Open Access, How Would it be Established and Administered?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Operational questions related to open access:

1. How would dispatching be handled?
2. How would dispatching priorities be established, especially when different operators with similar trains (e.g.; 2 or 3 different stack train operators) are involved?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Operational questions related to open access:

1. How would dispatching be handled?
2. How would dispatching priorities be established, especially when different operators with similar trains (e.g.; 2 or 3 different stack train operators) are involved?

1. The infrastructure owner does the dispatching
2. How's it done now? There would be a priority schematic, probably first come first serve, or slots would be reserved in advance by auction. The point is, these things would be figured out before any operator even enters the property.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Operational questions related to open access:

1. How would dispatching be handled?
2. How would dispatching priorities be established, especially when different operators with similar trains (e.g.; 2 or 3 different stack train operators) are involved?

In addition to previous comments:

1. Think FAA. Regional/local centers run as part of a national system. You file your "flight" plan, you get in line. As has been mentioned, slots could be auctioned, more or less guaranteeing you your 4 am departure (assuming you are ready to go).
The centers would probably be run by the track owner, but to system-wide standards.

2. The auction rears it's head, or maybe a lottery. On top of that, the operators would be under a certain amount of pressure to be ready to go at X time. If I'm an operator with a 4am slot, I'll want to be ready to go. If I'm not, the 4:15 slot may just get to go in my place, if he's ready. Then I may get to jump in next possible opening, although I may face a penalty for screwing things up.

That raises the question of delays on a line. If an airplane or a bus is running slow, the one behind him can pass. If a train dies on the law and ties up the line, then the operator should be penalized. Breakdowns are only slightly different, especially if the operator has a history. "Wrecker" engines might be kept available (part of the cost of using the line), or a cooperative might form to help an operator if there is a problem. This would provide an incentive to both maintain equipment and to properly schedule your runs.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

On-line delays caused by a derailment would be a legal nightmare that could take years to settle waiting for a determination of what caused the derailment.

"Open Access" as predicated by futuremodal comes across as invisible nationalization since he believes that the rights of way should be owned by government or quasi-governmental bodies. Also, competition on every mile of track and lower rates cannot be guaranteed short of re-regulation more along the lines of the Civil Aeronautics Board over commercial aviation than anything of the Interstate Commerce Commission over railroads and trucking.

Also, what would be the provision for abandonment of track if no operator wants to provide service over that line? It can happen.

[Junctionfan]

For the first part of the question which is an excellent one by the way, would only be handled well with a contract agreement/ treaty, whatever as far as I know. Not being a lawyer in the U.S so my legal expertise is very limited so the only people that might be able to share some insight on this would be somebody like Gabe or L.C

Hope you guys are reading this.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

On-line delays caused by a derailment would be a legal nightmare that could take years to settle waiting for a determination of what caused the derailment.

"Open Access" as predicated by futuremodal comes across as invisible nationalization since he believes that the rights of way should be owned by government or quasi-governmental bodies. Also, competition on every mile of track and lower rates cannot be guaranteed short of re-regulation more along the lines of the Civil Aeronautics Board over commercial aviation than anything of the Interstate Commerce Commission over railroads and trucking.

Also, what would be the provision for abandonment of track if no operator wants to provide service over that line? It can happen.

No, I believe the ROW's would do best if they function as private regulated utilities, with the federal government providing tax incetives to approach an equalitzation with highways and waterways, and with the option of state and local governments adding their investment prowess in the form of public/private consortiums as they see fit for their own economic development desires.

On that latter point, such investment would work great under open access, since the desire of the infrastructure operator is to add capacity to increase business potential, and if someone else is willing to foot the bill for a secondary line, so much the better. It doesn't work so well under the present system, because the desires of states and localities to keep lines open, upgrade secondary lines, or build new lines, more often than not does not fit the plans of the Class I who is only trying to eliminate capacity and consolidate terminals to better position their pricing power. Secondly, if the Class I has pure monopolistic pricing power in a certain area, there is no point in states and localities spending tax dollars to save a line on which the shippers cannot afford to use anyway.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

On-line delays caused by a derailment would be a legal nightmare that could take years to settle waiting for a determination of what caused the derailment.

No different than your average traffic accident. Trust me, I've been there.

QUOTE:
"Open Access" as predicated by futuremodal comes across as invisible nationalization since he believes that the rights of way should be owned by government or quasi-governmental bodies. Also, competition on every mile of track and lower rates cannot be guaranteed short of re-regulation more along the lines of the Civil Aeronautics Board over commercial aviation than anything of the Interstate Commerce Commission over railroads and trucking.

There is nothing to say that there would be competition on every mile of track. However every mile of track could have competition, which pressure would help keep rates in check. No shipper would be captive since anyone who can legally operate on the infrastructure can serve them.

QUOTE:
Also, what would be the provision for abandonment of track if no operator wants to provide service over that line? It can happen.

If there is viable industry on that line, someone would most likely step up and provide service, potentially including the industry itself. They are all going to pay the same toll.

If there is legitimate reason to abandon the line, and all parties are in agreement (ie, no industries left to serve, and no reasonable possibility of any cropping up), no reason why it couldn't be done. All of the usual predicating issues would still apply (who the land reverts to, etc)

Consider that a carload shipment of something currently sees as many as five or six "vendors" between leaving the originating industry and arriving at the receiving customer, even if it never leaves that same railroad. A local picks it up and delivers it to a local yard. A collector freight picks it up and takes it to a hub yard. The hub yard handles making it available for transit to another local yard (or maybe another hub yard, then to the local yard), and a local delivers it. In an open access arrangement, each of those vendors could be different. The shipper/receiver pay for the ton miles and/or handling by some agreed upon fee structure. It's no different than you flying from here to there and changing airlines enroute...