Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
LETS DEBATE OPEN ACCESS
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Alan, <br /> <br />I do appreciate the points you are making. I would just add that the rail scene today is a juxtaposition from what it was just a few years ago. Back then, there was excess capacity, so a Class I like BNSF selling or leasing redundant mainlines to lower cost operators made sense, since BNSF still could access the property and control the gateways. Now, capacity is close to being contrained, and BNSF is in a position to have to spend it's stockholder's stake to add sidings and double track. Of course, under the theory of dispersed redundancy, BNSF ideally would want that new trackage to be built where it could still be accessed if something happened on it't current trackage. Just double tracking the "Funnel" is not a panacea, for if there is even one derailment (still a common occurance in railroading) the entire set of trackage is taken out of service. This may not be so costly for low value commodities, but can be very costly for time sensitive traffic. <br /> <br />BNSF has (or has access to) five separate sets of mainlines (converging into two) out of the Dakotas and Wyoming coming into Idaho, and three separate sets of mainlines (convering into two) coming out of Washington into Idaho. That leaves just the single mainline ROW between Sandpoint and West Spokane. It would certainly fit into BNSF's Northern Tier lines philosophy if a second parallel but distant mainline is added between Washington and Montana, especially if another entity is charged with it's construction and maintenance, removing a cost liability should traffic levels fall in the future. Even if that same new trackage was accessable by UP, it is unlikely such access would amount to even a dent in BNSF's business. As you so succinctly state, only raw paranoia (and I might add, pure idiocy) would foster opposition to this new line by BNSF. If a caveat of open access (and a corresponding array of tax breaks to the open access infrastructure entity) were dependent on more than one railroad accessing the property, BNSF would be wise to simply allow one or tow token accesses onto MRL by UP or some shortline if it means a new secondary mainline paid for by someone other than BNSF stockholders.
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