QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mudchicken - what was your college degree? Or did you have one? Stick to what you know - rotten ties, rusty spikes, and weedy ballast. Leave the economics to those who have the degree.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So your asking me to predict what rail management will stumble into 10 or 20 years from now? We don't even know what the outcome of pending legislation in Congress will be. Where will new coal fired plants be located? Or will anti-coal politicians sweep into office in the next few elections?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mudchicken - what was your college degree? Or did you have one? Stick to what you know - rotten ties, rusty spikes, and weedy ballast. Leave the economics to those who have the degree. Methinks that these are the rantings of an intellectual snob. Dave, whenever you turn your ears off to what others have to say, especially those who disagree with you, you have closed your mind and have decided that you have nothing more to learn. A mind is like an umbrella, it only functions when it is open.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,] QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So your asking me to predict what rail management will stumble into 10 or 20 years from now? We don't even know what the outcome of pending legislation in Congress will be. Where will new coal fired plants be located? Or will anti-coal politicians sweep into office in the next few elections? Well, you kind of just proved my point there buckwheat.[;)] You're saying that someone with your economic pedigree can't predict the future, because of some uncertainties? [;)] Come on- you chide the railroads, after the fact, for not doing it.[:-,] Wouldn't you think the view was just a little bit *fuzzier* in the crystal ball 20-25 years ago? And they had to do it without your intellectual insight.[:p]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,] QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So your asking me to predict what rail management will stumble into 10 or 20 years from now? We don't even know what the outcome of pending legislation in Congress will be. Where will new coal fired plants be located? Or will anti-coal politicians sweep into office in the next few elections? Well, you kind of just proved my point there buckwheat.[;)] You're saying that someone with your economic pedigree can't predict the future, because of some uncertainties? [;)] Come on- you chide the railroads, after the fact, for not doing it.[:-,] Wouldn't you think the view was just a little bit *fuzzier* in the crystal ball 20-25 years ago? And they had to do it without your intellectual insight.[:p] I think YOU missed the point there spanky. Railroads have emasculated themselves with the belief that certain lines were "excess capacity", yet they have no crystal ball in determining that those lines actually were excess in the railroad's long term planning (which goes out on a limb in assuming they do engage in long term planning!). Why would you lop off body parts if you did not know for sure that you absolutely would not need them anymore? The cost of keeping an asset is much less than the cost of having to rebuild such an asset from scratch. Again, I ask you, do you know of any other industry that engages in asset reduction as a part of their long term business strategy? Or do I have to explain "asset" to you?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom, My college degree is in economics. What's yours?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,] QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So your asking me to predict what rail management will stumble into 10 or 20 years from now? We don't even know what the outcome of pending legislation in Congress will be. Where will new coal fired plants be located? Or will anti-coal politicians sweep into office in the next few elections? Well, you kind of just proved my point there buckwheat.[;)] You're saying that someone with your economic pedigree can't predict the future, because of some uncertainties? [;)] Come on- you chide the railroads, after the fact, for not doing it.[:-,] Wouldn't you think the view was just a little bit *fuzzier* in the crystal ball 20-25 years ago? And they had to do it without your intellectual insight.[:p] I think YOU missed the point there spanky. Railroads have emasculated themselves with the belief that certain lines were "excess capacity", yet they have no crystal ball in determining that those lines actually were excess in the railroad's long term planning (which goes out on a limb in assuming they do engage in long term planning!). Why would you lop off body parts if you did not know for sure that you absolutely would not need them anymore? The cost of keeping an asset is much less than the cost of having to rebuild such an asset from scratch. Again, I ask you, do you know of any other industry that engages in asset reduction as a part of their long term business strategy? Or do I have to explain "asset" to you? The answer to your last question , is every industry disposes of assets that they don't forsee being of any use in the future, based on the information they have at the present. Which relates to the statement above. You keep harping on the railroads for asset reduction that they didn't forsee being of any use in the future, based on the information that had at the time. Even an economics major should be able to see the drawbacks of not having a crystal ball. It's just too easy to judge the railroads on a woulda/shoulda/coulda basis, based on 29 years of hindsight. Note that you should also give them heck for not investing in Microsoft too.[;)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Look at the brilliant investment the state of WA made in the former PCE. They are desperate for more capacity but no one has suggested they re-lay track on it.[2c]
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 Murphy Siding Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,] QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So your asking me to predict what rail management will stumble into 10 or 20 years from now? We don't even know what the outcome of pending legislation in Congress will be. Where will new coal fired plants be located? Or will anti-coal politicians sweep into office in the next few elections? Well, you kind of just proved my point there buckwheat.[;)] You're saying that someone with your economic pedigree can't predict the future, because of some uncertainties? [;)] Come on- you chide the railroads, after the fact, for not doing it.[:-,] Wouldn't you think the view was just a little bit *fuzzier* in the crystal ball 20-25 years ago? And they had to do it without your intellectual insight.[:p] I think YOU missed the point there spanky. Railroads have emasculated themselves with the belief that certain lines were "excess capacity", yet they have no crystal ball in determining that those lines actually were excess in the railroad's long term planning (which goes out on a limb in assuming they do engage in long term planning!). Why would you lop off body parts if you did not know for sure that you absolutely would not need them anymore? The cost of keeping an asset is much less than the cost of having to rebuild such an asset from scratch. Again, I ask you, do you know of any other industry that engages in asset reduction as a part of their long term business strategy? Or do I have to explain "asset" to you? The answer to your last question , is every industry disposes of assets that they don't forsee being of any use in the future, based on the information they have at the present. Which relates to the statement above. You keep harping on the railroads for asset reduction that they didn't forsee being of any use in the future, based on the information that had at the time. Even an economics major should be able to see the drawbacks of not having a crystal ball. It's just too easy to judge the railroads on a woulda/shoulda/coulda basis, based on 29 years of hindsight. Note that you should also give them heck for not investing in Microsoft too.[;)] Well, there's a "tell" in all this: The railroads publicly claimed they had excess capacity which needed to be lopped off.... BUT ....the reality of it was they only wanted to reduce capacity to increase pricing power. Thus, there was no "excess capacity" as in too many assets relative to their customer base, because even back then just about any rail shipper was desirous of more rail options, not less. Rather, the railroads in reality lusted after a greater share of their customers' wealth, and the only way to get their hands on it was to reduce the number of assets serving their customers, thus optimizing pricing selectivity. Such can only happen under monopoly situations, because under competitive situations other service providers would simply take up the slack left by the self-emasculators. Again I will reiterate: THERE WAS NO EXCESS CAPACITY, ONLY UNDERACHIEVEMENT RELATIVE TO THE RAIL SHIPPER.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Well now we're back to the *big, mean railroads are picking on the poor,defenceless shippers* again?[}:)] Fine,let me jump right to the end of the story, and save you the time.[;)].........."and we would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids" Scooby-dooby-do!![xx(]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Many other industries will maintain "unused" assets for long periods of time, because they understand the cyclical nature of business. Apparently, railroads do not understand this basic business tenet. You see, if you scrap an asset, you don't have that asset later on when you need it. Now that the nation's energy and other transportation needs are such that abandoned lines would be put into play right now, it shows a lack of foresight (or a complete lack of concern) by the shortsighted railroad industry. Don't these guys follow economic trends? Or did they think that the US was destined for a Soviet-style command economy, so why save assets if the railroads are going to be taken over by the federales? Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,] Again, I will ask you this: Can you name any other industry besides the rail industry that has engaged in such a canabalistic attitude toward it's hard assets? The auto industry. Nope, you're thinking of a few specific companies like GM or Ford, but not the aggregate industry as a whole, which continues to add assets. GM and Ford aren't shutting those plants to extract more pricing power, they're rather on the losing end of the intra-industry competitive battle, e.g. losing market share to other auto makers, subsequently closing their plants while others open new ones. Toyota, Nissan, Lexus, et al are not lopping off assets, are they?
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Many other industries will maintain "unused" assets for long periods of time, because they understand the cyclical nature of business. Apparently, railroads do not understand this basic business tenet. You see, if you scrap an asset, you don't have that asset later on when you need it. Now that the nation's energy and other transportation needs are such that abandoned lines would be put into play right now, it shows a lack of foresight (or a complete lack of concern) by the shortsighted railroad industry. Don't these guys follow economic trends? Or did they think that the US was destined for a Soviet-style command economy, so why save assets if the railroads are going to be taken over by the federales? Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,] Again, I will ask you this: Can you name any other industry besides the rail industry that has engaged in such a canabalistic attitude toward it's hard assets? The auto industry.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Many other industries will maintain "unused" assets for long periods of time, because they understand the cyclical nature of business. Apparently, railroads do not understand this basic business tenet. You see, if you scrap an asset, you don't have that asset later on when you need it. Now that the nation's energy and other transportation needs are such that abandoned lines would be put into play right now, it shows a lack of foresight (or a complete lack of concern) by the shortsighted railroad industry. Don't these guys follow economic trends? Or did they think that the US was destined for a Soviet-style command economy, so why save assets if the railroads are going to be taken over by the federales? Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,] Again, I will ask you this: Can you name any other industry besides the rail industry that has engaged in such a canabalistic attitude toward it's hard assets?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Many other industries will maintain "unused" assets for long periods of time, because they understand the cyclical nature of business. Apparently, railroads do not understand this basic business tenet. You see, if you scrap an asset, you don't have that asset later on when you need it. Now that the nation's energy and other transportation needs are such that abandoned lines would be put into play right now, it shows a lack of foresight (or a complete lack of concern) by the shortsighted railroad industry. Don't these guys follow economic trends? Or did they think that the US was destined for a Soviet-style command economy, so why save assets if the railroads are going to be taken over by the federales? Hey Dave- any chance you could make a quick list of the under-utilized or dormant rail lines that will be really busy 10 years from now? 20 years from now? That way, the railroads would have an easier time planning some of this stuff?[;)][:-,]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Many other industries will maintain "unused" assets for long periods of time, because they understand the cyclical nature of business. Apparently, railroads do not understand this basic business tenet. You see, if you scrap an asset, you don't have that asset later on when you need it. Now that the nation's energy and other transportation needs are such that abandoned lines would be put into play right now, it shows a lack of foresight (or a complete lack of concern) by the shortsighted railroad industry. Don't these guys follow economic trends? Or did they think that the US was destined for a Soviet-style command economy, so why save assets if the railroads are going to be taken over by the federales?
An "expensive model collector"
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mudchicken - what was your college degree? Or did you have one? Stick to what you know - rotten ties, rusty spikes, and weedy ballast. Leave the economics to those who have the degree. Dave, Have you ever had a dissagreement with someone on this board without insulting them?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mudchicken - what was your college degree? Or did you have one? Stick to what you know - rotten ties, rusty spikes, and weedy ballast. Leave the economics to those who have the degree. Dave, Have you ever had a dissagreement with someone on this board without insulting them? Now THAT would be a real scavenger hunt to find proof of that.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Bert, Look through the past posts over the last few years and you would see that the insults originate with those who disagree with me. Do I respond in kind? Yes. Now, do you still want to play dumb?
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH [Dave, You need to stop putting down the rest of the world as ignoramuses or you will find that the rest of the world will begin to ignore you. Since you seem to believe that you have a monopoly on the truth, a dialogue with you quickly becomes an exercise in futility. Listen to the rest of the world, you may actually learn something.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl From Page 2 Post 7, the first insult of the thread is thrown by.... QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mudchicken - what was your college degree? Or did you have one? Stick to what you know - rotten ties, rusty spikes, and weedy ballast. Leave the economics to those who have the degree.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl From Page 2 Post 7, the first insult of the thread is thrown by.... QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mudchicken - what was your college degree? Or did you have one? Stick to what you know - rotten ties, rusty spikes, and weedy ballast. Leave the economics to those who have the degree. Which was unusual. Usually it's TomDiehl or edblysard.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Bert, Look through the past posts over the last few years and you would see that the insults originate with those who disagree with me. Do I respond in kind? Yes. Now, do you still want to play dumb? Dave, You need to stop putting down the rest of the world as ignoramuses or you will find that the rest of the world will begin to ignore you. Since you seem to believe that you have a monopoly on the truth, a dialogue with you quickly becomes an exercise in futility. Listen to the rest of the world, you may actually learn something.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.