Class 1 Railroad question

[Murphy Siding]

In his book "Burlington Northern and its Heritage", author Steve Glischinski has a 3 page sidebar about regionals and spinn-offs. He states: " Montana Rail Link ........revenues qualify it as a Class 1 carrier by the ICC. This classification caries with it a considerable (and costly) amount of paperwork, so the road requested an exemption from its reporting requirements"
What exactly is the difference in paperwork that is considerable and costly? And, can any of the *other* Class 1 's ask for the exemption?

Thanks

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

In his book "Burlington Northern and its Heritage", author Steve Glischinski has a 3 page sidebar about regionals and spinn-offs. He states: " Montana Rail Link ........revenues qualify it as a Class 1 carrier by the ICC. This classification caries with it a considerable (and costly) amount of paperwork, so the road requested an exemption from its reporting requirements"
What exactly is the difference in paperwork that is considerable and costly? And, can any of the *other* Class 1 's ask for the exemption?

Thanks

While it existed the Wisconsin Central did the same. In response the STB raised the requirements to qualify as a Class I carrier. There are a lot of requirements such as tariffs, traffic statistics, and significant amount of financial data which I believe the smaller carriers only have to file annually while the large carriers have to fill quarterly.

[mackb4]

I think it also has something to do with the amount of employee's,the tonnage of the rail and the speed's that your track is rated for.[?]

[mudchicken]

(1) Do not confuse the ICC/STB/FRA and AAR classifications on RR size.

(2) Murphy: 49CFR1201 ICC Uniform System of Accounts is part of your answer. (The smaller guys, after Staggers got off light on the reporting issues)....The cheesepicker is on the right path.

(3) Mack4B: Nope (apples and oranges - you are talking 49CFR213 track classification, which has little to do with railroad income and mileage size)

[ndbprr]

I would also expect there are some union requirements if you are a class 1 and may be the real reason to control costs but that is speculation

[arbfbe]

Class 1, Class 2 or Class ??? have nothing to do with unions or lack there of or the FRA. They are strictly ICC and now STB reporting clasifications based upon revenues which were chosen as a pretty good predictor or rail miles and employment levels. The revenue levels were raised at the request of the MRL and WC and perhaps a couple of others W&LE? account they had not been adjusted for a long time and inflation had taken it's toll. Some roads that should not even be close to Class 1 status were soon going to be forced to add lots of accounting staff to meet the requirements.

You can always poke around at www.stb.gov or www.fra.gov for more information. I am not sure these are the correct links but if you Google for these governmental agencies you will find the correct ones.

[Murphy Siding]

It sounds like the classification system is for the purpose of government statistics and economic information? It made me wonder if bigger regionals (MRL, WC.W&LE, DM&E) were *catching up * with smaller Class 1 's (KCS).

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

Class 1, Class 2 or Class ??? have nothing to do with unions or lack there of or the FRA. They are strictly ICC and now STB reporting clasifications based upon revenues which were chosen as a pretty good predictor or rail miles and employment levels. The revenue levels were raised at the request of the MRL and WC and perhaps a couple of others W&LE? account they had not been adjusted for a long time and inflation had taken it's toll. Some roads that should not even be close to Class 1 status were soon going to be forced to add lots of accounting staff to meet the requirements.

You can always poke around at www.stb.gov or www.fra.gov for more information. I am not sure these are the correct links but if you Google for these governmental agencies you will find the correct ones.

ARBE:
(1) STB and FRA now wobble together under the same DOT bosses. (www.stb.dot.gov and www.fra.dot.gov)

Officially it is STB Classification Ex Parte No. 492, Montana Rail Link Inc. & Wisconsin Central, Ltd. Joint Petition For Rulemaking (deflator formulae) with respect to 49CFR1201, 8 ICC 2d 625 (1992)...revised annually

ICC died in 1995-96, STB is what's left.

(2) AAR uses a slightly modified system and calls the smaller than Class 1's regionals or locals and adds route mileage to the consideration.

[arbfbe]

Thanks Mr Chicken for the research. I am busy cleaning up after a two week vacation and just did not have the time to run it all down.

[nanaimo73]

The change in 1992 saved estimated reporting costs of $115,000 (per year) for MRL, $80,000 for WC, $100,000 for DM&IR and $50,000 for C&NW's WRPI.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

The change in 1992 saved estimated reporting costs of $115,000 (per year) for MRL, $80,000 for WC, $100,000 for DM&IR and $50,000 for C&NW's WRPI.

I've heard of WKRP,[;)], but what is WRPI?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

WRPI is Western Rail Properties, Inc. It wass the subsidiary of C&NW which was responsible for its share of the joint Powder River Basin line and the C&NW trackage which connected it with UP.

[Murphy Siding]

So, WRPI got to *opt out*(?) of the Class 1 requirements?

[nanaimo73]

Yes. I'm not sure if it had any employees. It was part of the C&NW, but UP had the mortgage.