For those of you who are interested :
You can sign an online petition to support the DME's proposed expansion plans.
http://www.gotrac.org/
Hopefully if enough people sign on in a show of support the federal funding will be approved and we can all benefit from having another carrier in the upper midwest to compete with the BNSF and the UP. This could result in lower electricity prices for those of you in WI (my interest in the matter) and result in added benefits to farmers all over the region.
I just signed this online petition and I will share the link with others in my computer's address book who also have an interest in the DM&E's expansion and rehab project.
CANADIANPACIFIC2816
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
BaltACD wrote:Let me see if I get Mayo logic right in fighting the DMEDME is unsafe!Starving the DME for funding will make it safter?I guess that logic must work in medicine.
Maybe they're confusing it with "feed a fever, starve a cold."
Or is it "feed a cold, starve a fever?"
By the way, I am starting an identical petition just as soon as I sign this one: Support the teapot-dome acquisition. I was also thinking about medling with a Savings in Loan while I was at it.
Gabe
zugmann wrote:Online petitions are worthless. Don't waste the time.
Which is why I began this with "for those of you who are interested".
Thinks it's dumb? Don't sign it. Go sign the petition for the teapot dome scandal.
Let me try and explain this a little more clearly. The way I understand things the federal loan approval process for the DME's expansion right now is at a state of public comment. This means that petitions (however useless they sometimes appear to be) are one of the few ways that I and other people on the forum my show their support to the government for the project at hand. I feel that this project has the potential to benefit me, my family, and my state by introducing some much needed competition into the upper midwest coal market. I also think that this project has the ability to benefit farmers - particularily in western Minnesota were some have had troubles making ends meet with their farms (I have family in that area - 'nough said). Anything that can help farmers bemore competitive in a world market should be welcomed with open arms, in my opinion. One way that I can show my support (and other forum members here can do the same) is by signing this petition, which will be submitted during the loan approval process to show that there is public support at large for the project.
It certainly is more proactive than dropping snide little comments in a trains forum.
solzrules wrote: zugmann wrote:Online petitions are worthless. Don't waste the time. Which is why I began this with "for those of you who are interested". Thinks it's dumb? Don't sign it. Go sign the petition for the teapot dome scandal. Let me try and explain this a little more clearly. The way I understand things the federal loan approval process for the DME's expansion right now is at a state of public comment. This means that petitions (however useless they sometimes appear to be) are one of the few ways that I and other people on the forum my show their support to the government for the project at hand. I feel that this project has the potential to benefit me, my family, and my state by introducing some much needed competition into the upper midwest coal market. I also think that this project has the ability to benefit farmers - particularily in western Minnesota were some have had troubles making ends meet with their farms (I have family in that area - 'nough said). Anything that can help farmers bemore competitive in a world market should be welcomed with open arms, in my opinion. One way that I can show my support (and other forum members here can do the same) is by signing this petition, which will be submitted during the loan approval process to show that there is public support at large for the project. It certainly is more proactive than dropping snide little comments in a trains forum.
(1) I think the DME is a fairly intersting railroad, and I hope it does well.
(2) I like farmers, and something that helps farmers would be swell.
(3) I would be amused and bemused if UP and BNSF had a third competitor in the PRB halauge rights.
(4) I like trains as much as anyone.
(5) I only like Mayo when it is on a roast beef sandwich.
However, why are we trying to gather a petition to support DME expansion? If there were a financial justification for the expansion, why would the federal government have to come in with one of the biggest government loans in history? Wouldn't private enterprise take care of the loan on its own if expansion was economically justified? If the power industry really believed in the economic justification for this railroad, wouldn't it pony up some money to the table?From my understanding, UP and BNSF have superior routes, superior resources, and superior pricing abilities. The addition of a third competitor will, by definition, produce lower rates not only for BNSF and UP but for the third competitor.
I am not trying to knock solzurles, but I simply do not understand why people are so up beat about DME expansion. There just seem to be so many problems that are overlooked with this project.
Mark my words, there is going to be a political blood bath preceeded shortly by a bankruptcy and it is simply going to sour government assistance of railroads in situations wherein there is a direct justificaiton for the assistance--like Chicago corridor work.
gabe wrote: However, why are we trying to gather a petition to support DME expansion? If there were a financial justification for the expansion, why would the federal government have to come in with one of the biggest government loans in history? Wouldn't private enterprise take care of the loan on its own if expansion was economically justified? If the power industry really believed in the economic justification for this railroad, wouldn't it pony up some money to the table?
However, why are we trying to gather a petition to support DME expansion? If there were a financial justification for the expansion, why would the federal government have to come in with one of the biggest government loans in history? Wouldn't private enterprise take care of the loan on its own if expansion was economically justified? If the power industry really believed in the economic justification for this railroad, wouldn't it pony up some money to the table?
Gabe - these are all good points that I have pondered, too. If this is a guaranteed success, why is private financing not more forthcoming? This, more than any argument the Mayo clinic has presented, is the soundest argument I have heard as to why this isn't a good idea.
A couple of things that I have discovered through listening to comments made here on the forum and through a few other sources. The biggest benefit to having the gorvernment low interest loan is that it prevents the private loans from charging speculative interest rates - rates that would certainly bog down the operating budget of the new railroad. Why the government loan would have this effect is fodder for an accountant, but it does seem to make some sense. (More sense than Mayo's argument that upgrading an unsafe railroad will produce another unsafe railroad.) Also, this is a 6 billion dollar project. DME loan request is for 2 billion. I am assuming that this means they were able to pony up the other 4 billion through private funding agreements - no small feat given the admittedly risky nature of this project. These funding agreements do contain power plants that have signed on to this project. They have remained nameless in part because Kevin Sheiffer of DME has refused to reveal the funding plan for the project (much to the chagrin of the Mayo clinic). Scheiffer has stated that there are utilities that have signed on to the idea, but he has chosen not to reveal that information for undetermined reasons. It could be he fears some sort of reprisal on the utilities by competitor railroads or in the worst case scenario he is feeding everyone a line of BS and he has no such funding. If the latter scenario is the case I am sure he would not receive funding from the feds either, because I think that Scheiffer has to reveal that information to the federal loan people as part of the loan approval process.
From my understanding, UP and BNSF have superior routes, superior resources, and superior pricing abilities. The addition of a third competitor will, by definition, produce lower rates not only for BNSF and UP but for the third competitor. I am not trying to knock solzurles, but I simply do not understand why people are so up beat about DME expansion. There just seem to be so many problems that are overlooked with this project.
Gabe I don't take an informed discussion about the merits of this expansion plan as a knock. I enjoy it, otherwise why would I waste time on this forum? It is an exchange of ideas. Certainly nothing wrong with that.
And you may be right. That is the risk behind this expansion. It could be that construction costs will spiral out of control. It could be that Cedar American Rail Holdings will be unable to fund the massive amount of debt. It could be that rail business in general will decline and the reduction in corporate profits will force a bankruptcy no matter how efficient and well-managed the railroad is. Certainly these are all possibilities. But the reverse could also be true. The line might become a new competitor to the BNSF's northern transcon and give the UP a run for their money in the coal market in the midwest. Another class 1 might view the new line as a must have and merge with it. Farmers in the areas of the revived line might be able to raise crops that where unprofitable years before. The ethanol industry will have another door open in an area of the country that was previously inaccessible. It could spur industrial growth and development in the midwest after years of decline and decay. It could be a financial boom!
As for government subsidies of the rail industry, this is nothing new. The government has been giving massive subsidies to the airlines, a industry with massive capitol costs and very small profit margins. Let's face it, if the government hadn't propped up the industry it would have crashed out years ago. The rail industry has been self-sustaining for the most part. After de-regulation and a painful decade or two of downsizing and streamlining, railroads today are more competitive and efficient then ever before. And they don't need billions of dollars of tax dollars just to meet their operating budgets. Here is an opportunity for the government to step up to the plate and provide some recoverable (it is a loan and must be paid back with interest) monies that will only help to remove trucks from highways and increase every industry that is seved by it.
Wether the benefits outweigh the risks remain to be seen.
I think the difference between this funding and previous government funding is there was a closer nexus between the funding and the general public welfare in the past. For instance, there is no question that the driving force behind CREAT is the public good of relieving highway congestion.
Here, it seems like the funding is designed to help specific entities rather than the public at large.
Good topic . . .
gabe wrote: (1) I think the DME is a fairly intersting railroad, and I hope it does well. (2) I like farmers, and something that helps farmers would be swell. (3) I would be amused and bemused if UP and BNSF had a third competitor in the PRB halauge rights. (4) I like trains as much as anyone. (5) I only like Mayo when it is on a roast beef sandwich. However, why are we trying to gather a petition to support DME expansion? If there were a financial justification for the expansion, why would the federal government have to come in with one of the biggest government loans in history? Wouldn't private enterprise take care of the loan on its own if expansion was economically justified? If the power industry really believed in the economic justification for this railroad, wouldn't it pony up some money to the table?From my understanding, UP and BNSF have superior routes, superior resources, and superior pricing abilities. The addition of a third competitor will, by definition, produce lower rates not only for BNSF and UP but for the third competitor. I am not trying to knock solzurles, but I simply do not understand why people are so up beat about DME expansion. There just seem to be so many problems that are overlooked with this project. Mark my words, there is going to be a political blood bath preceeded shortly by a bankruptcy and it is simply going to sour government assistance of railroads in situations wherein there is a direct justificaiton for the assistance--like Chicago corridor work. Gabe
1. Online government petitions do work, although due to abuses by environmental groups in the past regarding public comment solicitation, the generic forms tend to be discounted. As long as you frame the petition in your own words (but without all the hyperbole, aka "...big industry is killing our children, oh won't someone care about the children, our children are dying...." - that kind of stuff), it will carry more weight.
2. UP and BNSF cannot handle the work load now regarding coal deliveries, and it's only going to get worse in a few years. Don't be complicit with the UP/BNSF duopoly being the primary cause of a near future energy shortage - do whatever it takes to get DM&E and any other railroad into the PRB coal hauling business. There a coal plant projects on the drawing board right now that will more readily come to fruition if the DM&E project is a go.
3. Don't forget, both UP and the predecessors to BNSF got their start with federal aid, albeit with grants, not loans that have to be paid back. If anything, the federal portion of DM&E's finance package should also have been in the form of a grant. As it is, the loan is the best we can do for now. It's just how things are really done in America. Mayo knows this, they get plenty of federal aid.
4. Competition is good for American, and it keeps industry on it's toes. Lack of competition is bad for consumers. You do the math.
5. And where do you get the idea that UP and BNSF have "superior" routes? UP and BNSF have the only routes out of the PRB, and frankly are not all that good since they were mostly aligned using 19th century engineering. Any new rail alignment using modern engineering will be far superior to those alignments of yesteryear.
6. Oh, and while you're at it, tell us about the political bloodbath that proceeded the bail out of Penn Central, New York Central, et al, and Chrysler, and the ag industry, and the steel industry, and.............................aka, that speculation is much ado about nothing (don't forget what I said about hyperbole!)
futuremodal wrote: Any new rail alignment using modern engineering will be far superior to those alignments of yesteryear.
The DME route from the PRB to Kansas City will be twice as long as the UP or BNSF route.
(1) Your second point is, by far, the most persuasive. However, I think there are just too many unknowns to rely upon that. Might midwestern coal offset some of this demand? I know there is talk about two or three new mines going in in Souther Illinois and Indiana. Might the EPA start taking steriods and insist upon natural gas for new plants?
(2) A land grant is more of a public benefit, because it causes an unsettled area of land to be injected with commerce. My whole problem with DME funding is the lack of an obvious quid quo pro that is/has been present with other government rail funding of the private sector--like land grants. Also, as I am sure you know, land grants came with strings attached.
(3) I think even shippers agree that too much competition is not good for the rail industry, as it can kill it like it almost did in the 70s. If the DME line goes in, where do you think UP and BNSF has the most incentive to put future investment, in an over-saturated coal market that they already have determined to be less worthy of investment than intermodal or intermodal? My bet is DME will further push UP and BNSF into betting on China rather than acid rain.
(4) What makes you think that the DME route isn't alligned on 19th century engineering? My understanding that only roughly 200 miles of the proposed expansion will be new alignment.
(5) There is a heck of a difference between a retroactive bail out than a pro-active expentiture of public funds to help a specific entity rather than the public at large.
(6) I agree with you about the Ag industry. But, due to the role of the farmer in American lore, that has always been an exception to general practices in America. I am not saying I agree with it, but I don't know that it will ever be changed.
nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Any new rail alignment using modern engineering will be far superior to those alignments of yesteryear. The DME route from the PRB to Kansas City will be twice as long as the UP or BNSF route.
Is KC the primary end point for PRB coal?
futuremodal wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Any new rail alignment using modern engineering will be far superior to those alignments of yesteryear. The DME route from the PRB to Kansas City will be twice as long as the UP or BNSF route. Is KC the primary end point for PRB coal?
No, but it is the southern end point for DME / IC&E. More PRB coal goes through KC than any other large city. (25% ?)
gabe wrote: I think the difference between this funding and previous government funding is there was a closer nexus between the funding and the general public welfare in the past. For instance, there is no question that the driving force behind CREAT is the public good of relieving highway congestion. Here, it seems like the funding is designed to help specific entities rather than the public at large. Good topic . . . Gabe
And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. It has benefits to farmers in the form of increased capabilities to bring ag products to market (and a formidable competitor to BNSF) which will result in lower transportation costs and better infrastructure. It could result in lower electric rates for most people in the upper midwest.
Government grants would be preferable, but low interest loans are a mighty good second. The government routinely gives money away to private companies that might produce something good for everyone. Pharmaceuticals are a huge player in this arena. Railroads are certainly a good candidate for it also. A good railroad could save taxpayers billions in road costs and potential political consequences because it is lessening our need for foreign oil to power over the road trucks.
gabe wrote: (1) Your second point is, by far, the most persuasive. However, I think there are just too many unknowns to rely upon that. Might midwestern coal offset some of this demand? I know there is talk about two or three new mines going in in Souther Illinois and Indiana. Might the EPA start taking steriods and insist upon natural gas for new plants?
Natural gas? They tried that in the 1990's, aka natural gas powered generation. Almost killed the industrial natural gas customer base here in the US. Natural gas prices have tripled since that ill-fated decision. Last time I looked, we import almost as much of our natural gas from foreign sources as our petroleum, albeit Canada. It's bad enough we let our transportation sector become hostage to foreign political manipulation, we cannot let that happen to our electric generation sector.
We got coal. We got nuclear. Let the EPA do to itself what it has tried to do to our industrial economy for a change.
I agree. Still, a grant has more financing benefits than loans, and portends a more secure future. Most financially strapped college grads know what I'm talking about.
Wait a minute! Why do you allege that "too much competition" was the rail industry problem of the 1970's? Railroads have never had "too much competition", rather they've been hamstrung by the inherent inefficiencies of the integrated model. All railroads pretty much have owned their own little fiefdoms aka what economists call the "natural monopoly" wherein the owner of the track is the sole operator of the trains. It is the inherent abuses of the integrated model that led to the over regulation of the industry, as governments do tend to try and counter the lack of true free market actions. Railroads lost business because there was virtually no online competition - businesses tend to locate and grow where inputs are competitively priced. The advent of public highway construction was in part the result of dissatisfaction with the integrated railroad model. And these highways were not competition per se for railroads, rather businesses changed their practices to conform to the freer auspices of highway freight transportation despite the greater theorectical efficiencies of rail technology.
The real history of US railroads aside, what we have now is a horrible lack of intramodal competition among railroads. Adding another PRB competitor isn't going to change that lack all that much, but it's a start.
That's 200 miles more than what UP and BNSF can offer.
In a way, the loan gaurantee is similar to retroactivity, since it only kicks in if the private loans default. The initial action requires no federal expenditure.
As I pointed out above, we've made a huge mistake in allowing our transportation sector to become dependent on foreign sources of oil. We absolutely cannot allow our food production to also become so dependent.
solzrules wrote: gabe wrote: I think the difference between this funding and previous government funding is there was a closer nexus between the funding and the general public welfare in the past. For instance, there is no question that the driving force behind CREAT is the public good of relieving highway congestion. Here, it seems like the funding is designed to help specific entities rather than the public at large. Good topic . . . Gabe And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. It has benefits to farmers in the form of increased capabilities to bring ag products to market (and a formidable competitor to BNSF) which will result in lower transportation costs and better infrastructure. It could result in lower electric rates for most people in the upper midwest. Government grants would be preferable, but low interest loans are a mighty good second. The government routinely gives money away to private companies that might produce something good for everyone. Pharmaceuticals are a huge player in this arena. Railroads are certainly a good candidate for it also. A good railroad could save taxpayers billions in road costs and potential political consequences because it is lessening our need for foreign oil to power over the road trucks.
I would have to disagree with you here. First, I even disagree that DME is the beneficiary. I think it would be a fair wager to say that the current management of DME may look back at this loan 10 years from now, and curse the day they accepted it.
I think the beneficiary is the power industry. Although I completely agree with your premisies that (1) railroads benefit the public by taking trucks off the road--or, more accurately, slowing the increase of trucks on the road and (2) such a benefit is worth spending public monies on.
However, let's not forget to commodity we are talking about here. PRB coal will not go by truck; it will go via UP or BNSF. Thus, whether the DME is extended and rehabed or not will not affect the roads, it will affect the price that power plants have to pay for transportation of coal.
Actually, I think the argument could be made that expanding the DME will lead to more use of the road ways. Say the DME gets some haulage contracts for coal--the real money and the purpose for this expansion--like UP and BNSF, the last thing they are going to want is some local picking up 7 grain hoppers trodding along interferring with coal schedules. DME will likely do what UP and BNSF does and say it is shuttle grain haulage or nothing. Which will result in an increase in highway travel to haul the grain via truck to shuttle facilities.
gabe wrote: (3) I think even shippers agree that too much competition is not good for the rail industry, as it can kill it like it almost did in the 70s. If the DME line goes in, where do you think UP and BNSF has the most incentive to put future investment, in an over-saturated coal market that they already have determined to be less worthy of investment than intermodal or intermodal? My bet is DME will further push UP and BNSF into betting on China rather than acid rain.
Here too I might suggest that it was over-regulation that threatened to kill the railroads and prevented them from being innovative. Early victims of this in the midwest were the Milwuakee Road and Rock Island - both viable railroads at one time which found themselves slowly dying on the vine because the big players had hijacked the regulatory process when it came to setting rates. After the Staggers act in the early 80's the process turned around because railroads were given a free hand to conduct business in the most profitable way they saw fit. They could set rates to attract business. They could also set rates to compete against other railroads.
I don't know that the coal market is over-saturated. If anything, it needs another player in the PRB. If the maintenance by one of the two railroads that are in the PRB suffers a little bit, the result is gridlock at the mines because the trains can't load and leave fast enough. A year or two ago there was a crisis here in WI because WE energies couldn't get enough coal from the UP due to maintenance problems in the PRB. I think there is a lawsuit floating around out there against UP because of that. BNSF and UP are both investing heavily in China trade, but the profit margin is slimmer here than in coal, so the rate of return isn't as sure a thing. Coal and intermodal are both set to increase by double digits in the next decade or two, so investment in either one is an on-going deal.
solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work.
A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work.
As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
gabe wrote: I would have to disagree with you here. First, I disagree that DME is the beneficiary. I think it would be a fair wager to say that the current management of DME may look back at this loan 10 years from now, and curse the day they accepted it. I think the beneficiary is the power industry. Although I completely agree with your premisies that (1) railroads benefit the public by taking trucks off the road--or, more accurately, slowing the increase of trucks on the road and (2) such a benefit is worth spending public monies on.
I would have to disagree with you here. First, I disagree that DME is the beneficiary. I think it would be a fair wager to say that the current management of DME may look back at this loan 10 years from now, and curse the day they accepted it.
Well, let's go the entire distance with this. I think the ultimate benficiary would be the PUBLIC, which ostensibly would receive lower electric rates due to lower production costs. If we're talking public utilities here (as is electrical service in Illinois), then they are government-regulated and decreased costs should be passed down the line to the consumer.
Poppa_Zit wrote: gabe wrote: I would have to disagree with you here. First, I disagree that DME is the beneficiary. I think it would be a fair wager to say that the current management of DME may look back at this loan 10 years from now, and curse the day they accepted it. I think the beneficiary is the power industry. Although I completely agree with your premisies that (1) railroads benefit the public by taking trucks off the road--or, more accurately, slowing the increase of trucks on the road and (2) such a benefit is worth spending public monies on. Well, let's go the entire distance with this. I think the ultimate benficiary would be the PUBLIC, which ostensibly would receive lower electric rates due to lower production costs. If we're talking public utilities here (as is electrical service in Illinois), then they are government-regulated and decreased costs should be passed down the line to the consumer.
Boy, there must be a lot of stupid lobyists for the power industry if this is the case. Because they are spending a heck of a lot of money on something they will not receive a profit on if your premise is correct.
gabe wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: gabe wrote: I would have to disagree with you here. First, I disagree that DME is the beneficiary. I think it would be a fair wager to say that the current management of DME may look back at this loan 10 years from now, and curse the day they accepted it. I think the beneficiary is the power industry. Although I completely agree with your premisies that (1) railroads benefit the public by taking trucks off the road--or, more accurately, slowing the increase of trucks on the road and (2) such a benefit is worth spending public monies on. Well, let's go the entire distance with this. I think the ultimate benficiary would be the PUBLIC, which ostensibly would receive lower electric rates due to lower production costs. If we're talking public utilities here (as is electrical service in Illinois), then they are government-regulated and decreased costs should be passed down the line to the consumer. Boy, there must be a lot of stupid lobyists for the power industry if this is the case. Because they are spending a heck of a lot of money on something they will not receive a profit on if your premise is correct. Gabe
Nobody said they were going to pass on all the savings.......
How do they determine electrical rates in Indiana?
Because I live in a Chicago suburb that owns its own power distribution infrastructure and buys its power in bulk form under a contract with Commonwealth Edison (which buys PRB coal, by the way) and as a result we pay less than regular ComEd customers because our city gets a discounted (bulk) rate and then passes the savings down to us. I'd also venture to say we get better and faster service than Com Ed customers.
Com Ed is regulated by the Illinois Commerce Commission, which has to approve all rates and rate hikes. The last rate hike granted, by the way, was ten years ago. Since then, rates have been frozen.
Because Com Ed is a public utility, its books are open. If Com Ed suddenly was to receive a "windfall" discount on its coal buys, that would factor into the ICC's decision on how the next set of rates are set. The ICC theoretically ensures Com Ed makes a profit without screwing its customers. Com Ed does employ lobbyists, but they're not stupid. And its lobbyists are responsible for a lot more than "rates."
Murphy Siding wrote: solzrules wrote:And I would argue that this project has very tangible benefits to the public at large, even though it is a private rail company that is getting the money. It could reduce truck traffic (with associated wear and tear) on the freeway systems, which would reduce fuel consumption and reduce the need to rebuild freeways every 20 years. It would reduce pollution because trains are much more efficient than trucks doing the same amount of work. A disclaimer first: If DM&E was such a good thing, private financing would have been a slam-dunk. Sure,as a railfan, this would be a pretty neat deal. As a private citizen, I have doubts about them pulling it off. In my mind, there are a lot of unanswered questions, about how this is going to be profitable enough to work. As for the post above, by solzrules: Wouldn't it just be a matter of a different train hauling the coal and grain, verses the one that's hauling it now? I don't see where this will take any traffic from trucks. Their intention, is to take coal hauling business from BNSF and UP, after all.
To your first point - you're right. If this was a sure fire deal everyone would sign on with it. In fact, if everyone knew Microsoft would be the goliath it is today back in the early 80's everyone would have signed on to that one, too. There is an element of risk here, but the potential benefits are enough to justify the risk. I am not interested in this because I like the idea of more trains on new track, but because it has the potential to benefit a lot of people with new jobs and a better transportation network. Nobody should support this just because they like trains. If that is why funding for this is approved it will certainly result in bankruptcy. The business plan at the core of this project is what has convinced me it is a good idea. If there was a way to invest money in it, I would. (Maybe they have too many takers!)
To your second point - the area of the state of Minnesota were the proposed upgraded line exists is nowhere near the BNSF - right now grain traffic is interchanged over the DME with CPRail at Winona, MN. The track between Winona and western Minnesota is in rough shape. In some places it is 90 year old jointed rail. Derailments are a regular thing due to poor track conditions. Track speed is also somewhere in the 10-20 mph range and at that speed it is hard to compete with trucks. The alternative to the DME is to haul the grain north over the road to the BNSF lines in the middle of the state. This is a very inefficient process, especially when there is no guarantee that there will be cars there waiting to take it to market. Then they resort to piling the grain up on the ground because the elevators are full. This translates into higher transportation costs to get the grain to market. Toss in a little anti-competitive behvior on the part of BNSF (the classic 'captive shipper' argument) and suddenly the ag industry is not what it could be. Independet owner/operator farmers depend on getting the best price possible for grains and soybeans. Bad prices and poor transportation can result in farmers not being able to cover their operating costs and things begin to slide down hill from there. A farmer located next to a high quality rail line is in much better shape than one who has to truck his grain to an elevator that is an hour away.
I signed the petition for the DM&E to get their government loan to upgrade their railroad.I would rather see DM&E get the government money rather than chavez in venezuala or Hitler,Jr in Iran.
Have a good one.
Bill B
zugmann wrote:Without getting into the whole DME argument, I do not consider my comments "snide".There are dozens of ways to make your voice heard. Call legislators, contact the Mayo Clinic, the DME, newspapers, or sign a REAL petition for starters.No one takes online petitions seriously. Want to waste your time? Go ahead.
The petition at the web site IS the real petition sponsered by GOTRAC, the conglomorate of business interests organized by DME to support the project.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.