None. How about you, Tom?
???
When have I ever passed on a chance to keep meaningful discussions fully engaged, except of course when Mudchicken or Ed come along and piss all over it?
Dale,
Question: Do you think Mr. MC has a special right to be needlessly insulting in ALL his posts, just because he is a track maintenance expert?
I was not referring to standby capacity, I was thinking of adding additional capacity.
Strike two!
I feel that MC only insults people when he is annoyed.
The Ilks are different. They seem to insult people because they enjoy doing so, and probably enjoy your return fire.
Does anyone know where Ken got this idea that new capacity in the PRB would be “standby”?
And yes, Matt Rose is an ABSOLUTE fool to not take advantage of the inevitable DM&E PRB extension by aiding the financing of the new line in some way in return for additional (not “standby”) capacity.
And while we’re at it, will someone please inform Ken that the current Orin line is shared capacity, so including DM&E in the shared capacity concept is a win-win for all three parties, not to mention the nation’s coal consumers.
Well, we’re still at an impasse here then, because MC seems to get overly “annoyed” at general criticisms of his employer’s actions. I feel it is a legitimate critisism of BNSF that they do not see the PRB capacity relief potential of the DM&E project, let alone the inherent failings of consolidating all new capacity into one corridor rather than dispersing the new capacity.
Here’s another perspective on the consolidation vs dispersement conundrum: The problems that led to the extended closure of the Orin line, e.g. coal dust from passing trains becoming embedded into the ballast, will still be present if new capacity is added to present corridors. Indeed, adding more PRB throughput on a single corridor will only increase the coal dust problem, right?
The BNSF and UP are annoyed at the DM&E for attempting to invade their nice little Wyoming candy store. Estimates I have seen predict the DM&E will take from 10% to 30% of the existing coal business the BNSF and UP CURRENTLY haul from the PRB. Given the growth of PRB exports this may not reduce the tonnage the two entrenched roads will haul in the future but I am sure the big boys feel that all future loading increases belong to THEM and not some upstart wooden axle intruder from the east. BNSF will be more affected than the UP since the DM&E traffic would seem to be destined for the upper midwest than the areas the UP serves. While the UP can use former C&NW trackage to reach into the upper midwest the UP routing through North Platte is a distance disadvantage against the BNSF’s more direct routing.
Perhaps, after the DM&E builds their lines into the PRB and BNSF and UP are forced to deal with their operations they might take a more realistic view of the options the new lines will offer. Certainly the new DM&E lines will open new opportunities to relieve times of congestion in the PRB as well as new entries to existing and future mine locations. The feathers have been ruffled and the two big bulls are just not going to be happy when forced to open the gate to the newcomer.
One also needs to note that the engineering of the lines to the mines in the original BN construction emphasized distance over grade. The BN looked for the shortest distance between existing and projected mine sites and then just connected the dots. The result has been long hard pulls hard on both men and equipment. There is a reason for the rack full of spare knuckles at the tops of some of the hills and the racks are frequently visited. DPU operations have helped with that issue but I think the railroads should be eyeing new alignments for loaded trains rather than quadrupling and quintupling the existing alignment surveyed m
How about the threads “Saving the Railroad Industry TO Death - The Evil of Economic Freight Rate Regulation” and ““Open Access” and regulation of railroad freight rates” just to name a couple?
At one point I specifically opened the door to give you the opportunity to convince me why your definition of captive shippers was more logical. I have also asked general questions on those threads and on other threads (not to you specifically) that went unanswered.
I could probably go back and compile a list of comments that I have made or questions that I have asked that were never responded to.
Make up your mind Dave, we talking baseball or trains?
Sounds like Dave has had a few “soap eating feasts from Bergie” judging by this statement.
It looks like there is more to the original story than he was admitting to
Frankly, I am neutral on the whole DME extension issue.
But what I find very humorous is FM’s assertion that the DME would actually have “standby” capacity to handle a diversion of the BNSF/UP business if the Orin line went down. Unless that guy that owns the DME is a total idiot, he is going to run his railroad at capacity. According to information the DME submitted to the STB, their annual capacity number will be 100 million tons or about 18-20 trains a day.
Meanwhile the BNSF and UP are going to take about 325 million tons out of the basin this year, and with the capacity work finished this year will get to 375 million tons in 2007. Then with the $100 million expansion scheduled for 2007 their capacity will go up over 400 million tons per year.
Assuming no further expansion of the Orin line capacity, DME’s capacity will make the annual total about 500 million. Currently, over 600 million tons per year is permitted. I have seen numbers as high as 700 million tons per year going out in 15-20 years.
Even with the DME in the play, excess capacity and lower rates will only exist in FM’s dreams.
I am going out on a limb here, and assuming that the FM in the Billings Gazzette is the one and the same who lends so much to the proceedings here…[:-^]
but my point is, WHY should taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the company? All that does is spreads the cost of the operation to a larger body. Why not let the folks who are going to benefit from the coal pay for it all? You have yet to show any overiding social benefit to such a subsidy.
The promise of lower costs leading to lower end prices to the consumer is a proven political football.
The “suspension of disbelief” follows easily when ma and pa kettle are tantalized with a lower cost of living .
One can only guess and wonder. My personal suspicion is that it comes from a belief that goverment spending and waste are unavoidable, so a strategy for success is to “get your share” before everybody else does. A somewhat misguided but not at all uncommon perception, I’m afraid. It’s why this country’s budget mushrooms the way it does.
You see variations of this mindset in the arguments that since truckers are indirectly subsidized through taxpayer funded highway improvements, then freight railroads are “owed” a similar stipend, (infa structure improvements, etc) or that since commercial airlines are subsidized, so too must be Amtrak. etc.
First of all, that ain’t me. I have never in my life used the phrase “git-r-done”. Secondly, I don’t use my TRAINS forum user name anywhere other than on this forum.
Yet another case of a cowardly ilk stealing my TRAINS identity for some disingenuous purpose. My guess is that it’s Ed B, since he’s tried a similar tactic on this forum in the past.
But to counter your point, why should the taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the NS double stack clearance project? Why did the taxpayers have to SUBSIDIZE the Alameda Corridor? Why are the taxpayers having to subsidize the Reno Trench? Etc., etc., etc.
Perhaps it’s a case of you not liking the answers I gave.
As for the captive shipper definition, I thought a stated quite clearly that my definition - “Rail captivity is defined as a rail shipper having only one physical connection to a Class I” - is as far as I know the only objective way of determining captivity, whereas using arbitrary R/VC ratio’s is subjective.
That’s it. Beyond that definition we’d be getting into needless minutia.
So go ahead and compile your list, and I’ll answer them anew. Keep in mind that for some of your questions someone else provided a better answer than I ever could, but I suppose I could have given you a “ditto” reply if that’s what you wanted.
Jay, Jay, Jay…
Surely you’ve heard of railroads using a competitor’s trackage when their own is taken out of service for some reason…?
Keep in mind also that the DM&E will build a parallel line to a good portion of the Orin line. That would allow for some directional running if all three parties can come to such an agreement, and directional running can concievably double capacity of bi-directional trackage.