Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Lee Koch"]   I'm not sure whose logic is more flawed, FM, as OA would require major changes in the way railroads plan their logistics. [/quote] Why?  Other than the elimination of bottleneck rate gouging and paper barriers, there would be no major changes in railroad transport strategies that could conceivably seen as having a negative impact.  There would be an increase in the number of viable pathways with OA, but that can hardly be infered as a negative. [quote] Your idea might work, if all customers along a branch could agree on which RR to franchise with. Granted, with the move towards increased intermodal traffic, the "single branchline conondrum", as you call it, may become the exception at some point. But don't forget that not every railroad has a 40-50% intermodal portion of traffic, in particular the small guys. And, by the way, aren't most captive shippers "captive" precisely because they are located on a branchline or remote division without access to a competitor's mainline? [/quote] Look at the shortline example.  There are currently quite a few shortline properties that could physically interchange with more than one Class I, if not for those quasi-illegal paper barriers.  Thus, under a franchised OA scenario, you can have 3rd party shortlines do the carload work for all online shippers, with certain moves dedicated to specific Class I's at the interchange point.  And you do so without duplicating crews or rolling stock.  We have a few shortline operators up here that do just that - one day or two they work on the carloads bound for one Class I, then other days they do the same for the other Class I.  Yes, certain shippers are contractually limited to doing business with only the former Class I branchline owner (which is obviously a cause for inefficiencies), but that may change shortly as the State has found a loophole that may allow 3rd party-owned railcars to be loaded at the facility once limited to BN but then shipped out via UP, since the State has bought the ROW.  The other shortline mentioned was formerly owned by both UP and BN, so those shippers already have duopoly rate access.  (Yet another example of the natural economic tendency toward OA working it's way up from the grassroots level.) As for the statement......... "And, by the way, aren't most captive shippers "captive" precisely because they are located on a branchline or remote division without access to a competitor's mainline?" ......I would disagree with the contention that such are "remote".  I believe most captive customers are located on mainlines, since branchline abandonment and terminal consolidation has all but eliminated the "out of the way" rail shipper for those lines not already shortlined.  Of course, with OA all such customers would then have access to the competitor's mainline (which would also be OA).  May seem like a moot point, yet having access to mainline alternatives not currently availed under integration would bring a whole new package of efficiencies to the table.  Whereas now all traffic regardless of product differentiation travel on the same mainline - coal drags, intermodal hot shots, etc. - with OA you would see mainlines themselves differentiated in what basic types of train configurations they would host based on grades, profiles, online customer array, etc.  Additionally, you would have greater prospects for directional running with roughly parallel mainlines, yet another efficiency the monopoly apologists don't seem to recognize. [quote] Then, as you admit, your suggestion does not represent true OA. If I understand the reasons for wanting OA in North America, then it is to relieve captive shippers of overpricing by the railroads. How does OA accomplish this feat? By creating a transportation situation similar to that of interstate trucking, meaning that EVERY shipper is free to choose what company will ship for him. And whether that takes the form of a long-term contract or of taking the lowest bidder on a monthly, a weekly or even a daily basis is also up to the Customer! [/quote] Yep, franchising is not true OA, but it is a positive move in that direction, especially if the franchise is operated by in independent 3rd party outfit who can deliver to more than one Class I carrier.  And that in and of itself may be enough to bring that price competition that is so sorely lacking right now, which is the whole point of this debate. [quote] Limitedclear wrote: "Sure FM, lets just confiscate everyone's property. Wouldn't things be ever so much easier to operate then. Don't forget the failed efforts at nationalizing the railroads in the past and all the long term damage regulation wrought. Oh, and what's a little violation of Constitutional Rights to liberty and property..." [/quote] (insert "Leave It to Beaver" music here) Oh that LC!  It's best if you just ignore his crazy notions....[;)] [quote] Now, you mustn't forget that the development of the railroad industry in NA took place under a wholly different set of circumstances as that of either trucking or air freight. Both of the latter developed as OA systems because the public domain provided the infrastructure at "no cost". The interstate highway system was built out of a national interest: defense. The nation's air traffic system also developed on the shoulders of the military, utilizing facilities no longer needed by the Airforce after WW II. Railroads were given huge land grants, tax exemptions, etc. because the US government wanted their help in connecting the east with the west coast, and then in settling the great plains. The plan worked: my ancestors travelled by "immigrant car" from Indiana to Kansas on the Rock Island/O&K. You want to talk about overpricing for captive shippers, take a look at post-Civil War 19th century railroading! I think that anybody comparing the price situation then and now would have to admit that the current system is much fairer and works just fine. If these "captive shippers" are being taken by the RRs, why don't they just ship by truck?! Now, how could you justify government confiscation of corporate property without risking years of expensive litigation and, eventually, a turnover on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court? And if you just left the RRs their ROW but forced OA upon them, then you would see a lack of investment in the physical plant by the owners. I just don't believe that OA is do-able in NA![/quote] Yep, it was that overpricing post Ante Bellum that eventually brought in the original railroad regulation.  That's always been the way in the US-style capitalism - monopoly regulation.  So why didn't railroads also start out as public ROW's supporting multiple private usage?  Back then it just wasn't technologically or logistically feasible to do it that way - how do you control two way traffic on a single track without indepth training and complete insider control?  Today we have the technology to make comprehensive mulitple user track access relatively easy, and now that integrated rail model is fast becoming a relic of the past along with plank roads and horse drawn barges.
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