New York Central was hauling lots of iron ore out of the Adirondacks before that time from Benson Mines near Star Lake. I believe that took an all rail routing. A million tons a year being hauled out behind sets of Alco FA’s was common back in the 50’s.
No, I don’t think so.
Once the government blocks the normal and desirable economic evolution to more efficient methods of production, (In this case for 50 years) it’s almost impossible to get back to where we could have been. That’s why I maintain that we’re still paying the price today for government blockage of intermodal development. “In The Matter of Container Service” certainly wasn’t the only adverse ruling. The railroads are still playing catch up on capacity issues that should have, and would have been, addressed years ago absent government strangulation of economic evolution.
We do not have the rail freight system we could have had, nor do we have the integrated transportation system, using train or truck to its best purpose, that we could have had. We’ll never get to where we could/should be because of the 50 year choke The real victims of the government here are not the railroad companies. The real victims of the government are the American people who had their economy degraded by arrogant government fools who thought they knew better than the people.
If we don’t understand what happened, and the negative consequences of what happened, it will happen again. There’s no shortage of power hungry government types wh
“Power To The People” is what brought about the Interstate Commerce Commission and various and sundry other regulatory bodies at the Federal and State levels in the first place. Most of the regulatory bodies were established because there was a public outcry over what was perceived to be price-gouging and various other unfair and unreasonable practices.
I also find an amusing irony in greyhounds’ use of a term that was pretty much created and popularized by the radical left as opposition to various corporate practices and unregulated capitalism.
Great Northern DID have an all rail route and could have used it; but chose not to. The GN was one of four railroads who had their own lines between Duluth and the Twin Cities. The GN line between Duluth and the Twin Cities was single track and not all that busy. However, in the 1950’s, CB&Q certainly would not have wanted slow moving ore trains on its main line. The Zephyrs would have had a much higher priority. I wouldn’t think the Milwaukee would have either. I also think the Soo Line between Superior and Chicago wouldn’t have worked either for a number of reasons.
Today the BNSF line between Duluth and the Twin Cities is in much better physical shape and is much busier than it was in the 1950’s. Ore trains do operate on this line. The CB&Q, Milwaukee and to a lesser extent C&NW and Soo moved a lot of freight between the Twin Cities and Chicago; would any of them welcomed iron ore trains? NO!
I read about an unusual “all rail” winter routing of iron ore from Michigan’s Marquette iron range to Ford’s steel mill near Detroit, in the recent book Haywire, a history of the Manistique & Lake Superior. It involved the LS&I to Shingleton, M&LS to Manistique, Ann Arbor carferry to Frankford, AA by rail to downstate, and then it think C&O to River Rouge. It was short lived, as it pounded AA’s rail structure. I think I remember it was rerouted via C&NW thru their peninsular line.
Aren’t we forgetting something? It’s not up to the railroads to determine if an all rail or rail-water-rail route would be used, it’s up to the shippers/receivers involved. The one paying the bill calls the shots. If the steel companies had wanted the ore to move by a rail only route year round they would have done so.
There’s a John Crosby article from the early to mid 1970s (Extra Board Diaries) in Trains that mentions the navigation season ending and ore movements going to the PC. The rise in traffic caused him to be set up as an engineer on the extra board instead of working as a fireman on a passenger assignment.
Jeff
There were all rail ore trains routed from Superior to Chicago and east off and on over the years, as well as to East St Louis, since around WWII. There were published tariffs for doing this. GN, Soo, Milwaukee, CNW, and for all I know, NP, participated in these moves over the years. They were on the order of twice as expensive per ton as the water route. They were mainly used in high demand years.
Magnetation’s concentrate would be difficult at best to ship in a self unloader. They also likely got a very good deal on unit trains from BNSF/CSX. I don 't know why they are building the pellet plant in Indiana but I suspect it had something to do with Minnesota’s poor business climate.
The ore dock in Superior (not docks, Dock 5 is the only active one left) only handles two or three boats a day at best. Larger boats, longer shipping seasons, all rail moves, and only 13 million tons a year of pellet production online to begin with keep that number down. Pretty much the same thing, though with bigger numbers, with CN at Duluth and Two Harbors.
Now does this make sense? A regulatory body, in this case the ICC, that was supposedly (but not, in fact) established due to a “Public Outcry” over perceived price-gouging responded to that “Public Outcry” by ordering railroad rates increased? Because that’s what they did. And it killed off rail intermodal for decades.
Not only did the regulators order the rates increased, but they also effectively ordered the railroads’ costs increased (the railroads couldn’t use the most efficient method of moving the freight), and the railroads’ service quality decreased. (the railroads couldn’t provide the more reliable, faster, virtually loss and damage free container service). The regulators certainly didn’t make these choices in response to a “Public Outcry”.
The regulators made these choices to placate special interest groups with political pull that were being disadvantaged by the economic evolution/revolution occurring in transportation. To the detriment of the American economy and the American people.
The silly, corrupt, ICC decision killing containerization effectively removed a choice from the freight consumer. A government body restricting consumer choice is certainly not giving “Power to the People.” It is
[quote user=“greyhounds”]
Now does this make sense? A regulatory body, in this case the ICC, that was supposedly (but not, in fact) established due to a “Public Outcry” over perceived price-gouging responded to that “Public Outcry” by ordering railroad rates increased? Because that’s what they did. And it killed off rail intermodal for decades.
Not only did the regulators order the rates increased, but they also effectively ordered the railroads’ costs increased (the railroads couldn’t use the most efficient method of moving the freight), and the railroads’ service quality decreased. (the railroads couldn’t provide the more reliable, faster, virtually loss and damage free container service). The regulators certainly didn’t make these choices in response to a “Public Outcry”.
The regulators made these choices to placate special interest groups with political pull that were being disadvantaged by the economic evolution/revolution occurring in transportation. To the detriment of the American economy and the American people.
The silly, corrupt, ICC decision killing containerization effectively removed a choice from the freight consumer. A government body restricting consumer choice is certainly not giving &qu
[quote user=“schlimm”]
[quote user=“greyhounds”]
Now does this make sense? A regulatory body, in this case the ICC, that was supposedly (but not, in fact) established due to a “Public Outcry” over perceived price-gouging responded to that “Public Outcry” by ordering railroad rates increased? Because that’s what they did. And it killed off rail intermodal for decades.
Not only did the regulators order the rates increased, but they also effectively ordered the railroads’ costs increased (the railroads couldn’t use the most efficient method of moving the freight), and the railroads’ service quality decreased. (the railroads couldn’t provide the more reliable, faster, virtually loss and damage free container service). The regulators certainly didn’t make these choices in response to a “Public Outcry”.
The regulators made these choices to placate special interest groups with political pull that were being disadvantaged by the economic evolution/revolution occurring in transportation. To the detriment of the American economy and the American people.
The silly, corrupt, ICC decision killing containerization effectively removed a choice from the freight consumer. A government body restricting con
Dig if you wish. The Granger laws were passed in the midwestern states to regulate the railroads. The Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois Case (Wabash Case) involved a railroad company, Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Company, serving the upper Midwest and the state of Illinois, which in 1886 resulted in the overturning of the Munn v. Illinois case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that Illinois’ granger laws were unconstitutional because they attempted to control interstate commerce, which had been deemed a responsibility of the federal government by Gibbons v Ogden (1824). Following the Wabash Case, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) , the first federal regulation of business in the United States. This act forced railroad companies to publish their rates with the government and banned railroads from charging different rates for short and long hauls. This 1887 act also created the ICC which regulated the rates of railroads and ensured the rates remained “reasonable and just.” (from the Wiki)
The ICC was created in response to serious real problems. The fact that much later it made some decisions which in hindsight were wrong-headed does not negate the original concept at its formation. As is the case with most things in the real world, simplistic viewing them as all bad or all good serves no useful purpose.
Wiki, oh come on, Wiki? You say I’m viewing things simplistically and then you cite Wiki as your source of information? Well, at least this gave me something to do on a cold Sunday afternoon.
The book I’m going to cite is “Railroads, Rates and Regulation” by William Z Ripley (1867 - 1941). Ripley was a professor of economics at Harvard. He had a parti
Attacking by belittling the source is the refuge of someone who is not dealing with the issue at hand, as any historian recognizes. Nothing you said at length changes the historical reasons and sequence of why the ICC was created. The indirect Granger connection was also explained in my response, which you ignored, by oversight I will assume. You use the logical fallacy of citing later developments as proof the the ICC was conceived as yet another example of “predatory regulation.” I realize this is a pet peeve/theory of yours and the developments you have cited elsewhere concerning intermodal regulation were useful. But here you are letting your political views overstep historical accuracy.
If you watch Fox News a lot, you believe that free enterprise was always good for everyone, and a tiny “elite” of liberals tried to destroy it through unnecessary regulation just to make themselves happy. Reality is different.
In the case of railroad rates, the railroads in the 19th century had a great situation - they were given land for free by the government via land grants, which they then sold for a profit to farmers. Once the farmers’ crops were harvested, the railroads were the only way to get the crops to market - and the railroads could charge whatever they wanted to haul it.
The Grange was an organization of farmers who wanted the government to ensure the railroads didn’t gouge them for shipping their grain and other crops. They were very successful in passing state laws regulating shipping rates, the grading of crops (which determined their value) etc., and had an effect on national legislation. Of course not everyone wanted lower shipping rates for crops, as it meant less profit for the railroads. However, it was better for farmers and consumers.
If it wasn’t 15 below zero here, this would have caused me to go out and have a martini. I’d be sitting there slowly sipping it while contemplating the upcoming end of civilization as we know it. (I like mine up, made with gin, and served with blue cheese stuffed olives.)
The quoted post seems similar to someone from North Korea chanting unthinking tribute to Dear Leader. The quoted poster is chanting the myth and he’s clearly not putting any thought into the chant.
For an example, he falsely chants “…and the railroads could charge whatever they wanted to haul it.” No they could not. But that doesn’t fit the myth. Faced with a conflict between myth and fact, the poster chooses to go with the myth. I guess it’s easier than t