QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.”
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's what businesses do, determine prices charged to their consumers based on their costs.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Original posted by greyhounds Oh, boy. I guess Sol is: 1) Trolling, trying to stir up trouble by fabricating a non-existant, never was, rate of $1.40/bushel ... It's impossible to tell from the chart exactly what the 1981 rate was, but it was at least $0.70/bushel
QUOTE: greyhounds: It's no where near $1.40/bushel
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds And yet you and Sol beat this railroad over the head - and both of you ignore the fact that the BNSF has been very, very, good to the Montana farmers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Character One other significant point that no one has raised is that many farmers are becoming truckers in their own right. They have purchased older semis of their own to move their grain. This may be to a new larger grain elevator on a main line or to a barge port on a river. The family farm is an endangered species in our country, has been for years. The simple fact is that many farmers are corporate and have built the capacity to move their own produce as part of the logistics chain. So, the railroad gets another competitor or at least a customer that is willing to enhance the truck and water transport competition.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu And inspite of this Grain movements through the ports of Duluth and Superior are just half of what they were from the end of WW2 through the '80s. In fact Grain now ranks below Misc. Cargo in the rankings at about 5 percent of the ports volume. They handled 2.8 million tons of Grain for 2005 a tiny fraction above the 5 year average. If the rates were any higher to Duluth-Superior it would dry up completely. BNSF has a lot of spare capacity on the high line west of Brookston, MN all the way to Minot, ND.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's what businesses do, determine prices charged to their consumers based on their costs. Nope. I take it you've never worked in a business where you had to compete? The selling price is based on market competition, not on your cost.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 So, the VC180 rule implies that as a company becomes more efficient, they are legally required to pass entirely all of the productivity gains to the customer and not pocket any of the gains themselves.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)]
An "expensive model collector"
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's what businesses do, determine prices charged to their consumers based on their costs. Nope. I take it you've never worked in a business where you had to compete? The selling price is based on market competition, not on your cost. "Compete" is the key word there, alfalfa. If you had taken any economics classes, the first theory they teach you is the old "cost + 10%" rule of thumb which only applies to competitive markets. In monopolistic markets, it's more like "cost + the sky's the limit" because there is no competition there to keep you honest. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
QUOTE: Originally posted by marcimmeker I was wondering how that Texas chemical company is doing after it build itself a connection to a second railroad because of the UP+SP merger mess? Do they get a competitive price compared to their neighbours who don't have a second railroad come calling at there door? greetings, Marc Immeker
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by marcimmeker I was wondering how that Texas chemical company is doing after it build itself a connection to a second railroad because of the UP+SP merger mess? Do they get a competitive price compared to their neighbours who don't have a second railroad come calling at there door? greetings, Marc Immeker They think they get a competive price.
23 17 46 11
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's what businesses do, determine prices charged to their consumers based on their costs. Nope. I take it you've never worked in a business where you had to compete? The selling price is based on market competition, not on your cost. "Compete" is the key word there, alfalfa. If you had taken any economics classes, the first theory they teach you is the old "cost + 10%" rule of thumb which only applies to competitive markets. In monopolistic markets, it's more like "cost + the sky's the limit" because there is no competition there to keep you honest. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? OK. To be fair, I went back and re-read your post. It still says the same thing, and you're still wrong. If you'd ever worked in a business that had to compete you'd understand why you are wrong. Why is that so hard to grasp?[;)] If you don't mean what you say, why don't you say what you mean? It's way to hard for those of us with average intelligence to decipher what you *mean*, when it's different than what you *say*.[}:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)] Dave, I really love how you seem to make a habit of acting all smug in your responses, and then have them thrown in your face. Did you read the link? The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy. Now I know you will put your usual spin on it, the railroads bribed them with all there money. But at the end of the day it shows that YOU are the one that knows nothing about the railroad industry. Bert
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's what businesses do, determine prices charged to their consumers based on their costs. Nope. I take it you've never worked in a business where you had to compete? The selling price is based on market competition, not on your cost. "Compete" is the key word there, alfalfa. If you had taken any economics classes, the first theory they teach you is the old "cost + 10%" rule of thumb which only applies to competitive markets. In monopolistic markets, it's more like "cost + the sky's the limit" because there is no competition there to keep you honest. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? OK. To be fair, I went back and re-read your post. It still says the same thing, and you're still wrong. If you'd ever worked in a business that had to compete you'd understand why you are wrong. Why is that so hard to grasp?[;)] If you don't mean what you say, why don't you say what you mean? It's way to hard for those of us with average intelligence to decipher what you *mean*, when it's different than what you *say*.[}:)] The "cost + 10%" is a standard for the retail sector. I worked in a grocery store in my younger years, and got to know this caveat. No, it's not 10% for every item. Rather, it is a rule of thumb to determine a minimumly acceptable profit margin for high volume businesses. It is not set in stone. Some items have higher markups, some have negative markups. But the average markup should be in the 10% range. What I would like you to do for me Murphy is this: Since you are a seller of lumber, go through the various varieties and configurations of the lumber you sell, and find the average markup on each item. What is your store's average markup for the aggregate product? Is it in the 10% range give or take, is it lower (5%), or is it much higher (say 25%)? Can it not be argued that railroad transportation services are a high volume business? I'll stop here and let you catch up.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The right most column on the table verifies that the RVC's on the Montana rates are far greater than those from Nebraska. I assume that the Nebraska points were selected because they represent origins that are in competition with Montana farmers for export over the PNW. Interestingly, the column second to the right has the freight cost per bushel. For the Nebraska origins the freight cost per bushel ranges from a low of $1.08 to a high of $1.52. For the Montana rates the range is $.98 to $1.05. If I had a choice, I guess I'd go to Montana. http://rscc.mt.gov/docs/White_Paper_Meeting_10_05.pdf
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 What to do about productivity gains made by the rails. Because, if the rules, as I understand them thru this discussion are correct, then the productivity gains would have all passed to the shippers, not the investors. Agree? It is pretty straight forward math.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The right most column on the table verifies that the RVC's on the Montana rates are far greater than those from Nebraska. I assume that the Nebraska points were selected because they represent origins that are in competition with Montana farmers for export over the PNW. Interestingly, the column second to the right has the freight cost per bushel. For the Nebraska origins the freight cost per bushel ranges from a low of $1.08 to a high of $1.52. For the Montana rates the range is $.98 to $1.05. If I had a choice, I guess I'd go to Montana. http://rscc.mt.gov/docs/White_Paper_Meeting_10_05.pdf Montana pays $1.05 per bushel, for the total mileage of 884 miles. Nebraska pays $1.08 per bushel ... to ship 1491 miles. The Nebraska "high" rate is for a shipment of 2,206 miles. The average Montana rate is for a shipment of about 900 miles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.