DM&E Financing revisited.

[Murphy Siding]

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

     I hate to get off track here, when we are all so good at staying on track......but-  Where I live, the white men took the land from the Sioux, who had, in fact, forcefully taken it from the Mandans and I *think* the Arikaras.  The Sioux came here, after being forced out of Minn/Wisc by the Ojibawa, who were pushed west by the........and on and on.  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

[Poppa_Zit]

The  land wasn't "free",  it was stolen from the Native Americans

And they came from where, got it how, and from whom?

I seriously doubt there were any indigenous people on this land mass. The so-called Native Americans were here before the Europeans showed up, 

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

Yes, I consider euro-occupation of North America to be a "stolen" presence.

  and therefore having such claiming rights.

My my, now THERE is convenient thinking , if ever there was such a case.

I'm sure you, Pizarro, and the whole "manifest destiny" bunch  could have had an orgy of self indulgence with that one.

First possession might indicate otherwise.

Seems like even the hucksters who bartered trinkets and beads for manhattan island had a more ethical view than the one you propose

First of all, I don't need anyone to hijack what I write and use my words to twist and misinterpret them into something unrelated that fits their liberal agenda.

I suggest you check your history of American Indian tribes before you point fingers and mount a defense. Some tribes were peace-loving, and unfortunately too often were massacred into extinction (can you spell "genocide?") by ruthless, savage tribes who wanted their land and resources. In America, this occupation-and-displacement/extinction scenario had been going on for centuries -- long before your Pizarro and the Manifest Destiny gang arrived. What made Europeans different than all previous invader/occupiers of North America was their superior technology -- especially in the area of weaponry.

And when I referred to "claiming rights" please use the entire quote as I wrote it:

"I seriously doubt there were any indigenous people on this land mass. The so-called Native Americans were here before the Europeans showed up, which is something totally different from originating here and therefore having such claiming rights."

 I stand on what I wrote in its unspun form. Now I will wait for you to next defend whatever people or culture the so-called Native Americans "stole" it from.

As I wrote, there is a big difference between "first possession" and "then-current possession." History starts when history starts, not when it's convenient for your arguments. 

[Anonymous]

  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

1100?!  I thought the Irish didn't get here until Prohibition was repealed.

[Anonymous]

 

    

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.

[bobwilcox]

 

    

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?

[Poppa_Zit]

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

     I hate to get off track here, when we are all so good at staying on track......but-  Where I live, the white men took the land from the Sioux, who had, in fact, forcefully taken it from the Mandans and I *think* the Arikaras.  The Sioux came here, after being forced out of Minn/Wisc by the Ojibawa, who were pushed west by the........and on and on.  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

Same here in Northern Illinois, Murph.

To wit:

"In 1667 the French priest Allouez met a party of Illinois Indians who had come to La Pointe on Lake Superior to trade. In 1673 Marquette, while descending the Mississippi, found the Peoria and Moingwena west of the river near the mouth of the Des Moines, but before his return they had moved to the neighborhood of the present Peoria, and most of the other Illinois tribes, except the Mitchigamea, were then on Illinois River. In 1700 the Kaskaskia moved to southern Illinois and settled on Kaskaskia River. About the time of La Salle's visit in 1682 the Illinois were at war with a number of neighboring peoples, and the Iroquois, who were then just beginning raids against them, caused them heavy losses in the succeeding years.
     The murder of Pontiac (tribal chieftan) by a Kaskaskia Indian set the northern tribes in motion against the Illinois and in the ensuing wars the latter were reduced to a fraction of their former strength and the Sauk, Foxes, Kickapoo, and Potawatomi dispossessed them of the greater part of their territories. The remnant settled near the French at Kaskaskia, where they continued to decline in numbers until, in 1800, only about 150 were left. In 1832 the survivors sold their lands and removed west of the Mississippi, to the present Kansas, whence they removed again in 1867 and became consolidated with the Wea and Piankashaw in the northeastern corner of the present State of Oklahoma."

Source: Access Geneology: Indian Tribal records

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/illinois/index.htm 

 

[nanaimo73]

FM-

1) He's Norwegian.

2) Are you in favor of CREATE, as it would benefit American railroads, or against it, as it would benefit BNSF ? Or is it outside the PNW and not of interest to you ?

[Anonymous]

FM-

1) He's Norwegian.

I know.  He's mentioned that before, but I thought he said he was also part Irish, like me.

2) Are you in favor of CREATE, as it would benefit American railroads, or against it, as it would benefit BNSF ? Or is it outside the PNW and not of interest to you ?

CREATE seems to be a pro-Chicago thing.  You're opening up a whole 'nother can of worms there, as I would prefer transcon traffic completely bypass Chi-town.  There's other villages that would make just as apt East-West gateways if not better.  It sounds like another "Big Dig" just waiting to happen.

But if we must have it, then at least it should benefit the up-and-comers like KCS and DM&E as much as the BNSF's and UP's of the world.

[Anonymous]

 

    

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?

[nanaimo73]

Murph-

If you look on page two of this link, DME says it is a loan that will be paid back with interest.

http://www.dmerail.com/News/Myths%20and%20Facts.pdf

Myth: DM&E is seeking a government subsidized loan that has no collateral.

Fact: The loan would be fully secured with collateral. There is no taxpayer

subsidization. It will be paid back to the government by DM&E with interest. Further, the

Congressional Budget Office has specifically determined that the FRA loan does not cost

anything to taxpayers, and by law has determined that the loan does not constitute a

subsidy.

[Murphy Siding]

  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

1100?!  I thought the Irish didn't get here until Prohibition was repealed.

     Actually,my father's ancestors came from Norway.  My mother's ancestors were Irish, and became homesteaders in Montana.  Fortuneately for me, they don't grow wheat.

[Anonymous]

First of all, I don't need anyone to hijack what I write and use my words to twist and misinterpret them

 Coming from a  guy who often skews intended meaning to indulge his own fascination with sarcasm, you have so much room to talk.    If you are trying to scold me, I remain unimpressed

I suggest you check your history of American Indian tribes before you point fingers and mount a defense. Some tribes were peace-loving, and unfortunately too often were massacred into extinction . 

OK,  humoring your premise just for my own amusement, who did the people commonly  referred to as the 'native americans"   supposedly steal the land from?

I think the "native americans" are grandfathered in. Absent a proveable timeline to the contrary, your  counterclaims are rather... impotent..  lol!.

Sure, there was infighting amongst them, just as there has always been among euro countries.

Does the fact that France and England have had wars between them, invalidate France's claim to France. England's claim to England?

What makes Germany's claim to German soil any more valid that the Native american's claim to their own homeland?


That ethnocentric  belief of self importance among the euros,   and the subsequent  pretense that stealing in the name of an omnipotent superstition is justifiable,  is an absurd fairytale..

[solzrules]

First of all, I don't need anyone to hijack what I write and use my words to twist and misinterpret them

 Coming from a  guy who often skews intended meaning to indulge his own fascination with sarcasm, you have so much room to talk.    If you are trying to scold me, I remain unimpressed

I suggest you check your history of American Indian tribes before you point fingers and mount a defense. Some tribes were peace-loving, and unfortunately too often were massacred into extinction . 

OK,  humoring your premise just for my own amusement, who did the people commonly  referred to as the 'native americans"   supposedly steal the land from?

I think the "native americans" are grandfathered in. Absent a proveable timeline to the contrary, your  counterclaims are rather... impotent..  lol!.

Sure, there was infighting amongst them, just as there has always been among euro countries.

Does the fact that France and England have had wars between them, invalidate France's claim to France. England's claim to England?

What makes Germany's claim to German soil any more valid that the Native american's claim to their own homeland?


That ethnocentric  belief of self importance among the euros,   and the subsequent  pretense that stealing in the name of an omnipotent superstition is justifiable,  is an absurd fairytale..

And as an ethnocentric self-improtant euro, when do you propose to return your property to its rightful 'owners'?

Surely such a self-righteous soul as yourself would have done this already, I'm guessing.  I, on the other hand, am a greedy european who constructs mammoth statues to my greatness (on other peoples' land, mind you) while laughing at my victories over the weaker peoples of this little ole planet of mine.  (Sarcasm intended)

Tee-Hee!

 

[Anonymous]

Surely such a self-righteous soul as yourself would have done this already, I'm guessing.  I, on the other hand, am a greedy european who constructs mammoth statues to my greatness (on other peoples' land, mind you) while laughing at my victories over the weaker peoples of this little ole planet of mine.  (Sarcasm intended)

Tee-Hee!

 

I've been declared a "righteous white dude" by a Native American friend of mine, he tells me I can stay as his invitee.

Funny how a simple (and accurate, I will  point out) comment I made to Michael Sol has been picked up  and made a seperately debated issue by the same band of merry pranksters.

How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?

(Sorry Murph)

[Murphy Siding]

Surely such a self-righteous soul as yourself would have done this already, I'm guessing.  I, on the other hand, am a greedy european who constructs mammoth statues to my greatness (on other peoples' land, mind you) while laughing at my victories over the weaker peoples of this little ole planet of mine.  (Sarcasm intended)

Tee-Hee!

 

I've been declared a "righteous white dude" by a Native American friend of mine, he tells me I can stay as his invitee.

Funny how a simple (and accurate, I will  point out) comment I made to Michael Sol has been picked up  and made a seperately debated issue by the same band of merry pranksters.

How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?

(Sorry Murph)

       I guess I'm just waiting for the music to stop so we can all grab a chair!  It's not vey often, that we can layer this many different  debates into one thread. 

[nanaimo73]

  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. 

[Poppa_Zit]

Post started, then deleted upon further review. Decided not to waste any more time responding to silliness.

[TomDiehl]

 

    

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.

[Anonymous]

 

    

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.

[Murphy Siding]

     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?

[solzrules]

     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?

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! 

[Murphy Siding]

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.

[Murphy Siding]

  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

[solzrules]

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.

 

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.

 

[n012944]

 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.

 

Bert

[n012944]

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]

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?

[nanaimo73]

 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 ?

 ...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.

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.

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.

[nanaimo73]

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 

 

[Anonymous]

     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? 

Most of the prime coal mines are in the Southern end.  DM&E will run a north-south line alongside the Orin line.

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.