Railroads Struggle to Deliver Coal to Utilities

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, OK, that's not what I said, is it?

I do agree however that all portions of the law should be given equal weight -- and of course that's the controversy, isn't it, because some are arguing there is no law at all regarding captive shippers?

Nice try, Michael. You certainly know that the use of bold or italics in a written statement conveys the idea that those sentences or phrases are more important than others.

If your intent in highlighting certain sections of the policy was to make the point that there is a law regarding captive shippers and to refute those who may have stated that there is no such law, the perhaps your apology goes along with the statement.

Bolding was used to bring attention those phrases that some have attempted to deny were part of the legislation and intent underlying the 180% R/VC rule. For the discussion those were indeed "more important" than the others, because we all agree on the others.

Bolding the parts we agree on wouldn't have been much of a useful exercise. The proposition seemed reasonable enough in the context of the conversation.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Title 49, Sec. 10101. Rail transportation policy

In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government -

Wait a second. Michael is trying to pull a fast one here. This is the goverments policy on rail transpotation.

I have to admit, when someone posts something that is clearly labeled "Rail Transportation policy," and someone reads it and something resembling a light goes on and he proclaims "wait a second ... this is the governments policy on rail transportation," I do get a chuckle out of it.

[rrandb]

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Title 49, Sec. 10101. Rail transportation policy

In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government -

Wait a second. Michael is trying to pull a fast one here. This is the goverments policy on rail transpotation.

I have to admit, when someone posts something that is clearly labeled "Rail Transportation policy," and someone reads it and something resembling a light goes on and he proclaims "wait a second ... this is the governments policy on rail transportation," I do get a chuckle out of it.

No it was the closing line "its the law" As a lawyer I would hope you know the difference between policy and law.


Bert

[MichaelSol]

If you note the statutory refererence, that is, in fact, the "law" and it contains the explicit policy. The policy is thereupon used for guidance in interpretation of the subsequent specific provisions. The policy is there for a reason, and it is a specific part of the United States Code, which happens to be what we call our federal statutory law.

The fact is Title 49, Sec. 10101 is, a 'law" that sets forth US Rail policy.

It was not set forth as a "Resolution" which is a non-binding expression of legislative opinion. Similarly, it was not designated a "preamble" which various jurisdictions treat differently as to binding effect, nor does it disclaim a binding efffect which preambles often specifically do.

It was your "breathless" realization that the three references to "policy" and "intent" in the original citation of the statute and my own subsequent characterization of it, actually meant "policy" that made me laugh, like you thought someone was putting something over on you, when in fact it was right in front of your face in multiple references and of course that could only be because someone "was trying to put one over" on you ....

The Staggers "Act" is a law. It contains the statement of policy. The statement of policy guides the interpretation of the mechanical provisions of the Act. They are taken together as part of the same "law."

Indeed, ultimately, all laws are an expression of policy. That's what they are for.

This law specifically states what the policy is.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

Could be, or perhaps UP and BNSF divied up which mines will be served by which railroad. If one or the other railroad built the spur to the mine, that railroad would logically get all the traffic from that mine. If the mine owners built the spur, one would think they'd get to choose which railroad to use, but that may not be the case.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

Could be, or perhaps UP and BNSF divied up which mines will be served by which railroad. If one or the other railroad built the spur to the mine, that railroad would logically get all the traffic from that mine. If the mine owners built the spur, one would think they'd get to choose which railroad to use, but that may not be the case.

Well Dave, you just showed us how little you know about railroads (again). The Powder River Line is a JOINT LINE, which as those of us in the railroad industry know means that both carriers can serve customers connected to the joint asset. It has nothing to do with who built what track. Again, your basic ignorance of all things railroad shines through...

[edblysard]

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed

Aw..Get offin' Dave's back. Can't you see, he ain't got much learnin' nor fetchin' up. He's even rude to the ladies. He just don't know.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed

Aw..Get offin' Dave's back. Can't you see, he ain't got much learnin' nor fetchin' up. He's even rude to the ladies. He just don't know.

Yep, an him a "college" boy too...

You'd think he should know better, but I guess he figgers that he knows economics. He sure doesn't know railroads...

[edblysard]

Hey,
Ain’t this where the banjo music from "Deliverance" is supposed to start playing?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

Could be, or perhaps UP and BNSF divied up which mines will be served by which railroad. If one or the other railroad built the spur to the mine, that railroad would logically get all the traffic from that mine. If the mine owners built the spur, one would think they'd get to choose which railroad to use, but that may not be the case.

Well Dave, you just showed us how little you know about railroads (again). The Powder River Line is a JOINT LINE, which as those of us in the railroad industry know means that both carriers can serve customers connected to the joint asset. It has nothing to do with who built what track. Again, your basic ignorance of all things railroad shines through...

The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur.

You would think a self described railroad lawyer would be able to figger that out. Obviously, that alleged persona has been blown to smithereens by your continued ingorance of railroad minutia. Looks like we've found ourselves another 14 year old banjo playing miscreant posing as something more (or less?)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

Could be, or perhaps UP and BNSF divied up which mines will be served by which railroad. If one or the other railroad built the spur to the mine, that railroad would logically get all the traffic from that mine. If the mine owners built the spur, one would think they'd get to choose which railroad to use, but that may not be the case.

Well Dave, you just showed us how little you know about railroads (again). The Powder River Line is a JOINT LINE, which as those of us in the railroad industry know means that both carriers can serve customers connected to the joint asset. It has nothing to do with who built what track. Again, your basic ignorance of all things railroad shines through...

The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur.

You would think a self described railroad lawyer would be able to figger that out. Obviously, that alleged persona has been blown to smithereens by your continued ingorance of railroad minutia. Looks like we've found ourselves another 14 year old banjo playing miscreant posing as something more (or less?)

There you go again, you uneducated cretin you...

If you knew a thing about railroads you'd know that the majority of the coal moving from the PRB moves over the Joint Line. Although there are several other mines they are in the north basin on a BNSF line and that coal is a BNSF origin. The coal moving to the Joint Line represents coal from one of three mining companies, all of which have contracts with both UP and BNSF. The costs of the spurs are borne by the mining companies and BOTH railroads have access to all mines. Feel free to read the annual reports of the mining companies if you like...genius...

Shucks, we got us an Economick Anal-ist here boys...FOFLMAO

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

Could be, or perhaps UP and BNSF divied up which mines will be served by which railroad. If one or the other railroad built the spur to the mine, that railroad would logically get all the traffic from that mine. If the mine owners built the spur, one would think they'd get to choose which railroad to use, but that may not be the case.

Well Dave, you just showed us how little you know about railroads (again). The Powder River Line is a JOINT LINE, which as those of us in the railroad industry know means that both carriers can serve customers connected to the joint asset. It has nothing to do with who built what track. Again, your basic ignorance of all things railroad shines through...

The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur.

You would think a self described railroad lawyer would be able to figger that out. Obviously, that alleged persona has been blown to smithereens by your continued ingorance of railroad minutia. Looks like we've found ourselves another 14 year old banjo playing miscreant posing as something more (or less?)

Don't be so hard on yourself Dave. Besides, you probably couldn't play the banjo if your life depended on it.

According to the article in Raifan and Railroad July issue on the PRB coal fields, there are 23 mines. Only 5 of them are not on the joint line. About 1/5 of them, and those 5 are not in the heavy production section of the PRB, so their percentage of the coal mined is not 20% of the basin output.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

Could be, or perhaps UP and BNSF divied up which mines will be served by which railroad. If one or the other railroad built the spur to the mine, that railroad would logically get all the traffic from that mine. If the mine owners built the spur, one would think they'd get to choose which railroad to use, but that may not be the case.

Well Dave, you just showed us how little you know about railroads (again). The Powder River Line is a JOINT LINE, which as those of us in the railroad industry know means that both carriers can serve customers connected to the joint asset. It has nothing to do with who built what track. Again, your basic ignorance of all things railroad shines through...

The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur.

You would think a self described railroad lawyer would be able to figger that out. Obviously, that alleged persona has been blown to smithereens by your continued ingorance of railroad minutia. Looks like we've found ourselves another 14 year old banjo playing miscreant posing as something more (or less?)

In many cases it is the mine that pays for the spur to the main to ensure access from both railroads. You would think someone with degree in economics would understand that.

Bert

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed

Aw..Get offin' Dave's back. Can't you see, he ain't got much learnin' nor fetchin' up. He's even rude to the ladies. He just don't know.

Yep, an him a "college" boy too...

You'd think he should know better, but I guess he figgers that he knows economics. He sure doesn't know railroads...

....or social skills. Which is why I suspect he spends so much time in here. Guys like that tend to get socked up [B)] talking that much smack in public.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I am still baffeled by the concept the with two railroads bring coal out there are captive shippers on the originating end. That is a Duopoly not a Monopoly. Virtually all shippers are captive on the terminating end unless they receive enough product to justify two receiving railroads? Any improvements in track capacity aid all shippers in reduceing all transit times whether they ship or receive single cars or unit trains.

It depends of how many (if any) of the mines that connect to the joint line are able to ship by either railroad, or if they are obligated to one or the other.

*Obligated*? You mean like signed a contract?[:0]

Could be, or perhaps UP and BNSF divied up which mines will be served by which railroad. If one or the other railroad built the spur to the mine, that railroad would logically get all the traffic from that mine. If the mine owners built the spur, one would think they'd get to choose which railroad to use, but that may not be the case.

Well Dave, you just showed us how little you know about railroads (again). The Powder River Line is a JOINT LINE, which as those of us in the railroad industry know means that both carriers can serve customers connected to the joint asset. It has nothing to do with who built what track. Again, your basic ignorance of all things railroad shines through...

The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur.

You would think a self described railroad lawyer would be able to figger that out. Obviously, that alleged persona has been blown to smithereens by your continued ingorance of railroad minutia. Looks like we've found ourselves another 14 year old banjo playing miscreant posing as something more (or less?)

Oh, and don't tell me about being an attorney and what that means, unless you are now claiming that credential too!?!

LOL, what a maroon...

[edblysard]

Guess Dave aint see the movie, either...
He could play Ned Beattys part, though!

And we been upgraded...
Before, we were "usual suspects", now we're "miscreants"....[:D]
I like it!

[chad thomas]

[Anonymous]

Wow, what a thought. If I was 14 again, like Dave thinks, I could go through High School again and chase all the right girls, play ball all 3 years and blow off Physics entirely. Then in College I could drink twice as much and blow off Economics which is worthless anyhow (just check out Dave) and go on to law school and correct my mistakes there (very few things I would change there, but a couple). WOW, I mean I could add years to my seniority on the RR and still get all that done. If I could make that happen I'd retire at 60 with a full pension. Then I could start, I dunno maybe a mining company or an airline or just buy a really BIG yacht, oops forgot, I already have a great boat I never get to use...maybe I'll just go fishin'. Whaddya think Ed. I hear there's some great Hammerhead Shark in Montana!!! And Idaho too!! LOL!!!

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Popcorn! Peanuts! Floatation Seat Cushions!

[ Flack Jackets on back order ! ]

Sheeeeeeesh!

[edblysard]

Sounds like a plan to me!

Ed

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Popcorn! Peanuts! Floatation Seat Cushions!

[ Flack Jackets on back order ! ]

Sheeeeeeesh!

I have some used SAPI plates.

[bobwilcox]

Here is the UP's recent press release on the coal business. They are handling record volumes!

============
Union Pacific Coal Volumes Set a Record in May

Milder Weather, Capital Investments Enhance Year-over-Year Performance

Omaha, Neb., June 14, 2006 – During the first five months of 2006, Union Pacific loaded a record 5,304 coal trains. Union Pacific Railroad loaded 1,090 coal trains in the Southern Powder River Basin (SPRB) in May 2006. This was the best May performance ever. This is an increase of 205 more trains compared to May 2005 when derailments and unstable track conditions occurred after severe weather.

In Colorado and Utah, Union Pacific loaded 347 trains during May 2006, the most loadings in the past six months and the company set a record in May for coal trains off the North Fork branch in Colorado, with 160 trains loaded.

"We value our coal franchise and are working hard to move our customers’ goods during a period of unprecedented demand for coal," said Jack Koraleski, executive vice president – Marketing and Sales. "Our strategic investments in our railroad infrastructure, equipment, people and technology are helping us to move more trains for our customers."

Total SPRB Joint Line loadings for May of this year averaged 65.4 trains per day, compared to 53.5 in May 2005 – an 11.9 train increase year-over-year. And, Joint Line train loadings for the first five months of 2006 increased by 500 trains -- from 9,248 trains in 2005 to 9,748 trains during the same period this year. The SPRB Joint Line is owned by Union Pacific and BNSF Railway.

As part of its infrastructure development strategy designed to increase capacity for coal trains and improve coal-delivery reliability, Union Pacific is installing additional Centralized Traffic Control signals along its lines across Iowa and making interchange improvements with eastern connections at East St. Louis. In mid-February, Union Pacific completed the bypass project in Marysville, Kansas. This was a multi-year project that moved the company’s double main line out of downtown, added six passing tracks and closed 11 grade crossings. This project will improve public safety and velocity for approximately 70 trains per day from 20 to 50 miles per hour.

In Colorado, capacity projects include the Winter Park grade separation, and sidings at Yarmony and Tolland.

In May, the company announced with BNSF Railway a $100 million capacity expansion plan on the jointly owned rail line serving the Southern Powder River Basin coal fields.

[edblysard]

That evil UP, moving their mainline out of downtown Marysville, Kansas...
What will all the captive shippers in downtown do now?
Sounds like a ogli...no, wait, a mono...oh heck, some kinda polystic conspraicy to choke the life out of the downtown wheat shipping industry in favor of the low margin, capacity short coal market!
Ed[:D]

[Anonymous]

Here's what I said -

"The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur."

Here's what Tom posted -

"According to the article in Raifan and Railroad July issue on the PRB coal fields, there are 23 mines. Only 5 of them are not on the joint line. About 1/5 of them, and those 5 are not in the heavy production section of the PRB, so their percentage of the coal mined is not 20% of the basin output."

Thanks Tom for confirming what I said![;)]

And Chad, if you really think the postings above from Ed, "Character", and Bert are an example of "social skills", well, here's to ya! [D)]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here's what I said -

"The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur."

Here's what Tom posted -

"According to the article in Raifan and Railroad July issue on the PRB coal fields, there are 23 mines. Only 5 of them are not on the joint line. About 1/5 of them, and those 5 are not in the heavy production section of the PRB, so their percentage of the coal mined is not 20% of the basin output."

Well....if you read back on this thread, you'll read that 5 out of 23 mines in the PRB are not on the joint line. Those 5 are the smaller,less productive mines north of Gillette, I believe, on BNSF. If 18 out of 23 mines are on the joint line, that equals 78.83% of the mines are on the joint line. Since these 18 are the bigger mines, it's safe to say that at least 80% of the volume of coal goes onto the joint line. Another post mentions that mines on the joint line may ship on either BNSF or UP. Given the above,I'd say the chances that you are incorrect are somewhere near 80%.[;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here's what I said -

"The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur."

Here's what Tom posted -

"According to the article in Raifan and Railroad July issue on the PRB coal fields, there are 23 mines. Only 5 of them are not on the joint line. About 1/5 of them, and those 5 are not in the heavy production section of the PRB, so their percentage of the coal mined is not 20% of the basin output."

Well....if you read back on this thread, you'll read that 5 out of 23 mines in the PRB are not on the joint line. Those 5 are the smaller,less productive mines north of Gillette, I believe, on BNSF. If 18 out of 23 mines are on the joint line, that equals 78.83% of the mines are on the joint line. Since these 18 are the bigger mines, it's safe to say that at least 80% of the volume of coal goes onto the joint line. Another post mentions that mines on the joint line may ship on either BNSF or UP. Given the above,I'd say the chances that you are incorrect are somewhere near 80%.[;)]

If I have inferred that all the mines that connect to the Orin line have to ship either UP or BNSF but not both, then I would be incorrect. If that's the impression you got, then I should have foreseen the typical "trolling for errors" game you seem to enjoy and made sure I stated the thought ala legalese. For that, I profusely apologize [bow].

[:p]