Railroads Struggle to Deliver Coal to Utilities

[Mookie]

Dave - the UP only does some local switching and otherwise passes by Lincoln. BNSF has had a couple of derailments on the local tracks, but it always amazes me that they can clean up a pretty good sized mess within a few hours. We have 6 sets of tracks in and out of Lincoln on the east end. Not to shabby for a state no one wants to live in. Granted I have my moments, but can't come up with anything better - especially in the train watching department.

But back to derailments - we wouldn't have a problem within the city area. We have enough backup to get the trains out on the road without a big delay. And the derailments that do happen on both UP and BNSF out west - well, they are out of commission for a few hours, but those crews stationed throughout the state do a bang-up job of cleaning and restoring service.

Actually, the more I think about it, Nebraska is a very good railroad state for both UP and BNSF.

Hmmm - you "did good". You made me think and I finally arrived at a good conclusion!

Mooks

[Anonymous]

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??

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.[:)]

You're right AND you avoided the more distinct question. Quite an accomplishment![;)] I am not arguing against the profit motive, I am arguing against the monopolistic model in favor of the competitive model. If we really had a competitive rail situation in this nation, threads such as this would not even exist. And BTW, I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID THAT RAILROADS ARE "EVIL". Sorry to shout like that, but certain trolls have put words in my mouth that I never said or implied. I have always extolled that corporations are amoral, neither good nor evil.

And no, the *examples* given on this thread are not germaine to the rail situation and the loss of rail capacity. Remember Mr. Sol's admonishment regarding property-bound assets vs mobile assets? If the USA had no auto plants, we'd still have autos, just not US made autos. If the USA had no steel mills, we'd still have steel, just not US manufactured steel. But when we lose rail lines, we lose rail service, which by the way is the product that railroads are selling. A foreign railroad cannot replace our loss of rail service, because it requires that property-bound asset known as the tracks. If it ain't on our shores, we cannot use it.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.[:)]

You're right AND you avoided the more distinct question. Quite an accomplishment![;)] I am not arguing against the profit motive, I am arguing against the monopolistic model in favor of the competitive model. If we really had a competitive rail situation in this nation, threads such as this would not even exist. And BTW, I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID THAT RAILROADS ARE "EVIL". Sorry to shout like that, but certain trolls have put words in my mouth that I never said or implied. I have always extolled that corporations are amoral, neither good nor evil.

And no, the *examples* given on this thread are not germaine to the rail situation and the loss of rail capacity. Remember Mr. Sol's admonishment regarding property-bound assets vs mobile assets? If the USA had no auto plants, we'd still have autos, just not US made autos. If the USA had no steel mills, we'd still have steel, just not US manufactured steel. But when we lose rail lines, we lose rail service, which by the way is the product that railroads are selling. A foreign railroad cannot replace our loss of rail service, because it requires that property-bound asset known as the tracks. If it ain't on our shores, we cannot use it.

And we also remember Mr. Sol's admonishment about trying to compare manufacturing models to transportation models.

PS: Even though it says Honda or Toyota on the outside, it was most likely built in the USA.

[Anonymous]

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. Yes, I am a proponent of the DM&E PRB expansion, and any other railroad that wants to expand out West. The more the merrier, which is the sentiment of a true railfan.

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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Murphy Siding]

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

[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?

[Murphy Siding]

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

[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

[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 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

[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...

[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 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]

[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...

[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.....

[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.[^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

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

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

[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 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]

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

[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.

[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]

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

[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?

[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

[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]

[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.