Thank you, gentleman, now I have some idea. Thanks... As for me.... 15 years in Public Safety, most of it in the fire service,(Firefighter, EMT, 9-1-1 Operator) and additional back ground in Information Technology. ($20,000 for school, and 5 years invested in the field... and I am still dispatching fire trucks.... oh well, I love my job anyway) (Besides, I work 4 days on, 4 days off.... can't beat that schedule)
My experience with railroads is basically from behind a viewfinder, but all of your threads, and posts are at least well thought out, and researched, and quite informative.... Both this, and the DME thread have been full of great information... It helps me understand why the railroads do what they do, and the way they do it...
TimChgo9 wrote: Somehow, the debates get more interesting around here when MichaelSol gets involved. Honestly, I have done my best to follow this thread. Since 1/3 (or thereabouts) of shippers are "captive" would it not stand to reason that something should be done about it? Do the railroads need to be regulated again? It seems to me, from a very basic standpoint (I do not claim to be an expert, or even knowledgeable about railroad shipping rates, practices, or policies) that the railroads appear to be shooting themselves in the foot, in the "truck vs rail" competition. If they can move trailers more effieciently than OTR truckers, than why not do it? I don't know, perhaps I am missing the point here.
Somehow, the debates get more interesting around here when MichaelSol gets involved.
Honestly, I have done my best to follow this thread. Since 1/3 (or thereabouts) of shippers are "captive" would it not stand to reason that something should be done about it? Do the railroads need to be regulated again? It seems to me, from a very basic standpoint (I do not claim to be an expert, or even knowledgeable about railroad shipping rates, practices, or policies) that the railroads appear to be shooting themselves in the foot, in the "truck vs rail" competition. If they can move trailers more effieciently than OTR truckers, than why not do it? I don't know, perhaps I am missing the point here.
TOFC service expansion would seem to be the avenue of greatest growth potential for railroads, but as you say they keep shooting themselves in the foot by trying to force their own indiosyncrasies onto what should be a rather simple operation. Just carry the d*** run of the mill OTR trailers from Point A to Point B. We don't want to mess with reinforced trailers, domestic containers, and consolidated terminals so far from the real sources of truck traffic that it doesn't even pay to drive to the intermodal terminal anymore.
But, what I would like to know, (with whatever honesty can be put forth) is what are, say MichaelSol's Strawbridge's, futurmodal's or TomDiehl's basis for the apparent expertise here.. are you guys railroad types, accountants, finance managers, or just very well versed in this particular arena? I am not taking shots at anyone, just real curious that's all. I have read many threads on this site, with the above taking a major part, so I am just wondering, that's all.
BS in Economics with Transportation Emphasis from ISU (they didn't have a de facto Transportation Economics program when I was there). Also have an MS degree unrelated to anything pertaining to this forum.
15 years working in petroleum distribution, agricultural management, agricultural statistics collection, energy consultation, economic development, railcar design, transportation innovation design.
But I consider myself just to be an Average Joe with an intuitive opinion on this forum.
oltmannd wrote: futuremodal wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? Two different things going on here, not necessarily related. My comments on the NS slide show is more pertaining to the usual corporate slide show characterization, e.g. such are presented to show only a favorable aspect of the company's decisions, e.g. they are not going to present the downsides. It is similar to the stuff we get on the corporate PR Newswire items - it's "rah rah" stuff, not a cost/benefit analysis. It's hard to justify a claim that NS's domestic double stack program is taking freight off the highways, soley because the gain in domestic double stack exceeds the gains presented by the trucking industry. Did we also see the trends in NS's boxcar loadings in that slide show? Is it possible that the upward trend in domestic double stack is inversely correlated with a downward trend in boxcar loadings over the same time period? If so, do ya think NS is going to tell us? I got yer carloading stats right here! It really wouldn't hurt you to look at ALL the slides and maybe even read the text, you know! It isn't always all happy talk. http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/speech06/dws072606/dws072606.pdf (slide 6 - broken out by major commodity group. This is all non-intermodal stuff. Includes grain and slab unit trains. Does not include coal.) Up 2% over all, similar to industrial production. Note that chemical is down 7% YOY. This is all tank car traffic and is not generally converted to intermodal..
futuremodal wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? Two different things going on here, not necessarily related. My comments on the NS slide show is more pertaining to the usual corporate slide show characterization, e.g. such are presented to show only a favorable aspect of the company's decisions, e.g. they are not going to present the downsides. It is similar to the stuff we get on the corporate PR Newswire items - it's "rah rah" stuff, not a cost/benefit analysis. It's hard to justify a claim that NS's domestic double stack program is taking freight off the highways, soley because the gain in domestic double stack exceeds the gains presented by the trucking industry. Did we also see the trends in NS's boxcar loadings in that slide show? Is it possible that the upward trend in domestic double stack is inversely correlated with a downward trend in boxcar loadings over the same time period? If so, do ya think NS is going to tell us?
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt?
futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here)
Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here)
OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt?
Two different things going on here, not necessarily related. My comments on the NS slide show is more pertaining to the usual corporate slide show characterization, e.g. such are presented to show only a favorable aspect of the company's decisions, e.g. they are not going to present the downsides. It is similar to the stuff we get on the corporate PR Newswire items - it's "rah rah" stuff, not a cost/benefit analysis. It's hard to justify a claim that NS's domestic double stack program is taking freight off the highways, soley because the gain in domestic double stack exceeds the gains presented by the trucking industry. Did we also see the trends in NS's boxcar loadings in that slide show? Is it possible that the upward trend in domestic double stack is inversely correlated with a downward trend in boxcar loadings over the same time period? If so, do ya think NS is going to tell us?
I got yer carloading stats right here! It really wouldn't hurt you to look at ALL the slides and maybe even read the text, you know! It isn't always all happy talk.
http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/speech06/dws072606/dws072606.pdf
(slide 6 - broken out by major commodity group. This is all non-intermodal stuff. Includes grain and slab unit trains. Does not include coal.)
Up 2% over all, similar to industrial production. Note that chemical is down 7% YOY. This is all tank car traffic and is not generally converted to intermodal..
And automotive is down 3%. Ag down 1% 2Q. (Slide 3)
Non-coal revenue growth is lowest in intermodal (Slide 5)
Wait a minute! Domestic double stack down 9%, truckload up 11%! (Slide 10)
Weren't you all telling me about how domestic double stack is growing at the expense of OTR? From these stats it looks as if the only shift is from doms to trailers, aka still no shift of highway traffic to rail.
oltmannd wrote: broncoman wrote: I know that the ramps are disappearing but they are useless to load anything but a 89 footer, you need a mi-jack or equivalent to load spines and well cars. So, the fact that ramps are disappearing isn't always indicative of TOFC going down. But I agree that TOFC is a distant second to containers. RR jargon fades away slowly. Many folks call any intermodal terminal a "ramp" whether or not there is, or ever was an actual ramp at the intermodal terminal. Last circus loading ramp on Conrail was Island Ave. in Pittsburgh which was replaced with a new, bigger terminal on the east side of town in Pitcairn in the mid 90s. (and, yes, FM, they still handle TOFC there.....)
broncoman wrote: I know that the ramps are disappearing but they are useless to load anything but a 89 footer, you need a mi-jack or equivalent to load spines and well cars. So, the fact that ramps are disappearing isn't always indicative of TOFC going down. But I agree that TOFC is a distant second to containers.
I know that the ramps are disappearing but they are useless to load anything but a 89 footer, you need a mi-jack or equivalent to load spines and well cars. So, the fact that ramps are disappearing isn't always indicative of TOFC going down. But I agree that TOFC is a distant second to containers.
RR jargon fades away slowly. Many folks call any intermodal terminal a "ramp" whether or not there is, or ever was an actual ramp at the intermodal terminal.
Last circus loading ramp on Conrail was Island Ave. in Pittsburgh which was replaced with a new, bigger terminal on the east side of town in Pitcairn in the mid 90s. (and, yes, FM, they still handle TOFC there.....)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
n012944 Funny, a couple of posts ago you said that you were "skeptical" of GAO numbers, but now you state numbers they use as fact. It seems that you are in fack "skeptical" of any numbers that do not support your point of view, regardless of source. On the flip side you state information that does support your point of few as fact regardless of source. Bert
Funny, a couple of posts ago you said that you were "skeptical" of GAO numbers, but now you state numbers they use as fact. It seems that you are in fack "skeptical" of any numbers that do not support your point of view, regardless of source. On the flip side you state information that does support your point of few as fact regardless of source.
Bert
I stated I was skeptical of the specific GAO numbers, earlier posted, that represented that captive shippers had increased from 4% to 6%, a 50% increase in small percentages. I originally posted those figures, but I also posted that I was skeptical of them. Which ulterior motive do you wish to attribute to me on which posting?
As you can see if you read the latest post, those GAO numbers, in fact, applied to only shippers paying above the 300% R/VC ratio, which have increased by 50%.
I was, indeed, properly skeptical of the earlier figures as they did not, in fact, apply to all shippers above 180% R/VC, and the quote clearly shows that.
But, thanks in any case for taking the time to point out that my earlier skepticism was properly and credibly grounded, and that this was confirmed upon further information from the GAO which represents a clarification of their earlier report and the earlier posts on this thread.
MichaelSol wrote: Federal Reserve Article: The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent. Well, you and the Federal Reserve both get an "F" on this one. Strawbridge has long argued that railroads should not be "forced" to pass along 100% of its productivity gains. The argument has always been so specious I have never commented on it, but it keeps coming up and deserves some attention. In a competitive environment, most businesses not only pass along 100% of their productivity gains, they almost always pass along greater than 100% of their productivity gains. They want to. It makes them more competitive, as well as more profitable. That is how it works in the real world in a competitive environment.
Federal Reserve Article: The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent.
Well, you and the Federal Reserve both get an "F" on this one.
Strawbridge has long argued that railroads should not be "forced" to pass along 100% of its productivity gains.
The argument has always been so specious I have never commented on it, but it keeps coming up and deserves some attention.
In a competitive environment, most businesses not only pass along 100% of their productivity gains, they almost always pass along greater than 100% of their productivity gains.
They want to.
It makes them more competitive, as well as more profitable.
That is how it works in the real world in a competitive environment.
The hypothetical presented by the Federal Reserve article, which is one that is frequently trotted out, fails to recognize the purpose of the 180% R/VC guideline. It is, emphatically not, to impose some arbitrary limit on productivity improvements, but rather to subject the industry to a rational mechanism to reflect an appropriate and improving rate of return to the railroads, while extending the benefits of competitive conditions for those shippers who do not enjoy a competitive transportation environment and, at the same time, to encourage productivity improvements.
There is absolutely nothing incompatible about protecting captive shippers and yet enhancing revenue growth for railroads under the Staggers Act 180% R/VC guideline.
To understand that, recall the R/VC standard is designed to cover fixed costs, pay for variable costs, and generate a reasonable rate of return for the railroad.
In the hypothetical, the R/VC reaches 200% if 100% of the productivity enhancements are passed through.
True enough. But, what does that say about rate of return? Well, the rate of return on variable costs increases from 33% to 50%. Wow. Sounds like a competitive environment all right.
Add some reasonable assumptions.
Say the fixed costs are $30. When the variable costs are $100, and the R/VC is 150% ($150 rate charged), the rate of return on revenue is 13.33%.
That 150% R/VC generates a very, very good rate of return. Far above historical railroad standards. So, that is suggestive that the hypothetical presented reflects an earnings capability that is on the upper edge of historical reasonableness, and already at that point substantially exceeds the cost of capital.
What happens when productivity improves by $50 in the hypothetical, and the rate charged decreases by $50?
It is true that the R/VC hits 200%.
But, the rate of return on revenue increases to 20% at that point.
That is extremely high by historical or competitive standards.
Would a rate of return at that level reflect the competitive conditions intended by Congress in the Staggers Act? It is far, far in excess of a fair rate of return that could be obtained in a competitive environment, it is far in excess of the cost of capital. It is substantially higher than the rate of return that ExxonMobil received during its recent run-up when it was widely accused of "price-gouging."
Well, that's exactly what the 200% R/VC suggests.
For a Montana wheat farmer or West Virginia coal mine, at 360% R/VC, the rate of return on revenue is 55.6% after the productivity gain is passed entirely through. That does not exist in a real world with effective competition.
This is why I have always understood Strawbridge's odd comments that it is unfair to "expect" railroads to pass through productivity savings to indicate to me he doesn't know what he is talking about.
The game is to create productivity savings to pass through.
A 100% pass through in productivity savings always generates an increased rate of return to both the customer and to the transportation company.
Strawbridge has never understood that.
But, creating that ideal situation, which is an economic plus all the way around, is what the 180% R/VC ratio criteria attempts to do, and probably comes as close as anything else anyone can propose.
In a genuinely competitive environment, the question isn't whether to pass through all the savings, the question is always how much more of a savings can be passed through to the customer in order to retain the customer and the business?
The R/VC ratio by itself is only part of the story, and presents a misleading case because it doesn't look at the underlying purpose of the 180% R/VC threshold..
In that instance, if the railroad company created a productivity increase of $50, and passed through 100% of that increase to the customer, the railroad would increase its rate of return on sales from 13.33% to 20.00%.
Arguably, 20% could only be received in a captive environment.
But, regarding that $50 in productivity savings, if the railroad lowered the rate charged to the customer by $55, the railroad would still increase its profitability from 13.33% to 15.79%. At $57 in rate reductions, the railroad company still earns 13.98%. a better rate of return than before the productivity gain of $50, even though the customer gets a rate reduction of $57.
That is the genius of market economics: the customer can reap more than 100% of the productivity savings, and the company can still earn a better rate of return.
But this is also why, when the R/VC ratio hits 200%, it does in fact represent an unreasonable rate of return that likely reflects a captive shipper rather than protecting that shipper against captive pricing.
The hypothetical does not show that the system is flawed, but rather that it appears, when taken to its full purpose, to do what it was supposed to do.
You can also look at the other end of the scale, where shippers are paying 101% R/VC. Using the hypothetical offered by the Federal Reserve article, and the $30 fixed cost, that suggests a negative rate of return of 29%, or a loss of $29 for each shipment.
That requires cross-subsidization.
MichaelSol wrote:Strawbridge: Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be "captive" and the railroads a "monopoly". Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn't pass those savings along because they're really nice people and didn't need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment. Which offers no explanation of why shippers utilizing competitive corridors pay as little as 101% R/VC, and other shippers pay over 300% R/VC. "Savings" under the Strawbridge theory, are only passed on to shippers who receive the high percentage R/VC ratios, since that is how the ratio is so high. Interesting theory. Of course, that means that the low percentage R/VC will continue to get higher and higher R/VC ratios, as costs go down. Under the Strawbridge theory, that has to happen. But, GAO says that the tonnage percentage of rates under 180% R/VC has gone up, that is, increasing tonnage is shipped at lower R/VC rates. Under the Strawbridge theory, that can only happen if rates on that tonnage have declined faster than the productivity savings! So railroads are, in fact, not only passing through any productivity savings, but cutting rates even more, for some shippers. Below explains what happens to other shippers. General Accounting Office: "The [Staggers Rail] act recognized the need for railroads to use demand-based differential pricing in the deregulated environment and to recover costs by setting higher rates for shippers with fewer transportation alternatives. The act also recognized that some shippers might not have access to competitive alternatives and might be subject to unreasonably high rates. It established a threshold for rate relief and granted the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the authority to develop a rate relief process for those “captive” shippers. ...tons traveling above 300 percent R/VC have more than doubled--from about 53 million tons in 1985 to over 130 million tons in 2004. ...Our preliminary analysis indicates that this overall change in traffic traveling over 300 percent R/VC can be seen in certain states and commodities. For example, 39 percent of grain originating in Montana and 20 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC in 2004. As shown in figure 8, this represents a significant increase from 1985, when 14 percent of grain in Montana and 4 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC." June 21, 2006. This outlines a clear process of long-term cross-subsidization of rates of some shippers by others.
Strawbridge: Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be "captive" and the railroads a "monopoly". Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn't pass those savings along because they're really nice people and didn't need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment.
Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be "captive" and the railroads a "monopoly". Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn't pass those savings along because they're really nice people and didn't need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment.
Which offers no explanation of why shippers utilizing competitive corridors pay as little as 101% R/VC, and other shippers pay over 300% R/VC. "Savings" under the Strawbridge theory, are only passed on to shippers who receive the high percentage R/VC ratios, since that is how the ratio is so high. Interesting theory.
Of course, that means that the low percentage R/VC will continue to get higher and higher R/VC ratios, as costs go down. Under the Strawbridge theory, that has to happen.
But, GAO says that the tonnage percentage of rates under 180% R/VC has gone up, that is, increasing tonnage is shipped at lower R/VC rates. Under the Strawbridge theory, that can only happen if rates on that tonnage have declined faster than the productivity savings!
So railroads are, in fact, not only passing through any productivity savings, but cutting rates even more, for some shippers. Below explains what happens to other shippers.
General Accounting Office: "The [Staggers Rail] act recognized the need for railroads to use demand-based differential pricing in the deregulated environment and to recover costs by setting higher rates for shippers with fewer transportation alternatives. The act also recognized that some shippers might not have access to competitive alternatives and might be subject to unreasonably high rates. It established a threshold for rate relief and granted the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the authority to develop a rate relief process for those “captive” shippers. ...tons traveling above 300 percent R/VC have more than doubled--from about 53 million tons in 1985 to over 130 million tons in 2004. ...Our preliminary analysis indicates that this overall change in traffic traveling over 300 percent R/VC can be seen in certain states and commodities. For example, 39 percent of grain originating in Montana and 20 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC in 2004. As shown in figure 8, this represents a significant increase from 1985, when 14 percent of grain in Montana and 4 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC." June 21, 2006.
"The [Staggers Rail] act recognized the need for railroads to use demand-based differential pricing in the deregulated environment and to recover costs by setting higher rates for shippers with fewer transportation alternatives. The act also recognized that some shippers might not have access to competitive alternatives and might be subject to unreasonably high rates. It established a threshold for rate relief and granted the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the authority to develop a rate relief process for those “captive” shippers.
...tons traveling above 300 percent R/VC have more than doubled--from about 53 million tons in 1985 to over 130 million tons in 2004.
...Our preliminary analysis indicates that this overall change in traffic traveling over 300 percent R/VC can be seen in certain states and commodities. For example, 39 percent of grain originating in Montana and 20 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC in 2004. As shown in figure 8, this represents a significant increase from 1985, when 14 percent of grain in Montana and 4 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC."
June 21, 2006.
This outlines a clear process of long-term cross-subsidization of rates of some shippers by others.
An "expensive model collector"
futuremodal wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn't because there is no market for such, it's because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don't have to worry about losing business to another railroad. Or maybe it is that there is not enough buisness to justify the expense of maintaining the terminals. There used to be active TOFC ramps (literal ramps, not the all encompassing figure of speech) in Pocatello, Nampa, Hinkle, Pasco, Yakima, Spokane, Lewiston, in Montana, some as recently as a few years ago - they have been shut down even as demand for their services increased! It's not a lack of business, it's a lack of intramodal competition.
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn't because there is no market for such, it's because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don't have to worry about losing business to another railroad. Or maybe it is that there is not enough buisness to justify the expense of maintaining the terminals.
futuremodal wrote: The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn't because there is no market for such, it's because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don't have to worry about losing business to another railroad.
The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn't because there is no market for such, it's because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don't have to worry about losing business to another railroad.
Or maybe it is that there is not enough buisness to justify the expense of maintaining the terminals.
There used to be active TOFC ramps (literal ramps, not the all encompassing figure of speech) in Pocatello, Nampa, Hinkle, Pasco, Yakima, Spokane, Lewiston, in Montana, some as recently as a few years ago - they have been shut down even as demand for their services increased!
It's not a lack of business, it's a lack of intramodal competition.
There used to be TOFC ramps all of Illinois too, a state that is not lacking in railroad competition. However as railroads discovered that there was little to any profit to be made at these small facilities they too were closed. Just because there is traffic to be had at these small ramps, does not mean that it is profitable traffic.
General Accounting Office: "The [Staggers Rail] act recognized the need for railroads to use demand-based differential pricing in the deregulated environment and to recover costs by setting higher rates for shippers with fewer transportation alternatives. The act also recognized that some shippers might not have access to competitive alternatives and might be subject to unreasonably high rates. It established a threshold for rate relief and granted the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the authority to develop a rate relief process for those “captive” shippers. ...tons traveling above 300 percent R/VC have more than doubled--from about 53 million tons in 1985 to over 130 million tons in 2004. ... the percent of all traffic traveling above 300 percent R/VC increased from 4 percent in 1985 to 6 percent in 2004. ...Our preliminary analysis indicates that this overall change in traffic traveling over 300 percent R/VC can be seen in certain states and commodities. For example, 39 percent of grain originating in Montana and 20 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC in 2004. As shown in figure 8, this represents a significant increase from 1985, when 14 percent of grain in Montana and 4 percent of coal in West Virginia traveled over 300 percent R/VC." June 21, 2006.
... the percent of all traffic traveling above 300 percent R/VC increased from 4 percent in 1985 to 6 percent in 2004.
That faulty assumption aside, it's kinda hard to use terminal maintenance expense as an excuse not to provide the desired rail service when the local jurisdiction itself is paying for most of that cost.
If there's "not enough business" between Portland and SLC, how do you explain all the commerce that originates east of the Cascades and west/northwest of the salty brine abutting the Wasatch Front? Why are there container barge ports at Boardman, Umatilla, Pasco, and Lewiston? Why do the ports of Boardman and Umatilla get most of their containers from Southern Idaho? Why are 3rd party intermodal firms willing to operate export COFC consists from Wenatchee, Quincy, Yakima, Spokane, and Pasco, even as the railroads either limit the scope of such 3rd party endevours or forbid them altogether? There used to be active TOFC ramps (literal ramps, not the all encompassing figure of speech) in Pocatello, Nampa, Hinkle, Pasco, Yakima, Spokane, Lewiston, in Montana, some as recently as a few years ago - they have been shut down even as demand for their services increased!
How so?
Strawbridge: All Right! OK! You want a citation, here's your sign: http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you've said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that "on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment". Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again.
All Right! OK! You want a citation, here's your sign:
http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm
This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you've said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that "on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment".
Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again.
However, I think the comment is entirely true, and have stated it several times, that the industry as a whole "clearly operates in a competitive environment." That's what caused the race to the bottom on rates after the Staggers Act. Do captive shippers constitute "the industry as whole"? One is not the other. Always the sleight of hand in the argument.
OK, "Michael Sol is wrong again". Let's break that down.
Federal Reserve Article: If the R/VC is greater than 180 and the railroad is deemed to have no competition from other railroads or modes of transportation, the STB can then consider whether the rate is reasonable
Now, what did Sol actually say about that:
Sol: It is not technically true, by the statutory definition, that a rate above 180% raises a presumption that a shipper is captive, only that it changes the burden of proof. The presumption is that rates are reasonable and no captivity exists below 180%. Above that, the burden of proof shifts. But, and this is where Strawbridge misunderstands the regulation: a shipper may be captive (the railroad "market dominant") by virtue of the R/VC definition, but the rate may still be "reasonable." The Peabody study says nothing to the contrary when it says that captive shippers contribute nearly one third of railroad revenue.
But, and this is where Strawbridge misunderstands the regulation: a shipper may be captive (the railroad "market dominant") by virtue of the R/VC definition, but the rate may still be "reasonable." The Peabody study says nothing to the contrary when it says that captive shippers contribute nearly one third of railroad revenue.
Gosh, is Strawbridge attempting to mislead people on what I have said? Sure looks like it. The Federal Reserve article (it is not a study) and I seem to agree completely.
Here's what we discussed about the amount of revenue from captive shippers.
Sol [citing Peabody]: "Over 31% of railroad industry revenue was generated by "captive rail traffic;"" defined in the Peabody study specifically as all traffic over the 180% R/VC threshold, which is the statutory threshold that warrants possible government review.
Strawbridge: "In any event, even by "cooking" the numbers - the most they could show is that "31%" of rail revenue came from "captive" shippers". The real number is far, far below that.
Strawbridge: He's claiming that 31% of rail revenue comes from captive traffic and cites a study to support his false claim.
Federal Reserve Article: Nationwide, as much as 30 percent of railroad revenue came from shipments transported at rates that exceeded the government threshold for warranting possible government review.
Federal Reserve was "cooking" the same numbers and making the same "false" claims as Sol. What were they thinking?
Probably the same thing as the General Accountability office:
... the percent of all traffic traveling between 180 and 300 percent R/VC decreased from 36 percent in 1985 to 25 percent in 2004. In contrast, the percent of all traffic traveling above 300 percent R/VC increased from 4 percent in 1985 to 6 percent in 2004.
June, 2006. "Preliminary Observations on Rates, Competition, and Capacity Issues:"
Interestingly, the sum of the two categories is ... 31%.
It was upon Strawbridge's wild and careless claims that I demanded his proof ... and he cites to a source that confirms, not refutes, the Peabody study.
This is pretty typical of Strawbridge, and he has done it before [the Whiteside study]. Broad accusations and self-gratifying conclusions, but completely unsupported by his own citations, indeed, contradicted by his own sources.
So, where does he come up with this stuff?
More later.
greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of "wrong," "dumb" "troll", etc, etc. "There is no rail monopoly." Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets. All Right! OK! You want a citation, here's your sign: http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you've said.
MichaelSol wrote: The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of "wrong," "dumb" "troll", etc, etc. "There is no rail monopoly." Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets.
The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of "wrong," "dumb" "troll", etc, etc.
"There is no rail monopoly." Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets.
This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you've said.
No, it actual upholds the contention that 30% or more of rail shippers are captive:
"Nationwide, as much as 30 percent of railroad revenue came from shipments transported at rates that exceeded the government threshold for warranting possible government review."
"Nonetheless, various government and industry sources note that the top five railroads control about 90 percent of the country's rail traffic, and that has a lot of shippers claiming they are the victim of market power wielded by railroads that are often the only transport option for commodities."
"...the GAO points out that “rail rates were generally higher in areas considered to have less railroad-to-railroad competition.” There is virtually no competition on the Great Falls line,.."
And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that "on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment".
That 2000 STB study focusses on the parts of the country where there is an assumption of intramodal competition among railroads. In fact, the only part of the country where there is de facto intramodal competition is in the Midwest, where most terminal sites have up to 6 Class I's actually competing. Some parts of the Northeast have at least 3 Class I's. But for the rest of the country, it is at best a duopoly situation, with UP/BNSF in the West and NS/CSX in the East/Southeast. And as is clearly evidenced by the MFR report, the Northern Tier has virtually no intramodal competition, which is why the counter to Ken's ignorant claims is the focal point of the report.
The problem with the STB's 2k report is that it assumes a drop in rates from two decades ago is *evidence* of an existence of competition, when in fact that so called drop in rates ostensibly provided for captive shippers is simply the threshhold of which a farm, co-op, or industrial production facility will have to cease operations altogether. In that vein, the "competition" to which the STB refers is not true intramodal competition, but commodity price competition from overseas and the *competition* of potential shut down of the particular industry. Since the STB is manned by rail industry hacks, it's spin on the analysis is not suprising. But don't hold your breath waiting for Ken to admit this troubling fact.
Here's a passage from the Federal Reserve paper: "The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent.
Here's a passage from the Federal Reserve paper:
"The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent.
What the report doesn't say is that the initial productivity related rate decreases occured initially in the study period, then were subsequently jacked up to optimize the impact of the differential rate scenario. To add insult to injury, the *productivity gains* mentioned may actually productivity decreases for the total Stateside supply chain. Obviously, it is more *productive* to ship grain by unit train than by carload, at least for the railroad. It is not more productive for the farmer, who now must truck his grain distances up to tenfold over that to the local elevator, as reluctantly cited in the article.....
"This model does create certain hardships—some farmers might have to truck crops longer distances to elevators, and some elevators will go out of business."
Again, the article goes on to repeat the egregious falsehood that commodity price decreases to the consumer must be the result of railroad productivity gains, when in fact the drop in commodity prices to the consumer are the result of global competition, not railroad productivity gains "passed on" to the shippers.
The STB's 2000 report states that “while there are clearly instances where railroads retain a certain degree of pricing power, nearly all of the productivity gains have been passed to rail customers ... evidence that, on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment.”
As I have shown above, it ain't intramodal competition, it ain't even intermodal competition that has resulted in ostensible rail rate reductions over the last two decades. It is global commodity price competition and the subsequent spector of domestic industry shut down potential that has on average resulted in lower rail rates. Of course, when it comes to drawing conclusions, the STB conviently muddles the stark contrast in rates presented by the differential pricing model.
As I've pointed out time and again to no avail, it makes no matter to a captive shipper that his real rail rate may have dropped by 10%, 20%, or so, when (1) the rates for his competitor who happens to have real intramodal rail competition available has dropped by much more than his did due to the inequities of differential pricing, (2) his total transportation costs Stateside have actually increased due to the need to have to truck his product longer and longer distances to the nearest service provided railhead, and (3) global pricing pressures on his cultivated product have forced said commodity price to go down.
These are facts that Ken and others with similar tunnel vision do not have the intellectual capacity to grasp. Relativity analysis is not in their lexicon.
Basically what happened was that after the railroads were deregu Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:05 AM greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of "wrong," "dumb" "troll", etc, etc. "There is no rail monopoly." Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets. All Right! OK! You want a citation, here's your sign: http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you've said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that "on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment". Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again. Here's a passage from the Federal Reserve paper: "The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent. The STB's 2000 report states that “while there are clearly instances where railroads retain a certain degree of pricing power, nearly all of the productivity gains have been passed to rail customers ... evidence that, on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment.” Basically what happened was that after the railroads were deregulated they were able to make themselves much more efficient. Beause they clearly operate in a competitive environment nearly allthe productivity gains were passed on to rail customers. This widespread improvement in productivity and resultant (due to the competititve environment) rate reductions caused this absolutely stupid revenue to variable cost ratio measurement to go up, not down. The more efficient the railroads got, and the more savings they passed on to their customers, the higher the ratio went. Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be "captive" and the railroads a "monopoly". Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn't pass those savings along because they're really nice people and didn't need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment. Good sumary by the Fed. Must be the railroads only take in about 16% of the money spent on intercity freight transportation in the US. The first time people paid much attention to R/C ratios was way back thirty years ago as railroads moved toward deregulation. When I went to my VP about a rate adjustment he did not care about something called a r/c ratio. He did care about how many dollars of contribution to overhead would be generated and/or our return on investment. Thirty years in business is a very long time. R/C ratios are even more irrelevanct in today's world where marketing people are designing offerings on a railroad that is sold out. Of well it is not surprising the STB and the lawyers that feed beast are in a world the is gone with the Buffalo and the Super Chief. Bob Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Friday, September 22, 2006 10:59 PM MichaelSol wrote: The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of "wrong," "dumb" "troll", etc, etc. "There is no rail monopoly." Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets. All Right! OK! You want a citation, here's your sign: http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you've said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that "on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment". Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again. Here's a passage from the Federal Reserve paper: "The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent. The STB's 2000 report states that “while there are clearly instances where railroads retain a certain degree of pricing power, nearly all of the productivity gains have been passed to rail customers ... evidence that, on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment.” Basically what happened was that after the railroads were deregulated they were able to make themselves much more efficient. Beause they clearly operate in a competitive environment nearly allthe productivity gains were passed on to rail customers. This widespread improvement in productivity and resultant (due to the competititve environment) rate reductions caused this absolutely stupid revenue to variable cost ratio measurement to go up, not down. The more efficient the railroads got, and the more savings they passed on to their customers, the higher the ratio went. Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be "captive" and the railroads a "monopoly". Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn't pass those savings along because they're really nice people and didn't need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 22, 2006 6:53 PM n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? Two different things going on here, not necessarily related. My comments on the NS slide show is more pertaining to the usual corporate slide show characterization, e.g. such are presented to show only a favorable aspect of the company's decisions, e.g. they are not going to present the downsides. It is similar to the stuff we get on the corporate PR Newswire items - it's "rah rah" stuff, not a cost/benefit analysis. It's hard to justify a claim that NS's domestic double stack program is taking freight off the highways, soley because the gain in domestic double stack exceeds the gains presented by the trucking industry. Did we also see the trends in NS's boxcar loadings in that slide show? Is it possible that the upward trend in domestic double stack is inversely correlated with a downward trend in boxcar loadings over the same time period? If so, do ya think NS is going to tell us? As for the ongoing debate over rail captivity, the GAO determination is pretty well tight-sphinctered as to how they define captive. If it is theorectically possible for a commodity to move via truck, barge, or pipeline (even if it is not commercially practical to do so), then the GAO has determined that such a commodity or producer is not captive to a railroad. Under that auspice, there is no such thing as captive intermodal, because intermodal means more than one mode, and there will *always* be a truck available if the railroad doesn't want to play ball. This is a very disingenuous way of making that determination, because without a commercial/practical standard for making that determination, you've left out the real world scenarios. Optimizing intermodal means utilizing the best of each mode where physically possible. That's why we had that shorthaul intermodal study a while back, someone was trying to determine the practical theorum absent actual willing participation by the monopolist railroads. The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn't because there is no market for such, it's because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don't have to worry about losing business to another railroad. The end result is that JP Simplot and the others have to truck their Pacific Rim export containers to Boardman Oregon and transload to barge, or truck all the way to the Puget Sound to restuff from OTR vans to outbound ISO's. Yeah, they could truck to SLC for intermodal service, but that's in the opposite direction for PR exports. But, hey, under the GAO's divine wisdom, Southern Idaho is not captive to Union Pacific. So we have the GAO and Ken Strawbridge in one camp saying there is no significant rail captivity, and everyone else (including the Class I's themselves) saying the opposite. Not hard to figure who's out on a limb on that one! Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, September 22, 2006 6:21 PM MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: So now you're claiming "sarcasm." Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a "confession" by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you. It might be a bit more believable if the "good internet researcher" didn't preceed the "plagerism" comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me. Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy. My specific comment at the time was this:"Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? "My intent was clear. Your post had not put anything in quotation marks, nor identified a source other than "TomDiehl". Hence my observation" "pretty good internet researcher" and posing the question -- are you offering it as your own, because in fact that is what you had done. Those three sentences, taken together, were the announcement that you had been "caught". You had in fact plagarized the website and offered it's analysis as your own. First you comment on people's spelling, now it's punctuation. Pretty lame. Yes, your intent was clear, you had one report to fall back on, and the interesting thing about that was right before Bergie locked it, another member found the same obscure report and was refuting your interpretation. (knock yourself out with the spelling correction, if that what you get off doing). Now the real post (note I am NOT claiming any of this as my original research, although almost everyone else on this site already knows that): On a thread titled “Steam vs. Diesel” "Posted: 22 Jan 2006, 22:23:21 by TomDiehl: How about:The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines.The Pennsylvania Railroad serves as another example. A 1947 study compared the economic performance of the TI and Q2 steam locomotives to 6000 horsepower sets of diesels. (4 1500 hp freight units and 3 2000 hp passenger units. No distinction was made between builders) On the passenger side, a T1 cost $1.67 per mile to operate and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.30. For freight trains, a Q2 cost $2.37 per mile and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.94. These figures factored in maintenance, fuel, and other related costs, but did not take into account reduced expenses for labor with the elimination of steam helpers, reduced train crews because of multiple unit operation, and fewer trains required by using diesels. A 1951 study, again not distinguishing between builders, put the cost of operating a 1500/1600 hp freight unit at $0.88 per mile, and a 2000 hp passenger unit at $0.73 per mile. As these facts indicate, a railroad could achieve substantial savings in short and long term operating costs by dieselizing as quickly as possible.With the PRR's conservative and "test to death" corporate culture at the time, I have to believe their figures. Followed by a post by MichaelSol Dated: 22 Jan 2006, 22:28:18, quoting the above and adding: Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? Best regards, Michael Sol An answer by TomDiehl, Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 10:01:48 No. Since somebody above was "still waiting for statistical refuting" of the thesis, I need to repeat some things. He must be a bit slow. However, before this answer can be posted, MichaelSol immediately jumps in with a late night accusation Posted: 22 Jan 2006, 23:34:22 TomDiehl has offered plagiarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown. So we have a jump from “Pretty good internet researcher” to “offered plagiarized comments” in a little over an hour. Pretty radical mood swing." Note this time there ARE quotation marks around the quotation, since some of the simple minded are confused when you forget or neglect punctuation. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, September 22, 2006 1:42 PM TomDiehl wrote:So now you're claiming "sarcasm." Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a "confession" by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you. It might be a bit more believable if the "good internet researcher" didn't preceed the "plagerism" comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me. Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy. My specific comment at the time was this: "Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? " My intent was clear. Your post had not put anything in quotation marks, nor identified a source other than "TomDiehl". Hence my observation" "pretty good internet researcher" and posing the question -- are you offering it as your own, because in fact that is what you had done. Those three sentences, taken together, were the announcement that you had been "caught". You had in fact plagarized the website and offered it's analysis as your own. And now you are actually complaining about citing sources, to boot! Now, here we are, once again, with TomDiehl leaping into a thread where he otherwise appears to have nothing to say about the thread discussion, simply to pursue his mendacious personal agendas. "Feeble mind"? Nope, wouldn't want to make it personal at all .... How many threads now have ended up this way? Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, September 22, 2006 12:59 PM MichaelSol wrote:TomDiehl: And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael? In any business, academic, or publishing venture, those would have been firing offenses. On most forums, they would have been grounds for permanent suspension. Time for a reality check, Michael, this is an internet forum board. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, September 22, 2006 12:53 PM MichaelSol wrote:TomDiehl: And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael? The remark was intentionally sarcastic at the time I had made it, as it was made at the point in the discussion when you posted the remarks as your own thoughts. Thereupon, I sarcastically pointed out "good internet research" and having been discovered and confronted over your theft of someone else's work, you thereafter confessed you had taken your remarks, word for word, off of some kid's website and had given no attribution to the source. So now you're claiming "sarcasm." Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a "confession" by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you. It might be a bit more believable if the "good internet researcher" didn't preceed the "plagerism" comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me. Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, September 22, 2006 10:53 AM TomDiehl: The "error" was the use of shippers organizations websites as a source of information on who is or what constitutes a complete view of "captive shippers." Just the source would at the very least suggest that they would be a bit biased. I quite frequently refer to railroad annual reports. Am I biased? Is it "error"? Thus far on this thread, I have cited the following sources regarding captive shippers: Testimony Before Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Economics, Service, and Capacity in the Freight Railroad Industry June 20, 2006 Traffic World, March 31, 2003, p. 28 Rail Price Advisor, First Quarter 2003, Volume 12 Wisconsin Legislature 2005 Senate Resolution 13. Business Week, "Railroads: Asleep at the Switch", April 2, 2001 Journal of Commerce, Monday, April 10, 2000. Website of the Governor of Texas, Apr. 11, 2003, "Gov. Perry Touts Toyota Rail Legislation". An editor of Railway Age was quoted. Abstract of June, 1998 study conducted by L.E. Peabody & Associates, Inc., the L.E. Peabody website is at http://www.lepeabody.com/. Notwithstanding your contention, although I mentioned ARC and CURE websites, I did not reference their addresses. And of course, that was in response to the gentleman who contended that the only person he had ever heard say "anything" about railroads favoring foreign producers over domestic producers was Futuremodal. The references to the ARC and CURE websites were intended to enlighten the gentleman that there were, in fact, available sources of information about a large number of shippers out there who in fact felt exactly that way. Now, where again was that "error" that you felt important to point out? Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, September 22, 2006 10:07 AM TomDiehl: And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael? The remark was intentionally sarcastic at the time I had made it, as it was made at the point in the discussion when you posted the remarks as your own thoughts. Thereupon, I sarcastically pointed out "good internet research" and having been discovered and confronted over your theft of someone else's work, you thereafter confessed you had taken your remarks, word for word, off of some kid's website and had given no attribution to the source. Of course, if you had, everyone would have known you were reduced to looking at a 14 year old kid's website for your expert support for your "arguments" on dieselization. So, I also suspected the ommission was intentional. However, your use of someone else's work without attribution was in marked contrast to your allegation that "all" the railroads had done studies on the topic at hand, and "all" of them had reached the conclusion you supported. The truth on that point was, you hadn't seen a one of them, and had made them "all" up, even while consuming ten or so pages about what they said and how credible they were. You made repeatedly, intentionally false representations both as to existence of "the" studies, and to your knowledge of them. In any business, academic, or publishing venture, those would have been firing offenses. On most forums, they would have been grounds for permanent suspension. It was quite an illuminating episode as to the lengths people will go to argue a point, but your persistence in it also branded you as that kind of person. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, September 22, 2006 7:37 AM MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I'm not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples. Your materially and intentionally false representations regarding dieselization studies that you pretended existed, and your plagarism on that topic was quite a while ago. And I did not contact anyone about that, other than what you read publicly on this forum. Have you intentionally misrepresented something more recently that caused you to be contacted by the moderator? Well, what was it? And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, September 22, 2006 7:31 AM MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I'm not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples. What "error" are you pointing out and what is your basis for your claim? And why are you crying about being reported to Bergie? The "error" was the use of shippers organizations websites as a source of information on who is or what constitutes a complete view of "captive shippers." Just the source would at the very least suggest that they would be a bit biased. I seem to remember a comment by you saying that you sent a message to Bergie stating that any thread you or Dave/Futuremodal were posting on would be "visited" by Edblysard, myself, or some others playing pundit to your "interpretation" of reports or facts. And no, he didn't contact me after that, or any other time about my posts. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 22, 2006 6:51 AM broncoman wrote: I know that the ramps are disappearing but they are useless to load anything but a 89 footer, you need a mi-jack or equivalent to load spines and well cars. So, the fact that ramps are disappearing isn't always indicative of TOFC going down. But I agree that TOFC is a distant second to containers. RR jargon fades away slowly. Many folks call any intermodal terminal a "ramp" whether or not there is, or ever was an actual ramp at the intermodal terminal. Last circus loading ramp on Conrail was Island Ave. in Pittsburgh which was replaced with a new, bigger terminal on the east side of town in Pitcairn in the mid 90s. (and, yes, FM, they still handle TOFC there.....) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 123456 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Basically what happened was that after the railroads were deregu
greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of "wrong," "dumb" "troll", etc, etc. "There is no rail monopoly." Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets. All Right! OK! You want a citation, here's your sign: http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you've said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that "on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment". Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again. Here's a passage from the Federal Reserve paper: "The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent. The STB's 2000 report states that “while there are clearly instances where railroads retain a certain degree of pricing power, nearly all of the productivity gains have been passed to rail customers ... evidence that, on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment.” Basically what happened was that after the railroads were deregulated they were able to make themselves much more efficient. Beause they clearly operate in a competitive environment nearly allthe productivity gains were passed on to rail customers. This widespread improvement in productivity and resultant (due to the competititve environment) rate reductions caused this absolutely stupid revenue to variable cost ratio measurement to go up, not down. The more efficient the railroads got, and the more savings they passed on to their customers, the higher the ratio went. Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be "captive" and the railroads a "monopoly". Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn't pass those savings along because they're really nice people and didn't need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment.
"The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier's variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent. The STB's 2000 report states that “while there are clearly instances where railroads retain a certain degree of pricing power, nearly all of the productivity gains have been passed to rail customers ... evidence that, on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment.”
Basically what happened was that after the railroads were deregulated they were able to make themselves much more efficient. Beause they clearly operate in a competitive environment nearly allthe productivity gains were passed on to rail customers.
This widespread improvement in productivity and resultant (due to the competititve environment) rate reductions caused this absolutely stupid revenue to variable cost ratio measurement to go up, not down. The more efficient the railroads got, and the more savings they passed on to their customers, the higher the ratio went.
Good sumary by the Fed. Must be the railroads only take in about 16% of the money spent on intercity freight transportation in the US.
The first time people paid much attention to R/C ratios was way back thirty years ago as railroads moved toward deregulation. When I went to my VP about a rate adjustment he did not care about something called a r/c ratio. He did care about how many dollars of contribution to overhead would be generated and/or our return on investment. Thirty years in business is a very long time. R/C ratios are even more irrelevanct in today's world where marketing people are designing offerings on a railroad that is sold out. Of well it is not surprising the STB and the lawyers that feed beast are in a world the is gone with the Buffalo and the Super Chief.
As for the ongoing debate over rail captivity, the GAO determination is pretty well tight-sphinctered as to how they define captive. If it is theorectically possible for a commodity to move via truck, barge, or pipeline (even if it is not commercially practical to do so), then the GAO has determined that such a commodity or producer is not captive to a railroad. Under that auspice, there is no such thing as captive intermodal, because intermodal means more than one mode, and there will *always* be a truck available if the railroad doesn't want to play ball. This is a very disingenuous way of making that determination, because without a commercial/practical standard for making that determination, you've left out the real world scenarios. Optimizing intermodal means utilizing the best of each mode where physically possible. That's why we had that shorthaul intermodal study a while back, someone was trying to determine the practical theorum absent actual willing participation by the monopolist railroads.
The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn't because there is no market for such, it's because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don't have to worry about losing business to another railroad. The end result is that JP Simplot and the others have to truck their Pacific Rim export containers to Boardman Oregon and transload to barge, or truck all the way to the Puget Sound to restuff from OTR vans to outbound ISO's. Yeah, they could truck to SLC for intermodal service, but that's in the opposite direction for PR exports.
But, hey, under the GAO's divine wisdom, Southern Idaho is not captive to Union Pacific. So we have the GAO and Ken Strawbridge in one camp saying there is no significant rail captivity, and everyone else (including the Class I's themselves) saying the opposite. Not hard to figure who's out on a limb on that one!
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: So now you're claiming "sarcasm." Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a "confession" by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you. It might be a bit more believable if the "good internet researcher" didn't preceed the "plagerism" comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me. Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy. My specific comment at the time was this:"Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? "My intent was clear. Your post had not put anything in quotation marks, nor identified a source other than "TomDiehl". Hence my observation" "pretty good internet researcher" and posing the question -- are you offering it as your own, because in fact that is what you had done. Those three sentences, taken together, were the announcement that you had been "caught". You had in fact plagarized the website and offered it's analysis as your own.
TomDiehl wrote: So now you're claiming "sarcasm." Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a "confession" by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you. It might be a bit more believable if the "good internet researcher" didn't preceed the "plagerism" comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me. Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy.
So now you're claiming "sarcasm." Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a "confession" by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you.
It might be a bit more believable if the "good internet researcher" didn't preceed the "plagerism" comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me.
Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy.
First you comment on people's spelling, now it's punctuation. Pretty lame. Yes, your intent was clear, you had one report to fall back on, and the interesting thing about that was right before Bergie locked it, another member found the same obscure report and was refuting your interpretation. (knock yourself out with the spelling correction, if that what you get off doing).
Now the real post (note I am NOT claiming any of this as my original research, although almost everyone else on this site already knows that):
On a thread titled “Steam vs. Diesel”
"Posted: 22 Jan 2006, 22:23:21 by TomDiehl:
How about:The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines.The Pennsylvania Railroad serves as another example. A 1947 study compared the economic performance of the TI and Q2 steam locomotives to 6000 horsepower sets of diesels. (4 1500 hp freight units and 3 2000 hp passenger units. No distinction was made between builders) On the passenger side, a T1 cost $1.67 per mile to operate and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.30. For freight trains, a Q2 cost $2.37 per mile and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.94. These figures factored in maintenance, fuel, and other related costs, but did not take into account reduced expenses for labor with the elimination of steam helpers, reduced train crews because of multiple unit operation, and fewer trains required by using diesels. A 1951 study, again not distinguishing between builders, put the cost of operating a 1500/1600 hp freight unit at $0.88 per mile, and a 2000 hp passenger unit at $0.73 per mile. As these facts indicate, a railroad could achieve substantial savings in short and long term operating costs by dieselizing as quickly as possible.With the PRR's conservative and "test to death" corporate culture at the time, I have to believe their figures.
Followed by a post by MichaelSol Dated: 22 Jan 2006, 22:28:18, quoting the above and adding:
Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? Best regards, Michael Sol
An answer by TomDiehl, Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 10:01:48
No. Since somebody above was "still waiting for statistical refuting" of the thesis, I need to repeat some things. He must be a bit slow.
However, before this answer can be posted, MichaelSol immediately jumps in with a late night accusation Posted: 22 Jan 2006, 23:34:22
TomDiehl has offered plagiarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown.
So we have a jump from “Pretty good internet researcher” to “offered plagiarized comments” in a little over an hour. Pretty radical mood swing."
Note this time there ARE quotation marks around the quotation, since some of the simple minded are confused when you forget or neglect punctuation.
TomDiehl wrote:So now you're claiming "sarcasm." Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a "confession" by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you. It might be a bit more believable if the "good internet researcher" didn't preceed the "plagerism" comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me. Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy.
MichaelSol wrote:TomDiehl: And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael? In any business, academic, or publishing venture, those would have been firing offenses. On most forums, they would have been grounds for permanent suspension.
TomDiehl: And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael?
And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael?
In any business, academic, or publishing venture, those would have been firing offenses. On most forums, they would have been grounds for permanent suspension.
Time for a reality check, Michael, this is an internet forum board.
MichaelSol wrote:TomDiehl: And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on "good internet research," then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word "plagerism" pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael? The remark was intentionally sarcastic at the time I had made it, as it was made at the point in the discussion when you posted the remarks as your own thoughts. Thereupon, I sarcastically pointed out "good internet research" and having been discovered and confronted over your theft of someone else's work, you thereafter confessed you had taken your remarks, word for word, off of some kid's website and had given no attribution to the source.
The remark was intentionally sarcastic at the time I had made it, as it was made at the point in the discussion when you posted the remarks as your own thoughts. Thereupon, I sarcastically pointed out "good internet research" and having been discovered and confronted over your theft of someone else's work, you thereafter confessed you had taken your remarks, word for word, off of some kid's website and had given no attribution to the source.
TomDiehl: The "error" was the use of shippers organizations websites as a source of information on who is or what constitutes a complete view of "captive shippers." Just the source would at the very least suggest that they would be a bit biased.
The "error" was the use of shippers organizations websites as a source of information on who is or what constitutes a complete view of "captive shippers." Just the source would at the very least suggest that they would be a bit biased.
I quite frequently refer to railroad annual reports. Am I biased? Is it "error"?
Thus far on this thread, I have cited the following sources regarding captive shippers:
Testimony Before Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Economics, Service, and Capacity in the Freight Railroad Industry June 20, 2006
Traffic World, March 31, 2003, p. 28
Rail Price Advisor, First Quarter 2003, Volume 12
Wisconsin Legislature 2005 Senate Resolution 13.
Business Week, "Railroads: Asleep at the Switch", April 2, 2001
Journal of Commerce, Monday, April 10, 2000.
Website of the Governor of Texas, Apr. 11, 2003, "Gov. Perry Touts Toyota Rail Legislation".
An editor of Railway Age was quoted.
Abstract of June, 1998 study conducted by L.E. Peabody & Associates, Inc., the L.E. Peabody website is at http://www.lepeabody.com/.
Notwithstanding your contention, although I mentioned ARC and CURE websites, I did not reference their addresses. And of course, that was in response to the gentleman who contended that the only person he had ever heard say "anything" about railroads favoring foreign producers over domestic producers was Futuremodal. The references to the ARC and CURE websites were intended to enlighten the gentleman that there were, in fact, available sources of information about a large number of shippers out there who in fact felt exactly that way.
Now, where again was that "error" that you felt important to point out?
Of course, if you had, everyone would have known you were reduced to looking at a 14 year old kid's website for your expert support for your "arguments" on dieselization. So, I also suspected the ommission was intentional.
However, your use of someone else's work without attribution was in marked contrast to your allegation that "all" the railroads had done studies on the topic at hand, and "all" of them had reached the conclusion you supported. The truth on that point was, you hadn't seen a one of them, and had made them "all" up, even while consuming ten or so pages about what they said and how credible they were. You made repeatedly, intentionally false representations both as to existence of "the" studies, and to your knowledge of them.
It was quite an illuminating episode as to the lengths people will go to argue a point, but your persistence in it also branded you as that kind of person.
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I'm not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples. Your materially and intentionally false representations regarding dieselization studies that you pretended existed, and your plagarism on that topic was quite a while ago. And I did not contact anyone about that, other than what you read publicly on this forum. Have you intentionally misrepresented something more recently that caused you to be contacted by the moderator? Well, what was it?
TomDiehl wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I'm not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples.
I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I'm not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples.
Your materially and intentionally false representations regarding dieselization studies that you pretended existed, and your plagarism on that topic was quite a while ago. And I did not contact anyone about that, other than what you read publicly on this forum.
Have you intentionally misrepresented something more recently that caused you to be contacted by the moderator? Well, what was it?
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it's going to be favorable to NS's side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here) OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by "captive" shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt? I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I'm not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples. What "error" are you pointing out and what is your basis for your claim? And why are you crying about being reported to Bergie?
What "error" are you pointing out and what is your basis for your claim?
And why are you crying about being reported to Bergie?
I seem to remember a comment by you saying that you sent a message to Bergie stating that any thread you or Dave/Futuremodal were posting on would be "visited" by Edblysard, myself, or some others playing pundit to your "interpretation" of reports or facts.
And no, he didn't contact me after that, or any other time about my posts.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.