Montana Gov. Schweitzer argues for rail competition

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Equals "vague."

Perhaps to you.

You're in Pennsylvania, right? Not Montana?

You're not in the rail industry and you're not in the grain industry.

You're not involved in agriculture and you're not involved in the political process of representing constituency interests, and you're not one of those constituency interests, either.

There are plenty of reasons why this would be vague to you.

Indeed, there is no good reason to suggest that you would know anything about it at all. That is why any discussion on this topic would be vague to you.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Equals "vague."

Perhaps to you.

You're in Pennsylvania, right? Not Montana?

You're not in the rail industry and you're not in the grain industry.

You're not involved in agriculture and you're not involved in the political process of representing constituency interests, and you're not one of those constituency interests, either.

There are plenty of reasons why this would be vague to you.

Indeed, there is no good reason to suggest that you would know anything about it at all. That is why any discussion on this topic would be vague to you.

Best regards, Michael Sol

A string of "buzzwords" is vague to ANYBODY, ANYWHERE.

He's stated the things we've talked about in here for at least a year, and with much less detail or understanding.

The only thing not "vague" about that is that somebody woke the Governor of Montana up to the fact that there's railroads in his state.

And no good reason to believe that you would have any idea what a solution to a problem was, or how to go about finding it.

[nanaimo73]

Didn't the State of Montana put in a tax on coal mines that killed the proposed Tongue River Railroad ?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Didn't the State of Montana put in a tax on coal mines that killed the proposed Tongue River Railroad ?

The Coal Tax Trust fund was created in 1977, whereas the first incarnation of the TR railroad was proposed in 1981, although something like the idea had been around since the 1960s and notwithstanding no coal tax then, nothing happened.

The formal Tongue River Railroad STB application filed April 27, 1998 has been through the federal court system and is, I believe, back before the STB on environmental impact statement assessments.

The tax was in place before the TRR proposal and had nothing to do with "killing" it, if it is indeed dead.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

And I notice the Governor doesn't say HOW the STB isn't "behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires." Not sure how he's "focusing" on the lack of competition.

Perhaps he DID say but it didn't get printed. Perhaps the writer of the story thought such details would be too boring for it's readers.

Whether or not this governor knows the details or is just pandering is not clear from the article.

QUOTE:
Or where the investment is coming from for this "competition."

Who say't it requires "investment"? Maybe just enforcing the written caveats will be all it takes, huh Tom?

A lot of "perhapsing" and "maybeing" there. Too bad we don't hear any facts.

"We"?! So you do have split personalities then? [:D]

Seriously, if you have a problem with percieved vagueness in the article, I suggest you contact the journalist who wrote it. Perhaps he will make a special effort on your behalf to provide you with some details.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Hate to burst your bubble Michael, but Dave is the one in other posts that's suggested this, then followed up with statements that the trains move an average of 50 miles a day through here.

Sorry there Bubba, but I never said anything of the sort. Perhaps it was one of you other personalities.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

And I notice the Governor doesn't say HOW the STB isn't "behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires." Not sure how he's "focusing" on the lack of competition.

Perhaps he DID say but it didn't get printed. Perhaps the writer of the story thought such details would be too boring for it's readers.

Whether or not this governor knows the details or is just pandering is not clear from the article.

QUOTE:
Or where the investment is coming from for this "competition."

Who say't it requires "investment"? Maybe just enforcing the written caveats will be all it takes, huh Tom?

A lot of "perhapsing" and "maybeing" there. Too bad we don't hear any facts.

"We"?! So you do have split personalities then? [:D]

Seriously, if you have a problem with percieved vagueness in the article, I suggest you contact the journalist who wrote it. Perhaps he will make a special effort on your behalf to provide you with some details.

"We" as in I'm not the only one reading this post.

I have no problem with the vagueness (not perceived) of the article, just people reading somthing into it that's not there, like you try to do all the time.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Hate to burst your bubble Michael, but Dave is the one in other posts that's suggested this, then followed up with statements that the trains move an average of 50 miles a day through here.

Sorry there Bubba, but I never said anything of the sort. Perhaps it was one of you other personalities.

Our two phantom posters are easy to confuse in here.

And that's "Our" as in belonging to all of us, note the names at the bottom of the page. And they're just the one's reading the post at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Seriously Tom, what is it about the prospect of intramodal rail competition that worrys folks like you? You know, you being an "independent thinker" and all...........

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Seriously Tom, what is it about the prospect of intramodal rail competition that worrys folks like you? You know, you being an "independent thinker" and all...........

Nothing "worries" me about any level of rail competition. Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind. And if he DOES manage to get Washington (DC)'s attention on this matter, he'll have to answer that.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind.

Your interest in the PNW is admirable. Do you spend as much time asking questions about things in your neck of the woods? Stuff you might be more familiar with? What's Ed Rendell's take on rail competition?

You seem to know an awful of about what this Governor knows, or what he "has stated" from one brief news article even to the extent of accusing the Governor of being vague in an article he did not write.

No doubt your knowledge comes from a subscription to a Montana Daily where he has been quote at more length? Which one?

Perhaps from one of the engineering or econometric studies done by the state government in the past two years?

I am curious as to your ultimate source of what this Governor knows, and doesn't know, and why you are so confident in asserting that he "just discovered" railroads in Montana?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind.

Your interest in the PNW is admirable. Do you spend as much time asking questions about things in your neck of the woods? Stuff you might be more familiar with? What's Ed Rendell's take on rail competition?

You seem to know an awful lot about what this Governor knows, or what he "has stated" from one brief news article even to the extent of accusing the Governor of being vague in an article he did not write.

No doubt your knowledge comes from a subscription to a Montana Daily where he has been quoted at more length? Which one?

Perhaps from one of the engineering or econometric studies done by the state government in the past two years and which the Governor happens to have on his desk and has been reviewing?

I am curious as to your ultimate source of what this Governor knows, and what you claim he doesn't know, and why you are so confident in asserting that he "just discovered" railroads in Montana?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Actually I have more interest in local rail issues. If rebuilding the former Lackawanna Cutoff is any indication of how quickly things can be done with EXISTING right of ways, you may not see any meaningful rail competition up your way in this lifetime.

My "knowledge" comes from the link provided by another poster from the PNW, offered as proof that the governor is arguing for rail competition. Since he felt this was proof enough of the point, it can be used as basis for debate.

Obviously, you have no idea what sarcasm is.

If this poster felt there was more info to be presented in this debate, he would have added those links. The only additional things we've see so far is some "pehapsing" and "maybeing" on his part.

As far as expertise, according to your profile: you're nobody, live nowhere, do nothing for a living, and have no connection with railroading.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind.

Your interest in the PNW is admirable. Do you spend as much time asking questions about things in your neck of the woods? Stuff you might be more familiar with? What's Ed Rendell's take on rail competition?

You seem to know an awful lot about what this Governor knows, or what he "has stated" from one brief news article even to the extent of accusing the Governor of being vague in an article he did not write.

No doubt your knowledge comes from a subscription to a Montana Daily where he has been quoted at more length? Which one?

Perhaps from one of the engineering or econometric studies done by the state government in the past two years and which the Governor happens to have on his desk and has been reviewing?

I am curious as to your ultimate source of what this Governor knows, and what you claim he doesn't know, and why you are so confident in asserting that he "just discovered" railroads in Montana?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Actually I have more interest in local rail issues. If rebuilding the former Lackawanna Cutoff is any indication of how quickly things can be done with EXISTING right of ways, you may not see any meaningful rail competition up your way in this lifetime.

My "knowledge" comes from the link provided by another poster from the PNW, offered as proof that the governor is arguing for rail competition. Since he felt this was proof enough of the point, it can be used as basis for debate.

Obviously, you have no idea what sarcasm is.

If this poster felt there was more info to be presented in this debate, he would have added those links. The only additional things we've see so far is some "pehapsing" and "maybeing" on his part.

As far as expertise, according to your profile: you're nobody, live nowhere, do nothing for a living, and have no connection with railroading.

You're 14 years old, right? That is the only explanation for these trolling expeditions throughout Trains forums, substittuing, as you admit, "sarcasm" for knowledge of something.

Yet another thread dies a ridiculous death because of TomDiehl.

Over and out.

Mchael Sol

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It doesn't have to be an election year for a politician of any ilk to be pandering to the voters. The Governor of Montana has made a general statement of lack of railroad competition and lack of action by the STB without presenting too many particulars. Competition to railroads does exist and you can find it on US 2, among other places. The farmers may not like truck rates, but the trucks do provide competition.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
You're 14 years old, right? That is the only explanation for these trolling expeditions throughout Trains forums, substittuing, as you admit, "sarcasm" for knowledge of something.

Yet another thread dies a ridiculous death because of TomDiehl.

Over and out.

Mchael Sol

So, you're the one with no info about where you're from, what you do, what expeience you have as related to railroading.

Sounds like the definition of "troll" to me.

Your lack of recognition of sarcasm is the problem. So I'd guess you to be about 8.

[NW_611]

I don't know diddly about grain---coal's my local commodity---so can you really ship raw grain by truck with efficiency? I was under the (flimsily constructed) impression that grain was one of these things that to ship efficiently, you had to ship more than the road weight limits or the limits of the trailer were.

[arbfbe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

It doesn't have to be an election year for a politician of any ilk to be pandering to the voters. The Governor of Montana has made a general statement of lack of railroad competition and lack of action by the STB without presenting too many particulars. Competition to railroads does exist and you can find it on US 2, among other places. The farmers may not like truck rates, but the trucks do provide competition.

Truck competition is just an non starter here. There are not enough trucks in the area to move the volumes we are talking about. The states and counties probably do not have the funds to repair and upgrade the highways to handle such volumes.

There is just no way to reconstruct the MILW rights of way in the area and on to the Pacific ports. The land has been sold and developed in too many places to be available for a railroad line.

Railroad deregulation allows remedies for "captive shippers", note how the chemical plants in the Gulf coast corridor have been able to wrangle plant access by both major railroads as merger protections. Either by haulage or trackage rights these shippers have a competitive railroad freight situation. That does not exist in Montana. It is time to make the STB do it's job to protect shippers in Montana just like they do in other parts of the country. The last 12 years of republican governorship in the state was kowtowed to the whims of the BN. Remember Gov Judy Martz announced she "was proud to be known as a lapdog for industry" and Gov Marc Rasciot (SP) is/was on the BNSF board of Directors after leaving office. Now the governor is a grain grower and pertinent questions are being asked of the STB.

[SALfan]

Yeah, right, the Democrats were never in the pocket of any industry or interest group. PUH-LEEEZE!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
You're 14 years old, right? That is the only explanation for these trolling expeditions throughout Trains forums, substittuing, as you admit, "sarcasm" for knowledge of something.

And to answer one of your earlier questions about where you used "juvenile name calling." Another example. ^^

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe
Railroad deregulation allows remedies for "captive shippers"... It is time to make the STB do it's job to protect shippers in Montana just like they do in other parts of the country.

Montana interestes have been persuing the remedies for so called captive shippers for many years. The just can't get the judicial system to see it their way. Since they can't get their point of view across they cry about the STB and the unfair court system.

Next they will be crying that its unfair that during the last quarter century Presidents Carter, Reagan, G R Bush, Clinton and W Bush have not been willing to give their legislative suggestions the time of day. Senates and Houses of Representatives controlled by the Democrates and Republicans have agreed with these five Presidents. You know Congress does not care when you notice the MT backed legislation never even gets a vote in committee let alone referred to the floor.

[Anonymous]

Tom Diehl has become nothing short of annoying, and seems to be intent on filibustering any meaningful discussion of these topics. Frankly, I've given up on him.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Tom Diehl has become nothing short of annoying, and seems to be intent on filibustering any meaningful discussion of these topics. Frankly, I've given up on him.

That's all it's been, thread after thread, a continuing fillibuster of any discussion he doesn't seem to "like" since there does not appear to be any criteria showing any familiarity with the topics. Rather, plagarized remarks, fabricated studies, and invented attributions. Trains forums wrecks itself with permitting that kind of ongoing baloney.

[nanaimo73]

Futuremodal-
If the DME;
1) Merged the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern.
2) Purchased and merged the Twin Cities and Western, which has the former CMSP&P mainline from the Twin Cities to Appleton MN
3) Purchased from BNSF the former CMSP&P mainline from Appleton through Aberdeen SD to Terry MT.
4) Was allowed unrestricted interchange in Winona MN, Owatonna MN and Aberdeen SD
5) Was granted trackage rights from Terry MT to Miles City MT
(IC&E has rights on, or owns, the former CMSP&P mainline between the Twin Cities and Chicago)

While the MRL was;
1) Granted trackage rights from Huntley MT to Miles City MT
2) Granted full interchange with DME in Miles City MT and Union Pacific in Spokane WA.

Would this satisfy your concerns ?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Futuremodal-
If the DME;
1) Merged the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern.
2) Purchased and merged the Twin Cities and Western, which has the former CMSP&P mainline from the Twin Cities to Appleton MN
3) Purchased from BNSF the former CMSP&P mainline from Appleton through Aberdeen SD to Terry MT.
4) Was allowed unrestricted interchange in Winona MN, Owatonna MN and Aberdeen SD
5) Was granted trackage rights from Terry MT to Miles City MT
(IC&E has rights on, or owns, the former CMSP&P mainline between the Twin Cities and Chicago)

While the MRL was;
1) Granted trackage rights from Huntley MT to Miles City MT
2) Granted full interchange with DME in Miles City MT and Union Pacific in Spokane WA.

Would this satisfy your concerns ?

I think you forgot: Resurrect the GN , NP, and CBQ?[;)]

[Anonymous]

Well, obviously my first choice (and in my opinion the most logical solution to the problem of non-existent intramodal rail competition) would be the AT&T-style breakup of the rail industry into infrastructure and transporting companies, but barring that.....

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Futuremodal-
If the DME;
1) Merged the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern.
2) Purchased and merged the Twin Cities and Western, which has the former CMSP&P mainline from the Twin Cities to Appleton MN
3) Purchased from BNSF the former CMSP&P mainline from Appleton through Aberdeen SD to Terry MT.
4) Was allowed unrestricted interchange in Winona MN, Owatonna MN and Aberdeen SD
5) Was granted trackage rights from Terry MT to Miles City MT
(IC&E has rights on, or owns, the former CMSP&P mainline between the Twin Cities and Chicago)

While the MRL was;
1) Granted trackage rights from Huntley MT to Miles City MT
2) Granted full interchange with DME in Miles City MT and Union Pacific in Spokane WA.

Would this satisfy your concerns ?

I think the problem here is that MRL does not have a long term guarantee of existence past 2050. Therefore any long term track access agreements over MRL would also have to address BNSF's ownership of the MRL ROW.

Secondly, I don't believe there would have to be a de facto merger of DM&E and IC&E, and it may be in the best interests of Cedar America(?) to keep those entities separate. It may even make sense for CA (with or without the participation of the Washington group) to create yet another entity to make the connection westward beyond DM&E's soon to be PRB end of track.

Thirdly, I assume you're talking about a federal mandate here, not just a willingness of BNSF to placate re-regulation concerns.

That being said, what if we kept it at it's simplest form? Assuming DM&E does make it into the PRB, it might also work for them or MRL to purchase the Wind River Canyon route from BNSF from Laurel MT to Olin WY. This line also has available capacity for someone willing to use it, and it might work just as well if not better than the old PCE line to Terry and the ex-NP from Terry to Huntly, if for no other reason than it has more direct western access to the PRB.

And MRL would need access beyond a UP connection in Spokane for this multi-owner transcon to work. Allow MRL access to Pasco and Wallula for barge access, and rights or ownership of the Stampede Pass line for access to the Puget Sound ports. MRL would then be responsible for addressing the height restrictions through Stampede tunnel to allow double stacks and autoracks. And of course BNSF would retain access rights over this line. Maybe Dennis Washington could then convince the WSDOT to shift the rail corridor over to the ex-Milwaukee line over Snoqualmie, which has better grades and higher tunnel clearances. (That's something that should occur irrespective of who owns that rail corridor.)

But to answer your general question, yes adding another transcontinental rail service provider through Montana and the Northern Tier states would be an appropriate project for this nation. Whether this be by having another railroad gain access rights over certain BNSF/MRL lines, or by breaking up BNSF, either one works for domestic producers to allow them to compete with the overseas producers.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

That being said, what if we kept it at it's simplest form? Assuming DM&E does make it into the PRB, it might also work for them or MRL to purchase the Wind River Canyon route from BNSF from Laurel MT to Olin WY. This line also has available capacity for someone willing to use it, and it might work just as well if not better than the old PCE line to Terry and the ex-NP from Terry to Huntley, if for no other reason than it has more direct western access to the PRB.

But going through Wyoming would do nothing for wheat traffic.
Isn't most of the wheat grown in eastern Montana ?
Where does that Governor grow his wheat ?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

That being said, what if we kept it at it's simplest form? Assuming DM&E does make it into the PRB, it might also work for them or MRL to purchase the Wind River Canyon route from BNSF from Laurel MT to Olin WY. This line also has available capacity for someone willing to use it, and it might work just as well if not better than the old PCE line to Terry and the ex-NP from Terry to Huntley, if for no other reason than it has more direct western access to the PRB.

But going through Wyoming would do nothing for wheat traffic.
Isn't most of the wheat grown in eastern Montana ?
Where does that Governor grow his wheat ?

Kalispell

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Tom Diehl has become nothing short of annoying, and seems to be intent on filibustering any meaningful discussion of these topics. Frankly, I've given up on him.

I'm glad to hear that I annoy you. Now maybe we can move beyond your usual whining and moaning about a problem, blaming everything on the evil BNSF, and actually discuss WHAT can be done about the problem(s).

Since this would require some thought on your part, I can see why it would annoy you.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Tom Diehl has become nothing short of annoying, and seems to be intent on filibustering any meaningful discussion of these topics. Frankly, I've given up on him.

That's all it's been, thread after thread, a continuing fillibuster of any discussion he doesn't seem to "like" since there does not appear to be any criteria showing any familiarity with the topics. Rather, plagarized remarks, fabricated studies, and invented attributions. Trains forums wrecks itself with permitting that kind of ongoing baloney.

And the two of you seem to be unable to move past identifying the problem. There's been a few suggestion, bringing up big bucks solutions, with no idea where the big bucks will come from.

Or how land will be obtained for expansion.

Or how trains will run faster.

Or why (in your opinion) that shorter trains can run faster than longer trains.

I guess finding an actual workable solution to a problem is beyond you.

And "plagerized remarks," LMFAO since I found references to articles EVERYBODY has access to, not just some obscure reports.

Since they still allow you here, "ongoing baloney" doesn't seem to be a problem for the website.

[MichaelSol]

Ho Hum, the usual. from Tom Diehl. Valiantly flitting from thread to thread challenging everyone who doesn't offer his solution to problems he knows nothing about. On and on, providing refereneces to studies he faked, and findings he plagarized.

Note that the Governor suggested that the Staggers Act be enforced. Well, that's one solution.