schlimmYou are entitled to your opinion as am I, even if it is at variance with your interpretration of 223.
Well, there you go!
Reciprocal switching has been discussed here before, and many of the points PNWRMNM made have been brought up before as well.
Section 223 (as quoted) does not define reciprocal switching. PNWRMNM attempted to illustrate how it works, and some of the practical problems that could be encountered.
If you feel those assumptions are wrong, please enlighten us as to why!
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...
schlimm 1. I know nothing of Sol. 2. "No fishing" rquired. Section 223 is very short, I already included on this thread and presumably he can find his post, read them and compare.
1. I know nothing of Sol.
2. "No fishing" rquired. Section 223 is very short, I already included on this thread and presumably he can find his post, read them and compare.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
As an outsider looking in, wouldn't the logical approach be for the railroads to devise some sort of rule-of-thumb formula they could all use as a guide to negotiate the rates for switching?
Murphy Siding schlimm 1. I know nothing of Sol. 2. "No fishing" rquired. Section 223 is very short, I already included on this thread and presumably he can find his post, read them and compare. Awe come on!1. You have been a member since July, 2006. You have even mentioned MichaelSol in the past. This suggests that you've not being quite honest with us and with yourself.2. You're tactic of implying "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" suggests that even you're not really sure what you mean to be saying. Since there are several people here that don't understand what you're trying to say, perhaps the problen is on the broadcasting end, not on the receiving end.What is it you're trying to say?
Awe come on!1. You have been a member since July, 2006. You have even mentioned MichaelSol in the past. This suggests that you've not being quite honest with us and with yourself.2. You're tactic of implying "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" suggests that even you're not really sure what you mean to be saying. Since there are several people here that don't understand what you're trying to say, perhaps the problen is on the broadcasting end, not on the receiving end.What is it you're trying to say?
1. Of course I have heard his name invoked, but I never saw his posts. I gather he was controversial from negative comments you and others have made, but I have no opinion based on first-hand familiarity with his writings.
2. There is no mystery about what I said. Read what Sec.223 says (it's succinct and surprisingly free of legalese). Then read what Mac said. My contention is that his interpretation is a major stretch, i.e., his inference is at considerable variance with the text of Sec. 223.
Mac is entitled to his opinions; I am entitled to my opinions, including about his and do not need to explain why , given that should be obvious to anyone by reading the relevant passages for oneself.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy Siding As an outsider looking in, wouldn't the logical approach be for the railroads to devise some sort of rule-of-thumb formula they could all use as a guide to negotiate the rates for switching?
That's consistent with Sec. 223. It says the railroads should have first crack at working out a rate, not the ICC (STB today).
Wouldn't that be considered price fixing?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Murphy Siding As an outsider looking in, wouldn't the logical approach be for the railroads to devise some sort of rule-of-thumb formula they could all use as a guide to negotiate the rates for switching? Wouldn't that be considered price fixing?
It seems like it would be legitimate for them to say something like "Hey- we've taken in all the factors that make up the cost of a certain switching function and agreed that we would use those numbers as a starting point for negotiating switching fees". It could be some sort of formula based on, I don't know, length of car movement, number of cars, type of freight, time of year(?), ownership of cars, etc., etc. The point being, the railroads could show that they acted in good faith to determine their costs and therefore offer fair and competitive rates on the switching blah blah blah . I think it would be difficult for a shipper to make a case against a well thought out plan. I think having a well thought out plan among the railroads might also suggest to the shippers and the STB that the railroads were working with the needs of the shippers in mind. If they had some sort of formula that could suggest a fair price for the service, it would seem like it would be difficult for a shipper to suggest that the cost of a switching service should be below a certain minimum level.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm 1. I know nothing of Sol. 2. "No fishing" rquired. Section 223 is very short, I already included on this thread and presumably he can find his post, read them and compare. Awe come on!1. You have been a member since July, 2006. You have even mentioned MichaelSol in the past. This suggests that you've not being quite honest with us and with yourself.2. You're tactic of implying "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" suggests that even you're not really sure what you mean to be saying. Since there are several people here that don't understand what you're trying to say, perhaps the problen is on the broadcasting end, not on the receiving end.What is it you're trying to say? 1. Of course I have heard his name invoked, but I never saw his posts. I gather he was controversial from negative comments you and others have made, but I have no opinion based on first-hand familiarity with his writings. 2. There is no mystery about what I said. Read what Sec.223 says (it's succinct and surprisingly free of legalese). Then read what Mac said. My contention is that his interpretation is a major stretch, i.e., his inference is at considerable variance with the text of Sec. 223. Mac is entitled to his opinions; I am entitled to my opinions, including about his and do not need to explain why , given that should be obvious to anyone by reading the relevant passages for oneself.
In the new STB proposal, what exactly is the method for determining the cost charged for reciprocal switching of a car from the railroad serving the originator of the load to a competing railroad?
What is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching?
EuclidWhat is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching?
It's probably in 223 somewhere...
https://www.up.com/customers/shortline/recipswitch/
Since reciprocal switching isn't new, many railroads have such of the information on their websites. Info such as where and what industries are included plus rates. The above is for the UP.
I'm thinking that the part 223 Schlimm refers to is something that gives the STB the power to force or expand reciprocal switching at points or to industries not currently included in reciprocal agreements. I think the NITL proposal is to force the establishment or reciprocal switching to all customers and expand the area out to 30 miles from the interchange point.
Jeff
tree68 Euclid What is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching?
Euclid What is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching?
Read Section 223. The term competitive switching does not appear.
Mac
schlimm Amazing how the AAR acts like competitive switching is something without a basis, They love Staggers. Competitive switching is in Staggers, just never acted on.
Amazing how the AAR acts like competitive switching is something without a basis, They love Staggers. Competitive switching is in Staggers, just never acted on.
Read Section 223. The term competitive switching does not appear in the section.
PS - previous post to same effect failed to include the original statement, so it has no context.
tree68 Euclid What is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching? It's probably in 223 somewhere...
PNWRMNM schlimm Amazing how the AAR acts like competitive switching is something without a basis, They love Staggers. Competitive switching is in Staggers, just never acted on. Read Section 223. The term competitive switching does not appear in the section. PS - previous post to same effect failed to include the original statement, so it has no context. Mac
In fact it does discuss reciprocal switching in the context of competition as its justification.
"(c)(1) The Commission may require rail carriers to enter into reciprocal switching agreements, where it finds such agreements to be practicable and in the public interest, or where such agreements are necessary to provide competitive rail service. "
Thus the term "competitive switching." Reciprocal switching necessary to provide competitive rail servive is, ergo, competitive switching.
Murphy Siding tree68 Euclid What is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching? It's probably in 223 somewhere... I suggest you re-read Section 223 and compare its words with the words...More to the point, what I get out of Mac's explanation is that the railroads have to tread softly so they don't end up on the receiving end down the road. For example, UP wouldn't want to gouge BNSF for reciprocal switching somewhere this week and then get gouged next week on a similar situation from BNSF next week.
I suggest you re-read Section 223 and compare its words with the words...More to the point, what I get out of Mac's explanation is that the railroads have to tread softly so they don't end up on the receiving end down the road. For example, UP wouldn't want to gouge BNSF for reciprocal switching somewhere this week and then get gouged next week on a similar situation from BNSF next week.
Well sure, the two competing railroads may agree on a price if they both are liable to be subjected to it. However, in a larger context, they have no choice in the whether or not to agree on a price because the government mandates that they must agree on it. If they don't agree on the price, the government mandates the price.
Euclid Murphy Siding tree68 Euclid What is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching? It's probably in 223 somewhere... I suggest you re-read Section 223 and compare its words with the words...More to the point, what I get out of Mac's explanation is that the railroads have to tread softly so they don't end up on the receiving end down the road. For example, UP wouldn't want to gouge BNSF for reciprocal switching somewhere this week and then get gouged next week on a similar situation from BNSF next week. Well sure, the two competing railroads may agree on a price if they both are liable to be subjected to it. However, in a larger context, they have no choice in the whether or not to agree on a price because the government mandates that they must agree on it. If they don't agree on the price, the government mandates the price.
schlimm PNWRMNM schlimm Amazing how the AAR acts like competitive switching is something without a basis, They love Staggers. Competitive switching is in Staggers, just never acted on. Read Section 223. The term competitive switching does not appear in the section. PS - previous post to same effect failed to include the original statement, so it has no context. Mac In fact it does discuss reciprocal switching in the context of competition as its justification. "(c)(1) The Commission may require rail carriers to enter into reciprocal switching agreements, where it finds such agreements to be practicable and in the public interest, or where such agreements are necessary to provide competitive rail service. " Thus the term "competitive switching." Reciprocal switching necessary to provide competitive rail servive is, ergo, competitive switching.
Murphy Siding You're making it too difficult. It's not practical to gouge the other guy today, because he would then feel obligated to gouge back tomorrow and payback's a...banana.
If all that is needed is your idea of mutual interest, why does Section 223 say this?—
“The carriers entering into such an agreement shall establish the conditions and compensation applicable to such agreement, but, if the carriers cannot agree upon such conditions and compensation within a reasonable period of time, the Commission may establish such conditions and compensation.”
I agree that it may not be practical to gouge the other guy, but it is also impossible due to Section 223.
Murphy Sidingergo, you've just proved that the term competitive switching does not appear in the section.
Not literally, of course, but in context it his the heart of the matter. Where do you think the STB got the idea and basis for its proposal? From outer space? Are you even capable of inferential reading? It is a skill that is sadly in decline in our schools. But more likely, you are engaging in another of your silly games.
One thing stands out in this "discussion." Many folks have never read the Staggers Act itself, just about it.
schlimm 1. I know nothing of Sol.
That is a shame. I think you two would have gotten along....
An "expensive model collector"
The terms, reciprocal switching and competive switching mean the same thing because the point of reciprocal switching is to create competition. This article linked to the original post here says this:
The rule involves "reciprocal" or "competitive switching," which refers to a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access, according to the STB. The second railroad pays the railroad that has physical access, typically in the form of a per-car switching charge.
EuclidThe terms, reciprocal switching and competive switching mean the same thing because the point of reciprocal switching is to create competition.
Do they? How about companies like Railserve who can switch big industries for less than than a railroad would charge? Perhaps not reciprocal but decidedly competitive.
Norm
Norm,
I said the two terms mean the same thing. But maybe it is more accurate to say competitive switching includes reciprocal switching as one component; and that reciprocal switching is entirely composed of one form of competitive switching.
But I get the impression from the piece in Progressive Railroading that the two terms are interchangeable in discussions about reciprocal switching.
schlimm Murphy Siding ergo, you've just proved that the term competitive switching does not appear in the section. Not literally, of course, but in context it his the heart of the matter.
Murphy Siding ergo, you've just proved that the term competitive switching does not appear in the section.
Not literally, of course, but in context it his the heart of the matter.
So in context distortion is the same as lying. Thank you for proving my point!
Euclid But I get the impression from the piece in Progressive Railroading that the two terms are interchangeable in discussions about reciprocal switching.
Euclid,
I can see how you would conclude that from the article.
Reciprocal Switching is the long established term of regulatory and railroad art.
I do not know where competitive switching comes from. I suspect in came from NITL regulatory filings or press releases, presumably as an effort to put lipstick on a pig. If is also possible that the magazine writer invented the term, but I doubt it.
You're making it too difficult. It's not practical to gouge the other guy today, because he would then feel obligated to gouge back tomorrow and payback's a...banana.
Murphy,
I think you are looking at the wrong end of the transaction. The big deal is not whether the new switch charge is $300 or $500, but the NITL will want it as low as they can con the STB into. Likewise the carriers will want it be as high as possible to help them resist the temptation to poach the newly open traffic from the other guy.
The NITL wants expanded reciprocal switching for just one reason, they want to be able to threaten to divert line haul traffic from the newly opened facilities to DRIVE THEIR RATES DOWN. If threats fail then they will divert. Either way the incumbent carrier looses and the shipper gains, just like taking candy from a baby.
The point I was trying to make is that the carriers have the ability to nullify this whole production simply by refusing to establish a rate to poach the other guy's traffic. They can do this without any illegal conspiracy simply by keeping the knives sheathed, which is what NITL obviously does not want. Think about the Cold War doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. Logically the NITL plan is to set up that game. The question is whether the railroads will be smart enough NOT to play.
In the regulated days this plan to separate the railroads from their money would not work since the rates on every commodity from every point to every other point were equalized regrdless of route AS A MATTER OF LAW. In those days reciprocal switching enabled shippers to reach points not on the origin road, or to use a route with supperior service, and enabled the rail system, taken as a whole, to provide the economy with a wide variety of route options. Since there were so many customers and routes, I suspect in most cases it was not worth the clerical effort to identify "reprisal" switches and find out what the customer's issue was. Of course the carriers had field marketing guys who could take a customer out to lunch. No such thing now.
PNWRMNM Murphy Siding You're making it too difficult. It's not practical to gouge the other guy today, because he would then feel obligated to gouge back tomorrow and payback's a...banana. I think you are looking at the wrong end of the transaction. The big deal is not whether the new switch charge is $300 or $500, but the NITL will want it as low as they can con the STB into. Likewise the carriers will want it be as high as possible to help them resist the temptation to poach the newly open traffic from the other guy. The point I was trying to make is that the carriers have the ability to nullify this whole production simply by refusing to establish a rate to poach the other guy's traffic. They can do this without any illegal conspiracy simply by keeping the knives sheathed, which is what NITL obviously does not want.
The point I was trying to make is that the carriers have the ability to nullify this whole production simply by refusing to establish a rate to poach the other guy's traffic. They can do this without any illegal conspiracy simply by keeping the knives sheathed, which is what NITL obviously does not want.
If the carriers have the ability to nullify by refusing to establish a rate, why would they not do that? If the carriers refuse to establish a rate, will the govnerment set the rate and bind them to perform the reciprocal switching at that rate?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.