Update: New rail produce loading center to break ground in Washington state

[Anonymous]

Alas, it is UP (along with CSX), not BNSF, who is the willing partner in investing in domestic producers....

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/7328194p-7240288c.html

Some items of interest:

- Initial service will be once a week, and is expected to grow to twice a week.

Question: How can UP/CSX offer a dedicated 4 day service cross country but BNSF can't even offer 4 day service for a 200 mile sprint to Puget Sound?:

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52743

- The service will have "a committed car supply and a committed service" from UP and CSX.

Question: How can UP/CSX offer what appears to be their own equipment, yet BNSF can't even offer a service with a third party's equipment?

- Public investment in the project so far amounts to $5.2 million and is expected to grow to $7.4 million, roughly half of the $15 million price tag.

Question: Is this the wave of the future, aka no such projects will arise without a substantial degree of public investment? So much for the "railroads are not subsidized" argument.

All in all, though, a postive step for PNW railroading. Kudos to UP and CSX!

[chad thomas]

Well all hail UP & CSX

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Well all hail UP & CSX

OT: Chad, can you come up with one of those "king" smilies with a BNSF logo? I might need one next time I get into a *discussion* with TomDiehl!

[chad thomas]

Sorry Dave I can't. I found this on another site and knew it would come in handy next time I wanted to stir the pot.[:D]

[Anonymous]

When this story first broke several months ago, UP and CSX said the service would be up and running in "first quarter 2006." Guess that'll be set back to at least second quarter if they haven't even begun building the facility yet.

[samfp1943]

I think that if BNSF was going to get a 2,500 mile haul, rather than the 200 mile haul, they would have been much more willing. It always seems to boil down to the economics of the situation. CSX/UP saw an opportunity and went for it. Trucks to upper East Coast destinations are hard to come by in Washington. Many drivers hate East Coast destinations, as the $$$ does not match the hassles [ tolls,traffic and tribulations]. Once the stuff is there, local cartage probably can handle it, better than OTR company drivers.

[MP173]

DAve:

You answered your own question ..."committed equipment and committed service"

There was no committment on the 200 mile haul, on either party. It is very good sound business policy to invest when there is an agreement between two parties.


ed

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Alas, it is UP (along with CSX), not BNSF, who is the willing partner in investing in domestic producers....

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/7328194p-7240288c.html

Some items of interest:

- Initial service will be once a week, and is expected to grow to twice a week.

Question: How can UP/CSX offer a dedicated 4 day service cross country but BNSF can't even offer 4 day service for a 200 mile sprint to Puget Sound?:

Probably for the same reason this service is going East instead of West and Pacific Rim.

Notice the UP isn't offering service to the west coast from this loading point. I guess they had the same problem solving that equation that BNSF did.

Dedicated 4 day service? Imagining things again Dave?

Cut and paste from article:

That service will come from Union Pacific and CSX Transportation, two railroad giants that will share the duty of making sure the weekly train from Wallula reaches the East Coast in less than a week.

Four days IS les than a week, but don't see the article mentioning that fast a service to Albany.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
- Public investment in the project so far amounts to $5.2 million and is expected to grow to $7.4 million, roughly half of the $15 million price tag.

Question: Is this the wave of the future, aka no such projects will arise without a substantial degree of public investment? So much for the "railroads are not subsidized" argument.

So the produce industry isn't being subsidized through this investment? I guess even the peple that control "public investments" didn't see a reason to subsidize the short haul to the west coast, for BNSF or UP. Must not be a viable market yet.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Alas, it is UP (along with CSX), not BNSF, who is the willing partner in investing in domestic producers....

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/7328194p-7240288c.html

Some items of interest:

- Initial service will be once a week, and is expected to grow to twice a week.

Question: How can UP/CSX offer a dedicated 4 day service cross country but BNSF can't even offer 4 day service for a 200 mile sprint to Puget Sound?:

Probably for the same reason this service is going East instead of West and Pacific Rim.

Notice the UP isn't offering service to the west coast from this loading point. I guess they had the same problem solving that equation that BNSF did.

Dedicated 4 day service? Imagining things again Dave?

Cut and paste from article:

That service will come from Union Pacific and CSX Transportation, two railroad giants that will share the duty of making sure the weekly train from Wallula reaches the East Coast in less than a week.

Four days IS les than a week, but don't see the article mentioning that fast a service to Albany.

you apparently missed the part about the service expanding to twice a week after a while.

Cut and pasted from article:

"Part of the plan calls for increasing the number of trains to two or more a week -- a decision that will depend on demand, said Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis."

What you are also (predictably) missing is that this service is what the customer wants, and UP/CSX are obliging. For the record, Northwest Container does run a double stack service to Puget Sound out of this area.......but via UP, not BNSF.

Why can UP do with one line what BNSF can't seem to do with three lines to the same ports of Puget Sound?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Alas, it is UP (along with CSX), not BNSF, who is the willing partner in investing in domestic producers....

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/7328194p-7240288c.html

Some items of interest:

- Initial service will be once a week, and is expected to grow to twice a week.

Question: How can UP/CSX offer a dedicated 4 day service cross country but BNSF can't even offer 4 day service for a 200 mile sprint to Puget Sound?:

Probably for the same reason this service is going East instead of West and Pacific Rim.

Notice the UP isn't offering service to the west coast from this loading point. I guess they had the same problem solving that equation that BNSF did.

Dedicated 4 day service? Imagining things again Dave?

Cut and paste from article:

That service will come from Union Pacific and CSX Transportation, two railroad giants that will share the duty of making sure the weekly train from Wallula reaches the East Coast in less than a week.

Four days IS les than a week, but don't see the article mentioning that fast a service to Albany.

you apparently missed the part about the service expanding to twice a week after a while.

Cut and pasted from article:

"Part of the plan calls for increasing the number of trains to two or more a week -- a decision that will depend on demand, said Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis."

" a decision that will depend on demand." And why do you believe this was not an option on BNSF?

Oh I'm sorry, this is the "evil BNSF" we're talking about.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

What you are also (predictably) missing is that this service is what the customer wants, and UP/CSX are obliging. For the record, Northwest Container does run a double stack service to Puget Sound out of this area.......but via UP, not BNSF.

Why can UP do with one line what BNSF can't seem to do with three lines to the same ports of Puget Sound?

Of course they're obliging, it's a long haul from Washington State to Albany, NY. And what happened to the difference where you tried to prove that $300 for the short haul (to Puget Sound area) was more than $1500 for a long haul, like this area to Albany, NY? Or is UP passing up the high profit short haul traffic in favor of the lower profit long haul traffic like you accused BNSF of doing.

So since Northwest Container DOES run a double stack container service from this area to Puget Sound, via the UP, why isn't the service being offered to the produce shippers instead of them solicting the BNSF for the same route? Seems like UP ISN'T doing the same thing for a short haul. Or maybe this service ISN'T living up to the expectations of the shippers? Or is there a reason that BNSF can make more on a short haul than UP can on the same haul?

[kenneo]

Tom ... referance yours of 18:06 of Jan 2:

Second paragraph. As much as I dislike the mergers of the BN and ATSF, and the UP and the SP, I have to give the management of the "Yellow Perill" good marks for marketing and service and best use of resources. They do have a line (branch) to Yakima, but not to Wenatchie. So, they could offer rail service between Yakima and Wallula, but that 90 minute drive would probably be better served by rubber interchange. Wallula is almost 3 hours in the wrong direction from the Wenatchie Valley - a truck can be in Seattle in less time than it can get to Wallula.

Where the UP will rubber containers to a centra point where it doesn't share the haul with a captive short line, they won't (at least, havent) done so where that short line can haul that traffic. As an example, the UP could have built reload facilities for grain the way BN has, but doing so will rob a short line spin-off (PCC)(WATCO) of traffic that is contractually directed to rail origination on the short line for interchange with the UP. This saves the UP money (ends up increasing their % ROI), the shipper money, and ultimately, we the consumer, money. The BN has (since the BN-SLSF merger) no compunction about doing a raid of this sort.

[Anonymous]

Glad this is happening. Just too bad it's not going by rail to where the majority of the market is - east and south of Albany.

[narig01]

Re Short Hauls: I couldn't fit my reply here. So I posted a new subject. Light Rail Freight.
Thx Ian G.Narita

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Tom ... referance yours of 18:06 of Jan 2:

Second paragraph. As much as I dislike the mergers of the BN and ATSF, and the UP and the SP, I have to give the management of the "Yellow Perill" good marks for marketing and service and best use of resources. They do have a line (branch) to Yakima, but not to Wenatchie. So, they could offer rail service between Yakima and Wallula, but that 90 minute drive would probably be better served by rubber interchange. Wallula is almost 3 hours in the wrong direction from the Wenatchie Valley - a truck can be in Seattle in less time than it can get to Wallula.

Where the UP will rubber containers to a centra point where it doesn't share the haul with a captive short line, they won't (at least, havent) done so where that short line can haul that traffic. As an example, the UP could have built reload facilities for grain the way BN has, but doing so will rob a short line spin-off (PCC)(WATCO) of traffic that is contractually directed to rail origination on the short line for interchange with the UP. This saves the UP money (ends up increasing their % ROI), the shipper money, and ultimately, we the consumer, money. The BN has (since the BN-SLSF merger) no compunction about doing a raid of this sort.

Back to the original subject of THIS post

1. UP is building a facility to promote the shipping of produce to East coast markets (Albany, NY) A distance of at least 2000 miles.

2. Dave (futuremodal) has vilified BNSF for not offering premium service to the shippers in the same area for a West coast haul (a distance of 2-300 miles) when the shippers admit that the RR makes more money on long haul runs.

3. Original question to him: How is a haul of 2000 miles on the UP the equivalent of 300 mile haul on the BNSF?

4. On the subject of this short haul to the west coast: since UP has a presence in the area AND already has an intermodal train running this route, what was their (the UP) offer for shipping this produce to the West coast?

They (the UP) "marketed" the long haul service because that's where a railroad makes the most money. No mention of them even talking about the short haul to the west coast, no matter who loads it.

[rrandb]

Dang!!! I almost missed this subject cause it didn't start wilh " I don't have a vendetta against BNSF".! It sounds an awful lot like the produce guys were shopping BNSF against UP to get a better east coast rate. Maybe BNSF knew of pending Railtex deal and did not want to take a bite from that APPLE??? [?] pun intended I don't remember reading BNSF being offer a signed offer with commitments for a minimum of at least one unit train a week??? [2c]

[Anonymous]

Tom,

You're still missing the salient point on the $300 vs $1500 per carload debate. It is not the rate per trip that's important, it's the number of trips per year. If BNSF could manage to do the rational thing and offer the 4 day service cycle for the Quincy to Puget Sound service, they'd be getting at least 90 cycles per year. 90 x $300 is $27,000 per carload per year. On the long haul to Chicago we're talking at least a three week cycle if not longer, so that's at max 17 cycles per year. 17 x $1500 is $25,500 per carload per year. The difference is $1500 per carload per year at a minimum. Take that times 100 platforms, and that's $150,000 difference per year between that shorthaul and the long haul.

Now do you understand why $1500 per box may not be as good as $300 per box? And it's axiomatic that it's a lot easier to keep a schedule over 200 miles than it is over 2200 miles. The longer the trip, the more likely it is for unexpected delays to occur.

And the reason UP *doesn't* offer a new Wallula to Puget Sound service is that they already are running one via Northwest Container from Pasco to Puget Sound. Why offer something you already are running?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

You're still missing the salient point on the $300 vs $1500 per carload debate. It is not the rate per trip that's important, it's the number of trips per year. If BNSF could manage to do the rational thing and offer the 4 day service cycle for the Quincy to Puget Sound service, they'd be getting at least 90 cycles per year. 90 x $300 is $27,000 per carload per year. On the long haul to Chicago we're talking at least a three week cycle if not longer, so that's at max 17 cycles per year. 17 x $1500 is $25,500 per carload per year. The difference is $1500 per carload per year at a minimum. Take that times 100 platforms, and that's $150,000 difference per year between that shorthaul and the long haul.

Now do you understand why $1500 per box may not be as good as $300 per box? And it's axiomatic that it's a lot easier to keep a schedule over 200 miles than it is over 2200 miles. The longer the trip, the more likely it is for unexpected delays to occur.

So according to the article, they have 1 million tons to ship to the Pacific Rim. Divided by 90 cycles, thats 11,112 tons per trainload. Divided by 100 platforms thats 111 tons per platform, making it economically viable IF THE PRODUCE SHIPPERS WOULD GIVE ALL THE FREIGHT TO THE RAILROADS. By the statement by Loveland "We have all our eggs in one basket," she said. "We need to expand our modes of transportation." it sounds like that ain't gonna happen.

Plus the other part of the math that "doesn't work out," they were offered twice a week service an average of 3.5 days or 84 hours, then allowed themselves 16 hours of wiggle room on the estimate. The shippers want no more than 4 day service, or 96 hours. They're at the most 4 hours apart on their "want" and "offer maximum."

And before you say it, why would the shipper care how long it takes for the empty train to return? They only care about how soon the loads can be picked up and arrive at the destination, which is the "twice a week or 3.5 days" figure. Ships can easily report how soon they'll be in port at least several days in advance. They need to reserve docking space with the Dockmaster (or whatever that job is called nowadays).

And it also doesn't take into account rail congestion. They most likely would have to go through the Cascade Tunnel which is effectively about 8 miles of single track, dual direction territory.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

And the reason UP *doesn't* offer a new Wallula to Puget Sound service is that they already are running one via Northwest Container from Pasco to Puget Sound. Why offer something you already are running?

So why didn't the produce shippers approach UP about providing this service? It's already in place and would add more containers to the existing trains.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

You're still missing the salient point on the $300 vs $1500 per carload debate. It is not the rate per trip that's important, it's the number of trips per year. If BNSF could manage to do the rational thing and offer the 4 day service cycle for the Quincy to Puget Sound service, they'd be getting at least 90 cycles per year. 90 x $300 is $27,000 per carload per year. On the long haul to Chicago we're talking at least a three week cycle if not longer, so that's at max 17 cycles per year. 17 x $1500 is $25,500 per carload per year. The difference is $1500 per carload per year at a minimum. Take that times 100 platforms, and that's $150,000 difference per year between that shorthaul and the long haul.

Now do you understand why $1500 per box may not be as good as $300 per box? And it's axiomatic that it's a lot easier to keep a schedule over 200 miles than it is over 2200 miles. The longer the trip, the more likely it is for unexpected delays to occur.

And the reason UP *doesn't* offer a new Wallula to Puget Sound service is that they already are running one via Northwest Container from Pasco to Puget Sound. Why offer something you already are running?

No one at the railroad cares about how much revenue a car generates in a year. They care about how much profit the car generates. The long haul option beats the short haul option every time!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

And the reason UP *doesn't* offer a new Wallula to Puget Sound service is that they already are running one via Northwest Container from Pasco to Puget Sound. Why offer something you already are running?

So why didn't the produce shippers approach UP about providing this service? It's already in place and would add more containers to the existing trains.

'caaaause, the Quincy produce shippers are located on the BNSF mainline, 100 miles north of the UP line.

Lemme see if you've got this straight:
1. Currently, UP has a Pasco to Puget Sound e.g. westbound service via Northwest Container - shorthaul
2. UP and CSX are participating in the new Wallula to New York e.g. eastbound service - long haul
3. BNSF has no eastbound produce service out of neither Quincy nor Pasco - nohaul
4. BNSF made a half hearted offer of an 8 day service westbound from Quincy to Puget Sound, which is not sufficient to meet the shippers' desires- nohaul
5. BNSF seems dedicated to providing the best longhaul service possible from Puget Sound to Chicago et al for bringing in Asian imports - longhaul
6. BNSF will carry boxes from Chicago to Puget Sound, albeit for less annual revenue than is available in the shorthaul - longhaul
7. Although BNSF won't take on the intermodal shorthaul from Quincy to Puget Sound (with only truck rates of around $0.10/tonmile to beat), it is committed to running a dedicated shorthaul grain shuttle from Ritzville to the west coast (and competing against barge rates of around $0.02/tonmile) - you do the math! - shorthaul
8. BNSF treats it's highest revenue producers - Montana grain shippers - like garbage, yet goes out of it's way to placate it's lowest revenue producers - Asian importers - do I even need to explain?

[jeaton]

Tom and Bob.

You are wasting the skin cells on the tips of your fingers trying to argue with someone who thinks it is all about revenues and obviously thinks that direct, indirect and oppurtunity costs are irrelevant.

I wonder why anybody should be so impressed with all the wonderful things that the UP does compared to the all the rotten things done by the BNSF? Perhaps it helps to ignore financial results.

Jay

[jsanchez]

Why couldn't the eastern terminal be built in Newark or Jersey city closer to most of the consumers and allowing for a shorter truck haul, the whole area is choking from truck traffic, any direct rail sevice is greatly appreciated in New Jersey. It was a crime to let the old Conrail kill off so much carload business in the 70's through 90's, we are paying the price in NJ,NY,PA, CT in traffic stagnation.

[Anonymous]

People keep posting figures of 8 to 10 days for BNSF to get produce from Quincy to Puget Sound. The SPOEVE works Quincy as needed on its trip west; you mean to tell me that thing ain't getting stuff to Everett in at least a day or two? I realize Puget Sound ports are still south of Everett, but gimme a break. If not the SPOEVE, doesn't the Spud Local still make a round trip from Wenatchee to Quincy, which would at least gather the produce and spot it for easy pick up in a single block by the next SPOEVE at either Quincy or Wenatchee?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

People keep posting figures of 8 to 10 days for BNSF to get produce from Quincy to Puget Sound. The SPOEVE works Quincy as needed on its trip west; you mean to tell me that thing ain't getting stuff to Everett in at least a day or two? I realize Puget Sound ports are still south of Everett, but gimme a break. If not the SPOEVE, doesn't the Spud Local still make a round trip from Wenatchee to Quincy, which would at least gather the produce and spot it for easy pick up in a single block by the next SPOEVE at either Quincy or Wenatchee?

Actually, it's only one person, and I haven't figured out where that "8 day" figure keeps coming from. The worst case scenerio that BNSF offered was 100 hours (4 days, 4 hours). By his math, the shipper actually cares how long it takes for empties to get back there, like they only have one set of cars to use.

Problem is, THAT assumption blows away the "cycle time" argument.

And still doesn't answer the question, why is the UP so much better for pursuing a long haul, which have been reputed for YEARS to give the railroad best return on investment, and the BNSF vilified for offering a service that was less than the customer demanded, on a short haul, which has always been reputed to be less profitable, or even not worth the effort.

Years ago, railroads wouldn't even talk to you for an intermodal move of less than 500 miles.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

People keep posting figures of 8 to 10 days for BNSF to get produce from Quincy to Puget Sound. The SPOEVE works Quincy as needed on its trip west; you mean to tell me that thing ain't getting stuff to Everett in at least a day or two? I realize Puget Sound ports are still south of Everett, but gimme a break. If not the SPOEVE, doesn't the Spud Local still make a round trip from Wenatchee to Quincy, which would at least gather the produce and spot it for easy pick up in a single block by the next SPOEVE at either Quincy or Wenatchee?

Actually, it's only one person, and I haven't figured out where that "8 day" figure keeps coming from.

You'll have to forgive Tom. Apparently he flunked high school math.

This is straight from the original Quincy article:

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

Now, if those are dedicated trains, and it's taking up to 100 hours to get from Quincy to Tacoma, then it is likely that it is also taking up to 100 hours to get back from Tacoma to Quincy. 100 + 100 = 200 hours, divided by 24 hours in a day, equals 8.3 days for that cycle.

So no, it is not taking BNSF 8 days to get from Quincy to Tacoma, it is taking 8 days for BNSF to run the Quincy to Tacoma back to Quincy cycle.

Now, if instead BNSF allows westbound empties to be offloaded at Quincy wherein those containers can be filled and continue on to Seattle/Tacoma, then that begs another question: Why is it taking BNSF up to "100 hours" (read: 4 days, give or take a few hours) to get loaded containers from Quincy to Tacoma? Is that part of BNSF's normal double stack transit time on the line segment from Quincy to the Sound? We know that westbound container trains are not full of US product ready for export to China, rather such trains are running mostly empty.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

People keep posting figures of 8 to 10 days for BNSF to get produce from Quincy to Puget Sound. The SPOEVE works Quincy as needed on its trip west; you mean to tell me that thing ain't getting stuff to Everett in at least a day or two? I realize Puget Sound ports are still south of Everett, but gimme a break. If not the SPOEVE, doesn't the Spud Local still make a round trip from Wenatchee to Quincy, which would at least gather the produce and spot it for easy pick up in a single block by the next SPOEVE at either Quincy or Wenatchee?

Actually, it's only one person, and I haven't figured out where that "8 day" figure keeps coming from.

You'll have to forgive Tom. Apparently he flunked high school math.

This is straight from the original Quincy article:

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

Now, if those are dedicated trains, and it's taking up to 100 hours to get from Quincy to Tacoma, then it is likely that it is also taking up to 100 hours to get back from Tacoma to Quincy. 100 + 100 = 200 hours, divided by 24 hours in a day, equals 8.3 days for that cycle.

So no, it is not taking BNSF 8 days to get from Quincy to Tacoma, it is taking 8 days for BNSF to run the Quincy to Tacoma back to Quincy cycle.

Now, if instead BNSF allows westbound empties to be offloaded at Quincy wherein those containers can be filled and continue on to Seattle/Tacoma, then that begs another question: Why is it taking BNSF up to "100 hours" (read: 4 days, give or take a few hours) to get loaded containers from Quincy to Tacoma? Is that part of BNSF's normal double stack transit time on the line segment from Quincy to the Sound? We know that westbound container trains are not full of US product ready for export to China, rather such trains are running mostly empty.

Now notice that "I flunked high school math," but HE had to remove the next part of my comment because HIS "math" wouldn't make any sense with the next statement.

Since his reading ability hasn't improved, I'll repeat it here:

The worst case scenerio that BNSF offered was 100 hours (4 days, 4 hours). By his math, the shipper actually cares how long it takes for empties to get back there, like they only have one set of cars to use.

Problem is, THAT assumption blows away the "cycle time" argument.

[TomDiehl]

And still the "evil BNSF" is supposed to offer a service where the "sainted UP" now has a haul about 10 times the billable mileage.

And also no comment on:

"And still doesn't answer the question, why is the UP so much better for pursuing a long haul, which have been reputed for YEARS to give the railroad best return on investment, and the BNSF vilified for offering a service that was less than the customer demanded, on a short haul, which has always been reputed to be less profitable, or even not worth the effort.

Years ago, railroads wouldn't even talk to you for an intermodal move of less than 500 miles."

Your BNSF "non-vendetta" claim is falling apart more with every comment.

[Anonymous]

The problem, Tom, is that if it is a dedicated train, it has to run in a cycle, back and forth between the two terminals. That's the characteristic of a dedicated train.

And the UP already has a shorthaul operation, as has been stated (and therefore "commented on") previously. Thus UP is engaged in both longhaul and shorthauls, and since the shorthaul service preceded the new proposed longhaul service by 10 years, UP must have seen that the profitability of the shorthaul net or exceeded that of the longhaul, otherwise we wouldn't be having this *conversation*.

Now, if you will kindly post some references for the statements you've made over the weeks, you might actually buttress your claims. Try starting with this one: "Years ago, railroads wouldn't even talk to you for an intermodal move of less than 500 miles."