Railway Man Example. Suppose XYZ Tower controls the crossing of Railroad A and Railroad B. Railroad B arrived second, and to obtain permission to cross Railroad A, it agreed to build, staff, and maintain the tower, but the cost was allocated on the basis of train movements through the plant. Total cost is divided by number of train movements to derive per-train cost, then multiplied by the number of trains for Road A and Road B, and each pays their share. Suppose the agreement also says that future upgrades or changes are to be allocated according to train use -- a reasonable clause, don't you think?
Example. Suppose XYZ Tower controls the crossing of Railroad A and Railroad B. Railroad B arrived second, and to obtain permission to cross Railroad A, it agreed to build, staff, and maintain the tower, but the cost was allocated on the basis of train movements through the plant. Total cost is divided by number of train movements to derive per-train cost, then multiplied by the number of trains for Road A and Road B, and each pays their share. Suppose the agreement also says that future upgrades or changes are to be allocated according to train use -- a reasonable clause, don't you think?
Why would Railroad A agree to cost sharing to begin with? Rather, wouldn't they just tell Railroad B to go ahead and build the crossing, staff it, and maintain it solely at your expense to the end of time? Railroad B then is faced with the choice of doing that or moving a whole lot of dirt for a grade seperation project.
Is the key here that if Railroad A sticks it to B over this crossing, payback is likely to occur when Railroad A discovers they need something from B?
Dakguy201Railway Man Example. Suppose XYZ Tower controls the crossing of Railroad A and Railroad B. Railroad B arrived second, and to obtain permission to cross Railroad A, it agreed to build, staff, and maintain the tower, but the cost was allocated on the basis of train movements through the plant. Total cost is divided by number of train movements to derive per-train cost, then multiplied by the number of trains for Road A and Road B, and each pays their share. Suppose the agreement also says that future upgrades or changes are to be allocated according to train use -- a reasonable clause, don't you think? Why would Railroad A agree to cost sharing to begin with? Rather, wouldn't they just tell Railroad B to go ahead and build the crossing, staff it, and maintain it solely at your expense to the end of time? Railroad B then is faced with the choice of doing that or moving a whole lot of dirt for a grade seperation project. Is the key here that if Railroad A sticks it to B over this crossing, payback is likely to occur when Railroad A discovers they need something from B?
It wouldn't necessarily. It's just an example. (From my experience no two joint-facility agreements are alike.) And yes, there is some incentive to be reasonable about things, both when the agreement is completely between two railways and also when there is a third party (regulator) involved. For example, Railroad B proposes a project that requires regulatory approval that affects Railroad A. Railroad A is entitled by law to protest Railroad B's project, that is, to request that the regulatory authority impose measures on Railroad B as a condition of its approval that mitigate impacts on Railroad A. Railroad A may not choose to take this path, however, it it could set precedent that in the future might harm Railroad A's future projects. Instead, Railroad A approaches Railroad B privately and works out a deal.
RWM
The Carriers were talking about automating bridges 20 years ago, one problem is the amount of "pleasure craft". In some areas they are given "windows" every hour for passage. I would never stop a 100 car bulk train for a pleasure boat no matter how long they 'tooted" their horn. One other thing many people lost their jobs with automation. Progress?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.