Railroads Struggle to Deliver Coal to Utilities

[Murphy Siding]

Here's a different analogy. Georgia Pacific is a huge wholesale building materials company. They are nationwide, and could certainly be considered a *Class One* of their industry. They closed down, and sold off their facility in Lincoln, Nebrraska. It was determined that the facility was redundant, based on present and forseeable future business in the central part of the country. If you were the CEO of Georgia Pacific, could you go to the board of directors, and the stockholders and say: "Ya know-we ought to just keep this facility on the books for another 25 years. That way, if the need arrises in the future,we can fire it back up. Then we can figure out how to pay back all those *mothball*(?) expenses, and start raking in the big bucks" That is, if the market comes back,if the facility isn't outdated, and if the facility is in the right location 25 years down the road.
If you were the CEO and said this at a stockholder's meeting, do you think your name would still be on the door when you got back to the office?[;)]

[MichaelSol]

Ladies and gentlemen, a manufacturing facility is simply not the same thing as a right of way. Companies do, in fact, gain advantages by opening new facilities and closing down old ones. "Buildings" are meant to be replaceable assets. Look at the depreciation schedules.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Ladies and gentlemen, a manufacturing facility is simply not the same thing as a right of way. Companies do, in fact, gain advantages by opening new facilities and closing down old ones. "Buildings" are meant to be replaceable assets. Look at the depreciation schedules.

Hey, thanks for clearing that up.[;)] I guess you didn't read my post then?[:p]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Ladies and gentlemen, a manufacturing facility is simply not the same thing as a right of way. Companies do, in fact, gain advantages by opening new facilities and closing down old ones. "Buildings" are meant to be replaceable assets. Look at the depreciation schedules.

Thank you Michael. We've been trying to get this through to David, male, from the Pacific Northwest since Page 2 of this thread.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Thank you Michael. We've been trying to get this through to David, male, f

I've been busy with Ken, Male, Deserted by Wife.

[rrandb]

Mr Sol I beleive your are swimming up stream on that one and will never see the source of the river as are we with dave. Its a lot of work and you get nowhere.[#dots]

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Mr Sol I beleive your are swimming up stream on that one and will never see the source of the river as are we with dave. Its a lot of work and you get nowhere.[#dots]

True, but isn't it entertaining.

[tree68]

Thanks, Chad - I will have another bag.

Now back to the show!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Ladies and gentlemen, a manufacturing facility is simply not the same thing as a right of way. Companies do, in fact, gain advantages by opening new facilities and closing down old ones. "Buildings" are meant to be replaceable assets. Look at the depreciation schedules.

Ladies and gentlemen and MichaelSol, a wholesale building materials company, such as Georgia Pacific Corporation, mentioned in the post in question, is a wholesale building materials company. Thay means they sell building materials, wholesale. It too, is not the same thing as a right of way. I thought I'd do my civic duty, and point that out to any who may have been confused on that issue as well.[;)]

[MichaelSol]

Well, what ever that means.

The point is, you hang on to irreplaceable assets, as they are not comparable to assets that are meant to be replaced, or, dispense with them, at a minimum, with a great deal of caution, because you are never going to get them back.

[Murphy Siding]

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?[;)][:-,]

Michael: The post relates back to this post. It is Dave's contetion that railroads should have held onto all of those unused,or under-used rail lines that they would need far in the future, although they just didn't know it at the time. Your recent postings on this thread seem to support this same idea. Somewhere on a Milwaukee Road thread (of all things!) you wrote a very good explanation of how the granger roads were going broke because of all the unprofitable lines they weren't allowed to abandon. Would you have advocated railroads spending money to save lines for a rainy day, that may never have come?

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Mr Sol I beleive your are swimming up stream on that one and will never see the source of the river as are we with dave. Its a lot of work and you get nowhere.[#dots]

True, but isn't it entertaining.

If he wasn't entertaining why would we chat with him. [swg] [:-^]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Mr Sol I beleive your are swimming up stream on that one and will never see the source of the river as are we with dave. Its a lot of work and you get nowhere.[#dots]

True, but isn't it entertaining.

If he wasn't entertaining why would we chat with him. [swg] [:-^]

I want to know where Chad gets these animated smilies. [:D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

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?[;)][:-,]

Michael: The post relates back to this post. It is Dave's contetion that railroads should have held onto all of those unused,or under-used rail lines that they would need far in the future, although they just didn't know it at the time. Your recent postings on this thread seem to support this same idea. Somewhere on a Milwaukee Road thread (of all things!) you wrote a very good explanation of how the granger roads were going broke because of all the unprofitable lines they weren't allowed to abandon. Would you have advocated railroads spending money to save lines for a rainy day, that may never have come?

Actually Murph, it goes back to the third post on page 2 by Futuremodal, last paragraph:

"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?"

A few people took the bait.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

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?[;)][:-,]

Michael: The post relates back to this post. It is Dave's contetion that railroads should have held onto all of those unused,or under-used rail lines that they would need far in the future, although they just didn't know it at the time. Your recent postings on this thread seem to support this same idea. Somewhere on a Milwaukee Road thread (of all things!) you wrote a very good explanation of how the granger roads were going broke because of all the unprofitable lines they weren't allowed to abandon. Would you have advocated railroads spending money to save lines for a rainy day, that may never have come?

Actually Murph, it goes back to the third post on page 2 by Futuremodal, last paragraph:

"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?"

A few people took the bait.

Come to think of it, there were several power plants in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa that have been decommisioned and torn down. Didn't they anticipate future energy needs? What do you think that is all about?[:0]

[edblysard]

Murphy,
I am sure it is because BNSF, in a national conspiracy with the Atomic Energy Commission, intentionally failed to deliver enough coal at a cheap enough price and in sufficient volume, thereby forcing the coal fired power plant operators to close down and abandon their plants...which in turn allowed BNSF to abandon the key rail lines in Montana that kept marginally producing farms in business...see how it all ties together?
BNSF is the Government....



[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

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?[;)][:-,]

Michael: The post relates back to this post. It is Dave's contetion that railroads should have held onto all of those unused,or under-used rail lines that they would need far in the future, although they just didn't know it at the time. Your recent postings on this thread seem to support this same idea. Somewhere on a Milwaukee Road thread (of all things!) you wrote a very good explanation of how the granger roads were going broke because of all the unprofitable lines they weren't allowed to abandon. Would you have advocated railroads spending money to save lines for a rainy day, that may never have come?

Actually Murph, it goes back to the third post on page 2 by Futuremodal, last paragraph:

"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?"

A few people took the bait.

Come to think of it, there were several power plants in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa that have been decommisioned and torn down. Didn't they anticipate future energy needs? What do you think that is all about?[:0]

Murphy,

I think you will understand this:

The decommissioned power plants were replaced by newer power plants.

The abandoned rail lines were not replaced by newer rail lines.

Comprende muchacho?

And I never said all abandoned rail lines should have been saved. We talked about that before, not to long ago. You have either a very poor memory, or a very disingenuous tact for trying to denegrate folks such as I. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Ladies and gentlemen, a manufacturing facility is simply not the same thing as a right of way. Companies do, in fact, gain advantages by opening new facilities and closing down old ones. "Buildings" are meant to be replaceable assets. Look at the depreciation schedules.

That's what I have been trying to explain to the cult of utmost density. The rail assets were not replaced.

If they had stopped pissing and gave it some thought, they could have figured it out on their own. At least, a reasonable person would assume they could figure it out.

Perhaps I was being too complimentary in calling them the double digit IQ crowd.[}:)]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

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?[;)][:-,]

Michael: The post relates back to this post. It is Dave's contetion that railroads should have held onto all of those unused,or under-used rail lines that they would need far in the future, although they just didn't know it at the time. Your recent postings on this thread seem to support this same idea. Somewhere on a Milwaukee Road thread (of all things!) you wrote a very good explanation of how the granger roads were going broke because of all the unprofitable lines they weren't allowed to abandon. Would you have advocated railroads spending money to save lines for a rainy day, that may never have come?

Murphy, the subject is to me, fairly complex. It's like Open Access. Someone with an economics background, like Dave, probably has far more comfort with a concept like that than I do. I would need to do a lot of homework and a considerable amount of econometric modelling before I would feel comfortable at all on a topic like that. I see some interesting examples that "suggest" it's workable, but it's just too different from my background and experience in other business models which are not open access for me to have an instant opinion either way.

Abandoning rail lines. For the Grangers, it was mostly branchlines that were alleged to be the problem. I think Dave is primarily referring to through routes; not sure, haven't followed the discussion that closely.

Mileage has gone down from, what, nearly 200,000 route miles in 1970 to just under 100,000 now? The Grangers tended to be branchline heavy. Milwaukee was probably typical at about 70%. BN was about 35%, almost all Q stuff. The FRA under Brock Adams got this idea that it was the duplicative mainlines that were the problem, not the branchlines that the railroads themselves had theretofore claimed were the problem. Adams conditioned financial assistance on "duplicative" mainline elimination and all the Class I's dutifully shook their heads, yup, the problem must be those duplicative mainlines, now give us the check.

Now, that background is suggestive.

It wasn't an industry decision, or even an industry perspective. It was strictly a government initiated concept, implemented and propelled by the corrosive influence of government money at a critical time.

As I have mentioned before, BN's Tom Lamphier was the only Class I president who really questioned the fundamental concept, arguing that "excess capacity" was essential to the ability of railroads to provide "service" and to offer a competitive alternative to trucking.

Well, the government got its way. "Excess capacity" was eliminated, with a vengence.

What happened? Exactly what Lamphier predicted. Railroads could not, in fact, offer "competitive" service for premium traffic. They hauled more and earned less. They moved slower, and costs went up. Railroads now earn less than 10% of total intercity freight revenue, while producing over 42% of the ton miles of intercity freight. The tonnage is considerably more than during the 1970s, but the profitability in relationship to the tonnage considerably less, compared to what trucking got out of the regulatory changes.

The interesting study that this suggests isn't that capacity was a "future" problem -- but that removing "excess" capacity has, all during the process, continually reduced railroad ability to price against trucking for premium traffic, resulting in continuing erosion of the basic profitability of rail traffic, even as trucks obtained the more profitable shares.

It isn't hindsight to say that "gee railroads should have done this or that," the fact is that the ultimate results of capacity constraints were showing up from the get-go. The problem was, the eroding profitability of rail freight haulage compelled more cost cutting -- the sure fire road to business perdition -- which resulted in further declines in ability to "meet the competition" in terms of price and service.

Well, more later. But you can see where I am suggesting this goes. The process of intentionally creating capacity constraints had little to do with overall rail abandonment -- branch lines -- but everything to do with abandoning those specific portions of the U.S. rail system that offered the rail industry the ability to earn profit -- competition for premium price, rather than the race to the bottom of commodity pricing, which is what happened as the result of the focus on cutting capacity.

Is it a problem just now? No, it has been a problem since 1976. It just gets real expensive about now, but in terms of lost profits, it has been a price paid all along.

[jeaton]

Let see now. If the Santa Fe hadn't torn up all the double track on the Transcon in Kansas, Oklahoma and the eastern half of New Mexico, the SP had left in the two track main on the Sunset and Tucumcari lines, and the UP had kept in the all the rail on the lines from Salt Lake to LA and Oregon, and worst of all, if the Burlington had kept the four tracks into the Powder River Coal Mines, there probably wouldn't have been any capacity problems to the west.

Oh, excuse me! Am I being to coy? Then allow me to be straight forward and suggest reference to the (current) multiple-track main lines map and article by Curtis Richards (Trains, January 2006) and the multiple-track lines, 1950 map and article by Matt Van Hattem (Trains, June 2006). Perhaps that would provide some insight to the concept of stranded assets. Van Hattem notes in his article that in 1950, "Products of mines (coal, iron ore, phosphate) accounted for half of the originated tonnage..." Almost none of those products are now shipped from the origins of the 1950's. Manufactured products once shipped from factories in the Northeast and upper Midwest on the multiple double tracks mainlines that served that area first went to production plants in the South and then out of the country. As for grain and grain products, the day in 1967 that the Illinois Central Railroad hauled the first unit train load of corn to the Gulf Coast marked the beginning of the end of the country elevator, and with the increase of the capacity of trucks and the quality of rural highways, grain branch lines became as obsolete as buggy whips. Just like old factories, that track was torn down, and if the track material was usful for any more than scrap, it was moved to a place where it would be useful.

No doubt some of the trackage that was torn up 20 to 50 years ago could now be useful, but I have yet to see a case made that a railroad would have been financially better off to have kept a segment of track.

[MichaelSol]

Jay, I would hate to suggest, as I did above, that "the subject is ... fairly complex." If you have all the answers, by all means, don't be coy.

When you assert, "almost none of those products are now shipped from the origins of the 1950's" I hope you are recognizing exactly what I said -- the through routes, not the branchlines (which is what an origin usually is), were the focus and the problem.

[jeaton]

Murphy

I see that Michael has thrown up the old saw of the railroads getting only 10% of the intercity revenue while producing 42% of the ton miles. I wonder what happens to those numbers when you strip out all the ton miles of bulk commodities hauled by the railroads and all revenue produced by the package and LTL truckers and all the trucks hauling intercity freight direct from a plant or warehouse to a store.

Once the motor vehicle, both passenger and frieght could move at the speed of a train and travel over government built and maintained highways, it was no longer for necessary for wholesale or retail outlets or people to be located on or near a railroad. With that, it was also discovered that moving freight direct to the point of sale could be more economical than moving via rail, then handling the freight over a dock and into a truck for delivery to a store, even if the rail charges were lower than the trucks.


Consider this. Whether hauling people or freight, railroads are a mass transportation facility. They are no more capable of being able to compete to haul the majority of the high revenue merchandise traffic than they are to compete with the automobile to haul the majority of people traffic. The only way railroads are able to be competitive hauling people is if there are a lot of people going between the same two place at the same time. The same thing is true of freight.

As I stated in my previous post, some trackage may have been pulled up that could be useful today, but I doubt very much that there would have been enough for railroads to be providing any kind of vastly improved service that would have given a significantly greater share of intercity frieght revenue.

[jeaton]

The first reference I made with the quote from the article was to the coal,ore and phosphate product of mines. I think that if you consider where those products are now produced and where they go, compared to the the origin and destination pairs of 1950, you will find that the traffic routes are considerably altered, and the abandoned trackage would not now be useful for present day movements.

While that stuff may have moved off of branch lines, the manufacturers in the northeast and upper midwest were certainly located on the mainlines. When those companies discovered that they did not have to be on a railroad they moved to cheaper land, lower cost labor and lower taxes. That left a lot of track rusting just like the plants that were left behind and 30 or 40 years later, if left in place those tracks would still be rusting away. By the way, the first major shift worked quite well for the Southern Railway.

I will add to my original point. Of all the track abandoned, what was the split of branch line and trunk line, and then just how much of the abandoned trunk line would now be useful.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Now I am confused. If the railroads couldn't or wouldn't meet the demand, who did? If they lost the business - who picked it up?

Dave - you are ignoring me! I asked some pretty good questions, without any of the flourishes in the other postings. I got right to the point and just asked the bottom line.

Without demeaning my poor IQ, would you please go back and just answer the questions I asked?

Mookie

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Now I am confused. If the railroads couldn't or wouldn't meet the demand, who did? If they lost the business - who picked it up?

Dave - you are ignoring me! I asked some pretty good questions, without any of the flourishes in the other postings. I got right to the point and just asked the bottom line.

Without demeaning my poor IQ, would you please go back and just answer the questions I asked?

Mookie

"If the railroads couldn't or wouldn't meet the demand, who did? If they lost the business - who picked it up?"

Three options availed themselves:

1. The business in question turned to the mode of last resort, aka trucks
2. The business moved overseas or south of the border
3. The business shut down, and the money vested shifted to non-rail related sectors

[Mookie]

Thank you.

The first one - I thought about trucks - but while coal was delivered to homes in trucks years ago, I don't think it would be feasible to do a business that way. Can you give me an example? Remember that I live where coal is used in power plants, so I only know of big ticket items using coal.

Did a lot of businesses go overseas or to Mexico as a direct result of no coal? Or was it a combination of several factors and the energy or lack of, was just one factor?

Did we lose a lot of businesses either big or small because of this situation?

I notice you say options, but can you cite facts where this actually happened?

I honestly don't know the answers and would like to read your thoughts on this.

Mook

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Murphy

I see that Michael has thrown up the old saw of the railroads getting only 10% of the intercity revenue while producing 42% of the ton miles. I wonder what happens to those numbers when you strip out all the ton miles of bulk commodities hauled by the railroads and all revenue produced by the package and LTL truckers and all the trucks hauling intercity freight direct from a plant or warehouse to a store.

The "old saw" eh?

Well, it seems like not just a significant number, but a significant change from when railroads were doing "poorly."

Strip out the commodities? That would take out some of the highest revenue freight on the railroads, the BNSF anyway. I am sure some numbers can be generated that would be interesting one way or another.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The first reference I made with the quote from the article was to the coal,ore and phosphate product of mines. I think that if you consider where those products are now produced and where they go, compared to the the origin and destination pairs of 1950, you will find that the traffic routes are considerably altered, and the abandoned trackage would not now be useful for present day movements.

While that stuff may have moved off of branch lines, the manufacturers in the northeast and upper midwest were certainly located on the mainlines. When those companies discovered that they did not have to be on a railroad they moved to cheaper land, lower cost labor and lower taxes. That left a lot of track rusting just like the plants that were left behind and 30 or 40 years later, if left in place those tracks would still be rusting away. By the way, the first major shift worked quite well for the Southern Railway.

I will add to my original point. Of all the track abandoned, what was the split of branch line and trunk line, and then just how much of the abandoned trunk line would now be useful.

My post actually alludes to this, apparently inscrutibly.

Since early days, railroads have built branches to support traffic origination, and pulled the lines when the traffic quit. That's the history of railroading. The problem came when regulation prevented the logical abandonment when the time came.

But, branchlines are just not a capacity issue. The closing of a phosphate mine on some branch has little to do with discussions of capacity, which is a through route or mainline issue and even at that, the discussion is tempered by management of existing mainlines as much as broad discussions of mainline abandonment.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton
[br
I will add to my original point. Of all the track abandoned, what was the split of branch line and trunk line, and then just how much of the abandoned trunk line would now be useful.

But, branchlines are just not a capacity issue. The closing of a phosphate mine on some branch has little to do with discussions of capacity, which is a through route or mainline issue and even at that, the discussion is tempered by management of existing mainlines as much as broad discussions of mainline abandonment.

You are quite right with respect to lines that are served only by one or two significant customers. But there are many examples of where main routes whether sections of multiple track or whole complete lines have been abandoned or removed for short term gain. In the past the railroads have been guilty of making the capacity meet the traffic level rather than going out and marketing their services so that the traffic level meets the capacity. Obviously technology also plays a role in their decision to replace multi-track routes with signalled single track routes but in my opinion signals do not replace track. It is one thing to downgrade a triple track route to double track but to downgrade a double track route to single is part of the reason why we are where we are today.
Railroads have been guilty of abandoning routes that while not being high density routes do have enough volume to remain open but choose to re-route the traffic via alternate routes to save money. The problem is that they assume the traffic will follow their plan in spite of longer transit times due to indirect routings. This means the cost increases in the long term.
The other thing people forget about is the impact of passenger train service on rail density. Although gross ton miles may have increased on many routes the actual number of trains has declined due to the withdrawal of passenger service. If the government or somebody had supported more passenger service much of the infrastructure would have been maintained. It is not just tonnage that makes a rail line viable. Passenger train service tends to keep the trackage and signal system at a higher level which also benefits freight. The question has always been how much of the costs should be borne by the freight and passenger components.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Murphy,

I think you will understand this:

The decommissioned power plants were replaced by newer power plants.

The abandoned rail lines were not replaced by newer rail lines.

Comprende muchacho?

Similar to how the traffic from unprofitable rail lines was replaced by traffic on other lines, and gasp! highways? I see the similarities, even if you don't.

QUOTE:
And I never said all abandoned rail lines should have been saved. We talked about that before, not to long ago. You have either a very poor memory, or a very disingenuous tact for trying to denegrate folks such as I. Which is it?

[(-D][(-D][(-D] It must be poor memory, or trying to hit a moving target. As far as the disingenuous tract,well, I don't think so. I did have chilie for dinner last night, though, so maybe that's part of the problem?[;)] I did go back and look. Sure enough, you did provide info on two current rail lines.
As you keep refering back to past abandonments that you think railroads made in error, I keep thinking that they did what made sense at the time. So what abandonded lines, (other than the Milwaukee Road, I'll give you that one, as we all know the feelings of everybody on that one)are you talking about?