Railroads Struggle to Deliver Coal to Utilities

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, then perhaps your apology should have been posted along with the quotation of the law.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'll mail you the trophy.[;)]

Actually, just send it straight to the Smithsonian for immediate display.[^]

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

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Congress, in passing the Staggers Act, wanted to put an end to ratemaking practices involving railroad cross-subsidization and other inefficiencies." GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (DC circuit, 1989) 872 F.2d 1048.

Title 49, Sec. 10101. Rail transportation policy

In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government -
(1) to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail;
(3) to promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system by allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues, as determined by the Board;
(4) to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, to meet the needs of the public and the national defense;
(6) to maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition and where rail rates provide revenues which exceed the amount necessary to maintain the rail system and to attract capital;
(9) to encourage honest and efficient management of railroads;
(12) to prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to avoid undue concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful discrimination;

It's the law.

Wait a second. Michael is trying to pull a fast one here. This is the goverments policy on rail transpotation. That is different than law. Look at number nine, you are going to tell me that is it written in law that the US is encourageing honest and efficient management of railroads? While I agree that this might be the goverments stance on this, that does not mean it is law.


Bert

[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?

[jeaton]

Nice to know that some parts of a law are important and others are not.

[MichaelSol]

Fortunately, the important parts were all written in English.

The unbolded parts are the portions there seems to be general agreement on.

The bolded portions highlight the areas where there seems to be vociferous denial that Congress acted to enact national rail policy regarding captive shippers and that Congress expressed its wishes clearly on the matter.

The bold portions succinctly illuminate the areas of statutory law which address the areas of disagreement.

[jeaton]

Do some phrases in the six or so statements not included in the post of the Rail transportation policy also come in bold letters. Note that nothing in (3) is in bold letters. Maybe that means that (3) is less important than the parts in bold.

[rrandb]

I am confused. The straight forward answer is what you have been diasgreeing with?[%-)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Congress, in passing the Staggers Act, wanted to put an end to ratemaking practices involving railroad cross-subsidization and other inefficiencies." GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (DC circuit, 1989) 872 F.2d 1048.

Title 49, Sec. 10101. Rail transportation policy

In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government -
(1) to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail;
(3) to promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system by allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues, as determined by the Board;
(4) to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, to meet the needs of the public and the national defense;
(6) to maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition and where rail rates provide revenues which exceed the amount necessary to maintain the rail system and to attract capital;
(9) to encourage honest and efficient management of railroads;
(12) to prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to avoid undue concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful discrimination;

It's the law.

Well, that seems to be fairly straightforward. It would be impossible for a person of reasonable intelligence to "agree to disagree" on the above caveats.[;)]

[rrandb]

The only part that is captive is the terminating railroad. The customer can request where and who the UP or BNSF interchanges with. The customers are only captive to the railroad that provides the cheapest rate. This is true of most businesses. The closest to a monopoly you might have found would be the N&W who owned the mines and the railroad too. Utilities are only "captive" to PBR low sulfer coal if they have not installed scrubbers to clean up there emisions.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'll mail you the trophy.[;)]

Actually, just send it straight to the Smithsonian for immediate display.[^]

[Murphy Siding]

Mookie: In my own mind, I wonder if the problem is not whether opinion A is right, or opinion B is right. The problem is neither side being able to convince the other side to see it his(or her) point of view. Therefore, I opt to call it a tie. We'll move on to something else we all disagree on, and I'll save the postage on shipping a trophy.[^]

[Mookie]

I'm hopelessly lost! I get worn out just trying to read the back and forth.

You know Big B is going to be unhappy with some of you because you are getting out of line again. Can we go back to the one fact - we agree to disagree! This is going nowhere, since neither side is going to give an inch. Take it out in the parking lot and let's get on with a new topic of "We Can't Agree!"

Moo.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Congress, in passing the Staggers Act, wanted to put an end to ratemaking practices involving railroad cross-subsidization and other inefficiencies." GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (DC circuit, 1989) 872 F.2d 1048.

Title 49, Sec. 10101. Rail transportation policy

In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government -
(1) to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail;
(3) to promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system by allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues, as determined by the Board;
(4) to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, to meet the needs of the public and the national defense;
(6) to maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition and where rail rates provide revenues which exceed the amount necessary to maintain the rail system and to attract capital;
(9) to encourage honest and efficient management of railroads;
(12) to prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to avoid undue concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful discrimination;

It's the law.

The law isn't the problem, it is your misinterpretation of the law that causes issues...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'll mail you the trophy.[;)]

WAIT. There's a flag on the play, looks like UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT against Dave. Oh, there's another penalty, dragging Open Access into every unrelated topic...[8]

[MichaelSol]

Congress, in passing the Staggers Act, wanted to put an end to ratemaking practices involving railroad cross-subsidization and other inefficiencies." GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (DC circuit, 1989) 872 F.2d 1048.

Title 49, Sec. 10101. Rail transportation policy

In regulating the railroad industry, it is the policy of the United States Government -
(1) to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail;
(3) to promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system by allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues, as determined by the Board;
(4) to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes, to meet the needs of the public and the national defense;
(6) to maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition and where rail rates provide revenues which exceed the amount necessary to maintain the rail system and to attract capital;
(9) to encourage honest and efficient management of railroads;
(12) to prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to avoid undue concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful discrimination;

It's the law.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Character

Originally posted by Futuremodal:

"Mudchicken - what was your college degree? Or did you have one?"

Dave, where did you get your college degree from?? You are so busy criticizing the questions and ideas of others, what is YOUR basis of knowledge???

Or is there NONE??

Throwing rocks in a glass house, eh Biff?

You still haven't answered my question, so my previous statements appear to be validated. Pretty quick on the draw for somebody who argues in circles. Tough to be stupid, isn't it Dave...

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

So.......final score: Dave 1, "Us people" 99. Dave wins by a landslide.[;)][(-D][(-D]

99 insults, et al, do not add up to 1 valid point.

You right, with all the insults you throw out, you still have not had a valid point.[8D] I guess Murphy messed up on that one[:D]

Bert

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Check Mudchicken's previous post in which he throws out an unnecessary insult at me. Then tell me if you still think I started the mud slinging.

Mommy, Mommy, he started it! Bottom line is that for the most part it is you who goes on insulting people.

Bert

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

I take it you(FM) are a big proponent of the DME proposal to open an aditional route to the PRB coal? And with the monopolistic ability of RR's to control there customers even though there are 2, count them 2 RR's delivering PRB coal. How is two (duo) the same as 1 (mono)polistic. In your mind anything that is routinely shipped by rail is "captive" to the railroads.

1
2. "Railroad monopoly" refers to the degree of control a railroad has over a customer. Remember, the coal mines are worthless without a customer to buy the coal. So even though both UP and BNSF serve some of the same mines in the PRB, they do not deliver that coal to the same customers, ergo a monopolistic situation. It would only be a true duopoly if UP and BNSF served both the same mines AND the same coal utilities. And a duopoly is nothing to write home about if you crave intramodal competition.

3. A rail shipper who has access to only one Class I rail services offering is a captive shipper. If that rail shipper has ongoing access to two or more Class I's, he/she is not captive. In the PRB, many of the mines are not captive, but their customers are. Contrast that with overseas importers to the US, who have access to multiples of Class I's and shipping lines. They are not captive in anyway shape or form, thus they get the benefits of competitive rates

But Dave for as long as there have been railroads this has been the case. Unless the industry was located at a juction or on a belt line, it is served by one railroad. That is the buisness, get over it.

Bert

[Murphy Siding]

I'll mail you the trophy.[;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

So.......final score: Dave 1, "Us people" 99. Dave wins by a landslide.[;)][(-D][(-D]

99 insults, et al, do not add up to 1 valid point.

BTW, are you still [%-)]stuck in a perpetual misunderstanding of monopolistic economic behaviour?