Jeff, is it true that they fired a whole bunch of Dispatchers yesterday?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Remember that KCS is a north-south railroad with extensive 'connections' into Mexico. CN already has a perfectly suitable north-south railroad; CP has little reason to acquire one expensively from vulture capitalists who just spent their own hostile mint to acquire it -- I would suspect the presence of a Tim Horton-Burger King style deal to get away from Obama taxation except Obama is no longer there. It's hard for me to figure out compelling ownership interest by either NS or CSX to go south into what is no longer NAFTA maquiladora bonanza country; UP would likely be overextended; I just don't see BNSF increasing its sole proprietorship of that much more railroad at this time.
Balt states : " Feature the last two US Class 1's will be CN & CP."
Well then that makes it easy... drop the 'Canadian'
1) National Lines
2) Pacific Lines
It kinda makes sense.
SD70Dude Jeff, is it true that they fired a whole bunch of Dispatchers yesterday?
I couldn't say, I've been on vacation the last few weeks. Go back on Monday.
On UP, dispatchers are management. They have been consolidating dispr's territories over the system and they are supposed to be rolling out some new CAD on steriods system. They probably think they won't need so many dispatchers in the future.
Jeff
Overmod Remember that KCS is a north-south railroad with extensive 'connections' into Mexico. CN already has a perfectly suitable north-south railroad; CP has little reason to acquire one expensively from vulture capitalists who just spent their own hostile mint to acquire it -- I would suspect the presence of a Tim Horton-Burger King style deal to get away from Obama taxation except Obama is no longer there. It's hard for me to figure out compelling ownership interest by either NS or CSX to go south into what is no longer NAFTA maquiladora bonanza country; UP would likely be overextended; I just don't see BNSF increasing its sole proprietorship of that much more railroad at this time.
UP wouldn't be overextended as they have a 26% stake in Ferromex. So in that regard UP has no interest in KCS. BNSF+CN+KCS+NS=North American Railways. I rest my case....
Well I won't rest it just yet! North American Railways hypothetical.. Complete the Dease Lake extension in B.C. continuing through Yukon up to Alaska. Two items:
1)Lease some RoW to build a pipeline from Fairbanks through Yukon to B.C. connecting with the lower 48.
2)Build a massive port south of Anchorage in the Cook Inlet. The port would handle containers and bulk traffic giving it a edge over Prince Rupert in sailing time.
While were at it, annex Canada. Canada has a resource potential that rivals and might exceed Siberia.
Now I rest my case..
charlie hebdo jeffhergert Government ownership or open access and you can kiss carload traffic goodbye. You'll only need a network about the size of Amtrak that just connects major cities. Only major routes for intermodal and maybe some branches for bulk unit trains. In a way, that's like John Knieling's vision of future railroads. Anything that doesn't fit that model will go by truck. It'll put more freight on the highways. Not because it moves to a railhead, but because it will bypass the rail network entirely. It's a good way to really marginalize the industry completely. I'm surprised Ttrraaffiicc hasn't thought of this and lent his/her support to it. Although it would fit in with PSR goals, so Wall Street types would love it. Jeff I'm not sure why you say that. If the rails could move from just running trains on a fixed set of routes and instead operated integrated transport, it would seem the rail share of freight might actually increase from its rather small current market share.
jeffhergert Government ownership or open access and you can kiss carload traffic goodbye. You'll only need a network about the size of Amtrak that just connects major cities. Only major routes for intermodal and maybe some branches for bulk unit trains. In a way, that's like John Knieling's vision of future railroads. Anything that doesn't fit that model will go by truck. It'll put more freight on the highways. Not because it moves to a railhead, but because it will bypass the rail network entirely. It's a good way to really marginalize the industry completely. I'm surprised Ttrraaffiicc hasn't thought of this and lent his/her support to it. Although it would fit in with PSR goals, so Wall Street types would love it. Jeff
Government ownership or open access and you can kiss carload traffic goodbye. You'll only need a network about the size of Amtrak that just connects major cities. Only major routes for intermodal and maybe some branches for bulk unit trains. In a way, that's like John Knieling's vision of future railroads.
Anything that doesn't fit that model will go by truck. It'll put more freight on the highways. Not because it moves to a railhead, but because it will bypass the rail network entirely.
It's a good way to really marginalize the industry completely. I'm surprised Ttrraaffiicc hasn't thought of this and lent his/her support to it. Although it would fit in with PSR goals, so Wall Street types would love it.
I'm not sure why you say that. If the rails could move from just running trains on a fixed set of routes and instead operated integrated transport, it would seem the rail share of freight might actually increase from its rather small current market share.
Operating-only companies are only going to go after large volume traffic. Where there is "competition" you will end up with shippers that won't get service because no one wants their business.
The public ownership network will only encompass major routes between large metropolitan areas. Some very major corridors may need two separate routes, but most won't. Branches and short lines will probably not get pubic ownership. I would bet that the Federal and most State governments won't want to pay to own and maintain them. (Even the public highway network can't be maintained on user taxes alone anymore.) Even if they remain private, it might be hard to deliver a car to a receiver on the other side of the country. Another case of no one wanting to handle the load for the 'last mile' delivery. So the branches and most short lines go away. The traffic they had goes to trucks.
So you say it will now go intermodal. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on where the operating-only companies have their terminals. Some may fit in nicely with the remaining network. I'd bet the majority of traffic won't. It will bypass rails altogether. A slimmed down freight network becomes as convenient to customers as the Amtrak long distance network is to most passengers.
Of course, this is only my opinion.
jeffhergertOperating-only companies are only going to go after large volume traffic. Where there is "competition" you will end up with shippers that won't get service because no one wants their business.
I mean, PA has the Susquehanna Economic Development Association - Council of Governments Joint Rail Authority (SEDA-COG JRA) and The Pennsylvania Northeast Regional Railroad Authority (PNRRA).
Still plenty of carload service on both.
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 jeffhergert Operating-only companies are only going to go after large volume traffic. Where there is "competition" you will end up with shippers that won't get service because no one wants their business. I mean, PA has the Susquehanna Economic Development Association - Council of Governments Joint Rail Authority (SEDA-COG JRA) and The Pennsylvania Northeast Regional Railroad Authority (PNRRA). Still plenty of carload service on both.
jeffhergert Operating-only companies are only going to go after large volume traffic. Where there is "competition" you will end up with shippers that won't get service because no one wants their business.
Are they open access*, or are their lines worked by a designated operator?
Are the origins/destinations their cars are going to/coming from on lines subject to open access* or served by a single carrier?
Right now, it's working because the general system is working like it always has. I'm saying open access and/or private ownership is going to turn the rules of rail transportation upside down. It's going to change the common carrier obligations as we know them. If there's only a single operator, when it comes right down to it that operator has to accept the freight. When you have multiple operators, how can you force only one to service a customer that no one wants?
The origin/destination points for SEDA-COGJRA and PNRRA freight in a open access world may have carriers that don't want that business. In a public ownership world, those points may not have any rail service at all.
*Some places where there are two or more carriers, there may be a form of open access called reciprocal switching. Most points aren't subject to that and even where there is reciprocal switching, not all customers may be subject to it.
Over on the Huron Central thread, it's said the province has subsidized it's operation. Why don't they just buy it outright, pay to maintain it and open it up to open access?
jeffhergertThe origin/destination points for SEDA-COGJRA and PNRRA freight in a open access world may have carriers that don't want that business. In a public ownership world, those points may not have any rail service at all.
They have contracted operators (some may be owned wholly/partially by the relevant authorities). PA gov't stuff is not for the faint of heart.
But in the private ownership world, the lines were slated for abandonment by Conrail when they went private. At least on the SEDA-COG side. So I think they fared better with some gov't interference.
Nobody is saying gov't ownership is going to be 100% perfect. But hell, neither is private ownership. Accirding to plenty of news reports there are a whole lot of pretty ticked off shippers keeping lawyers' boats and mistresses paid off by penning letters to the STB lately.
To address Jeff's concerns regarding open access, I offer the example of Canadian interswitching.
Under interswitching, each interchange point lies at the center of three concentric interswitching zones that radiate out to 35 kilometers (analogous to a shooting target). A shipper located within one of those zones, may contract with a railroad other than the one physically serving his plant site.
The carrier physically serving the site is paid a zone switching charge by the carrier handling the linehaul. The zone switching charge is set by the Canadian Transport Agency.
The shipper can negotiate linehaul rates with both the carrier physically serving his site and the second more distant carrier then contract with the carrier he chooses. If the distant carrier is selected, their rate includes the applicable zone interswitching charge.
This option has been available to about 70% of Canadian rail shippers since 1986 and has not resulted in the death of the Canadian Class 1's. In fact, despite having to compete for a substantial portion of their traffic, both CN and CP have been darlings of Wall Street.
I used interswitching extensively at two of our three Canadian production sites and found it to be a valuable tool to keep your railroad partners focused on your business.
Curt
Jeff: Perhaps I wasn't clear. By operating only, I am proposing that the rails become verically integrated transportation companies (rail, truck, etc.) along the lines of what greyhounds has suggested they should have been allowed to do many years ago. They would not be just hauling cars around on rails. They could go anywhere in the US, by whatever routes, door to door. More efficient and more profitable.
There are plenty of "public utilities" that are privately owned. Far more effective to have government be a referee rather than a player.
I would think open access has the potential to increase carload traffic. Freed from the responsibility of maintaining infrastructure, smaller operators could go out and solicit carload business on the national network to fill niches the bigger companies don't want to touch. This could propagate the "shortline mentality" across the broader rail network.
charlie hebdo Jeff: Perhaps I wasn't clear. By operating only, I am proposing that the rails become verically integrated transportation companies (rail, truck, etc.) along the lines of what greyhounds has suggested they should have been allowed to do many years ago. They would not be just hauling cars around on rails. They could go anywhere in the US, by whatever routes, door to door. More efficient and more profitable.
They had that years ago. Many had trucking subsidiaries to extend their reach and/or serve branch lines by road instead of rail. They all got out of it. They don't need government right of ways or open access to do this.
And I agree that they should become integrated transportation companies, too. They should have their own, not contracted or a partnership, trucking arms to get traffic. Not very likely in this PSR era. They want the business to come to them.
Psychot I would think open access has the potential to increase carload traffic. Freed from the responsibility of maintaining infrastructure, smaller operators could go out and solicit carload business on the national network to fill niches the bigger companies don't want to touch. This could propagate the "shortline mentality" across the broader rail network.
There's only going to be so many slots on the main routes available. You will have no trouble finding small operators for places the big guys don't want, but you might have trouble connecting between them.
Public ownership is also different from open access. Of course, public ownership will have open access to routes and customers. Operating companies will have access slots, just like airlines have at airports.
Open access means BNSF can access customers on UP and vice-versa. Either by direct access or the track owner providing the actual pull/spot and turn the car over at the first interchange for a flat fee.
Open access would probably be better for retaining what car load traffic remains. Public ownership would favor large volume routes running intermodal and bulk unit trains. If public ownership only pertains to the trunk routes and short lines and branches are allowed to be privately owned, it may be possible for car load to survive. It depends if an operating only company wants to handle manifest trains between A and Z. They won't want to operate switching yards to aggregate traffic brought to them from short lines, but may be willing to take a train made up by someone else. It could lead to private switch yards at A and Z, but I think it's still going to short change a lot of traffic that is between A and Z.
I have thought that to save the industry, the class ones should become mostly line haul companies. Keeping their main routes and selling or leasing their branches to short lines/regionals who want to serve customers. (It's what CSX seems to be doing.) You don't need Open Access or Public Ownership for that.
You're getting into FutureModal terrritory there.
That said, I agree that open access could work. The usual sticking point in that discussion has almost alway been acquisition of the ROWs and fair compensation therefore.
The network would become a collection of toll roads - pay by the axle/mile.
Control would be akin to air traffic control - really no different than what is used now. Access would be via time slots, similar to flight plans.
Operators would be akin to the trucking industry, ranging from mega-outfits (J.B. Hunt, etc, the current Class 1's. There might be regional outfits, catering to specific needs (like a short-haul rock train, f'rinstance). And you might have "gypsies" - independent operators willing to take any road.
Just like truck drivers and airline pilots, the crews would have to be somehow certified. This would be greatly helped by the standardization of the signal system. Hate to see those old CPLs go on the former B&O, but...
At this point, however, it's all a pipe dream, and such a huge paradigm shift that may can't wrap their heads around it.
I doubt I'll ever see it.
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...
jeffhergert charlie hebdo Jeff: Perhaps I wasn't clear. By operating only, I am proposing that the rails become verically integrated transportation companies (rail, truck, etc.) along the lines of what greyhounds has suggested they should have been allowed to do many years ago. They would not be just hauling cars around on rails. They could go anywhere in the US, by whatever routes, door to door. More efficient and more profitable. They had that years ago. Many had trucking subsidiaries to extend their reach and/or serve branch lines by road instead of rail. They all got out of it. They don't need government right of ways or open access to do this. And I agree that they should become integrated transportation companies, too. They should have their own, not contracted or a partnership, trucking arms to get traffic. Not very likely in this PSR era. They want the business to come to them. Jeff
Yes, they had trucking and got out of it because their rates were not competitive, or so greyhounds has said and he should know.
Tree: I never saw anything from Futuremod, but invoking his name doesn't mean an idea is wrong.
charlie hebdoTree: I never saw anything from Futuremod, but invoking his name doesn't mean an idea is wrong.
FM became something of a lightning rod. He was very adamant that open access was the way to go, almost to a fault. Actually, to a fault, as it eventually got him booted off the forum. There basically developed three sides, pro (mostly FM), con (his most vocal opponents on the concept), and those who basically took the middle road.
Invoking his name only applies to the acrimony that developed, not the concept.
tree68 charlie hebdo Tree: I never saw anything from Futuremod, but invoking his name doesn't mean an idea is wrong. FM became something of a lightning rod. He was very adamant that open access was the way to go, almost to a fault. Actually, to a fault, as it eventually got him booted off the forum. There basically developed three sides, pro (mostly FM), con (his most vocal opponents on the concept), and those who basically took the middle road. Invoking his name only applies to the acrimony that developed, not the concept.
charlie hebdo Tree: I never saw anything from Futuremod, but invoking his name doesn't mean an idea is wrong.
As I said, I never saw his posts but at least some responsibility for that acrimony must reside with those who disagreed with him.
charlie hebdoAs I said, I never saw his posts but at least some responsibility for that acrimony must reside with those who disagreed with him.
Absolutely.
Isn't the NEC somewhat open access already? All govt. ROW ownership in one form or another. Different passenger entities. Some freight, different operators. Resulting in lots of contention over what should be done, who should pay for it.
GrampIsn't the NEC somewhat open access already? All govt. ROW ownership in one form or another. Different passenger entities. Some freight, different operators. Resulting in lots of contention over what should be done, who should pay for it.
The NEC is Amtrak owned. Amtrak, despite the subsidies, is not the government. Amtrak operates as a private entity and according to its creating and sustaining legislation is supposed to be profitable as a private entity.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
How about this for open access ? RR ABC transferes track and ROW to govt entity at no cost. ABC pays no toll but each trip is billed by ton miles, load conditions, flat wheels, etc. That billing is used to reduce the cost of acquisition. Once evened out then ABC pays normal toll. Any other RR that wants to operate on the previous ABC track will have to pay toll amounts + some additional preminum. That includes any reroutes for other RRs.operatin on that track. Govt would maintain track to whatever class that is desired for passenger travel.
Track charges and restrictions could be each cars weight, limit train length to siding capacity, any breakdown time tying up RR ( applies to both Amtrak failures, broken drawbars/knuckls, etc ). Any shutdowns to RR due to grade crossing accidents charged to culprit payable directly to govt entity and damaged equipment owner not to federal treasury as is now. If track capacity starts to be exceeded govt adds capacity quickly with pre EISs. Other RRs that wants to operate on ABCs track have to pay some premimum and will have to pay for expansion if present capacity will be exceeded.
blue streak 1How about this for open access ? RR ABC transferes track and ROW to govt entity at no cost. ABC pays no toll but each trip is billed by ton miles, load conditions, flat wheels, etc. That billing is used to reduce the cost of acquisition. Once evened out then ABC pays normal toll. Any other RR that wants to operate on the previous ABC track will have to pay toll amounts + some additional preminum. That includes any reroutes for other RRs.operatin on that track. Govt would maintain track to whatever class that is desired for passenger travel. Track charges and restrictions could be each cars weight, limit train length to siding capacity, any breakdown time tying up RR ( applies to both Amtrak failures, broken drawbars/knuckls, etc ). Any shutdowns to RR due to grade crossing accidents charged to culprit payable directly to govt entity and damaged equipment owner not to federal treasury as is now. If track capacity starts to be exceeded govt adds capacity quickly with pre EISs. Other RRs that wants to operate on ABCs track have to pay some premimum and will have to pay for expansion if present capacity will be exceeded.
Nobody on Wall Street is going to let any railroad that trades stock to 'give' their physical plant to any entity, government or others without those getting the plant paying real money for it.
If I recall correctly KCS received a 50-year concession to operate the KCS de Mexico that started in 1997 or so. That would mean it has 27 years to go unless they received an extension.
jeffhergert SD70Dude Jeff, is it true that they fired a whole bunch of Dispatchers yesterday? I couldn't say, I've been on vacation the last few weeks. Go back on Monday. On UP, dispatchers are management. They have been consolidating dispr's territories over the system and they are supposed to be rolling out some new CAD on steriods system. They probably think they won't need so many dispatchers in the future. Jeff
The Trains' newswire says 60 dispatchers were let go. A source on a Facebook group said 107 have gotten the axe. For now.
Being management, they weren't let go by seniority. One who posted on that FB group had 24 years in as a dispatcher. (I'm not sure, but he may have been one that dispatched a portion of my work area.) Another had 8 years in.
One hump at North Platte is going to be shut down. All this is PSR and the goal of a 55% OR.
Forget how the KCS might be divided up. Let's decide how the UP might be divided up when the bubble eventually bursts and the house of cards falls.
blue streak 1 RR ABC transferes track and ROW to govt entity at no cost.
Probably the single biggest sticking point in previous discussions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.