You are so squirrely that your comments go beyond funny. Your knowledge of the history of and the reasons for the shift of business from railroads to other modes is non-existent. The simple truth of the matter is that a huge portion of the modal shift came because rail carload based distribution had higher costs even though the rail rates were often well below the rates of the competing modes. A competent distribution manager doesn’t see himself as buying some form of container-rail freight car, truck van, barge or air cargo hold. Rather he is buying space to hold his freight and move from one point to another at a speed and for a price that meets his needs. That is why your notion that there is no competition between modes is so bizarre.
I suppose you will now tell me that with the tremendously enhanced competition that would come from open access rail would produce such great advancements in efficiency that rail service could match truck service. When you have it figured out just how one or several freight cars can make a passing move around another car or set of cars at any point along the rail line, let me know. I’ll put up my farm to get the cash to invest in the system.
There’s nothing in the GAO report that “Upends” the Northwestern paper. It doesn’t say that Open Acess is desireable or would be benificial. And to accuse the authors of “probably poorly researching” the study is frankly, disgusting. They didn’t get to where they were by doing poor research.
Then he goes off in another direction trying to misdirect the discussion:
[quote user=“MichaelSol”]
Furthermore, the report found that some areas with access to only one Class I railroad have higher percentages of traffic traveling at rates that exceed the statutory threshold for rate relief. “This situation may reflect reasonable economic practices by the railroads in an environment of excess demand, or it may represent an abuse of market power,” GAO said.
The report found that a reduction in competitive options can have a significant effect on the rates railroads charge shippers. Comparing two routes for shipping the same commodity, but using a different number of rail carriers, can illustrate this effect. For example, GAO looked at two long-distance grain routes (from Minot, N.D., and Sioux Falls, S.D.) that both terminate at Portland, Ore., and found that both routes carry comparable tonnage, but the route originating in the Sioux Falls area is served by two Class I railroads, whereas the route from the Minot area is
Alas, Sol did not go “off in another direction” – the quote is from someone else.
The quote is, to greyhounds’ ultimate dismay, from other objective readers of the GAO report, which show, in fact, that greyhounds has been intentionally misreading and misrepresenting the GAO report and its conclusions. He has done nothing else in his career but misrepresent facts.
If he were correct, then no hearings would be set for November 2, and the GAO would not have issued its report.
Although I do appreciate your aparent offer of a house, I am troubled by your attitude.
That’s not the objective. I think trains are one of the most interesting things on the planet. But one of the things that makes them interesting to me is their wonderful efficiency. I don’t want trains for trains sake.
When I look at a stack train or a shuttle grain train I admire its usefulness and productivity. There are people who want to turn trains into vehicles of subsidization for farmers and other elements of our society. I’d then look at them they way I look at any other government waste of our hard earned money.
Of course, the fact that the GAO suggests exactly what captive shippers have been arguing makes it only subjectively “objective.” GAO is transparently not “objective”.
Can we please refrain from personal attacks and insults in this forum? Such statements are highly unprofessional and never add to the discussion at hand.
I’ve done “nothing else in my career but misrepresent facts?”
I deny that. Obviously. I have the traditional Christian belief that lying is a sin. But if I disagree with Mr. Sol “I have done nothing else in my career but misrepresent facts?”
What kind of mentality does he have to say that about another person?
So here’s my decision. I’ll not respond to any personal attacks by Mr. Sol. I’ll just respond with facts and logic. And I’m confident where the chips will fall.
Don,t worry, Grey. I,m a capitalist. Pure and simple. I live in a socialist state(Maine) and I see the damage it causes. But if we digress into a socialist nation, somehow or someway the trains will run.
No, they didn’t just “switch” per free market incentives. The railroads stopped providing timely service (kind of hard to compete in real time markets when the railroad can’t get the hoppers you ordered until three weeks later), or they abandoned the line serving the rail shipper altogether.
When rail shippers can get timely rail service at reasonable rates, they use it, because there is no other mode that can compete with railroads when railroads are running on all cylinders, metaphorically speaking.
Well, the grain elevators that I know of, switched because of “free market incentives”. The railroad did not stop anything - their service continued normally. The railroads agents were fairly ticked off at the elevator operators for switching to truck transportation.
Well, I’m talking to a liberal, so I guess such simple concepts will go right over your head.
Each mode has a particular advantage over the others, to which certain types of shipping needs will gravitate. We’ve gone over this countless times, yet when all is said and done there are certain folks on this forum that cannot mentally concieve of the need for this modal differentiation. You think that if a railroad stops service to a grain elevator, that elevator is just as well off by switching to trucks. It’s not, and you should know that implicitly. Elevators that have lost rail service usually scrap by to survive, but eventually they shut down. That’s because there are more costs involved in having to truck grain from an elevator to a shuttle facility and transload the grain from truck to bin to hoppers, than there is in moving that grain by carload to the same aggregation point as part of the shuttle consist.
Now, if trucks were true competition for rail service, wouldn’t those elevators be thriving right now?
[quote]
I suppose you will now tell me that with the tremendously enhanced competition that would come from o
Unless you’re talking about a relatively short haul for the truck transport, you’re missing something. Could it be that the elevator in question was given incentive to truck their grain to another railroad’s facility, or a barge facility?
One thing that happened frequently during the abandonment years was that some line hauls became longer as the direct line was cut off by abandonment. This caused more circuituous routings, and subsequently higher rates to cover those higher direct costs. Other lines could not handle the “new” 264k cars, so you get incentives to truck to 264k compiant railheads. You may call that
Unless you’re talking about a relatively short haul for the truck transport, you’re missing something. Could it be that the elevator in question was given incentive to truck their grain to another railroad’s facility, or a barge facility?
One thing that happened frequently during the abandonment years was that some line hauls became longer as the direct line was cut off by abandonment. This caused more circuituous routings, and subsequently higher rates to cover those higher direct costs. Other lines could not handle the “new” 264k cars, so you get incentives to truck to
The C&NW got a lot of publicity in the 1970s for agressivly going after branchlines while the Milwaukee and Rock Island told politicians in the West North Central States there was no problem. Part of the process was also to talk with customers about the lines that would be retained and upgraded to handle 25/50/75 car grain units out and fertilzer trains inbound. We put out a lot of maps showing the good and bad news. Many elevators were built on the lines selected for retention. I don’t think it was our fault if and elevator or fertilzer bulk blender was told about the future and decided not to take action.
Okay, that does it… I am going to read that GAO report, and see what the heck it is all about… With the same antagonists going at it yet again, I guess I am going to have to reach my own conclusions about the document.
Unless you’re talking about a relatively short haul for the truck transport, you’re missing something. Could it be that the elevator in question was given incentive to truck their grain to another railroad’s facility, or a barge facility?
One thing that happened frequently during the abandonment years was that some line hauls became longer as the direct line was cut off by abandonment. This caused more circuituous routings, and subsequently higher rates to cover those higher direct costs. Other lines could not handle the “new” 264k cars, so you get incentives to truck to