Acting through its client agitator "Consumers United for Rail Equity".

Funny, they expect to ship a tank car full of some chloride compound as cheaply as grain, despite the risk....

THere are some states that should be expelled from the union for citizen malpractice, returning way to many corrupt or inept representatives.. Rockefeller and his recently deceased colleague represent the many nice people of WV poorly

But then again, my state hasn't done very wel either...

Um...what was that?

Welcome to RyPN, and I understand you have some wonderful steam in Australia, too, including some American jobs.

What you're looking at is a comment about a modern dispute with historic overtones, specifically rate regulation. Railroads in this country were the first big business (and for the most part, are still privately owned), and were unregulated in about any form until the 1880s, and were not effectively regulated until the Hepburn Act of 1906. Unfortunately, that act just about coincided with the introduction of mass-produced motor vehicles (Henry Ford's Model T was first built in late 1907 as a 1908 model), and the effect was to gradually strangle the railroad industry's ability to compete with what would also be highly subsidized competitors. This was largely blamed for the problems of a largely bankrupt industry in the late 1960s and 1970s. As it was, it took years to remove the regulations, and still more years for the railroad industry to learn to act like a competitive business and regain its financial health (and some would argue that the rate of return is still lower than it should be).

In the process, though, an old "problem" from the 19th century has emerged, and that is the case of the "captive" shipper, a rail customer served by just one railroad and with no access to another company or to effective alternatives (such as truck service, which may cost too much). This was one of the things that aggravated the Grange movement (agricultural organizations) of the 19th century, and it aggravates some large shippers of coal and chemicals today. It seems to be a thorny question--railroads have to compete for business, and profit margins are still razor thin, yet they could put at least some of their customers at risk by charging higher rates when the customers have no realistic options.

I would suggest looking up the Hepburn Act (which was discussed here a while ago), and take a look at a recent thread on "More From the We Just Don't Learn Department." You may also want to look up the Hepburn Act on somenthing like Wikipedia (the site is somewhat controversial because anybody can say anything on it, but at the same time, it usually seems to be decent on the basics, just don't expect 100% from it), along with the Interstate Commerce Commission (transportation regulatory body).

Finally, Superheater is just a little bit of a hot head, you've got to forgive him for this. Too many of us, including myself at times, shoot off our mouths when we should take it a little easier!

Afraid that's part of being a human animal.

Again, welcome in.

Superheater is just a little bit of a hot head, you've got to forgive him for this..

That's your opinion, not shared by a significant number of backchannel communications and personal meetings.

It's also an ad hominem statement.