Railroads Struggle to Deliver Coal to Utilities

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Not sure anyone wants to get into an argument with Dustin Bleizeffer, the energy reporter for the Casper Star-Tribune, but why don't you just go to the BNSF Annual Report, for instance, and look at the carload revenue breakdown for coal, ag, intermodal, etc. and see what it says?

Then you would at least have some numbers to start from instead of relying on Dustin Bleizeffer, energy reporter for the Casper Star Tribune, for your information about railroad rates.

Well, sheeewt, an I though you wuz one of them law-yer fellas what could read??

The article actually is quoting and relying upon Steve Robb of BNSF, if you got that far...

(Hint: 2d paragraph)

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
Funny, I have seen it argued many times that most coal shippers/utilities are captive shippers, however this artical that Dave posted seems to dissagree with both you and Dave. From the artical "coal haulage provides the LEAST amount of return on capital expenditures." How can that be?

So then why did you say they are investing where they get the higher rates of return?

"Those big bad mean railroads, how dare they put more of THEIR money into the area with higher returns."

Not following your argument here .... it looks like you want to argue about something, I just can't tell what it is ...

Dave had stated that BNSF was blackmailing the coal industry because they were not going to invest into coal capacity if the coal companies pushed for reregulation. The artical says there is little return on the investment on coal, so to say it so you will understand. How dare the BNSF put money into consumer goods, were there is a much better return on the dollar, over coal were there is not much of a return.

Bert

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Not sure anyone wants to get into an argument with Dustin Bleizeffer, the energy reporter for the Casper Star-Tribune, but why don't you just go to the BNSF Annual Report, for instance, and look at the carload revenue breakdown for coal, ag, intermodal, etc. and see what it says?

Then you would at least have some numbers to start from instead of relying on Dustin Bleizeffer, energy reporter for the Casper Star Tribune, for your information about railroad rates.

I just use what is posted here, I have a life, and don't waste my day looking at carload rates. If that is what you would like to do with your day, more power to you. Dave posted this artical, that is what I am using for reference.


Bert

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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?

Sorry didn't bother to read this topic thread till tonight. To answer your question: Telecommunications, espescally in the traditional landline part.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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?

Sorry didn't bother to read this topic thread till tonight. To answer your question: Telecommunications, espescally in the traditional landline part.

Most landlines are still in place. With broadband and mobility being the preference of most people, it is the new accounts that are going dsl and wireless.

There has been a net loss of rail capacity. There has not been a net loss of communications.

The answer is of course, no one but the railroads have emaciated themselves in that vein.

[Anonymous]

Bert,

The BNSF guy Robb is blowing smoke, hoping that his audience of coal entities are too dumb to do their own fact checking. He knows perfectly well his line's highest rates of return are in the captive areas - coal, ag, domestic manufacturing. And the funny thing is, BNSF IS taking cash from the captives and subsidizing the "consumer goods" from Asia. They are NOT getting the best rate of return from consumer goods, rather they get a marginal rate of return but also a growing business segment. Coal and ag are BNSF's real money makers. Which makes the Robb statement nothing short of twisted.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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?

Sorry didn't bother to read this topic thread till tonight. To answer your question: Telecommunications, espescally in the traditional landline part.

Most landlines are still in place. With broadband and mobility being the preference of most people, it is the new accounts that are going dsl and wireless.
There has been a net loss of rail capacity. There has not been a net loss of communications.
The answer is of course, no one but the railroads have emaciated themselves in that vein.

#1 The landlines business is to telecommunications like the RR is to the transportation.
#2 Both telecommunications and transport are increasing.
#3 Landline business is decreasing, with voice shifting to wireless cellular another telcommunications sector....kinda like RR traffic shifting to tractor-trailor sector.
#4 Using voice, video, and data as the three traffic types, voice and video have been exceed greatly by data.
#5 Landline capacity has been axed to free up space in the Central Office.
#6 VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) is a free way to send telephone calls over the Internet. Phone companies are currently seeing a decrease in their voice traffic and revenue.

The companies that do a bunch of each are doing okay....but the company that is a pure play landline company is taking a pounding. They are losing too VoIP and cellular. Don't tell me they are not suffering from a net loss in traffic and business.......if they weren't why are they lobbying goverment to (a) make VoIP over the Internet illegal, and (b) prevent number portability from landline to cell phones???

So yes both the telecomunications and the transport industry has seen net growth, some of their sectors has seen a net loss in growth i.e RR and landline....and the landline sector specifically has sold off hard assests to reduce various costs, and free up some cash.

You asked for examples of other industries that have done what the RRs have done, and we have given you 2 or 3 now......and you refuse to listen. Maybe you should spend $60K on a model dream RR that implements your wisdom and then go live in it. [;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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?

Sorry didn't bother to read this topic thread till tonight. To answer your question: Telecommunications, espescally in the traditional landline part.

Most landlines are still in place. With broadband and mobility being the preference of most people, it is the new accounts that are going dsl and wireless.
There has been a net loss of rail capacity. There has not been a net loss of communications.
The answer is of course, no one but the railroads have emaciated themselves in that vein.

#1 The landlines business is to telecommunications like the RR is to the transportation.
#2 Both telecommunications and transport are increasing.
#3 Landline business is decreasing, with voice shifting to wireless cellular another telcommunications sector....kinda like RR traffic shifting to tractor-trailor sector.
#4 Using voice, video, and data as the three traffic types, voice and video have been exceed greatly by data.
#5 Landline capacity has been axed to free up space in the Central Office.
#6 VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) is a free way to send telephone calls over the Internet. Phone companies are currently seeing a decrease in their voice traffic and revenue.

The companies that do a bunch of each are doing okay....but the company that is a pure play landline company is taking a pounding. They are losing too VoIP and cellular. Don't tell me they are not suffering from a net loss in traffic and business.......if they weren't why are they lobbying goverment to (a) make VoIP over the Internet illegal, and (b) prevent number portability from landline to cell phones???

So yes both the telecomunications and the transport industry has seen net growth, some of their sectors has seen a net loss in growth i.e RR and landline....and the landline sector specifically has sold off hard assests to reduce various costs, and free up some cash.

You asked for examples of other industries that have done what the RRs have done, and we have given you 2 or 3 now......and you refuse to listen. Maybe you should spend $60K on a model dream RR that implements your wisdom and then go live in it. [;)]

No, you've given 2 or 3 examples of why you just don't get it. First, a failed steel industry analogy, then an even more absurd auto industry analogy, now right out of left field a failed telcom analogy. But first, your erroneous analogy....

"#3 Landline business is decreasing, with voice shifting to wireless cellular another telcommunications sector....kinda like RR traffic shifting to tractor-trailor sector."

Pray tell, why have you compared railroads to landlines and wireless to trucking? Trucks don't fly, they need a physical continuous infrastructure just like railroad transporters. If anything, the closest transport analogy to wireless would be air freight, and there just isn't all that much that has or will shift from rail to air freight.

A better analogy would be comparing old land lines to jointed rail, and fiber optics to welded rail. In that, you see that there is no retrenchment in the telecommunications sector, rather a shift from an older technology to a newer technology. The telcoms aren't cutting back on their infrastructural reach like the railroads. Quite the contrary, they are constantly expanding their infrastructural reach. And no, they are not selling off their land lines for scrap, because they still have a bunch of stubborn customers that still use land lines (dang that AARP!)

Railroads cut back because their collective management didn't want to deal with the hassles of an expanding customer base, prefering instead to consolidate the customer base and extract more pricing power over these remaining customers. That's why a lot of former rail traffic ended up on rubber tires, on foreign soil, or disappeared in the form of abandoned production facilities. It is ironic that, in another twist on the saga, those same railroads fall all over themselves to bring in Asian products at marginal rates, products that used to be produced here in the US at captive facilities (and corresponding captive rates).

Again, it all boils down to monopoly behaviour vs competitive behaviour.

[CrazyDiamond]

Futuremodal, what RR do you work for, and have they implemented your expertise?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

Futuremodal, what RR do you work for, and have they implemented your expertise?

Hmmm, changing the subject already? Or is this a Murtha-esque exercise in personal criticism?

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

Futuremodal, what RR do you work for, and have they implemented your expertise?

Hmmm, changing the subject already? Or is this a Murtha-esque exercise in personal criticism?

Nope....just a blunt question.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

Futuremodal, what RR do you work for, and have they implemented your expertise?

Hmmm, changing the subject already? Or is this a Murtha-esque exercise in personal criticism?

Nope....just a blunt question.

Then unless you can specify why the change-of-subject question is relevent to the topic we're discussing, I would suggest you start another topic regarding forum participants railroading experience or the lack thereof.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

Futuremodal, what RR do you work for, and have they implemented your expertise?

Hmmm, changing the subject already? Or is this a Murtha-esque exercise in personal criticism?

Nope....just a blunt question.

Then unless you can specify why the change-of-subject question is relevent to the topic we're discussing, I would suggest you start another topic regarding forum participants railroading experience or the lack thereof.

Its not a change-of-subject question. You accuse RRs of being stupid and cannibals and that they are now suffering because of it. Yet clearly your solutions are the answer, so I am curious to learn what RR you work for so we can all learn that indeed your wisdom is the answer. CN has done all the bad you speak of, little or none of what you recommend, they have their own strategies so clearly you don't work for them, and yet they are doing fine without you.....hmmmm ...as Homer Simpson would say "Amazing!!!".

Speaking of change-of-subject the topic is about a certain coal utility complaning about irregular deliveries yet somehow you turned this thread (like many you do) into a 'crap on the RR management day' for all they've done. You challege others and when they give you the answer you asked for you spin off onto another tangent. You are trying to create intelligent logic to support your emotions and ......well.... R/R.

Anyway I'm done with your posts....just gonna read what others have to say to others.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

Futuremodal, what RR do you work for, and have they implemented your expertise?

Hmmm, changing the subject already? Or is this a Murtha-esque exercise in personal criticism?

Nope....just a blunt question.

Then unless you can specify why the change-of-subject question is relevent to the topic we're discussing, I would suggest you start another topic regarding forum participants railroading experience or the lack thereof.

Dave doesn't work for a railroad and what RR in it's right mind would listen to anything he says???

[edblysard]

Dave doesn’t work for a railroad?
Seriously?
Wow....then where can I buy the books he gets all his railroad knowledge and facts from?
Walden’s or the Readers Digest Select "Condensed Railroad Management" series?
Or was it "Coal, the Black Diamonds to Die for"

That is a "must have" edition for the serious armchair railroader...
Maybe he borrowed some of Mickey’s books?

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

Futuremodal, what RR do you work for, and have they implemented your expertise?

Hmmm, changing the subject already? Or is this a Murtha-esque exercise in personal criticism?

Nope....just a blunt question.

Then unless you can specify why the change-of-subject question is relevent to the topic we're discussing, I would suggest you start another topic regarding forum participants railroading experience or the lack thereof.

Its not a change-of-subject question. You accuse RRs of being stupid and cannibals and that they are now suffering because of it. Yet clearly your solutions are the answer, so I am curious to learn what RR you work for so we can all learn that indeed your wisdom is the answer. CN has done all the bad you speak of, little or none of what you recommend, they have their own strategies so clearly you don't work for them, and yet they are doing fine without you.....hmmmm ...as Homer Simpson would say "Amazing!!!".

Speaking of change-of-subject the topic is about a certain coal utility complaning about irregular deliveries yet somehow you turned this thread (like many you do) into a 'crap on the RR management day' for all they've done. You challege others and when they give you the answer you asked for you spin off onto another tangent. You are trying to create intelligent logic to support your emotions and ......well.... R/R.

Anyway I'm done with your posts....just gonna read what others have to say to others.

Well, this is a thread about the relationship between railroads and coal using utilities. The railroads have been having a hard time keeping up with coal transport demand (see topic title to confirm this statement), yet have no problem keeping up with the import demands of the overseas producers. It is now widely known (at least on this forum) that railroad R/VC ratios are often three times higher for captive shippers such as the coal using utilities than non captive shippers such as Asian importers, and those non captive shippers are getting rates that are more often than not below the STB's R/VC standard of 180%, which is considered to be an indicator of adequate profit for the railroads to cover their incremental costs and still make a decent profit.

Which brings the Robb threat back to square one. What he is threatening to do is already being done by his railroad, namely cross subsidizing the <180% R/VC rail shippers with the >180% R/VC captive shippers. Look at the track maintenance expenditures for BNSF this year - most of it is in the SoCal-Chicago ex AT&SF corridor, with a token amount being directed toward addressing the lack of capacity on the coal and ag corridors. No doubt BNSF would like nothing more than to not have to spend one extra dime on the coal and ag routes since those customers are in the captive category thus will still be there whether the trackage is improved or not. The overseas importers can easily shift to other railroads or Panama Canal ships if BNSF neglects that trackage to the point of causing an inordinate amount of derailments (such as occured in the PRB recently).

The overseas importers have the advantage of competition, the US captive rail shippers do not.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Dave doesn’t work for a railroad?
Seriously?
Wow....then where can I buy the books he gets all his railroad knowledge and facts from?
Walden’s or the Readers Digest Select "Condensed Railroad Management" series?
Or was it "Coal, the Black Diamonds to Die for"

That is a "must have" edition for the serious armchair railroader...
Maybe he borrowed some of Mickey’s books?

Ed

I think you hit it right when you said "Mickey's books."

Mickey Mouse.

Of course, if he were real, he'd be one rich rodent. [:D]

[edblysard]

Lets see if I got this right...
The thread title, which you typed, some how confirms the details in the posts you write?

How, because you wrote it, or just because you said it does?
The thread's title confirms nothing more that you know how to type.

Ed

[edblysard]

You got part of it right...
Ed[:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Dave doesn’t work for a railroad?
Seriously?
Wow....then where can I buy the books he gets all his railroad knowledge and facts from?
Walden’s or the Readers Digest Select "Condensed Railroad Management" series?
Or was it "Coal, the Black Diamonds to Die for"

That is a "must have" edition for the serious armchair railroader...
Maybe he borrowed some of Mickey’s books?

Ed

I think you hit it right when you said "Mickey's books."

Mickey Mouse.

Of course, if he were real, he'd be one rich rodent. [:D]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Lets see if I got this right...
The thread title, which you typed, some how confirms the details in the posts you write?

How, because you wrote it, or just because you said it does?
The thread's title confirms nothing more that you know how to type.

Ed

Ed.....um....just to point out to Dave that I'm not *piling on, like the other usual suspects*......I should probably point out, that someone else started the tread, and gave it the title. Dave simply made the thread his own, so he could continue having the same arguement that he seems to enjoy having.[;)]

[edblysard]

Oh,
I'm sorry.
I guess that means Dave can't really type original titles?

Ed[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Oh,
I'm sorry.
I guess that means Dave can't really type original titles?

Ed[:D]

The word "original" immediately removes Dave from consideration...

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Bert,

The BNSF guy Robb is blowing smoke, hoping that his audience of coal entities are too dumb to do their own fact checking. He knows perfectly well his line's highest rates of return are in the captive areas - coal, ag, domestic manufacturing. And the funny thing is, BNSF IS taking cash from the captives and subsidizing the "consumer goods" from Asia. They are NOT getting the best rate of return from consumer goods, rather they get a marginal rate of return but also a growing business segment. Coal and ag are BNSF's real money makers. Which makes the Robb statement nothing short of twisted.

Conspiracy theorys again?


Bert

[jeaton]

futuremodal operates under the mistaken impression that a high markup of "price" over variable cost on a segment of business automaticly means that that segment will produce a higher rate of return than a business where price is closer to cost.

Typical of someone who is missing the ability for logical thinking.

[Mookie]

Well, I am back and really struggling trying to follow this. Maybe Dave will welcome me with open arms because I ask such simple questions.

I know he is miffed because the railroads didn't keep all that line they abandoned, but I still can't put my ends together with a regularly run coal/freight line through Nebraska and all that abandon line that was/is still in the middle of nowhere.

What would they do with it now or even in the future? And did we really need to keep all lines right through the heart of Lincoln when those lines closed? (I can count 4 for sure)

I am sure there is an explanation for all this simple thinking.

Mookie

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Lets see if I got this right...
The thread title, which you typed, some how confirms the details in the posts you write?

How, because you wrote it, or just because you said it does?
The thread's title confirms nothing more that you know how to type.

Ed

Ed.....um....just to point out to Dave that I'm not *piling on, like the other usual suspects*......I should probably point out, that someone else started the tread, and gave it the title. Dave simply made the thread his own, so he could continue having the same arguement that he seems to enjoy having.[;)]

Actually, the thread title is straight from the original news item posted by the thread starter. I added a complimentary news item a few pages later. These news reports regarding the railroads' inability to keep up with contractual commitments are now fairly commonplace.

And no, I haven't penned ANY of them! I have simply commented on them. If it seems I have made this thread "my own" as Murphy claims, it may be in truth that I'm the only one left who is actually discussing the topic in question rather than hurling the usual volley of insults.

Too bad the rest of you can't keep to the topic in question, prefering character assassination instead. It's almost as if this is how this forum was set up by Bergie - someone posts a topic unflatterring to railroads, others such as myself comment on these unflatterring characteristics of the railroads, and instantly the *rail professionals* and trolling wannabes start ad hominem attacks on the ones who add the observations, instead of offering their counterarguments.

If someone can simply tell us why the monopolistic characteristics of US railroads is NOT the reason that most succinctly explains their actions, well, post it here.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Well, I am back and really struggling trying to follow this. Maybe Dave will welcome me with open arms because I ask such simple questions.

I know he is miffed because the railroads didn't keep all that line they abandoned, but I still can't put my ends together with a regularly run coal/freight line through Nebraska and all that abandon line that was/is still in the middle of nowhere.

What would they do with it now or even in the future? And did we really need to keep all lines right through the heart of Lincoln when those lines closed? (I can count 4 for sure)

I am sure there is an explanation for all this simple thinking.

Mookie

I think you're confusing "simple" with "vague". Are you specifically asking about Nebraska's rail situation? All I know about Nebraska is that folks who used to live in Nebraska thank their lucky stars they got out![;)]

As for the 4 lines through Lincoln, what is it now? Doesn't UP have a triple track line through Lincoln and BNSF a double track? If so, ask yourself this: Comparing 4 separate lines to one or two consolidated lines, which setup would assure a better continuity of rail traffic flow in case of a derailment? Consolidating lines into a single rail corridor, while less costly in many respects to operate, also makes those lines vunerable to shutdown of all three lines in case of derailment and such, while a more dispersed set up would allow rail traffic to continue while the one line is cleaned up.

Remember the PRB problems? One derailment took out both tracks out of the basin, which is why coal deliveries suffered. If the lines were farther apart, such an accident would still have allowed the coal to flow, and maybe there'd be less complainin' from the utilities (and less chance of reregulation!)

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
If someone can simply tell us why the monopolistic characteristics of US railroads is NOT the reason that most succinctly explains their actions, well, post it here.

OK I'll take a shot at that question. In the capitalistic/consumer/investor type of system that we all live and operate under,most every thing is done for a profit motive. Whatever type of scenario you can find in the railroad industry, you can find nearly the same thing, in one form or another, in every other industry. If you read what everyone has given you for examples just on this thread, you'll see what I mean. To make out like the railroads are big and evil for doing whatever they do, or did in the past, is simply your opinion. An opinion that most on here don't agree with.[:)]

[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.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Lets see if I got this right...
The thread title, which you typed, some how confirms the details in the posts you write?

How, because you wrote it, or just because you said it does?
The thread's title confirms nothing more that you know how to type.

Ed

Ed.....um....just to point out to Dave that I'm not *piling on, like the other usual suspects*......I should probably point out, that someone else started the tread, and gave it the title. Dave simply made the thread his own, so he could continue having the same arguement that he seems to enjoy having.[;)]

Actually, the thread title is straight from the original news item posted by the thread starter. I added a complimentary news item a few pages later. These news reports regarding the railroads' inability to keep up with contractual commitments are now fairly commonplace.

And no, I haven't penned ANY of them! I have simply commented on them. If it seems I have made this thread "my own" as Murphy claims, it may be in truth that I'm the only one left who is actually discussing the topic in question rather than hurling the usual volley of insults.

Too bad the rest of you can't keep to the topic in question, prefering character assassination instead. It's almost as if this is how this forum was set up by Bergie - someone posts a topic unflatterring to railroads, others such as myself comment on these unflatterring characteristics of the railroads, and instantly the *rail professionals* and trolling wannabes start ad hominem attacks on the ones who add the observations, instead of offering their counterarguments..

Is this your idea of keeping to the topic and not hurling insults? From page 2,


"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

The Milwaukee & Northwestern.
Now that would have been something to see!

Go Zags!"


I didn't realize that the topic was Mudchickens college degree, my bad.[:D] From what I have seen on this board Dave, it is usually you who starts the name calling/insult once someone shows how foolish your posts are. So why the new attitude? Did you realize that your insults made you look foolish? Did you get a warning from someone on this board to knock it off?


Bert