Yearly ritual of Canadian RR getting blasted for not carrying grain in timely manner and RRs saing they are not receiving enough revenue.. Shades of the old crow's nest rates. Are these rates the only ones in Canada that are this regulated ? Maybe CN & CP may need more locos that just are not available.
LINK
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/canadian-grain-shippers-railways-in-a-cold”-war.html?channel=50
enough
blue streak 1Yearly ritual of Canadian RR getting blasted for not carrying grain in timely manner and RRs saing they are not receiving enough revenue.. Shades of the old crow's nest rates. Are these rates the only ones in Canada that are this regulated ? Maybe CN & CP may need more locos that just are not available.
Hi Blue
Yes, it has been a yearly ritual after the Crow Rate was repealed.
The way things work here in a now deregulated operating structure...... The railways can set their rates and prioritize grain traffic according to other traffic volume and the rates this volume commands. Crow forced the railways to move the grain at a fixed rate, with priority, and under conditions set by the governing Crow Rate Act.
This Act no longer applies and the railways have developed other traffic and revenue sources which push grain further down the priority list.
Then we get a bumper crop as we got this year, and guess what.
Nobody is ready, least of all the Government of Canada. What then happens is that the Minister of Agriculture and Transport do their executive thing (read Regulations or Minister's Orders) which have the force of law to get CN/CP moving the volumes of grain needing to be removed from farmers' granerys or local elevators.
I'm sure there will be 'supply chain' logistics to figure out but the bottom line is that GofC has the legal/regulatory power to force the RR's to comply. $100K per day fines for non-compliance will get their attention.
Stay tuned....
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
The railways are certainly not moving the grain fast enough to satisfy the farmers, but hard numbers to compare with previous years are hard to find. I can't determine how much of the problem is due to the bumper crop overwhelming the system rather than solely the railways' fault.
I also wonder if there might be more being shipped south into the USA. Grain trains going to Vancouver usually have a fast cycle time getting the empties back to the Prairies, assuming the port elevators are handling the arriving trains properly (not always the case). In the past I had heard comments about slow return of cars from the south. Basic arithmetic says that if it takes twice as long for a cycle, only half the quantity can be moved. We can't wave a magic wand and have the car builders instantly build another 5,000 cars by tomorrow. Nor does it make economic sense since they might not be required again for five years and the idle asset needs to be stored somewhere.
Putting my tongue in my cheek, perhaps the government should also regulate avalanches in the mountains so they don't close the line (and the highways) during busy grain seasons. Most avalanches originate in parks and crown land, which are already administered by the government itself.
John.
Canada's Agriculture Minister says; "You've heard of 'back to work' legislation, well this is 'get to work' legislation".
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-steps-in-to-ease-grain-backlog-1.1718837
I will get back to this thread at a more sensible hour, but suffice it to say I am very angry with the way CP and CN have handled this issue since the 1983 repeal of the "Crowsnest Pass Agreement" of 1897.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Everybody wants his traffic moved to the front of the line. It would be nice -- especially in these capacity-constrained times -- if the railroads could oblige everybody, wouldn't it?
The farmers and elevators here in North Dakota have been upset with BNSF and CP. The problem, besides a big harvest and competing oil traffic, has been severe winter weather.
I'd be surprised if the railroads aren't doing the best they can, short of breaking out their magic wands. They get a lot of money -- about $3,000? -- for every car of grain hauled, but don't get paid until they do the job.
blue streak 1 Yearly ritual of Canadian RR getting blasted for not carrying grain in timely manner and RRs saing they are not receiving enough revenue.. Shades of the old crow's nest rates. Are these rates the only ones in Canada that are this regulated ? Maybe CN & CP may need more locos that just are not available. LINK http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/canadian-grain-shippers-railways-in-a-cold”-war.html?channel=50 enough
It seem that the Canadians are experiencing their annual rite of Spring..."....Grain Car Blues...".
[snip] "...In the 1890s, when rich mineral deposits were discovered in the Kootenay region of southern BC, American developers began to move into the region and extend rail lines northward from their transcontinentals. The CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, determined to retain control of southwestern Canada, asked the federal government for assistance to extend its own line over the CROWSNEST PASS into BC. At the same time, Prairie farmers were complaining about high freight rates charged by the CPR, and further federal assistance to that company would be unpopular unless something was done about the freight rates. .."[snip]
From this link@http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/crows-nest-pass-agreement/
One 'trueism' that gets thrown around my company is that a 1 MPH change in system velocity equates to the availablity of 75 locomotives....ie, if velocity drops 1 MPH, 75 more lcomotives are required to support the traffic level, conversly if velocity increases 1 MPH then the system can handle more traffic with those 75 locomotives. The more congested the system gets, the more locomotives (as well as cars) get tied up in the congestion and not moving. With congestion, locomotive utilization and car utilization both suffer and it takes more of both to move the traffic.
My carrier was moving at 23.8 MPH in September and 20.2 MPH currently - 3.6 MPH difference that equates into 270 additional locomotives needed to support the system.
I am sure every carrier has their own yardsticks as to how changes in system velocity affect their particular system and they may or maynot be similar to my carrier's.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
AgentKidI will get back to this thread at a more sensible hour, but suffice it to say I am very angry with the way CP and CN have handled this issue since the 1983 repeal of the "Crowsnest Pass Agreement" of 1897.
Bruce.
I'm with you.
The Crow was a good thing IMHO but IIRC neither CN or CP liked it much, especially latterly. Said it forced them to ship grain at a not profitable enough rate and forced them to move the traffic expeditiously IIRC. Seems to me also that Gof C purchased most of the grain hoppers they used before repeal of the Crow. I never thought the railways had a bad deal with the Crow and as you say it served them and us well for 100 years. The railways even got the hoppers on their rosters now as I notice those grain hoppers coming through town have CP reporting numbers now.
I'd be really interested in your reasons for your anger at the railways, given that you and your family had a long history with CP.
Op's insider's view would be really instructive.
lenzfamily AgentKidI will get back to this thread at a more sensible hour, but suffice it to say I am very angry with the way CP and CN have handled this issue since the 1983 repeal of the "Crowsnest Pass Agreement" of 1897. Bruce. I never thought the railways had a bad deal with the Crow and as you say it served them and us well for 100 years.
I never thought the railways had a bad deal with the Crow and as you say it served them and us well for 100 years.
Everybody likes being on the receiving end of a cross subsidy, those on the paying end -- other shippers, the taxpayers, the railroads -- not so much. The outmoded Crow's Nest rates had to go for the same reason such confiscatory arrangements were scuttled in the United States: The government was scared to death that it would end up having to run the trains itself! (In Canada, the government didn't just shed Crow's Nest but a whole railroad!)
Fred
I can appreciate your point of view, however as Sam pointed out above, it was a significant historical quid pro quo that got the Crow Rate established in the first place in 1897. CP got lots of help from the federal government at that time.
I have no idea about analogous situations in the US. In Canada there have been plenty of cross subsidies over the years, the latest being auto manufacturing (tax breaks, development funding etc). Don't they now occur in the US too, in areas needing an economic 'boost'?
CN, when it was a Crown Corporation still and before it was devolved to the private sector, was turning a profit under Paul Tellier's leadership.
As I said previously, I'm really interested to hear what Agentkid has to say, given he and his family's working association with CP over the years.
Until then I really don't have much more to offer.
dakotafredEverybody likes being on the receiving end of a cross subsidy, those on the paying end -- other shippers, the taxpayers, the railroads -- not so much.
I can't disagree with you there, my problem is the behaviour of the railways since the repeal of the Crowsnest Pass Agreement. The revenue increases for grain hauling they received after the repeal should have been treated like a gift from God, and poured in to bringing their infrastructure in western Canada up to the requirements of the 20th and 21st Centuries, Instead it went to line the pockets of shareholders and increase executive salaries. Boasting how revenue per carload of grain is one of their highest earning categories is inexcusable.
It has been said that the "Prime Directive" of democratically elected governments is to get themselves reelected. In two of the three prairie provinces there is sufficient farmer vote to scuttle that plan for the current Federal government if they don't do something significant, quickly. And it is not just the inability to move grain that is the problem. There is intermodal from Asia, crude oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan, and potash from Saskatchewan. See the following article on potash:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/potash-market-uncertain-but-expected-to-grow-td-1.1715291
As I have said elsewhere, the population of Alberta has almost tripled in my lifetime, and Saskatchewan is experiencing significant growth as well. This is a result of very good paying jobs in the resource extraction sector, and those folks are all purchasers of consumer goods that need to be shipped in. The following article says;
As troubling, added Porter, is that almost all the job growth in the past year has occurred in Alberta, with other regions left picking up the scraps.
Porter says monthly regional breakdowns are notoriously unreliable because of the larger sampling error factor in the survey, but a year-long look usually tells a true tale.
What the long-view shows is that Alberta has picked up 82,000 jobs compared with a year ago, an increase of 3.8 per cent of the workforce, while Ontario and Saskatchewan gained 29,000 and 5,000 jobs respectively. All other provinces have lost jobs, except for New Brunswick which broke even.
I'm thinking a plan along the lines of suspending the right of the railways to pay dividends for five of the next ten years of each decade until CN and CP infrastructure is brought up to an acceptable level would be a good place to start. Using that money along with current cash holdings and other financing to start construction at levels sufficient to impact capital project costs of all other North American Class I's should be the objective. If the railways don't smarten up on their own, the government forced alternative will surely be worse.
IMHO you got it, in spades, from a Canadian point of view....
Chilliwack. BC
Charlie:
The Crow rate was indeed a very good thing, for the farmers. I would love to go down to the store and buy my groceries at 1897 prices, while still earning a modern income. It wasn't that the rate wasn't "profitable enough" for the railways, instead in modern times they were actually losing money hauling grain and it had to be cross-subsidized by other commodities.
Back in 1897 the Crow Rate was not such a marvelous deal for the farmers. It was intended to approximate a commercial rate if normal competition had existed. But it never occurred to the parties to include any provision for inflation. Modest inflation did occur but the railways were able for many years to absorb it through increased efficiency, as the 4-4-0 steam locomotives and 30 ton boxcars increased in size. For a short period the rates actually dropped below the Crow. It was after WW2 that inflation started to accelerate. Dieselization helped keep it somewhat compensatory for a little longer.
The agreement was only between CPR and the government, and covered only the CPR lines that existed at the time. It was expanded to apply to both railways and all prairie branches by unilateral legislation several decades later.
By 1970 the Crow rate was a serious losing proposition for the railways. The government was in a bind, since it looked like political suicide to eliminate the Crow rate. The railways were losing lots of money hauling grain, weren't willing to throw good money after bad, and major investment was urgently required. As a result, the band-aid solution was a government sponsored program to rehabilitate a number of grain dependent branchlines and buy the fleet of covered hoppers to replace the worn out fleet of 36 and 40 foot boxcars. That kept the system creaking along for a few more years.
As to the current controversy I don't know enough to apportion blame. Possibly the railways are favouring more remunerative traffic, or maybe the weather was the biggest factor. I only hope that if the railways succeed in moving the mandated quantities that the ports will also prove up to the challenge.
John
Canada grain shippers, railways in a "cold" wars Railway Age (Online) By David Thomas March 6, 2014 Clearing the autumn grain harvest from trackside elevators is a perennial occasion for ritual fist-shaking on the Canadian Prairies. Western Canadian farmers enjoy a long tradition of blaming the railways for their woes, even more than the weather. (A favorite national folk tale has a Prairie farmer stricken by hail and locusts cursing, "God damn the CPR.") This year's historic bumper crop has conspired with exceptionally frigid air to make the grain-shipping season particularly contentious. The immediate conjunctural factors of crop size and weather have conspired with underlying structural conditions to increase the prospect for yet another in Canada's long history of federal attempts to balance rail efficiency and the frustrations of Western Canada's grain growers. The leading wheat farmers' lobby wants the Western-dominated Conservative government in Ottawa to legislate "service obligations of the railways, in terms of car order fulfillment, car spotting, pickup, and delivery." It also wants shippers to have "interswitching" access to a competing main line carrier extended from 30 km (18.6 miles) to 120 km (74.4 miles). The government says it is listening sympathetically. The Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association advocates adjusting the country's regulated cap on grain rates to give railways "greater incentive to provide additional surge capacity during the peak post-harvest shipping period." But it wants to rake some of that back by sharing in the productivity gains made by the railways since the rate cap went into effect 14 years ago. Crude-by-rail has become a new but probably illusory target for grain shippers. The Saskatoon-based wheat lobby argues, "Increased shipments of oil by rail result in fewer locomotives, crews, and line capacity dedicated to shipping grain." It wants more pipeline approvals to release equipment for traditional rail-borne commodities. The big cause for this year's network congestion, according to CN spokesman Mark Hallman, is the persistent extreme cold that impedes the performance of train braking systems, forcing railways to run shorter, slower trains. "The notion that CN's crude-by-rail business is displacing grain on the company's rail network has no merit," Hallman said. "CN's crude oil carloadings in 2013 accounted for just 1.4% of the company's total carloadings of freight, and CN has ample network capacity in normal weather conditions to move all freight efficiently, including grain." A huge but late harvest combined with the Arctic air mass that settled over North America is slowing the movement of all freight, not just grain, Hallman said: "When the temperature is forecast to drop below -25 degrees C, CN needs to plan for shorter trains to consistently get air from the head-end locomotives to the tail-end of trains to release the brakes. Usually, this occurs for relatively short periods in specific areas. This year, we have had to operate with shortened trains for much longer periods, and over much broader territory than normal. "Shorter trains increase the number of trains operating on our network handling the same volume of traffic. Running more trains means a need for more crews, and more trains meeting and passing one another, which eats up network capacity. Shorter trains and cold weather also mean longer dwell times for cars in switching yards, and slower local train operations when delivering and picking up cars from sidings. The cumulative impact of the continuing severe cold has been to slow down the velocity of train operations throughout our network, which reduces our capacity to move traffic." Once normal weather returns, say both CN and CP, railways will be able to rapidly catch up with car spottings and pickups. That will not fix the underlying business and regulatory issues that guarantee tension among grain shippers, carriers, and governments. Insisting that railways move more grain while at the same time crippling rate economics is deeply rooted in the country's history. Canada's sea-to-sea geographical span is in fact thanks to an 1897 deal that handed Canadian Pacific land and cash to push track just above the 49th Parallel as a counter to 19th century American "Manifest Destiny." The deal included an absolute cap on CPR freight rates for shifting western grain to the Great Lakes and the backhauling of "settlers' supplies" westward. That "Crow Rate" subsidized both prairie growers and central Canadian manufacturers, to the disadvantage of Western attempts to build regional manufacturing. The Crow Rate was replaced in 1993 by a sliding cap on freight rates equal to 10% of the global wheat price. In turn, that cap was superseded in 2000 by today's "maximum grain revenue entitlement." Incorrectly but universally referred to as the "revenue cap," the current formula adjusts the annual rate the two Class Is may levy for carrying grain to the ports of Vancouver and Thunder Bay. For the 2013-2014 crop year, the formula fixes the maximum revenue for CN at C$35.51 per tonne, and C$33.15 for CP. The average haul is about 1,000 miles. But, as with the previous schemes to damp market economics, the revenue cap isn't working to anyone's advantage. The government's preferred solution, as in the past, is yet another set of mandates and price caps. To offset its demand for compulsory service performance and a longer reach to competing carriers, the wheat growers suggest tweaking the revenue cap so that railways could charge slightly more for car movements above a "normal" threshold during the peak post-harvest shipping time. A 5% increase above the threshold would earn the railways a 1% increase in the rate cap, but only for the September-December peak period. What the farmers giveth, they also want to taketh away: Any productivity gains made by the railways "should be shared with farmers through a reduction in the revenue cap." Gerry Ritz, Canada's minister of agriculture, recently threatened to "mandate" the priority movement of grain by rail. As a first step in that contentious direction, Ritz ordered CN and CP to provide weekly instead of monthly reporting for grain car deployments. The Conservative minister warned the railways there will be "consequences" if they manage car movements to the disadvantage of farmers. CN invested C$100 million last year to grow prairie capacity, including its northern line between Saskatoon, Sask., and Wainwright, Alberta, said Hallman. "This investment in additional capacity has worked," said Hallman. "It has increased the network capacity to operate more trains, and has provided a more robust parallel route for recovery from disruptions. So far this year, CN has doubled the number of trains operating over the Prairie North Line compared to a year ago. "CN has also acquired and deployed more equipment to handle record volumes of traffic, including Western grain, by acquiring more high-horsepower locomotives and augmenting its fleet of grain hopper cars. CN has also trained management employees as conductors or engineers, who have been stepping in during December and January to help relieve short-term crew shortages in targeted areas of the network impacted by the extreme cold. These and other initiatives have helped mitigate the short-term effects of winter on our operations and to grow our long-term spotting capacity for Western grain." CP, for its part, moved 17% more grain than the five-year average from September through January, and 8% more than last year, said spokesman Ed Greenberg. It could move even more if port terminals had capacity to accept it, he said. "This is a complex supply chain issue involving not just the railways, but all participants," said Greenberg. "For example, the grain handling and transportation system would further benefit from more port elevators working 24/7 to match the round-the-clock operation of the railway. By working 24/7, the ports would unload more railcars so we can turn them back into service for grain shippers." Throughput is expected to increase as spring weather opens Great Lakes and Hudson Bay ports to grain traffic.
Canada grain shippers, railways in a "cold" wars Railway Age (Online) By David Thomas March 6, 2014
Clearing the autumn grain harvest from trackside elevators is a perennial occasion for ritual fist-shaking on the Canadian Prairies. Western Canadian farmers enjoy a long tradition of blaming the railways for their woes, even more than the weather. (A favorite national folk tale has a Prairie farmer stricken by hail and locusts cursing, "God damn the CPR.")
This year's historic bumper crop has conspired with exceptionally frigid air to make the grain-shipping season particularly contentious.
The immediate conjunctural factors of crop size and weather have conspired with underlying structural conditions to increase the prospect for yet another in Canada's long history of federal attempts to balance rail efficiency and the frustrations of Western Canada's grain growers.
The leading wheat farmers' lobby wants the Western-dominated Conservative government in Ottawa to legislate "service obligations of the railways, in terms of car order fulfillment, car spotting, pickup, and delivery." It also wants shippers to have "interswitching" access to a competing main line carrier extended from 30 km (18.6 miles) to 120 km (74.4 miles). The government says it is listening sympathetically.
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association advocates adjusting the country's regulated cap on grain rates to give railways "greater incentive to provide additional surge capacity during the peak post-harvest shipping period." But it wants to rake some of that back by sharing in the productivity gains made by the railways since the rate cap went into effect 14 years ago.
Crude-by-rail has become a new but probably illusory target for grain shippers. The Saskatoon-based wheat lobby argues, "Increased shipments of oil by rail result in fewer locomotives, crews, and line capacity dedicated to shipping grain." It wants more pipeline approvals to release equipment for traditional rail-borne commodities.
The big cause for this year's network congestion, according to CN spokesman Mark Hallman, is the persistent extreme cold that impedes the performance of train braking systems, forcing railways to run shorter, slower trains.
"The notion that CN's crude-by-rail business is displacing grain on the company's rail network has no merit," Hallman said. "CN's crude oil carloadings in 2013 accounted for just 1.4% of the company's total carloadings of freight, and CN has ample network capacity in normal weather conditions to move all freight efficiently, including grain."
A huge but late harvest combined with the Arctic air mass that settled over North America is slowing the movement of all freight, not just grain, Hallman said:
"When the temperature is forecast to drop below -25 degrees C, CN needs to plan for shorter trains to consistently get air from the head-end locomotives to the tail-end of trains to release the brakes. Usually, this occurs for relatively short periods in specific areas. This year, we have had to operate with shortened trains for much longer periods, and over much broader territory than normal.
"Shorter trains increase the number of trains operating on our network handling the same volume of traffic. Running more trains means a need for more crews, and more trains meeting and passing one another, which eats up network capacity. Shorter trains and cold weather also mean longer dwell times for cars in switching yards, and slower local train operations when delivering and picking up cars from sidings. The cumulative impact of the continuing severe cold has been to slow down the velocity of train operations throughout our network, which reduces our capacity to move traffic."
Once normal weather returns, say both CN and CP, railways will be able to rapidly catch up with car spottings and pickups. That will not fix the underlying business and regulatory issues that guarantee tension among grain shippers, carriers, and governments.
Insisting that railways move more grain while at the same time crippling rate economics is deeply rooted in the country's history. Canada's sea-to-sea geographical span is in fact thanks to an 1897 deal that handed Canadian Pacific land and cash to push track just above the 49th Parallel as a counter to 19th century American "Manifest Destiny." The deal included an absolute cap on CPR freight rates for shifting western grain to the Great Lakes and the backhauling of "settlers' supplies" westward.
That "Crow Rate" subsidized both prairie growers and central Canadian manufacturers, to the disadvantage of Western attempts to build regional manufacturing. The Crow Rate was replaced in 1993 by a sliding cap on freight rates equal to 10% of the global wheat price. In turn, that cap was superseded in 2000 by today's "maximum grain revenue entitlement."
Incorrectly but universally referred to as the "revenue cap," the current formula adjusts the annual rate the two Class Is may levy for carrying grain to the ports of Vancouver and Thunder Bay. For the 2013-2014 crop year, the formula fixes the maximum revenue for CN at C$35.51 per tonne, and C$33.15 for CP. The average haul is about 1,000 miles.
But, as with the previous schemes to damp market economics, the revenue cap isn't working to anyone's advantage. The government's preferred solution, as in the past, is yet another set of mandates and price caps.
To offset its demand for compulsory service performance and a longer reach to competing carriers, the wheat growers suggest tweaking the revenue cap so that railways could charge slightly more for car movements above a "normal" threshold during the peak post-harvest shipping time. A 5% increase above the threshold would earn the railways a 1% increase in the rate cap, but only for the September-December peak period.
What the farmers giveth, they also want to taketh away: Any productivity gains made by the railways "should be shared with farmers through a reduction in the revenue cap."
Gerry Ritz, Canada's minister of agriculture, recently threatened to "mandate" the priority movement of grain by rail. As a first step in that contentious direction, Ritz ordered CN and CP to provide weekly instead of monthly reporting for grain car deployments. The Conservative minister warned the railways there will be "consequences" if they manage car movements to the disadvantage of farmers.
CN invested C$100 million last year to grow prairie capacity, including its northern line between Saskatoon, Sask., and Wainwright, Alberta, said Hallman.
"This investment in additional capacity has worked," said Hallman. "It has increased the network capacity to operate more trains, and has provided a more robust parallel route for recovery from disruptions. So far this year, CN has doubled the number of trains operating over the Prairie North Line compared to a year ago.
"CN has also acquired and deployed more equipment to handle record volumes of traffic, including Western grain, by acquiring more high-horsepower locomotives and augmenting its fleet of grain hopper cars. CN has also trained management employees as conductors or engineers, who have been stepping in during December and January to help relieve short-term crew shortages in targeted areas of the network impacted by the extreme cold. These and other initiatives have helped mitigate the short-term effects of winter on our operations and to grow our long-term spotting capacity for Western grain."
CP, for its part, moved 17% more grain than the five-year average from September through January, and 8% more than last year, said spokesman Ed Greenberg. It could move even more if port terminals had capacity to accept it, he said.
"This is a complex supply chain issue involving not just the railways, but all participants," said Greenberg. "For example, the grain handling and transportation system would further benefit from more port elevators working 24/7 to match the round-the-clock operation of the railway. By working 24/7, the ports would unload more railcars so we can turn them back into service for grain shippers."
Throughput is expected to increase as spring weather opens Great Lakes and Hudson Bay ports to grain traffic.
Balt,
Good article. Glad you posted it. It lays out the variety of factors historically and presently at play.
In my own sometimes inept way I was trying to get at this in fewer words (not always a good thing with something so complicated).
Again, the article lays it out well.
Thanks again
blue streak 1Yearly ritual of Canadian RR getting blasted for not carrying grain in timely manner and RRs saing they are not receiving enough revenue.
First, I wanted to thank blue streak 1 for bringing this matter to our attention. As one of Newton's Laws points out, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As was pointed out on a Canadian RR forum yesterday, now we await the "fine levy" season which will soon follow. It was pointed out that these fines have rarely been that significant. During EHH's tenure at CN, that company raised appealing those fines up to almost an art form. They would cite weather, avalanches, and a plethora of other excuses. IIRC I believe some of those appeals still haven't been resolved.
I want to thank Balt for posting the Railway Age article. It did a fairly good job of covering the issue. That CN invested $100 million is just one of many projects that need to be completed, so kudos to CN for dealing with that aspect of the problem. Also, I was under the impression that one of EHH's achievements while at CN was getting the elevators at Vancouver to accept cars on a 24/7 basis. I did not realize some are apparently still not doing so.
I do want to address Ed Greenberg's comment further. I have no reason to doubt that his assertions about CP's deliveries to the coast are correct, but he does not address the real problem, Cycle Time. You can haul that many loads west, or return that many empties EB, but you cannot do both at once. Further significant investment in infrastructure will be required before a balanced cycle can ever be achieved reliably on a year round basis.
I'm still with you. That's why your CP ops insight/experience was important IMHO.
I value your comments and perspective from where you sit/stand.....
AgentKid I do want to address Ed Greenberg's comment further. I have no reason to doubt that his assertions about CP's deliveries to the coast are correct, but he does not address the real problem, Cycle Time. You can haul that many loads west, or return that many empties EB, but you cannot do both at once. Further significant investment in infrastructure will be required before a balanced cycle can ever be achieved reliably on a year round basis. Bruce
Who is in charge of the transloading facilities at the Western Canada ports? Railroads? Port Authorities?
The speed of the transloading facilities is the normal determinate in cycle times. If the transloading facility can handle a train a day and the railroad delivers two, they aren't doing the cycle time any benefits. Secondarily, loading time at the elevators. I suspect there are many more elevator able to load trains than there are port transloading facilities.
BaltACDWho is in charge of the transloading facilities at the Western Canada ports? Railroads? Port Authorities?
The latter. That's a major part of the problem Agent Kid refers to. They are an entity unto themselves often enough. The feds have a strong say in their operation which is evident especially in ongoing discussions about pipeline terminals and the like.
this is a very tangled web, believe me.....
BaltACDThe speed of the transloading facilities is the normal determinate in cycle times.
That is not the case here. The point I was trying to make is the constraint posed by the mountain railroading between Calgary and Vancouver. You simply can't get enough loads out to Vancouver and empties back to Calgary at the same time to overload the transloading facilities, as you call them, in Vancouver. We call them elevators. And I have to admit I never heard of Port Authorities until I started reading TRAINS.
The business has always been conducted between the railways, and the grain companies, who both load the grain at the country elevators and unload the grain into their own elevators at the docks. Although this has been changing as grain companies, like other big corporations, spin off profit centres or sell them to specialists in a particular field. I know there are others, but the only one I am familiar with is at Thunder Bay, ON. The former Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Elevator there is now operated by Mission Terminals.
I can't remember when I read this, but it was before the internet, I'm just not sure if it was before or after the Mt. MacDonald Tunnel opened in 1986. The article said; the railways would improve their deliveries to the coast if the grain companies would just tell them when the ships were due, so they could have set deadlines. The grain companies said essentially, don't worry your pointed little heads about that, just haul all grain, all the time, and we can load everything you can get to us. The railways of course replied, that is impossible, we have other customers. Unfortunately, in typical Canadian fashion, this impasse was never resolved to everyone's satisfaction
Fast forward to 2014, the terms may change, but the concepts don't. In an article published several days before the one blue streak 1 mentioned, the railways said they couldn't provide better service to the grain companies because the grain companies hadn't signed "shipping agreements" that would spell out performance levels and deadlines. The grain companies won't sign because setting performance levels and deadlines would mean the railways could charge more to provide this up-level service. Still no resolution in sight. And the beat goes on.
lenzfamilyThe latter. . . They are an entity unto themselves often enough. The feds have a strong say in their operation which is evident especially in ongoing discussions about pipeline terminals and the like.
Charlie, You snuck this in while I was answering Balt. You have to tell us more. How do they interface between the railways and the elevators?
I don't know the Canadian business model.
In the model I am familiar with, grain companies owned the elevator/transloading facilities at port. They would load and accept more grain to the port than they could handle with their elevator - until the ship arrived. They were using railroad cars for the business, so they didn't care about turnaround, only the railroad did.
The grain company valued their elevator/transloading pier so much that the pier fell into the harbor from a lack of maintenance and they closed the elevator.
AgentKid harlie, You snuck this in while I was answering Balt. You have to tell us more. How do they interface between the railways and the elevators? Bruce
harlie, You snuck this in while I was answering Balt. You have to tell us more. How do they interface between the railways and the elevators?
With great difficulty, as you pointed out succinctly in your last post about the grain companies.
Just add port Metro Vancouver to the list of 'don't you railways worry your little pointed heads about.....' observation.
Part of the problem is, as you well recognize, there just isn't enough capacity EB/WB especially in the CP Stoney Creek and Mountain Subs or the CN Albreda Sub which transit the Selkirk's and the Rockies. They have been making improvements particularly outside these three subdivisions, but the problem is that these three just remain choke points in the system. Mount MacDonald Tunnel was a $3B+ stab at a fix for Directional running EB/WB in that area, but beyond that, I think they have limited options other than just east of Revelstoke. It's still painful to watch trains WB on Stoney Creek and at Roger's Pass, since the Helper Crews at Stoney Creek and Glacier were removed many years ago now. Directional running WB CN EB CP Kamloops to Vancouver has helped but the problem above still remains. Don't know how much CN has done to Hinton Sub or CP to Laggan Sub by way of improvements. Even so, Mountain and Albreda sit there.....
Add to the grain the following: sulphur, coal and container traffic and, well you know the rest. Get your gag reflex ready.
Add to this the administrative overlays of Ports and grain companies and sulpher and container and coal and plus the Municipal, provincial and Federal government and their concerns and wow......
Add to that, today 2000 container truckers, union and non-union, hit the picket line in Port Metro Vancouver.....
Stay tuned........'Happy Days are Here Again' in Lotusland (aka BC)
What are the returns on grain hauling in the USA versus Canada ?
We do not know the powers of various government authorities in Canada but that brings up several questions. Some possible actions Canada may wand or order to be implemented .
1. Order more grain cars built ?
2. Will the 2 RRs have to bring cars from the USA
3. Buy / lease more locos for next ear ?
4. Order some sidings to be restored to at least previous lengths but maybe some minimum that can be used by winter time trains ?
5. Other infrastructure improvements that will improve thru put
6. Order different operating practices at grain elevators ?
7. Will have a later post about observed USA elevator operating practices.
What is the business model for Canadian grain? Is it mostly for export or are there signifigant volumes that are used for internal Canadian use.
US Grain has multiple US consumers - Ethanol production, Industrial process, Animal Feed and probably 101 other uses in addition to export. As a consequence, grain moves on multiple routes and rarely ends up being the cause of congestion on any of the routes.
Balt
Much of our grain goes for export and has for many years. As far as I know the Canadian market is a fraction of the export market. Much goes through Vancouver, WB, some volume goes through Thunder Bay, Lake Superior, EB. I expect relatively little, quite surprisingly, through Prince Rupert WB although over time this may change if the CN Skeena sub can be upgraded from Prince George. They'd have a hell of a time between Terrace and Rupert doing that. A fraction goes through Churchill (North and East) on Hudson's Bay, although the shipping season is at best 4 months and the ROW through to Churchill from Winnipeg is about 1300 km of limited speed track and worse, especially from Thompson to Churchill, during freeze-up and breakup.
Remember, we are a country with the approximate population of California. We do a lot of resource based export along with grain. That's always been our strength although it is diversifying even more as time goes on.
Our railway network is a fraction of yours (check it out on a map) so I would think alternative means of routing rail traffic within our country is quite restricted by comparison to yours.
You're a dispatcher of many years experience. I expect this scenario would make you blanch...and with good reason.
lenzfamily Balt Much of our grain goes for export and has for many years. As far as I know the Canadian market is a fraction of the export market. Much goes through Vancouver, WB, some volume goes through Thunder Bay, Lake Superior, EB. I expect relatively little, quite surprisingly, through Prince Rupert WB although over time this may change if the CN Skeena sub can be upgraded from Prince George. They'd have a hell of a time between Terrace and Rupert doing that. A fraction goes through Churchill (North and East) on Hudson's Bay, although the shipping season is at best 4 months and the ROW through to Churchill from Winnipeg is about 1300 km of limited speed track and worse, especially from Thompson to Churchill, during freeze-up and breakup. Remember, we are a country with the approximate population of California. We do a lot of resource based export along with grain. That's always been our strength although it is diversifying even more as time goes on. Our railway network is a fraction of yours (check it out on a map) so I would think alternative means of routing rail traffic within our country is quite restricted by comparison to yours. You're a dispatcher of many years experience. I expect this scenario would make you blanch...and with good reason. Charlie Chilliwack, BC
That is why I asked the question. When you put all your eggs in one basket you are limited by the size of the basket. The distribution 'network' from the plains to West Coast ports appears to be in reality a single basket - a single basket that isn't big enough for all concerned.
Only idiots continue to do the same thing over and over, year after year and expect a different result.
What is the tonnage capacity of the port facilities and their ability to turn that tonnage over? Do CN & CP have the capacity to keep the port facilities continuously working. Are the ports deep draft or something less. Back in the day, Baltimore had 39 foot draft, vessels would load between 50K & 60K tons at Baltimore and then go down the Chesapeake Bay to Newport News - a deep draft port and top off with another 90K tons - so they could deliver 150K tons to destinations overseas.
Knowing that we are dealing with governmental bodies with the various port operating authorities as well as the Canadian grain board - finding real hard facts would tax Perry Mason, Matlock and a whole army of fact slueths
How much traffic is routed over Crowsnest Pass, and the old Spokane International to Vancouver, WA?
BaltACD What is the tonnage capacity of the port facilities and their ability to turn that tonnage over? Do CN & CP have the capacity to keep the port facilities continuously working. Are the ports deep draft or something less. Back in the day, Baltimore had 39 foot draft, vessels would load between 50K & 60K tons at Baltimore and then go down the Chesapeake Bay to Newport News - a deep draft port and top off with another 90K tons - so they could deliver 150K tons to destinations overseas. Knowing that we are dealing with governmental bodies with the various port operating authorities as well as the Canadian grain board - finding real hard facts would tax Perry Mason, Matlock and a whole army of fact slueths
The only really deep draft port of the ones I mentioned previously is Prince Rupert.
Part of the problem is the regulatory and administrative regime for Canadian Ports.
The other part of the problem, as I see it (and trust me I'm an observer and not an expert) is one of railway ability (as Kid said) to get grain and any other cars in and out of ports and keep the system fluid given the system constraints Kid and I have mentioned in earlier posts. I think that's part of what CN and CP are trying to emphasise is part of the problem , espeically when when Feenie (CN) and Greenberg (CP) talk about other parts of the supply chain being a problem too, although I'm sure the railways also have lots to account for here.
Vancouver has far and away the greatest port capacity, grain, sulphur and containers through Vancouver, mostly coal through Roberts Bank. The others have less capacity comparatively speaking. I'm sorry I can't give you more detail than this. Others I'm sure would be able to provide that data.
The regulatory and administrative maze is is to put it kindly, Byzantine.
By the way, Raymond Burr (PM) came from New Westminster IIRC. Probably would be shaking his head..... as you say.
Currently 90% of container traffic is not moving though Vancouver due to 1400 union and non-union drivers currently on strike.
Wahoo........!!!!!
NorthWestHow much traffic is routed over Crowsnest Pass, and the old Spokane International to Vancouver, WA?
I wondered about that too. As far as I know not a great deal from the trains I've seen moving though Moyie, BC (CP, Moyie Sub) where my youngest brother lives. Again, anecdotal, but nothing like what I see coming through Chilliwack BC on CN where I live.
One week I was there a year or so ago, about 4 trains a day each way, not all going to Vancouver WA. Some of these trains also head to Creston (where the only two grain elevators serving the Creston Valley have been removed) and then toTrail (Teck Cominco) and Castelgar (Celgar Pulp).
Hope this helps.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.