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

[jeaton]

There is so very little in the article, it could hardly be called the "whole" story. Granted many years ago, but having been involved in setting up specialized, just for one customer, train services, I can say that it takes much more than "OK, we can do that", even if there very good bucks in the deal.

Looking at this story on the surface, it very much appears that the shippers have the attitude the the freight railroads must do anything they are asked to do, without regard to revenue adequacy. To me that is like telling GM they must sell Cadillacs at Chevrolet prices.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Tom --- you're not supposed to understand the math. It's "new math" where 2+2=anything you want it to. The complainers are trying to tag someone else for their short commings, in this case the produce boys are trying to tag the BN.

Reminds me of a sign we have hanging at the lab I work:

"Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part."

BNSF should send this to the produce growers, to put their complaints in perspective.

[kenneo]

Tom --- you're not supposed to understand the math. It's "new math" where 2+2=anything you want it to. The complainers are trying to tag someone else for their short commings, in this case the produce boys are trying to tag the BN.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

I think the most interesting part of the article states how shippers where caught putting their eggs in one basket by using the trucking industry. After November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic, they suddenly realized the importance of rail as an "alternative" solution. Now they want to suddenly hype BNSF's response as unreasonable. Sounds to me as if BNSF felt like they were being treated as some kind of transportation "safety valve" when shippers are caught with their pants down.

Anyway, they said they needed 4 day service. That is 96 hours. BNSF came back with a quote of 100hrs or 4.16 days. That's a 4 hour difference. Granted, produce is a time sensitive commodity, but come on. Especially when the stuff is probably taking the slow boat to China, anyway? There has to be more than meets the eyes here.

NS2317,

I admit it is sometimes hard to discern what these reporters are trying to say, and I do wish such articles would be put out by professional transportation writers rather than these cub reporters, but that being said....

I believe the "4 day service" in the article refers to rail service being made available every four days e.g. that would be a four day cycle for a dedicated train, two days over and two days back. I think 48 hours is about the minimum time produce shippers can accept before their stuff is subject to rejection dockside. That being said, is there any reason a dedicated train can't run on a 30 hour cycle time on such a short corridor? It's close to being a single crew district between Quincy and Seattle, why can't these trains run 10 hours over, 10 hours to unload the outbound containers and reload the empties, and 10 hours back? 10 hours between Quincy and Seattle is only 20 miles per hour in transit time, less than the standard 25 mph *required*[}:)] by the Class I's.

The article seems quite clear to everybody else reading it. Sorry it doesn't fit the agenda of your "non-vendetta."

Twice a week would be an average of 3-1/2 days between trains. One train every four days would be even less often. Not following the math here.

[petervonb]

We are talking of intra-state shipments here. Are there any Washington State regulations that BNSF might be concerned about?

[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.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

One other factor is that ship schedules are less reliable than Railroad schedules. I presume that the shippers wait until they know the ship is in port in LA and then ship their produce to Tacoma to meet the ship. Which means that they won't be shipping on any kind of regular schedule, but will give the railroad a short notification of their need and then expect the railroad to have a train ready.

I have to disagree with that premise, because there is more than enough wiggle room in the proposed cycle window to compensate, and variances in coastwise shipping schedules would more affect inbound ETA's to Tacoma and Seattle rather than outbound departure times from Puget Sound.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The title of the article is " Quincy, Tacoma rail time growing". What you posted is taken out of the article and could be considered as old fashioned "RAIL BASHING" whether its BNSF or anyother railroad. I hardly consider the few quotes from this reporter BNSF's side of the story.

The forum entry could be considered railbashing, the article in the link was pretty well balanced. See my analysis of it above. I simply read it with an open mind.

Tom ..I am not reffering to your reply but the original post It seems to have a very anti-railroad tilt to it.

rrandb,

Please explain why you feel that criticism of a railroad is "anti-railroad". If I was anti-railroad why do I want more railroads to be built here in the U.S.? If anything, I'm more pro-railroad than most railroads!

[rrandb]

I noticed in the original story the two types of produce mentioned are potatoes and apples. These would hardly be considered "perisables" if the can be shipped by sea. Based on this type of produce the shipping time of BNSF is not going to be the issue. There is another issue that is not made clear in the original post. [2c]

[beaulieu]

One other factor is that ship schedules are less reliable than Railroad schedules. I presume that the shippers wait until they know the ship is in port in LA and then ship their produce to Tacoma to meet the ship. Which means that they won't be shipping on any kind of regular schedule, but will give the railroad a short notification of their need and then expect the railroad to have a train ready.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One question needs to be asked of the shippers. Do they intend to use BNSF on a regular basis or only when truck service is unavailable? I can't see BNSF (or any other carrier) investing in facilities that shippers will only use on a very occasional basis.

Paul, you must be joking!! Use on a REGULAR basis??? Get real. The article quotes the shippers rep as saying that the railroad looked like it might be an alternative.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

One question needs to be asked of the shippers. Do they intend to use BNSF on a regular basis or only when truck service is unavailable? I can't see BNSF (or any other carrier) investing in facilities that shippers will only use on a very occasional basis.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The title of the article is " Quincy, Tacoma rail time growing". What you posted is taken out of the article and could be considered as old fashioned "RAIL BASHING" whether its BNSF or anyother railroad. I hardly consider the few quotes from this reporter BNSF's side of the story.

The forum entry could be considered railbashing, the article in the link was pretty well balanced. See my analysis of it above. I simply read it with an open mind.

Tom ..I am not reffering to your reply but the original post It seems to have a very anti-railroad tilt to it.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The title of the article is " Quincy, Tacoma rail time growing". What you posted is taken out of the article and could be considered as old fashioned "RAIL BASHING" whether its BNSF or anyother railroad. I hardly consider the few quotes from this reporter BNSF's side of the story.

The forum entry could be considered railbashing, the article in the link was pretty well balanced. See my analysis of it above. I simply read it with an open mind.

[rrandb]

The title of the article is " Quincy, Tacoma rail time growing". What you posted is taken out of the article and could be considered as old fashioned "RAIL BASHING" whether its BNSF or anyother railroad. I hardly consider the few quotes from this reporter BNSF's side of the story.

[kenneo]

I find the BN a bid difficult to understand. I well remember the time about 10 years ago when I was placed in charge of creating an intermodal service from the short line I was employed by to Seattle with a direct connection with the BN.

The shipper had what is known as "dead freight" (not perishable or hazardous) that was not time sensitive, but did have to be given its international inspection at the point of origin, loaded directly into international standard containers and transported to its international destination (Asia) "in bond". No special service was needed or even wanted - just treat the cars with their containers as if they were box cars.

This was overhead traffic for the BN - no additional investment on their part was required or wanted. Just haul the stuff with the box cars. Oh, no, says BN. They required us to operate a special intermodal schedule DAILY (for a tri-weekly RR), they would then operate a dedicated intermodal train to make the interchange, and then run an additional train for this traffic from Portland to Seattle.

Do you think that the BN traffic folks could be made to understand that this traffic was no different than lumber or plywood or paper or coal or empty tank cars? That special dedicated service for a maximum train length of 1 car was overkill?

Perhaps it's that the service issues for the WACTO line, the fruit growers and my "dead freight" were not BN's ideas? (It's my ball. We will play by my rules. I will always win and never lose. Otherwise, I take my ball and go home.) In the past 15 years, the BN has shot themselves in the foot so many times I'm still suprised they have any feet left.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

It is very dificult to make an informed opinion when you have only one side of the story.

Well, the writer does allow BNSF spokesperson Gus Melonas to tell BNSF's side of the story, so that contention is askew.

Really, I do not go out of my way to find anti-BNSF articles, rather they just pop up on the region's news websites on a regular basis. I almost wish some newspaper would write a disparaging news item about UP or one of the area's shortlines, just so I could be "fair" to BNSF supporters.

But there aren't any.

If you jump down to Texas:

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52574

[TomDiehl]

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.

Well, maybe not a vendetta, but at least a basis for hard feelings.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

It is very dificult to make an informed opinion when you have only one side of the story.

Well, the writer does allow BNSF spokesperson Gus Melonas to tell BNSF's side of the story, so that contention is askew.

Really, I do not go out of my way to find anti-BNSF articles, rather they just pop up on the region's news websites on a regular basis. I almost wish some newspaper would write a disparaging news item about UP or one of the area's shortlines, just so I could be "fair" to BNSF supporters.

But there aren't any.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

I think the most interesting part of the article states how shippers where caught putting their eggs in one basket by using the trucking industry. After November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic, they suddenly realized the importance of rail as an "alternative" solution. Now they want to suddenly hype BNSF's response as unreasonable. Sounds to me as if BNSF felt like they were being treated as some kind of transportation "safety valve" when shippers are caught with their pants down.

Anyway, they said they needed 4 day service. That is 96 hours. BNSF came back with a quote of 100hrs or 4.16 days. That's a 4 hour difference. Granted, produce is a time sensitive commodity, but come on. Especially when the stuff is probably taking the slow boat to China, anyway? There has to be more than meets the eyes here.

NS2317,

I admit it is sometimes hard to discern what these reporters are trying to say, and I do wish such articles would be put out by professional transportation writers rather than these cub reporters, but that being said....

I believe the "4 day service" in the article refers to rail service being made available every four days e.g. that would be a four day cycle for a dedicated train, two days over and two days back. I think 48 hours is about the minimum time produce shippers can accept before their stuff is subject to rejection dockside. That being said, is there any reason a dedicated train can't run on a 30 hour cycle time on such a short corridor? It's close to being a single crew district between Quincy and Seattle, why can't these trains run 10 hours over, 10 hours to unload the outbound containers and reload the empties, and 10 hours back? 10 hours between Quincy and Seattle is only 20 miles per hour in transit time, less than the standard 25 mph *required*[}:)] by the Class I's.

[TomDiehl]

To take the opposite side of the discussion, the way I read this:

Note: the parts below in quotes are cut and paste from the linked article.

#1
“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.

They make more on the other traffic. Simple economics

#2
“Gus Melonas, BNSF's Seattle spokesman, said the company has invested $50 million to improve tracks in the state, is running record volumes of freight and has hired a significant number of employees to meet added demands.

They’re already running at or near capacity. And working to increase it.

#3
"We need to have a dedicated train and there is no way to provide a reliable service with a service plan that is 100 hours," he said. "The freight needs to be there the day before (the ship leaves). If it is not there it has to wait a week."

A little quick math, the freight could easily log up to 84 hours dwell time in the yard waiting for the “twice a week” train.

#4
“The importance of the rail service was evident in November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic.
"When the pass closed in November, shippers were caught flat-footed and they realized rail service is a good alternative, a good backup plan," Boss said. "But right now what we have is very erratic service."
Loveland said regular service is imperative and would help ease highway traffic. "We have all our eggs in one basket," she said. "We need to expand our modes of transportation."

Now this makes it sound like the desire for rail service is recent, meaning BNSF didn’t have their crystal ball working. By “having all their eggs in one basket,” I believe he means trucks.

#5
“Pat Boss, spokesman for the Port of Quincy, said BNSF's letter was "baffling."
He said there was a conference call 10 days ago that included Agriculture Director Valoria Loveland, other state officials and railroad officials.
"We made it clear that we needed at the very most a four-day service for perishable products, and what they came back with was a lot more than that," Boss said. “

BNSF is being honest with the potential customer as to what they can provide as far as service for this new rail freight traffic.

#6
“Our taxpayers are paying a lot of money to keep rail lines and the infrastructure in the state in working order, but the railroad is saying, 'We are going to go through your state but not going to stop and pick up potatoes and apples.' "

Now notice in point #2 above that BNSF is investing $50 million, but the state’s “taxpayers are paying a lot of money.” Is $50 million more than “a lot?” Is any of this “lot” being given to BNSF. If so, with what stipulations?

#7
"I would hope as a state that the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, which were originally established to transport regional freight, would support expanding and improving efficiency for Washington's ag commodities," he said. "After all, they are getting tax money from the state to do the expansion."

Here, it sounds like the ports are getting the investment, but the problem is between the loading points and the ports.

BNSF is “drawing ire of Washington produce shippers” because they suddenly want to shift their freight to the rails? Do they think the BNSF, or any railroad, has extra capacity just sitting there waiting for them to suddenly decide they want rail service?

What would REALLY be bad press would be for BNSF to accept time sensitive freight which exceeds their capacity and not be able to deliver it on time.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2317

I think the most interesting part of the article states how shippers where caught putting their eggs in one basket by using the trucking industry. After November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic, they suddenly realized the importance of rail as an "alternative" solution. Now they want to suddenly hype BNSF's response as unreasonable. Sounds to me as if BNSF felt like they were being treated as some kind of transportation "safety valve" when shippers are caught with their pants down.

Anyway, they said they needed 4 day service. That is 96 hours. BNSF came back with a quote of 100hrs or 4.16 days. That's a 4 hour difference. Granted, produce is a time sensitive commodity, but come on. Especially when the stuff is probably taking the slow boat to China, anyway? There has to be more than meets the eyes here.

I have to tell ya, they want the stuff ASAP.

I have hauled out of there and frankly the schedules are draconian with recievers that extremly get irate and dance with rage if your average speed drops too much during transit.

Im pretty sure they can probably get together and establish a railroad to get the stuff closer to where the trucking is rather than have the truckers fight the mountains for 6 hours to get to Yakima or similar.

How bout them apples eh?

[Anonymous]

I think the most interesting part of the article states how shippers where caught putting their eggs in one basket by using the trucking industry. After November when a rockslide closed Snoqualmie Pass traffic, they suddenly realized the importance of rail as an "alternative" solution. Now they want to suddenly hype BNSF's response as unreasonable. Sounds to me as if BNSF felt like they were being treated as some kind of transportation "safety valve" when shippers are caught with their pants down.

Anyway, they said they needed 4 day service. That is 96 hours. BNSF came back with a quote of 100hrs or 4.16 days. That's a 4 hour difference. Granted, produce is a time sensitive commodity, but come on. Especially when the stuff is probably taking the slow boat to China, anyway? There has to be more than meets the eyes here.

[rrandb]

It is very dificult to make an informed opinion when you have only one side of the story. I seriously doubt BNSF has decided they have too much money and we just don't need anymore.

[Anonymous]

.......but you gotta admit they sure do go out of their way to manufacture negative press for themselves regarding their actions in the Pacific Northwest and the Northern Tier states these last ten or so years!

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/business/story/7300799p-7212556c.html

Apparently, BNSF has told Eastern Washington produce growers who wi***o get a hold of westbound empty containers for export to Asia that they can only guarantee a 100 hour minimum, in this case from Quincy to Tacoma, a distance of less than 200 miles. Yep, that's a whopping 2 miles an hour in average transit time from the produce warehouses to dockside.

Naturally, the produce companies want a dedicated train that runs direct from the warehouse clusters in Eastern Washington to both the Port of Tacoma and the Port of Seattle because as we all know produce is time sensitive, and hey if they can come up with enough each week to make up a decent sized train, why not? BNSF on the other hand doesn't want anything to do with dedicated trains for cross state shorthaul, unless of course if they are grain shuttles running from Ritzville to the coast!?!?[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

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.

If I was to take on the job of consultant for these produce guys, I'd tell them not to waste anymore time trying to work with BNSF. Instead, they need to start pushing the State to allow heavier and longer truckloads.