Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal What you're missing Tom is that both these articles are from the railroad industry's POV.
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal What you're missing Tom is that both these articles are from the railroad industry's POV. Why else would they also incude the fallacy of "subsidized" trucking, since we all know (even if folks like you can't admit) that trucking is the key link for getting the goods to the consumers and/or from the point of origin? Since it is this link that is most likely "subsidized" via non-user fees, and since the rail industry is completely dependent on this vital link, the rail industry itself is a beneficiary of that "subsidy", so why should they continue to obfuscate the issue ("trucks are subsidized, but we pay for our own ROW. Waaaaah.") to solicit pity from the general citizenry?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal We have also pointed out the fallacy of "unprofitability" and "marginality" of underutilized trackage. The timber industry has mega-units of "unprofitable" assets right now, yet they keep these assets at a marginal cost for decades, because they know these assets will become profitable in time. Perhaps that's because the timber industry likes being in the timber industry and is willing to invest the time and cost of maintaining assets until such can be utilized more profitably, whereas the railroad industry seems to have had a distain for itself and the concept of moving bulk commodities at speed, at least for the last four decades. The contrary thing of it is, demand for transporation services is a steadily growing market segment, has been for the last four decades, yet the railroads have treated their assets like an anachronism that is no longer demanded. The point has been made ad nauseum that there has always been an implicit demand for shippers to use so-called marginal rail lines, but the methods and styles preferred by the shippers did not fit into the narrow strictures of railroad SOP. The railroads en masse seemed more willing to scrap it than to allow others to innovate profitable usage of the track. It should strike you as profound that folks on top of the industry are finally willing to admit the mistakes incorporated in Staggers, mistakes that were obvious from day 1 to those outside the industry.
An "expensive model collector"
QUOTE: Originally posted by falconer Everybody tells me, "Just go out, make more money, and pay for it yourself." Are you now telling the railroads, "Just go out, make more money, and lay some new heavy tracks?" Andrew N.F.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Some one has Opinions confused with Facts. It ain't ED. But there is an obvious case of a rectal cranial inversion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So now banjo boy is saying Wall Street rail analysts aren't part of the rail industry overview? Does anyone expect the AAR to produce these kinds of analysis? Ed, stick your head back up your anal pore. That's the only way the synapses between your right and left brain can make the connection.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Tom, He is even wrong here... Humans are one of the few mammals which do not have anal pores, (musk glands located near on in the rectum) to leave scent marks. Most mammals do, the common house cat has several sets, even a set located on either side of their eyes, above the cheek bone next to the eyes...(ever wonder why your cat like to rub it head against you? It is marking you with its scent as “their” person or property...) Humans, though have no anal pores to "scent" their waste....it is one of our defense mechanisms to help us hide from predators. He can’t even get the facts right in his adolescent themed insults. Sad, just flat out pitiful….
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz I hear footsteps...could they be Bergie's?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.