What the @#$%^&. The regulators are becoming drunk with power.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cp-railway-ordered-to-report-fertilizer-delivery-plans-by-friday-1.1778312
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
It's the big bad railroads against the poor little farmer. You could make a DVD series and call it "Populism Run Wild."
John Timm
Railroads are "common carriers" not private or contract carriers or an ordinary business. As such, a common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination for the "public convenience and necessity". A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmAs such, a common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination for the "public convenience and necessity". A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority.
Oh, I have no problem with that, it is just that today they have announced legislation to come up with a solution to a problem I have never even heard of before. If RR's are still being affected by winter weather issues, it should follow that it is still too wet for farmers to get out onto their land and therefore they would have no immediate need for fertilizer. It seems to me this is a problem that will solve itself in the fullness of time.
I think railroads boasting about their success in the crude-by-rail business has spooked every other user of rail service. Going forward, I think RR's may be more circumspect about boasting about their successes in any specific commodity and have conversations more along the lines of carloads have increased or future trends look promising. Details would still be shown in the fine print of their financial reports.
AgentKid What the @#$%^&. The regulators are becoming drunk with power. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cp-railway-ordered-to-report-fertilizer-delivery-plans-by-friday-1.1778312 Bruce
Maybe, if the Bureaucrats, on both sides of the border, would just wave 'their magic wands', and 'Deem' more crews, locomotives and cars for more trains to haul more stuff , everything would be all right.
Of Course, as Bruce (Agent Kid) noted, the Winter is still happening in the Northern Plains. So the planting is delayed. An aspect that might come into play is that Inventories are taxed, so many suppliers have cut back over time to minimum inventories. Might it be that we have adopted to a (JIT) Just-In-Time World of deliveries, so end use of such expendable commodities, is beginning to effect outcomes?
So, once the railroads start favoring fertilizers as the farmers requested, they will scream that the grain isn't moving fast enough. Or maybe they already are screaming in the Northern Plains, it's just that up here we are deafened by the Canadian farmers.
John
Definitely screaming on the Northern Plains! And we're perfectly willing for Canadian farmers to be served first, as long as ours can sneak in ahead of them.
So if I read it right, they are worrying about a product that has yet to be ordered, or paid for, or shipped yet?
We are reading about a solution to a problem that has yet to occur?
Did it occur to anyone that there is only X number of track and yard miles, and X number of cars, locomotives and crews available to move all products?
Is there any indication that the carriers can’t or won’t be able to deliver?
23 17 46 11
Let's be clear about this: Per the article, all the railways have to do is report their plans to move fertilizer, and then what they've actually done for 6 weeks. There's apparently no literal requirement to move more - or even any - fertilizer; instead, to just be honest about actual performance.
Of course, that turns spotlight on the issue, and may be a precursor to additional or future regulations or requirements, but for the moment it's nothing more than merely an additional - albeit probably burdensome, too - reporting requirement (again, as per the linked article; I've not reviewed the actual order itself yet).
- Paul North.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
No, kill two birds with one stone: go back to using horses in growing the grain; this should also satisfy the enviromentalists who do not want fossil fuels to be used.
Johnny
edblysardWe are reading about a solution to a problem that has yet to occur?
That would be correct.
Further to my post of 2:30 PM yesterday, I can just picture the conference call to investors after the CPR's 1st Quarter 2014 results are released next week. EHH will say, "I can provide you with no relevant information about our operations for fear it may provoke extreme overreaction in the nation's economy and related Government Agencies."
Oh man.
STB should ask the trucking companies that put most of the railroads out of business.
I interpret this to mean that the STB is receiving complaints from shippers that the railroads are prioritizing their service in favor of certain shippers at the expense of others. I suspect that farmers have complained that railroads are prioritizing oil shipping over grain shipping, and are now creating a sense of urgency over the issue of whether the railroads will continue this discrimination by prioritizing oil shipping over fertilizer shipping.
Railroads can ship all the fertilizer the farmers need. Then the price of diesel spikes and the farmers will complain that the railroads are not shipping enough fuel. A common carrier has to provide the service they advertise, not the service the customers want! Didn't we learn from the ICC that regulation of free enterprise will just destroy it. I hope the extra cost of this reporting is passed on to the farmers. They can afford it.
Question -
Has there ever been a 'happy' farmer?
There is ALWAYS somebody or something that is out to get them and their way of life.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
(or: http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/AD4C55D3DA22D5E985257CBB006E8CDA/$file/43754.pdf = 1-1/2 pages, about 10 KB electronic file size in this 'PDF" format):
"It is ordered:
1. CP and BNSF are each directed to report to the Board, by April 18, 2014, their plans to ensure delivery of fertilizer shipments for spring planting of U.S. crops.
2. CP and BNSF are directed to each provide weekly status reports over the next six weeks, beginning April 25, 2014, regarding the delivery of fertilizer on their respective networks. As part of these status reports, CP and BNSF shall provide fertilizer delivery data, by state, indicating the number of cars, shipped or received, which are billed to agricultural destinations, and the number of cars placed during each prior week. CP and BNSF shall also include actual performance versus trip plan data for fertilizer shipments."
So that a 'wise guy' like me doesn't respond to 1. with something like "With cars, locomotives, and crews, if, when, and as available - and when we get around to it", etc.,* note the following that the STB prudently included in the text announcing the Order:
"Technical questions regarding compliance with this order may be directed to the Board’s Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs and Compliance."
*Compare the tales of the Eureka & Palisade [RR] under the management of John Sexton, as related in:
The Managers of the Railroads could stop hauling Ethanol and Genetically Modified Corn for producing Ethanol.
That deletion of service would give them the ability to move more wheat and fertilizer.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
PNWRMNMgrain shuttle like
You know, sometimes using the wrong words to describe the correct answer can sometime cause more problems than it solves. If I am recalling the numerous stories on Newswire and numerous posts on various forum threads correctly, I don't think "grain shuttle like" service are exactly the type of words they want to hear in ND right now. It wasn't exactly a concept both farmers and the state government were happy with.
I hope maybe BNSF smooths that answer out a little.
Euclid I interpret this to mean that the STB is receiving complaints from shippers that the railroads are prioritizing their service in favor of certain shippers at the expense of others. I suspect that farmers have complained that railroads are prioritizing oil shipping over grain shipping, and are now creating a sense of urgency over the issue of whether the railroads will continue this discrimination by prioritizing oil shipping over fertilizer shipping.
Today I am hearing radio news that Minnesota farmers are complaining that the reason their fertilizer shipments are being delayed is because railroads are overloaded with oil traffic.
I find it very interesting that the farmers not only know that their shipments are being delayed, but they also claim to know the reason why. I think there is so much more to this than meets the eye.
It sounds to me like the regulators need to order the railroads to give fertilizer priority over oil.
EuclidIt sounds to me like the regulators need to order the railroads to give fertilizer priority over oil.
I mentioned earlier that I think the regulators just need to chill out. By the time the fields are dry enough for the farmers to get out on them and use fertilizer, I think the RR's will have everything in place.
EuclidToday I am hearing radio news that Minnesota farmers are complaining that the reason their fertilizer shipments are being delayed is because railroads are overloaded with oil traffic.
This is a problem I don't think the RR's expected to have. They were so busy boasting to their shareholders about their new found business that they didn't realize they were panicking all their other customers. CN has already started to downplay the extent of the crude-by-rail business by saying that is is only 1 point something percent of their total carloads in the last few quarters.
Don't forget, because of regulators, we have EO 28. Not like you can simply park an oil train and use limited crews for fertilizer trains anymore.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
AgentKidEuclidIt sounds to me like the regulators need to order the railroads to give fertilizer priority over oil.I mentioned earlier that I think the regulators just need to chill out. By the time the fields are dry enough for the farmers to get out on them and use fertilizer, I think the RR's will have everything in place.
What I am saying is that the issue is what the regulators think about oil and not what the farmers think about fertilizer. The latter is being used as a pretext for the former.
That is why the farmers are said to be complaining that oil traffic is crowding out their fertilizer traffic. As has been mentioned, fertilizer traffic is only beginning, and it remains to be seen whether the railroads will fail to move it fast enough.
Actually, I don’t believe that farmers are complaining about a failure to move fertilizer. This is all about oil, and one more reason why it is bad. It is pretty transparent if you ask me.
EuclidActually, I don’t believe that farmers are complaining about a failure to move fertilizer. This is all about oil, and one more reason why it is bad. It is pretty transparent if you ask me.
Source?
zugmannSource?
Intuition, common sense, connecting the dots...things like that.
Euclid zugmannSource? Intuition, common sense, connecting the dots...things like that.
So are the farmers the one that don't like the oil, or are they being used as pawns (in your opinion)?
EuclidzugmannSource? Intuition, common sense, connecting the dots...things like that.
zugmannSo are the farmers the one that don't like the oil, or are they being used as pawns (in your opinion)?
I don’t know what motivates the farmers in this story. But on the face of it, they want the railroads to haul less oil so they can better serve the farmers. That part strikes me as suspicious. If a farmer were waiting for overdue fertilizer, I would expect him to say to the railroads, “You got the track and you got the trains, so haul my fertilizer.” The only way oil would come up is if the railroad told the farmer, “We are hauling so much more oil that we just don’t have the extra capacity to haul your fertilizer.”
I suspect the fertilizer worry is largely a made up story. While oil is definitely a part of it, so is the apparent perpetual grievance of farmers against railroads.
They seem to be saying that oil traffic has risen to the point where there will be insufficient extra capacity for fertilizer shipping. While this is just a prediction at this point, it ought to be verifiable by mathematics and rail traffic capacity analysis. So what are the facts? We should not have to wait to see whether the prediction comes true. Maybe that is why the STB asked the railroads about their ability to haul fertilizer. Maybe the STB will tell the farmers whether there is a real problem ahead, or if somebody is just predicting that the sky is falling.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.