Euclid I see. I did not mean to accuse you of saying that a railroad has the right to refuse a shipment. When I used the phrase, “refuse a shipment,” I meant doing so by overpricing it, but not coming right out and saying that they refuse to ship. I guess what surprises me is the fact that railroads can add a surcharge that is clearly intended for the purpose of discouraging the use of a certain type of car. We were told by people here that the cars are legal, and therefore the railroads must accept them. I am pretty sure I recall hearing that position stated several times here.
I see. I did not mean to accuse you of saying that a railroad has the right to refuse a shipment. When I used the phrase, “refuse a shipment,” I meant doing so by overpricing it, but not coming right out and saying that they refuse to ship.
I guess what surprises me is the fact that railroads can add a surcharge that is clearly intended for the purpose of discouraging the use of a certain type of car. We were told by people here that the cars are legal, and therefore the railroads must accept them. I am pretty sure I recall hearing that position stated several times here.
The railroad can post a surcharge. But, if the total rate to the shipper (including surcharge) exceeds 180% of a magic imaginary number that is spit out by a government formula the shipper can protest the surcharge to the STB.
So then the surcharge is in limbo. Until the lawyers and bureaucrats get done. Of course, any STB decision can be appealed to a Federal court. So it's going to take a whole lot of years until the lawyers and bureaucrats get done.
By the time the L&Bs get done the issue will have been settled by the replacement of DOT-111s with 111As.
I understand that the CN is not a major player in the movement of Bakken oil. So their surcharge doesn't mean much. They are potentially a major player in the heavier oil from Alberta. So it is in their own self interest to do what they can to discourage movement of Bakken oil so it can be replaced with Alberta oil.
Paul_D_North_Jr Per the Reuters article cited/ linked in the Original Post: 21 tank cars of a 120-car general cargo freight train derailed. 19 carried oil, 4 of which leaked between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons; the other 2 had LPG on board. Comments to that article are kind funny . . . - Paul North.
Per the Reuters article cited/ linked in the Original Post: 21 tank cars of a 120-car general cargo freight train derailed. 19 carried oil, 4 of which leaked between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons; the other 2 had LPG on board.
Comments to that article are kind funny . . .
- Paul North.
ChuckAllen, TX
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm EuclidWhat if a railroad decides that the liability of hauling oil is so high that they don’t want to haul it; so they place an exorbitant surcharge on hauling any type of tank car used for hauling oil? I thought that we were all told that the railroads could not refuse to ship oil. I seem to recall being told that rather forcefully many times by the experts. Apparently CN and CP had a different idea about liability exposure and found an angle to work it. Or. their home offices are in another country? Try reading. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/cn-raises-shipping-rates-on-older-oil-tank-cars/article16842251/
Murphy Siding schlimm EuclidWhat if a railroad decides that the liability of hauling oil is so high that they don’t want to haul it; so they place an exorbitant surcharge on hauling any type of tank car used for hauling oil? I thought that we were all told that the railroads could not refuse to ship oil. I seem to recall being told that rather forcefully many times by the experts. Apparently CN and CP had a different idea about liability exposure and found an angle to work it. Or. their home offices are in another country?
schlimm EuclidWhat if a railroad decides that the liability of hauling oil is so high that they don’t want to haul it; so they place an exorbitant surcharge on hauling any type of tank car used for hauling oil? I thought that we were all told that the railroads could not refuse to ship oil. I seem to recall being told that rather forcefully many times by the experts. Apparently CN and CP had a different idea about liability exposure and found an angle to work it.
EuclidWhat if a railroad decides that the liability of hauling oil is so high that they don’t want to haul it; so they place an exorbitant surcharge on hauling any type of tank car used for hauling oil? I thought that we were all told that the railroads could not refuse to ship oil.
I seem to recall being told that rather forcefully many times by the experts. Apparently CN and CP had a different idea about liability exposure and found an angle to work it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The Staggers act gave railroads the pricing freedom that they need to impose this kind of surcharge. It is OK for DOT to say the cars are legal but DOT lacks the power to say they must be priced at the same rate as an obviously safer car. And they won't do it anyway, because lhey are with the railroads in wishing to promote the use of safer cars.
Euclid You say the answer is YES, but according to your explanation, it seems that the answer is NO. How are the railroads free to refuse a shipment by raising the rate if the STB gets to decide whether the rate is "legitimate," as you say?
You say the answer is YES, but according to your explanation, it seems that the answer is NO. How are the railroads free to refuse a shipment by raising the rate if the STB gets to decide whether the rate is "legitimate," as you say?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman EuclidIf the railroads do not want to ship something, can they get around the legal requirement to do so by charging an artificially inflated rate for the purpose of discourging the shipper from shipping? Yes. then the shipper takes the railroad to the STB (in the US) and there are hearings on whether the rate is legitimate and the rate either stands or not.
EuclidIf the railroads do not want to ship something, can they get around the legal requirement to do so by charging an artificially inflated rate for the purpose of discourging the shipper from shipping?
Euclid Are the railroads free to charge any rate they want? Maybe they are, but I don't know the anwser. But earlier, experts on this forum were assuring us that railroads have no responsibility for the dangers of shipping Bakken oil because they cannot refuse to ship it. The law requires them to ship it.
Are the railroads free to charge any rate they want? Maybe they are, but I don't know the anwser. But earlier, experts on this forum were assuring us that railroads have no responsibility for the dangers of shipping Bakken oil because they cannot refuse to ship it. The law requires them to ship it.
Nobody has said that.
If the railroads do not want to ship something, can they get around the legal requirement to do so by charging an artificially inflated rate for the purpose of discourging the shipper from shipping?
I think the answer is YES, and the thrad on Wisconsin rail traffic gives evidence.
So the obvious question is this:
Look, flat cars are approved and so are gondola cars. Suppose as a shipper owning a lot of flat cars I decide I want to ship fraking sand in loose piles on flat cars and say this is an approve car. Could the railroad refuse to handle the shipment. Maybe not. But they could quote a rate so high that I might consider buying gondola cars for these shipments.
tree68 EuclidI thought that we were all told that the railroads could not refuse to ship oil. And so we were. The railroads were deregulated regarding rates. They can charge what the market will bear. I may be mistaken, but I think we've also been told that the railroads do impose surcharges for some other hazardous materials. If the shipper is willing to pay the price, the railroad will haul the load. However, the shipper is obviously encouraged to ship in "approved" cars, which will be handled at the usual price. We don't know why they chose to impose a surcharge - only that they did. Without knowing the actual rationale, all we can do is speculate, which is what I am doing.
EuclidI thought that we were all told that the railroads could not refuse to ship oil.
And so we were.
The railroads were deregulated regarding rates. They can charge what the market will bear. I may be mistaken, but I think we've also been told that the railroads do impose surcharges for some other hazardous materials.
If the shipper is willing to pay the price, the railroad will haul the load. However, the shipper is obviously encouraged to ship in "approved" cars, which will be handled at the usual price.
We don't know why they chose to impose a surcharge - only that they did. Without knowing the actual rationale, all we can do is speculate, which is what I am doing.
Well the CN seems to have added the surcharge to discourage the use of a class of cars, as indicated by the fact that the surcharge is tied to that class. However the cars that are at issue are “approved” for use in an official sense. It should not be up to railroad companies to override that decision. The regulators dictate car design, and if they say it is okay, who are the railroads to say otherwise?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Exactly how does the UP chlorine hauling decision apply to surcharges ?
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 would not call this a surcharge for premium service. What is premium about it?
If railroads cannot refuse shipments offered in legal cars (as we have been told), how can they be allowed to overprice shipping in those cars for the express purpose of discouraging their use?
What if a railroad decides that the liability of hauling oil is so high that they don’t want to haul it; so they place an exorbitant surcharge on hauling any type of tank car used for hauling oil? I thought that we were all told that the railroads could not refuse to ship oil.
matthew.brandley I believe I would call this downright extortion. This was instituted by the RR in Canada. No word if the US RR will do this > I am not sure if the regulatory red tape is neccesary for this also in the US.
I believe I would call this downright extortion. This was instituted by the RR in Canada. No word if the US RR will do this > I am not sure if the regulatory red tape is neccesary for this also in the US.
Surcharges for premium service are common. I would argue that this constitutes just that. The question is what percentage of the overall charge for haulage does this represent? Is it a gentle nudge to get the shippers to upgrade to new cars ASAP, or is it something that will force the shippers to find other means to move their product, or not ship it at all?
Is it possible that the shippers will work together to pool qualifying cars where needed, leaving everyone else (ie, railroads not charging the surcharge) to live with the older cars?
There's two ways to look at the revenue from said surcharge - it's a money grab by the railroad, or it represents what they feel is the additional liability and expense of moving the cars in question.
Once the fleet is finally completely upgraded, the surcharge will be a moot point anyhow.
Every business will over charge for a commodity or service they are not equipped to handle, are fearful of its dangers, or which they just don't want to be bothered with because it will take too much away from what they are about. Often their plant cannot handle the product either because of size and weight or how it would impair their regular service and operations to a point they would be disturbed beyond reason.
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.
I believe I would call this downright extortion. This was inststuted by the rr is canada. No word if the U S rr will do this > I am not sure if the rgeulatory red tape is neccesary for this also in the u s
.
Heres something all of you have overlooked this weekend and was burried by the lame stream media.CN and CP starting 4/1 will be instituting a $325 per tanker car charge for all tanker cars built before 2011 and a ceertain classification by DOT standards according to a reuters bussiness wire press release friday evening around 8 pm. Also all pbf refineries are no longer accepting oil deliveries by said old reail cars effective that day since most oil comes from tar sands and bakken crude region. Other refineries on the east and west coast are now scrambling for new tanker cars since this will severely affect the bottom line
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCsgZ9zU7IA
walrus
Paul is dead...
- Erik
erikemYou're worried about a thin 12" diameter disk made of vinyl???
Yeah - if you play 'em backwards they've got secret messages....
And that just went straight over the head of the under 30 generation...
tree68 As noted, however, if I were to fear one of the two materials in the derailed cars, it would be the LP.
As noted, however, if I were to fear one of the two materials in the derailed cars, it would be the LP.
You're worried about a thin 12" diameter disk made of vinyl???
On a serious note, I'd also be a lot more worried about the propane than the crude oil and happy to note that the LPG tank cars stayed intact.
dehusmanThat's when a "BLVE", blevey (boiling liquid vapor explosion) entered the common language.
I learned the term as "BLEVE," or Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (pronounciation the same). Regardless, they are spectacular (and destructive), and don't require a railroad car to occur. Fixed facilities, trucks, and even 55 gallon drums of flammable substances can BLEVE.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.