Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Something I don't understand about capacity
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by Overmod</i> <br /><br />Gabe, seems to me that the 'logical' thing that will keep short lines from 'going the way of the dinosaur' will be state assistance, or outright participation, with the State of Washington's program being one of the best examples. <br /> <br />One way this might work is the State acquiring the ROW, using some form of public money, directed taxation, or specialty trust-fund income to improve it when necessary, and also if necessary to arrange for suitable cars (e.g., lower axle loading or better suspension when appropriate for lighter or lower-maintenance trackage). If I understand the recent posts on grain services, Washington currently does some of this. <br /> <br />The question of who operates movements over this trackage is a bit more involved, but a very common answer appears to be "whoever best assures the state authorities that they can do the work reliably and at lowest cost" -- in that order, I think. <br /> <br />Some discussion about the logical 'rationale' for state money being used to support rail is available, and makes interesting reading. I'm sure Mark has some input on how this has been implemented historically... <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Overmod, I can offer some enlightenment on the State of Washington issue since I reside in this portion of the nation. <br /> <br />At one time, the NP (and later BN) had a viable line running from Spokane south to Lewiston ID through the Palouse country (the P and L branch). When the arrival of slackwater in 1975 made Lewiston a legitimate barge port, the logical thought was that BN would start running grain shuttles down to the barge port to take advantage of the cost savings. Instead, BN chose to shut down the line from Moscow ID to Lewiston, and in doing so cut off the previously viable pre-slackwater eastbound traffic flow as well. The excuse of the time was that BN could now run that traffic 130 miles west to Pasco and then run it east. (That of course begs the question why they didn't just do that back in the early 1900's when the Camas Prairie's Snake River line was opened.) Of course the real reason BN did this was to spite expectations of the improved supply chain economics available in the form of intermodal transload of rail to barge at Lewiston. The result was that 80% of the grain off the Palouse was trucked down to the barge ports rather than moving by rail, either by long haul to the coast OR shorthaul to the barge ports. Thus, if BN's intent was to capture this traffic to rails, they failed miserably, and the region suffered as a result of BN's actions. <br /> <br />BN kept the embargoed rails in place until 1998, when they made sure the rails were torn up prior to selling the Palouse lines to WATCO. This action gauranteed that the new shortline operator could not access the logical routing. The result was that WATCO could not make enough to cover the maintenance costs of the trackage, so they turned to the State of Washington to bail them out. <br /> <br />Studies commissioned by Washington's DOT showed that if the Moscow to Lewiston line were kept in place, the shortline operator could have OWNED the shorthaul to the barge ports, and made more than enough to cover operating and maintenance costs, thus saving the taxpayers of Washington the expense of taking over the lines (a process by the way that is still not finalized). Studies also showed that even with a State takeover of the Palouse lines, shippers will still perfer trucking their grain down to Lewiston due to the uncertainity of getting long term dependable service from the Class I's. WATCO does run some mid-shorthaul grain trains to a barge port at Wallula, but his involves running rights over UP's "Washy" line, as well as getting State-owned hoppers. It is doubtful that the State can afford to upgrade the lines to a point that will allow for speedier service, and even that wouldn't change the grain shipping dynamics. <br /> <br />It is possible that the State of Washington would be better to leave the Palouse lines to WATCO, and instead build a new line from the Palouse down to the barge ports. With the shorter turn around, and the fact that this rail move would bypass the Class I's (thus allowing at will running by WATCO), it is likely that the line could be paid for simply via taxing the difference between rail rates and truck rates, and the accruing savings to roads and highways in the area. Unfortunately, the WSDOT's Rail Office is manned by some ex-Class I folks, and to take on this project would be an admission of failure (and subsequently incompetence or fraud) on the part of BN and the STB in allowing the Moscow to Lewiston abandonment in the first place. <br /> <br />So what will happen is the taxpayers of Washington will end up supporting both the maintenance of the Palouse lines AND continued road and highway maintenance costs, since a majority of the grain will still move by truck down to Lewiston. WATCO ends up with a pretty sweet deal!
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy