock value they have made good inroads since there last merger. If they are incompitent they will be just another fallen flag. Hopefully it will not be more initials and another reycled paint scheme. "rail-bashing" hmmmm if walks like a duck and sounds like a .........[soapbox] as always ENJOY [8D] Reply karldotcom Member sinceFebruary 2005 From: Burbank Junction 195 posts Posted by karldotcom on Monday, January 2, 2006 11:38 PM This reminds me of a thread on another board with a potential customer having 300 boxcars of steel to move from the East Coast to the West Coast and not being able to get an answer from any of the railroads about service. The numbers were simply too small to spend time on when the railroads are bursting at the seams. Are you really going to delay a Z train with 200 or more containers of a regular customer's merchandise to switch Quincy and add some potato cars on the rear? If Quincy were serious they would have to sign a minimum service volume, which I doubt they have the money to do... My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 8, 2006 5:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under! And why would the asian importers even use BNSF ports if the UP service is twice as fast. ITS NOT!!! I've listened to many arguements and speculation that BNSF has shown a patter of behavior thar deserves BAD press for trying to run a railroad and turn a profit. This debate will be decided by wall street based on the price & divideds of there stock. Rest assured if what you believe is true about BNSF you will be vindicated by there return on investment. While i belive BNSF is not #1 on stock value they have made good inroads since there last merger. If they are incompitent they will be just another fallen flag. Hopefully it will not be more initials and another reycled paint scheme. "rail-bashing" hmmmm if walks like a duck and sounds like a .........[soapbox] as always ENJOY [8D] You're a bit confused. The UP service from Central Washington to Puget Sound is for export commodities, whether it is twice as fast as BNSF's reluctant proposal for Quincy shippers is irrelevant to Asian imports to the US. Check BNSF's PR newswire contributions over the months. Lots about improving service for Chinese imports, while at the same time BNSF institutes surcharges on coal and ag (read: domestic) shipments. Yep, that's some red, white, and blue company we have here! And the "tell" won't come from Wall Street, it will come from Pennsylvania Avenue. The spector of re-regulation will continue to hang over the rail industry as long as US voters keep getting screwed to the benefit of Asian *voters*. Reply Edit CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, January 9, 2006 2:20 PM Re-regulation does not have a large enough constituency to be a politically viable concept at this time. Any form of economic nationalism would come in the form of restrictive tariffs on imports, which would result in a trade war, along the lines of the one caused in the 1930's by Smoot-Hawley. The current regime in the Executive Mansion is so incredibly pro-business that re-reg wouldn't come from that source, anyway. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, January 9, 2006 2:27 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Re-regulation does not have a large enough constituency to be a politically viable concept at this time. Any form of economic nationalism would come in the form of restrictive tariffs on imports, which would result in a trade war, along the lines of the one caused in the 1930's by Smoot-Hawley. The current regime in the Executive Mansion is so incredibly pro-business that re-reg wouldn't come from that source, anyway. It espically will not happen when you think about who is loaning us the money to balance the Federal Buget. It's China folks! Bob Reply « First«1234567 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] [/quote Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P] Long overdue. Best regards, Michael Sol
Originally posted by rgroeling Hasn't this flame war...err...thread been locked out yet? [:P]
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Its amazing they are still in business. With the brush you have painted them with i would be very supprised if they stay in business much longer. The managment has them in such a fatal tailspin they will soon be gone. [2c] as always ENJOY Let's put it this way: Asian importers are extremely pleased with the level of service BNSF provides to them. They're not going to let their American cash cow go under! And why would the asian importers even use BNSF ports if the UP service is twice as fast. ITS NOT!!! I've listened to many arguements and speculation that BNSF has shown a patter of behavior thar deserves BAD press for trying to run a railroad and turn a profit. This debate will be decided by wall street based on the price & divideds of there stock. Rest assured if what you believe is true about BNSF you will be vindicated by there return on investment. While i belive BNSF is not #1 on stock value they have made good inroads since there last merger. If they are incompitent they will be just another fallen flag. Hopefully it will not be more initials and another reycled paint scheme. "rail-bashing" hmmmm if walks like a duck and sounds like a .........[soapbox] as always ENJOY [8D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Re-regulation does not have a large enough constituency to be a politically viable concept at this time. Any form of economic nationalism would come in the form of restrictive tariffs on imports, which would result in a trade war, along the lines of the one caused in the 1930's by Smoot-Hawley. The current regime in the Executive Mansion is so incredibly pro-business that re-reg wouldn't come from that source, anyway.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.