FM seems to have ignored the fact that the AAR, among other functions, serves as a lobbying group for its member roads. He has also long ignored the fact that modal competition really does exist. Missouri Pacific had barge competition for years.
The low-water issue brings up another point. When water levels are low, barge operators customarily raise their rates since barges are restricted to lighter loads at those times.
18million tons of coal per year would amount to about 1300 loaded coal trains per year, about
3.5 trains PER DAY loaded.
That must be a big power plant or my math is wrong.
ed
futuremodal wrote: Memo to Mr. White - barge rates are generally lower because they have lower operating costs. .
Memo to Mr. White - barge rates are generally lower because they have lower operating costs. .
One of the reasons why is because they do not have to pay to maintain their right of way or taxes on it.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
greyhounds wrote: Below St. Louis, the Mississippi River is a wonderful avenue of commerce. Above St. Louis, it's a pork barrel taxpayer subsidized looser.As for the "Land Grants". Very little railroad mileage was laid using them. Every mile of barge trainsportation on the inland waterways is continually subsidized for no damn good reason.The initial building of the Union Pacific was done for political reasons. And it really didn't cost the Federal Government a dime. Northern Pacific, same thing.Nobody would build a railroad across an empty continent for commercial purposes. The UP and NP were both financial disasters. It's incredulous that anyone invested in the NP after the UP failed. But, they did.It was politically important to link California and Puget Sound with the rest of US. That's why that hapened.
Below St. Louis, the Mississippi River is a wonderful avenue of commerce.
Above St. Louis, it's a pork barrel taxpayer subsidized looser.
As for the "Land Grants". Very little railroad mileage was laid using them. Every mile of barge trainsportation on the inland waterways is continually subsidized for no damn good reason.
The initial building of the Union Pacific was done for political reasons. And it really didn't cost the Federal Government a dime. Northern Pacific, same thing.
Nobody would build a railroad across an empty continent for commercial purposes. The UP and NP were both financial disasters. It's incredulous that anyone invested in the NP after the UP failed. But, they did.
It was politically important to link California and Puget Sound with the rest of US. That's why that hapened.
In line with this, there was an article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal on Monday the 15th, referencing the problems with coal delivery at the Thos. Allen Coal generation plant at Memphis.
The coal delivery has always been accomplished by barged delivery through an access off the Mississippi River, via the McKellar lake channel, which has become more problematic due to the recent periods of low flow on the river. TVA is now considering direct derlivery by rail, as an option to the plant, now the coal is transloaded at a Cora, Il. facility, an approximate 385 mile barge ride from there to Memphis. Apparently, the plant uses about 18 million tons of coal per year, representing several thousand rail car load of coal, and many more trains, representing traffic delays in the area as those trains negotiate a circuitous route through town to get to the Steam Plant.
Should be interesting to see who gets the mine to plant delivery, as both BNSF and UP are carriers serving Memphis.
Datafever wrote: I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies.
I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies.
Actually, I'm sure he does.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Let me see if I have this straight:
The TVA, which now receives coal by barge, might switch to somewhat more expensive all-rail delivery? Gee, transportation price isn't everything?
And, since the TVA would likely be "captive" to one RR, the railroad would then be able to gouge them on the rate after the "low, low introductory" rate? Uh, wouldn't they just convert back to barge delivery if this happened? Oh, wait! Now I remember. There's no such thing as competition between rail and other modes. Only rail - rail comptetion counts. Right?
Funny stuff, indeed!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
"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
futuremodal wrote: 2. Wasn't the Mississippi built by God, and not by the federal government? Ergo, barges' ROW was built by God but is maintained by the federales. Yes, one can argue that slack water is man-made, but there was riverboat activity long before the first dams were built on the Mississippi. The federal role in *subsidizing* river transportation is simply one of maintaining prior usage, not of establishing new usage where none existed before.
2. Wasn't the Mississippi built by God, and not by the federal government? Ergo, barges' ROW was built by God but is maintained by the federales. Yes, one can argue that slack water is man-made, but there was riverboat activity long before the first dams were built on the Mississippi. The federal role in *subsidizing* river transportation is simply one of maintaining prior usage, not of establishing new usage where none existed before.
Future,
Likening a paddle wheel steamboat to a 10-12 barge tow is about as meaningless as likening the Pony Express to today's air mail. Barge commerce on our inland waterways would be nil, nada if not for the massive lock and dam infrastructure, cutoffs and channel dredging projects of the Corps of Engineers. All built and maintained with our federal tax dollars.
As far as land grants are concerned, IIRC, their purpose was to promote the westard expansion and population of the netherlands. And it worked. Yes the railroads benefited 140 years ago but I fail to see any relevance to today's situation.
You are entitled to your opinion of the AAR but your attempt to discredit their position about subsidization of competing modes of transportation is specious.
Mark
I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies. You keep bringing up the point that the railroads received massive land grants (although railroads were by no means the only recipients of land grants).
But more to the point, the issue is not so much about the initial building of the infrastructure, but about today's upkeep of the infrastructure. Without dredging, barge traffic on the Mississippi would be limited. Without dams, barge traffic would be even more limited. In the old days, barge operators had to contend with low water levels, floods, constantly changing channels, etc. These factors have been mitigated by public works projects.
Do railroads receive subsidies? Sure they do. But what happened 150 years ago, or even 30 years ago, is of little relevance to the issue of infrastructure maintenance that the railroads must deal with today.
I do appreciate the message that you are trying to convey; I'm only asking that you keep the comparisons relevant. Thank you.
For those of you who have subscription access to the TRAINS newswire...
http://www.trains.com/trn/print.aspx?c=a&id=1381
TVA considers using trains for coal delivery to Memphis plant
Quote from Tom White of AAR:
"while barge rates remain lower than rail charges, it's largely because of federal subsidies in the form of dredging on navigation channels. "Their right-of-way is built and maintained by the federal government," White said. "Nonetheless, railroads have become very efficient, and can move an awful lot of coal at very low rates.""
Two points:
1. Why does the AAR continue to push the "everyone else is subsidized but us" line of BS when most railroads were built with land grants, maintained with antitrust exemptions et al, and are now lining up for federal aid to the public trough? Memo to Mr. White - barge rates are generally lower because they have lower operating costs. Water is a very forgiving conveyance, unlike steel and concrete.
Every transportation mode is subsidized to some degree. Acknowledge it and move on already.
Oh, and about that claim that the rail move can be had at "very low rates" - keep an eye on what's happening to other utilities who also had *very low rates* at one time but are now seeing their rates doubling while service suffers. Current deliveries, while at record paces for the railroads, are running 86% of demand for the utilities and at higher cost to the consumer via higher electric rates.
Kinda like those credit card offers we get in the mail - "very low rates" on an introductory basis, then after a while WHAM!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.