"Warren called me and said, 'I'm looking forward to our first century together,' " Rose says. "I'd never heard an investor use the word 'century' before."
When the deal - the largest purchase in Berkshire's history - was announced in November, there was plenty of second-guessing. Was age finally catching up with the "Oracle of Omaha?" Railroads, after all, generally are viewed as 19th-century technology, and they've suffered big talking about an investment that pays off throughout the 21st century?
Buffett chuckles at the suggestion that buying the nation's second-biggest railroad is a sign of senility. He argues that railroads represent the future. They're best-positioned to haul the raw material and finished goods for a nation and economy that he insists are bound to grow. Unlike trucks, trains don't have to compete on congested highways. Nor do railroads depend on strapped governments to maintain infrastructure.
"They don't need the government to build them new highways and airports," he says in an interview with USA TODAY. "They've already invested heavily in their infrastructure and technology, and they plan to invest more to keep up with the growing demand. They're the only mode of freight transportation that can handle growth. What's not to like about that?"
Buffett also laughs that his big bet on the future - taking what for him was the radical step of splitting Berkshire class B shares 50-to-1 to make the BNSF acquisition acceptable to the railroad's shareholders - is a second sign he's slipping.
Nor would he have split Berkshire's class B shares, priced at more than $3,000 a share before the BNSF deal, if he didn't think his wager was worth it. When the class B shares were created in 1996 as a way for smaller investors to buy a piece of Berkshire, Buffett says the plan always was to execute a stock split if it became necessary to close an important purchase. But he also intended to be pretty picky about what would be worth that step. A railroad is that purchase.
Buffett grew up in the 1930s and 1940s when folks in Omaha, the hometown he shares with Union Pacific, thought eating Sunday lunch at the Union Pacific station downtown was a sign of social sophistication. And he confesses to a life-long love of railroads. He has an elaborate model railroad layout on the third floor of his home for his children and grandchildren, though "it gets little action," he says, because they don't share his fascination and he has little time for it.
But buying BNSF is no nostalgia play. Buffett foresees a dynamic and profitable future not just for BNSF but also for the nation's rail industry; so much so that he chastises himself for coming to that view, he says, two years late.
"There are just four big railroads in the U.S.," Buffett says. "I know the people who run three of the four, and they're all good people. They will all have similar destinies. They will all do very well, especially Union Pacific and BNSF."
Counting the $8 billion in BNSF shares Berkshire already owned, the $26 billion in cash it paid for the remaining BNSF shares, and the assumption of $10 billion of debt, Buffett has invested $44 billion in the railroad.
Rail also is a capital-intensive industry. Buffett says, "If anything, we'll be investing more" in BNSF in the near term "as we build it for the future."
BNSF's Rose says the industry, and BNSF in particular, is well-positioned to help the nation prosper. It's already made huge investments in new technology, infrastructure and markets, he says.
After the industry was deregulated in 1980, Rose says, "The railroads spent the next two decades going on a productivity binge, wringing out excess costs, getting rid of inefficient lines, finding wage rates that we all could live within, both for employees and our companies. We think we are a very productive institution at this time."
U.S. railroads were 144 percent more efficient in 2008 than in 1980, according to the Association of American Railroads, the industry's trade group. In 2008, they carried, on average, a ton of freight 457 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel, up five percent from 436 miles just a year earlier. And the association claims that if just 10 percent of the freight that now moves by truck were moved to the rails, the USA would burn one billion fewer gallons of fuel a year.
And that's what they want to do: move more freight from the highways to the railways. The fuel savings would be an economic benefit to the rails and shippers, and a general benefit to society and the environment, Rose says.
"While there's been a tremendous couple of decades of productivity with the trucks, they've hit that peak, and now they're headed down," he says.
And the railroads are ready. The AAR's member railroads have poured more than $440 billion, better than 40 percent of their combined revenues, between deregulation in 1980 and 2008 into new locomotives and technologies to improve hauling capabilities and lower costs. They've laid double, triple, quadruple tracks in heavily traveled rail corridors to relieve costly shipping bottlenecks. They've opened new and enlarged existing rail yards and intermodal shipping sites, where ocean shipping containers and de-coupled highway truck trailers can be stacked on flat cars for long-haul shipping, to make lines more accessible.
Meanwhile, inflation-adjusted average shipping rates, excluding fuel and other surcharges, fell 49 percent over that same 28-year period, according to AAR data. And the same economics of scale that help make rails the lowest-cost option for transporting heavy loads long distances also happen to make them relatively "green" in an era when that increasingly matters. Rose and other rail boosters claim long-haul trains are three to four times more fuel-efficient than trucks in terms of freight tons miles per gallon of fuel.
"This has an enormous beneficial effect on society," Buffett says.