"Railroads can't maintain pace of coal demand"

[edblysard]

Make up your mind Dave, we talking baseball or trains?

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!

[TomDiehl]

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).

Sounds like Dave has had a few "soap eating feasts from Bergie" judging by this statement.

[Anonymous]

Make up your mind Dave, we talking baseball or trains?

 

It looks like there is more  to the original story than he was admitting to 

[jeaton]

Frankly, I am neutral on the whole DME extension issue. 

But what I find very humorous is FM's assertion that the DME would actually have "standby" capacity to handle a diversion of the BNSF/UP business if the Orin line went down.  Unless that guy that owns the DME is a total idiot, he is going to run his railroad at capacity.  According to information the DME submitted to the STB, their annual capacity number will be 100 million tons or about 18-20 trains a day. 

Meanwhile the BNSF and UP are going to take about 325 million tons out of the basin this year, and with the capacity work finished this year will get to 375 million tons in 2007.  Then with the $100 million expansion scheduled for 2007 their capacity will go up over 400 million tons per year. 

Assuming no further expansion of the Orin line capacity, DME's capacity will make the annual total about 500 million.  Currently, over 600 million tons per year is permitted.  I have seen numbers as high as 700 million tons per year going out in 15-20 years. 

Even with the DME in the play, excess capacity and lower rates will only exist in FM's dreams.

[JSGreen]

It looks like there is more  to the original story than he was admitting to 

 

Futuremodal wrote on December 08, 2006 11:23 AM
These guys are off their rocker, the only clear solution to the PRB coalfield dilemma is open access and tons of taxpayer subsidies. If the huge rail duopolies cannot meet demand, why not bankroll DM&E and let them git-r-done? 

 

I am going out on a limb here, and assuming that the FM in the Billings Gazzette is the one and the same who lends so much to the proceedings here....

but my point is, WHY should taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the company?  All that does is spreads the cost of the operation to a larger body.  Why not let the folks who are going to benefit from the coal pay for it all?  You have yet to show any overiding social benefit to such a subsidy.  

[Anonymous]

Even with the DME in the play, excess capacity and lower rates will only exist in FM's dreams.

 

 The promise of lower costs leading to lower end prices to the consumer is  a proven political football.

 

The "suspension of disbelief" follows easily when ma and pa kettle are tantalized with a lower cost of living .

[Anonymous]

WHY should taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the company?  All that does is spreads the cost of the operation to a larger body.  Why not let the folks who are going to benefit from the coal pay for it all?  You have yet to show any overiding social benefit to such a subsidy.  

 

One can only guess and wonder.  My personal suspicion is that it comes from a belief that goverment spending and waste are unavoidable, so a strategy for success is to "get your share" before everybody else does. A somewhat misguided but not at all uncommon perception, I'm afraid. It's why this country's budget mushrooms the way it does.

 

You see variations of this mindset in the arguments  that since truckers are indirectly subsidized through taxpayer funded highway improvements, then freight railroads are "owed" a similar stipend, (infa structure improvements, etc) or that since commercial airlines are subsidized, so too must be Amtrak. etc.

[Anonymous]

It looks like there is more  to the original story than he was admitting to 

 

Futuremodal wrote on December 08, 2006 11:23 AM
These guys are off their rocker, the only clear solution to the PRB coalfield dilemma is open access and tons of taxpayer subsidies. If the huge rail duopolies cannot meet demand, why not bankroll DM&E and let them git-r-done? 

 

I am going out on a limb here, and assuming that the FM in the Billings Gazzette is the one and the same who lends so much to the proceedings here....

but my point is, WHY should taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the company?  All that does is spreads the cost of the operation to a larger body.  Why not let the folks who are going to benefit from the coal pay for it all?  You have yet to show any overiding social benefit to such a subsidy.  

First of all, that ain't me.  I have never in my life used the phrase "git-r-done".  Secondly, I don't use my TRAINS forum user name anywhere other than on this forum. 

Yet another case of a cowardly ilk stealing my TRAINS identity for some disingenuous purpose.  My guess is that it's Ed B, since he's tried a similar tactic on this forum in the past.

But to counter your point, why should the taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the NS double stack clearance project?  Why did the taxpayers have to SUBSIDIZE the Alameda Corridor?  Why are the taxpayers having to subsidize the Reno Trench?  Etc., etc., etc.

[Anonymous]

????

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. 

Perhaps it's a case of you not liking the answers I gave.

As for the captive shipper definition, I thought a stated quite clearly that my definition - "Rail captivity is defined as a rail shipper having only one physical connection to a Class I" - is as far as I know the only objective way of determining captivity, whereas using arbitrary R/VC ratio's is subjective.

That's it.  Beyond that definition we'd be getting into needless minutia.

So go ahead and compile your list, and I'll answer them anew.  Keep in mind that for some of your questions someone else provided a better answer than I ever could, but I suppose I could have given you a "ditto" reply if that's what you wanted.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I am neutral on the whole DME extension issue. 

But what I find very humorous is FM's assertion that the DME would actually have "standby" capacity to handle a diversion of the BNSF/UP business if the Orin line went down.  Unless that guy that owns the DME is a total idiot, he is going to run his railroad at capacity.  According to information the DME submitted to the STB, their annual capacity number will be 100 million tons or about 18-20 trains a day. 

Meanwhile the BNSF and UP are going to take about 325 million tons out of the basin this year, and with the capacity work finished this year will get to 375 million tons in 2007.  Then with the $100 million expansion scheduled for 2007 their capacity will go up over 400 million tons per year. 

Assuming no further expansion of the Orin line capacity, DME's capacity will make the annual total about 500 million.  Currently, over 600 million tons per year is permitted.  I have seen numbers as high as 700 million tons per year going out in 15-20 years. 

Even with the DME in the play, excess capacity and lower rates will only exist in FM's dreams.

Jay, Jay, Jay.....

Surely you've heard of railroads using a competitor's trackage when their own is taken out of service for some reason......?

Keep in mind also that the DM&E will build a parallel line to a good portion of the Orin line.  That would allow for some directional running if all three parties can come to such an agreement, and directional running can concievably double capacity of bi-directional trackage.

[Datafever]

Perhaps it's a case of you not liking the answers I gave.

Perhaps it is.  So what?  If we all agreed about everything, then there would be nothing to discuss, would there?  I am giving you the opportunity to convince me that what you are saying (on any particular subject) is a credible way of looking at the world.  If you are going to insist that the world is round, you have to do better at explaining your reasoning than "because I said so".

 

As for the captive shipper definition, I thought a stated quite clearly that my definition - "Rail captivity is defined as a rail shipper having only one physical connection to a Class I" - is as far as I know the only objective way of determining captivity, whereas using arbitrary R/VC ratio's is subjective.

That's it.  Beyond that definition we'd be getting into needless minutia.

The R/VC definition is a standard.  Your definition is a standard.  Standards do not have "objectivity" or "subjectivity" in and of themselves.  It is in the application of the standard that the objectivity or subjectivity comes into play.  The R/VC standard is meant to be applied subjectively, but can be applied objectively.  As for your standard - well, I can't say for sure, but it appears to have a lot of loopholes that make it fairly subjective.

Unless, of course, your unwillingness to investigate specific cases stems from your knowledge that your definition would not stand up to closer scrutiny. 

[TomDiehl]

Yet another case of a cowardly ilk stealing my TRAINS identity for some disingenuous purpose.  My guess is that it's Ed B, since he's tried a similar tactic on this forum in the past.

And just WHO are you claiming used this tactic in the past, falsifying a post by a user named "TomDeihl"

And you claimed you "spelled it right," even after I called you on it.

[TimChgo9]

ALRIGHT!! ENOUGH ALREADY!! 

I am sending everyone to the corner for a time out, so we can get this thread back on track...well, that is if it ever was on track from the beginning....

SHEESH!!

[edblysard]

 

Dave,

Only an absolute coward denies his own words...clearly you are the author mentioned, the style, wording and sarcasm are uniquely yours, and you carried it through in your posted response including the very newspaper quote you deny.

Sad when you are too afraid to claim your published works.

Bluntly, if I were to ever write to the editor of any newspaper, I would use my own name.

Mainly because I am not afraid of saying what I mean, nor afraid of being shown I am wrong.

It is called learning, which I dare say you gave up a long time ago.

 

Regardless, I have no need to pretend to be you, and then portray you as an insecure idiot...you are perfectly capable of doing that all on your own.

 

Mr. Tim, you are correct, the thread was never on topic, the only reason it exists is provide Dave a table to feed his insecurities from.

Go back and read every one of his threads, they are all the same basic garbage over and over, you could cut and paste almost every response Dave gives, and swap them out willy nilly in any of his threads and still end up with the same rhetoric.

I suggest this one be allowed to die out, as nothing can be gained other than providing Dave another soapbox.

It looks like there is more  to the original story than he was admitting to 

 

Futuremodal wrote on December 08, 2006 11:23 AM
These guys are off their rocker, the only clear solution to the PRB coalfield dilemma is open access and tons of taxpayer subsidies. If the huge rail duopolies cannot meet demand, why not bankroll DM&E and let them git-r-done? 

 

I am going out on a limb here, and assuming that the FM in the Billings Gazzette is the one and the same who lends so much to the proceedings here....

but my point is, WHY should taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the company?  All that does is spreads the cost of the operation to a larger body.  Why not let the folks who are going to benefit from the coal pay for it all?  You have yet to show any overiding social benefit to such a subsidy.  

First of all, that ain't me.  I have never in my life used the phrase "git-r-done".  Secondly, I don't use my TRAINS forum user name anywhere other than on this forum. 

Yet another case of a cowardly ilk stealing my TRAINS identity for some disingenuous purpose.  My guess is that it's Ed B, since he's tried a similar tactic on this forum in the past.

But to counter your point, why should the taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the NS double stack clearance project?  Why did the taxpayers have to SUBSIDIZE the Alameda Corridor?  Why are the taxpayers having to subsidize the Reno Trench?  Etc., etc., etc.

[jeaton]

Frankly, I am neutral on the whole DME extension issue. 

But what I find very humorous is FM's assertion that the DME would actually have "standby" capacity to handle a diversion of the BNSF/UP business if the Orin line went down.  Unless that guy that owns the DME is a total idiot, he is going to run his railroad at capacity.  According to information the DME submitted to the STB, their annual capacity number will be 100 million tons or about 18-20 trains a day. 

Meanwhile the BNSF and UP are going to take about 325 million tons out of the basin this year, and with the capacity work finished this year will get to 375 million tons in 2007.  Then with the $100 million expansion scheduled for 2007 their capacity will go up over 400 million tons per year. 

Assuming no further expansion of the Orin line capacity, DME's capacity will make the annual total about 500 million.  Currently, over 600 million tons per year is permitted.  I have seen numbers as high as 700 million tons per year going out in 15-20 years. 

Even with the DME in the play, excess capacity and lower rates will only exist in FM's dreams.

Jay, Jay, Jay.....

Surely you've heard of railroads using a competitor's trackage when their own is taken out of service for some reason......?

Keep in mind also that the DM&E will build a parallel line to a good portion of the Orin line.  That would allow for some directional running if all three parties can come to such an agreement, and directional running can concievably double capacity of bi-directional trackage.

?

[Anonymous]

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?

Depends upon who you talk to/choose to believe.

 

If one looks here the evil BNSF juggernaut  is spending $600 Million in 2006 alone to expand capacity of it's coal distro network.

[JSGreen]

First of all, that ain't me.  I have never in my life used the phrase "git-r-done".  Secondly, I don't use my TRAINS forum user name anywhere other than on this forum. 

Which is why I stated it as an assumption; thanks for the clarification. 

But to counter your point, why should the taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the NS double stack clearance project?  Why did the taxpayers have to SUBSIDIZE the Alameda Corridor?  Why are the taxpayers having to subsidize the Reno Trench?  Etc., etc., etc.

So, the basis of the argument then is "They got thiers, Now I want mine!"

Is the DME project going to take trucks off of the highway?  Is it going to provide a route to take coal where none is traveling now?  No?  then DME :: NS == Apples :: Oranges (or, in English, it is not a valid comparison to NS.

Is the DME project going to ease traffic congestion in a major metropolitan area, decreasing standing and motor idleing time, thereby improving air quality or the time to comute ?  No?  See above...

 Not to mention the fact that Just because it's been done that way in the past, doesnt mean it is a good idea, and should to continue to be done that way.

I seem to recall you having used that line to justify OA in at least one posting, but they have all blended together by now, so it may have been someone else...

[n012944]

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?

 

Wow it just blows my mind that the UP and BNSF would be a bit more cautious spending their own money as opposed to how the DM&E would spend taxpayer's money. 

Bert

[MP173]

I am going to jump in here with a mixed answer.  First, I dont necessarily like the concept of the government funding private projects.  Why it was done for the NS corridor, I am not sure.  That seems to be project NS should have funded.

Regarding the DME...I can see why the Feds would possibly want to jump in here.  BNSF and UP have not demonstrated they have the ability to handle current PRB coal volumes, let alone future growth.  If the coal doesnt move to the market, the energy costs will rise.  Not only that, but it will compound as the power plants will move to natural gas, leading to much higher rates for heating.

As much as I dont like the government investment in the railroads, it is my belief the revenue should support the project, this is one project I can definately see participation.

ed

[zardoz]

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.   

How dare you put forth an intelligent, thoughtful, and informative answer in this thread.

Your dissertation contained no insults, no inflamatory material, no anger nor hostility.  This sort of activity must cease at once.

If you're going to stay on topic while avoiding emotional outbursts, then perhaps this thread is not for you.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BICKERING.

 

 

 

[solzrules]

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.   

How dare you put forth an intelligent, thoughtful, and informative answer in this thread.

Your dissertation contained no insults, no inflamatory material, no anger nor hostility.  This sort of activity must cease at once.

If you're going to stay on topic while avoiding emotional outbursts, then perhaps this thread is not for you.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BICKERING.

 

 

 

Yeah, no kidding.  That was one of the more intelligent posts on this topic I have read.  Careful, you might lose half of the readers because you didn't accuse them of using faulty reasoning. 

 

[CNW 6000]

I am going to jump in here with a mixed answer.  First, I dont necessarily like the concept of the government funding private projects.  Why it was done for the NS corridor, I am not sure.  That seems to be project NS should have funded.

Regarding the DME...I can see why the Feds would possibly want to jump in here.  BNSF and UP have not demonstrated they have the ability to handle current PRB coal volumes, let alone future growth.  If the coal doesnt move to the market, the energy costs will rise.  Not only that, but it will compound as the power plants will move to natural gas, leading to much higher rates for heating.

As much as I dont like the government investment in the railroads, it is my belief the revenue should support the project, this is one project I can definately see participation.

ed

This post and the one by arbfbe make the most sense to me.  IMO the most telling point is that if the Feds get/stay involved it'd be to the benefit of ALL OF US as the end consumer.  Unless you're living 'off of the grid' and don't depend on electricity on...an.....internet (ahem)...forum...

[Anonymous]

Ed,

You can either apologize now, or risk being forever removed from this forum.  It's up to you.

 

 

Dave,

Only an absolute coward denies his own words...clearly you are the author mentioned, the style, wording and sarcasm are uniquely yours, and you carried it through in your posted response including the very newspaper quote you deny.

Sad when you are too afraid to claim your published works.

Bluntly, if I were to ever write to the editor of any newspaper, I would use my own name.

Mainly because I am not afraid of saying what I mean, nor afraid of being shown I am wrong.

It is called learning, which I dare say you gave up a long time ago.

 

Regardless, I have no need to pretend to be you, and then portray you as an insecure idiot...you are perfectly capable of doing that all on your own.

 

Mr. Tim, you are correct, the thread was never on topic, the only reason it exists is provide Dave a table to feed his insecurities from.

Go back and read every one of his threads, they are all the same basic garbage over and over, you could cut and paste almost every response Dave gives, and swap them out willy nilly in any of his threads and still end up with the same rhetoric.

I suggest this one be allowed to die out, as nothing can be gained other than providing Dave another soapbox.

It looks like there is more  to the original story than he was admitting to 

 

Futuremodal wrote on December 08, 2006 11:23 AM
These guys are off their rocker, the only clear solution to the PRB coalfield dilemma is open access and tons of taxpayer subsidies. If the huge rail duopolies cannot meet demand, why not bankroll DM&E and let them git-r-done? 

 

I am going out on a limb here, and assuming that the FM in the Billings Gazzette is the one and the same who lends so much to the proceedings here....

but my point is, WHY should taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the company?  All that does is spreads the cost of the operation to a larger body.  Why not let the folks who are going to benefit from the coal pay for it all?  You have yet to show any overiding social benefit to such a subsidy.  

First of all, that ain't me.  I have never in my life used the phrase "git-r-done".  Secondly, I don't use my TRAINS forum user name anywhere other than on this forum. 

Yet another case of a cowardly ilk stealing my TRAINS identity for some disingenuous purpose.  My guess is that it's Ed B, since he's tried a similar tactic on this forum in the past.

But to counter your point, why should the taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the NS double stack clearance project?  Why did the taxpayers have to SUBSIDIZE the Alameda Corridor?  Why are the taxpayers having to subsidize the Reno Trench?  Etc., etc., etc.

[Anonymous]

If you're going to stay on topic while avoiding emotional outbursts, then perhaps this thread is not for you.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BICKERING.

 

I've come to suspect that a good  number  of the DME threads that get started here these days are launched with the same intent as a stink bomb thrown into a highschool hallway.

part mischief and part malice, in other words 

 

For that matter, when was the last time you heard the word 'nimby' used by anyone here, where the christening was not seething with contempt?  The undercurrent swirls both ways.

 

 

 

[solzrules]

If you're going to stay on topic while avoiding emotional outbursts, then perhaps this thread is not for you.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BICKERING.

 

I've come to suspect that a good  number  of the DME threads that get started here these days are launched with the same intent as a stink bomb thrown into a highschool hallway.

part mischief and part malice, in other words 

 

For that matter, when was the last time you heard the word 'nimby' used by anyone here, where the christening was not seething with contempt?  The undercurrent swirls both ways.

 

 

 

The DME threads are one of the few topics that illicit debates on this forum about the industry- debates about things other than UP heritage units.  As much as everyone rags on Dave, at least he comes up with topics that are interesting to read, if nothing else.  Dave is one of the few reasons I continue to check in with this forum from time to time.  There are a few others that post some really good threads, too.  There is an awful lot of chaff, however.     

[TomDiehl]

Ed,

I think it was rather nice of Dave to prove your point for you.

Better watch it though, he seems to think he has the power to remove you from the forums.

 

Ed,

You can either apologize now, or risk being forever removed from this forum.  It's up to you.

 

 

Dave,

Only an absolute coward denies his own words...clearly you are the author mentioned, the style, wording and sarcasm are uniquely yours, and you carried it through in your posted response including the very newspaper quote you deny.

Sad when you are too afraid to claim your published works.

Bluntly, if I were to ever write to the editor of any newspaper, I would use my own name.

Mainly because I am not afraid of saying what I mean, nor afraid of being shown I am wrong.

It is called learning, which I dare say you gave up a long time ago.

 

Regardless, I have no need to pretend to be you, and then portray you as an insecure idiot...you are perfectly capable of doing that all on your own.

 

Mr. Tim, you are correct, the thread was never on topic, the only reason it exists is provide Dave a table to feed his insecurities from.

Go back and read every one of his threads, they are all the same basic garbage over and over, you could cut and paste almost every response Dave gives, and swap them out willy nilly in any of his threads and still end up with the same rhetoric.

I suggest this one be allowed to die out, as nothing can be gained other than providing Dave another soapbox.

It looks like there is more  to the original story than he was admitting to 

 

Futuremodal wrote on December 08, 2006 11:23 AM
These guys are off their rocker, the only clear solution to the PRB coalfield dilemma is open access and tons of taxpayer subsidies. If the huge rail duopolies cannot meet demand, why not bankroll DM&E and let them git-r-done? 

 

I am going out on a limb here, and assuming that the FM in the Billings Gazzette is the one and the same who lends so much to the proceedings here....

but my point is, WHY should taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the company?  All that does is spreads the cost of the operation to a larger body.  Why not let the folks who are going to benefit from the coal pay for it all?  You have yet to show any overiding social benefit to such a subsidy.  

First of all, that ain't me.  I have never in my life used the phrase "git-r-done".  Secondly, I don't use my TRAINS forum user name anywhere other than on this forum. 

Yet another case of a cowardly ilk stealing my TRAINS identity for some disingenuous purpose.  My guess is that it's Ed B, since he's tried a similar tactic on this forum in the past.

But to counter your point, why should the taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the NS double stack clearance project?  Why did the taxpayers have to SUBSIDIZE the Alameda Corridor?  Why are the taxpayers having to subsidize the Reno Trench?  Etc., etc., etc.

[Anonymous]

The DME threads are one of the few topics that illicit debates on this forum about the industry- debates about things other than UP heritage units.  As much as everyone rags on Dave, at least he comes up with topics that are interesting to read, if nothing else.  Dave is one of the few reasons I continue to check in with this forum from time to time.  There are a few others that post some really good threads, too.  There is an awful lot of chaff, however.     

 

chaff on both sides,  of course.  i've been doing this an awfully long time, and one constant I have found true most everywhere on the net is that there are always going to be individuals who think they can control the direction and content of discussion by pretending to be the context police, funny, because when they themselves want to deviate from the central theme, or volunteer some  quip or aside, they think it's perfectly acceptable.  Yet they harbor contempt when they witness the very same behavior in others, usually when there is a philosophical conflict  between they and their perceived villain, otherwise.

 

It's a "so mine stinks but your's doesn't?" lack of maturity type scenario, that makes me laugh whenever I see it.

 

You can call it chaff, if you so wish 

[edblysard]

So now Dave, you've decided to threaten people.

Not exactly the actions of a rational person.

[Datafever]

The DME threads are one of the few topics that illicit debates on this forum about the industry- debates about things other than UP heritage units.  As much as everyone rags on Dave, at least he comes up with topics that are interesting to read, if nothing else.  Dave is one of the few reasons I continue to check in with this forum from time to time.  There are a few others that post some really good threads, too.  There is an awful lot of chaff, however.     

chaff on both sides,  of course.  i've been doing this an awfully long time, and one constant I have found true most everywhere on the net is that there are always going to be individuals who think they can control the direction and content of discussion by pretending to be the context police, funny, because when they themselves want to deviate from the central theme, or volunteer some  quip or aside, they think it's perfectly acceptable.  Yet they harbor contempt when they witness the very same behavior in others, usually when there is a philosophical conflict  between they and their perceived villain, otherwise.

It's a "so mine stinks but your's doesn't?" lack of maturity type scenario, that makes me laugh whenever I see it.

You can call it chaff, if you so wish 

Maybe I misunderstood solzrules' comment, but from my POV, he was saying that there are some good threads/posts and then there are the worthless (chaff) threads/posts.  Worthless doesn't take sides, although it is always a matter of personal interest.

What is chaff to me may not be chaff to you.  That's fine.  Nothing wrong with that.  But just because I think that a particular thread is chaff doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) am trying to control the direction or content of the discussion or be a forum cop.  It just means that there are quite a few threads that I skip over. 

[daveklepper]

In answer to why subsidize, my I remind everyone that the private automobile is subsidized if one considers the economics of land use as part of the picture.   Why subsidize the NS clearance for double stack project or any other rail expansion project?  Because our elected officials believe and also believe their constituants believe that the public good is so great and the likelyhood of private capitol going it alone is so small that government participation is warrented.   Remeber the Pennsy electrification?   And the loan was paid back.    And Conrail.