QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 I think we are at the point of splitting hairs. The farmer doesnt pay dollars per bushel mile to move wheat, he pays dollars per bushel. That is the economic reality. Nebraska is paying more per bushel to move their wheat to PNW. Slice it, dice it, blend it, chop it, it is still more. I
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Seems to me the choice is between lower freight charges or better service. I don't think you get both. Well, if anyone bothers to actually read the paper, and many like it, that's the point, these shippers are paying a higher rate, and getting worse service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Seems to me the choice is between lower freight charges or better service. I don't think you get both.
"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 TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 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 Hmmmmm. Quothe Bert "The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy." Question for Bert: Who was it then that proposed the GVW increase? C'mon, it is an easy answer, no spin required. Here's a hint: You are batting 1.000 in eschewing internal polar opposition. He's quoting something from a link YOU originally provided in a vain attempt to prove a conspiricy. The only "spinning" here seems to be yours.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 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 Hmmmmm. Quothe Bert "The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy." Question for Bert: Who was it then that proposed the GVW increase? C'mon, it is an easy answer, no spin required. Here's a hint: You are batting 1.000 in eschewing internal polar opposition.
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 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)]
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.
An "expensive model collector"
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol You're playing statistical games now. Why don't you just read the paper, instead of toying with the data.
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard So, you are saying that because Nebraska is farther from the destination, they should pay an even higher price than they already do? Or that because Montana is closer, they should get a even bigger break on the price, for the same basic service, (hauling rail cars)? Looks like Montana is already getting a better price, for even less distance, which should mean they have a faster turnaround, therefore should be able to ship even more product at the lesser rate, faster....which means they should be making more profit than the Nebraska farmers. Oh, I get it...the guys in Nebraska are willing to pay more, in a effort to encourage the service provider to provide better, more consistent service, and the Montana guys are not willing to pony up the bucks for the same thing, and then feel justified to whine and complain about the lack of a service they are not willing to pay for. Ok, so I forgot about the nationwide railroad conspiracy.... Let’s see, Montana is closer, already pays less that their competition for the same basic service, and the problem is? 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.
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.
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 jeaton Furniture at retail has a 100% markup.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds 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. The "Nebraska Rate" of $1.08/ bushel is not a BNSF rate. It is a UP rate. Sol usualy leaves some relavent detail like this out. Check page 16 of the Whiateside Study.
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 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 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 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 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 futuremodal That's what businesses do, determine prices charged to their consumers based on their costs.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.