I read this article: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/shipper-coalition-urges-federal-regulators-to-permit-reciprocal-switching/
But I don't think I really get what reciprocal switching is. And even if I sort of get it, I'm unclear on why it's called "reciprocal switching." Who is reciprocating what with whom?
Could someone give me a layman's-level explanation of this? Like with an example using two railroads and a customer company, real or hypothetical.
Still in training.
[quote user="Lithonia Operator"]
[/quote]
President's Island, Memphis ,Tn. [ A mixed useage industrial area is islolated by a long Causway, with about a 3 mile (?) long railline.].
When it was 'opened' up, local railroads {then:IC, Frisco} split the switchng duties on what seemed to be a six month on, and 6 month off, roatation. MoPac would bring a cut of cars down about every day(?)} Did not see SouRwy, and L&N on The Island(?). I have no idea how it works these days- since copnsolidations have happened-( BNSF and IC now CN ). It seemed to be worked 24 hrs a day back then.
This article explains it well:
https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/stb_rolls_out_proposed_reciprocal_switching_regulations
Lithonia OperatorThis article explains it well: https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/stb_rolls_out_proposed_reciprocal_switching_regulations
The one thing that is not highlighted is the two to four day delay in car cycle times for cars that end up in a reciprocal switching arrangement.
Nominal 1 day delay in arriving carrier #1's yard.Switched to Carrier #2 on day 2 (if before 7 AM consignee is notified, if not the next 7 AM)Day 3 or 4 car is switched to consignee in the next regular switch.
Cars will be delayed going back to Carrier #1, however there is no notification requirements.
Minimum delays are 2 days inbound and 2 days outbound, and possibly more.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDNominal 1 day delay in arriving carrier #1's yard. Switched to Carrier #2 on day 2 (if before 7 AM consignee is notified, if not the next 7 AM) Day 3 or 4 car is switched to consignee in the next regular switch.
That's not a lot different from the single operator (CSX) operations here. Substitute "through freight with drops" for train number 1, and "local" for #2 and you're on the mark. In fact, if the local is going south today, then the car will have to wait until tomorrow, when the local goes north, to be delivered to the consignee.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 BaltACD Nominal 1 day delay in arriving carrier #1's yard. Switched to Carrier #2 on day 2 (if before 7 AM consignee is notified, if not the next 7 AM) Day 3 or 4 car is switched to consignee in the next regular switch. That's not a lot different from the single operator (CSX) operations here. Substitute "through freight with drops" for train number 1, and "local" for #2 and you're on the mark. In fact, if the local is going south today, then the car will have to wait until tomorrow, when the local goes north, to be delivered to the consignee.
BaltACD Nominal 1 day delay in arriving carrier #1's yard. Switched to Carrier #2 on day 2 (if before 7 AM consignee is notified, if not the next 7 AM) Day 3 or 4 car is switched to consignee in the next regular switch.
Remember - what you are effectively doing is piling one carriers normal operating delays on top of a second carriers normal operating delays - on both the inbound and outbound sides of any movements between the carriers. If the consignee doesn't get daily switching even more days are added to the overall trip.
BaltACDRemember...
In other words, "it's complicated..." No question about that.
tree68 BaltACD Remember... In other words, "it's complicated..." No question about that.
BaltACD Remember...
If the businesses involved value car cycle time - reciprocal switching will add days to the cycle times and thus increase the number of cars that will be needed to sustain the same level of product transported.
Of the total number of rail customers served by only one railroad, what percentage of them would meet the logistical requirments to be granted the right to reciprocal switching? What percentage would actually take advanatage of it by installing the necessary trackwork? What would be done if both railroads involved in a reciprocal switching agreement offered almost the exact same price all of the time?
Euclid Of the total number of rail customers served by only one railroad, what percentage of them would meet the logistical requirments to be granted the right to reciprocal switching? What percentage would actually take advanatage of it by installing the necessary trackwork? What would be done if both railroads involved in a reciprocal switching agreement offered almost the exact same price all of the time?
Reciprocal switching already exists at some locations. Where it does exist, it may not be extended to all customers. Right now, it's done by mutual agreement of the railroads involved.
I don't think it's possible at this time to say how many new customers will benefit from forced reciprocal switching. It depends on how it's done in the final form. One proposed scheme (proposed by a shipper's group a few years back) had a zone of 31 miles from any interchange point. I'm sure that proposed zone would cover all the large customers, but leave out many others that are probably more dependent on rail than the large customers.
Installing new track (an interchange track) is a good question. There's lots of places where railroads used to interchange cars, but those tracks have been removed. Could railroads be compelled to restore interchanges that, in many cases, have long since been removed?
I imagine, all things be equal, where two railroads offer the same price the one with better service will get the business. All things may not always be equal. A customer on railroad A may send/receive a lot of cars to points on railroad B. It may be in railroad A's favor to grant reciprocal switching to railroad B in exchange for access to customers on B.
Jeff
jeffhergert Euclid Of the total number of rail customers served by only one railroad, what percentage of them would meet the logistical requirments to be granted the right to reciprocal switching? What percentage would actually take advanatage of it by installing the necessary trackwork? What would be done if both railroads involved in a reciprocal switching agreement offered almost the exact same price all of the time? Reciprocal switching already exists at some locations. Where it does exist, it may not be extended to all customers. Right now, it's done by mutual agreement of the railroads involved. I don't think it's possible at this time to say how many new customers will benefit from forced reciprocal switching. It depends on how it's done in the final form. One proposed scheme (proposed by a shipper's group a few years back) had a zone of 31 miles from any interchange point. I'm sure that proposed zone would cover all the large customers, but leave out many others that are probably more dependent on rail than the large customers. Installing new track (an interchange track) is a good question. There's lots of places where railroads used to interchange cars, but those tracks have been removed. Could railroads be compelled to restore interchanges that, in many cases, have long since been removed? I imagine, all things be equal, where two railroads offer the same price the one with better service will get the business. All things may not always be equal. A customer on railroad A may send/receive a lot of cars to points on railroad B. It may be in railroad A's favor to grant reciprocal switching to railroad B in exchange for access to customers on B. Jeff
It seems as though reciprocal switching is based on a fundamental premise that a lack of competition allows railroads to set prices unfairly high. So the solution is to mandate fairness by requiring reciprocal switching.
If that was all there was to it, railroads without reciprocal switching could charge three times what would be a “fair.” So because reciprocal switching would be introduced as a mandate for fairness, I am skeptical of the motive and the likelihood of a successful result.
I mentioned wondering what would happen if two reciprocal switching railroads both offered nearly the same rate all the time. I was thinking that it would be interpreted by the customer as the rate being inherently unfair again despite the introduction of competition.
This time the cause of the customer complaint would be that the two competing railroads are colluding, or price fixing, simply based on the fact that the two rates are identical. The industry could respond by saying that the rates match because the work matches, and that proves that there is no unfairness which is the goal of the reciprocal switching in the first place.
Otherwise the simplistic expectation of reciprocal switching is that the customer calls the first railroad for a price, and they called the second railroad for a competitive bid. Then because of the competition created by reciprocal switching, the customer expects there to be a substantial difference in the price and terms of both competing railroads. That way the shipper sees the intended result of reciprocal switching and chooses the bargain of the best deal.
So I would bet that if the price and terms were frequently identical, the customer would complain that the deal is unfair and that the competition is not working due to price fixing. As long as there is a fundamental distrust, the price will never be considered fair.
I have mentioned this in previous threads involving reciprocal switching. The concept before the STB currently is similar to the interswitching process that has been in place in Canada since about 1986. Roughly 72-75% of rail served points in Canada may utilize interswitching. It has not harmed the railroads financially or operationally. It has not resulted in significant increases in transit time of shipments.
Prior to retirement my employer made extensive use of interswitching at our Canadian plants. Depending on the lane, our service generally was better than had we used the carrier serving us for the initial linehaul. By way of example, we had a production site in Valleyfield, PQ that was switched by CN. About 2-3 miles distant was a CN/CSX interchange yard known as Cecile Junction. We could have routed shipments to the southeastern US via CN over Buffalo thence CSX (which was the routing protocol CN insisted on) but, by utilizing interswitching and having CN deliver the traffic to CSX at Cecile, we actually saved at least 4-5 days. And CN's interswitching fee was simply included in the CSX linehaul rate and invisible to us.
We also used interswitching for awhile to move traffic from the same production site to destinations in the south central US on KCS. To reach KCS, we could use either CN or, through interswitching - CP. We would have both carriers bid on these lanes when contracts came up for renewal. In these instances, as Balt notes previously, the CP routing had slightly longer transit times (2 days longer, if memory serves) but, that was more than offset at times by CP providing more competitive rates over their portion of the move. CN eventually got "the message" and started using a sharper pencil when providing contract quotes.
Interswitching or reciprocal switching won't necessarily be the best answer in every situation so shippers need to make intelligent decisions on where and when to use it.
CW
Reciprocal switching is not new. It goes back before railroad deregulation when rates were overseen by the ICC.
jeffhergert Reciprocal switching is not new. It goes back before railroad deregulation when rates were overseen by the ICC. Jeff
I would like to see Model Railroader run an article or a column on how reciprocal switching could be incorporated into a model train layout operating session.
In addition to persons serving as "road crews" and "switching crews" and "dispatchers", you could add to the fun of model train operation by having some of your friends serve as "attorneys" and "STB administrators" working out the details of reciprocal switching on your pike?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
On model railroads; the rates are always rock bottom and the service first class! Don't need no stinking reciprocal switching! ;-)
Juniata Man On model railroads; the rates are always rock bottom and the service first class! Don't need no stinking reciprocal switching! ;-) CW
The rates may be rock bottom, but do model train operators always keep up with the operating session fast clock?
Derailments can be frequent, but most model railroads have the graffiti situation under control?
Paul Milenkovic Juniata Man On model railroads; the rates are always rock bottom and the service first class! Don't need no stinking reciprocal switching! ;-) CW The rates may be rock bottom, but do model train operators always keep up with the operating session fast clock? Derailments can be frequent, but most model railroads have the graffiti situation under control?
Model railroads don't have to call Hulcher or other contractors for their derailments - just the big hand of the operator.
BaltACD Paul Milenkovic Juniata Man On model railroads; the rates are always rock bottom and the service first class! Don't need no stinking reciprocal switching! ;-) CW The rates may be rock bottom, but do model train operators always keep up with the operating session fast clock? Derailments can be frequent, but most model railroads have the graffiti situation under control? Model railroads don't have to call Hulcher or other contractors for their derailments - just the big hand of the operator.
True, but if there are frequent derailments, a person hosting a model-train operating session at their layout suffers social embarrassment and loss-of-face with ones friends? Depending on the drop, some derailments can do serious damage to prized pieces of model rolling stock?
Also, are "re-railing frogs" a thing of the past for low-speed derailments in yards on switches or sharp curves, or are cranes called out in every instance?
(1) The train crew is not re-railing their mistake (and not reporting it)
(2) The train crew is rules compliant on both railroads and knows the territory?
(3) The rerailing frogs (and wood blocks) generally are in the possession of the mechanical department, understaffed and many miles away. Then there is the issue of damaging more track as they drag things up and destroy more track (suddenly exceeding the threshold of FRA reportable ... which they always object to ) .... a CAT 980 or 988 loader is preferred to a crane or the damned side-boom tracked CATs that tear up even more track.
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD Paul Milenkovic Juniata Man On model railroads; the rates are always rock bottom and the service first class! Don't need no stinking reciprocal switching! ;-) CW The rates may be rock bottom, but do model train operators always keep up with the operating session fast clock? Derailments can be frequent, but most model railroads have the graffiti situation under control? Model railroads don't have to call Hulcher or other contractors for their derailments - just the big hand of the operator. True, but if there are frequent derailments, a person hosting a model-train operating session at their layout suffers social embarrassment and loss-of-face with ones friends? Depending on the drop, some derailments can do serious damage to prized pieces of model rolling stock? Also, are "re-railing frogs" a thing of the past for low-speed derailments in yards on switches or sharp curves, or are cranes called out in every instance?
In 1:1 scale railroading -
That I am aware of the 3 hour Arbitrary payment for crews rerailing cars they derailed no longer exists. Pictures from the steam era tend to show tenders being equipped with rerailing frogs - pictures of diesels of that era and of today do not tend to show them carrying rerailing frogs. Rerailing frogs still exist and are in the hands of Car Dept, they also weigh in the neighborhood of 80-100 pounds and are very awkward for men to handle, personnel who respond to all reported derailments - large and small. That I am aware of, no Class 1 carrier still have 'the big hook' wrecking cranes on their property. Third Party contractors are called for all but the simplest of derailments.
On CSX, when I was working, the Headquarters mechanical personnel in Jacksonville would order the off track contractors upon the initial notification of a derailment without waiting to hear from the local mechanical department employees arriving on the scene of the derailment.
So does reciprocal switching under this plan look like this?
Railroad #1 has Acme Steel as customer. Railroad #2 has connection to #1 twenty miles from Acme. Acme decides they want to ship via #2.
This rule would REQUIRE #1 to grant trackage rights (for the purpose of serving Acme only) on those 20 miles of track, and the right to switch within the plant. And by some imposed formula, #1 would be compensated by #2 for these excursions.
Right?
If so, I am opposed.
Lithonia Operator So does reciprocal switching under this plan look like this? Railroad #1 has Acme Steel as customer. Railroad #2 has connection to #1 twenty miles from Acme. Acme decides they want to ship via #2. This rule would REQUIRE #1 to grant trackage rights (for the purpose of serving Acme only) on those 20 miles of track, and the right to switch within the plant. And by some imposed formula, #1 would be compensated by #2 for these excursions. Right? If so, I am opposed.
Not exactly. Using your example, railroad 1 will still switch Acme and pull the car. They will deliver the car to railroad 2 at the interchange. Railroad 2 will bill Acme the agreed upon linehaul rate. Acme will pay railroad 1 a switching charge for the move from their site to the interchange.
This differs from traditional reciprocal switching as well as interswitching in Canada where the switch charge is built into the linehaul rate railroad 2 will charge.
How the switch charge is handled may change as this process works through the STB.
Lithonia OperatorSo does reciprocal switching under this plan look like this? Railroad #1 has Acme Steel as customer. Railroad #2 has connection to #1 twenty miles from Acme. Acme decides they want to ship via #2. This rule would REQUIRE #1 to grant trackage rights (for the purpose of serving Acme only) on those 20 miles of track, and the right to switch within the plant. And by some imposed formula, #1 would be compensated by #2 for these excursions. Right? If so, I am opposed.
Note there is a difference between railroads having connections and having legally recognized interchanges.
Example - The legally recognized interchange between B&O/CSX and ConRail in Baltimore is Bayview. In addition to the official location at Bayview, there were physical connections at Mount Vernon Yard in Baltimore and at the Aikin area of Perryville, MD where there was a connection between B&O/CSX and CR's Port Road Branch that runs between Perryville and Harrisburg.
At Bayview the B&O Yard and Interchange Tracks are on the Westside of the then Contrail N-S multiple track Mains, with one track holding 45 cars and the other 30 cars. The CR Bayview Yard is on the Eastside of the CR Mains. The CR Main Tracks had to be utilized for CR to deliver to or pull from the Interchange tracks. In the middle 1970's CR coal mines got contracts to deliver Export coal trains (100 cars) to B&O's Curtis Bay Coal Pier. B&O & CR negotiated a 'local agreement' where the legal interchange would remain Bayview. CR would deliver the coal trains to their Mount Vernon Yard where B&O crews would then pull the trains to Curtis Bay. When the cars were empty B&O would assemble them in trains and pull them from Curtis Bay to Aikin and backing them down the connection track to the Port Road.
I might add that the legal interchange was being fully utilized with normal 'merchandise' business.
Reciprocal Switching does not confer any oprating rights on another carrier.
So in my example, couldn't Acme just route the cars over #1 for those 20 miles, then on #2 for the rest of the way? Wouldn't that be an everyday situation and interchange?
I guess I still don't get the problem reciprocal switching solves, and how it solves it.
Is 20 miles too short to be considered a haul? I doubt that; I just have to consider Strasburg Rail Road as an originator of traffic. Or is SRR actually doing reciprocal switching for NS, who has trackage rights on Amtrak ... ?
In all likelihood, railroad 1 will want to maximize their linehaul before turning the car over to railroad 2 or, possibly, a third carrier that will handle to destination. And a revenue linehaul division will typically be considerably higher than a switch charge. I can't say this for certain but, I imagine NS handles the linehaul pricing and simply pays Strasburg a couple hundred bucks per car to switch it into their little transload terminal.
Lithonia Operator So in my example, couldn't Acme just route the cars over #1 for those 20 miles, then on #2 for the rest of the way? Wouldn't that be an everyday situation and interchange? I guess I still don't get the problem reciprocal switching solves, and how it solves it. Is 20 miles too short to be considered a haul? I doubt that; I just have to consider Strasburg Rail Road as an originator of traffic. Or is SRR actually doing reciprocal switching for NS, who has trackage rights on Amtrak ... ?
If both railroads would agree to a line haul with interchange, yes it could be done. They have to agree on where to interchange and a division of the line haul revenue.
Reciprocal switching gives one railroad the entire line haul revenue for the move. The physical railroad spotting/pulling the customer just gets a switching charge for doing so.
The link provided is to the Iowa Interstate's Switching Tariff. You'll probably need to download it to view it. When opened, go to Section 1 (page 6 of the document) and it lists the customers on IAIS trackage that's open to reciprocal switching to the various railroads listed at the locations. It also indicates the switching charge the IAIS will charge for move. Switching Tariff IAIS 8000 N Amendment 7 - Iowa Interstate Railroad, LLC (iaisrr.com)
MWHA handles the "last mile" into the Griffiss Business Park, saving CSX the need to serve it. CSX drops to and picks up from MWHA's Utica yard and MWHA shuttles the cars between Utica and Rome on the CSX main.
Lithonia OperatorI guess I still don't get the problem reciprocal switching solves, and how it solves it.
In is very simple, the shippers want to expand reciprocal switching limits to create more opportunities for themselves to beat down railroad rates. It is simply an attempt by the shippers to reach into the railroad's pockets.
Part of the story they don't mention is that the switching charges would be regulated, held down, to help make this steal work.
Mac
PNWRMNM Lithonia Operator I guess I still don't get the problem reciprocal switching solves, and how it solves it. In is very simple, the shippers want to expand reciprocal switching limits to create more opportunities for themselves to beat down railroad rates. It is simply an attempt by the shippers to reach into the railroad's pockets. Part of the story they don't mention is that the switching charges would be regulated, held down, to help make this steal work. Mac Mac
Lithonia Operator I guess I still don't get the problem reciprocal switching solves, and how it solves it.
Heck Mac; the railroads have been picking shipper pockets since EHH hatched the psr egg.
PNWRMNM Lithonia Operator I guess I still don't get the problem reciprocal switching solves, and how it solves it. In is very simple, the shippers want to expand reciprocal switching limits to create more opportunities for themselves to beat down railroad rates. It is simply an attempt by the shippers to reach into the railroad's pockets. Part of the story they don't mention is that the switching charges would be regulated, held down, to help make this steal work. Mac
What we have are Monopolies having a urination contest. The ones crying the loudest are the ones that tend of have a monopoly in their business area and they are complaining that they have to deal with a railroad that has a monopoly in serving them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.