So BNSF is politically correct in protesting DME's expansion plans.
However, if a potential "situation" at Savanna is the best they can come up with, it probably won't work.
Maybe they should ship all of their coal to Winona--I can think of a couple of railroads that might welcome the interchange business!
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)
JOdom wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: C&NW certainly also spent plenty of their own money to get to Powder River. Of course, how would CB&Q and C&NW have done without government subsidies in the 19th century? Actually C&NW spent plenty of UP's money - C&NW didn't have any of its own. That's why "C&NW's" line was jointly owned by UP before UP swallowed C&NW.
YoHo1975 wrote: C&NW certainly also spent plenty of their own money to get to Powder River. Of course, how would CB&Q and C&NW have done without government subsidies in the 19th century?
C&NW certainly also spent plenty of their own money to get to Powder River.
Of course, how would CB&Q and C&NW have done without government subsidies in the 19th century?
Actually C&NW spent plenty of UP's money - C&NW didn't have any of its own. That's why "C&NW's" line was jointly owned by UP before UP swallowed C&NW.
Well yes, but they also spent their own cash to build lines into Wyoming. Many of which were then abandoned in favor of CB&Q trackage rights.
YoHo1975 wrote: FM's insistance that BNSF is dumb for not wanting competition is just strange.
FM's insistance that BNSF is dumb for not wanting competition is just strange.
A bit of a mischaracterization there, Yo. I said BNSF is foolish for not taking this opportunity of other-financed PRB infrastructure expansion to garner a new outlet for their share of the PRB coal market. Here it is, a brand new east-west rail corridor from Bill to Edgemont that would potentially add a third more direct route for eastbound coal trains, and all BNSF had to do to use it would be to play nice and perhaps offer to build a few sidings between those two points in exchange for overhead rights.
And in the larger picture, given US federal policy over the last century, a large corporation is either going to get competition, or they're going to get regulation. Given that in this particular case BNSF would benefit more from the former than the latter, since the former is no real threat to BNSF's PRB dominance and (as I have pointed out) a potential partner in dual track usage agreements, in this case BNSF is "dumb".
You're making a lot of assumptions that I just don't see as likely.
The assumption that DME would even seriously offer BNSF, a direct competitor any meaningful access is unfounded and of course, Given that all reregulation attempts since Staggers have failed, I find it unlikely that there's a significant concern on that front.
Sure, people get screwed when a train goes of the rails, but it screws BNSF too.
The short answer on this one is that BNSF is argueably the most successful US railroad, they didn't get that way by being dumb.
futuremodal wrote: And in the larger picture, given US federal policy over the last century, a large corporation is either going to get competition, or they're going to get regulation. Given that in this particular case BNSF would benefit more from the former than the latter, since the former is no real threat to BNSF's PRB dominance and (as I have pointed out) a potential partner in dual track usage agreements, in this case BNSF is "dumb".
Least you forget FM, BNSF already has competion and has dual track usage agreements with UP
Yeah, I agree with Yo on this. Why would DME go to all of the trouble to upgrade a line and fight the wonderful city of Rochester...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF? Perhaps they will if they are closet Open Accessers and choose that time to exit the closet.
Dave, you should contact DME and see if they are available for such a deal.
ed
spokyone wrote: futuremodal wrote: And in the larger picture, given US federal policy over the last century, a large corporation is either going to get competition, or they're going to get regulation. Given that in this particular case BNSF would benefit more from the former than the latter, since the former is no real threat to BNSF's PRB dominance and (as I have pointed out) a potential partner in dual track usage agreements, in this case BNSF is "dumb".Least you forget FM, BNSF already has competion and has dual track usage agreements with UP
So is that "smart" or "dumb" on BNSF's part?
MP173 wrote: Yeah, I agree with Yo on this. Why would DME go to all of the trouble to upgrade a line and fight the wonderful city of Rochester...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF? Perhaps they will if they are closet Open Accessers and choose that time to exit the closet.Dave, you should contact DME and see if they are available for such a deal. ed
Not sure how we went from sharing trackage between Bill and Edgemont to a BNSF takeover of DM&E?
ericsp wrote: It sounds like BNSF is threatening to hold its breath and beat its fists on the ground until it gets its way. Perhaps BNSF should stop hauling coal so it can speed up its intermodal trains.
It sounds like BNSF is threatening to hold its breath and beat its fists on the ground until it gets its way. Perhaps BNSF should stop hauling coal so it can speed up its intermodal trains.
And people say that UP is a bully.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
Who said "takeover"? Wasnt me.
They are doing the heavy lifting to get this thing approved and find $$$ to do it. I dont think with all the effort being put forth that I would want to share my franchise with BNSF or UP or anyone.
MP173 wrote: Who said "takeover"? Wasnt me. ...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF?
...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF?
Hmmmm, doesn't handing over the franchise equate to a takeover? Perhaps you were just refering to the DM&E PRB extension.
My understanding is that DM&E is still soliciting for private funds. What better source than someone who can offer you some added capacity in return?
If BNSF and UP can share, why not DM&E?
Why not ask them?
I doubt if they would be interested and here is why. If they get the line up and running they could have a pretty good line. They will have the shortest route to the upper midwest and based on rail/barge rates they could tap into the Ohio River power plants.
They are not going to want efficient competition on those routings.
Here's an interesting new tatic BNSF could try - get a sudden urge to build a new line from Bill to Edgemont, one that just happens to follow DM&E's prefered route.
At the very least, that'd be a despicable tacit that I could respect (as opposed to this Mayo/ICE crossing stuff)!
YoHo1975 wrote:It would cost billons for a redundant route.
So you're saying it'd cost BNSF more to build a new line from Bill to Edgemont, than it will for DM&E to build a new line from Wall to Bill and beyond?
Bill to Edgemont is roughly 60 miles.
I could see a joint line between Bill and Edgemont.
Help me out here....does BNSF send all or some coal trains north to Donkey Creek and then turn right or do they send all or some south and then east to Northport and then north to Alliance?
I have no knowledge of the operations and do not know if it all goes one way or split. This is for the eastbound coal, not for the coal heading south thru Denver.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.