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
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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...
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...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Read Section 223. The term competitive switching does not appear.
tree68 Euclid What is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching?
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
EuclidWhat is to prevent the originating railroad from gouging the receiving railroad to discourage the request for reciprocal switching?
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...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
That's consistent with Sec. 223. It says the railroads should have first crack at working out a rate, not the ICC (STB today).
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!
I don't care to argue and play games with someone who refuses to reason. I am assuming you can. I have my opinions based on what I read. All you do is to keep insisting on having answers spoon fed to you as some game. Everyone who has the interest and time can look at your comment on reciprocal switching, look at Section 223 and draw their own conclusions as to the accuracy of your inferences. You are entitled to your opinion as am I, even if it is at variance with your interpretration of 223. Finis.
OK. Your game is to acquse(SP) me of distortion, but when challenged find yourself unable or unwilling to back up you claims. If you quit now, and I sincerely hope you do, you have demonstated your character to all who care to look.
I'm not playing that game. I printed Sec. 223 and you have your post. Compare the texts. You are reading a heck of a lot into Sec. 223.
schlimm Section 223 is very short, I already included on this thread and presumably he can find his post, read them and compare.
Section 223 is very short, I already included on this thread and presumably he can find his post, read them and compare.
Reading Section 223 is not the problem. The problem is that you have accused me of distortion without offering anything to subtantiate the claim. What is my distortion?
Murphy Siding schlimm PNWRMNM schlimm PNWRMNM And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching. How, pray tell have I done that? Mac I suggest you re-read Section 223 and compare its words with the words you wrote claiming what the STB would do. Rather than making this sound like an old MichaelSol routine where he used to ask you to read something and fish around for clues about what he was trying to say, why don't you just explain what you mean?
schlimm PNWRMNM schlimm PNWRMNM And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching. How, pray tell have I done that? Mac I suggest you re-read Section 223 and compare its words with the words you wrote claiming what the STB would do.
PNWRMNM schlimm PNWRMNM And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching. How, pray tell have I done that? Mac
schlimm PNWRMNM And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching.
PNWRMNM
And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching.
How, pray tell have I done that?
I suggest you re-read Section 223 and compare its words with the words you wrote claiming what the STB would do.
Rather than making this sound like an old MichaelSol routine where he used to ask you to read something and fish around for clues about what he was trying to say, why don't you just explain what you mean?
Remember, we have a legal system where multiple parties read the same words and come to diametrically opposed understandings of what those words mean and then the words get adjudicated by the courts and the words of those rulings again engender diametrically opposed understandings of those words. The beat goes on!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm PNWRMNM schlimm PNWRMNM In short, I think this is much ado about not much. I suspect the STB to give the NITL what it wants, so it can show everybody its progressive bona fides. Mac McCulloch And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching. How, pray tell have I done that? Mac I suggest you re-read Section 223 and compare its words with the words you wrote claiming what the STB would do.
PNWRMNM schlimm PNWRMNM In short, I think this is much ado about not much. I suspect the STB to give the NITL what it wants, so it can show everybody its progressive bona fides. Mac McCulloch And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching. How, pray tell have I done that? Mac
schlimm PNWRMNM In short, I think this is much ado about not much. I suspect the STB to give the NITL what it wants, so it can show everybody its progressive bona fides. Mac McCulloch And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching.
PNWRMNM In short, I think this is much ado about not much. I suspect the STB to give the NITL what it wants, so it can show everybody its progressive bona fides. Mac McCulloch
Oh good, a distortion is not a lie. I feel so much better.
How then did I distort the Staggers Act?
PNWRMNM Schlimm, You are calling me a liar. What is my lie? Mac
Schlimm,
You are calling me a liar. What is my lie?
No I did not call you a liar, anywhere. Your statement distorted what the Staggers Act says. That is not a lie. Perhaps you simply need to check your vocabulary?
PNWRMNMIn short, I think this is much ado about not much. I suspect the STB to give the NITL what it wants, so it can show everybody its progressive bona fides. Mac McCulloch
Whatever, the mandate has been there for 36 years right in the acclaimed Staggers Act. But the AAR wants to cherry pick. And you have distorted what the Staggers Act says about reciprocal switching.
Euclid ... why not just have the government set a fair rate?...
... why not just have the government set a fair rate?...
By Jove! I think you've got it! Great call! Why stop there? Why not have the government set all the rates. That way, there would be no politics or bureaucracy involved. Better yet- simply have the shippers set the price. That way we could be assured that it’s a competitive price.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.