trackage rights and privileges

[Anonymous]

What standards exist, if any, for one RR to enjoy "trackage rights" over another RR's line?  There are, of course, joint trackage agreements, whereby RR's are instructed to share a line jointly as the receivers of another company's breaking up or one of the two previous company's merging, or concessions that result from the same cause.  I'm thinking specifically of the ex-SP line btw OR and CA.  Presumably as a result of that sale, UP felt compelled to offer their portion of the ex-WP Inside Gateway to BNSF.  However, one of the things I heard about that was that BNSF was still running their trains over the ex-SP line, and that UP had some obligation to let them do this.  Is it (or has it ever been) possible for a RR that did not serve a given community to make a contract with a shipper, then force the RR that did serve that community to allow them to run a train over foreign rails?  Or is it simply a matter of the serving RR to pick up carloads for any other non-serving RR carriers, and transfer those carloads at a certain point?  On the same point, if a regional or very small RR was in a "captive" relationship with a Class I, would the Class I be obligated to do business with the regional, or could the Class I selectively accept or decline to move the carloadings of the regional or municipal lines?

Riprap

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

There are no real standards for trackage rights agreements since they are contracts among the railroads involved.  South Shore's trackage rights on IC between Kensington and Randolph Street are an outgrowth of a through-car arrangement.  NS trackage rights over IC between Chicago and Gibson City came when NS abandoned much of the former Wabash main between Chicago and Decatur.  Some trackage rights are granted as merger conditions, but may not always be exercised on a regular basis.  When C&O bought a controlling interest in South Shore in 1964, Monon was granted trackage rights over South Shore between Michigan City and Burnham, but used them only once.

[chad thomas]

It sounds like you are talking about BNSF rights on the ex SP Shasta line. They got those rights when the tunnel down by keddie was closed on the Highline. It actually may have started out as a long term detour. Back then there was only one train a day. Back then UP owned the line from Keddie to Beiber so it was a UP detour on SP rails. Now that the BNSF owns the whole Highline from Keddie to K-Falls it's BNSF rights on UP (ex SP). The way I understand it those rights are maintained to detour trains away from the Highline while work is being done. Remember these days it's not uncommon to have 6-7 trains a day each way on a line that at it's worst only saw one each way a day sometimes.

There are different types of rights, overhead, trackage, haulage and each is a bit different.

(sorry gotta run can't finish this post right now) 

[mudchicken]

Unless the proposed trackage rights meet the STB litmus test, they don't happen.There are dozens of applications a year that go through the board process and, contrary to the opinions of some, not all make it once all the comments are in.

[ericsp]

It sounds like you are talking about BNSF rights on the ex SP Shasta line. They got those rights when the tunnel down by keddie was closed on the Highline. It actually may have started out as a long term detour. Back then there was only one train a day. Back then UP owned the line from Keddie to Beiber so it was a UP detour on SP rails. Now that the BNSF owns the whole Highline from Keddie to K-Falls it's BNSF rights on UP (ex SP). The way I understand it those rights are maintained to detour trains away from the Highline while work is being done. Remember these days it's not uncommon to have 6-7 trains a day each way on a line that at it's worst only saw one each way a day sometimes.

There are different types of rights, overhead, trackage, haulage and each is a bit different.

(sorry gotta run can't finish this post right now) 

BNSF runs trackage rights trains all the way to Mojave on former SP rails. Beginning in late 2004 I started seeing a BNSF freight train reguarly on the old SP line. At first I thought there were detours due to a mainentance blitz BNSF was doing. In January 2005, I talked to a conductor on one of these. I said that is their regular route and that the trains are H EVEBARs (if I remember correctly).

I have not seen these for a while now, but I do see long, westbound (northbound) stack trains (S LACSEA I suspect). I think I have seen eastbound ones also. I will also occasionally see an empty, BNSF intermodal train on the former SP tracks.

[Limitedclear]

Trackage rights can be obtained two ways. By agreement which is the most common or they may be imposed by the STB (or in the past its predecessor the ICC). Usually trackage rights are imposed in connection with Merger or acquisition type situations to preserve competition. One example are the existing BNSF rights over several UP lines imposed in the UP+SP merger proceeding by the STB.

Although trackage rights may require STB approval, not all agreements are subject to such approval. One such example is trackage rights provided for purposes of interchange.

LC

 

[Anonymous]

LC, given that it is quite common for the prevailing authority to grant trackage rights in the wake of a merger, why do you think that the UP asked for so relatively little on this question when BN and SF were consummating their merger?  (The excuse given at the time was so BNSF would stay out of the UP-SP merger, but they didn't truly stay out, did they, and UP did surrender the entire Inside Gateway for basically nothing else in return?) Chad, about the detours, is it just good business practice for any railroad to grant these detours, or is there some controlling authority that basically tells the "competing" RRs to make nice if one or the other experiences a washout?  On a related question, suppose that one RR owned a bridge that spanned a river (in Portland, the UP and SP jointly owned the Steel Bridge, which had the RR connection going across, and BN uses it, as far as I know of, for free).  Do/Are the RR's expected to allow a competing railroad to use that bridge for basically nothing?  Or, are there explicit agreements that are made that would allow the granting RR the same permission in another case where the tables are turned?

[Anonymous]

.....given that it is quite common for the prevailing authority to grant trackage rights in the wake of a merger, why do you think that the UP asked for so relatively little on this question when BN and SF were consummating their merger? 

UP had a collective brain freeze.

It should have been crystal clear to all UP execs that if BN and SF merged, the resulting company would own all the best routes to both the PNW and SoCal.  UP absolutely should have requested rights through the Northern Tier over BN, over SF Chi-town to SoCal, and along the I-5 corridor via Bend/Keddie and the SF line between SF Bay and SoCal, and left SP to rot.  This would have saved them millions over the cost of aquiring SP with roughly the same overlay, and would have mitigated the current shipper crisis through the Northern Tier (thus this forum would have been free of any Montana farmer discussions!)

[jpwoodruff]

Please elaborate once more.  Would a contract between railroads be very specific about conditions for operating on the agreed-upon track?  Will host and guest have specified rights and obligations? How would priority be established day-to-day?

Are these concerns dealt with in a typical agreement, or does it depend on how well the two organizations work together?

John

[Anonymous]

Yes, that sounds more like it, doesn't it?!  And let's not be so modest, most likely that SP line you speak of would  have reverted to a "toll road "(i.e., open access), eh, FM?!

[chad thomas]

In this day and age the railroads tend to play nice. In some areas like the LA basin and Houston for example the railroads operate joint dispaching centers where DSs from all the railroads in that area are in the same location if not the same room. Even outside of the joint DS offices you don't want to stab all the competitors trains to give yourse the high greens because somewhere else payback can be a b*&$@. Say if the BNSF were to start sidelineing UPs trains in the Powder River Basin then the UP could turn around and stick the QRICWSP in the hole on Tehachapi. It's in everybodys best interest to avoid this game. That wasn't always the case though. I remember reading about wars the Cotton Belt and MoPac would wage sticking the others hotshots out of St. Louis. Things got quite nasty.

[Anonymous]

True, Chad, but in that case, where's the line?  Also, when you say "playing nice", is that the RR tendency, or does the controlling federal governing agency tell them to do it or else?  And in the future, if there are any proposed transcontinental RR mergers, how does "playing nice" fit in?

[MP173]

Chad:
Those Cotton Belt/MoPac river wars were intense.  Rob Krebs made a name for himself as a no nonsense manager for the Cotton Belt.  There is an excellent two series article called "River Wars" which was back in the 80's and worth reading.

 

ed

[chad thomas]

Thanks for the tip Ed, I'll pick that one up when I come across it.

Riprap,

The government couldn't care less if UP sidelines a BNSF to favor there train. Although it does care to some degree when UP sticks Amtrak, but that's only because it's Amtrak, and even then things have to get pretty bad before they step in (see recent CSX/Amtrak article in Trains). Now I'm not saying the hosted road is always treated fairly. Of course if it's a question of running your hotshot or the competitions hotshot then of course your going to run yourse first. You just can't get carried away and give your drags priority over the other guy's ultra hot UPS train. As far as the future goes we are already in a 2 railroad world (at least out here) and I don't see much changeing except mabee east - west mergers. If anything I see more joint track cooperation, especially if traffic grows like projected at a rate higher then capacity improvements can keep up with.