futuremodal wrote: You still don't get it, do you? Why is it so hard to understand the difference between adding capacity to buttress a monopolistic situation, or adding new competitive capacity to alleviate a monopolistic situation? If you cannot grasp the vital importance of this difference, then we are all wasting our time with this thread.
You still don't get it, do you? Why is it so hard to understand the difference between adding capacity to buttress a monopolistic situation, or adding new competitive capacity to alleviate a monopolistic situation? If you cannot grasp the vital importance of this difference, then we are all wasting our time with this thread.
Why is it so hard..........>>perhaps because you're not doing a very good job of explaining why the two are different?
The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't automatically mean that I'm wrong and you are right. You seem to have opinions about DM&E and CREATE that don't mesh with each other. If UP and BNSF wanted to borrow $2.5B of federal money, to put with $3.5B of private money, to expand capacity in the PRB to *secure our national energy security*, would you be against that, as well?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
TomDiehl wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: TomDiehl wrote: How did you get the impression that I'm against the DM&E project? Are you in favor of the DME project ? Yes.
nanaimo73 wrote: TomDiehl wrote: How did you get the impression that I'm against the DM&E project? Are you in favor of the DME project ?
TomDiehl wrote: How did you get the impression that I'm against the DM&E project?
How did you get the impression that I'm against the DM&E project?
Are you in favor of the DME project ?
Yes.
Thanks for an honest answer.
nanaimo73 wrote: TomDiehl wrote: Chicago is a major rail hub, as well as a major bottleneck. The CREATE project is designed to releive at least part of that bottleneck and allow for higher average train speeds. I think there was someone on the forum here that was pushing the idea of increasing train speeds. Tom, you seem to be in favor of CREATE, and against the DME project. Is that correct, or are you just trolling ?
TomDiehl wrote: Chicago is a major rail hub, as well as a major bottleneck. The CREATE project is designed to releive at least part of that bottleneck and allow for higher average train speeds. I think there was someone on the forum here that was pushing the idea of increasing train speeds.
Chicago is a major rail hub, as well as a major bottleneck. The CREATE project is designed to releive at least part of that bottleneck and allow for higher average train speeds. I think there was someone on the forum here that was pushing the idea of increasing train speeds.
Tom, you seem to be in favor of CREATE, and against the DME project. Is that correct, or are you just trolling ?
This was my reply to Dave, who was making the comparison and claiming the CREATE had no "similar impact" for the nation, as noted in the following statement by Dave:
"Quite obviously, the DM&E project has ramifications for national energy security beyond it's regional impacts.
Conversely, I don't see where CREATE will have a similar positive impact for the nation." (end Dave's quote)
futuremodal wrote:[ Quothe John Ficker, president of the National Industrial Transportation League, regarding the NITL's support for the DM&E project - "The movement of coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin is important not just to utilities, but also to shippers in general; since a significant portion of the nation’s electrical supply—upon which all industry is dependent—is powered by Powder River Basin coal.” Quite obviously, the DM&E project has ramifications for national energy security beyond it's regional impacts. Conversely, I don't see where CREATE will have a similar positive impact for the nation.
Quothe John Ficker, president of the National Industrial Transportation League, regarding the NITL's support for the DM&E project - "The movement of coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin is important not just to utilities, but also to shippers in general; since a significant portion of the nation’s electrical supply—upon which all industry is dependent—is powered by Powder River Basin coal.”
Quite obviously, the DM&E project has ramifications for national energy security beyond it's regional impacts.
Conversely, I don't see where CREATE will have a similar positive impact for the nation.
I wonder who that was?
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote:Contrast CREATE with the DM&E project - the nation can do without CREATE, even if it means finding an alternative farther south, while the DM&E project is by consensus deemed vital to national energy security. Ergo, there should be no federal funds for CREATE, and significant federal funds for DM&E's PRB project. Using your logic, the nation could do without CREATE and DM&E, even if it means finding an alternative farther south-down the existing Orin line. I'm not sure about the concensus deeming DM&E vital to national energy security.(?) The push behind DM&E is to haul coal to utilities cheaper than UP and BNSF do now. This will positively effect only those utility customers who will be paying for cheaper coal. There is also the distinct possibility that all rail customers will be negetively impacted. To be truthful, one wonders if $6B was used to improve the existing lines out of the PRB,everyone (except DM&E of course) would come out ahead. Heck, maybe it would be more cost effective to use the $6B to subsidize freight to captive customers?
futuremodal wrote:Contrast CREATE with the DM&E project - the nation can do without CREATE, even if it means finding an alternative farther south, while the DM&E project is by consensus deemed vital to national energy security. Ergo, there should be no federal funds for CREATE, and significant federal funds for DM&E's PRB project.
Using your logic, the nation could do without CREATE and DM&E, even if it means finding an alternative farther south-down the existing Orin line. I'm not sure about the concensus deeming DM&E vital to national energy security.(?) The push behind DM&E is to haul coal to utilities cheaper than UP and BNSF do now. This will positively effect only those utility customers who will be paying for cheaper coal. There is also the distinct possibility that all rail customers will be negetively impacted.
To be truthful, one wonders if $6B was used to improve the existing lines out of the PRB,everyone (except DM&E of course) would come out ahead. Heck, maybe it would be more cost effective to use the $6B to subsidize freight to captive customers?
From Logistics Today:
http://www.logisticstoday.com/displayStory.asp?nID=8275
Murphy Siding wrote: Using your logic, the nation could do without CREATE and DM&E
Using your logic, the nation could do without CREATE and DM&E
Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Intentionally or otherwise.
Murphy Siding wrote: This will positively effect only those utility customers who will be paying for cheaper coal.
nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: You all have got to get off this myth of US railroads being the collective poster child exemplifying "a private, for-profit company". There's simply too much history of federal aid for railroading in the US to use them as such. How much has BNSF recieved from the taxpayer for PRB lines since Matt Rose took over from Krebs ?
futuremodal wrote: You all have got to get off this myth of US railroads being the collective poster child exemplifying "a private, for-profit company". There's simply too much history of federal aid for railroading in the US to use them as such.
You all have got to get off this myth of US railroads being the collective poster child exemplifying "a private, for-profit company". There's simply too much history of federal aid for railroading in the US to use them as such.
How much has BNSF recieved from the taxpayer for PRB lines since Matt Rose took over from Krebs ?
Why is "since" more relevent than "before"? It's fairly easy to show the facade of being an exemplary private company after you've cashed all the welfare checks from prior decades.
...unless the Democrats take over DC and all coal fired power plants are shut down to *save* us from Global Warming. Anything further the Democrats do will increase the sales of PRB coal and hurt eastern coal.
...unless the Democrats take over DC and all coal fired power plants are shut down to *save* us from Global Warming.
Anything further the Democrats do will increase the sales of PRB coal and hurt eastern coal.
It's more than just the low-sulfer vs high sulfer debate. Look around at all the states' with renewable mandates on their ballots this year. These renewable mandates (usually demanding 10% or 15% of electricity generated be from so-called renewables) are mostly pushed by Democrats, so it is likely that if the Democrats take back Congress, they'll nationalize that so-far regionalize initiative. That plus the prospects of a carbon tax on the national level would kill most new coal projects.
That being said, I don't think I have ever seen a company come out in public opposition of a potential competitor in such a shameful brazen way as BNSF has regarding the DM&E project. No KMart exec has ever voiced opposition to a Walmart that I know of. I have never heard of a McDonalds manager publicly voicing opposition to a Wendy's or a Burger King. Walmart or Wendy's or Burger King are not applying for billions in tax dollars to fight K-mart or McDonalds in their most profitable markets.
That being said, I don't think I have ever seen a company come out in public opposition of a potential competitor in such a shameful brazen way as BNSF has regarding the DM&E project. No KMart exec has ever voiced opposition to a Walmart that I know of. I have never heard of a McDonalds manager publicly voicing opposition to a Wendy's or a Burger King.
Walmart or Wendy's or Burger King are not applying for billions in tax dollars to fight K-mart or McDonalds in their most profitable markets.
Not sure what you mean here - DM&E is simply asking for something it's competitors have already recieved.
Dave, if you want to say DME is the good guy, and this project should go ahead, then I'll agree with you. You seem to keep using the wrong arguments to support DME.
DM&E is new competitive rail capacity, something sorely lacking out West. That's what makes them the good guys. And as a prospective conveyor of new competitive rail capacity they are deserving of some form of federal support same as the current PRB duo have received in the past.
I also can't understand why you are so passionate about this, and have so little interest in CREATE.
Becasue CREATE has all the earmarks of a mamoth boondoggle on the scale of Boston's Big Dig (or Seattle's proposed Alaskan Viaduct replacement project), and for the same wrong reasons - trying to squeeze in more activity in an area that is already over populated, over built, over indulged. We (i.e. the rest of us non Chicagoans) don't need the CREATE project to speed rail service between East and West. There's more than enough room to build east-west rail connections far from any of the Big Cities.
Urban projects such as these make no sense to me in the context of some supposed national gain from what is strictly a glorified urban renewal project. City properties are mega times more expensive than non city properties when considering ROW purchases. There is no hard fast rule that states all Northern Tier US rail traffic absolutely must pass through Chicago. It would be a fraction of the cost to move such rail connections a few hundred miles south at the least, if not a few thousand miles south.
I'll reiterate - East West rail traffic does not have to move through Chicago.
Contrast CREATE with the DM&E project - the nation can do without CREATE, even if it means finding an alternative farther south, while the DM&E project is by consensus deemed vital to national energy security. Ergo, there should be no federal funds for CREATE, and significant federal funds for DM&E's PRB project.
Murphy Siding wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: solzrules wrote: n012944 wrote: solzrules wrote: Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest. It was more like 10 Billion, and all ailines that recieved money are still around and making payments. Bert Really. Even the bankrupt ones? Solz -- Bert & I follow this stuff because O'Hare and Midway are in our backyard -- and Chicago is the world HQ for United Airlines: Could the same type of *bailout*(?) type loan be used if a railroad (DM&E for example) got in too deep? Would it have the same consequences and reactions by creditors?
Poppa_Zit wrote: solzrules wrote: n012944 wrote: solzrules wrote: Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest. It was more like 10 Billion, and all ailines that recieved money are still around and making payments. Bert Really. Even the bankrupt ones? Solz -- Bert & I follow this stuff because O'Hare and Midway are in our backyard -- and Chicago is the world HQ for United Airlines:
solzrules wrote: n012944 wrote: solzrules wrote: Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest. It was more like 10 Billion, and all ailines that recieved money are still around and making payments. Bert Really. Even the bankrupt ones?
n012944 wrote: solzrules wrote: Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest. It was more like 10 Billion, and all ailines that recieved money are still around and making payments. Bert
solzrules wrote: Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest.
Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest.
It was more like 10 Billion, and all ailines that recieved money are still around and making payments.
Bert
Really. Even the bankrupt ones?
Solz --
Bert & I follow this stuff because O'Hare and Midway are in our backyard -- and Chicago is the world HQ for United Airlines:
Could the same type of *bailout*(?) type loan be used if a railroad (DM&E for example) got in too deep? Would it have the same consequences and reactions by creditors?
Very interesting thought there, Murph. Is it not ironic how the airlines were forced into bankruptcy and the accompanying federal loan process because of overcapacity -- while with the railroads it is the exact opposite.
PZ
Bert & I follow this stuff because O'Hare and Midway are in our backyard -- and Chicago is the world HQ for United Airlines. :
CHICAGO — (Feb. 01, 2006) UAL Corp, parent of United Airlines, (UAUA) ended three years in Chapter 11 protection Wednesday, wrapping up the most expensive airline bankruptcy in history.
The No. 2 U.S. airline, which used its time in protection from creditors to slash costs by $7 billion a year, now must sink or swim in a fiercely competitive industry that is plagued by soaring fuel costs and overcapacity.
"We have achieved a great deal in our restructuring to reposition this company and build upon our assets, an unrivaled global network and our dedicated employees," UAL's Chief Executive Glenn Tilton said in a statement. "We can be better. We are in a very competitive industry, and we take nothing for granted." (Associated Press)
solzrules wrote: n012944 wrote: solzrules wrote: Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest. It was more like 10 Billion, and all airlines that recieved money are still around and making payments. Bert Really. Even the bankrupt ones?
n012944 wrote: solzrules wrote: Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors. Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right? Who paid that back? I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest. It was more like 10 Billion, and all airlines that recieved money are still around and making payments. Bert
It was more like 10 Billion, and all airlines that recieved money are still around and making payments.
Yes it was one of the conditions of the loans from the ATSB, that if the airline went to a chapter of bankruptcy that was still allowing the airline to fly, the loans would still have to be repaid. If the airlines went to a chapter of bankruptcy that resulted in a shut down and liquidation, the goverment loans would be repaid before other creditors. That was on of the reasons that when United filed for the ATSB loan, its creditors were opposed to the airline getting it, they knew that if something happend and United folded, they would receive very little after the goverment got their piece of the pie.
An "expensive model collector"
Nothing yet.
There are some more mines just across the border in Montana that are not listed there. I believe they are East Decker, West Decker and Spring Creek.
nanaimo73 wrote: These Terraserver links ............. Dale@Links-R-Us
These Terraserver links ............. Dale@Links-R-Us
So........What kind of commision do you get from Terraserver, for all that business you send their way from the Trains Magazine forum?
futuremodal wrote: Most of the prime coal mines are in the Southern end. DM&E will run a north-south line alongside the Orin line.
Most of the prime coal mines are in the Southern end. DM&E will run a north-south line alongside the Orin line.
According to Dale Terraserver's post above, 14% of the coal comes from these *captive* mines. One would think they would be "easy targets" for a new rail provider.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: bobwilcox wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case? Can you explain this thought a little better? Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan? Yes. Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy". I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes. Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors. Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors? Because the DM&E PRB line would make a nice capacity addition to all the PRB railroads, as it's East-West profile would reduce BNSF transit time between the Orin line and the Alliance sub. All BNSF has to do is to play nice, and it is likely DM&E will be willing to rent out any extra capacity they might have on that portion, in order to maximize the line's revenue potential. But of course that's not how US rail execs think, given the long sorry history of the integrated closed access mindset. Geez, did Feudalism even last that long? In that last paragraph, you can delete the words "US rail" and still be accurate. Why would a private, for-profit company want to support the expansion of the competition? You'd think someone that claims a bookkeeping background would know that. You can start by telling us how much K-Mart supported the expansion of the WalMart stores over the last decade or so. That would make as much sense as what you're suggesting. You all have got to get off this myth of US railroads being the collective poster child exemplifying "a private, for-profit company". There's simply too much history of federal aid for railroading in the US to use them as such. And that gets to the gist of the point of the matter..... I have not said BNSF should for all intents and purposes "support a competitor". Rather, given the current lack of capacity and competition in the PRB, BNSF should use the opportunity to carve out their own capacity niche via the inevitable DM&E project. There's more than enough business there to support all three railroads and still stay ahead of the demand curve, e.g. all three roads will enjoy pricing power for PRB deliveries (unless the Democrats take over DC and all coal fired power plants are shut down to *save* us from Global Warming.) That being said, I don't think I have ever seen a company come out in public opposition of a potential competitor in such a shameful brazen way as BNSF has regarding the DM&E project. No KMart exec has ever voiced opposition to a Walmart that I know of (most Walmart opposition comes from mom and pop types, or more succinctly extreme lefties posing as mom and pop types!). I have never heard of a McDonalds manager publicly voicing opposition to a Wendy's or a Burger King. No trucking company that I know of has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another truckload carrier into even the small markets, no barge line has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another barge line onto our waterways, no airline has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another air line into small air markets. Oh, for sure there's private opposition in all these examples, that's par for the course in business. But outright public opposition? Not at this scale.
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: bobwilcox wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case? Can you explain this thought a little better? Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan? Yes. Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy". I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes. Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors. Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors? Because the DM&E PRB line would make a nice capacity addition to all the PRB railroads, as it's East-West profile would reduce BNSF transit time between the Orin line and the Alliance sub. All BNSF has to do is to play nice, and it is likely DM&E will be willing to rent out any extra capacity they might have on that portion, in order to maximize the line's revenue potential. But of course that's not how US rail execs think, given the long sorry history of the integrated closed access mindset. Geez, did Feudalism even last that long? In that last paragraph, you can delete the words "US rail" and still be accurate. Why would a private, for-profit company want to support the expansion of the competition? You'd think someone that claims a bookkeeping background would know that. You can start by telling us how much K-Mart supported the expansion of the WalMart stores over the last decade or so. That would make as much sense as what you're suggesting.
futuremodal wrote: bobwilcox wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case? Can you explain this thought a little better? Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan? Yes. Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy". I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes. Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors. Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors? Because the DM&E PRB line would make a nice capacity addition to all the PRB railroads, as it's East-West profile would reduce BNSF transit time between the Orin line and the Alliance sub. All BNSF has to do is to play nice, and it is likely DM&E will be willing to rent out any extra capacity they might have on that portion, in order to maximize the line's revenue potential. But of course that's not how US rail execs think, given the long sorry history of the integrated closed access mindset. Geez, did Feudalism even last that long?
bobwilcox wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case? Can you explain this thought a little better? Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan? Yes. Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy". I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes. Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors. Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors?
futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case? Can you explain this thought a little better? Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan? Yes. Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy". I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes.
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case? Can you explain this thought a little better? Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?
futuremodal wrote: Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case?
Can you explain this thought a little better? Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?
Yes. Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy".
I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes.
Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors. Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors?
Because the DM&E PRB line would make a nice capacity addition to all the PRB railroads, as it's East-West profile would reduce BNSF transit time between the Orin line and the Alliance sub. All BNSF has to do is to play nice, and it is likely DM&E will be willing to rent out any extra capacity they might have on that portion, in order to maximize the line's revenue potential.
But of course that's not how US rail execs think, given the long sorry history of the integrated closed access mindset. Geez, did Feudalism even last that long?
In that last paragraph, you can delete the words "US rail" and still be accurate. Why would a private, for-profit company want to support the expansion of the competition? You'd think someone that claims a bookkeeping background would know that. You can start by telling us how much K-Mart supported the expansion of the WalMart stores over the last decade or so. That would make as much sense as what you're suggesting.
And that gets to the gist of the point of the matter.....
I have not said BNSF should for all intents and purposes "support a competitor". Rather, given the current lack of capacity and competition in the PRB, BNSF should use the opportunity to carve out their own capacity niche via the inevitable DM&E project. There's more than enough business there to support all three railroads and still stay ahead of the demand curve, e.g. all three roads will enjoy pricing power for PRB deliveries (unless the Democrats take over DC and all coal fired power plants are shut down to *save* us from Global Warming.)
That being said, I don't think I have ever seen a company come out in public opposition of a potential competitor in such a shameful brazen way as BNSF has regarding the DM&E project. No KMart exec has ever voiced opposition to a Walmart that I know of (most Walmart opposition comes from mom and pop types, or more succinctly extreme lefties posing as mom and pop types!). I have never heard of a McDonalds manager publicly voicing opposition to a Wendy's or a Burger King. No trucking company that I know of has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another truckload carrier into even the small markets, no barge line has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another barge line onto our waterways, no airline has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another air line into small air markets.
Oh, for sure there's private opposition in all these examples, that's par for the course in business. But outright public opposition? Not at this scale.
I never said they were a "poster child" for anything, they're just like any large corporation, take what they can get from the government and the public.
But you still haven't explained why any company would support a competitor, railroad or not. And you should get your head out of the sand and realize that K-Mart, as well as the mom-and-pop stores, have come out opposing the opening of WalMarts, which just seem to open directly across the street from the K-Marts, at least where we're developed enough to have both.
The "more than enough business" argument doesn't wash, either. It doesn't matter if you apply it to railroads, or large retailers, they want all the business to themselves. That's not any more believable than your blanket statements of "no company ever objected publically to competition." At least the BNSF was open enough about it to object in the public forums, which would hardly be called "private opposition."
Murphy Siding wrote: Meanwhile....back at the DM&E.....Overview of what I'm getting out of this discussion: Because of the capital situation of rail investment, the only way to finance something like this is with Government loans. Both BNSF and UP used some Government loans to get their lines built/built up into the PRB. The DM&E project would bring jobs and economic improvement to (most of>>>don't ask Rochester) the areas it impacts. I'm in agreement with most of these ideas. I do find myself skepticle about some things. Is it really neccessary to add a third railroad into the PRB? Why does it require more than two to have competition?
Meanwhile....back at the DM&E.....Overview of what I'm getting out of this discussion: Because of the capital situation of rail investment, the only way to finance something like this is with Government loans. Both BNSF and UP used some Government loans to get their lines built/built up into the PRB. The DM&E project would bring jobs and economic improvement to (most of>>>don't ask Rochester) the areas it impacts. I'm in agreement with most of these ideas.
I do find myself skepticle about some things. Is it really neccessary to add a third railroad into the PRB? Why does it require more than two to have competition?
Do a Yahoo Search (I don't do Google, bunch of Commie bastards!) of "Duopoly vs Triopoly". You should find some studies remarking on the relative difference of simply adding a third competitor to the mix. In short, duopoly rates are not that far removed from monopoly rates, whereas triopoly rates are relatively close to true competitive rates.
Why isn't DM&E heading to the northern PRB, where BNSF has the field all to itself?
Other than glittering generalities, is there anything proposed to put additional non-coal freight on the line? Where will this coal go? Will DM&E send coal down the Mississippi, at Winona, Minnesota? Will DM&E have to partner up with other railroads to get the job done? Do BNSF and UP have enough economic power to keep this from happening?
Don't know all the details yet, but it may be possible that this new PRB line will allow a new interchange point with UP for some non-coal westbound traffic. Yeah, the same for BNSF, but I doubt BNSF will want to route more non-coal westbound freight onto it's Wyoming lines. BNSF will probably keep it's DM&E/D&S interchange for grain et al via Aberdeen.
Yes, BNSF and UP could use the full force of their power to try and stop the project, but with the spector of reregulation hanging over their heads they can't squawk too loudly.
Murph, I got the message.
Also I posted this on your C&NW thread 13 months ago. The northern mines are smaller that the southern mines.
The Chicago and North Western entered the Powder River Basin on the WRPI which was owned by Union Pacific. This line started at Joyce, Nebraska. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=731&Y=5802&W
It joined the old C&NW Cowboy line at Crandall, Wyoming. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=710&Y=5906&W
WRPI track ended at Shawnee Junction where BNSF track continues north. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=613&Y=5917&W
The main C&NW base was at Bill. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=598&Y=5982&W
The first mine served was Antelope which produced 29,682,854 tons of coal in 2004. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=589&Y=6016&W
The next mine was North Antelope-Rochelle which produced 82,462,835 tons. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=13&X=299&Y=3012&W
The third mine was North Rochelle which produced 13,163,942 tons. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=13&X=298&Y=3011&W
Mine #4 is Black Thunder which produced 74,291,168 tons. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=13&X=596&Y=6047&W
Next is Jacobs Ranch at 38,556,877. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=13&X=300&Y=3024&W
And then Coal Creek which was inactive in 2004. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=13&X=297&Y=3042&W
Cordero comes next with 38,743,667 which includes Rojo. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=14&Z=13&X=147&Y=1523&W
Rojo http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=13&X=294&Y=3049&W
Belle Ayr produced 18,688,358 tons in 2004. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=14&Z=13&X=146&Y=1525&W
The northernmost mine served by the C&NW was Caballo which produced 26,500,000 http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=13&X=294&Y=3052&W
During 2004 the mines in the WRPI territory produced 322,089,700 tons of coal, about 880,000 tons per day, or about 7,300 cars (65 trains).
North of the WRPI zone BNSF serves several mines on their own. Wyodak 4,780,104 tons Eagle Butte 22,997,687 Dry Fork 4,533,621 Rawhide 6,869,989 Buckskin 12,794,992 http://www.wma-minelife.com/coal/coalfrm/coalfrm1.htm These Terraserver links are several years old. I believe the trackage should still be the same but the mine facings will be quite different. Dale@Links-R-Us
Dave, if you want to say DME is the good guy, and this project should go ahead, then I'll agree with you. You seem to keep using the wrong arguments to support DME. I also can't understand why you are so passionate about this, and have so little interest in CREATE.
futuremodal wrote: no airline has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another air line into small air markets.
no airline has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another air line into small air markets.
How about large air markets. About two years ago Independance Air started service from O'Hare to Dulles, with the city of Chicago finding a gate for them at ORD. Well United airlines had a FIT!!! They blasted both the city and Independance in the newpapers and on TV. As for small markets, Hooters Airlines went nuts on the city of Rockford when the city gave United a little cash to start flying there. Hooters went so far as to pull out of RFD before United started their service just to prove a point. FM you should have learned by now, never say never.
I can see what you are saying with the map. I am not familiar with the layout of the mines in the PRB. If the DME would stop at Gillette, then I am sure the mines served by the BN only would not benefit.
I do remember reading that in order to prevent tiffs between UP and BNSF there was something like a neutral switching railroad that actually fed the trains through the mines. I think they used BNSF or UP power but provided their own crews. Could be wrong though. I don't know if that applies to all mines, even the ones north of Gillette, or how the DME would figure in to that equation when it is ready.
Murphy Siding wrote: solzrules: I have to tread lightly. My ancestors were wheat farmers on one side,Montana homesteaders on the other side. Take a look at the map in your link. The green line that extends north of the proposed DM&E line is the BNSF, going north to Gillette. There are 3 or 4 mines north of Gillette served by BNSF only. As far as pricing. How can you not have competition, if two railroads, BNSF and UP serve the same mine. I bet those mines north of Gillette pay more than the mines south of town.
solzrules: I have to tread lightly. My ancestors were wheat farmers on one side,Montana homesteaders on the other side.
Take a look at the map in your link. The green line that extends north of the proposed DM&E line is the BNSF, going north to Gillette. There are 3 or 4 mines north of Gillette served by BNSF only.
As far as pricing. How can you not have competition, if two railroads, BNSF and UP serve the same mine. I bet those mines north of Gillette pay more than the mines south of town.
nanaimo73 wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?(Sorry Murph) I'm stiil trying to figure out the riddle from Dale (Nanaimo73) about the significance of August 12th.(?) Murph, I'll let you know by personal message. It was a guess that I now believe is wrong.
Murphy Siding wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?(Sorry Murph) I'm stiil trying to figure out the riddle from Dale (Nanaimo73) about the significance of August 12th.(?)
TheAntiGates wrote: How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?(Sorry Murph)
I'm stiil trying to figure out the riddle from Dale (Nanaimo73) about the significance of August 12th.(?)
Murph, I'll let you know by personal message. It was a guess that I now believe is wrong.
Dale: I *think* I replied to your PM. I'll be dernded if I can tell if it went through.
-Norris
Murphy Siding wrote: Meanwhile....back at the DM&E.....Overview of what I'm getting out of this discussion: Because of the capital situation of rail investment, the only way to finance something like this is with Government loans. Both BNSF and UP used some Government loans to get their lines built/built up into the PRB. The DM&E project would bring jobs and economic improvement to (most of>>>don't ask Rochester) the areas it impacts. I'm in agreement with most of these ideas. I do find myself skepticle about some things. Is it really neccessary to add a third railroad into the PRB? Why does it require more than two to have competition? Why isn't DM&E heading to the northern PRB, where BNSF has the field all to itself? Other than glittering generalities, is there anything proposed to put additional non-coal freight on the line? Where will this coal go? Will DM&E send coal down the Mississippi, at Winona, Minnesota? Will DM&E have to partner up with other railroads to get the job done? Do BNSF and UP have enough economic power to keep this from happening? What are your thoughts?
I do find myself skepticle about some things. Is it really neccessary to add a third railroad into the PRB? Why does it require more than two to have competition? Why isn't DM&E heading to the northern PRB, where BNSF has the field all to itself? Other than glittering generalities, is there anything proposed to put additional non-coal freight on the line? Where will this coal go? Will DM&E send coal down the Mississippi, at Winona, Minnesota? Will DM&E have to partner up with other railroads to get the job done? Do BNSF and UP have enough economic power to keep this from happening?
What are your thoughts?
Come on, Murph, you don't debate American Indians? We could go over the "Don't blame the RR's" thread and debate homesteading.......
Anyhoo to your thoughts:
I think that a third railroad will certainly provide more competition in the PRB. Although this is PURE speculation, if UP and BNSF were fixing prices (they do already to an extent, I guess, by charging what the market will bear), it would be a whole lot harder to fix prices if there was a third player in the market.
As to why the DME isn't heading into the northern PRB check the map out here:
http://www.dmerail.com/PRB/Projectoverview%20Map.htm
Not sure if this answers your thought but it does appear that the railroad wants to head north and south.
One comment you made that stands out regarding any additional traffic: Coal is the driving motivation here, but there are all kinds of farmers' organizations that are excited about this, too. The DME does not list ag as one of the big factors in this line. It is possible that there may be some future business developed from this line in the ag market, or that DME will steal some of the business from BNSF in a good 'ole market war.
As for coal connections, I can think of a couple already. CP rail gets coal from UP for a power plant at Portage, WI. That would be one potential customer. There are several power plants in SE WI along the UP and CP right of way. I think one even has spurs built in from both lines. There is definitely potential for a shift in traffic. WE Energies just got involved with a lawsuit against the UP because UP wasn't able to meet its contractual obligations on coal deliveries for the 2005 yr (I think). Certainly they would keep all their options open. There is also a UP train that runs on CN (ex-Wisconsin Central) that delivers coal to some place north of here. Again, via a DME-CP Rail connection in Winona this could conceivably be potential customer.
All of this could potentially result in lower electricity rates.
Capitalism is great!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.