Matthew K. Rose should head up this new company, and it should be set up to handle all Hamat freight transportation on Candadian and USA railroads.
Ownership and revenue shares would be base on some formula such as hazmat orgine and destination revenue figures for the bqst year.
Car ownership would largely be by the shippers and railroads, leased to Key Transportation, much as lightweight sleepers with Pullman. There may be a pool fleet owned by Key in addition.
Routes would minimize danger in all cases. When possible dedicated trains would be operated
Public would know that the railroads take the problem seriously and aren't waiting around to tackle the problem. The railroads would decide what is hasmat that should be handled by this company and what is regular freight, and this division would be the same for all seven Class I's.
Thanks for the two comments, Corrections made.
Dave,
What would this accomplish?
Mac McCulloch
Matt Rose is head of BNSF...noted in many articles in business and trade and Trains magazines.
TTX was formed by the railroads to maintain flats for trailers and has since expanded to include platforms for stacks and other cars. A co-op owned by the rails to provide cars for shippers.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The plan seems to specialize the handling of hazmet trains. However, the public may see it as the RRs trying to isolate themselves; injury lawyers may see it as the ultimate deep pocket encompassing the assets of all 7 railroads; and environmental agencies may hold all 7 RRs jointly and severally libel in hazmet releases/fires.
daveklepper Matthew K. Rose should head up this new company, and it should be set up to handle all Hamat freight transportation on Candadian and USA railroads. Ownership and revenue shares would be base on some formula such as hazmat orgine and destination revenue figures for the bqst year. Car ownership would largely be by the shippers and railroads, leased to Key Transportation, much as lightweight sleepers with Pullman. There may be a pool fleet owned by Key in addition. Routes would minimize danger in all cases. When possible dedicated trains would be operated Public would know that the railroads take the problem seriously and aren't waiting around to tackle the problem. The railroads would decide what is hasmat that should be handled by this company and what is regular freight, and this division would be the same for all seven Class I's.
A monopoly is never the best solution. It's rarely even a decent idea.
There is an apparent problem. It will be worked through and a solution found. But it's never good to concentrate all solution finding in a monopoly. You need competing concepts to move forward.
Are you insisting on reciprocal switching? Lots of people believe that phone service was more economical and far better, overall, when AT&T was a monopoly. AT&T was then able to fund important research of the type that now requires taxpayer support. Power companies in each area effectively have monopolies. In the days when railroads were the only real practical long-distance travel provider, Pullman effectively had a monopoly on first-class service and did a good job. The monopoly I am proposing is not really a monopoly anyway, because trucks and pipelines and even water transport can provide alternatives. The monopoly is required because piecing low-danger routes together requires the cooperation of all seven class-I's as well regionals and shortlines.
Operations impossible with the present factured operations include determining the safest practical route and handling between each hazmat origin and destination, managing the overall car supply so the most haadous freight gets the safest equipment practical, and providing a second layer of supervision to insure operations are as safe as possible with specific knowledge about the risks associated with each shipment.
I should also point out that Pullman and Trailertrain are far from the only "monopolies" in railroad history. All the terminal switchiing railroads, Conrail Shared assetts, are other examples. Railroads really don' t wish to compete for hazmat traffic, and many would just as soon have it go away. And I am sure the varous safety people are all taking to each other and pooling ideas, giving any thoughts of competing for success in this important safety effort to the ashcan, any more than competing in highway gradecrossing safety.
Fred's blog suggests limiting hazmat trains to 40 mph abd to insure that either the hazmat train is stopped or the opposing train is stopped at meets. A very good argument for Key Transportation Co. to sort out the routes where this will not interfere with general traffic.
daveklepperA very good argument for Key Transportation Co. to sort out the routes where this will not interfere with general traffic.
If it means that my jerkwater town is going to start seeing (more) hazmat coming through, I'm agin it. Let them big city folks who actually use those hazmats put up with them.
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...
tree68 If it means that my jerkwater town is going to start seeing (more) hazmat coming through, I'm agin it. Let them big city folks who actually use those hazmats put up with them.
So that makes it at least one railroader who is one of those NIMBY's they love to ridicule.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepperMatthew K. Rose should head up this new company,
I think Matt Rose might have a better gig in his future. He's the heir apparent for Berkshire Hathaway.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There was an excellent article by a Betsy Morris starting on page A-1 and continuing on page A-12 (IIRC) of yesterday's (Thursday, 09 Jan. 2014) print edition of the Wall Street Journal titled "Fiery Oil-Train Accidents Raise Railroad Insurance Worries", which also discussed haz-mat liability issues. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to be available on-line without being a subscriber.
I thought it was pretty fairly balanced. It quoted Hunter Harrison quite a bit. One key point (pun not intended !) is that present insurance coverage is limited to about $1.5 Billion, but the "worst-case scenario" is much higher than that. However, higher insurance limits are said to be uneconomical as a practical matter.
One CEO (Rose or Moorman) said that as a result, they are essentially risking bankrupting the company with each carload shipment of toxic haz-mats - a cold and sobering thought.
Another well-made point is that the railroads usually own and operate only a part of the risk - the tracks, locomotives, and crews. The cars are owned or leased by the shippers (or buyers, or a leasing company), and the cargo is owned by a similar party, and produced and labeled by yet another 'stakeholder'.
I probably haven't done the article justice with this summary. If you're interested in the subject, go look it up at a local library, etc.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_JrOne CEO (Rose or Moorman) said that as a result, they are essentially risking bankrupting the company with each carload shipment of toxic haz-mats - a cold and sobering thought.
Earlier I suggested that this is part of the considerations the railroad execs must be making, but some on the relevant threads prefer to think time will solve the problem, if any.
daveklepper ... Operations impossible with the present factured operations include determining the safest practical route and handling between each hazmat origin and destination, managing the overall car supply so the most haadous freight gets the safest equipment practical, and providing a second layer of supervision to insure operations are as safe as possible with specific knowledge about the risks associated with each shipment.
...
schlimm tree68 If it means that my jerkwater town is going to start seeing (more) hazmat coming through, I'm agin it. Let them big city folks who actually use those hazmats put up with them. So that makes it at least one railroader who is one of those NIMBY's they love to ridicule.
Oops - forgot the [sarcasm] tags.
Really, though - you don't think that there will be opposition to such routings? There aren't any rail lines that go through "nowhere." They were built to go through/past towns, if the towns didn't grow up alongside them.
So while you might come up with routings that touch less of the population, in reality, you're just moving the risk around. And it could be argued that the risk is minimal, anyhow. Most people are at greater danger of risk or injury from a trip to the corner store for milk than they are a rail catastrophe.
It is the ability to meet Fred Frailey's suggestion of limiting hazmat train speeds to 40mph and insuring that all meets and bypasses have one of the two trains at rest that needs this approach. You cannot meet Fred's requirements on something like the BNSF Transcon or the UP Cheyenne-Green River without gumming up the traffic and/or considerably reducing capacity. Obviously, rerouting from population centers has to be done with care. I do not forsee a huge increase in the number of trains; a typical "safe" line might go from 10 to 12. I don't think there will be objections, and the new company will keep a pretty low profile.
Uncle Jake: Hazmat trains are more of a problem than a source of revenue that needs competition. I pointed out there are pipelines and trucks and barges and for that matter air freight. You are raising an issure that has been answered in my opinion. Conrail Asssetts is a monopoliy in the area it serves, but no-one is complaining that CSX and NS should be running their own trains over the tracks with Conrail only providing the tracks. Problems are best solved by cooperation, not competition. If you read scientific journals you will find that laboratories working in any specific field do not keep secrets from each other but work together to advance science.
Then there are the examples of Pullman and AT&T.
I had to think through the the NIMBY problem.
Say a small town now has only one Hazmat train going past each day. Say with Key Transportation handling all hazmat railroading, the number is doubled to two. Safety is still better, because Fred Frailey's rules reduce risk by more than half.
Dave Klepper: Judging from their comments on the various threads, some forum members would prefer the issue to simply disappear from the media, as though that would solve the problem. They do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue..
I agree. And I really don't claim credit for the Key Transportatoin idea. What I tried to do was figure out how to implement Fred Frailey's suggested operating rules without gumming up capacity on major routes. It need not be a new corporation, although that would be best from cost allocation, liability, legal matters, and even relations with public officials. It could be one of the existing car leasing companies or an AAR bureau..
schlimm Dave Klepper: Judging from their comments on the various threads, some forum members would prefer the issue to simply disappear from the media, as though that would solve the problem. They do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue..
What's your solution?
Dan
Recognition of a problem is the first step in finding solutions. Pointing out the seriousness of a problem, i.e., criticism, to those in the field is what outsiders can do. It is not our responsibility to find a solution, but that does not negate the the validity of the criticism.
If the railroads individually cannot refuse shipment of common carrier hazmat loads, and cannot charge more to cover possible liability, how will they collectively pay for slower transit on longer routes?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Recognition of a problem is the first step in finding solutions. Pointing out the seriousness of a problem, i.e., criticism, to those in the field is what outsiders can do. It is not our responsibility to find a solution, but that does not negate the the validity of the criticism.
The carriers (all of them) have been working with HAZMAT Shippers and Consignees for the past 40 years or more to come up with a 'final solution' to the safe carriage of HAZMAT commodities. The FRA enforces what is a 'safe' container for the various HAZMAT commodities - once the FRA specifies what the proper tank car (or other car) is for a particular commodity, the carriers must accept the commodity under their Common Carrier obligation.
What is safer - a 1000 mile route that goes through cities and towns or a 1500 mile route that goes through other cities and towns. HAZMAT doesn't originate from 'nowhere' and it is not destined to 'nowhere'; additionally it is among the life bloods that keep US Manufacturing running and people employed.
Nobody - Railroads, Shippers, Consignees, FRA can implement an action on their own - all must be involved!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy SidingWho's to say that the railroads are not doing these things you mention, but that it's not apparent to folks bystanders on railroad message board forums? It would be pretty easy to sit back and scream that the railroads are sitting on their hands, when they should be doing something-anything!
As I said, "They [forum members] do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue."
schlimmAs I said, "They [forum members] do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue."
And if we don't know, imagine how it is for the general public...
And a problem, from the public's point of view, is that if something happens, being told that "we've been working on it" rather implies that it hasn't been worked on hard enough, because another [insert incident here] just happened, again.
We also have to deal with the Ford Pinto phenomenon - until the cure is less expensive than the disease, there's no reason to enact the cure.
BaltACDNobody - Railroads, Shippers, Consignees, FRA can implement an action on their own - all must be involved!
Regardless the public increasingly is demanding a solution NOT 40 years of what amounts to inaction.
Additionally, the railroad execs ARE recognizing that the status quo endangers the future of the railroads:
[from PDN] "There was an excellent article by a Betsy Morris starting on page A-1 and continuing on page A-12 (IIRC) of yesterday's (Thursday, 09 Jan. 2014) print edition of the Wall Street Journaltitled "Fiery Oil-Train Accidents Raise Railroad Insurance Worries", which also discussed haz-mat liability issues. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to be available on-line without being a subscriber. I thought it was pretty fairly balanced. It quoted Hunter Harrison quite a bit. One key point (pun not intended !) is that present insurance coverage is limited to about $1.5 Billion, but the "worst-case scenario" is much higher than that. However, higher insurance limits are said to be uneconomical as a practical matter.One CEO (Rose or Moorman) said that as a result, they are essentially risking bankrupting the company with each carload shipment of toxic haz-mats - a cold and sobering thought."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.