Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Let me get this straight. Is it the regulatory agency or the regulated monopoly infrastructure company that orders the shipper to spend the money on preventing the dusting? In this case, might it not be much simpler if the UP and BNSF told the mines that a rebate will be paid to cover the added cost of sealing the coal load? In the latter case the entity that benefits pays the entity that does the work. Optionally, the railroads do the work themselves. Kind of a common business practise. [/quote] The infrastructure company is responsible (with regulatory oversight to prevent deference) for the accounting of maintenance costs to keep the lines in proper functionality. So far I have focussed on weight per axle and speed of consists as the prime causal factors for wear and tear, but as this example shows certain commodities may also contribute to factors of deterioration which should be accounted for in the fee being charged. In this case the infrastructure company would charge more for open top hoppers/gondolas of coal to compensate for an increased need for reballasting, the transporters then either choose to switch to enclosed hoppers to bypass this extra charge, or pass on the cost of this charge to the mine owners. Since the regulatory agency would enforce whatever action is deemed necessary to ameliorate this problem, if the cost is ultimately passed on to the mine owners they will have no choice. The costs of amelioration would eventually be passed on to the energy consumer. Speaking of coal dust off unit trains, I would think this would be an issue that the EPA would want to look at! Are there any environmental degradations that result from coal dust?
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