That Seventies Issue - TRAINS

Trains Magazine General Discussion
61

Not believable

62

Got my copy of That Seventies Issue of Trains, along with the 5th anniversary issue of Classic Trains yesterday ( Feb. 2). I found both magazines more interesting than the State of the Union speech. [;)]
Mark Hemphill’s story on why SP went down in flames is a good read. I’ll have to reread it to pick up on the things that I missed. The story on the Erie Lakawanna is another fun read. For those interested, pick up a copy of H. Roger Grant’s book on the life and death of EL. True, it would have been nice if there was more on Penn Central, and I thought the story on the Rock Island could have been longer, but that’s my opinion. I don’t think there was anything wrong with the article on the Rock. It’s just one person’s view/ feelings on his adventure to find out what the Rock Island was about weeks before its demise. What’s wrong with that?? If anything, the moral of the story is to not take things for granted.
By the way, how about that photo of the Lehigh Valley GP38 with the going out of bussiness sign taped to the front of the loco’s front end?

63

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

  1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

  2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it’s not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation’s abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more e

64

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

  1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

  2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it’s not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation’s abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U

65

And the monkey flips the switch…

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

  1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

  2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it’s not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation’s abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights

66

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

  1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments.

  2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it’s not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation’s abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada

67

To futuremodal: What’s the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography?

68

Montana factoid: In the 8 years between 1995 and 2003 MT farmers got $3,097,849,833 in USDA subsidies( see www.ewg.org/farm/regionsummary.php?fips=30000). Something to ponder between now and April 15 fellow US taxpayers.

69

  1. What subsidization? Why do you insist that federal action to institute rail competition is a subsidy? A subsidy for who, and from whom? If the federal action simply requires another railroad access to BNSF’s lines, how is that a subsidy if not one dime of taxpayers money is used? If the feds offer a second railroad a land grant to rebuild the Milwaukee corridor, how would that be a subsidy if not one dime of taxpayers money is used? If BNSF’s forefathers got their start with a land grant, was that a subsidy? If not, then it is neither for a modern rail construction project. If so, then why is it wrong for another railroad to get the same benefit? Or do you think that federal institution of market based competition is all subsidy? Was the STB’s insistence that BNSF get access over UP’s central corridor in Utah, Nevada, Colorado a subsidy for BNSF, or a subsidy for rail shippers who might play UP and BNSF against each other? Was the breakup of Standard Oil a subsidy? Was the AT&T breakup a subsidy?

  2. How is Montana “constrained by geography”? Montana is closer to PNW ports than Nebraska, Iowa, or Minnesota, yet the rates Montana shippers pay to access PNW ports are higher than those paid by those other states. You might want to look at a map of the U.S. before you utter such a ridiculous statement. Montana is not constrained by geography, it is constrained by the BNSF rail monopoly, a situation brought about by the “subsidization” to BNSF granted by the STB/ICC.

Try thinking outside the box of the rail industry hacks and their subsequent propaganda. You might enlighten yourself.

70

That’s amazing, Bob! Only Montana farmers received USDA subsidies!

Seriously, Bob, why would you use skewed data from an environmental extremist group like the so-called “Environmental Working Group”? Yet another taxpayer-subsidized anti-American econazi faction whose lawyers get a six-figure gift from you and I everytime they file a frivolous lawsuit intended to destroy the U.S. economy. You would do better to get your information from the USDA.

As has been pointed out by those of us who work in agriculture, commodity payments do nothing more than counteract the artificial cost increases that accumulate due to over regulation of the ag sector. Take away the regulations, and you can think about reducing crop payments. As for conservation and disaster payments, those are separate issues, and are available to all land owners regardless of occupation. I’m sure Ted Turner gets a fair share of conservation payments so he can afford to fence off the Milwaukee corridor through Sixteenmile Canyon.

Of course, if we’re going to talk about farm subsidies, we should also point out that BNSF gets one third of those subsidies paid to Montana farmers, so not only are we subsidizing BNSF through the lack of STB oversight regarding it’s directive of maintaining rail competition, we are subsidizing BNSF via USDA payments to Montana farmers!

71

I finally recieved my issue in the mail yesterday.So far I have only read the SP article by Mark Hemphill.It really showed what happened to SP and why.

72

Well, I don’t know anything about Montana and grain rates, but I thoroughly enjoyed “That Seventies Issue”. Admittedly, the period is one of my favorite to begin with (that is, until 01 April 1976!) but I enjoyed reading it.

Having the Chessie System on the cover never hurts. I just sort of wi***here’d been more coverage on the Chessie System as a whole.

I also appreciated the Penn Central fold; it was a welcome find after recently reading Jim Boyd’s juvenile rant (“I led the cheering section when it failed”) in one of his book reviews. I had been worried that any PC coverage would mostly read, “OMG the livery is black!!! Ewwww!!!” but fortunately not.

“The Conrail Bunch” was laugh-out loud funny; things like that add spice to the issue. It’s not every Trains article that inspires one to try and write lyrics to a song; luckily, the music’s already done for this one. The piece seemed like whimsical, light-hearted humor, but perhaps everyone didn’t “get” the joke. I read it to a friend of mine over the phone; despite the fact that she’s never heard of any of these railroads, thought it was hilarious.

For what it was worth, and with no malice towards the EL fans, linking Marcia Brady to Phoebe’s Road was amusing. I’d been wondering how the EL had such a broad base of interest, and now I know. It’s all about the blond. [:D]

The Bicentennial locomotives feature was an enjoyable read; just looking at those locomotives harkened back to an era that I’m not entirely sure we’ll see again. In a way, it kind of tugged at the heartstrings, not something easily done. I wi***hat book had gotten published. And yes, I’ll have to hold out until 2026. Bother!

The Southern Pacific article was informative and engaging, even though I haven’t a whit of interest in that fallen flag. If I’m to understand this industry, it won’t be from reading Railfan & Railroad or The Railroad Press ; I regard the “business-light” (no disrespec

73

Here we are a year later…how do you feel, now?

74

From a UK perspective - I won’t get the March issue until the end of this month, so can’t comment on the content of the issue.

My main reason for being on this site, however, is for the Newswire which has pretty much supplanted Trains Magazine for information on contemporary issues. I’m surprised no previous posts have mentioned it.

I’ll read the magazine regardless of it’s content, but won’t expect much current information.

Possibly an inflamatory statement but there are at least 8 monthly rail magazines published in the UK (population 58 million) so the availability of magazines to you North American folk seems disproportionately low. Might it not be time for some healthy competition?

On that basis Trains can’t be blamed for trying to be all things to all men until there’s a viable alternative.