Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Well, obviously my first choice (and in my opinion the most logical solution to the problem of non-existent intramodal rail competition) would be the AT&T-style breakup of the rail industry into infrastructure and transporting companies, but barring that..... [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Futuremodal- If the DME; 1) Merged the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern. 2) Purchased and merged the Twin Cities and Western, which has the former CMSP&P mainline from the Twin Cities to Appleton MN 3) Purchased from BNSF the former CMSP&P mainline from Appleton through Aberdeen SD to Terry MT. 4) Was allowed unrestricted interchange in Winona MN, Owatonna MN and Aberdeen SD 5) Was granted trackage rights from Terry MT to Miles City MT (IC&E has rights on, or owns, the former CMSP&P mainline between the Twin Cities and Chicago) While the MRL was; 1) Granted trackage rights from Huntley MT to Miles City MT 2) Granted full interchange with DME in Miles City MT and Union Pacific in Spokane WA. Would this satisfy your concerns ? [/quote] I think the problem here is that MRL does not have a long term guarantee of existence past 2050. Therefore any long term track access agreements over MRL would also have to address BNSF's ownership of the MRL ROW. Secondly, I don't believe there would have to be a de facto merger of DM&E and IC&E, and it may be in the best interests of Cedar America(?) to keep those entities separate. It may even make sense for CA (with or without the participation of the Washington group) to create yet another entity to make the connection westward beyond DM&E's soon to be PRB end of track. Thirdly, I assume you're talking about a federal mandate here, not just a willingness of BNSF to placate re-regulation concerns. That being said, what if we kept it at it's simplest form? Assuming DM&E does make it into the PRB, it might also work for them or MRL to purchase the Wind River Canyon route from BNSF from Laurel MT to Olin WY. This line also has available capacity for someone willing to use it, and it might work just as well if not better than the old PCE line to Terry and the ex-NP from Terry to Huntly, if for no other reason than it has more direct western access to the PRB. And MRL would need access beyond a UP connection in Spokane for this multi-owner transcon to work. Allow MRL access to Pasco and Wallula for barge access, and rights or ownership of the Stampede Pass line for access to the Puget Sound ports. MRL would then be responsible for addressing the height restrictions through Stampede tunnel to allow double stacks and autoracks. And of course BNSF would retain access rights over this line. Maybe Dennis Washington could then convince the WSDOT to shift the rail corridor over to the ex-Milwaukee line over Snoqualmie, which has better grades and higher tunnel clearances. (That's something that should occur irrespective of who owns that rail corridor.) But to answer your general question, yes adding another transcontinental rail service provider through Montana and the Northern Tier states would be an appropriate project for this nation. Whether this be by having another railroad gain access rights over certain BNSF/MRL lines, or by breaking up BNSF, either one works for domestic producers to allow them to compete with the overseas producers.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag