Interesting article, if somewhat truncated from what one would suppose would be included in this particular subject matter......(insert fake coughing sound "DME!"):
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/12/07/news/wyoming/25-railroad.tx
Missing Quote of Note: "DM&E's PRB line cannot be built too soon...."
Oh well, can't complain about the author or the paper too much, given that the paper put some neat photos of PRB trains in action!
But really, how seriously can we take the claims by UP and BNSF that "we're putting in track about as fast as we can build it"? They are projected to spend only $100 million for Orin line improvements, while the DM&E line into the PRB itself has to be a couple of billion itself out of the whole $6 billion project total. Shouldn't UP and BNSF also be projecting billions for new PRB trackage if they really want to keep up with demand?
futuremodal wrote: But really, how seriously can we take the claims by UP and BNSF that "we're putting in track about as fast as we can build it"? They are projected to spend only $100 million for Orin line improvements, while the DM&E line into the PRB itself has to be a couple of billion itself out of the whole $6 billion project total. Shouldn't UP and BNSF also be projecting billions for new PRB trackage if they really want to keep up with demand?
I see someone's grasp on reality (what little there was, shut-ins tend to be just a little myoptic as well) has been reduced. If you are around the M/W forces up in NE Wyoming for any period of time, you'd see how tightly the manpower rubber-band is stretched. You would also see that construction activity is constant (even at this time of year, which is almost counterproductive in moist or frozen conditions)and everywhere you go... Try to bring in additional manpower there and then the question becomes where do you put them, how do you avoid burning them out and how do you keep the operating side fluid?
You also have to look at the fact that UP and BNSF already have the land, or most of it. Adding another track to an existing right of way, is far cheaper then building an entirely new line.
DME will have to aquire the land. In addition to the construction costs, there are the costly environmental impact studies and any remediation those studies will require. And don't forget the NIMBY factor.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Another factor that wasn't mentioned is that many utilities have gone to "just-in-time" logistics and have eliminated the 45-day surge inventory of coal that was often seen at many power plants, which leaves little to no margin for error in delivery.
Despite what FM may think, $100 million is still a lot of money, and both BNSF and UP still have to maintain and upgrade the rest of their system, so the allocation of M/W and upgrading dollars is often a matter of setting priorities on a systemwide basis.
Dave knows all of this...he just baited his hook and cast out, and now he is getting a few nibbles.
Give it a few more replies, and he will set the hook, then proceed to bombast us with the evils of the railroad monopolies, the benefits of open access as he sees it, and take the chance to insult as many of you as he can, to feed his petty ego.
Face it guys, you are showing pictures and talking to a deaf mute that lives at the back of a narrow ally behind a dumpster, crouching there all the while grumbling about how the rest of the world doesn't recognize or appreciate his genius.
There is a reason he is back there, you know.
He is just fishing for an argument, SSDD.
23 17 46 11
This interesting quote from the article:
"Industry analyst Donald Broughton of A.G. Edwards & Sons said railroads shouldn't take all the blame for the coal capacity problems because the facilities at the mines and utilities are part of the issue.Everyone would benefit from higher capacity, he said. It's just a matter of determining who will pay for all the improvements."The finger-pointing and crying about who needs to do more is just good old-fashioned negotiating, in my mind," Broughton said."
Of course, some may decide Broughton is just a lackey for the railroads and the AAR.
Google indicates that this article was picked up by many newspapers. Some had "Struggle" in the headline while others said "Railroads move coal in record amounts". I guess "struggle" can be interpreted different ways, but the suggestion that the railroads "Can't" get the job done seems to be pushing the spin envelope just a bit.
"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
mudchicken wrote: futuremodal wrote: But really, how seriously can we take the claims by UP and BNSF that "we're putting in track about as fast as we can build it"? They are projected to spend only $100 million for Orin line improvements, while the DM&E line into the PRB itself has to be a couple of billion itself out of the whole $6 billion project total. Shouldn't UP and BNSF also be projecting billions for new PRB trackage if they really want to keep up with demand? I see someone's grasp on reality (what little there was, shut-ins tend to be just a little myoptic as well) has been reduced. If you are around the M/W forces up in NE Wyoming for any period of time, you'd see how tightly the manpower rubber-band is stretched. You would also see that construction activity is constant (even at this time of year, which is almost counterproductive in moist or frozen conditions)and everywhere you go... Try to bring in additional manpower there and then the question becomes where do you put them, how do you avoid burning them out and how do you keep the operating side fluid?
Gawd, it must really suck to be you, Mudchuck. Every single reply you post is full of unnecessary venom. Oh well, it takes all kinds.....
The question put forth was the $100 million by the mega-corps UP and BNSF vs the $2 billion or more of tiny DM&E. The answer is also the beggar's followup - UP/BNSF are only "laying tracks as fast as they can" in the sense of mostly maintaining what they've got, with a few siding extensions thrown in for good measure.
Oh, and thank you Mudchuck for that expose on the maintenance window. Like we've not heard about that before......
Because therein lies the problem - One cannot be "laying tracks as fast as yadda yadda.." if they are really only maintaining what they've got, token siding expansions notwithstanding. Real track laying would mean brand new trackage - yes, adding double track to single track and triple track to double track, but also new trackage over new corridors to relieve the chokepoints and ameliorate the risk of derailment-caused corridor shutdown. As has been harped on before, just adding tracks alongside existing tracks does not prevent the shutdown of the entire corridor if even one derailment scatters coal cars over all three tracks.
It shouldn't disrupt current operations to lay new tracks beside existing tracks, but going by Mudchucks reply one gets a counter impression.
The bottom line - if UP and BNSF were really serious about expanding PRB capacity and preventing future supply disruptions, they'd be laying track on alternate corridors. That's what the DM&E project is attempting to resolve, it's new track over a new corridor. Which means (hopefully in a few years) the next time a BNSF coal train derails and scatters green and gray hoppers over half of Converse County, shutting down the quintuple(?) tracked Orin line for another three weeks in the process, the DM&E's coal trains will be happily running along unfettered on it's new independent line, undelayed by such misplaced over-consolidation of critical trackage as ol' Green and Yellow.
edblysard wrote: Dave knows all of this...he just baited his hook and cast out, and now he is getting a few nibbles.Give it a few more replies, and he will set the hook, then proceed to bombast us with the evils of the railroad monopolies, the benefits of open access as he sees it, and take the chance to insult as many of you as he can, to feed his petty ego.Face it guys, you are showing pictures and talking to a deaf mute that lives at the back of a narrow ally behind a dumpster, crouching there all the while grumbling about how the rest of the world doesn't recognize or appreciate his genius.There is a reason he is back there, you know.He is just fishing for an argument, SSDD.
Looks like Ed is soliciting for yet another soap eating feast from Bergie! How many will that be for you now, Ed? Like 12 or so?
Try this for a change:
ACTUALLY TRY AND DISCUSS THE TOPIC AT HAND!
jeaton wrote: This interesting quote from the article:"Industry analyst Donald Broughton of A.G. Edwards & Sons said railroads shouldn't take all the blame for the coal capacity problems because the facilities at the mines and utilities are part of the issue.Everyone would benefit from higher capacity, he said. It's just a matter of determining who will pay for all the improvements."The finger-pointing and crying about who needs to do more is just good old-fashioned negotiating, in my mind," Broughton said."Of course, some may decide Broughton is just a lackey for the railroads and the AAR. Google indicates that this article was picked up by many newspapers. Some had "Struggle" in the headline while others said "Railroads move coal in record amounts". I guess "struggle" can be interpreted different ways, but the suggestion that the railroads "Can't" get the job done seems to be pushing the spin envelope just a bit.
Jay, ya missed the gist again!
What I was pointing out was the lack of any mention of the DM&E project, and the subsequent comparison of DM&E PRB spending vs the stated PRB spending goals of UP/BNSF. Just thought it was a strange omission, since it would make those stated numbers look puny by comparison.
But since you brought it up....
Doesn't it seem strange to you that Broughton plays the "adding capacity" card as some sort of liability to the railroads, rather than treating new capacity as a revenue producing asset? It's funny, but usually businesses will gladly finance new capacity when demand is outstripping current supply, but the railroads.........??? Heck, they even have a new conduit to the federal treasury for loan guarantees for new construction!
Probably not paying that much attention, but isn't the DME going to have to use the Orin Line to reach most of the mines?
It would be interesting to see how the single line DM&E, with only 20 to 25% of the capacity would handle the tonnage when a derailment wipes out the Orin Line for THREE WEEKS? (Maybe they use Oxen to clear train wrecks in FM land.)
Of course the DM&E will never have train wrecks.
jeaton wrote: Probably not paying that much attention, but isn't the DME going to have to use the Orin Line to reach most of the mines?It would be interesting to see how the single line DM&E, with only 20 to 25% of the capacity would handle the tonnage when a derailment wipes out the Orin Line for THREE WEEKS? (Maybe they use Oxen to clear train wrecks in FM land.)Of course the DM&E will never have train wrecks.
Didn't it take three weeks to clear that last derailment on the Orin, you know, the one that caused coal stockpiles to run out nationwide? Don't know if it was because BNSF hired some oxen outfit to clear the coal dust from the ballast or not.........
Sure, DM&E will have it's share of derailments, no one is perfect. The point is, a DM&E PRB derailment will not cause the shutdown of all coal deliveries from the PRB for weeks on end, since it will be new trackage over a new corridor. (It's my understanding that the DM&E will build a line parallel to the Orin line going north and south once it's line from the east reaches that point.)
In fact, the DM&E line represents a safety net for continued coal deliveries that is not currently present with the UP/BNSF setup. Like the old saying - "Don't put all your eggs in one basket".
And I will reiterate that Matt Rose and BNSF are fools for publicly criticising the DM&E project (possibly abetting a possible rejection of the DM&E application), when it is becoming clear to anyone with reasonable judgement that BNSF should instead be rushing to help finance the DM&E PRB extension in exchange for trackage rights at least as far as Edgemont, something that would bail out BNSF when the current Orin line gets shut down for some reason.
futuremodal wrote: edblysard wrote: Dave knows all of this...he just baited his hook and cast out, and now he is getting a few nibbles.Give it a few more replies, and he will set the hook, then proceed to bombast us with the evils of the railroad monopolies, the benefits of open access as he sees it, and take the chance to insult as many of you as he can, to feed his petty ego.Face it guys, you are showing pictures and talking to a deaf mute that lives at the back of a narrow ally behind a dumpster, crouching there all the while grumbling about how the rest of the world doesn't recognize or appreciate his genius.There is a reason he is back there, you know.He is just fishing for an argument, SSDD.Looks like Ed is soliciting for yet another soap eating feast from Bergie! How many will that be for you now, Ed? Like 12 or so?Try this for a change:ACTUALLY TRY AND DISCUSS THE TOPIC AT HAND!
Looks like you called that one, Ed. Funny, I wonder how many times Bergie had to warn Dave? Especially since he seems to know so much about how many times anyone else has (or maybe that's just something else that only exists in his mind).
futuremodal wrote:ACTUALLY TRY AND DISCUSS THE TOPIC AT HAND!
So I have a question for you, Mr. Futuremodal - why is it that on the threads that I engage into discussion with you, your participation dies out? Am I a boring conversationalist? Do I have bad breath?
What does it take to *keep* you engaged in a meaningful discussion?
FM-
Could you please refrain from insulting the Mudchicken, even if you believe he deserves it ?
He is one of the best contributors to this forum, and it would not hurt you to let it go. You do have several other targets at your disposal.
nanaimo73 wrote: FM-Could you please refrain from insulting the Mudchicken, even if you believe he deserves it ?He is one of the best contributors to this forum, and it would not hurt you to let it go. You do have several other targets at your disposal.
What I'd like to know is why is any of this going on. We have recognized experts in the practical parts of railroading, and even should we disagree with them, we need to respect them. Among other things, that means being polite. Then the only time that we would hear from Bergie would be with very good news for all.
If flameing, or setting someone(s) up for the same, is all that you have to do, then you need to get a new life - a real life.
Whoa there Davie,
You really need to deal with your anger/ego issues through a professional.
I mean, you know self medicating isn't really the answer....
I may be sorry for jumping in on one of these. But here's UP's latest:
Additional rail line improvements are expected to boost the railroad's coal capacity in 2007. The completion of a third main line south of Reno Junction, Wyo., and five new train landing tracks just completed at the mines will help boost capacity on the Joint Line owned by UP and BNSF to more than 375 million tons. During 2006 the Joint Line is expected to support more than 350 million tons of coal.
Future improvements, including construction of a third main line north of Reno Junction and a fourth main line south of Nacco Junction, Wyo., are expected to boost Joint Line capacity to more than 400 million tons per year. Grading is already under way on both of these projects and completion is expected in late 2007.
Keep in mind that UP's investment in trackwork usually involves its own trackage only. I believe (may not be accurate) that the responsibility of joint-line maintenance is BNSF's.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
spokyone wrote:Does FM have a point about BNSF pursuing trackage rights over the DM&E
No. Mat Rose is not anybody's fool (as FM foolishly claimed). And building a rail line as "standby" capcity is a waste of money.
Potential brief service interuptions can be more efficiently handled by stockpilling coal. Safety stock coal will offer more protection than a second rail line. For example, it will also protect against a mine shut down, something that also happens. A "standby" rail line will be useless in such a situation.
TomDiehl wrote: Funny, I wonder how many times Bergie had to warn Dave?
None. How about you, Tom?
Datafever wrote: futuremodal wrote: ACTUALLY TRY AND DISCUSS THE TOPIC AT HAND!So I have a question for you, Mr. Futuremodal - why is it that on the threads that I engage into discussion with you, your participation dies out? Am I a boring conversationalist? Do I have bad breath?What does it take to *keep* you engaged in a meaningful discussion?
futuremodal wrote: ACTUALLY TRY AND DISCUSS THE TOPIC AT HAND!
????
When have I ever passed on a chance to keep meaningful discussions fully engaged, except of course when Mudchicken or Ed come along and **** all over it?
Dale,
Question: Do you think Mr. MC has a special right to be needlessly insulting in ALL his posts, just because he is a track maintenance expert?
edblysard wrote: Whoa there Davie, You really need to deal with your anger/ego issues through a professional.I mean, you know self medicating isn't really the answer....
Strike two!
futuremodal wrote: Dale,Question: Do you think Mr. MC has a special right to be needlessly insulting in ALL his posts, just because he is a track maintenance expert?
I feel that MC only insults people when he is annoyed.
The Ilks are different. They seem to insult people because they enjoy doing so, and probably enjoy your return fire.
greyhounds wrote: spokyone wrote:Does FM have a point about BNSF pursuing trackage rights over the DM&ENo. Mat Rose is not anybody's fool (as FM foolishly claimed). And building a rail line as "standby" capcity is a waste of money.Potential brief service interuptions can be more efficiently handled by stockpilling coal. Safety stock coal will offer more protection than a second rail line. For example, it will also protect against a mine shut down, something that also happens. A "standby" rail line will be useless in such a situation.
Does anyone know where Ken got this idea that new capacity in the PRB would be "standby"?
And yes, Matt Rose is an ABSOLUTE fool to not take advantage of the inevitable DM&E PRB extension by aiding the financing of the new line in some way in return for additional (not "standby") capacity.
And while we're at it, will someone please inform Ken that the current Orin line is shared capacity, so including DM&E in the shared capacity concept is a win-win for all three parties, not to mention the nation's coal consumers.
nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Dale,Question: Do you think Mr. MC has a special right to be needlessly insulting in ALL his posts, just because he is a track maintenance expert?I feel that MC only insults people when he is annoyed.The Ilks are different. They seem to insult people because they enjoy doing so, and probably enjoy your return fire.
Well, we're still at an impasse here then, because MC seems to get overly "annoyed" at general criticisms of his employer's actions. I feel it is a legitimate critisism of BNSF that they do not see the PRB capacity relief potential of the DM&E project, let alone the inherent failings of consolidating all new capacity into one corridor rather than dispersing the new capacity.
Here's another perspective on the consolidation vs dispersement conundrum: The problems that led to the extended closure of the Orin line, e.g. coal dust from passing trains becoming embedded into the ballast, will still be present if new capacity is added to present corridors. Indeed, adding more PRB throughput on a single corridor will only increase the coal dust problem, right?
The BNSF and UP are annoyed at the DM&E for attempting to invade their nice little Wyoming candy store. Estimates I have seen predict the DM&E will take from 10% to 30% of the existing coal business the BNSF and UP CURRENTLY haul from the PRB. Given the growth of PRB exports this may not reduce the tonnage the two entrenched roads will haul in the future but I am sure the big boys feel that all future loading increases belong to THEM and not some upstart wooden axle intruder from the east. BNSF will be more affected than the UP since the DM&E traffic would seem to be destined for the upper midwest than the areas the UP serves. While the UP can use former C&NW trackage to reach into the upper midwest the UP routing through North Platte is a distance disadvantage against the BNSF's more direct routing.
Perhaps, after the DM&E builds their lines into the PRB and BNSF and UP are forced to deal with their operations they might take a more realistic view of the options the new lines will offer. Certainly the new DM&E lines will open new opportunities to relieve times of congestion in the PRB as well as new entries to existing and future mine locations. The feathers have been ruffled and the two big bulls are just not going to be happy when forced to open the gate to the newcomer.
One also needs to note that the engineering of the lines to the mines in the original BN construction emphasized distance over grade. The BN looked for the shortest distance between existing and projected mine sites and then just connected the dots. The result has been long hard pulls hard on both men and equipment. There is a reason for the rack full of spare knuckles at the tops of some of the hills and the racks are frequently visited. DPU operations have helped with that issue but I think the railroads should be eyeing new alignments for loaded trains rather than quadrupling and quintupling the existing alignment surveyed more than 30 years ago. Back then the PRB was still a bit of a risk but by now both the BNSF and the UP should realize the coal is here to stay and it would benefit them to build lines to reduce their operational nightmares rather than just keep doing business as usual.
futuremodal wrote:????When have I ever passed on a chance to keep meaningful discussions fully engaged...?
When have I ever passed on a chance to keep meaningful discussions fully engaged...?
How about the threads "Saving the Railroad Industry TO Death - The Evil of Economic Freight Rate Regulation" and ""Open Access" and regulation of railroad freight rates" just to name a couple?
At one point I specifically opened the door to give you the opportunity to convince me why your definition of captive shippers was more logical. I have also asked general questions on those threads and on other threads (not to you specifically) that went unanswered.
I could probably go back and compile a list of comments that I have made or questions that I have asked that were never responded to.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.