Trains.com

Rails choose shipment destinations?

3510 views
30 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:45 PM

dakotafred
But rail companies telling a farmer or grain company, "Your product WILL go here rather than there"? I find that hard to believe.

 

I guess there is some advantage to being the originating carrier?  Much like BNSF decides that east bound freight will be interchanged in Chicago and not KC or St Louis, while for west bound autos Norfolk Southern decides to hand off in KC and not Chicago?

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Rails choose shipment destinations?
Posted by dakotafred on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:19 PM

A rather incredible (to me) story in the Dec. 11 Wall Street Journal, "Grain Train Runs Away from Farmers in Canada," claims that the Canadian roads are torpedoing grain exports to the U.S. in favor of the quicker turnaround of equipment offered by hauling to West Coast or St. Lawrence ports.

"Farmers typically don't decide where their product goes," the story says. "Grain and rail companies make those decisions based on such factors as price, timing and resource use."

The rails are said to favor the above destinations over throwing more traffic into the U.S. snarl. The quicker turnaround of equipment helps them meet new government quotas for the volume of grain they are expected to move weekly.

Canadian farmers are beaten out of the better prices they could get in the U.S., factoring in the cost of ship transportation out of the West Coast or St. Lawrence.

We know that (in the U.S.) elevators send the product they have bought from farmers to wherever they can get the best price, also consulting the cost of the haul. And we know that (down here) rail companies sometimes price their transportation so as to steer traffic to one place over another.

But rail companies telling a farmer or grain company, "Your product WILL go here rather than there"? I find that hard to believe.

Are things THAT different up Canada way? Or does the WSJ just have its railroad reportage screwed up again?

The story is irritating in the usual way, e.g., using "railroad" and "shipper" interchangeably. Also, no meaningful comment -- which might have clarified matters -- from the CN or CP. (The railroads' fault here.)

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy