double-stack vs piggyback

[TomDiehl]

Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it’s going to be favorable to NS’s side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here)

OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by “captive” shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt?

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I’m not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples.

What “error” are you pointing out and what is your basis for your claim?

And why are you crying about being reported to Bergie?

The “error” was the use of shippers organizations websites as a source of information on who is or what constitutes a complete view of “captive shippers.” Just the source would at the very least suggest that they would be a bit biased.

I seem to remember a comment by you saying that you sent a message to Bergie stating that any thread you or Dave/Futuremodal were posting on would be “visited” by Edblysard, myself, or some others playing pundit to your “interpretation” of reports or facts.

And no, he didn’t contact me after that, or any other time about my posts.

[TomDiehl]

Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it’s going to be favorable to NS’s side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here)

OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by “captive” shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt?

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. I guess I’m not the only one Michael will be reporting to Bergie that is following him around and pointing out the error in his examples.

Your materially and intentionally false representations regarding dieselization studies that you pretended existed, and your plagarism on that topic was quite a while ago. And I did not contact anyone about that, other than what you read publicly on this forum.

Have you intentionally misrepresented something more recently that caused you to be contacted by the moderator? Well, what was it?

And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on “good internet research,” then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word “plagerism” pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael?

[MichaelSol]

TomDiehl:

And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on “good internet research,” then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word “plagerism” pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael?

The remark was intentionally sarcastic at the time I had made it, as it was made at the point in the discussion when you posted the remarks as your own thoughts. Thereupon, I sarcastically pointed out “good internet research” and having been discovered and confronted over your theft of someone else’s work, you thereafter confessed you had taken your remarks, word for word, off of some kid’s website and had given no attribution to the source.

Of course, if you had, everyone would have known you were reduced to looking at a 14 year old kid’s website for your expert support for your “arguments” on dieselization. So, I also suspected the ommission was intentional.

However, your use of someone else’s work without attribution was in marked contrast to your allegation that “all” the railroads had done studies on the topic at hand, and “all” of them had reached the conclusion you supported. The truth on that point was, you hadn’t seen a one of them, and had made them “all” up, even while consuming ten or so pages about what they said and how credible they were. You made repeatedly, intentionally false representations both as to existence of “the” studies, and to your knowledge of them.

In any business, academic, or publishing venture, those would have been firing offenses. On most forums, they would have been grounds for permanent suspension.

It was quite an illuminating episode as to the lengths people will go to argue a point, but your persistence in it also branded you as that kind of person.

[MichaelSol]

TomDiehl:

The “error” was the use of shippers organizations websites as a source of information on who is or what constitutes a complete view of “captive shippers.” Just the source would at the very least suggest that they would be a bit biased.

I quite frequently refer to railroad annual reports. Am I biased? Is it “error”?

Thus far on this thread, I have cited the following sources regarding captive shippers:

Testimony Before Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Economics, Service, and Capacity in the Freight Railroad Industry June 20, 2006

Traffic World, March 31, 2003, p. 28

Rail Price Advisor, First Quarter 2003, Volume 12

Wisconsin Legislature 2005 Senate Resolution 13.

Business Week, “Railroads: Asleep at the Switch”, April 2, 2001

Journal of Commerce, Monday, April 10, 2000.

Website of the Governor of Texas, Apr. 11, 2003, “Gov. Perry Touts Toyota Rail Legislation”.

An editor of Railway Age was quoted.

Abstract of June, 1998 study conducted by L.E. Peabody & Associates, Inc., the L.E. Peabody website is at http://www.lepeabody.com/.

Notwithstanding your contention, although I mentioned ARC and CURE websites, I did not reference their addresses. And of course, that was in response to the gentleman who contended that the only person he had ever heard say “anything” about railroads favoring foreign producers over domestic producers was Futuremodal. The references to the ARC and CURE websites were intended to enlighten the gentleman that there were, in fact, availabl

[TomDiehl]

TomDiehl:

And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on “good internet research,” then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word “plagerism” pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael?

The remark was intentionally sarcastic at the time I had made it, as it was made at the point in the discussion when you posted the remarks as your own thoughts. Thereupon, I sarcastically pointed out “good internet research” and having been discovered and confronted over your theft of someone else’s work, you thereafter confessed you had taken your remarks, word for word, off of some kid’s website and had given no attribution to the source.

So now you’re claiming “sarcasm.” Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a “confession” by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you.

It might be a bit more believable if the “good internet researcher” didn’t preceed the “plagerism” comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me.

Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy.

[TomDiehl]

TomDiehl:

And I see Michael is returning to his lame attempts to slander me on this forum. First he complements me on “good internet research,” then an hour later, refering to the same comment, the word “plagerism” pops in. Having a bit of trouble with the short term memory, Michael?

In any business, academic, or publishing venture, those would have been firing offenses. On most forums, they would have been grounds for permanent suspension.

Time for a reality check, Michael, this is an internet forum board.

[MichaelSol]

So now you’re claiming “sarcasm.” Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a “confession” by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you.

It might be a bit more believable if the “good internet researcher” didn’t preceed the “plagerism” comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me.

Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy.

My specific comment at the time was this:

"Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? "

My intent was clear. Your post had not put anything in quotation marks, nor identified a source other than “TomDiehl”. Hence my observation" “pretty good internet researcher” and posing the question – are you offering it as your own, because in fact that is what you had done. Those three sentences, taken together, were the announcement that you had been “caught”. You had in fact plagarized the website and offered it’s analysis as your own.

And now you are actually complaining about citing sources, to boot!

Now, here we are, once again, with TomDiehl leaping into a thread where he otherwise appears to have nothing to say about the thread discussion, simply to pursue his mendacious personal agendas.

“Feeble mind”? Nope, wouldn’t want to make it personal at all …

How many threads now have ended up this way?

[TomDiehl]

So now you’re claiming “sarcasm.” Would that be this time, or the first reference? Just the second sentence above contradicts that claim. Maybe in your feeble mind there was a “confession” by me, even though I never claimed it was my research to begin with. You were the one that read that into it simply to try to discredit some who has the nerve to actually disagree with you.

It might be a bit more believable if the “good internet researcher” didn’t preceed the “plagerism” comment by about an hour (and in separate posts by you). You seem to be the only one here with the anal obsession with citing every source, even though it was evident to everyone else that the entry I cited was older than me.

Throw some more spin on this, you can make everyone dizzy.

My specific comment at the time was this:

"Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research? "

My intent was clear. Your post had not put anything in quotation marks, nor identified a source other than “TomDiehl”. Hence my observation" “pretty good internet researcher” and posing the question – are you offering it as your own, because in fact that is what you had done. Those three sentences, taken together, were the announcement that you had been “caught”. You had in fact plagarized the website and offered it’s analysis as your own.

First you comment on people’s spelling, now it’s punctuation. Pretty lame. Yes, your intent was clear, you had one report to fall back on, and the interesting thing about that was right before Bergie locked it, another member found the same obscure report and was refuting your interpretation. (knock yourself out with the spelling correction, if that what you get off doing).

Now the real post (note I am NOT claiming any of this as my original research, although almost everyone els

[Anonymous]

Two things regarding the NS slide show: First, this is an NS slide show, so it’s going to be favorable to NS’s side of the story, right? (insert cynical smilie here)

OK I will give you that we should take the NS slide show with a grain of salt, however should we also take the numbers given by Mr. Sol with a grain of salt too? They were studies that were paid for by shippers who claim to be captive. Why is it that certain people on this board use numbers from studies done by “captive” shippers as examples, yet when other sides are shown, be it from an independent goverment office like the GAO or the railroads, we are told to take them with a grain of salt?

Two different things going on here, not necessarily related. My comments on the NS slide show is more pertaining to the usual corporate slide show characterization, e.g. such are presented to show only a favorable aspect of the company’s decisions, e.g. they are not going to present the downsides. It is similar to the stuff we get on the corporate PR Newswire items - it’s “rah rah” stuff, not a cost/benefit analysis. It’s hard to justify a claim that NS’s domestic double stack program is taking freight off the highways, soley because the gain in domestic double stack exceeds the gains presented by the trucking industry. Did we also see the trends in NS’s boxcar loadings in that slide show? Is it possible that the upward trend in domestic double stack is inversely correlated with a downward trend in boxcar loadings over the same time period? If so, do ya think NS is going to tell us?

As for the ongoing debate over rail captivity, the GAO determination is pretty well tight-sphinctered as to how they define captive. If it is theorectically possible for a commodity to move via truck, barge, or pipeline (even if it is not commercially prac

[greyhounds]

The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of “wrong,” “dumb” “troll”, etc, etc.

“There is no rail monopoly.” Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets.

All Right! OK! You want a citation, here’s your sign:

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm

This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you’ve said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that “on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment”.

Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again.

Here’s a passage from the Federal Reserve paper:

"The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier’s variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent.

The STB’s 2000 report states that “while there are clearly instances where railroads retain a certain degree of pricing power, nearly all of the productivity gains have been passed to rail customers … evidence that, on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitiv

[bobwilcox]

[quote user=“greyhounds”]

The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of “wrong,” “dumb” “troll”, etc, etc.

“There is no rail monopoly.” Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets.

All Right! OK! You want a citation, here’s your sign:

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm

This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you’ve said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that “on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment”.

Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again.

Here’s a passage from the Federal Reserve paper:

"The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier’s variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent.

The STB’s 2000 report states that “while there are clearly instances where railroads retain a certain degree of pricing power, nearly all of the productivity gains have been passed to rail customers … evidence that, on the whole, the railroad industry clearly

[Anonymous]

The interesting part of these exchanges is how Stawbridge attacks legions of reports and studies by professionals with all sorts of relevant backgrounds, and can never cite a number, analysis or study that supports what he says. It always a simple litany of “wrong,” “dumb” “troll”, etc, etc.

“There is no rail monopoly.” Both ICC and STB have handed down decisions that state the contrary in given markets.

All Right! OK! You want a citation, here’s your sign:

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm

This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you’ve said.

No, it actual upholds the contention that 30% or more of rail shippers are captive:

“Nationwide, as much as 30 percent of railroad revenue came from shipments transported at rates that exceeded the government threshold for warranting possible government review.”

“Nonetheless, various government and industry sources note that the top five railroads control about 90 percent of the country’s rail traffic, and that has a lot of shippers claiming they are the victim of market power wielded by railroads that are often the only transport option for commodities.”

“…the GAO points out that “rail rates were generally higher in areas considered to have less railroad-to-railroad competition.” There is virtually no competition on the Great Falls line,…”

And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that “on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment”.

That 2000 STB study focusses on the parts of the country where there is an assumption of intramodal competitio

[MichaelSol]

Strawbridge:

All Right! OK! You want a citation, here’s your sign:

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-11/tracks.cfm

This is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. It basically refutes everything you’ve said. And it pretty well trashes that revenue/variable cost thingy you have been using. It specifically cites a STB study that finds that “on the whole, the railroad industry clearly operates in a competitive environment”.

Which is not what you stated above for some reason of your own. But Michael Sol is wrong again.

I’ve cited that article myself several times on this forum. I guess Strawbridge finally got around to reading it.

However, I think the comment is entirely true, and have stated it several times, that the industry as a whole “clearly operates in a competitive environment.” That’s what caused the race to the bottom on rates after the Staggers Act. Do captive shippers constitute “the industry as whole”? One is not the other. Always the sleight of hand in the argument.

OK, “Michael Sol is wrong again”. Let’s break that down.

Federal Reserve Article: If the R/VC is greater than 180 and the railroad is deemed to have no competition from other railroads or modes of transportation, the STB can then consider whether the rate is reasonable

Now, what did Sol actually say about that:

[quote]
Sol: It is not technically true, by the statutory definition, that a rate above 180% raises a presumption that a shipper is captive, only that it changes the burden of proof. The presumption is that rates are reasonable and no captivity exists below 180%. Above that, the burden of proof shifts.

But, and this is where Strawbridge misunderstands the regulation: a shipper may be captive (the railroad "market dominan

[MichaelSol]

Federal Reserve Article: The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier’s variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent.

Well, you and the Federal Reserve both get an “F” on this one.

Strawbridge has long argued that railroads should not be “forced” to pass along 100% of its productivity gains.

The argument has always been so specious I have never commented on it, but it keeps coming up and deserves some attention.

In a competitive environment, most businesses not only pass along 100% of their productivity gains, they almost always pass along greater than 100% of their productivity gains.

They want to.

It makes them more competitive, as well as more profitable.

That is how it works in the real world in a competitive environment.

How so?

[n012944]

The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn’t because there is no market for such, it’s because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don’t have to worry about losing business to another railroad.

Or maybe it is that there is not enough buisness to justify the expense of maintaining the terminals.

Bert

[Anonymous]

The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn’t because there is no market for such, it’s because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don’t have to worry about losing business to another railroad.

Or maybe it is that there is not enough buisness to justify the expense of maintaining the terminals.

That faulty assumption aside, it’s kinda hard to use terminal maintenance expense as an excuse not to provide the desired rail service when the local jurisdiction itself is paying for most of that cost.

If there’s “not enough business” between Portland and SLC, how do you explain all the commerce that originates east of the Cascades and west/northwest of the salty brine abutting the Wasatch Front? Why are there container barge ports at Boardman, Umatilla, Pasco, and Lewiston? Why do the ports of Boardman and Umatilla get most of their containers from Southern Idaho? Why are 3rd party intermodal firms willing to operate export COFC consists from Wenatchee, Quincy, Yakima, Spokane, and Pasco, even as the railroads either limit the scope of such 3rd party endevours or forbid them altogether? There used to be active TOFC ramps (literal ramps, not the all encompassing figure of speech) in Pocatello, Nampa, Hinkle, Pasco, Yakima, Spokane, Lewiston, in Montana, some as recently as a few years ago - they have been shut down even as demand for their services increased!

It’s not a lack of business, it’s a lack of intramodal competition.

[MichaelSol]

Strawbridge:

Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be “captive” and the railroads a “monopoly”. Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn’t pass those savings along because they’re really nice people and didn’t need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment.

Which offers no explanation of why shippers utilizing competitive corridors pay as little as 101% R/VC, and other shippers pay over 300% R/VC. “Savings” under the Strawbridge theory, are only passed on to shippers who receive the high percentage R/VC ratios, since that is how the ratio is so high. Interesting theory.

Of course, that means that the low percentage R/VC will continue to get higher and higher R/VC ratios, as costs go down. Under the Strawbridge theory, that has to happen.

But, GAO says that the tonnage percentage of rates under 180% R/VC has gone up, that is, increasing tonnage is shipped at lower R/VC rates. Under the Strawbridge theory, that can only happen if rates on that tonnage have declined faster than the productivity savings!

So railroads are, in fact, not only passing through any productivity savings, but cutting rates even more, for some shippers. Below explains what happens to other shippers.

[quote]
General Accounting Office:

"The [Staggers Rail] act recognized the need for railroads to use demand-based differential pricing in the deregulated environment and to recover costs by setting higher rates for shippers with fewer transportation alternatives. The act also recognized that some shippers might not have access to competitive alternatives a

[n012944]

The reason we have no intermodal terminals between Portland and Salt Lake City isn’t because there is no market for such, it’s because one railroad controls that whole territory and since they have a monopoly over that territory they don’t have to worry about losing business to another railroad.

Or maybe it is that there is not enough buisness to justify the expense of maintaining the terminals.

There used to be active TOFC ramps (literal ramps, not the all encompassing figure of speech) in Pocatello, Nampa, Hinkle, Pasco, Yakima, Spokane, Lewiston, in Montana, some as recently as a few years ago - they have been shut down even as demand for their services increased!

It’s not a lack of business, it’s a lack of intramodal competition.

There used to be TOFC ramps all of Illinois too, a state that is not lacking in railroad competition. However as railroads discovered that there was little to any profit to be made at these small facilities they too were closed. Just because there is traffic to be had at these small ramps, does not mean that it is profitable traffic.

Bert

[n012944]

[quote user=“MichaelSol”]

Strawbridge:

Then people like Michael Sol come along and try to falsely say that because the asinine ratio is high, the shippers must be “captive” and the railroads a “monopoly”. Well, the reason the ratio is high is that the railroads reduced their costs of doing business and passed nearly all their savings along to their very fortunate customers. They didn’t pass those savings along because they’re really nice people and didn’t need the money, they passed the savings through because they clearly operate in a competitive environment.

Which offers no explanation of why shippers utilizing competitive corridors pay as little as 101% R/VC, and other shippers pay over 300% R/VC. “Savings” under the Strawbridge theory, are only passed on to shippers who receive the high percentage R/VC ratios, since that is how the ratio is so high. Interesting theory.

Of course, that means that the low percentage R/VC will continue to get higher and higher R/VC ratios, as costs go down. Under the Strawbridge theory, that has to happen.

But, GAO says that the tonnage percentage of rates under 180% R/VC has gone up, that is, increasing tonnage is shipped at lower R/VC rates. Under the Strawbridge theory, that can only happen if rates on that tonnage have declined faster than the productivity savings!

So railroads are, in fact, not only passing through any productivity savings, but cutting rates even more, for some shippers. Below explains what happens to other shippers.

[quote]
General Accounting Office:

"The [Staggers Rail] act recognized the need for railroads to use demand-based differential pricing in the deregulated environment and to recover costs by setting higher rates for shippers with fewer transportation alternatives. The act also recognized that some shippers might not have access to c

[MichaelSol]

Federal Reserve Article: The R/VC formula is also a crude measuring stick for determining market power, particularly given productivity improvements among railroads. For example, if revenue (from a commodity shipment) is $1.50, and the variable cost is $1, the R/VC is 150 percent. But if productivity enhancements are able to shave 50 cents off the carrier’s variable cost, and that savings is passed on to shippers—and price trends suggest that has been happening for the last two decades—the R/VC ratio nonetheless goes over the threshold at 200 percent.

Well, you and the Federal Reserve both get an “F” on this one.

Strawbridge has long argued that railroads should not be “forced” to pass along 100% of its productivity gains.

The argument has always been so specious I have never commented on it, but it keeps coming up and deserves some attention.

In a competitive environment, most businesses not only pass along 100% of their productivity gains, they almost always pass along greater than 100% of their productivity gains.

They want to.

It makes them more competitive, as well as more profitable.

That is how it works in the real world in a competitive environment.

The hypothetical presented by the Federal Reserve article, which is one that is frequently trotted out, fails to recognize the purpose of the 180% R/VC guideline. It is, emphatically not, to impose some arbitrary limit on productivity improvements, but rather to subject the industry to a rational mechanism to reflect an appropriate and improving rate of return to the railroads, while extending the benefits of competitive conditions for those shippers who do not enjoy a competitive transportation environment and, at the same time, to encourage productivity improvements.

There is absolutely nothing incompatible about p