I don't totally blame the RR for not increasing engine power or investing in more tracking. Look at the signals they have been getting from farmers and gov't over the last few years.
Early 80's they were told that we wanted to get rid of the Crow Rate we wanted more livestock production on prairies and the Crow was distorting the cost of transporting grain to port hindering expansion. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Pay the farmers the Crow benefit instead of to the RR. Farmers said it would generate value added here on prairies, pasta and flour mills would be built instead of shipping raw product by Rail. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Farmers wanted the right to sell grain on their own and have access to USA markets they protested, even went to jail for the right to truck grain across boarder. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Gov't agreed plus even touted with great fan fair that pasta plants were going to be built on the prairies. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Gov't and oil industry have been lobbying long and hard for pipe lines to be built to USA, eastern Canada and West coast. LESS OIL BY RAIL.
Gov't and environmentalists have been lobbying and have greatly reduced coal use and closed markets. LESS COAL BY RAIL.
All signals to the RR that Farmers, industry and Gov't are going to reduce the need for rail transportation. Why would they then invest in long term and build more infrastructure when continually threatened with reduced need. Now you want to show them that you can truck grain to west coast once they reach their cap on freight they will likely say go ahead and truck it.
My question is how many businesses would make massive investments or even give that threatens to not use them at every turn? Would you on your farm invest in something when you were told that it was going to have less market or customers were going to reduce consumption in the long term?
Early 80's they were told that we wanted to get rid of the Crow Rate we wanted more livestock production on prairies and the Crow was distorting the cost of transporting grain to port hindering expansion. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Pay the farmers the Crow benefit instead of to the RR. Farmers said it would generate value added here on prairies, pasta and flour mills would be built instead of shipping raw product by Rail. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Farmers wanted the right to sell grain on their own and have access to USA markets they protested, even went to jail for the right to truck grain across boarder. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Gov't agreed plus even touted with great fan fair that pasta plants were going to be built on the prairies. LESS GRAIN BY RAIL.
Gov't and oil industry have been lobbying long and hard for pipe lines to be built to USA, eastern Canada and West coast. LESS OIL BY RAIL.
Gov't and environmentalists have been lobbying and have greatly reduced coal use and closed markets. LESS COAL BY RAIL.
All signals to the RR that Farmers, industry and Gov't are going to reduce the need for rail transportation. Why would they then invest in long term and build more infrastructure when continually threatened with reduced need. Now you want to show them that you can truck grain to west coast once they reach their cap on freight they will likely say go ahead and truck it.
My question is how many businesses would make massive investments or even give that threatens to not use them at every turn? Would you on your farm invest in something when you were told that it was going to have less market or customers were going to reduce consumption in the long term?
Comment