Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Dave, You picked a good example but there are some problems. First you are going to one way operations on both legs. Portland is crew change on UP. Getting from Tacoma to Hinkle in one crew day would be a challenge so UP would probably have to change crews at Yakima. This means you have four working crews plus four deadhead crews per round trip. You have doubled UP crew costs. Not very appetizing.. Second problem is there is nothing preventing UP from making BNSF an offer. You are assuming, without evidence that BNSF would want an outrageous rate, and that UP wants to go over the mountain. Third problem is this would no where near double anybody's capacity. As you know there are two lines down the gorge, UP and BNSF. I doubt that the UP has as much as one grain train per day to Tacoma. Rerouting less than one train per day, and one way at that is a long, long way from doubling UP capacity. In fact rerouting does not increase capacity at all. The capacity of all the routes involved in you example, and I suspect in general, is what it is as controlled by track configuration and signal system. It may be true that BNSF could run a few more trains via Stampede. They have plenty of their own they could divert to it at considerable saving in mileage. Why have they not done so? The moral problem is that you are proposing to rob the BNSF to pay the UP. How can you justify a below market rent to UP? Remember BNSF invested a reported $165 million in Stampede to reopen it. I might love to have the government make you let me live in your spare bedroom for free, but I sure do not want you in mine. I am not convinced on either practical or ethical grounds. Mac [/quote] Mac, You give some good counterpoints. My understanding of BNSF operations in the PNW is that they do route empty grain shuttles back over Stampede, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe they do manage to run from Tacoma to Pasco in one trip. For UP to shuttle a crew between Hinkle and Pasco would only take 20 minutes or so, so there would be no need for increasing crew costs. My assumption of BNSF either not allowing UP to reroute over Stampede or else wanting an exhorbinant rate is based on my own business experiences with BNSF trying to establish a third party short haul intermodal move from Yakima/Pasco to the Puget Sound. No matter how favorably we crunched the numbers in BNSF's favor, they just didn't want to be bothered with it. Go figure! Also remember that this is just one aspect of an aggregate solution for increasing capacity. Open access by itself would not double capacity, you would need to incorporate the other possible solutions provided in this thread. Finally, I do not believe we are robbing BNSF or any other railroad company by breaking up the vertical oligarchy, anymore so than suggesting that AT&T was "robbed" by its breakup. The fortunes of the telecom industry exploded after that breakup, and given the economic points in favor of open access, you could see a lesser but still substantial increase in railroading's share of intercity freight. If anything, we are doing BNSF and all the other Class I's a favor by removing a huge part of their capital liabilities, and opening the door for substantial public investment in the rail infrastructure. The moral question thus is not whether breaking apart infrastructure from operations is a form of "taking" private property, but whether it is right to give public aid to companies that will continue to restrict access to the infrastructure to only their trains. If the railroads really want (or need) public assistance for infrastructure upgrades, then that infrastructure must be accessable by all qualified operating companies. Otherwise we are subsidizing a monopoly.
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