One of the first acts of the US government in 1789 was to fund the construction of a light house at Cape Henry, VA. Its purpose was to provide safe passage for merchant ships between the Atlantic and Cheasapeke Bay. In every year since 1789 governments at all levels have been subsidizing transportation infrastructure. Among other projects this includeds the PRR, B&O, Eire Cannal, IC, UP and CP.
The horse left the barn over over 200 years ago!
Bob:The horse left the barn over 200 years ago and the pork leaves the barn every year. That is the nature of Washington. I dont agree with that, but my one vote doesnt go very far.
ed
hi railroad fans !!! there will be plenty of capacity for coal coal coal ha ha. when the panama canal is made larger in 2008-2010 bnsf,up, can ship all the black diamonds they want. wont be much containers going from the west coast to chicago and new york, so ah ah room for coal. next
Datafever wrote: 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.
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.
Specific to your observations, I think where you stated: " what is chaff to me may not be chaff to you"... I think you conceptualized the truly relevant point right there.
The propensity for some netizens, however, to insist a topic has strayed off topic just because it isn't following the narrow parameters by which they see as ideal for their purpose, is in fact a way people do try to control discussion by playing context police.
I'd give you an example, but I'd have to go off topic to do so. LOL.
I just find it humorous the way some of these context police are about as bad about introducing auxillary thought processes into discussion their own selves, and never seem to think twice when it's on someone else's nickle. Of course THEY are 'just being cute and clever' when they do it.
There is a lot of chaff,... on internet forums, in the world and general, and in my mailbox most days, unfortunately. Such is life.
edblysard wrote: So now Dave, you've decided to threaten people.Not exactly the actions of a rational person.
So now Dave, you've decided to threaten people.
Not exactly the actions of a rational person.
Whereas, a *person* such as you can falsify an identity in a newspaper reply box, then compound that dishonesty by lying about the person being falsly presented, and claim to be rational?
You are absolutely a classless irrational individual to engage in such behaviour. Whether Bergie gives you the ultimate heave-ho or not will be up to him, I'll live with his decision either way.
Oh, and by the way, do you have any input as to the topic at hand (e.g. PRB coal delivery problems) or not? If not, then be a man for a change and excuse yourself from the discussion.
Truly David,
I fear for your sanity, and strongly suggest you seek professional help at the earliest convenience.
You are bordering on the edge of committing a crime, your IP address and information can be subpoenaed, so be careful.
But please, seek help.
23 17 46 11
futuremodal wrote: edblysard wrote: So now Dave, you've decided to threaten people.Not exactly the actions of a rational person. Whereas, a *person* such as you can falsify an identity in a newspaper reply box, then compound that dishonesty by lying about the person being falsly presented, and claim to be rational?
Since Dave doen't have any evidence to support such a claim, he's just looking like more of an immature idiot than usual. However, we do have evidence that he has done what he *claims* Ed is doing.
Just another sick, sad boy from Idaho. Haven't figured out how that's part of the Pacific Northwest, though. That would mean that Ohio is on the Atlantic seaboard.
I have no opinion on the people involved here, and I think I'll wait a little longer and read a bit more before I get in it, but I just have to comment, the Pacific Northwest has ALWAYS included Idaho and western Montana. Wikipedia defines it in the simplest terms:
Cascadia bioregion (a.k.a. Pacific Northwest bioregion), defined as "the watersheds of rivers that flow into the Pacific Ocean through North America's temperate rainforest zone.
Western Montana West and from Northern California up to Alaska.
I'm all for bitter complaining about opponents on the internet, but get the actual facts straight. :D
TomDiehl: Just another sick, sad boy from Idaho. Haven't figured out how that's part of the Pacific Northwest, though. That would mean that Ohio is on the Atlantic seaboard.
Western Montana westward (Attention "Geographer" TomDiehl: that includes Idaho) has comprised the Pacific Northwest hydrologically, biologically, historically, climatologically, ethnographically, economically and politically.
I am sure TomDiehl has a different interpretation soundly based on other criterion, including his own experience, travels and education on the matter. And I will bet that criterion is interesting.
Even the "Continental Divide" is suggestive of the relationship. Took a trek a few years ago to Cadotte Pass on the Continental Divide. Stood where Isaac Stevens declared in 1853 the "Washington Territory" including the states of Washington, northern Idaho, and Western Montana. The Oregon territory comprised the remainder of the PNW -- Oregon and southern Idaho.
The Columbia River system substantially defines the PNW -- whether because of the salmon runs into Montana, the mighty Bonneville Power Administration whose facilities extend from John Day to The Dalles to Bonneville, to Grand Coulee to Hungry Horse, the Pacific Maritime climate that extends into Montana, the Cascade biological refugium in the Lochsa, the St. Joe, and Albert Creek, the Salish -- not Plains Indians but a PNW tribe, the list goes on and on.
Even the Imperial Spanish Governor in Santa Fe saw the area as outside of his domain. He made no claims. It was distinct. It was the Pacific Northwest. Its destiny was separate.
What were they thinking in those days?
Apparently that Ohio was on the Atlantic Seaboard.
Even though the Ohio River emptied into the Mississippi.
TheAntiGates wrote:...The propensity for some netizens, however, to insist a topic has strayed off topic just because it isn't following the narrow parameters by which they see as ideal for their purpose, is in fact a way people do try to control discussion by playing context police. I'd give you an example, but I'd have to go off topic to do so. LOL. I just find it humorous the way some of these context police are about as bad about introducing auxillary thought processes into discussion their own selves, and never seem to think twice when it's on someone else's nickle. Of course THEY are 'just being cute and clever' when they do it. ...
...
I hate to say it, but I think that our little sub-thread is already way off topic - both the original topic of this thread and the main topic that this thread has become.
I do agree with what you are saying. Would you agree that there does need to be some level of control if a community of net'ers is going to be created? I can't imagine that anyone here would like it very much if someone came in and began posting a mess of threads that had nothing whatsoever to do with trains. On the other hand, the forum has created a couple of long-running threads that do indeed have nothing to do with trains, by and large. We recognize that having a place to share a bit of our daily lives with each other is a good thing - it helps build community.
But this particular community is built around trains. Not model railroading, not rockets, not deep sea diving - trains. If a few of the community members find that they share a common interest in deep sea diving, they should politely respect those of us who don't and find a different forum for those discussions.
In reality, this forum has only one standard. And that is whatever Bergie is going to allow. What I want doesn't matter. What someone else wants doesn't matter. Only what Bergie wants really has any significant impact on the community-building power of this forum. If Bergie does a good job of maintaining the forum, the community will thrive. And Bergie must be doing something right because as near as I can tell, the volume of traffic on this forum has been increasing every year. The community is growing.
Let me pose a different question to you. What if someone came into the forum and talked trains, but always managed to find an erotic slant in most of their posts? How would you feel about that? I suspect that the community would complain to Bergie (because this is a "family" forum) who would take appropriate action.
Now let me go another step. What if someone came into the forum and talked trains, but always managed to twist everything into a partisan political debate? Should that be allowed? I'm sure that there would be people who would enjoy the resulting political arguments (all around a train theme, to be sure). But what would be the impact on the community at a whole?
On the whole, I give Bergie two thumbs up for the job that he is doing.
Datafever wrote:I would like to nominate this thread for the award of having the most simultaneous sub-threads.
Datafever,
Do you have any family connection to the Northern Pacific ?
nanaimo73 wrote: Datafever, Do you have any family connection to the Northern Pacific ?
Not any more.
NP never seems to get any attention on theis forum, compared to the Milwaukee Road or the Great Northern.
I wonder if they could have built south into Wyoming to reach the main coal fields ?
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl: Just another sick, sad boy from Idaho. Haven't figured out how that's part of the Pacific Northwest, though. That would mean that Ohio is on the Atlantic seaboard.Western Montana westward (Attention "Geographer" TomDiehl: that includes Idaho) has comprised the Pacific Northwest hydrologically, biologically, historically, climatologically, ethnographically, economically and politically.I am sure TomDiehl has a different interpretation soundly based on other criterion, including his own experience, travels and education on the matter. And I will bet that criterion is interesting.
What's REALLY funny here is this is the only statement that he can comment against. Nothing about Dave's statements that prompted the "sad, sick boy."
Okay....that does it.... I am hijacking this thread.. I am going to talk about (actually ask questions) about the PRB coal fields, and DME's proposal (as far as I am able to understand it) In other words I am bringing it back on topic....
But first I am compelled to address the conflict, or "useless drama" as I like to call it. I agree with Datafever's last post about the job Bergie is doing. I really enjoy the forums here, and this is a great community. I have never been one for "online drama", (my real life has enough) and it really gets under my skin when all that can be posted in any forum thread is character assasinations. I understand where everyone is coming from.... but, man..... it gets tedious. But, enough...
In relation to the PRB, how much would DME's route to the coal fields alter the competition landscape there? How much of the BNSF's and UP's business would, or could the DME take away? Could it happen that DME lays their rail line.... and then nothing? I understand that others in this forum like to dis the larger railroads, but in my opinion, they are like any other business, they saw an opportunity, and ran with it, but, let's not take this back to OA, or any of that other stuff. One of the big questions being; How long until the economic benefits of an additional route in to the PRB are realized? A year? two? ten?
I see the DME's proposed expansion as a good thing, based on what I have read, not only as far as coal goes, but other areas as well. I have seen other articles that the expansion would benefit many others economically, (But, apparently, the Mayo Clinic has a problem with that. Me thinks they doth protest too much) As far as government "help", vis a vis, should they even be involved, I can point to dozens of projects in my area that were started with help from county, state, or local governments projects that were proposed by local business, and in many cases, benefitted the area economically, or otherwise. Not only that, but, how many business people get started with help from the SBA?? The bottom line on the expansion, is that if it is going to benefit others economically, provide jobs, and other benefits, then what is all of the griping? I understand that such an expansion is risky, and it could all fall apart, which would leave the taxpayers holding the bag. But on the other hand, nothing in business is without risk, anyone who runs a business knows this. What if the DME expansion turns into a bonanza? There is always that possibility too. And, if in the end, the line breaks even, would it still be considered a success??
nanaimo73 wrote:NP never seems to get any attention on theis forum, compared to the Milwaukee Road or the Great Northern.I wonder if they could have built south into Wyoming to reach the main coal fields ?
Actually Northern Pacific did build into the Powder River Basin's main fields, at their northern end, Rosebud, Montana. I don't think anyone in coal mining considers Rosebud "not the main field." The coal extracted of course was only for railway fuel there being absolutely no market for PRB coal for any other purpose until the 1970s.
S. Hadid
Just to get back to the original post. Comparing the cost of a brand new rail line to the amount that BNSF and UP are spending on improvments is rather silly. Of course the brand new line is going to cost exponentially more. Further, what do UP and BNSF gain by adding additional lines? The maintainence costs and grading costs only offer marginal advantages. excess capacity isn't worth the money. Further, of course they're going to oppose new expansion. Corporations aren't altruistic. DME isn't either. BNSF and UP aren't going to spend money to help a competitor when they don't need to. Even suggesting the might runs contrary to any logic.
It's interesting to me that most of the ire here seems directed at BNSF. Union Pacific is the company that's had two recent meltdowns and has proven they're incapable of running their railroad.
Finally on public monies. Spending money on projects that support the public good is the government's job. Railroad infrastructure has always been part of the public good. Or perhaps you think we'd be better off if none of the western railroads existed at all?
If you don't like the way your elected officials are spending your money, make it a campaign issue and vote them out. You may be out of luck though. in California, the government has put a lot of money into rail infrastructure and the Public has specifically voted for this.
Datafever wrote: Would you agree that there does need to be some level of control if a community of net'ers is going to be created? I can't imagine that anyone here would like it very much if someone came in and began posting a mess of threads that had nothing whatsoever to do with trains. On the other hand, the forum has created a couple of long-running threads that do indeed have nothing to do with trains, by and large. We recognize that having a place to share a bit of our daily lives with each other is a good thing - it helps build community. But this particular community is built around trains. Not model railroading, not rockets, not deep sea diving - trains. If a few of the community members find that they share a common interest in deep sea diving, they should politely respect those of us who don't and find a different forum for those discussions.In reality, this forum has only one standard. And that is whatever Bergie is going to allow. What I want doesn't matter. What someone else wants doesn't matter. Only what Bergie wants really has any significant impact on the community-building power of this forum. If Bergie does a good job of maintaining the forum, the community will thrive. And Bergie must be doing something right because as near as I can tell, the volume of traffic on this forum has been increasing every year. The community is growing.Let me pose a different question to you. What if someone came into the forum and talked trains, but always managed to find an erotic slant in most of their posts? How would you feel about that? I suspect that the community would complain to Bergie (because this is a "family" forum) who would take appropriate action.Now let me go another step. What if someone came into the forum and talked trains, but always managed to twist everything into a partisan political debate? Should that be allowed? I'm sure that there would be people who would enjoy the resulting political arguments (all around a train theme, to be sure). But what would be the impact on the community at a whole?On the whole, I give Bergie two thumbs up for the job that he is doing.
Would you agree that there does need to be some level of control if a community of net'ers is going to be created? I can't imagine that anyone here would like it very much if someone came in and began posting a mess of threads that had nothing whatsoever to do with trains. On the other hand, the forum has created a couple of long-running threads that do indeed have nothing to do with trains, by and large. We recognize that having a place to share a bit of our daily lives with each other is a good thing - it helps build community.
I'll agree with you on the last sentence, but otherwise you ask a lot of questions that are really best addressed with your own words that i have highlighted in red.
Very seldom i'll try to impose my preferences upon what I think other members should and should not be allowed to post, because I am conscious of the fact that I am not an authority here. Many others could benefit greatly if they would make that realization for themselves. I could rant on and on about people trying to install themselves as "pseudo-Bergies" , but really everything that needs to be said has been covered in the previous sentence. Too bad more people fail to make that realization
PERIOD
FM-
There would be less risk to the taxpayers if the $2 billion loan went to UP and BNSF to be used for increasing their capacity for moving PRB coal, perhaps including the Tongue River Railroad.
Is your main concern moving the coal, or competition for BNSF ?
nanaimo73 wrote: NP never seems to get any attention on theis forum, compared to the Milwaukee Road or the Great Northern.I wonder if they could have built south into Wyoming to reach the main coal fields ?
Sure, the NP could have built south from a number of locations and did so. They ran a line south to Bridger, MT which was parallel to the CB&Q and could have extended even farther south. Of course that line also connected with the MW&S RR which was hauling coal from the drainage east of Red Lodge. The NP served the coal mines at Red Lodge as well as those in the Bozeman area. The largish open pit mines the NP served later on were at Colstrip and they also had a line south to Kuehn. The proposed Tongue River Railroad running southwest from Miles City will reach lines from the PRB and itself is along undeveloped coal deposits. The NP main actually crosses the Powder River and there could easily have been a branch constructed from there in the Powder River drainage to reach the Gillette area.
The reasons these were not done seem two fold. First, no one hauled coal that far until after the mid 1960s. Local underground mines served most of the power plants of the time. The NP and GN had agreements with the CB&Q about service in Laurel to preclude the Q from building their own lines to the Pacific Northwest. These interchange agreements worked well for all concerned and since all were jointly owned by Hill interests there was no reason for one to invade another's territory.
1435mm wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: NP never seems to get any attention on theis forum, compared to the Milwaukee Road or the Great Northern.I wonder if they could have built south into Wyoming to reach the main coal fields ?Actually Northern Pacific did build into the Powder River Basin's main fields, at their northern end, Rosebud, Montana. I don't think anyone in coal mining considers Rosebud "not the main field." The coal extracted of course was only for railway fuel there being absolutely no market for PRB coal for any other purpose until the 1970s. S. Hadid
A Montana Power Co. subsidiary, Western Energy Co., operated an open pit mine at Colstrip during the 1960s. Not sure who the customers were, but MPC itself opened the J.D. Corette 154 MW coal-fired plant in Billings in 1968, using railroad-transported Colstrip and Decker coal. Planning was underway for 16 giant coal-fired plants at Colstrip. In 1975 the first 307 megawatt Colstrip plant opened, and construction proceeded with an identical Colstrip 2, plant. Colstrip 3 and 4 were built with 740 MW, each, capacity.
YoHo1975 wrote:Finally on public monies. Spending money on projects that support the public good is the government's job. Railroad infrastructure has always been part of the public good. Or perhaps you think we'd be better off if none of the western railroads existed at all? If you don't like the way your elected officials are spending your money, make it a campaign issue and vote them out. You may be out of luck though. in California, the government has put a lot of money into rail infrastructure and the Public has specifically voted for this.
First of all YoHo, welcome to the forum, it is always good to detect (ahem) "new" members jumping aboard.
I would find it very challenging, personally, to endorse the comment that it is the government's JOB to spend the taxpayer's money. (supporting the public good or otherwise) absent a caveat that they must do so wisely. From that challenge comes uncertainty, and a host of questions.
People are being sold on the idea that the end run of this deal will be cheaper utilities. Where's the proof of that? I've yet to see any hard promises
The arguments that i see here that I find more believeable are that DME will run as many trains as possible, charging just as much as they possibly can, as all good little capitalists are expected to do.
What is the maximum % of market share that DME can hope to capture, and can they turn that into pricing influence they can wield over their senior competitor(s)?
My gut instinct tells me that with that whopping loan to repay, the motivation to start a price war with two leviathons that could spit upon and drown the upstart at will, likely will be very minimal. If at all
So where is the hard promise of "public good"?
The cynic in me tells me that even if DME does cut transportation cost for coal to the utilities, that savings will most likely be passed along to their stockholders as profit, with very little trickling back to joe taxpayer ...absent a binding promise up front, which there is none.
SO, I am forced to ask myself who the tangible beneficiaries of such an arrangement would actually be. A handful of farmers in S Dakota and the principals of DME are the most conclusive answers I can come up with.
If that proves to be the case, is that still the taxpayers responsibility? Not if BNSF and UP can do so more efficiently.
I don't know that lower power costs are the public good they're looking for. I'm more inclinded to think additional tax revenue and additional jobs are to the good.
The government allowed a lot of infrastructure to fall by the wayside over the past number of decades where some public funds then would have given us significant tax revenues and jobs now.
Certainly the government shouldn't be in the business of wasting the public's money, but that's in the eye of the beholder.
In either case, I agree it's a dicey proposition, but I don't think the federal funds themselves are a bad thing. Personally, I think anything that encourages additional rail lines and additional major players will be good.
Given the choice, I'd rather have seen the money spent on rebuilding the old Milwaukee road lines west over the Cascades. Returning them to active service from trails. There's currently a traffic jom over the cascades and I think that would have had a bigger return on investment, but it required more interaction from the state and somebody willing to operate the line.
I spent a little time yesterday on the BNSF and UP websites, primarily in the coal sections. Interesting commodity and transportation.
Out here in the midwest, we see coal trains, but really dont get too emotional about them, except when taking too long to pass. Coal doesnt equate to much around here. Corn, on the other hand does.
The websites were interesting. It appears the carriers are moving to tariff or "circular" rates rather than contract. The rates were not available to the public....password protected. UP's rational was that the rates would be available for all utilities to compare, in other words a leveling of the playing field.
This leads me to a few questions/comments:
1. Pricing power for the rails obviously has changed, if they are "publishing" rates for coal, rather than negotiating or bidding on coal rates. How prevelant is it to use these circular rates rather than the contract rates?
2. any idea of what a coal train produces in revenue? Any pair of points would work, I can figure the mileage and translate.
3. What percentage of PRB coal moves in private cars? It sure seems as if most of it does, from what I see.
4. I have no faith whatsoever in the utilities passing any savings along to the customers. Yeah right! As the AntiGates said so well, they are capitalists....just like me.
5. Looking at the map, I see BNSF has two lines thru Wy. One is right thru the coal basin, the other via Casper. Do both have mines? Does the Casper line carry much coal or is it a merchandise route?
Thanks,
3.
MP173 wrote:This leads me to a few questions/comments:1. Pricing power for the rails obviously has changed, if they are "publishing" rates for coal, rather than negotiating or bidding on coal rates. How prevelant is it to use these circular rates rather than the contract rates?
Growing more and more prevalent. Some utilities still feel they need contract rates. To get them they may pay more than a circular rate.
0.5 cents per ton/mile for long moves isn't an uncommon number.
I have no idea. There's still a lot that moves in system cars, though.
That's not really a question ...
5. Looking at the map, I see BNSF has two lines thru Wy. One is right thru the coal basin, the other via Casper. Do both have mines? Does the Casper line carry much coal or is it a merchandise route?Thanks,ed
The former CB&Q "Wind River" line from Casper to Laurel serves no coal mines and carries no coal. It's an inexpensively located route that would have very high operating costs to carry coal. It's out of any conceivable circuit for coal, unless someone wanted to build a plant on it, or if a branch line from it was extended southwesterly into the Hanna Basin. None of that is very likely. Primary traffic is overhead between Pasco/Spokane and western Montana/MRL, and Denver/Fort Worth.
MP 173 wrote.
What is definition of circular rate?
So, according to my slide rule and mental placement of decimal points, .5 cents per ton mile would translate into about $90/mile for an 18000ton coal train. That, however is on gross weight.
I would assume the rates would apply on net tonnage, which would reduce the rate. Am I correct in assuming it is based on net weight?
So, that 125 car coal train would generate about $65-70 per mile. A 1000 mile trip would generate $65000. What about empties?
MP173 wrote: 5. Looking at the map, I see BNSF has two lines thru Wy. One is right thru the coal basin, the other via Casper. Do both have mines? Does the Casper line carry much coal or is it a merchandise route?Thanks, ed3.
The Casper, Thermopolis, Greybull line is not a coal line. There are likely coal reserves nearby but not so easily exploited as the PRB reserves. The Orin Jct to Gillette line was specifically built to haul coal from PRB deposits. It was constructed in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.