arbfbe wrote: FM, I thought we were talking about Conrad here. I limited my comments to my views of why he lost his election. I hardly think all Democrats are squeaky clean and now they are in power there will be even more temptations placed in front of them to take the fall from grace. We will all have to keep an eye on them and exercise our perogative to vote them out in 2008, 2010 and 2012 if needed. The election of Testor to the Senate in and of itself did not change the composition of the senate. Several races went to the Democrats, Montana and Virgina were just the last two counted and so they are memorable. They are no more important to the change than any of the other individual races were. I fail to see how Burns is/was the only one in the state carrying the torch for regualtory reform for grain shippers in Montana. As I pointed out, Testor and Schweitzer both have a personal interest as well as a professional interest in lower or more competitive shipping rates in MT. I fail to see how the coal issues you mention hinge upon the committee chair in one Senate committee. The syndiesel is one of the Governor's pet projects. Montana owns a lot of coal buried beneath school trust lands which could be developed for profit and to supply needed funding for public education in Montana. We will have to see if successful development of these coal projects will require federal funding or tax incentives to become profitable. Right now things are still in the very preliminary stages of development. Schweitzer is doing a lot of leg work to bring people and organizations together on this one. Conrad was not voted out of office account Montanans did not want to see coal based industry developed in Montana. He was voted out since he seemed less interested in representing Montana voters than outsiders with lots of money. He was shooting from the hip and striking out at others in a manner not supported by residents towards visitors to the state. Finally, he was beat by someone who shared nearly the same constituency as Burns himself. So if you really think Montanans lack the big picture view you have failed to understand the state. At least we know the local tapestry we see is colorful but distorted. I am sorry we are not trying to eminent domain the BNSF mainline into an open access railroad for your studies but we generally do not impose upon others that way. Probably never will. We just collectively voted to change our junior senator. That alone should not be too big an issue anywhere else in the country for at least a few years anyway.
FM,
I thought we were talking about Conrad here. I limited my comments to my views of why he lost his election. I hardly think all Democrats are squeaky clean and now they are in power there will be even more temptations placed in front of them to take the fall from grace. We will all have to keep an eye on them and exercise our perogative to vote them out in 2008, 2010 and 2012 if needed.
The election of Testor to the Senate in and of itself did not change the composition of the senate. Several races went to the Democrats, Montana and Virgina were just the last two counted and so they are memorable. They are no more important to the change than any of the other individual races were.
I fail to see how Burns is/was the only one in the state carrying the torch for regualtory reform for grain shippers in Montana. As I pointed out, Testor and Schweitzer both have a personal interest as well as a professional interest in lower or more competitive shipping rates in MT.
I fail to see how the coal issues you mention hinge upon the committee chair in one Senate committee. The syndiesel is one of the Governor's pet projects. Montana owns a lot of coal buried beneath school trust lands which could be developed for profit and to supply needed funding for public education in Montana. We will have to see if successful development of these coal projects will require federal funding or tax incentives to become profitable. Right now things are still in the very preliminary stages of development. Schweitzer is doing a lot of leg work to bring people and organizations together on this one. Conrad was not voted out of office account Montanans did not want to see coal based industry developed in Montana. He was voted out since he seemed less interested in representing Montana voters than outsiders with lots of money. He was shooting from the hip and striking out at others in a manner not supported by residents towards visitors to the state. Finally, he was beat by someone who shared nearly the same constituency as Burns himself.
So if you really think Montanans lack the big picture view you have failed to understand the state. At least we know the local tapestry we see is colorful but distorted. I am sorry we are not trying to eminent domain the BNSF mainline into an open access railroad for your studies but we generally do not impose upon others that way. Probably never will.
We just collectively voted to change our junior senator. That alone should not be too big an issue anywhere else in the country for at least a few years anyway.
Just keep your eyes and ears on Boxer. There is very little reason to expect business as usual in our nation's coal development projects.
arbfbe wrote:Since this thread has pretty much been hopelessly hijacked there is another on the forum offering some insight to how the hearings are turning out. http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/949220/ShowPost.aspx Perhaps that thread can be kept on track.
Since this thread has pretty much been hopelessly hijacked there is another on the forum offering some insight to how the hearings are turning out.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/949220/ShowPost.aspx Perhaps that thread can be kept on track.
arbfbe wrote:Now what is to stop the railroad from moving more fixed costs to smaller shippers in order to keep a larger customer happy? Especially if the larger shipper has far more potential to increase volume in the long run. How does the railroads setting their own rates in their own manner threaten the economic viability of the industry?
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/949220/ShowPost.aspx
Perhaps that thread can be kept on track.
greyhounds wrote: arbfbe wrote: Greydog, Yes, costs are assigned for each car move. Mostly it is pretty arbitrary and can be skewed any way management wants it to be. Ever wonder why some branch lines the railroads are seeking to abandon have higher costs then some other line with a favored customer? Don't even try to tell me that does not happen. Certainly poor trackage, slow speeds and increased crew costs have something to do with it but the railroads can find ways to "allocate" other costs as they deem fit. This doesn't happen. ******************************REPLY******************************* So unbelievably untrue. You need to get out on the ground around the railroad to find out what really happens. Yes, it happens all the time. **************************************************************************** No railroad company "wants" to abandon any line or service. They don't make money by not hauling freight. They are "forced" to abandon lines that can not be made to pay their way. *********************************REPLY************************** So you do not think railroads cherry pick the freight they want to haul and price the commodities and services they would rather be rid of? ****************************************************************** It a business decision - and what they "want" or "don't want" has nothing to do with things. It's how the analysis works out. The big problem with branch line analysis is not the costing - you can do that for a branch fairly accurately. (as opposed to carload movement costs, which you can't do accurately.) You know the MofW expenses, the crew cost, the taxes, the locomotive hours, the fuel used, etc. *********************************REPLY************************** The "analysis" is many times based upon data meant to give the desired result. The figures are so nebulous at times as to allow any decisions desired. The railroads know how to cook the books to bend the ICC and STB any way they want the findings to go. ******************************************************************* The problem with analyzing a branch is how much of the through movement revenue do you allocate to the branch. ***************************REPLY*************************** That part is correct. Unfortunately different lines may and have been assigned far different values for the same costs at the whim of management. If you give the boss the answer he wants it is commonly beneficial to the careers of those who did the "analysis". ****************************************************************** arbfbe wrote: So how about just adding all the fixed costs and divide that by all the car miles, ton miles or train miles and assign the individual $$ amounts that way? Seems fair and makes a good model but that is not entirely accurate. Then you can add the variable cost for the move to figure the cost to decided whether or not the rate will be suffecient or not. I doubt the railroads are too keen on setting cut rates any more just to increase the volume. (We lose money on every load but we will make it up in volume) The near perfect example of this is all the downtown office space available on upper floors sitting vacant all over the place and landlords who want to hold out for their set rate rather than fill the space with a lower rate. Go figure. Well, which one is it? Car miles, ton miles, train miles or some other totally arbitrary method of pricing? ****************************REPLY*************************** Take your pick. Assigning costs is truely arbitrary. Follow the accounting practices, sort of, cover with lots of camouflage and get things the way you want them. ******************************************************************* What you're proposing is what basically existed prior to deregulation. If you're proposing we go back to that you'd better have a United States Railroad Plan because the existing system of private companies won't work. You're trying to arbitrarily allocate fixed cost. This will destroy the financial viability of the railroads and we'll be right back where we were 25 years ago with deteriorating infrastructure (because there was no money to fix it) and bankrupt railroads. ************************REPLY********************************** I never advocated going back to regulation. The railroads arbitrarily assign fixed costs every time them cost out a move and negotiate a rate. Since most of the larger moves are all under private contract now it would not be easy to dig down through the data. Now what is to stop the railroad from moving more fixed costs to smaller shippers in order to keep a larger customer happy? Especially if the larger shipper has far more potential to increase volume in the long run. How does the railroads setting their own rates in their own manner threaten the economic viability of the industry? ************************************************************************ I see two big problems with such an arbitrary scheem. 1) It will fail to produce the optimal railroad service output for our society/economy. This will harm those of us who live in the US and make our economy less competitive and robust. This failure would be because the railroads would be prohibited from competing for freight that they otherwise could profitably handle to the benifit of society. You're setting an artificial rate floor that will keep prices higher than they would otherwise be. I have no idea why you would want to do this, but you seem to think it's a good idea. 2) It will fail to allow the railroads to maximize their return to shareholders. If they can't do this they will fall into disrepair and ill serve the nation. I have no idea why you would want to do this either.
arbfbe wrote: Greydog, Yes, costs are assigned for each car move. Mostly it is pretty arbitrary and can be skewed any way management wants it to be. Ever wonder why some branch lines the railroads are seeking to abandon have higher costs then some other line with a favored customer? Don't even try to tell me that does not happen. Certainly poor trackage, slow speeds and increased crew costs have something to do with it but the railroads can find ways to "allocate" other costs as they deem fit.
Greydog,
Yes, costs are assigned for each car move. Mostly it is pretty arbitrary and can be skewed any way management wants it to be. Ever wonder why some branch lines the railroads are seeking to abandon have higher costs then some other line with a favored customer? Don't even try to tell me that does not happen. Certainly poor trackage, slow speeds and increased crew costs have something to do with it but the railroads can find ways to "allocate" other costs as they deem fit.
This doesn't happen.
******************************REPLY*******************************
So unbelievably untrue. You need to get out on the ground around the railroad to find out what really happens. Yes, it happens all the time.
****************************************************************************
No railroad company "wants" to abandon any line or service. They don't make money by not hauling freight. They are "forced" to abandon lines that can not be made to pay their way.
*********************************REPLY**************************
So you do not think railroads cherry pick the freight they want to haul and price the commodities and services they would rather be rid of?
******************************************************************
It a business decision - and what they "want" or "don't want" has nothing to do with things. It's how the analysis works out. The big problem with branch line analysis is not the costing - you can do that for a branch fairly accurately. (as opposed to carload movement costs, which you can't do accurately.) You know the MofW expenses, the crew cost, the taxes, the locomotive hours, the fuel used, etc.
The "analysis" is many times based upon data meant to give the desired result. The figures are so nebulous at times as to allow any decisions desired. The railroads know how to cook the books to bend the ICC and STB any way they want the findings to go.
*******************************************************************
The problem with analyzing a branch is how much of the through movement revenue do you allocate to the branch.
***************************REPLY***************************
That part is correct. Unfortunately different lines may and have been assigned far different values for the same costs at the whim of management. If you give the boss the answer he wants it is commonly beneficial to the careers of those who did the "analysis".
arbfbe wrote: So how about just adding all the fixed costs and divide that by all the car miles, ton miles or train miles and assign the individual $$ amounts that way? Seems fair and makes a good model but that is not entirely accurate. Then you can add the variable cost for the move to figure the cost to decided whether or not the rate will be suffecient or not. I doubt the railroads are too keen on setting cut rates any more just to increase the volume. (We lose money on every load but we will make it up in volume) The near perfect example of this is all the downtown office space available on upper floors sitting vacant all over the place and landlords who want to hold out for their set rate rather than fill the space with a lower rate. Go figure.
So how about just adding all the fixed costs and divide that by all the car miles, ton miles or train miles and assign the individual $$ amounts that way? Seems fair and makes a good model but that is not entirely accurate. Then you can add the variable cost for the move to figure the cost to decided whether or not the rate will be suffecient or not. I doubt the railroads are too keen on setting cut rates any more just to increase the volume. (We lose money on every load but we will make it up in volume) The near perfect example of this is all the downtown office space available on upper floors sitting vacant all over the place and landlords who want to hold out for their set rate rather than fill the space with a lower rate. Go figure.
Well, which one is it? Car miles, ton miles, train miles or some other totally arbitrary method of pricing?
****************************REPLY***************************
Take your pick. Assigning costs is truely arbitrary. Follow the accounting practices, sort of, cover with lots of camouflage and get things the way you want them.
What you're proposing is what basically existed prior to deregulation. If you're proposing we go back to that you'd better have a United States Railroad Plan because the existing system of private companies won't work. You're trying to arbitrarily allocate fixed cost. This will destroy the financial viability of the railroads and we'll be right back where we were 25 years ago with deteriorating infrastructure (because there was no money to fix it) and bankrupt railroads.
************************REPLY**********************************
I never advocated going back to regulation. The railroads arbitrarily assign fixed costs every time them cost out a move and negotiate a rate. Since most of the larger moves are all under private contract now it would not be easy to dig down through the data. Now what is to stop the railroad from moving more fixed costs to smaller shippers in order to keep a larger customer happy? Especially if the larger shipper has far more potential to increase volume in the long run. How does the railroads setting their own rates in their own manner threaten the economic viability of the industry?
************************************************************************
I see two big problems with such an arbitrary scheem.
1) It will fail to produce the optimal railroad service output for our society/economy. This will harm those of us who live in the US and make our economy less competitive and robust. This failure would be because the railroads would be prohibited from competing for freight that they otherwise could profitably handle to the benifit of society. You're setting an artificial rate floor that will keep prices higher than they would otherwise be. I have no idea why you would want to do this, but you seem to think it's a good idea.
2) It will fail to allow the railroads to maximize their return to shareholders. If they can't do this they will fall into disrepair and ill serve the nation. I have no idea why you would want to do this either.
Most of your post makes so little sense I wonder if even circular logic can straighten it out. I see no real cause and effect between your posit and conclusions. I would like to try to hire out on your Pollyanna railroad and see it survive in the world of today's big boys. Probably could not quite earn the revenues to stay in business.
***********************************************************************
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
arbfbe wrote: FM, Yes, Conrad, the auctioneer turned radio broadcaster, county commissioner turned US Senator fancied himself a friend of agriculture. He certainly attended enough county fairs and stock auctions while putting out his ag report. He ran against a veterinarian turned US Senator who also was a freind to agriculture about 18 yrs ago. One of Conrad's promises was to not run after two terms since he was a firm believer in term limits. That changed 6 years ago when suddenly seniority was more important than fresh ideas. The only fresh ideas Conrad had came straight from the Republican Caucus until they started coming from Jack Abramhoff and his clients. Conrad would likely still be in the Senate if he had kept playing by the rules. Instead he started to insert pork at the last minute in larger bills. Some came to Montana and some was to benefit schools on a Native American Reservation in another state while at the same time telling Montanans he could not find any more money for schools in MT. He admitted to putting his foot in his mouth on several occasions, some of which made him too much of a hick for rural Montanans to stomach. His tirad against hot shot crews fighting fires in Montana this summer including an implied threat of bodily injury was way over the top and in public. Conrad's rate regulation, rate reduction, rate investigation never were an issue. Only the ag folks would even pay attention to that and probably the ag voters are confident that Senator elect Testor will carry their torch on that issue. You have to consider that Governor Schweitzer (D) raises wheat in the Kalispell area and Senator elect Testor (D) is an organic farmer raising grains in the Big Sandy area where BNSF wants to abandon the only rail line service through that town. So you must think ag interests in the state are well represented in the government even if it is by LIBERAL Democrats. The defeat of Burns by Testor is likely a benefit to the state even if you commonly vote for the knee jerk conservatives. If you try to eek out a living on the family farm big ag business is not likely your friend. Perhaps the knee jerk liberals can bring more light to the business practices so detrimental to the smaller players in MT. If not you can figure Testor will be back driving tractor and combine in 2012.
Yes, Conrad, the auctioneer turned radio broadcaster, county commissioner turned US Senator fancied himself a friend of agriculture. He certainly attended enough county fairs and stock auctions while putting out his ag report. He ran against a veterinarian turned US Senator who also was a freind to agriculture about 18 yrs ago. One of Conrad's promises was to not run after two terms since he was a firm believer in term limits. That changed 6 years ago when suddenly seniority was more important than fresh ideas. The only fresh ideas Conrad had came straight from the Republican Caucus until they started coming from Jack Abramhoff and his clients. Conrad would likely still be in the Senate if he had kept playing by the rules. Instead he started to insert pork at the last minute in larger bills. Some came to Montana and some was to benefit schools on a Native American Reservation in another state while at the same time telling Montanans he could not find any more money for schools in MT. He admitted to putting his foot in his mouth on several occasions, some of which made him too much of a hick for rural Montanans to stomach. His tirad against hot shot crews fighting fires in Montana this summer including an implied threat of bodily injury was way over the top and in public. Conrad's rate regulation, rate reduction, rate investigation never were an issue. Only the ag folks would even pay attention to that and probably the ag voters are confident that Senator elect Testor will carry their torch on that issue. You have to consider that Governor Schweitzer (D) raises wheat in the Kalispell area and Senator elect Testor (D) is an organic farmer raising grains in the Big Sandy area where BNSF wants to abandon the only rail line service through that town. So you must think ag interests in the state are well represented in the government even if it is by LIBERAL Democrats. The defeat of Burns by Testor is likely a benefit to the state even if you commonly vote for the knee jerk conservatives. If you try to eek out a living on the family farm big ag business is not likely your friend. Perhaps the knee jerk liberals can bring more light to the business practices so detrimental to the smaller players in MT. If not you can figure Testor will be back driving tractor and combine in 2012.
Apparently you are a Montanan (and apparenty on more than one level)
Yes, yes, I know, those evil Republicans took money from Abramhoff (but no Democrats did, right?). Etc, etc, etc. Because if you believe all the so-called corruption of Republicans is so overwhelming while the Democrats are so down to earth, I've got some mango orchards in the Owyhees I'd like to sell you. It's akin to that Bible verse - all we've heard over the last few years is the focus on the specks in the Republicans' eyes, all the while ignoring the timbers sticking out of the Democrats' eyes.
In the process of regurgitating to us all the evils of Conrad Burns, you have missed the two subtilties I brought forth regarding Montana rail shipping fortunes:
1. Without Conrad Burns' leading the charge, any hope for rate reductions or intramodal rail competition for Montana grain shippers is now nil. Baucus has been staying below the radar on this one - why would that change now?
2. An even more ominous threat to Montana economic fortunes - with Democrats now having that 1 vote majority in the US Senate, Barbara Boxer now heads the Senate Environmental committee, meaning all new coal prospects are DOA. It does not matter one whit if Baucus, Tester, and Schweitzer go gung-ho for new coal power plants and synthetic diesel plants, with Boxer at the helm it just ain't gonna happen. Contrast that with what would have occurred had Burns won re-election: The US Senate is a 50/50 tie, with Cheney now the tie-breaker, and James Imhoff of Oklahoma is the Senate Environmental chairman. Imhoff favored new coal developments (not to mention expanded petroleum development), and he opposes any attempts to tax or regulate carbon dioxide, an unavoidable emission from any type of coal plant.
If indeed Montanans favor those new coal development plans of Schweitzer, then they should have realized the subtilties of the situation in DC and voted accordingly. But as greyhounds and the rest have inferred over the last few years, perhaps Montanans just don't have the collective insight to comprehend The Big Picture.
Bob W,
Yes, I remember all that you are pointing out. Certainly you cannot offer service which costs more to provide than the customer is willing to pay. First of all you have to figure what the move is going to cost to provide.
greyhounds wrote: JSGreen wrote:Here are the slides (but not the text) of the BNSF comments at the STB hearing...Page 15 says that BNSF rail rates to Montana Grain Farmers have inceased by only 16% (since 1981!) Page 16 says that if Rail rates had kept up with inflation, they would have more than doubled, not increased only 16%. (Note that this is the rate for 52 cars of Grain, not singles.)PAge 17 shows cost per bushel has decreastd 11%(since 2004), and that single car rates is now the same as 26's. Page 20 shows Canadian producers have lower rates, but does not offer an explanation of why this might be. (this link only shows the slides, but not the text of his presentation). I'm going to dispute your interpritation of page 20. I believe it shows the revenue Canadian wheat producers receive for their grain, not their freight charges. They receive less for their wheat than US producers do. Must be that gosh danged CPR. I don't see how any reasonable person could look at this presentation and not say that the BNSF has done well by way of the Montana wheat farmers over the past 25 years. They've certainly kept their costs and rates down. I see this whole issue as a political horse for Montana Democrats to ride. (It's been a really good horse.) They created a typical 6V story line with: 1) a Victim (the Montana wheat farmers) 2) a Villan (the "Railroad Barrons" -exact words of Montana's governor - who live in Texas) 3) a Vindicator (the Democrats fighting the evil on behalf of the farmers) 4) a Value (belief in the family farm - obsolete though it may be - and in 'fairness') 5) a Void (the general publics' lack of knowledge about railroads, economics, and the actual facts.) 6) a Vehicle to deliver the message (the media, such as the Great Falls Tribune, which toes the party line on the story.) The truth doesn't matter. It doesn't fit the 6V story line. The fact that the BNSF has done a fantastic job keeping the cost of moving Montana wheat down, and put money in the farmers' pockets by doing so, just doesn't make the paper.
JSGreen wrote:Here are the slides (but not the text) of the BNSF comments at the STB hearing...Page 15 says that BNSF rail rates to Montana Grain Farmers have inceased by only 16% (since 1981!) Page 16 says that if Rail rates had kept up with inflation, they would have more than doubled, not increased only 16%. (Note that this is the rate for 52 cars of Grain, not singles.)PAge 17 shows cost per bushel has decreastd 11%(since 2004), and that single car rates is now the same as 26's. Page 20 shows Canadian producers have lower rates, but does not offer an explanation of why this might be. (this link only shows the slides, but not the text of his presentation).
I'm going to dispute your interpritation of page 20. I believe it shows the revenue Canadian wheat producers receive for their grain, not their freight charges. They receive less for their wheat than US producers do.
Must be that gosh danged CPR.
I don't see how any reasonable person could look at this presentation and not say that the BNSF has done well by way of the Montana wheat farmers over the past 25 years. They've certainly kept their costs and rates down.
I see this whole issue as a political horse for Montana Democrats to ride. (It's been a really good horse.) They created a typical 6V story line with:
1) a Victim (the Montana wheat farmers)
2) a Villan (the "Railroad Barrons" -exact words of Montana's governor - who live in Texas)
3) a Vindicator (the Democrats fighting the evil on behalf of the farmers)
4) a Value (belief in the family farm - obsolete though it may be - and in 'fairness')
5) a Void (the general publics' lack of knowledge about railroads, economics, and the actual facts.)
6) a Vehicle to deliver the message (the media, such as the Great Falls Tribune, which toes the party line on the story.)
The truth doesn't matter. It doesn't fit the 6V story line. The fact that the BNSF has done a fantastic job keeping the cost of moving Montana wheat down, and put money in the farmers' pockets by doing so, just doesn't make the paper.
So wrong on so many levels.....
FYI - Conrad Burns, Republican, was the lead voice for ameliorating BNSF's rate gouging. (Yes, rate gouging, BNSF's fairy tale presentation notwithstanding - read the real stats: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml ....hurry, the Railway Age news page changes every week!)
Now Montanans have voted out the leading crusader against their captive rail situation. Go figure. Not only that, but the election of Tester over Burns was the one critical Senatorial race that put the Dems in charge of the US Senate, and thus putting California Senator Barbara Boxer (gag!) in charge of the Senate Environmental committee. What does that mean for Montana? Well, BB has pledged to put an end to more coal fired power plants (along with a carbon dioxide tax, bans on domestic oil exploration, etc), meaning Montana's economy is basically screwed, probably forever. So Schwietzer's goal of developing Montana's coal resources to produce synthetic diesel is now dead in the water.
Nice going Montana, you really ****** yourselves now. Hope you enjoy your new tourism based economy, 'cause my friends that's all you got now!
arbfbe wrote: Damn, I must have slept through those classes. First, you start by figuring out what the move cost. Seemed to be pretty railroad specific to me. Of course we also studied the same things for trucking. I don't remember anything about barges nor ocean ships. Actually, it was pretty topical since railroad marketing departments are a declining industry within themselves. I guess if I go back and try it again I will have to ask why such topics are covered in railroad and transportation classses and not restricted to the marketing venues.
Damn, I must have slept through those classes. First, you start by figuring out what the move cost. Seemed to be pretty railroad specific to me. Of course we also studied the same things for trucking. I don't remember anything about barges nor ocean ships.
Actually, it was pretty topical since railroad marketing departments are a declining industry within themselves. I guess if I go back and try it again I will have to ask why such topics are covered in railroad and transportation classses and not restricted to the marketing venues.
I think you should immediately seek a full tuition refund.
There is no such thing as "What the Move Cost." Some cost elements are pretty solid - such as car ownership. If the cars assigned to the movment catch a load every 20 days you can assign 20 days of ownership cost to the move. But how much of the train crew wages do you assign to the load? Or how much track mainenance? You can assign switching cost, but that's what you're doing - just allocating the cost of a yard crew. At some point, you'll have to start paying overtime, but to put that on any one shipment is just arbitrary.
Railroads are a network business. They handle unique, identifiable, business units that are all but impossible to individually cost out. Anybody who just ask "What does it cost us to move this?" without putting a whole bunch of qualifiers around the question just doesn't understand the situation.
arbfbe wrote:Damn, I must have slept through those classes. First, you start by figuring out what the move cost. Seemed to be pretty railroad specific to me. Of course we also studied the same things for trucking. I don't remember anything about barges nor ocean ships. Actually, it was pretty topical since railroad marketing departments are a declining industry within themselves. I guess if I go back and try it again I will have to ask why such topics are covered in railroad and transportation classses and not restricted to the marketing venues.
greyhounds wrote:I'm going to dispute your interpritation of page 20. I believe it shows the revenue Canadian wheat producers receive for their grain, not their freight charges. They receive less for their wheat than US producers do. Must be that gosh danged CPR.
Yep. Went back and re-read it, and danged if it dont....Read Prices, but was thinking about rates...
I like your description of 6V's. Somehow, a compelling story is more important nowadays than a not-misleading one...
greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote: arbfbe wrote: Now it seems like when I was studying railroad pricing in the MBA program we did have to allocate the fixed costs of the line as well as a portion of the fixed costs for the rest of the railroad including all those costs associated with the HQ operations. Passed the classes, did not get the degree. Railroads have a grand history of assigning "relevant" fixed costs from all over the system to certain branch lines they want to abandon. Suddenly these lines become too high a cost and therefore unprofitable and thus MUST be abandoned. Bobwilcox: Which University was this? Their views on railroad pricing, back when there was lots of unused capacity, were really odd. Was it Northwestern, Penn State or Tennessee? This is the best one yet. What university taught railroad pricing in its MBA program? You three guys are unbelievable. Litterally. Greyhounds then wrote: The railroad pricing people (and I was one) are charging as much as they can on any sale. ... I learned this in the Northwesten University Graduate School of Management. ? They taught pricing in the marketing classes - not specifically "railroad" pricing. You seem to become confused very easily.
MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote: arbfbe wrote: Now it seems like when I was studying railroad pricing in the MBA program we did have to allocate the fixed costs of the line as well as a portion of the fixed costs for the rest of the railroad including all those costs associated with the HQ operations. Passed the classes, did not get the degree. Railroads have a grand history of assigning "relevant" fixed costs from all over the system to certain branch lines they want to abandon. Suddenly these lines become too high a cost and therefore unprofitable and thus MUST be abandoned. Bobwilcox: Which University was this? Their views on railroad pricing, back when there was lots of unused capacity, were really odd. Was it Northwestern, Penn State or Tennessee? This is the best one yet. What university taught railroad pricing in its MBA program? You three guys are unbelievable. Litterally. Greyhounds then wrote: The railroad pricing people (and I was one) are charging as much as they can on any sale. ... I learned this in the Northwesten University Graduate School of Management. ?
greyhounds wrote: arbfbe wrote: Now it seems like when I was studying railroad pricing in the MBA program we did have to allocate the fixed costs of the line as well as a portion of the fixed costs for the rest of the railroad including all those costs associated with the HQ operations. Passed the classes, did not get the degree. Railroads have a grand history of assigning "relevant" fixed costs from all over the system to certain branch lines they want to abandon. Suddenly these lines become too high a cost and therefore unprofitable and thus MUST be abandoned. Bobwilcox: Which University was this? Their views on railroad pricing, back when there was lots of unused capacity, were really odd. Was it Northwestern, Penn State or Tennessee? This is the best one yet. What university taught railroad pricing in its MBA program? You three guys are unbelievable. Litterally.
arbfbe wrote: Now it seems like when I was studying railroad pricing in the MBA program we did have to allocate the fixed costs of the line as well as a portion of the fixed costs for the rest of the railroad including all those costs associated with the HQ operations. Passed the classes, did not get the degree. Railroads have a grand history of assigning "relevant" fixed costs from all over the system to certain branch lines they want to abandon. Suddenly these lines become too high a cost and therefore unprofitable and thus MUST be abandoned.
Now it seems like when I was studying railroad pricing in the MBA program we did have to allocate the fixed costs of the line as well as a portion of the fixed costs for the rest of the railroad including all those costs associated with the HQ operations. Passed the classes, did not get the degree.
Railroads have a grand history of assigning "relevant" fixed costs from all over the system to certain branch lines they want to abandon. Suddenly these lines become too high a cost and therefore unprofitable and thus MUST be abandoned.
Bobwilcox: Which University was this? Their views on railroad pricing, back when there was lots of unused capacity, were really odd. Was it Northwestern, Penn State or Tennessee?
Which University was this? Their views on railroad pricing, back when there was lots of unused capacity, were really odd. Was it Northwestern, Penn State or Tennessee?
This is the best one yet.
What university taught railroad pricing in its MBA program?
You three guys are unbelievable. Litterally.
Greyhounds then wrote: The railroad pricing people (and I was one) are charging as much as they can on any sale. ... I learned this in the Northwesten University Graduate School of Management.
The railroad pricing people (and I was one) are charging as much as they can on any sale. ...
I learned this in the Northwesten University Graduate School of Management.
?
They taught pricing in the marketing classes - not specifically "railroad" pricing.
You seem to become confused very easily.
Easy, very easy, to become confused when you post something, especially when you post the same thing twice. How is "pricing" different than "railroad" pricing? I really look forward to that answer ....
Sol is easily confused. They taught pricing as part of the marketing classes - not railroad pricing.
TimChgo9 wrote: All I want to know is.... why these threads turn into a bunch of bickering... Why does everyone have to dispute each other's sources. Look, both sides CAN'T be right, I get so tired of trying to read these threads, and perhaps understand some of the complexity that is involved with moving freight on the railroads, and have it turn into a mess. Usually, the first few posts of any given thread like this, are informative, congenial, and to some extent understandable. Then, after awhile the usual "players" stick their noses in (we all know who they are) offer their opinions, and next thing we know, it's off to the races. One person disputes another's research, or "research" depending on your point of view. Then, the original poster comes under scrutiny, and pretty soon, the thread runs off on a tangent, with the usual suspects trumpeting their experiences or "experiences". Then followed by insults, and put downs, and what have you... Do we, the usual forum readers, have to start asking for verification of experience? Do we need to see your degree? Do we have to have footnotes??? I mean, come on all ready. Here we go, another forum thread that is about to devolved into a flame war. If you feel the desire to insult someone, email it, okay??? I really wish Bergie would start deleting posts, or threads that go this way.... at least he locked the Global Warming one..... Either that, or start a sub forum called "Cage Match" at let you guys just have at one another. So, while I am interested in seeing how the DME saga pans out, and other things that interest me about railroads... I am tired of everyone's bickering, insults, and otherwise, that wind up clogging these threads to the point that, honestly, it seems that no useful information gets put out there. Now, one more thing. will the real railroad management types, please stand up??? Okay, I have said my piece.... Now, let's everyone calm down, and look at a pretty picture. http://www.fotofight.com/images/members/3369/portfolio/80656862.jpg Breathe in, breathe out..... ahh.... Serenity now.....
All I want to know is.... why these threads turn into a bunch of bickering...
Why does everyone have to dispute each other's sources. Look, both sides CAN'T be right, I get so tired of trying to read these threads, and perhaps understand some of the complexity that is involved with moving freight on the railroads, and have it turn into a mess. Usually, the first few posts of any given thread like this, are informative, congenial, and to some extent understandable. Then, after awhile the usual "players" stick their noses in (we all know who they are) offer their opinions, and next thing we know, it's off to the races. One person disputes another's research, or "research" depending on your point of view. Then, the original poster comes under scrutiny, and pretty soon, the thread runs off on a tangent, with the usual suspects trumpeting their experiences or "experiences". Then followed by insults, and put downs, and what have you... Do we, the usual forum readers, have to start asking for verification of experience? Do we need to see your degree? Do we have to have footnotes??? I mean, come on all ready. Here we go, another forum thread that is about to devolved into a flame war. If you feel the desire to insult someone, email it, okay???
I really wish Bergie would start deleting posts, or threads that go this way.... at least he locked the Global Warming one..... Either that, or start a sub forum called "Cage Match" at let you guys just have at one another.
So, while I am interested in seeing how the DME saga pans out, and other things that interest me about railroads... I am tired of everyone's bickering, insults, and otherwise, that wind up clogging these threads to the point that, honestly, it seems that no useful information gets put out there. Now, one more thing. will the real railroad management types, please stand up???
Okay, I have said my piece.... Now, let's everyone calm down, and look at a pretty picture.
http://www.fotofight.com/images/members/3369/portfolio/80656862.jpg
Breathe in, breathe out..... ahh.... Serenity now.....
Bickering? What bickering?
Truth is, these are highly contentious issues, with personal fortunes involved and lifetime belief systems being challenged, e.g. it's standard USA politics at work. Those who feel threatened by challenges to conventional thinking will react in a negative way. It's just human nature.
Bob,
It was UT, 1985.
Which University was this? Their views on railroad pricing, back when their was lots of unused capacity, were really odd. Was it Northwestern, Penn State or Tennessee?
On the branch line issue you followed the ICC regs if you were interested in getting the line abandondend in the shortest time possible. Those regs did not allow for the type of allocation you mention. If they had we would have done it in the dozens of brancline cases I worked on while at the C&NW from 1969-1982.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.