LETS DEBATE OPEN ACCESS

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Well, we do have open access in Australia, although how "open" it really is is a real question. First, some history is in order. Australia is a Federation of States, like the USA. Federation came well after railways, and rail infrastructure (and rolling stock and operation) was state owned. Even when we got the gauges to match at the state borders, the locomotives and crews changed.

In the 1990s privatisation began and operation of freight went to private operators. Initially the state operations were privatised and then we had a spate of take overs so that we ended up with one major operator, Pacific National (PN), and one slightly smaller, ARG. Except in Queensland where the gauge was different and so were the politics. Queensland Rail (QR) is still state owned and operated. PN have moved into Queensland after years of failed attempts to get the access that was supposedly open. The state gets millions of dollars from export coal traffic, and have so far stopped PN getting coal traffic contracts (and introducing price competition). Mean time QR have started their own competition with PN on the standard gauge, and have obtained some coal contracts with "QR National" in the other main export coal area, the NSW Hunter Valley. This is the big game now, and we are all watching. Through a loophole in a contract with a shipper, QR National ended up with some of PN's locomotives. This is a real record, because PN's locomotive disposals are worthy of Machiavelli, and nobody gets anything from PN.

National standard gauge infrastructure is being run by the Australian Rail Track Corporation, funded by the Federal government. This isn't a shock given that some government or other always owned it. Rail and the ARTC still don't get the sort of pork barrel funding roads have had for years, however.

There are, and have been small operators competing under "Open Access", but PN, as the successor to the Federal and State operations, is by a long way the strongest operator.

Peter

Peter,

How is the transportation infrastructure funded in Australia? Do roads and rails have the same funding mechanisms such as fuel taxes, user fees, etc.? Does the ARTC assign slots to the various operators, or does it basically revolve around PN's operations? Is the new Darwin line an open access line?

Road and Rail are funded the same way, but the organisations running both road and rail comment unfavourably on the very high access fees for rail!

The ARTC does (as far as I know) assign slots to operators. The ARTC really only contols the main trunk lines, and the commuter authorites, often state government operators, control access on commuter lines (and are very restrictive in Sydney, NSW).

For freight traffic, the Darwin line is a monopoly controlled by Freight Link, a subsidiary of the construction consortium. Passenger trains can run in the few available slots in an open access manner (well, there are two passenger operators, neither associated with Freight Link).

Here is a link to current discussion on open access in the State of Victoria, where acess was formerly controlled by Freight Australia, now merged with Pacific National.

http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/DOI/Internet/Freight.nsf/AllDocs/6B33905E20D6D3AECA256E0500058650?OpenDocument#opt

I've only just found this on another forum!

Peter

[Anonymous]

Peter,

Thanks for the link to the Victorian Rail Access Regime. It's going to take me a while to go through it in detail, but after scanning parts of it some observations do spring to mind:

1. Open Access in Australia was implemented on a limited basis in 2001 with the idea of increasing rail's share of freight carriage. Has this happened yet, or is it still to soon to decipher?

2. The complaints regarding access fees as being too high begs the thought that there is little or no government support to supplement track maintenance such as tax credits or usage of highway funds. Is this the case?

[M636C]

Dave,

I can't really say whether the modal share has increased. There is no doubt that the rail freight task has increased more rapidly since privatisation and open access, but I can't say if the rail share has increased. In some areas it was a very small share!

There are Federal funds specifically for track maintenance, but these have only recently been granted, and were contingent on the ARTC getting control of New South Wales trackage, only acheived this year. The complaints also reflect low road usage charges, mainly fuel taxes. Rail funding is an order of magnitude less than road funding, and no "strategic" modernisation has occurred as did in Queensland, with State Government funding (from export coal profits).

Peter

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

So far, most of the debate regarding open access has been predicated on the separation of operations and infrastructure into distinct organizations, which appears to be the way it is set up in the UK and most of Australia. Since this is definitely not the case in the United States or Canada, any realistic discussion of open access has to consider that the owner of the track is also going to be the operator of some of the trains.

Based on this premise, I view open access as mandatory granting of trackage rights to anybody who wants them. This probably would result in cherry-picking of the most profitable traffic by operators who don't have to maintain the track and could consequently set lower rates than the owner of the track.

One issue that has been quite noticeable by its absence is that of labor contracts and conditions. I find it quite unlikely that the various operating unions would stand by while a non-union operation attempts to establish itself by way of open access over the same track.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Someone mentioned on another thread the idea of having the Corps of Engineers be in charge of constructing new rail links to supplement the current rail grid. Since the likelyhood of an expansion of the nation's waterways is highly unlikely, it would be logical for the Corps to supplement their waterways with an expansion into the rail spectrum.

One such logical rail link project would be a rail link from Lewiston ID to Missoula MT, connecting the easternmost point of the Columbia/Snake River waterway with direct eastern rail access. Since Corps transportation projects are all open access, they would have to incorporate this attitude into any new rail projects. The Lewiston-Missoula rail link would have UP and BNSF on the western end (via Watco's GNR), and MRL (along with trackage rights MRL has given BNSF) on the eastern end. The question then is if UP can (or would want to) access this rail link from Butte via the former Montana Western (now owned by BNSF), but other than that the open access caveat should be easily adhered to for this project.

It would represent the perfect trial concept for open access.

Far from perfect because:
a.)This line would be prohibitively expensive to build;
b.)This line would be expensive to operate due to the grade; and
c.) The east end of this line is not where BNSF or UP need to a large quantity of their trains to go.

This "perfect trial concept" envisions using Lolo Pass (now traversed by US highway 12). While OK for use by Lewis and Clark, Lolo Pass was studied both by builders of the Northern Pacific and the Milwaukee Road as not being practical, due to the grade involved. Indeed, the current alignment of highway 12 on the Idaho side features a loss (or gain, depending on direction) of elevation of 2,000 feet in about 10 miles. Either the cost would be huge to create a railroad with a manageable grade (say 1%) by having a long tunnel, or helpers would have to used. Given that the current BNSF/MRL line between Pasco and Missoula has a maximum grade of 1% eastbound and .8% westbound, it's highly unlikely that BNSF would see much value in this line. The route would be shorter than the current one, but there are many examples where shorter does not equate to preferred, especially with heavy trains, which is what railroads tend to specialize in.

The other problem for BNSF would be that such a route wouldn't be located where their trains could use it. In the case of eastbound trains such as stack trains (which are to be area of greatest growth), most of these are and likely will continue to destined to the upper Midwest and East Coast. The route through Northern Montana, not Southern Montana, is the route for most of these trains. But even for trains that could use this route, it would deliver them (via MRL) to BNSF at Laurel, at which point they would face either a wall of coal trains on the line though Forsyth or the line through Sheridan, or a stiff grade along the Rocky Mountain Front between Wendover and Cheyenne. Westbound, it would be unlikely that BNSF would see much value routing trains this way for the same reason. In addition, they would have to negotiate stiff grades on the MRL at Livingston and Helena just to get to the new railroad (where, of course yet another would be encountered). That's why it's much easier for BNSF now to run their unit grain trains via Great Falls where trains can be operated with distributed power and without helpers all the way to destination rather than routing them via MRL where they have to receive a minimum of three helper consists.

The UP might actually see benefit in this route, since they have a bottleneck with numerous stiff grades in the Blue Mountains and elsewhere between Pocatello and Hinkle. Certainly, even with a 2.2% grade over Lolo Pass, the route might be considered useful. However, the reasons that UP would never use such are route are:
a.)BNSF controls the former Montana Western between Silver Bow and the MRL at Garrison, lest we forget the reason they reacquired it (so that UP and MRL do not have direct access to one another).
b.)Somewhat longer mileage, but would require upgrading their entire route between Pocatello and Silver Bow, and
c.)Operating conditions on the new line. Lolo Pass would be much more prone to weather hazards (mostly increased wintertime precipitation) than their current route.

I would think that if an entity such as the Army Corp of Engineers was going to expend such a vast quantity of money a project, that one would be chosen that would benefit a variety of routes and ease a problem that currently exists and will only get worse. An example would be a railroad around the south side of Chicago from Rochelle, IL on the west to South Bend, IN on the east, creating a bypass around Chicago for many interchange trains between BNSF, UP, CN, CSX, CP, and NS.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Someone mentioned on another thread the idea of having the Corps of Engineers be in charge of constructing new rail links to supplement the current rail grid. Since the likelyhood of an expansion of the nation's waterways is highly unlikely, it would be logical for the Corps to supplement their waterways with an expansion into the rail spectrum.

One such logical rail link project would be a rail link from Lewiston ID to Missoula MT, connecting the easternmost point of the Columbia/Snake River waterway with direct eastern rail access. Since Corps transportation projects are all open access, they would have to incorporate this attitude into any new rail projects. The Lewiston-Missoula rail link would have UP and BNSF on the western end (via Watco's GNR), and MRL (along with trackage rights MRL has given BNSF) on the eastern end. The question then is if UP can (or would want to) access this rail link from Butte via the former Montana Western (now owned by BNSF), but other than that the open access caveat should be easily adhered to for this project.

It would represent the perfect trial concept for open access.

Far from perfect because:
a.)This line would be prohibitively expensive to build;
b.)This line would be expensive to operate due to the grade; and
c.) The east end of this line is not where BNSF or UP need to a large quantity of their trains to go.

This "perfect trial concept" envisions using Lolo Pass (now traversed by US highway 12). While OK for use by Lewis and Clark, Lolo Pass was studied both by builders of the Northern Pacific and the Milwaukee Road as not being practical, due to the grade involved. Indeed, the current alignment of highway 12 on the Idaho side features a loss (or gain, depending on direction) of elevation of 2,000 feet in about 10 miles. Either the cost would be huge to create a railroad with a manageable grade (say 1%) by having a long tunnel, or helpers would have to used. Given that the current BNSF/MRL line between Pasco and Missoula has a maximum grade of 1% eastbound and .8% westbound, it's highly unlikely that BNSF would see much value in this line. The route would be shorter than the current one, but there are many examples where shorter does not equate to preferred, especially with heavy trains, which is what railroads tend to specialize in.

The other problem for BNSF would be that such a route wouldn't be located where their trains could use it. In the case of eastbound trains such as stack trains (which are to be area of greatest growth), most of these are and likely will continue to destined to the upper Midwest and East Coast. The route through Northern Montana, not Southern Montana, is the route for most of these trains. But even for trains that could use this route, it would deliver them (via MRL) to BNSF at Laurel, at which point they would face either a wall of coal trains on the line though Forsyth or the line through Sheridan, or a stiff grade along the Rocky Mountain Front between Wendover and Cheyenne. Westbound, it would be unlikely that BNSF would see much value routing trains this way for the same reason. In addition, they would have to negotiate stiff grades on the MRL at Livingston and Helena just to get to the new railroad (where, of course yet another would be encountered). That's why it's much easier for BNSF now to run their unit grain trains via Great Falls where trains can be operated with distributed power and without helpers all the way to destination rather than routing them via MRL where they have to receive a minimum of three helper consists.

The UP might actually see benefit in this route, since they have a bottleneck with numerous stiff grades in the Blue Mountains and elsewhere between Pocatello and Hinkle. Certainly, even with a 2.2% grade over Lolo Pass, the route might be considered useful. However, the reasons that UP would never use such are route are:
a.)BNSF controls the former Montana Western between Silver Bow and the MRL at Garrison, lest we forget the reason they reacquired it (so that UP and MRL do not have direct access to one another).
b.)Somewhat longer mileage, but would require upgrading their entire route between Pocatello and Silver Bow, and
c.)Operating conditions on the new line. Lolo Pass would be much more prone to weather hazards (mostly increased wintertime precipitation) than their current route.

Mark,

I will offer some points of difference, since I did some research on this a few years ago.

1. The rail link would not go via Lolo Pass, due to the points you mention, and additionally the fact that the Lochsa River is designated a Wild and Scenic River, and the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness abuts right up to the south shore of the river opposite U.S. Highway 12. Also, this route would be longer than the two alternatives....

The prefered routing would use the old Milwaukee right of way from St. Regis to Marble Creek ID, then southwest via Davies Pass (3800' elevation) to Bovill and eventually Lewiston. A new 8 mile tunnel would be optimal between Saltese and the North Fork of the St. Joe River, bypassing the curvature and 1.7% grades of the old line through St Paul Pass (which is now a popular biking trail). This route could be built at a maximum ruling westbound grade of 0.8% and a ruling eastbound grade of 1.5%. Estimated rail distance Lewiston to Missoula is around 200 miles.

The second alternative would leave MRL near Tarkio and follow either Trout Creek or Fish Creek to a rather long (over 10 miles) summit tunnel under the Bitterroots to the North Fork of the Clearwater, along which the new route would follow to the Pierce ID area where it would connect with the soon to be torn up track of the Camas Prairie's 4th sub and basically follow that route to Lewiston. This alternative would be more expensive, since it would require a longer summit tunnel and a rebuilding/rerouting of the older CPR right of way into Lewiston to eliminate the 2.5% grades and curvature. However, this route would be the shortest, with an estimated rail distance of 180 miles between Lewiston and Missoula.

2. This line would be designed for heavy haul traffic such as grain trains bound for Lower Columbia export. The options of the participating railroads to transload grain to barge at Lewiston or continue on the the Lower Columbia ports could be invoked depending on traffic conditions through the Gorge. The problem of getting grain traffic from the High Line is compounded by BN's abandonment of the Harve to Great Falls line and it's mothballing of the Great Falls to Helena line. As an adjunct to the rail link, additionaly track expansion projects would be to rebuild the GF to Harve line (perhaps not necessary if routing via Shelby would suffice), and a new connection between Silver City (on the GF to Helena line) and the east portal of Mullan Tunnel. The latter would allow for westbound grades to stay under 1%, bypassing the 2.2% of the east approach to Mullan tunnel from Helena via MRL.

3. The Lewiston-Missoula rail link would be a logical crew district in and of itself, roughly equadistant to the Missoula-Spokane line.

4. As for it being a "perfect" rail project for the Corps, remember that this line would segue nicely with the Corps Columbia-Snake River waterway on an end to end basis.

5. You are correct in your assessment of UP's involvement with this line via Butte. Do not forget that although BNSF reaquired the Montana Western, UP still owns the original right of way, and unless they sold away any chance for use of this line should the opportunity avail itself, there may be caveats in the deal that would allow UP to use this line. If you have better knowledge of the particulars of this deal, I would like to be advised of such. I think UP's bigger problem of using MRL is the connection in Sandpoint which does not allow for ease of transition from one set of tracks to the other westbound off MRL and eastbound off UP, and the caveats of UP's trackage rights agreement that allowed them to us BNSF rails around Sandpoint (and thus abandon their original route throught Sandpoint) may preclude them taking such traffic off MRL, e.g. another paper barrier to macro rail fluidity.

That being said, if it is determined that UP would favor access to this line, the Corps could either negotiate for the Montana Western line or barring that build their own line from Silver Bow to Garrison via the old Milwaukee right of way (where available). For that matter, if their remain paper barriers to UP access to MRL rails from the original BN sale, the old MIlwaukee corridor is still mostly intact and could be revived at additional cost.

6. This line would allow MRL direct access to the barge ports, allowing MRL more leeway in determining online functionality free of dependence on BNSF.

[VerMontanan]

Dave writes:

"1. The rail link would not go via Lolo Pass, due to the points you mention, and additionally the fact that the Lochsa River is designated a Wild and Scenic River, and the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness abuts right up to the south shore of the river opposite U.S. Highway 12. Also, this route would be longer than the two alternatives....The prefered routing would use the old Milwaukee right of way from St. Regis to Marble Creek ID, then southwest via Davies Pass (3800' elevation) to Bovill and eventually Lewiston. A new 8 mile tunnel would be optimal between Saltese and the North Fork of the St. Joe River, bypassing the curvature and 1.7% grades of the old line through St Paul Pass (which is now a popular biking trail). This route could be built at a maximum ruling westbound grade of 0.8% and a ruling eastbound grade of 1.5%. Estimated rail distance Lewiston to Missoula is around 200 miles.

The second alternative would leave MRL near Tarkio and follow either Trout Creek or Fish Creek to a rather long (over 10 miles) summit tunnel under the Bitterroots to the North Fork of the Clearwater, along which the new route would follow to the Pierce ID area where it would connect with the soon to be torn up track of the Camas Prairie's 4th sub and basically follow that route to Lewiston. This alternative would be more expensive, since it would require a longer summit tunnel and a rebuilding/rerouting of the older CPR right of way into Lewiston to eliminate the 2.5% grades and curvature. However, this route would be the shortest, with an estimated rail distance of 180 miles between Lewiston and Missoula.

**
I don't believe the first route would be 200 miles. The most direct highway route is 218 miles, and this would be more circuitous. Also you are going up and down a lot. A 1.5% grade would not be acceptable to BNSF who runs its trains east from Spokane now based on one percent grade. Also, 8 or 10-mile long tunnels and a route through big time snow country would only be doable for a route that was heavily trafficked, and this one wouldn't be. For much less money, why not add capacity to existing lines, or build along side existing lines?

Dave continues:
2. This line would be designed for heavy haul traffic such as grain trains bound for Lower Columbia export. The options of the participating railroads to transload grain to barge at Lewiston or continue on the the Lower Columbia ports could be invoked depending on traffic conditions through the Gorge. The problem of getting grain traffic from the High Line is compounded by BN's abandonment of the Harve to Great Falls line and it's mothballing of the Great Falls to Helena line. As an adjunct to the rail link, additionaly track expansion projects would be to rebuild the GF to Harve line (perhaps not necessary if routing via Shelby would suffice), and a new connection between Silver City (on the GF to Helena line) and the east portal of Mullan Tunnel. The latter would allow for westbound grades to stay under 1%, bypassing the 2.2% of the east approach to Mullan tunnel from Helena via MRL.
**
Lots of problems with this one. Where are the trains "bound for Lower Columbia export" now? There are no grain trains going to Lewiston that I know of, and on BNSF the only grain that comes off a train and goes on a barge occasionly comes to Plymouth. About 99 percent of the grain goes to ocean points for export, so going to all this expense so that grain can be barged from Lewiston to Portland, which isn't cost effective now, seems a bit ridiculous. Also what reason in the world would anyone consider building a line from Havre (note that it's named after the French city, Le Havre and spelled accordingly) to Great Falls to Mullan pass just to access this proposed line? The route would be longer and only marginally less grade and that's only if the billions were spent on this debacle. As it is, Marias Pass on the BNSF line west of Havre is the lowest crossing of the Continental Divide north of New Mexico and the best rail crossing of the Continental Divide in the lower 48 used by an east-west railroad. If capacity becomes a problem on this route, capacity should be expanded here, as it is currently the best route in the west for moving heavy tonnage with the fewest locomotives, which is truly the goal of railroads and unit train operations. If railroad capacity becomes a huge problem for grain in the Columbia gorge, then those trains would be better served creating a low-level route through the Cascades as was the case with Snoqualmie Pass on the Milwaukee to take the pressure of loaded trains bound for Tacoma and Seattle out of the gorge. When you do that, that leaves only the trains destined for Portland, Vancouver, and Kalama in the gorge, and would make more sense, because in theory, you are always going to have grain going to Seattle and Tacoma.

Dave continues:
3. The Lewiston-Missoula rail link would be a logical crew district in and of itself, roughly equadistant to the Missoula-Spokane line.

4. As for it being a "perfect" rail project for the Corps, remember that this line would segue nicely with the Corps Columbia-Snake River waterway on an end to end basis.
**
Why Lewiston? Why not Pasco? And as I said earlier, why transload the grain instead of moving it to directly to an ocean port? I can't believe that Lewiston, being somewhat closer to Montana would make that much difference in the shipping rate, especially when one considers the billions that it would take to build it.

Dave continues:
5. You are correct in your assessment of UP's involvement with this line via Butte. Do not forget that although BNSF reaquired the Montana Western, UP still owns the original right of way, and unless they sold away any chance for use of this line should the opportunity avail itself, there may be caveats in the deal that would allow UP to use this line. If you have better knowledge of the particulars of this deal, I would like to be advised of such. I think UP's bigger problem of using MRL is the connection in Sandpoint which does not allow for ease of transition from one set of tracks to the other westbound off MRL and eastbound off UP, and the caveats of UP's trackage rights agreement that allowed them to us BNSF rails around Sandpoint (and thus abandon their original route throught Sandpoint) may preclude them taking such traffic off MRL, e.g. another paper barrier to macro rail fluidity.
**
NP/BNSF have leased the line from Butte to Garrison for 999 years, so I don't think that the UP has a chance to gain access. And yes, the intent of the MRL was not to give it access to the UP and Sandpoint. It's easier to understand when you don't consider MRL as a railroad separate from the BNSF.

Dave continues:
6. This line would allow MRL direct access to the barge ports, allowing MRL more leeway in determining online functionality free of dependence on BNSF.
**
I'm interested in what traffic would originate on the MRL that would use the port of Lewiston when little or none does now? And anything originating on the MRL would be a relatively short haul, something railroads really don't care for. And, you still have not addressed the fact that all the traffic that would use this line, that would cost billions and billions of dollars, have operations headaches in the form of 10-miles tunnels in the middle of wilderness with heavy snowfall and stiffer grades than currently exist STILL has no where to go once it gets to Montana (i.e.) Laurel. And for tonnage on the ex-GN route across Northern Montana, your plan offers zero incentive operationally to remove any traffic from the current route.

Not to be rude, but all things considered, I can see no merit in your proposal. Traffic would have to increase by thousands of percent for it even to be an option, and even then, there are numerous other less expensive and more efficient ways to accompli***he same thing.

[Anonymous]

Current rail mileage Missoula to Pasco (the first available transload location) is 431 miles = 2 crew districts.
Estimated rail mileage Missoula to Lewiston 220(?) via new line = one crew district

Cycle times for grain shuttles from Midwest to Portland = x number of days
Cycle times from Midwest to Pasco = x -2 days
Cycle times Midwest to Lewiston via new line = x - 4 days
Assuming standard cycle time is 2 weeks now, availability of hopper cars via new line increases to 96 days per year = 10 extra trips per year = better capital utilization.

Fuel economy of grain shuttle trains = 600 ton/miles at best
Fuel economy of grain barges on Columbia Snake Waterway = 1500 ton/miles at best

Capacity issues: The cost of any expansion of rail capacity in the Gorge and/or via Marias Pass would have to be shouldered by BNSF. There is no precident for the Corps to fund capacity improvements for a proprietary railroad. There is precident for the Corps to fund transportation capacity improvements that do not favor one single entity. The open access L-M rail link would fit this criteria, the BNSF line needs would not. As we know, both the UP and BNSF lines through the Gorge are nearing maximum capacity, the waterway through the Gorge has plenty of excess capacity, so from a national transportation policy analysis, it makes sense to transfer commodities from the rails to the barge lines where appropriate. And yes, it does make sense for a railroad to shift heavy haul traffic off its prime intermodal line to a secondary line, we've discussed this in other threads. This is especially true if another entity is shouldering the cost of new construction for this secondary route, saving BNSF from having to spend it's own money.

As for the 1.5% eastbound ruling grade on the new line, this is the lowest cost option. It is possible to engineer a 1% eastbound ruling grade, it would just be more expensive. And the Corps of Engineers are well known to spare no expense.

There are currently no grain trains going to Lewiston from Montana because the rail link does not exist at this time, that's why we're discussing it now. At one time MRL made an offer for the BN's Palouse lines, and according to sources at the former Camas Prairie RailNet, MRL officials were interested in utilizing the barge ports for MRL grain trains out of Montana. That was before corrupt BN officials severed the northern rail link from Spokane to Lewiston prior to selling the lines to Watco.

Your statement about grain barging not being cost effective is pure nonsense. It's at least twice as efficient as hauling by unit train, and much more environmentally friendly.

[daveklepper]

If there is money in it, the capital will be found and the line built as an investment.

Like Powder River Basin

Some new tracks do get put down. Because there is a return on the investment.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The concept of open access does serious damage to the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The concept implies that the owner of the track (who also operates the trains on that track) SHALL grant operating rights to any other entity, no mention about how trackage rights fees would be determined.

[Junctionfan]

Couldn't that also mean that no person shall be deprived of property with out due process of passed legislation "law"?

[Anonymous]

Access fees for rail are high because many lines are being operated at almost full capacity. That does not happen for most roads.

I think open access does not give the infrastructure owner the right incentives for investment. Most of the railroad techological progress is intended to reduce the number of running trains (train-miles) and gross tonnage (ton-miles) for the same freight. That's why cars went 286K and then 315K. But reduced train-miles and ton-miles means reduced revenue for a line owner. So, let's suppose that 340,000 lbs cars are feasible, would the infrastructure owner upgrade its lines for them?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The concept of open access does serious damage to the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The concept implies that the owner of the track (who also operates the trains on that track) SHALL grant operating rights to any other entity, no mention about how trackage rights fees would be determined.

When we talk of splitting one entity into two separate entities, there is no taking of property. A stockholder in the former is now a stockholder in the two latter, thus he has not been deprived. This is why the Sherman Antitrust Act passed muster in the courts.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

If there is money in it, the capital will be found and the line built as an investment.

Like Powder River Basin

Some new tracks do get put down. Because there is a return on the investment.

A private investor's ROI goals and the needs of a nation to enhance it's economic growth and trade position with the rest of the world are diametrically opposed in the global sense. Other nations spend public money for expanding rail capacity, and their economic and trade positions are improved. If we depend on private sector funding for infrastructure, we are in trouble.

The U.S. desperately needs to enhance it's internal export infrastructure to improve it's trade position in the world. Impementing a federally supported open access rail policy in a form that meets this goal can only result in positives.

BTW, given DM&E's problems in accessing PRB, can we really say that there are private sector opportunities left for new territorial rail expansion in this day and age?

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

The DM&E's problems have been the Not In My Backyard crowd. That problem will not go away and politicians will be more sensative to it than the railroads are.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

The DM&E's problems have been the Not In My Backyard crowd. That problem will not go away and politicians will be more sensative to it than the railroads are.

Mac

Mac,

In your view, was this venture a wise move for DM&E? Was the future of DM&E really dependent on tapping PRB?

BTW, I noticed DM&E grain hoppers being hauled by BNSF west into Pasco. Do you have any details on this arrangement?

[daveklepper]

There isn't any reason why the kind of public-private partnership that gave the Long Beach and LA ports their new corridors, and that is expanding capacity on the old RF&P line Alexandria - Richmond, cannot work in many other areas. Doesn't Illinois have something going with UP, Chicago - Springfiled and hopefully with Missouri participation on to St. Louis? The Bush Administration simply needs a more realistic energy and transportation policy, to make some Federal funds available for that kind of partnership where it will clearly be of economic gain to the entire nation (removing Chicago congestion, for example) and/or add national defense capability.

Regarding energy policy, I do plan to write a polite letter to the GM CEO respectively requresting that the 500 engineers now working on fuel cell - Hydrogen economy do something useful instead. The City College of New York Physics Department Report is pretty definitive and thorough. Removal of air pollution, yes, less use of fossell fue, particularly petroleum in the short term, no.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

To those who are not familiar with the concept, due process of law means that everybody is entitled to their day in court.
Consequently, if a railroad was ordered by the STB to split into operating and infrastructure companies, the railroad can challenge this order in court.

[Junctionfan]

Has that ever happened and did the STB ever win?

[bobwilcox]

The BNSF, UP and PTRA have reached an agreement to give the BNSF access to the many large chemical plants in Bayport, TX without building a spur but via PTRA/UP trackage. The competitive access issue is going away with build ins and political settelments very similar to the deals cut at the start on the last century in large industrial centers such as Chicago. Notice how the STB or DOT are not participating in the process.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

I have and claim no particular knowledge or expertise about DME and their proposed Powder River Extension.

I think the DME covered hopper cars are transporting soybeans or soybean meal which originates on DME.

Mac

[daveklepper]

For those that do not know, GM now reports they WILL make Hybrid technology available on some of their most popular model automobiles. Yeh!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The BNSF, UP and PTRA have reached an agreement to give the BNSF access to the many large chemical plants in Bayport, TX without building a spur but via PTRA/UP trackage. The competitive access issue is going away with build ins and political settelments very similar to the deals cut at the start on the last century in large industrial centers such as Chicago. Notice how the STB or DOT are not participating in the process.

Yes, but it took the threat of BNSF and several chemical companies to finance a new 12 mile buildin into the port area to get UP to negotiate these competitive rights. Regarding the ability of most captive shippers to muscle such actions, I would say this it the exception rather than the rule. Most captive shippers don't have that kind of money, nor do they have the political representation or power that is currently bestowed upon Texas congressmen.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

I am disappointed that you have not described how you would do open access and what yur ground rules would be. If you are going to advocate a revolution you need a vision of the end product, not just BURN, BABY, BURN.

[Junctionfan]

As far as open access is concerned, my opinion on it would be that the best way to run a line is through running right agreements. Maintainance and other track related costs (including capacity upgrading) are dictated by percentage of operation of trains.

ie CSX 44 trains, NS 30 trains, CP 10 trains, CN 8 trains, Amtrak 4 trains, VIA 2 trains, Trillium Railways 1 train.

Therefore percentage of costs would be

CSX 44%, NS 30%, CP 10%, CN 8%, Amtrak 4%, VIA 2% and Trillium Railways 1%.

Now because CSX runs the most trains, CSX has dispatching rights (just like the person with the most shares runs the company)

CSX maintainance crews don't neccessarily have to be used if it's open access. Theorhetically, the job could be outsourced to a private contrator that is compatent and agreed to by the parties.

If multiple lines are joined into the open access line and is high traffic, the controlling railroad CAN or MAY install an interlocking tower to be controlled by the controlling railroad and payed for by all the railroads including the salary /salaries of the dispatchers within the tower.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

I am disappointed that you have not described how you would do open access and what yur ground rules would be. If you are going to advocate a revolution you need a vision of the end product, not just BURN, BABY, BURN.

I did spell it out, and I guess I'll have to do it again, including but not limited to:

1. Separate infrastructure companies from the rolling stock/freight services companies, either by the railroads doing so voluntarily or by action of antitrust regulators. In the mean time I would ban any taxpayer aid going to a proprietary railroad, and make it clear such aid will only acrue with an open access regime. I would also start an immediate federal pollcy of constructing public open access rail links that will connect with at least two or more current proprietary rail lines, using the Corps of Engineers, state DOT's with pro-rail approaches, and regional transporation authorities
2. Allow the infrastructure companies to form public private partnerships with state and local governments for the purpose of getting those governments to shoulder a share of the burden of track maintenance and capacity expansions
3. Any open access right of way would be exempted from property taxes
4. The owners of rail right of ways would be granted transferable tax credits similar to the current short line tax credit, to encourage expedient track maintenance and improvements, as long as rail users have access to competitve rates
5. Each infrastructure company will be responsible for outlining the caveats for use of it's lines, whether it be mandatory cab signals, a minimum payment per slot, differential pricing of slots based on time of day/week/year, maximum allowable axle loadings, or whatever else may come to fruition as being necessary for optimal functionality.
6. If the Canadian and/or Mexican railroads are not similarly opened up, those railroads will be restricted from using the American rail grid.

It's not a complete list, but it's a start.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

As far as open access is concerned, my opinion on it would be that the best way to run a line is through running right agreements. Maintainance and other track related costs (including capacity upgrading) are dictated by percentage of operation of trains.

ie CSX 44 trains, NS 30 trains, CP 10 trains, CN 8 trains, Amtrak 4 trains, VIA 2 trains, Trillium Railways 1 train.

Therefore percentage of costs would be

CSX 44%, NS 30%, CP 10%, CN 8%, Amtrak 4%, VIA 2% and Trillium Railways 1%.

Now because CSX runs the most trains, CSX has dispatching rights (just like the person with the most shares runs the company)

CSX maintainance crews don't neccessarily have to be used if it's open access. Theorhetically, the job could be outsourced to a private contrator that is compatent and agreed to by the parties.

If multiple lines are joined into the open access line and is high traffic, the controlling railroad CAN or MAY install an interlocking tower to be controlled by the controlling railroad and payed for by all the railroads including the salary /salaries of the dispatchers within the tower.

You are using current rail operators in your scenario. Would you allow new entrants into the agreement?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The concept of open access does serious damage to the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The concept implies that the owner of the track (who also operates the trains on that track) SHALL grant operating rights to any other entity, no mention about how trackage rights fees would be determined.

When we talk of splitting one entity into two separate entities, there is no taking of property. A stockholder in the former is now a stockholder in the two latter, thus he has not been deprived. This is why the Sherman Antitrust Act passed muster in the courts.

That would be the same Sherman Act that does not apply to railroads...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The concept of open access does serious damage to the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The concept implies that the owner of the track (who also operates the trains on that track) SHALL grant operating rights to any other entity, no mention about how trackage rights fees would be determined.

When we talk of splitting one entity into two separate entities, there is no taking of property. A stockholder in the former is now a stockholder in the two latter, thus he has not been deprived. This is why the Sherman Antitrust Act passed muster in the courts.

That would be the same Sherman Act that does not apply to railroads...

LC

...but it is an established precedent, and the precedent is all it takes to open the door (or the Pandora's box for those of you opposed to open access).

[PNWRMNM]

Dave

Oh where to begin! Lets start with the balance sheet. I picked NS. I think they are about 20% of the industry, lets assume so just for fun.

NS shows $20 billion in assets as of 12/31/03. 90% of that is Conrail and Properties, less accumulated depreciation. Of Railway Property, 64% is roadway, before depreciation. They do not give book value after depreciation, so lets assume net values are in same ratio as gross, 64% property. Conrail is also property so use same ratio for it.

If my 20% is right, railroad industry is $100 billion in assets, 90% is property, and 64% of property is fixed plant, for a book value of $57.6 billion. This is $480,000 per route mile which would probably be representative of a single track CTC main. I can not imagine any rational stockholder, voluntarily giving up that asset. You are going to have to use the power of government to separate that $58 billion from its owners, the stockholders.

There are only two ways to do that, purchase or force. You seem inclined to force separation of corporate entities, so each stockholder would get a new piece of paper that says XXX Rail Infrastructure Company. You seem to assume that the two shares, operating and Infrastructure would have the same combined value as the integrated company did the day before. I would agree that is true. I would argue that share prices will be beaten down in the approach to split day because you are introducing massive uncertainty and the market hates uncertainty, so you will stealing billions of dollars from the stockholders. Unfortunately this is not the first time, just a continuation of most of 20th Century history of the industry.

I would agree with your contention that rates will fall to variable cost, to the benefit of some shippers. I do not agree that is a good thing.

Who would want to own either of these stocks? The industry does not earn its cost of capital today. Damn poor monopolists they are! With luck operating companies will earn their cost of capital. They will have to or their will be no service. New entrants will cherry pick traffic and be non union. Only problem is, it will take considerable capital to enter the business and why would any rational investor put up the money? This will not be like trucking where there is always another flock of fools who can not count but can buy a used truck.

The infrastructure companies would have the assets with a potential for economic profit. Are they going to be regulated as to the price they can charge the operators? If not, they can still gouge the captive shipper. If regulated where is their profit to come from? You can not take a business that is not earning its cost of capital, split it, and magically have two healthy entities, particularly when you are doing it to lower rates to a few major customers.

By the way, why have rates been dropping Post Staggers if the carriers are such greedy grasping discriminating monopolists?

Your restructring will also upset the balance of power. Today the Operating Department wields the big stick. Dispatching is part of Operating, but it has to go to the infrastructure company(s). Mudchicken should love it as the Infrastructure Companies now have the power to tell the operators what they can and can not do, and when they can run their trains, and when Mudchicken is going to change ties or rail.

Your restructuring weakens the position of marketing as they loose what little leverage they now have with operating in service design and quality management. This is the exact opposive of what should happen. IMHO Marketing should have the big stick because they are the ones that bring in the money.

If you make infrastructure a Government operation it will only get worse in terms of cost effective maintenance. Maintaining a rail line is not an effective way to buy re-election so the politicians will not do it, for a recent example look at Britian.

In short your solution is kind of like using an elephant gun to kill flies. It will accompli***he purpose, but at the cost of destroying the structure.

Mac