BNSF vs. The Pacific N.W., Yet Another Round?

[tormadel]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zgardner18

I would think that if the price of moving grain is steep coming from BNSF, then wouldn't you think that MRL would step in and make money or would that be stepping on the feet of their friend BNSF?

MRL is captive to BNSF as well, they don't connect with anyone else so they are kinda hosed.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox
Do wheat ranchers have the ability to store a high portion of their crop on the farm?

Depending on the supply of cats, wheat can be stored on the ground. Often is when the railroad is running behind. Quality deteriorates quickly.

Actual storage facilities for wheat are problematic on the farm. In large volumes, under less than carefully controlled conditions, wheat storage facilities have a tendency to blow up, and the explosions are catastrophic.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox
Of course the telling fact is the BNSF adjusting their spread to reflect the trucking cost you cite.

Well, you understand of course they are adjusting the spread to cover the cost of farmers who are already moving their wheat to the shuttles. Exactly what the rate theory is behind that is a mystery to me, although I understand the superficial notion that, "gee, if we lower the rate to "reflect the trucking cost" we will get more of the traffic headed to the shuttle elevators". If that is their reasoning, they are going after the traffic they already have since it only addresses last year's statistical user of shuttles.

Wouldn't be the first business that satisfied itself with satisfying yesterday's needs thinking that was the same thing as meeting tomorrow's goals. There is a little bit of the history of the railroad industry in that thought.

Wheat is predominantly custom cut these days. The custom cutters are balanced according to combines, trucks, operators and drivers. As soon as something throws a wrench into the balance, it becomes expensive fast, and not only because of additional weather risk due to harvest delays.

On a truck basis, if a field is 20 miles from an elevator, the commercial market cost -- and this is a high end estimate -- associated with truck transportation to the elevator is about $2,750 to deliver the equivalent of a 100 ton covered hopper carload of wheat. At 40 miles, the marginal cost increases by about $917.

On a fleet basis, the farther the elevator, the more trucks and drivers are necessary to keep the combines moving. At 80 miles distance, the need for additional trucks and drivers doubles, to keep the same number of combines operating continuously. Costs increase accordingly.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The average farmer had to spend approximately $500 to get the wheat to the shuttles over the cost of trucking to the traditional elevator.

Could you expand on this a bit. In the midwest we noticed that all corn moving from the farm to market was loaded on a truck. Once that happened the added trucking cost to move corn eight miles to a box car elevator vs. 25 miles to a multi elevator was very low. One thing this system depends on is that farmers in the Corn Belt have created a lot of on farm storage.

Do wheat ranchers have the ability to store a high portion of their crop on the farm? How many mile is the added truck haul?

Of course the telling fact is the BNSF adjusting their spread to reflect the trucking cost you cite.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
1) you can not have one "terminal" cost figure for all shipments because comparing the terminal costs on unit trains to terminal costs on smaller volume shipments is "apples and oranges", but Sol does it anyway - I guess to promote his wierd political agenda.

I mean, we're not trying to sneak in to Mexico or Canada to earn a decent living, are we?

Of course, Sol didn't "do it anyway," but Greyhounds made some careless assumptions, because those careless assumptions were necessary to support his predetermined conclusion.

The $294 handling charge number for Portland bound wheat is for shuttle trains. It is indeed very low. The Y-intercept data for single carloads is approximately $688 per carload. Although you might have gathered from the hyperventilation of the comment that someone had dared to suggest the handling charges are the same, in fact, that was simply Greyhounds' wholesale invention of and distortion of facts. No one said the low figure was for all rates. A reasonable person would have suspected it could not have been for all rates because it was in fact so low. Anyone familiar with these kinds of studies would have instantly recognized a figure that low as representing shuttles.

However, there is as usual, a little more to it.

In April, 2005, the single carload rate, Shelby-Portland was $3066, the shuttle rate was $2716, a $350.00 difference. Today, the single carload rate is $3181 and the shuttle rate is $2,581. BNSF has passed along a $125 "savings" in the shuttle rates even though costs have not been reduced. Indeed, to the contrary, car cycle times and Pasco dwell times have increased significantly over the past year.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Greyhounds
Why would any proudly profit seeking corporation pass on twice its savings to its customers? That would be insane. They wouldn't do that, now would they? Any sane person would understand this.

Well, as shown in the previous sentence, in the past year they "passed along" $125 in savings with no actual "savings" to pass along at all. Is BNSF insane, as Greyhounds suggests?

As any careful reader of remarks other than Greyhounds' will quickly understand if they don't already, wheat rates are poorly correlated with variable costs. As shown, in the past year, a given rate came down, another rate went up, even as costs overall no doubt went up because of increasing system ineffeciency.

However, the fact that the statistical handling cost differential between single carloads and shuttle carloads is $394 while the rate differential is $600 does not support Greyhounds' accusations of bogus arguments, insanity and weird agendas. Indeed, the reality is nearly the opposite of what Greyhounds attempted to portray above. Whether these continuing gross factual errors are the result of his ongoing carelessness, or of Greyhounds pursuing "weird agendas" of his own I do not know, I can only remark on his consistency.

However, there is a little more to it, and this is why "costs" cannot be confused with "price" in the fashion that Greyhounds has confused them. He is the only alleged "pricing" person I have ever "discussed" this with that confuses these two completely different concepts.

Montana has some shuttle elevators. Wheat farmers are reluctant to use them. The additional costs of truck transportation to get the wheat to the shuttle elevators is relatively high. Last year, specifically, the BNSF rate differential between single and shuttle carload rates was $350.00.

The average farmer had to spend approximately $500 to get the wheat to the shuttles over the cost of trucking to the traditional elevator.

With the recent raise in rates for the traditional elevator, and the $125 reduction in carload charges on shuttle rates, the rate difference of $600 is now just above the average cost threshold of a farmer, providing a direct economic incentive to choose to move his wheat to the shuttle elevator instead of simply storing it at the traditional elevator and filing a common carrier complaint for service.

A little different view than you get from Greyhounds but of course he's never claimed to know the wheat industry or how it works out West.

Or has he?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
But Sol throws out this one figure, $294, and applies it to all loads. This is bogus to the max.

False.

The regression studies utilized shuttle train rates.

As Kenneo pointed out above, and which Greyhounds did not understand, cost of operation is a different consideration than price to the customer, and I have no doubt that Greyhounds continues to confuse the two.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
... ... Unit trains don't save much, if anything, on line haul costs. That's not their point.

Usually. That's why line-haul costs for loose car movements and unit train movements normally are the same or very close to being the same --- "level".

QUOTE: They reduce terminal costs. And they do reduce equipment ownership costs per load.

They are supposed to, but often times don't. Again, depends on how the operation is run. Origin and Destination factors such as (but not limited to) track length, loading equipment and unloading equipment, work done in a yard or "out on the main line" all factor into this. So does congestion. The BN seems to have a bad habit of having poorer car utilization factors for grain unit train service than the traditional loose car movements. Shouldn't be that way, but it seems to be the rule.

QUOTE: The rates are set to maximize the wealth of the shareholders in the BNSF Corporation, which is why there is a BNSF Corporation.

And if management does not do this, the shareholders will have them telling it to a judge and then they will have the great privilege of forking over great amounts of money to those same shareholders as "punishment". This has very little to do with the subject at hand. In fact, the prevelance of rates much less than the amount needed to cover variable costs and fixed costs should incite the shareholders to file such a suit. Perhaps I should purchase one share of BNSF and then file suit. Think? Figures such as 106% of VC (Variable Costs) when the STB holds that a fair rate is 160%-180% VC makes one wonder.

BN will counter "It is the American Way -- Competition." OK.

I am in business for myself and I know for a certainty that I can not cover all of my costs by charging 106% of my VC. My labor costs alone exceed the material costs - and my materials are not cheap. And then there are my "EPA Costs". So if that is the case for me, and the "break-even" figure for the BN is just under 160% VC, then the BN is taking in $1 for each $1.50 it is spending. For the BN to make money at those rates, someone else must cover that excess $.50 -- and the Montana farmer is not willing to let it be him! I can't hold that against him.

For your argument to make sense, the BN would have to have as its floor rate 160% VC and all other rates would need to exceed that amount (in % of VC).

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Cost wise, you have the line haul segment, the origin segment and the termination section. Items one and two account for 2/3 of the costs in loose car operations. In unit train operations, that ratio drops greatly - the amount depends on how the operation is run.

Hi Eric,

A very interesting overall analysis. Right on the mark.

Regarding the handling costs, I've seen estimates to this effect, however ...

Statistical analysis of rates (wheat) ought to show the origin and termination costs as the Y-intercept of a linear or non-linear regression analysis of the rate structure.

In a sampling of 2500 such rates from across the BNSF system, the Y-intercept varied between $270 and $461 per carload. Those are total costs that are not associated with the mileage factor, and, because of that, can include yard dwell times as well as origin and termination costs. Texas origin to Gulf Port costs are the highest of such intercepts, Montana origin to Portland destination costs, through Pasco are $294.00 at the intercept.

Field sampling of the Montana data, loading and unloading times, and analyzing the direct variable cost factors associated with the operations, confirms these intercepts.

I would be interested to see other data on the topic.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, I know how much he dislikes for anyone to disagree with him. But, I'm gonna' disagree with him anyway - mainly because he's wrong again.

This "$294.00 Y Intercept Figure" is as bogus as a $3 bill Tools like regression analysis can be used to produce valuable insight. They can also produce a line of BS that would make any politician proud. Knowing the difference is knowing your subject.

The wonderful, magnificent BNSF railroad has four levels of pricing for wheat moving from Montana to Portland, OR for export.

1) a rate on shipments tendered in 1 to 25 car lots
2) a rate on shipments tendered in 26-52 car lots
3) a rate on shipments tendered in 53-109 car lots
4) a rate on shipments tendered in 110-120 car lots

Now, anyone who knows railroad cost structures knows that the 110 car + unit trains have significantly different terminal (and "dwell", read car time/ownership expense) costs than smaller shipment volumes. Unit trains don't save much, if anything, on line haul costs. That's not their point. They reduce terminal costs. They don't require switch engines and locals. Big savings there! And they do reduce equipment ownership costs per load. They don't "dwell" in yards waiting to be aggregated into trains. They're already a train. So their equipment gets better utilization and carries more loads per year at a lower cost per load.

But Sol throws out this one figure, $294, and applies it to all loads. This is bogus to the max.

There are 10 loading sites in Montana that have rates for the 110-120 car lot shipments. Uniformly, across the entire state on Montana, those unit train rates are $600/car LESS than the 1-25 car rates. So the wonderful BNSF is passing on $600/car to its customers for using a unit train instead of smaller shipments. But Sol says the total cost that the railroad could save is less than half that.

Smoke and mirrors!

Why would any proudly profit seeking corporation pass on twice its savings to its customers? That would be insane. They wouldn't do that, now would they? Any sane person would understand this.

It boils down to:

1) you can not have one "terminal" cost figure for all shipments because comparing the terminal costs on unit trains to terminal costs on smaller volume shipments is "apples and oranges", but Sol does it anyway - I guess to promote his wierd political agenda.

2) I have still seen no evidence that the BNSF rates on wheat from Montana are "unfair", or "out of line", or in any other way "real bad".

The rates are set to maximize the wealth of the shareholders in the BNSF Corporation, which is why there is a BNSF Corporation. Now, you might have a problem with that, I don't. That thinking, and that concept, has produced the best economy in the World. People regularly risk their lives to illegally get into this economy.

I mean, we're not trying to sneak in to Mexico or Canada to earn a decent living, are we?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Cost wise, you have the line haul segment, the origin segment and the termination section. Items one and two account for 2/3 of the costs in loose car operations. In unit train operations, that ratio drops greatly - the amount depends on how the operation is run.

Hi Eric,

A very interesting overall analysis. Right on the mark.

Regarding the handling costs, I've seen estimates to this effect, however ...

Statistical analysis of rates (wheat) ought to show the origin and termination costs as the Y-intercept of a linear or non-linear regression analysis of the rate structure.

In a sampling of 2500 such rates from across the BNSF system, the Y-intercept varied between $270 and $461 per carload. Those are total costs that are not associated with the mileage factor, and, because of that, can include yard dwell times as well as origin and termination costs. Texas origin to Gulf Port costs are the highest of such intercepts, Montana origin to Portland destination costs, through Pasco are $294.00 at the intercept.

Field sampling of the Montana data, loading and unloading times, and analyzing the direct variable cost factors associated with the operations, confirms these intercepts.

I would be interested to see other data on the topic.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
.... I will ignore his latest juvenile attack.

No attacks there, is there?

Never stops does it, thread after thread?

To: Mr. Michael-blank-profile-Sol (now signing in as an anonymous member)

After your attack on Greyhounds above, it's not an insult.

It's an accurate observation.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Let's see. Rate per mile. There are two versions of this, -- the railroads costs and the price charged to consumers.

Cost wise, you have the line haul segment, the origin segment and the termination section. Items one and two account for 2/3 of the costs in loose car operations. In unit train operations, that ratio drops greatly - the amount depends on how the operation is run. So .......... the longer the haul, the lower the COST per mile.

According to generally accepted rate knowledge, the rate should hover around 160% to 180% of the COST to cover such things as shops, interest, taxes, yada-yada.

Regression studies show that Montana wheat rates to Portland are about 140% of the BNSF system average at a given mileage. Part of what makes that peculiar is that this is on BNSF's "wheat corridor" -- BNSF ships more wheat to Portland on this route than to any other export port by nearly a factor of ten. Should be a highly efficient operation. Yet, the average farmer pays about $500 more than the system average at that specific mileage.

Greyhounds carefully confuses the facts. It is not, and never has been, an argument that, in general, longer distances have lower average costs per mile. We know that. How he manages to continue to make the broad statement in light of a specific example that shorter distances also receive lower rates in the situation at hand is a set of facts he conveniently overlooks. He has to, otherwise he has nothing to say. He simply pretends it doesn't exist. But, exist they do. Those are published rates. Not dealing with a verifiable reality is consistent with the way that some view this point. This thread now represents a good sampling of who those do. In any event, the discussion is about something else.

The system average itself is about $500 higher than the lowest rate charged on the system at any given mileage within the relevant range of 600-1000 miles. In terms of variable cost, the Montana rate is about 285% the approximate variable cost of service, the lowest wheat rate on the BNSF system at the given mileage is about 114% of the approximate variable cost of service. This is still higher than the generous 106% granted to certain kinds of import traffic.


Within this 600-1000 mile range, BNSF charges some considerably different rates. If you were just looking at rates, you might think they were completely different commodities, the rates are so disparate even though the mileage is identical. That is, the rate differential has nothing to do with mileage and, given the corridor involved, should be more, rather than less, favorable on an operating cost basis.

At current traffic levels, the BNSFsystem average breakeven point is about 152% of the variable cost of service. Whle that number offers only a rough approximation of profitability for any given traffic, it is illustrative.

For a Montana farmer, the transportation charges can easily equal or exceed 35% of their selling price for wheat. For others less favorably situated to their markets -- yes, less favorably situated -- and with less favorable markets, they can be paying as little as 12-16% of their selling price.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

It took only a little time for the joint rate to dissappear and the cost of Montana Red nearly doubled at the Portland gateway except for the export traffic. Even the recripocal switch did not apply for either UP or SP destinations within the Portland RSD.

Any idea of what portion of this traffic to the PNW went on for overseas export?

Most went to export, and still does. I am not aware of any great amount of Montana wheat of the "hard" varieties that go East. Nearly all goes to Portland, Vancouver, Kalama and Longview elevators. But with this change in the rate structure, all UP served elevators got cut out of the lower rate for BN served elevators.

The last I heard (and this was some time back) was that Montana Red going to Portland to final on the UP had to go via Silver Bow and thence West on the OSL and O-WRN.

In fact, the BN even cut out one of its own elevator ports -- Astoria -- because it was situated 90 miles down a branch. The joint rate over Portland happened to apply to Astoria as well as UP and SP served destinations. Although the rail is still there (owned by the City of Astoria and the Oregon Department of Transportation), the rate is more to ship by rail than can be saved by not operating ships between Portland and Astoria. And ships are expensive beasties to operate.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

It took only a little time for the joint rate to dissappear and the cost of Montana Red nearly doubled at the Portland gateway except for the export traffic. Even the recripocal switch did not apply for either UP or SP destinations within the Portland RSD.

Any idea of what portion of this traffic to the PNW went on for overseas export?

[kenneo]

Let's see. Rate per mile. There are two versions of this, -- the railroads costs and the price charged to consumers.

Cost wise, you have the line haul segment, the origin segment and the termination section. Items one and two account for 2/3 of the costs in loose car operations. In unit train operations, that ratio drops greatly - the amount depends on how the operation is run. So .......... the longer the haul, the lower the COST per mile.

According to generally accepted rate knowledge, the rate should hover around 160% to 180% of the COST to cover such things as shops, interest, taxes, yada-yada.

The cost to the consumer - the RETAIL rate- is the cost per mile that the Montana farmer is looking at. If you look at Michael's rate quotes above, you will see that the price payed per mile by the Montana wheat farmer is greater - much greater in some locations - than the Washington or North Dakota wheat farmer to the Portland gateway for export.

So, the BN(SF) is charging a higher margin (per mile) for Montana origins than for Washington and North Dakota origins to the same destination. In theory, at least, the rates should be "nearly level" over that entire territory with the only difference being the increased costs to the railroad incurred simply by the mileage involved. The origin and destination portions of the rates would, generally, be close to being the same regardless of the origin or destination.

The grain industry is an incredibly competitive business. One of the "work 20's" that my father had was manager/operator of a retail feed operation. This example comes from him (deceased, so he can't respond). A small bit of history with the example.

Pre-Staggars rates for hard winter wheat (Montana Red) from EAST of the Continental Divide were highly competitive to the Portland gateway. You had the GN, NP and MILW in direct head-to-head competition - and even the UP got into the act over Spokane via the MILW. There was also a joint rate over Portland and Spokane/Avery for destination within 75 miles of Portland and another for 150 miles of Portland. Otherwise, the car needed to be rebilled at Portland without benefit of a joint rate.

The BN, during its merger, tried to eliminate this joint rate over Portland, so that the loads would require a local rate (much higher than the joint) and either be rebilled or trucked byond Portland. Bless the MILW for putting the spike in that maneuver by proposing an even lower joint rate with only the SP over Portland. Much traffic moved under this rate and the BN did not wi***o see the MILW capture it.

Comes 1980 and the abandonment of the MILW's Pacific Extension and the BN's merger with the SLSF. Actually, for all practical purposes, the SLSF took over the BN and those managers were real penny pinchers and money grubbers. Blood-suckers to the core. It took only a little time for the joint rate to dissappear and the cost of Montana Red nearly doubled at the Portland gateway except for the export traffic. Even the recripocal switch did not apply for either UP or SP destinations within the Portland RSD.

The restraint on the BN and its predecessor companies was the MILW, and it is my opinion, that the best solution to these rate problems for Montana is for an independant operation over the Pacific Extension to the Twin Cities with a safe-harbor connection to the DME/ICE and the WC/CN. Normal free market operations would do the most of any single solution.

The only other workable solution is open access, but that operation would be at the mercy of the owning road (and in almost all cases under discussion this would be the BN. I see a real problem here.).

Having the MRL and YVR provide this service is a non-starter. Not because of any fault on their parts, but because ALL of their trackage is leased from the BN. I know for a fact, that the BN controls all of the MRL's interchanges. I can't see them allowing ANY form of competition from their leasees.

[karldotcom]

How come farmers dont buy their own graincar pools? Kind of like those Canada grain hoppers I see every once in a while. Sure beats whining every year.


Trainfoamers.com - It's Free To Talk Trains Again!

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AMTK200

Thanks for the insiteful Posts everyone, I am sorry to admit that I can't blame the MT Gov for being p*ssed, if I was Gov I wouldn't be happy at all.

Well, I have yet to see any evidence that the BNSF is being "unfair" to Montanta with its wheat rates. Farmers have been complaining about rail rates since there have been rail rates. And politicians have been exploiting that fact for their own personal gain for about the same amount of time.

Some of us with actual transporation pricing experience have tried to explain to Mr. Sol that there is much more to it than just how many miles a load moves. He'll have none of it. As Tom pointed out. all other things being equal, it is perfectly natural for the "per mile" charge to be higher from Montana to Oregon than from Minnesota to Oregon.
The terminal costs will be similar, and there are fewer miles from Montanta to spread those terminal costs over. So the point to point per mile expense will naturally be greater.

But there's more to it than that. There is a lot that goes into rate making. And it is the job of the railroad pricing person to get the best revenue he/she can.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the insiteful Posts everyone, I am sorry to admit that I can't blame the MT Gov for being p*ssed, if I was Gov I wouldn't be happy at all.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
.... I will ignore his latest juvenile attack.

No attacks there, is there?

Never stops does it, thread after thread?

Now, regarding this thread, what DO you actually know about Governor Schweitzer, the BNSF, or pollution problems in Washington, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota? Or Wheat rates?

[samfp1943]

To Tom, Michael and anyone else interested:
Thanks!
Sam
The individual insights and perspectives are very much appreciated, and the first-hand anecdotal information is really interesting . I hope we may all move forward in that spirit.
Sincerely,
Sam Prest

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

Tom, Michael and anyone else:
I started this thread to try and learn information on an area that I have only read about, and seen from comments in this forum.
I felt like the members could shed some light on the historical background of what was taking place in the PNW. A lot of us find the insights interesting, and I really appreciate the informational posts that You (Tom) and Michael Sol have contributed, but I think that this slow slide into character assination and retort is beneth both of you.
I would appreciate it ; if that is all you can contribute. Past this point, that you take it some place else.
Thank you both for past informational contributions.
Sam

One solution is to ignore anyone who makes a personal attack. They are a waste of time since they have obviously run out of ideas. Just imagine they do not exist.

Bob, and others on the forum: I have to apologize for these type posts. However, when I am attacked with such comments, based on someone's "reading between the lines" I feel the need to respond in my defense. As a favor to those on the forum, I will ignore his latest juvenile attack.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

Tom, Michael and anyone else:
I started this thread to try and learn information on an area that I have only read about, and seen from comments in this forum.
I felt like the members could shed some light on the historical background of what was taking place in the PNW. A lot of us find the insights interesting, and I really appreciate the informational posts that You (Tom) and Michael Sol have contributed, but I think that this slow slide into character assination and retort is beneth both of you.
I would appreciate it ; if that is all you can contribute. Past this point, that you take it some place else.
Thank you both for past informational contributions.
Sam

Thanks Sam, for saying what is on a lot of people's minds. I agree 100%.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[But, since I base my opinions on people who would actually know about shipping, it would make them more accurate.

Even though, in this instance, "he" was plainly and factually wrong, even though you offered his opinion in your own name. Yeah .... thanks for more fabricated misinformation regarding shipping rates in the PNW, designed as usual to start a flame war because you 1) you just can't resist attempting to show someone is "wrong" on something because "of course if you ...", and 2) you do not, in fact, know what you are talking about, as the above public record mileage rates plainly show.

Now you blame some anonymous traffic manager. Contrary to Sam's perceptions, I do not see these as "contributions," but the usual and consistent abuse of these threads by TomDiehl who fabricates facts, studies, and makes assertions in his own name that, when shown wrong, he then blames someone he originally stole the comment from ....

And, in case there's any doubt, note above the ad hominem but obligatory attack on Futuremodal .

He hasn't said a word.

These threads are always just an excuse for TomDiehl, and that conclusively shows it.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

Tom, Michael and anyone else:
I started this thread to try and learn information on an area that I have only read about, and seen from comments in this forum.
I felt like the members could shed some light on the historical background of what was taking place in the PNW. A lot of us find the insights interesting, and I really appreciate the informational posts that You (Tom) and Michael Sol have contributed, but I think that this slow slide into character assination and retort is beneth both of you.
I would appreciate it ; if that is all you can contribute. Past this point, that you take it some place else.
Thank you both for past informational contributions.
Sam

One solution is to ignore anyone who makes a personal attack. They are a waste of time since they have obviously run out of ideas. Just imagine they do not exist.

[samfp1943]

Tom, Michael and anyone else:
I started this thread to try and learn information on an area that I have only read about, and seen from comments in this forum.
I felt like the members could shed some light on the historical background of what was taking place in the PNW. A lot of us find the insights interesting, and I really appreciate the informational posts that You (Tom) and Michael Sol have contributed, but I think that this slow slide into character assination and retort is beneth both of you.
I would appreciate it ; if that is all you can contribute. Past this point, that you take it some place else.
Thank you both for past informational contributions.
Sam

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Since I was told this by a traffic manager, I figured it had more authority than someone with who-knows-what for background.

Given your established penchant for misquoting others, representing "studies" that never existed, and other misrepresentations of opinion or fact, I am sure the hapless "traffic manager" did not know he was going to be misrepresented on a forum somewhere, then blamed by TomDiehl for providing erroneous information completely inappropriate and inapplicable to the discussion, but only after TomDiehl took credit for the observation and got caught by reference to objective facts, once again.

Your penchant for going from thread to thread where Futuremodal or myself post, obviously just to start flame wars, is now well established. Your complete lack of any knowledge whatsoever, in this instance, of BNSF, polllution, Montana, grain rates, or the Pacific Northwest is by now conclusively established. There must be something out there that you can comment on which you either have a legitimate interest, or a legitimate basis for discussion.

Good day, Michael Sol

And the same can be said for your penchant for seeing things that aren't stated, just exist in your mind. YOU were the one that decided it was plagerism when I stated an opinion. YOU even stated that you knew this was my opinion. Your attempt to refute it, was answered with the source of the information that formed my opinion. Maybe you need to look up the definition of "plagerism" before making such accusations. The traffic manager in question was not misrepresented in this, or any other forum.

My background is clearly stated in my profile, which you've obviously read, and is easily available for others to read. I don't throw in little hits, buried in threads along the way. But Michael-blank-profile-Sol has nothing to say in there, just that he's stated his background in bits and pieces somewhere in these threads. The same can be said for Futuremodal.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Since I was told this by a traffic manager, I figured it had more authority than someone with who-knows-what for background.

The post, which begins with the condescending "of course ..." appears to be your opinion, not someone else's. Now you admit it's actually someone else's opinon. That's plagarism. Again.

Good day, Michael Sol

And as usual, Michael can't even keep his insults straight. The first time, he complemented me on my internet searching abilities, then, in reference to the same statement, accuses me of plagarism, even after admitting that he knew I found it on the internet. Now he digs up the lame "plagerism" again. But, since I base my opinions on people who would actually know about shipping, it would make them more accurate.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Since I was told this by a traffic manager, I figured it had more authority than someone with who-knows-what for background.

The post, which begins with the condescending "of course ..." appears to be your opinion, not someone else's. Now you admit it's actually someone else's opinon. That's plagarism. Again.

Given your established penchant for misquoting others, representing "studies" that never existed, and other misrepresentations of opinion or fact, I am sure the hapless "traffic manager" did not know he was going to be misrepresented on a forum somewhere, then blamed by TomDiehl for providing erroneous information completely inappropriate and inapplicable to the discussion, but only after TomDiehl took credit for the observation and got caught by reference to objective facts, once again.

Your penchant for going from thread to thread where Futuremodal or myself post, obviously just to start flame wars, is now well established. Your complete lack of any knowledge whatsoever, in this instance, of BNSF, polllution, Montana, grain rates, or the Pacific Northwest is by now conclusively established. There must be something out there that you can comment on which you either have a legitimate interest, or a legitimate basis for discussion.

I think most readers would care to read about the topic, rather than your opinions on the topic which usually prove to be based on plagarized remarks, or fabricated "evidence" just to sustain an argument. It's clear your motives have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I pointed out to Bergie a few weeks ago, watch, if there's a thread with FM or myself, TomDiehl WILL appear on it, so he can begin his usual litany of insults and wholesale fabrications of studies, facts, whatever he needs.

So far, you are compiling a flawless record in that regard.

I would appreciate in the future that you limit discussions to the topics that you may know something about, and not feel compelled to intercede merely because I post. On those issues you obviously know nothing about, it detracts from the dscussion immensely, and while it appears to be enormously gratifying to you, I doubt that anyone else gets nearly the thrill out of it that you seem to.

Good day, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Strange the governor didn't mention the Washington state rate. Or was that an oversight on his part. Or one that might disprove his point?

Don't need to be an expert to see that. More political pandering. The only lame claims to being an "expert" I've seen here is yours.

Actually, it supports his point -- that Montana farmers are discriminated against -- but more importantly, demonstrates conclusively in this instance that your statement was false.

Now, why would you feel a need to come on this thread to lecture us all on how rates really work, when you obviously know nothing about rates in the PNW, as clearly demonstrated above?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Since I was told this by a traffic manager, I figured it had more authority than someone with who-knows-what for background.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Strange the governor didn't mention the Washington state rate. Or was that an oversight on his part. Or one that might disprove his point?

Don't need to be an expert to see that. More political pandering. The only lame claims to being an "expert" I've seen here is yours.

Actually, it supports his point -- that Montana farmers are discriminated against -- but more importantly, demonstrates conclusively in this instance that your statement was false.

Now, why would you feel a need to come on this thread to lecture us all on how rates really work, when you obviously know nothing about rates in the PNW, as clearly demonstrated above?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Of course, if you take the total shipping bill and divide by the number of miles hauled, a short run will cost more than a long run per mile, even if you send it by truck. Montana is closer to the Pacific coast than Kansas or Nebraska.

Aahh, it was only a matter of time before the wheat industry expert, produce industry expert, history of mineral exploration out west expert, rail capacity expert, BNSF operating department expert, Pacific Northwest rail rate expert needed to speak on topics for which he is unsually well-qualified to speak ...

As of today, single carload rate BNSF to Portland, STCC # 0113710:

Ritzville, WA, 315 miles, $3.65/mile
Cheney, WA, 364 miles, $3.74/mile
Spokane, WA 384 miles, $3.63/ mile
Eureka, MT, 627 miles, $5.55/mile
Whitefish, MT, 636 miles, $5.63/mile
Shelby, MT, 785 miles, $4.05/mile
Williston, ND, 1191 miles, $3.49/mile
Beach, ND 1286 miles, $3.12/mile
Minot, ND, 1311 miles, $3.33/mile

Same mainline, same railroad.

Caveat: Washington State is closer to the Pacific coast than Montana.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Strange the governor didn't mention the Washington state rate. Or was that an oversight on his part. Or one that might disprove his point?

Don't need to be an expert to see that. More political pandering. The only lame claims to being an "expert" I've seen here is yours.