July TRAINS takes on the captive shipper debate - Best Issue Ever?

[edblysard]

Kinda explains why he is afraid to answer...our janitor also know the president of the railroad, and some track folks too...
Still fails to answer the question.
Not obsessions, Mike...don’t be so vain as to assume anyone other than Dave is obsessed with you.
Just pointing out the fact that you hide behind anonymity.,and refuse to tell us what you did for the Milwaukee Road.

Simply put, we need to know the answer, so we can determine how to judge your postings.
Rants form a wanna be, or words from someone who was in a real position to know.

Pure fabrication, or words that can carry some weight?

Plainly obvious most of the folks here are not putting much value in your comments, as most folks disagree with you on almost every point.
And people currently in both the railroad industry, and the shpping industry, plus quite a few involved directly with shipping wheat, seem to think you off your rocker.
So far, pretty much all you have done is cut and paste graphs and other peoples words, except the snide and slightly arrogant insults...those are singularly yours, and you must be proud of them, you use them quite often to deflect questions you are afraid to answer.

As for “people who know me"...well, that’s the rub...no one here "knows" you, because you fail to provide basic background info.
You are an unknown...the Milwaukee Road Historical Society doesn’t list you as a retired or former employee, so....

Here is your chance to clue us in, add true value to your posting, and clear up any misunderstanding anyone might have as to what you did for that particular railroad.

Or you can dance some more….

Dave, when Mike rings the bell, does he check to make sure your bib is on first?

Ed

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Whew ... a lot of invention and speculation and putting thoughts into the "mind" of the BNSF without a shred of proof, not a single supporting fact. The actual fact is, nobody was buying Minnesota wheat. Duluth's high price for Minnesota wheat was below the lowest Portland price.

The fact is, this has turned into the usual Ken Strawbridge diatribe, now imposing his superior knowledge of the wheat industry -- and "storage"!! -- and how it all works. A permanent desk jockey who wouldn't know what a bushel of wheat was if it bit him.

This is the most marvelous caricature of an argument, I mean, worthy of Monty Python, complete with the lawyer slurs because he thinks it will score some points -- but, oh, bring up his industry spokemanship for the brutal greyhound industry -- and THAT'S PERSONAL!!

Let's put it in perspective: zero experience in the wheat industry. Zero involvement in the topic of discussion, wouldn't know a combine if it ran over him, wouldn't know the effects of a drought if he dried up in one, and now, having discovered a website or two, he thinks he's an expert on it all.

See, "there's no wheat in Montana, there was a drought. See, now I know all about storage, there was wheat, but it was those mendacious Montana farmers who did not want to sell at a low price -- just like those Minnesota farmers. So I, Ken Strawbridge, can have it both ways -- the drought meant there was no wheat, and the drought meant the farmers weren't selling all their wheat."

This isn't even spin anymore. This is desperate fabrication of facts and scenarioes without a shred of respect even for his own honesty.

Why are you so desperate to argue something you obviously, transparently, know nothing about?

Go back to the greyhound industry. Apparently they need a shill.

Sol, you just crossed a big personal line for the second time.

If anyone wants to know about how racing Greyhounds are cared for and protected please feel free to contact me at [e-mail]. They have very good long lives.

Ken Strawbridge

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Still fails to answer the question directly, like a…?
Coward?
Pretender?
Which officer’s position did you hold, at the time Mr. Smith was addressing the marketing department?

Ed understands the concept of generalized statements that allude to something that in reality isn’t so.
He has, in fact, watched you use it in ever single post you ever participate in.

In plainer English, it is called lying by omission...you enjoy leaving the reader or listener to assume, by hinting association with the named individuals, some amount of their prominence or fame, skill or worth.
This ploy quite plainly exposes the fact that you simply share none of their qualities.

Name droppers are bores.

I am quite certain Mr. Smith addressed the marketing department, but I am also sure you were not a part of it at the time.

So, again, your job, besides the part time summer one, was?

It is a simple question, Mike…why do you fear answering it?

Ed

Because I learned long ago, a civil discussion with you is pointless. Your ongoing inferiority complex wears thin. So does your name-calling. My "job" is none of your business. You didn't understand the quote, and you're still mad about three weeks ago when I pointed out how your "observations" on Class I railroads are always so different from real Class I railroaders. I knew then you were going to get back, somehow, because that's the kind of venal person you are. Schoolyard bully, all "growed" up, sort of. I saw the other thread, which I never posted on, which you proceeded to slander me up one side and down the other. I didn't post. You couldn't stand that. The Troll in you didn't get satisfied. So, now you're over here, way off topic, pursuing your vendetta.You can't keep up with the facts, so you attack the people.

I don't give a d*** about your education or your background. It's the quality of your arguments, and your mendacious slander that offends me. But, my background really, really seems to bother you. You're obsessed by it. It recurs over and over with you. Those people who know me, know full well what my background is. They count. The sad fact of the matter is, you don't.

Grow up and get over it.

The fact is, from growing up on a railroad, and working for a railroad, I've been privileged to know some first class people, from track crew to railroad presidents. And I can truthfully say, every single one of them outclasses you.

Kinda explains why he's divorced.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

"We were able to aboli***he helper districts in 1974. Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators. The harvest season was coming up and of course that's when all of a sudden the new crop doesn't have anywhere to go because there is old grain sitting there. Then all of sudden, the railroads don't have enough cars, of course. Well, we had some empty cars sitting around, and there was a lot of grain out there. It made sense for us to anticipate the upcoming season and help everyone by getting that grain out. We dropped our rate by 15% for a very short period, a week or so. Just to fill up those empty grain cars. Make some money." WL Smith to Sol, 8.14.2002

Now, BN almost always put out a press-release decrying these actions, bringing as much attention to them as possible. I recall them well, as I thought they were a form of free advertising for their competitor and wondered what the strategy was.

Maybe neither railroad understood the "world of railroad rates" prior to Staggers. In that instance, "all I know is what I read in the newspaper." Apologies to Will Rogers

I think someone is pulling your chain. If you really beleve this, meet me in Brooklyn I've got bridge for sale.

I'll bet you do. How much did you pay for it?

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

Maybe Bob wants to sell it at an inverse rate from what he paid for it![;)]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Still fails to answer the question directly, like a…?
Coward?
Pretender?
Which officer’s position did you hold, at the time Mr. Smith was addressing the marketing department?

Ed understands the concept of generalized statements that allude to something that in reality isn’t so.
He has, in fact, watched you use it in ever single post you ever participate in.

In plainer English, it is called lying by omission...you enjoy leaving the reader or listener to assume, by hinting association with the named individuals, some amount of their prominence or fame, skill or worth.
This ploy quite plainly exposes the fact that you simply share none of their qualities.

Name droppers are bores.

I am quite certain Mr. Smith addressed the marketing department, but I am also sure you were not a part of it at the time.

So, again, your job, besides the part time summer one, was?

It is a simple question, Mike…why do you fear answering it?

Ed

Because I learned long ago, a civil discussion with you is pointless. Your ongoing inferiority complex wears thin. So does your name-calling. My "job" is none of your business. You didn't understand the quote, and you're still mad about three weeks ago when I pointed out how your "observations" on Class I railroads are always so different from real Class I railroaders. I knew then you were going to get back, somehow, because that's the kind of venal person you are. Schoolyard bully, all "growed" up, sort of. I saw the other thread, which I never posted on, which you proceeded to slander me up one side and down the other. I didn't post. You couldn't stand that. The Troll in you didn't get satisfied. So, now you're over here, way off topic, pursuing your vendetta.You can't keep up with the facts, so you attack the people.

I don't give a d*** about your education or your background. It's the quality of your arguments, and your mendacious slander that offends me. But, my background really, really seems to bother you. You're obsessed by it. It recurs over and over with you. Those people who know me, know full well what my background is. They count. The sad fact of the matter is, you don't.

Grow up and get over it.

The fact is, from growing up on a railroad, and working for a railroad, I've been privileged to know some first class people, from track crew to railroad presidents. And I can truthfully say, every single one of them outclasses you.

[MichaelSol]

Whew ... a lot of invention and speculation and putting thoughts into the "mind" of the BNSF without a shred of proof, not a single supporting fact. The actual fact is, nobody was buying Minnesota wheat. Duluth's high price for Minnesota wheat was below the lowest Portland price.

The fact is, this has turned into the usual Ken Strawbridge diatribe, now imposing his superior knowledge of the wheat industry -- and "storage"!! -- and how it all works. A permanent desk jockey who wouldn't know what a bushel of wheat was if it bit him.

This is the most marvelous caricature of an argument, I mean, worthy of Monty Python, complete with the lawyer slurs because he thinks it will score some points -- but, oh, bring up his industry spokemanship for the brutal greyhound industry -- and THAT'S PERSONAL!!

Let's put it in perspective: zero experience in the wheat industry. Zero involvement in the topic of discussion, wouldn't know a combine if it ran over him, wouldn't know the effects of a drought if he dried up in one, and now, having discovered a website or two, he thinks he's an expert on it all.

See, "there's no wheat in Montana, there was a drought. See, now I know all about storage, there was wheat, but it was those mendacious Montana farmers who did not want to sell at a low price -- just like those Minnesota farmers. So I, Ken Strawbridge, can have it both ways -- the drought meant there was no wheat, and the drought meant the farmers weren't selling all their wheat."

This isn't even spin anymore. This is desperate fabrication of facts and scenarioes without a shred of respect even for his own honesty.

Why are you so desperate to argue something you obviously, transparently, know nothing about?

Go back to the greyhound industry. Apparently they need a shill.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol



"History" also includes storage.

"The BNSF says these inverse rates from eastern locations are necessary to supply needs of the PNW export market. That is simply not true. According to the Montana Grain Growers Association, quoting the Montana Ag Statistics Service, there were 79 million bushels of spring wheat in Montana on December 1, 2001. Millions more bushels are in western North Dakota."

US Senate Testimony, March 27, 2002, North Dakota Grain Dealers Association, Steve Strege.

I am guessing you don't know that.

As usual.

I suppose you wouldn't care to note that the drought was widespread -- Minnesota's wheat production in 2002 was the lowest in nearly 15 years, and that its total wheat production that year was less than what Montana had just in storage.

But, that doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

Look at Montana and North Dakota combined in 2002: 326,000,000 bushels production, compared to Minnesota at 62,420,000 bushels

BNSF really had to go looking for that Minnesota wheat, didn't it?

I've got to hand it to Sol, he can dance and sing, basically denying that there was a drought, then can come right back and claim "the drought was widespread" without a bit of shame. It takes a real lawyer to do something like that.

Junior Sample Joke: "This tombstone reads, ' Here Rests an Honest Man, Here Rests a Lawyer'; Junior's comment: ' Well, looky here, they burried two people here'".

Of course I knew there was wheat in storage. There's always wheat in storrage. That's what grain elevators do. They're grain warehouses. They store grain. A farmer storing his/her grain in an elevator will get a "warhouse ticket" while storing his/her grain.

I've referenced the wheat in storage in previous posts, not that Sol actually read and understood what was said.

But to be of any earthly use to the BNSF the grain had to come out of storage and move. The BNSF forecast that there wouldn't be enough grain moving to keep its crews and equipment busy.

The Montana farmers/grain dealers didn't want to take the wheat out of storage and actually sell it because the price was so low. (This ought to tell any rational person something important; even a severe drought in Montana that significantly reduces that state's wheat production won't impact the price of wheat on the world market. That's how unimportant Montana wheat is.)

Now there was a down in the amount of Montana wheat in storage. They had to pay the bills, and their current drought ravaged crop wasn't going to do the job. Sometimes you gotta' sell at a loss to get some cash (Just how did Sol miss the whole drought thing? I mean, he was basically saying it didn't happen.)

But between the then current crap crop and the draw down of storage the BNSF figured that their equipment and crews wouldn't have enough work to do. So they took just and proper action to keep 'em working. And they came up with those wonderful, inovative, "inverse rates".

Good Job BNSF grain marketing Guys and Gals! You had the guts to do "The Right Thing".

Of course, the greedy Montana wheat farmers and grain dealers, who were holding back as much grain as possible seeking a higher price on someone else's food, squealed like stuck pigs. (Little farm lingo there that I learned from my dad.) They had fully expected the railroad to just take it in the shorts, store its equipment, lay off its employees and let them make the big bucks.

Didn't happen thata' way. And the BNSF marketing folks didn't have to "look" far for the additional wheat at all. They know every elevator on every line. And all of their children and all of their names. (Just kidding on that last part, it's an old Roger Miller song.) But the marketing types do know the grain production, how it moves, where it moves, etc. That's what they get paid for.

When the BNSF needed some more wheat to move through the PNW ports it knew exactly where and how to get it. And they had the freaking guts to go do it.

Good job BNSF. Jim Hill would be proud.

Ken Strawbridge

[edblysard]

Still fails to answer the question directly, like a…?
Coward?
Pretender?
Which officer’s position did you hold, at the time Mr. Smith was addressing the marketing department?

Ed understands the concept of generalized statements that allude to something that in reality isn’t so.
He has, in fact, watched you use it in ever single post you ever participate in.

In plainer English, it is called lying by omission...you enjoy leaving the reader or listener to assume, by hinting association with the named individuals, some amount of their prominence or fame, skill or worth.
This ploy quite plainly exposes the fact that you simply share none of their qualities.

Name droppers are bores.

I am quite certain Mr. Smith addressed the marketing department, but I am also sure you were not a part of it at the time.

So, again, your job, besides the part time summer one, was?

It is a simple question, Mike…why do you fear answering it?

Ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character
He isn't waxing nostalgic on hypotheticals of the old days on the Milwaukee Road...

BTW, where is the MILW road today?? A few moth eaten relics and a bunch of razorblades is all that's left of that line...

Well, the thread is about Captive Shippers. That's pretty much a modern discussion. Indeed, it's in the July Trains. Are you lost? Confused?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators.

We?
What’s with the "we" stuff, that mean you and the mouse in your pocket?

This doesn't take an advanced degree, so don't offer that as your excuse.

Why don't you first, sit down and read the comment.

Then notice the quotation marks.

Then note the attribution.

Smith was the president of the railroad.

I assume he meant the railroad marketing staff.

What do you think he meant?

Maybe he meant the guy that throws switches that claims he can run a railroad.

At least Ed works for a railroad in the here and now...

Well, give him an award then.

So did the guy quoted, which Ed did not understand because he's too busy trolling.

I doubt any of the gentlemen you list had half the arrogance to make the claims Ed does, where they started. And, as you note, none ended up where they started.

A key difference.

I am sure all of them understood early on what a quotation mark is, for starters.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators.

We?
What’s with the "we" stuff, that mean you and the mouse in your pocket?

This doesn't take an advanced degree, so don't offer that as your excuse.

Why don't you first, sit down and read the comment.

Then notice the quotation marks.

Then note the attribution.

Smith was the president of the railroad.

I assume he meant the railroad marketing staff.

What do you think he meant?

Maybe he meant the guy that throws switches that claims he can run a railroad.

At least Ed works for a railroad in the here and now...

He isn't waxing nostalgic on hypotheticals of the old days on the Milwaukee Road...

BTW, where is the MILW road today?? A few moth eaten relics and a bunch of razorblades is all that's left of that line...

Nothing to brag about there unless you're into rails to trails. The world has changed. Remember, there are many in the executive suite who started off pounding the ballast in some capacity or other.

Examples:

Mike Haverty Chairman and CEO of KCS started as a brakeman.
E. Hunter Harrison CEO of CN started as a carman.
Richard K. Davidson CEO of UP started as a brakeman

...and so on...

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators.

We?
What’s with the "we" stuff, that mean you and the mouse in your pocket?

This doesn't take an advanced degree, so don't offer that as your excuse.

Why don't you first, sit down and read the comment.

Then notice the quotation marks.

Then note the attribution.

Smith was the president of the railroad.

I assume he meant the railroad marketing staff.

What do you think he meant?

Maybe he meant the guy that throws switches that claims he can run a railroad.

[edblysard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators.

We?
What’s with the "we" stuff, that mean you and the mouse in your pocket?

Unless you would like to tell us what you did for the Milwaukee Road, besides carry a fire extinguisher for a summer as a teenager?

None of this “Special Project” or “Secret Agent” or "Assistant to the smart people, with fame by association" crud…give us the officers position you held that allowed you, personally, to make such decisions


Ed

[edblysard]

Murphy,
Just read most of Daves postings....you will get the idea quite quickly!
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Getting pretty technical there about a small point ...

Yes, I agree with you Michael. You are.

Oh, Murphy. Shame on you! Must you always degrade these topics with your subtle misplaced insolence. You're better than that.[V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V]
[:p]

[(-D][(-D][(-D] Fair enough, I guess you owe me that one.[;)] I'll have to research the meaning of misplaced insolence,though.[:)]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

You know what they say when you ASSuME something.

Bert

You just made that up didn't you? Brings a nice sharp touch to the conversation.

I hope you meant that sarcastically, Michael. That one's been around for a LONG time.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

You know what they say when you ASSuME something.

Bert

You just made that up didn't you? Brings a nice sharp touch to the conversation.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol


Further, Strawbridge stubbornly ignores the key evidence here: the market. The prices offered don't fit his theory in the slightest. Prices in Portland were demonstrably not "drought" prices. There were tons of wheat sitting in Montana. Prices in Duluth simply stunk, and nobody in Minnesota was selling. Strawbrige ignores the key published evidence that demolishes his whole theory. Something about "processing information ..."

Well, now Sol is attempting to rewrite history by eliminating the severe drought that hit Montana. His so called 'proof' - the prices didn't reflect drought condidtions. Well, according to Montana State University there was a drought that knocked the crap out of Montana wheat production - while prices remained very low.

www.montana.edu/wwwpb/ag/02outlk.html

The explination, there was no drought in other parts of the the world where wheat is grown. Buyers simply shifted their source of supply to those areas where it rained.

The BNSF needed to keep its resouces in use as best it could, so it wisely instituted the temporary "inverse rate" plan.

Sol now denies history. There was a severe drought. Wheat prices remained low despite the drought because wheat could be sourced elsewhere in the world.

"History" also includes storage.

"The BNSF says these inverse rates from eastern locations are necessary to supply needs of the PNW export market. That is simply not true. According to the Montana Grain Growers Association, quoting the Montana Ag Statistics Service, there were 79 million bushels of spring wheat in Montana on December 1, 2001. Millions more bushels are in western North Dakota."

US Senate Testimony, March 27, 2002, North Dakota Grain Dealers Association, Steve Strege.

I am guessing you don't know that.

As usual.

I suppose you wouldn't care to note that the drought was widespread -- Minnesota's wheat production in 2002 was the lowest in nearly 15 years, and that its total wheat production that year was less than what Montana had just in storage.

But, that doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

Look at Montana and North Dakota combined in 2002: 326,000,000 bushels production, compared to Minnesota at 62,420,000 bushels

BNSF really had to go looking for that Minnesota wheat, didn't it?

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Getting pretty technical there about a small point ...

Yes, I agree with you Michael. You are.

Well, I am not reciting definitions.

Indeed, I note that the quote from ATA above is dated February 10, 2004.

Just as the quote you used was from September 9, 2002

Bert

I think my initial assumption by your post was to assume that it was a current statement

You know what they say when you ASSuME something.


Bert

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol


Further, Strawbridge stubbornly ignores the key evidence here: the market. The prices offered don't fit his theory in the slightest. Prices in Portland were demonstrably not "drought" prices. There were tons of wheat sitting in Montana. Prices in Duluth simply stunk, and nobody in Minnesota was selling. Strawbrige ignores the key published evidence that demolishes his whole theory. Something about "processing information ..."

Well, now Sol is attempting to rewrite history by eliminating the severe drought that hit Montana. His so called 'proof' - the prices didn't reflect drought condidtions. Well, according to Montana State University there was a drought that knocked the crap out of Montana wheat production - while prices remained very low.

www.montana.edu/wwwpb/ag/02outlk.html

The explination, there was no drought in other parts of the the world where wheat is grown. Buyers simply shifted their source of supply to those areas where it rained.

The BNSF needed to keep its resouces in use as best it could, so it wisely instituted the temporary "inverse rate" plan.

Sol now denies history. There was a severe drought. Wheat prices remained low despite the drought because wheat could be sourced elsewhere in the world.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

"We were able to aboli***he helper districts in 1974. Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators. The harvest season was coming up and of course that's when all of a sudden the new crop doesn't have anywhere to go because there is old grain sitting there. Then all of sudden, the railroads don't have enough cars, of course. Well, we had some empty cars sitting around, and there was a lot of grain out there. It made sense for us to anticipate the upcoming season and help everyone by getting that grain out. We dropped our rate by 15% for a very short period, a week or so. Just to fill up those empty grain cars. Make some money." WL Smith to Sol, 8.14.2002

Now, BN almost always put out a press-release decrying these actions, bringing as much attention to them as possible. I recall them well, as I thought they were a form of free advertising for their competitor and wondered what the strategy was.

Maybe neither railroad understood the "world of railroad rates" prior to Staggers. In that instance, "all I know is what I read in the newspaper." Apologies to Will Rogers

I think someone is pulling your chain. If you really beleve this, meet me in Brooklyn I've got bridge for sale.

I'll bet you do. How much did you pay for it?

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

"We were able to aboli***he helper districts in 1974. Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators. The harvest season was coming up and of course that's when all of a sudden the new crop doesn't have anywhere to go because there is old grain sitting there. Then all of sudden, the railroads don't have enough cars, of course. Well, we had some empty cars sitting around, and there was a lot of grain out there. It made sense for us to anticipate the upcoming season and help everyone by getting that grain out. We dropped our rate by 15% for a very short period, a week or so. Just to fill up those empty grain cars. Make some money." WL Smith to Sol, 8.14.2002

Now, BN almost always put out a press-release decrying these actions, bringing as much attention to them as possible. I recall them well, as I thought they were a form of free advertising for their competitor and wondered what the strategy was.

Maybe neither railroad understood the "world of railroad rates" prior to Staggers. In that instance, "all I know is what I read in the newspaper." Apologies to Will Rogers

I think someone is pulling your chain. If you really beleve this, meet me in Brooklyn I've got bridge for sale.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Getting pretty technical there about a small point ...

Yes, I agree with you Michael. You are.

Well, I am not reciting definitions.

Indeed, I note that the quote from ATA above is dated February 10, 2004.

Just as the quote you used was from September 9, 2002

Bert

It is absolutely true that I put the date on my citation. Guilty as charged.

It absolutely true that you did not put a date on your citation, only that it was from the "ATA" website. I think my initial assumption by your post was to assume that it was a current statement.

It is absolutely also true that the most recent citation I used was issued nearly two and one half years after the citation you quoted, and yes, I also specifically cited that date as well.

I think we are in total agreement as to the timeline of these statements. What's the problem?

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Getting pretty technical there about a small point ...

Yes, I agree with you Michael. You are.

Well, I am not reciting definitions.

Indeed, I note that the quote from ATA above is dated February 10, 2004.

Just as the quote you used was from September 9, 2002

Bert

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
As to the inverse rates, which were a shrewd and ethical response on the part of the BNSF to diminished grain business due to a drought, I don't think Sol "gets it".

Of course, dropping rates for existing grain stocks normally part of that particular wheat market, a wheat quality for which buyers were prepared, makes no sense when you can increase your operating costs instead.

QUOTE: Variable costs do not come into play. When your back is against a wall, as the BNSF's was in this situation, you go for cash. And most of the "costs" he cites were definitely not cash costs in this specific situation. For example, there were no equipment costs.

Fuel, wear and tear, no crew costs, this just gets more and more bizarre -- "variable costs do not come into play" on a tripled cycle time. Of course, in 2004 and 2005, when terminal time at Pasco was exceeding 30 hours, it made tons of sense to run a few more grain trains through there. Fleet turns were down to 1.4 and 1.3 per month-- no congestion costs either?

QUOTE: Cycle times meant nothing, as stored equipment has an infinte cycle time. Anything you get is an improvement.

This assumes the equipment was idle at the time. There actually is no proof for this, at the times and places discussed, at all. The entire hypothetical that Strawbridge offered for this "reasoning" is entirely hypothetical in the first place.

QUOTE: As long as the trains produced a positive cash flow, they were the best possible temporary soluntion to the drought crisis.

Could have made more money with lower costs by a rate reduction in the normal market area. The argument makes no sense.

Further, Strawbridge stubbornly ignores the key evidence here: the market. The prices offered don't fit his theory in the slightest. Prices in Portland were demonstrably not "drought" prices. There were tons of wheat sitting in Montana. Prices in Duluth simply stunk, and nobody in Minnesota was selling. Strawbrige ignores the key published evidence that demolishes his whole theory. Something about "processing information ..."

QUOTE:
Sol's attempt to ladden these trains with equipment costs, etc. is, to me, just another example of his own inablility to process information in a meaningful way.

I am sure you have by now really ticked off BobWilcox and he will weigh in with his usual, "when you don't have the facts, attack the person" caveat. Oh wait, he's pretty selective on that ....

[MichaelSol]

"We were able to aboli***he helper districts in 1974. Your note reminds me that we did put some power on some hills for a few days in 1977, or possibly 1978. I think it was 1978. It was summer, and for some reason there wasn't much grain moving, but we knew there was quite a bit of storage overhang out in the elevators. The harvest season was coming up and of course that's when all of a sudden the new crop doesn't have anywhere to go because there is old grain sitting there. Then all of sudden, the railroads don't have enough cars, of course. Well, we had some empty cars sitting around, and there was a lot of grain out there. It made sense for us to anticipate the upcoming season and help everyone by getting that grain out. We dropped our rate by 15% for a very short period, a week or so. Just to fill up those empty grain cars. Make some money." WL Smith to Sol, 8.14.2002

Now, BN almost always put out a press-release decrying these actions, bringing as much attention to them as possible. I recall them well, as I thought they were a form of free advertising for their competitor and wondered what the strategy was.

Maybe neither railroad understood the "world of railroad rates" prior to Staggers. In that instance, "all I know is what I read in the newspaper." Apologies to Will Rogers

[bobwilcox]

Michaiel-What are the tariff references for the MILW putting this reduction into effect and then cancelling the rates one week later? Perhaps this is just a fantasy by someone that does not understand the world of railroad rates before Staggers.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
The Milwaukee would step in, drop the rate 15% for a week, get all the orders it needed to keep its fleet up to full utilization, and BN would scream, then grudgingly go along.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

[I have to laugh because In competitive days, when this happened, BN was adamant about not dropping rates to get equipment utilized. The policy was, outwait the farmers, let the equipment sit. The Milwaukee would step in, drop the rate 15% for a week, get all the orders it needed to keep its fleet up to full utilization, and BN would scream, then grudgingly go along.


Yeah, equipment utilization goes up -- in a very twisted, economically inefficient sort of way. I think this underscores how captive pricing distorts the economic efficiency of the market process, and specifically produces inefficient production costs and specifically creates inefficient use of essential resources. No better example than this one.

Look at an inverse rate on that to Portland.

Today's rates:
Shelby, 781 miles, $2681.
Alberta, MN, 1640 miles, $3863.

To be "inverse" the Alberta rate would have to be less than Shelby's. So, 1640 miles for $2680. Yet the cycle time at Shelby is about 8 days, from Alberta, about 20.

You can put together an interesting R/VC study from earlier posts as to what the railroad might really be earning from charging a much lower rate while incurring hugely extended cycle times, and significanty increased equipment, fuel, and crew costs.

I wouldn't hand the "Order of Lenin" to Matt Rose just yet ....

Well, I don't think Mr. Rose would accept the "Order of Lenin".

And I have significant doubts as to as if the Milwaukee Road could run "specials" on its wheat pricing for a week at a time in the regulated days. The barges would have protested, the truckers would have protested and the BN would have protested before the ICC. And those regulators took a dim view of messing with the 'rate structure', especially on a weekly basis.

But, as ususal, Sol has provided no specifics to support his story, so we can all make our own individual deceisions as to if we take his word for it or not.

As to the inverse rates, which were a shrewd and ethical response on the part of the BNSF to diminished grain business due to a drought, I don't think Sol "gets it".

Variable costs do not come into play. When your back is against a wall, as the BNSF's was in this situation, you go for cash. And most of the "costs" he cites were definitely not cash costs in this specific situation. For example, there were no equipment costs.

Normally, equipment costs are considered variable and must be covered in full by a rate. But if your olnly aternative is to store the equipment, as it was here, its ownership costs are no longer important. The railroad was going to incur those costs whether it hauled the wheat out of Minnesota or not. Cycle times meant nothing, as stored equipment has an infinte cycle time. Anything you get is an improvement.

Laid off crews aren't free either.

It's better to get some money flowing in, even if it's not enough to cover what would normally be considered variable costs. As long as the trains produced a positive cash flow, they were the best possible temporary soluntion to the drought crisis. (Fuel would have been an out of pocket cash cost that could have been avoided by not running the trains.)

Sol's attempt to ladden these trains with equipment costs, etc. is, to me, just another example of his own inablility to process information in a meaningful way.

Ken Strawbridge

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Getting pretty technical there about a small point ...

Yes, I agree with you Michael. You are.

Oh, Murphy. Shame on you! Must you always degrade these topics with your subtle misplaced insolence. You're better than that.[V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V]
[:p]

[(-D][(-D][(-D] Fair enough, I guess you owe me that one.[;)] I'll have to research the meaning of misplaced insolence,though.[:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Getting pretty technical there about a small point ...

Yes, I agree with you Michael. You are.

Oh, Murphy. Shame on you! Must you always degrade these topics with your subtle misplaced insolence. You're better than that.[V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V]













[:p]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Getting pretty technical there about a small point ...

Yes, I agree with you Michael. You are.

Well, I am not reciting definitions.

The point was that ATA pretty clearly expressed it's "wants." "Agreements"on the other hand usually represent a delayed gratification or sacrifice of such "wants" in return for achieving a short term goal, receipt of satisfaction of a different "want" or some other strategic advantage.

That's the nature of "agreements."

Agreeing to forego temporarily a prior "want" is, in my experience, not the same thing as saying "they don't want it."

Indeed, I note that the quote from ATA above is dated February 10, 2004.

More recently, ATA was stating the following:

"If the industry doesn’t become more productive, if we can’t substantially reduce our empty miles or wait times at loading docks, and if we don’t have more rational size-and-weight regulations, the number of trucks on the road and the number of miles trucks drive will double in the next two decades."
Bill Graves, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations
Appeared in November-December 2005 issue of Transportation Builder

A "small point" about the difference between "wants" and "agreements" and that one is not always the other.