daveklepper If a busiiness doesn't like the service on the one railroad that serves him, he ought to have located where two railroads provided service, build his own branchline, or truck to the railroad he wishes to use.
If a busiiness doesn't like the service on the one railroad that serves him, he ought to have located where two railroads provided service, build his own branchline, or truck to the railroad he wishes to use.
But what if that customer had two railroads serving him, and one of them pulled up stakes (ie, was abandoned)?
Or should the customer abandon his loyal customer base and move someplace else (perhaps many miles away) where there are two railroads, and potentially a competitor - who perhaps already has an exclusive claim to that territory?
I'm not advocating "unlawful seizure," but I kind of agree that a customer shouldn't be held hostage due to a "monopoly", either.
Building a new rail line is expensive, not to mention regulatory issues and the fact that said line may have to be tens of miles long.
And forcing the cargo onto trucks just transfers the cost onto the local taxpayers who fund road maintenance.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I think forced reciprocal switching represents seizure of private property. Say i have Joohn Deere outlet in a midwest town, and 25 miles away there is a Caterpiller Tractor dieler. Should I be forced to Caterpiller tractor's on behalf of my competitor?
That is my opinion, anyway. Dave Klepper
BroadwayLion ... The NITL proposal would allow a captive shipper or receiver to gain access to a second rail carrier if the customer's facility is located within a 30-mile radius of an interchange where regular switching occurs. Only true captive customers—defined by NITL as a business with no alternatives from other railroads or other modes— could qualify. ...
...
The NITL proposal would allow a captive shipper or receiver to gain access to a second rail carrier if the customer's facility is located within a 30-mile radius of an interchange where regular switching occurs. Only true captive customers—defined by NITL as a business with no alternatives from other railroads or other modes— could qualify. ...
It would seem that to be truly captive, with respect to other modes, the business' road access would have to have a weight restriction such as a light load bridge that would prevent truck access. I don't doubt that there are some cases where this condition exists, but I would guess it's rare.
PS. After reading the thread on the truck hitting the South Shore bridge, I guess access road clearance could also be an issue.
Sam1 BroadwayLion It is a leftist plot to seize money from railroads... Under reciprocal switching, a railroad, for a fee, switches carload freight to another railroad to give a captive shipper access to facilities it might not otherwise reach. The switching charges are paid by the receiving railroad. The customer pays the originating railroad, which would build the switching fee, and perhaps an additional amount, into its overall charges to compensate it for the revenue foregone by switching the traffic to its rival for carriage. The NITL proposal would allow a captive shipper or receiver to gain access to a second rail carrier if the customer's facility is located within a 30-mile radius of an interchange where regular switching occurs. Only true captive customers—defined by NITL as a business with no alternatives from other railroads or other modes— could qualify. The switch would not occur if the affected railroad could prove the practice would be unsafe or is unfeasible or harmful to existing rail service, the shipper group said." Or you could say that it is a rightist plot to mulct more money from a shipper who does not have access to a different railroad company. Politics not allowed, no opinions given. Same arguments between nobles and serfs have been going on for 3000 years. If you expect us to stop arguing now you are not living in the real world. ROAR Thanks! I like your postings; they are informative, and they contain just the right amount of levity. Keep it up. If it ever stops snowing in the Dakotas, I may visit your part of the country.
BroadwayLion It is a leftist plot to seize money from railroads... Under reciprocal switching, a railroad, for a fee, switches carload freight to another railroad to give a captive shipper access to facilities it might not otherwise reach. The switching charges are paid by the receiving railroad. The customer pays the originating railroad, which would build the switching fee, and perhaps an additional amount, into its overall charges to compensate it for the revenue foregone by switching the traffic to its rival for carriage. The NITL proposal would allow a captive shipper or receiver to gain access to a second rail carrier if the customer's facility is located within a 30-mile radius of an interchange where regular switching occurs. Only true captive customers—defined by NITL as a business with no alternatives from other railroads or other modes— could qualify. The switch would not occur if the affected railroad could prove the practice would be unsafe or is unfeasible or harmful to existing rail service, the shipper group said." Or you could say that it is a rightist plot to mulct more money from a shipper who does not have access to a different railroad company. Politics not allowed, no opinions given. Same arguments between nobles and serfs have been going on for 3000 years. If you expect us to stop arguing now you are not living in the real world. ROAR
It is a leftist plot to seize money from railroads...
Under reciprocal switching, a railroad, for a fee, switches carload freight to another railroad to give a captive shipper access to facilities it might not otherwise reach. The switching charges are paid by the receiving railroad. The customer pays the originating railroad, which would build the switching fee, and perhaps an additional amount, into its overall charges to compensate it for the revenue foregone by switching the traffic to its rival for carriage.
The NITL proposal would allow a captive shipper or receiver to gain access to a second rail carrier if the customer's facility is located within a 30-mile radius of an interchange where regular switching occurs. Only true captive customers—defined by NITL as a business with no alternatives from other railroads or other modes— could qualify. The switch would not occur if the affected railroad could prove the practice would be unsafe or is unfeasible or harmful to existing rail service, the shipper group said."
Or you could say that it is a rightist plot to mulct more money from a shipper who does not have access to a different railroad company.
Politics not allowed, no opinions given. Same arguments between nobles and serfs have been going on for 3000 years. If you expect us to stop arguing now you are not living in the real world.
ROAR
Thanks! I like your postings; they are informative, and they contain just the right amount of levity. Keep it up. If it ever stops snowing in the Dakotas, I may visit your part of the country.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I may have missed it in another post, but what is mandatory reciprocal switching? I understand that the railroads are opposed to it. Why?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.