BNSF boss says transport system nearing crisis

[edblysard]

While helping out the Montana wheat growers by building free sidings and double tracking those lines just in case....oh, and improving, (for free) the yards and loaders at all the small mom and pop grain elevators...you know, planning for the future and all....

Ed[:D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cornmaze

So the consensus of the experts here is that because Bnsf needs more capacity at this moment that they should have planned for it 35 years ago by keeping extra lines on hand. And because of that blunder those execs are now as guilty as former Third Reich officials. Uhh-huuuuh.

Yep.

They should have invested in a better crystal ball.

And used it for collateral for the big loans to build up the capacity back then.

[Anonymous]

So the consensus of the experts here is that because Bnsf needs more capacity at this moment that they should have planned for it 35 years ago by keeping extra lines on hand. And because of that blunder those execs are now as guilty as former Third Reich officials. Uhh-huuuuh.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

Regarding the PNW, I wi***he governor luck, but wonder what he's been smoking. The dominant school of economics for the past 30 years has favored de-regulation, privatization, and little or no interference in pricing or profits. The powers that be have shown no interest in controlling prices of prescription drugs or imposing price caps or profits taxes on oil. The state of California with many times the population and GDP of Montana sued the FERC over electric rates and the Adminstration and Justice sided with the FERC and California lost the case. The former Enron execs are on trial for Investor fraud, not defrauding their customers. One possible end result for the PNW could be the complete elimination of the STB and rate regulation. The new Supreme Court would likely go along.

Of course, the KEY difference is that when you deregulate a market that has multiple players, you get the public benefit of increased competition and subsequent investment (at least in theory). But when you deregulate a monopoly, you get absolutely no public benefit. Ergo, lobbying efforts to enact Staggers was a con game foisted upon the public by a naive Congress who simply have no perception of what is embodied in natural monopolies such as railroads.

Do you really think Congress had any idea that the output of Staggers would result in massive retrenchment, industrial consolidation into a handful of Class I giants, paper barriers that prevent shortlines from effectively competing for online business, bottleneck rate gouging that prevents logical line hauls from Point A to Point B, or that differential pricing would result in 400% R/VC rates for domestic rail shippers while importers would be gifted rates of 106% R/VC?

Of course not, which is proof of the con game.

The California situation was different, because (1) there were multiple utilities and energy firms involved, thus it can be argued that the price spikes were a result of market conditions and not the typical collusion inherent in monopoly markets, and (2) the consumer side of the California energy markets were still regulated, so consumer prices remained out of kilter with the unregulated supply side prices. Quite simply, the California energy crisis was the result of California politics as usual, and it is incredibly disingenuous for California politicians to blame the entire energy industry for their partial deregulation fiasco. Those energy firms who helped craft California's legal discombobulation are the ones who should have been investigated right along with the politicians who took their bling, not the outside firms who simply took advantage of what California's IPO offered them.

The most likely result of the rail situation is an AT&T-style breakup of the rail industry, because there really is no other effective solution.

[Anonymous]

I agree about the Northeast and to a lesser extent the Midwest being the driving issues politically back then. Consider how much went into Conrail. I think it's also worth remembering that Communist China was the 'enemy' and our last president was loudly criticized for allowing a Chinese businessman a sleep over at the White House. The Republican party was(and still is) divided and many conservatives such as Pat Buchanan wanted tough trade and monetary restrictions on China. The neo-cons are largely pro-business, but I'm not sure anyone forsaw the degree to which we have sold out to the Chinese. The flood of imports could have just as easily come from Russia or India.

In the Trains article on BNSF Reborn, I recall it was mentioned that at the time, nobody was really sure they wanted the SF transcon. Likewise, PRB coal became desirable after changes in the Clean Air act. The point is that radical shifts in traffic patterns can occur rapidly due to external factors such as legislation, foreign policy shifts, etc.and because of the expense and time involved rail can't react overnight. Banking ROW's is a great idea IMO, but operating redundant lines just in case, is a loosing proposition and just leads to more Conrails. Pundits and Consultants, some well known in Trains, have advocated downsizing and hauling only bulk commodities for almost as long as I've been reading the magazine. Why is CSX such a mess and what are they saying should be done about it?

Regarding the PNW, I wi***he governor luck, but wonder what he's been smoking. The dominant school of economics for the past 30 years has favored de-regulation, privatization, and little or no interference in pricing or profits. The powers that be have shown no interest in controlling prices of prescription drugs or imposing price caps or profits taxes on oil. The state of California with many times the population and GDP of Montana sued the FERC over electric rates and the Adminstration and Justice sided with the FERC and California lost the case. The former Enron execs are on trial for Investor fraud, not defrauding their customers. One possible end result for the PNW could be the complete elimination of the STB and rate regulation. The new Supreme Court would likely go along.

[Anonymous]

A wise man once said cutting costs in an organization was like squeezing water out of a sponge. The important thing is not how much you get, but what is done to that which remains. And it would seem railroads, dancing to the tune of Wall Street, have cut into the bone - deeply.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
He actually said the Milwaukee Road was in recievership because it had too much business and he also said that supply and demand had nothing to do with price.

As to the former, I cannot take credit for the remark, it was Milwaukee Road's Vice President -- Operations who made the comment in sworn testimony to the ICC and it was Forbes magazine which declared Milwaukee in the mid-1970's "the fastest growing railroad in America."

Regarding the latter, with elastic supply or demand it does, with inelastic supply or demand it doesn't.

Boy, I'd sure like to know what the VPO really said. You know, like a quote or something. It is not credible that he said they went broke because they had too much business. It is credible to me that you don't understand what he said and are interpreting it in a way that supports your ideology.

You keep attempting to bring this stuff up, and you were answered quite some time ago, with citations. Now it is just a pretend game for you. Your charge that I stated that supply and demand has nothing to do with price was 1) not something I originally said as a general economic rule, and 2) "inelastic" is the description used to describe 100% inelastic, i.e. no change. There are many degrees of elasticity or inelasticity. And they all have a relevant range. As many as you want in between elastic and inelastic. You had attempted to argue earlier that all supply and demand curves were elastic. Now that you've looked it up on the internet, you've changed your tune to a technical argument regarding "degrees" of elasticity. And here you are on a thread where this is not only not credible, but not relevant. Move on.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
[
As a life long Northwesterner, I agree with you regarding Brock Adams.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. The Feds didn't care that much about PNW railroads in the 1970s. They cared a great deal about the railroads in the Northeast and Midwest. Con Rail, the 4R Act, the Madison Hotel Meeting ( ie. No CR for CRIP), and down the road the Staggers Act were to meet the needs of those regions.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

It's an old argument: "cutting their way to prosperity."

Never did work.

Blame Wall Street, but for most of this period, railroads weren't raising funds by selling stock. Brock Adams -- a Congressman turned bureaucrat -- started this talk about "ratilonalization.". Then it became a carrot to receive 4R funding, notwithstanding Warren Magnuson's [Chairman, Senate ICC Committee] thundering retort that it wasn't the place of DOT and the FRA to set national rail policy by setting capacity standards. Congress meant to help all the railroads, under the theory that the ICC, and ultimately Congress, bore a good share of the blame for the predicament facing railroads in 1976.

Well, the bureaucrats got there way, so effectively that three years after 4R, something like only 6% of funds allocated had been distributed. A big help for what Congress had determined was a national rail "crisis." An entire industry was held hostage to a bureaucrat's idea of how the industry should be organized.

The bureaucrats got their way.

And all the industry sycophants bobbed their heads up and down and said, yup, excess capacity, "THAT'S the problem" because Brock Adams required them to say so as a condition for receiving federal funds.

The only railroader that ever made sense at the time was Tom Lamphier, president at BN: "Excess capacity is necessary, even desireable, in a competitive rail environment."

Words you don't hear from self-aggrandizing managements along the way.

The problem was never excess capacity; it was the lack of a reasonable rate of return at any level.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Michael,

Whatever happened to Tom Lamphier? He sounds like someone who actually had the logical perception missing from this current crop of rail industry advocates.

As a life long Northwesterner, I agree with you regarding Brock Adams. What a disaster he turned out to be.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
He actually said the Milwaukee Road was in recievership because it had too much business and he also said that supply and demand had nothing to do with price.

As to the former, I cannot take credit for the remark, it was Milwaukee Road's Vice President -- Operations who made the comment in sworn testimony to the ICC and it was Forbes magazine which declared Milwaukee in the mid-1970's "the fastest growing railroad in America."

Regarding the latter, with elastic supply or demand it does, with inelastic supply or demand it doesn't.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Boy, I'd sure like to know what the VPO really said. You know, like a quote or something. It is not credible that he said they went broke because they had too much business. It is credible to me that you don't understand what he said and are interpreting it in a way that supports your ideology.

As to your false claim that inelastic supply/demand doesn't influence price, you're wrong again. In economics elasticity is the measurement of the change in in quantity sold vs the change in price. If a good or service experiences a 5% reduction in sales on a 10% increase in price it will have an elasticty of 0.5 (5%/10%). Conversely, it a good or service has a 10% reduction in sales on a 5% price increase it will have an elasticity of 2. (10%/5%).

Any ratio below 1 is defined as inelastic. Elasticity can vary with time or the position on the supply/demand curve. It can be expressed in an equation involving the slope of the supply or demand curve.

So for you to say that supply and demand have no effect once the ratio drops below 1, which is exactly what you said, is ridiculous. You're claiming, falsely, that they have an effect above a ratio of 1, but then magically stop having an effect below that level.

That's exactly what you're claiming. And you are wrong once again.

As I have said, you just don't understand this stuff. But you keep trying to use it.

[MichaelSol]

It's an old argument: "cutting their way to prosperity."

Never did work.

Blame Wall Street, but for most of this period, railroads weren't raising funds by selling stock. Brock Adams -- a Congressman turned bureaucrat -- started this talk about "rationalization.". Then it became a carrot/stick to receive 4R funding, notwithstanding Warren Magnuson's [Chairman, Senate ICC Committee] thundering retort that it wasn't the place of DOT and the FRA to set national rail policy by setting capacity standards. Congress meant to help all the railroads, under the theory that the ICC, and ultimately Congress, bore a good share of the blame for the predicament facing railroads in 1976.

Well, the bureaucrats got their way, so effectively that three years after 4R, something like only 6% of funds allocated had been distributed. A "big help" for what Congress had determined was a national rail "crisis." An entire industry was held hostage to a bureaucrat's idea of how the industry should be organized.

The bureaucrats got their way.

And all the industry sycophants bobbed their heads up and down and said, yup, excess capacity, "THAT'S the problem" because Brock Adams required them to say so as a condition for receiving federal funds.

The only railroader that ever made sense at the time was Tom Lamphier, president at BN: "Excess capacity is necessary, even desireable, in a competitive rail environment."

Words you don't hear from self-aggrandizing managements along the way.

The problem was never excess capacity; it was the lack of a reasonable rate of return at any level.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[BaltACD]

Railroads, all of them, have been hard press to generate sufficient earnings to cover the cost of capital to enhance the physcial plant. For years and years, the only thing the railroads heard from the Capital Markets (Wall Street) was that the railroads had too much physical plant for their traffic levels and the physical plant had to be pruned if the railroads were to gain financing for their needs. The railroads listened and pruned the 'excess capacity' in order to gain the capital the needed to survive.

But let's remember one thing about both railroads and financial wizards....Figures lie and Liars figure. Wading through the lies is critical to survival as the lies come from all directions dressed in enough truth for the lie to be sold. Wall Street has sold lies. The Railroads have sold lies. And now we have the present where the demand for rail transportation is outstriping the imagination of both Wall Street and Rail Management.

For their employed lifetimes, both Wall Street and Rail Managment have had only one business model...CUT CUT CUT. Now they are having to develop a new business model the includes capacity enhancements, not cuts. It's a Brave New World and it is also a scary world for both Wall Street and Rail Management.

[SALfan]

From something I read, it took BN 10 years or so after the PRB coal boom started to make any money from it, because of all the new track and locomotives they had to buy to handle the traffic. Worse, they got trapped in low-profit long-term contracts with utilities who were willing to buy coal cars, because BN couldn't afford to buy them.

Yes, too much of a good thing can kill, or come close to it. It isn't like BN had a crystal ball at the beginning of the boom, to see how things would end up.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton
.... so we will need the capacity for the long term not short term.

But the rail industry has not thought that way in 25 years.

A friend of mine, retired BN,

"Lest somebody jump all over me for the Nazi comparison, I don't mean that at
all. What I do mean is the reply given to the moral part of it. You don't
liquidate profitable businesses, or portions of them, just to squeeze out a
profit. That's wrong, and it is wrong whether you do it with just a little
short piece of "redundant" track or with the whole dam thing".

Best regards, Michael Sol

Was he saying that common business practises are immoral or capitalism is immoral?

Jay Eaton

"Common business practices" of sacrificing long term prospects to the exigencies of short term gain don't work too well in capital intensive industries. I think what the author of the comment was saying was that sure, it is possible to generate a marginally higher rate of return in the short term by cannibalizing long term assets.

Kind of like a tree farm ... you can show a h*** of a good rate of return if you cut all the trees; then you are a company in trouble for the next fifty years.

Who pays? The employees, the shareholders, the watershed. And I agree, it is immoral to utilize short term business gains that sacrifices the future benefits for the company and for the society as a whole.

People are acting like capacity issues have never existed before, and that they were unforseeable.

Some comments from one of those notorious consultants:

"In World War I the issue was congestion and too little capacity; the twenties saw a relative balance between capacity and traffic levels. During the Great Depression there was too much capacity and the financial impact was disastrous. WWII created massive congestion and all the surplus capacity proved invaluable. After WWII, the East and Midwest suffered from massive overcapacity as passenger and freight traffic fled to the highway. But in the Southeast and the West, a growing economic base generated more rail freight traffic despite a loss of market share. Railroads in both of those regions had limited capacity, most of the lines had but one track. Technology, in the form of dieselization and automated dispatching saved the day.

"In the seventies and at the very time much of the Northeastern and Midwestern network was being rationalized, Burlington Northern was coping with a massive increase in coal traffic. New lines were built and thousands of miles of branch line track were upgraded to mainline status. The cost of that new capacity nearly destroyed the financial viability of BN."

Yet another odd example of how traffic growth and additional business can "destroy financial viablity" of a company.

Even odder, BN and Milwaukee's coal traffic growth during that time period were very nearly identical, both railroads experienced traffic growth in excess of 250%, 1973-1977. Milwaukee's growth was better situated: it did not have to build new lines for the traffic. But, both companies grossly underestimated the impact of coal unit trains on their infrastructure and both companies underpriced the cost of service as a result. Of course, Milwaukee's pricing chief at that point was from BN.

An interesting side note reflecting on recent PRB line problems. Milwaukee hired Bechtel Corp. to jointly design coal cars that would protect the railroad from blowing "fines". Milwaukee's coal trains were covered hoppers with automatic lids that rotated open as the coal cars entered the automatic unloading facilities at Big Stone. BN opted for open cars. Whether this reflected or not Milwaukee Road's longer experience as a coal carrier, I do not specifically know.

Another observation from the consultant:

"The 100-ton freight car caused the abandonment of thousands of miles of feeder lines, primarily in the Midwest. The track could not handle the larger cars, and traffic volumes did not justify the investment needed. Thus, a capacity-enhancing strategy had the unintended consequence of removing substantial track capacity."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton
.... so we will need the capacity for the long term not short term.

"Remember the famous line from the movie "Judgement in Nuremberg," where the Nazi judge is attempting to convince american judge Burt Lancaster that he didn't think his support of the regime was wrong or would cause any problems? The answer he got was, "You knew it was wrong when you made your very first
conscious choice to support those people."

Best regards, Michael Sol

Actually I'm going to jump on you for listing the wrong actor. Burt Lancaster actual played as the Nazi judge, Ernst Janning. The American judge was Spencer Tracy.

Anyhow back on topic. In light of the time period cutting back trackage did seem like a good idea as it made little sense to keep around old unused track and paying maintenance and taxes on it when it could be used to build new routes or keep up current ones. Business wasn't as good as it is now and few anticipated it becoming that way.

Most stockholders in a lot of businesses are risk-averse and don't like losing money. They'll often go for the most conservative route instead of adventurous. They fear they will lose money if a company keeps pouring out their own money on unused equipment or property and goes belly-up like The Rock did as someone mentioned earlier.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

While going over the reasons for the Milwaukee's demise can be an interesting intellectual discussion, the Milwaukee Road is quite defunct (over 20 years now) and its resurrection is highly unlikely.

And it was already discussed quite thoroughly in the "Milwaukee Road" thread, which I greatly enjoyed and which taught me a lot I didn't know.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

While going over the reasons for the Milwaukee's demise can be an interesting intellectual discussion, the Milwaukee Road is quite defunct (over 20 years now) and its resurrection is highly unlikely.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
He actually said the Milwaukee Road was in recievership because it had too much business and he also said that supply and demand had nothing to do with price.

As to the former, I cannot take credit for the remark, it was Milwaukee Road's Vice President -- Operations who made the comment in sworn testimony to the ICC and it was Forbes magazine which declared Milwaukee in the mid-1970's "the fastest growing railroad in America."

Regarding the latter, with elastic supply or demand it does, with inelastic supply or demand it doesn't.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

I'm convinced he has no understanding of ecnomics (socialist, capitalist, or otherwise.)

People make rational economic decisions and he attributes their thinking to some kind of weird conspiracy thingy.

Now people do make rational decisions that are wrong. But he doesn't understand that.

He actually said the Milwaukee Road was in recievership because it had too much business and he also said that supply and demand had nothing to do with price.

There is none so blind as he who will not see. And these are the writings of a "blind" man who can not fathom his economic environment.

I don"t think this is it. He just likes to have an argument and tosses out comments he hopes will start something (ie steam vs. diesel).

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I suppose those of you who argue that the railroads should have never eliminated under used lines would also argue that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are making a big mistake by shutting down plants. After all, what will they do if the American public suddenly decides to "Buy USA".

The carrying cost of unused or underused assets will put a compnay under in the blink of an eye. The world is littered with the bones of businesses that died because the owners and/or managers did not manage the business assets. If the railroads had not downsized as they did, they would probably now have less ca***han I have in my change jar.

By the way, people do live in houses with much more space than they need, but many will sell the house that is to big or to small to get something that more closely meets their needs. I have even heard that some people who down size their housing just want to spend their money on something else.

I would say it's just opposite: Businesses that circle the wagons will last less longer than businesses that expand aggressively.

You either grow or die.

Wal-Mart constantly expands. McDonald's constantly expands. Swift Trucking constantly expands. Nissan and Toyota constantly expand.

They are all growing.

GM and Ford constantly close down "excess" plants.

They are dying.

As for the housing analogy, you missed the point, entirely.

No, I think you missed my point, entirely.

Ford and GM may be dying, but their demise would come much sooner if they did not dispose of under used assets.

And, Wal Mart and McDonalds do not locate stores in locations that will not immediately have a volume of business that will make the store profitable. Swift does not buy trucks that will not be needed for several years. Nissan and Toyota do not build plants unless they are reasonably sure that they will sell all the cars that the plants can produce.

Circling the wagons is an effect that is caused by a decline in business and profits, or it is the result of a conscience decision to cash cow a business with the intent to liquidate when the cow runs dry. So long as the owners are not fooled, the latter strategy is entirely legitimate. In all of these, the assets are being managed in a manner to meet business objectives of revenue and profit generation.

The tag line "If you build it, they will come" only works in a fantasy world where long dead baseball players come to have a game on a field built in the middle of Iowa.

So, what was the point of your housing analogy? Seems to me that an analogy requires a reasonably comparative condition. May I point out the obvious? Since the ownership of ones private residence is not a business activity, suggesting that a business owner should behave in the same manner as a home owner seems rather specious.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton
.... so we will need the capacity for the long term not short term.

But the rail industry has not thought that way in 25 years.

A friend of mine, retired BN,

"Lest somebody jump all over me for the Nazi comparison, I don't mean that at
all. What I do mean is the reply given to the moral part of it. You don't
liquidate profitable businesses, or portions of them, just to squeeze out a
profit. That's wrong, and it is wrong whether you do it with just a little
short piece of "redundant" track or with the whole dam thing".

Best regards, Michael Sol

Was he saying that common business practises are immoral or capitalism is immoral?

Jay Eaton

I'm convinced he has no understanding of ecnomics (socialist, capitalist, or otherwise.)

People make rational economic decisions and he attributes their thinking to some kind of weird conspiracy thingy.

Now people do make rational decisions that are wrong. But he doesn't understand that.

He actually said the Milwaukee Road was in recievership because it had too much business and he also said that supply and demand had nothing to do with price.

There is none so blind as he who will not see. And these are the writings of a "blind" man who can not fathom his economic environment.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I suppose those of you who argue that the railroads should have never eliminated under used lines would also argue that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are making a big mistake by shutting down plants. After all, what will they do if the American public suddenly decides to "Buy USA".

The carrying cost of unused or underused assets will put a compnay under in the blink of an eye. The world is littered with the bones of businesses that died because the owners and/or managers did not manage the business assets. If the railroads had not downsized as they did, they would probably now have less ca***han I have in my change jar.

By the way, people do live in houses with much more space than they need, but many will sell the house that is to big or to small to get something that more closely meets their needs. I have even heard that some people who down size their housing just want to spend their money on something else.

I would say it's just opposite: Businesses that circle the wagons will last less longer than businesses that expand aggressively.

You either grow or die.

Wal-Mart constantly expands. McDonald's constantly expands. Swift Trucking constantly expands. Nissan and Toyota constantly expand.

They are all growing.

GM and Ford constantly close down "excess" plants.

They are dying.

As for the housing analogy, you missed the point, entirely.

[edbenton]

If you want to see atraffic capacity issue all you have to do is look at a major city come rush hour. I have seen parkinglots devolp in Chicago LA Atlanta and New York City. The hardest issue for increasing capacity is called the lack of money. We would rather spend money on a war overseas than fix up the highways properly. Right now every Americans share of the National Debt is 90K each.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton
.... so we will need the capacity for the long term not short term.

But the rail industry has not thought that way in 25 years.

A friend of mine, retired BN,

"Lest somebody jump all over me for the Nazi comparison, I don't mean that at
all. What I do mean is the reply given to the moral part of it. You don't
liquidate profitable businesses, or portions of them, just to squeeze out a
profit. That's wrong, and it is wrong whether you do it with just a little
short piece of "redundant" track or with the whole dam thing".

Best regards, Michael Sol

Was he saying that common business practises are immoral or capitalism is immoral?

Jay Eaton

[jeaton]

I suppose those of you who argue that the railroads should have never eliminated under used lines would also argue that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are making a big mistake by shutting down plants. After all, what will they do if the American public suddenly decides to "Buy USA".

The carrying cost of unused or underused assets will put a compnay under in the blink of an eye. The world is littered with the bones of businesses that died because the owners and/or managers did not manage the business assets. If the railroads had not downsized as they did, they would probably now have less ca***han I have in my change jar.

By the way, people do live in houses with much more space than they need, but many will sell the house that is to big or to small to get something that more closely meets their needs. I have even heard that some people who down size their housing just want to spend their money on something else.

[Anonymous]

Well, we have quite a few unused rooms at the farmhouse. I guess we could tear out the "excess capacity" so that we're not paying mothball fees (higher property taxes, more energy to heat/cool, etc). Then, when family growth spurs the need for more rooms, we'll just pay a contractor to rebuild those rooms at a much higher price than if we'd just kept the rooms minimally maintained......



[oops]
[:-,]


...well, I guess that's what we'd do if I was a "rail professional"![D)]

[Anonymous]

Sounds like it will be a repeat of the UP crisis of the late '90s. Only time will tell.

[TomDiehl]

Unfortunately, not a crisis limited to the railroad industry. In recent news reports, recall the major flap over a big bonus paid the the big-wheel of Delta Airlines, right on the heels of the workers being asked for big give-backs in salary and benefits.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

The two things that seem to be contrary to each other: in the last paragraph of your quote, third sentence, "You don't liquidate profitable businesses, or portions of them, just to squeeze out a profit. That's wrong, and it is wrong whether you do it with just a little short piece of "redundant" track or with the whole dam thing".

Then compare it to the first paragraph of the quote, the unnamed third manager states that "our whole railroad is for sale..."

If it was profitable and for sale, why didn't anyone buy it?

The quote "the whole railroad is for sale" is from a manager, judged an incompetent strategist by many. The second quote is from a long time BN dispatcher-- the author of the comment -- offering his views on the quality of such managers, including his opinion on the manager who made the observation, "the whole railroad is for sale."

Yes, the comments are contrary to each other.

His point is that the rail industry paid high salaries to men who are responsible for the current "crisis" which is in many ways a self-inflicted crisis, as most rail industry "crises" have been.

[TomDiehl]

The two things that seem to be contrary to each other: in the last paragraph of your quote, third sentence, "You don't liquidate profitable businesses, or portions of them, just to squeeze out a profit. That's wrong, and it is wrong whether you do it with just a little short piece of "redundant" track or with the whole dam thing".

Then compare it to the first paragraph of the quote, the unnamed third manager states that "our whole railroad is for sale..."

If it was profitable and for sale, why didn't anyone buy it?