QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie OK - baby steps..... Railroads sold off a lot of "assets" - rail lines and ROW? Is that correct? And you think they should have held onto them. Still correct? How would they do that w/o becoming over-extended in the accounting department? Had they kept all their original acquisitions and holdings, how would they make enough $ to cover all the expenses? Mook
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 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?
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"
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Dave: Taking a stand on these forums poses little risk beyond some hurt feelings and possibly a little egg on one's face. The real test would be taking a stand when it would mean putting your job and/or professional reputation on the line. Those of us who have families who depend on us do not always have this option. I am deducing by your self-righteousness and general tone that you are a recent college graduate and unmarried. Your responsibilites are relatively few and taking big risks will not hurt too many people beside yourself if they go wrong. You will realize in a few years when you have a wife and family that biting your tongue is often a necessity and taking big risks is no longer an option. Learn to respect the differing opinions of others, you may actually learn something from them.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And I don't want anyone else piping in and claiming I'm being rude or insulting if Bert avers to carry this one further, okay? (That means you, Murph![:0]) [(-D][(-D][(-D]As you may recall, last time I got in the middle of one of your name-calling contests was when you and ironken were having an insult marathon. As it turns out, you were just trading insults from episodes of South Park![B)] My bad, I guess I miss out on a lot of American culture by not watching TV.[xx(] Please go ahead, and insult away. How you treat other people(especially strangers) helps people judge your character. Go for it. Other than credibility, what have you got to lose?[sigh] Fine, I'll leave it up to you. Do I respond to Bert's et al question(s) with the same level of rudeness/insolence/etc. as they usually do, or do I just post the reply without any dramatics? And in your wildest dreams Murph, do you really think responding without color will effect the way they do their little thing? 'Cause if you do, I've got a coal mine in Idaho I'd like to sell you! And BTW, I've got a hunch regarding your character: You don't seem to be willing to stand for anything. You are unwilling to make a stand for what you believe or know, ostensibly because you are afraid of offending the *rail professionals* who participate on this forum, thus subjecting yourself to their inherent insult barrage. Am I right or wrong?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And I don't want anyone else piping in and claiming I'm being rude or insulting if Bert avers to carry this one further, okay? (That means you, Murph![:0]) [(-D][(-D][(-D]As you may recall, last time I got in the middle of one of your name-calling contests was when you and ironken were having an insult marathon. As it turns out, you were just trading insults from episodes of South Park![B)] My bad, I guess I miss out on a lot of American culture by not watching TV.[xx(] Please go ahead, and insult away. How you treat other people(especially strangers) helps people judge your character. Go for it. Other than credibility, what have you got to lose?[sigh]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And I don't want anyone else piping in and claiming I'm being rude or insulting if Bert avers to carry this one further, okay? (That means you, Murph![:0])
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz Sorry to bring the thread back on topic..... Union Pacific moves record amount of coal (The Associated Press circulated the following article on June 15.) Union Pacific and BNSF Railway Co. -- the two main U.S. shippers of coal -- have been criticized in the past year for not keeping up with the coal demand of power generating companies. Union Pacific Railroad has been sued by Entergy Arkansas, which claims the railroad schemed to hold back deliveries of Wyoming coal in an effort to make more money. Union Pacific officials say the railroad is working to expand its capacity, "Our strategic investments in our railroad infrastructure, equipment, people and technology are helping us move more trains for our customers." Union Pacific said it is also installing additional signals in Iowa that will allow faster trains to pass slower trains on crossover tracks. And the Omaha-based railroad is improving connections in East St. Louis.
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 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? Thank you Dave. Since you understand the auto industry, let me put it in those terms. Think of the railroad industry in the early 80's as GM and Ford today. Then think of the trucking industry as Toyota, the air freight as Honda, and shipping as BMW. The railroads were losing out to new ways of doing things. The trucking industry was doing well with the expansion of the interstate highways, many of the 1st generation jet airliners were being moved from passenger to freight service, and the shipping industry was doing well with ACofE projects. Since you wanted examples how about the steel industry? They have gotten rid of a lot of capacity since the 1950's, was that a monopoly conspiracy too? I look foward to the spin that you put on this. Bert I am still waiting for your spin on the steel industry. Bert
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 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? Thank you Dave. Since you understand the auto industry, let me put it in those terms. Think of the railroad industry in the early 80's as GM and Ford today. Then think of the trucking industry as Toyota, the air freight as Honda, and shipping as BMW. The railroads were losing out to new ways of doing things. The trucking industry was doing well with the expansion of the interstate highways, many of the 1st generation jet airliners were being moved from passenger to freight service, and the shipping industry was doing well with ACofE projects. Since you wanted examples how about the steel industry? They have gotten rid of a lot of capacity since the 1950's, was that a monopoly conspiracy too? I look foward to the spin that you put on this. Bert
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?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard And Michael, Your degrees and credentials would be? I am glad to report they would be lengthier than yours. Very glad. And this makes you......? Better? Smarter? Taller? Wiser? Ed and Mudchicken have always been very helpful to me and complete gentlemen. Now let's see if you can meet their standards.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard And Michael, Your degrees and credentials would be? I am glad to report they would be lengthier than yours. Very glad.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard And Michael, Your degrees and credentials would be?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie As soon as I can get you to address something I am interested in, I will ask you a multitude of questions. Will you be as tolerant of me as they have been? And can you, with all this education, answer me in layperson's terms so I will understand? I require a lot of patience. Think you are up to the task?
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The children must play, thread after thread. Thanks Zardoz, for getting back to topic.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Spoke too soon.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Lack of formal education merely shows a lack of initiative on your part to have a valid input into issues beyond running a small time open access shortline. Go take some night courses in econ, Ed, you might develop an ability to see through your self imposed fog.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.