Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
WATCO abandoning service on Washington State owned lines! (read: BNSF does it again!)
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by kenneo</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by Murphy Siding</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /> The State went to all this trouble to purchase the PCC lines with the thought that by doing so they could keep rail service on those lines viable and keep trucks off State and county roads. Then BNSF refuses to provide the promised service levels for their former share of the State purchased lines <br />[/quote] <br /> <br /> You make it sound as if the state would have grounds for a lawsuit. I mean, they did get get this *promised service levels* issue in writing? Right?[}:)] <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Actually, it's a little more tricky than that, and Gabe could do a better job of explaining the legallese involved in such situations, but my understanding is thus: <br /> <br />When WATCO bought the ex-BN lines from BN, BN is alleged to have made certain car supply promises, which I am told is normal SOP for such line sales, otherwise the potential short line buyer would walk. Of course, the information is confidential, so then WATCO turned and sold the trackage to the State while maintaining operating rights, WATCO retained the contractual rights and obligations of the original sale. And now that WATCO wants out of operating rights altogether, the State would probably have to get a court order to see what is contained in the original sales contract. Without that, the State can only go on hearsay when calculating what BNSF did or did not promise in terms of guaranteed car supply to WATCO, and hearsay usually won't hold up in court! And WATCO probably is too afraid of retribution from BNSF on it's hundreds of other shortlines throughout North America to bring forth this info themselves. <br /> <br />AKA, it's all probably in legal limbo right now! <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Let me wager a couple of months wages here -- SOP for such line sales and/or leases for the SP's and BN's of the world is captive traffic clauses. That means that traffic originating or terminating on the shed lines must, without fail, be interchanged with the original owner - just as if the shed line were still operating as a branch of its original owner. That means that Coulee City traffic goes PCC-BNSF, Marshall traffic goes PCC-BNSF and Moscow traffic goes PCC-UP. If this were not so, I really think that the PCC and W-DOT would have the cars going PCC-Pullman-PCC-Hooper-UP. <br /> <br />What the BNSF has done is to shed lines that the BN does not wi***o operate but does want to have the traffic from/to. They get rid of all costs and keep all revenues (that they can). They can't simply contract out with a private switch crew for the service because of scope rules, so they do the next best thing. To maximize their effort (cost cutting) the provide only what a court or regulatory agency forces them to do. And the little short line can't afford to do that for business and financial reasons. <br /> <br />PCC could, in theory, buy covered hoppers for their customers, but since the grain won't be travelling in BN supplied equipment, the BN is not obligated to provide the rate and division agreeded to in the purchase contract. <br /> <br />The W-DOT can fix the situation, but it probably would take the STB and definetly a court action backed up by a "obey or we shut you down" order against BNSF. It would take at least five things - cancelling of the restricted interchange clauses, accounting any PCC owned or leased rail equipment as "home-road supplied" for rate purposes, through routing for traffic off the "foreign road" to the "home road" (traffic off ex-NP lines can interchange at Pullman to the PCC for delivery to UP and traffic off ex-UP lines can interchange with the BNSF at Marshall or at Cheney via Pullman), lost business opportunity penalties to be paid by the line-haul carrier for car supply and service failures, and all local traffic is exempt from any service, rate or routing interference by the BN or UP. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Those are some excellent points for WSDOT to consider!
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