BaltACD Ulrich Convicted One Ulrich . I would prefer a freer "invisible hand" that is guided by supply and demand market forces over the "father knows best" mechanism Would you consider the way CSX butchered the former B&O Illinois Sub,.. or "hemmed in" the western end of the former PRR.... to be "supply and demand" driven? I wouldn't. Seems like they were more intent upon making sure the line would never pose any potential to compete with them, ever. Absolutely. but I never said it works perfectly. People are at the heart of all decisions, whether they're command economy driven or driven by market forces. I'm free to make good and bad decisions, and I'm free to reap the rewards and penalties of both. Free market does not mean all decisions are good all of the time.. Considering the economic power of the players in today's 'free market' most of the 'decisions' that are getting made are intended to monopolize and single source whatever is the product or service and therefore put the users at the mercy of the providers.
Ulrich Convicted One Ulrich . I would prefer a freer "invisible hand" that is guided by supply and demand market forces over the "father knows best" mechanism Would you consider the way CSX butchered the former B&O Illinois Sub,.. or "hemmed in" the western end of the former PRR.... to be "supply and demand" driven? I wouldn't. Seems like they were more intent upon making sure the line would never pose any potential to compete with them, ever. Absolutely. but I never said it works perfectly. People are at the heart of all decisions, whether they're command economy driven or driven by market forces. I'm free to make good and bad decisions, and I'm free to reap the rewards and penalties of both. Free market does not mean all decisions are good all of the time..
Convicted One Ulrich . I would prefer a freer "invisible hand" that is guided by supply and demand market forces over the "father knows best" mechanism Would you consider the way CSX butchered the former B&O Illinois Sub,.. or "hemmed in" the western end of the former PRR.... to be "supply and demand" driven? I wouldn't. Seems like they were more intent upon making sure the line would never pose any potential to compete with them, ever.
Ulrich . I would prefer a freer "invisible hand" that is guided by supply and demand market forces over the "father knows best" mechanism
Would you consider the way CSX butchered the former B&O Illinois Sub,.. or "hemmed in" the western end of the former PRR.... to be "supply and demand" driven? I wouldn't. Seems like they were more intent upon making sure the line would never pose any potential to compete with them, ever.
Absolutely. but I never said it works perfectly. People are at the heart of all decisions, whether they're command economy driven or driven by market forces. I'm free to make good and bad decisions, and I'm free to reap the rewards and penalties of both. Free market does not mean all decisions are good all of the time..
Considering the economic power of the players in today's 'free market' most of the 'decisions' that are getting made are intended to monopolize and single source whatever is the product or service and therefore put the users at the mercy of the providers.
Maybe intended to.. but generally that's not how it works out unless you're product or service is unique. Most shippers have many competitors... and have many potential transportation vendors to pick from. Sure there are exceptions, like Boeing and Airbus, but for the most part we all have competitors who are aggessvely going after our accounts.
Whatever price and terms are brought about by reciprocal switching, the shipper will always complain that the deal is not fair.
Reciprocal switching doesn't work when its needed the most i.e. where a shipper really only has one rail provider and no other alternatives. The current administration is attempting to put the genie back into the bottle.. decades of poor regulations that prevented railroads from joining the 20th century as late as the 1970s almost killed them off entirely. And now we've come full circle..after decades of deregulation they're once again looking at reregulation.. I wonder how much longer it will be before the government once again approves rates and terms.
charlie hebdoRegulation issues should not be political as it is really about economics.
This statement is completely backwards. It is always political when agents of the state force you to give some of your property to someone else, which is what rate regulation does and is the entire point of this executive order.
Rate regulation is always political interference in the workings of the market place.
Mac
Ulrich:
I'll politely disagree with your very first comment that reciprocal switching doesn't work where it's needed most. The whole idea behind interswitching in Canada or competitive (reciprocal) switching here in the US is it gives a shipper served by one railroad economic access to a second railroad. In Canada, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, any shipper within 35 kilometers of an interchange can solicit bids from a competing railroad or railroads that interchange with their serving carrier at that interchange. The competing carriers even include the applicable zone interswitching charge in their rate quote. In Canada, something like 75% of rail served shippers fall within one of the three interswitching zones and can avail themselves of this alternative.The 25% who can't use interswitching can go the competitive line rate route. This latter is definitely a more difficult process than interswitching but, in either case the shipper has options that today generally do not exist in the US.
The NITL competitive switching proposal that, to my knowledge, is the only one the STB has in their hopper isn't perfect but, it is a start at giving some captive shippers options they do not currently have; options that competing manufacturers in Canada have had now for about 35 years.
CW
Ulrich Reciprocal switching doesn't work when its needed the most i.e. where a shipper really only has one rail provider and no other alternatives. The current administration is attempting to put the genie back into the bottle.. decades of poor regulations that prevented railroads from joining the 20th century as late as the 1970s almost killed them off entirely. And now we've come full circle..after decades of deregulation they're once again looking at reregulation.. I wonder how much longer it will be before the government once again approves rates and terms.
Juniata Man Ulrich: I'll politely disagree with your very first comment that reciprocal switching doesn't work where it's needed most. The whole idea behind interswitching in Canada or competitive (reciprocal) switching here in the US is it gives a shipper served by one railroad economic access to a second railroad. In Canada, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, any shipper within 35 kilometers of an interchange can solicit bids from a competing railroad or railroads that interchange with their serving carrier at that interchange. The competing carriers even include the applicable zone interswitching charge in their rate quote. In Canada, something like 75% of rail served shippers fall within one of the three interswitching zones and can avail themselves of this alternative.The 25% who can't use interswitching can go the competitive line rate route. This latter is definitely a more difficult process than interswitching but, in either case the shipper has options that today generally do not exist in the US. The NITL competitive switching proposal that, to my knowledge, is the only one the STB has in their hopper isn't perfect but, it is a start at giving some captive shippers options they do not currently have; options that competing manufacturers in Canada have had now for about 35 years. CW Ulrich Reciprocal switching doesn't work when its needed the most i.e. where a shipper really only has one rail provider and no other alternatives. The current administration is attempting to put the genie back into the bottle.. decades of poor regulations that prevented railroads from joining the 20th century as late as the 1970s almost killed them off entirely. And now we've come full circle..after decades of deregulation they're once again looking at reregulation.. I wonder how much longer it will be before the government once again approves rates and terms.
That's interesting ..thanks for clarifying this for me. Perhaps not such a bad idea then..
Along the same line, sometimes the business is poorly located, and tries to use government to make up for poor decisionmaking or basic economic change.
Juniata Man Jeff: Insofar as interswitching in Canada; my experience with it was that CN, CP and even CSX near Montreal, tended to submit serious bids for business only when it made sense to them from both a financial and network perspective. Put another way, they didn't go after business simply to grab another carrier by the shorts. With regard to inclusion of short line and regional carriers in any reciprocal switching proposal here in the US; I can tell you that when we developed the NITL competitive switching proposal, we specifically excluded these smaller railroads. One reason was the hope (naive, I will admit) that by excluding them they would either support or, at the very least, not oppose the proposal. Too; many short lines and most regional railroads connect with more than one Class 1. Since the smaller railroads are generally exponentially easier to work with than a Class 1; elimination of paper barriers that prevent these smaller railroads from actually interchanging with another Class 1 would address the option of using a competing Class 1 without causing financial harm to the smaller railroad. Personally; my preference would still be to see the US adopt Canadian style interswitching and competitive line rates with the STB establishing the various zone switching charges much like the Transport Board does in Canada. I'm doubtful this is politically possible here in the US though. CW jeffhergert One proposed reciprocal switching zone in the US was 31 miles from an interchange point. You can bet that distance wasn't just pulled out of thin air. I would guess it's the distance that would encompass most, if not all, facilities of the major industries that use rail service. It would still leave the smaller rail users out in the cold. Probably even those within the zone. I see reciprocal switching resulting in only "cherry picking" of those major customers between the class one carriers. I would think that to impose such a switching zone, it would have to also apply to short lines and regionals. I don't think just imposing it on class ones would survive a court challenge. This could be detrimental to those railroads in that the class one might be able to "cherry pick" some of their best revenue producing clients. Thus leaving some of them to survive on a switching charge and whatever's left of their other customers. It also leaves the track owner as "first/last mile" carrier. I wonder how well UP will switch out a customer who's freight will be turned over to BNSF for only a switchng charge and vice-versa. I think in the long run the class ones should spin off more branch and secondary lines. Allow short lines/regionals to do the "first/last mile" service and have the class ones become mostly line haul carriers between major points. (I think that's what CSX was looking at on some of their lines.) The smaller companies do a better job of going after new business and then serving that, and existing, business. Jeff
Jeff:
Insofar as interswitching in Canada; my experience with it was that CN, CP and even CSX near Montreal, tended to submit serious bids for business only when it made sense to them from both a financial and network perspective. Put another way, they didn't go after business simply to grab another carrier by the shorts.
With regard to inclusion of short line and regional carriers in any reciprocal switching proposal here in the US; I can tell you that when we developed the NITL competitive switching proposal, we specifically excluded these smaller railroads. One reason was the hope (naive, I will admit) that by excluding them they would either support or, at the very least, not oppose the proposal. Too; many short lines and most regional railroads connect with more than one Class 1. Since the smaller railroads are generally exponentially easier to work with than a Class 1; elimination of paper barriers that prevent these smaller railroads from actually interchanging with another Class 1 would address the option of using a competing Class 1 without causing financial harm to the smaller railroad.
Personally; my preference would still be to see the US adopt Canadian style interswitching and competitive line rates with the STB establishing the various zone switching charges much like the Transport Board does in Canada. I'm doubtful this is politically possible here in the US though.
jeffhergert One proposed reciprocal switching zone in the US was 31 miles from an interchange point. You can bet that distance wasn't just pulled out of thin air. I would guess it's the distance that would encompass most, if not all, facilities of the major industries that use rail service. It would still leave the smaller rail users out in the cold. Probably even those within the zone. I see reciprocal switching resulting in only "cherry picking" of those major customers between the class one carriers. I would think that to impose such a switching zone, it would have to also apply to short lines and regionals. I don't think just imposing it on class ones would survive a court challenge. This could be detrimental to those railroads in that the class one might be able to "cherry pick" some of their best revenue producing clients. Thus leaving some of them to survive on a switching charge and whatever's left of their other customers. It also leaves the track owner as "first/last mile" carrier. I wonder how well UP will switch out a customer who's freight will be turned over to BNSF for only a switchng charge and vice-versa. I think in the long run the class ones should spin off more branch and secondary lines. Allow short lines/regionals to do the "first/last mile" service and have the class ones become mostly line haul carriers between major points. (I think that's what CSX was looking at on some of their lines.) The smaller companies do a better job of going after new business and then serving that, and existing, business. Jeff
One proposed reciprocal switching zone in the US was 31 miles from an interchange point. You can bet that distance wasn't just pulled out of thin air. I would guess it's the distance that would encompass most, if not all, facilities of the major industries that use rail service. It would still leave the smaller rail users out in the cold. Probably even those within the zone.
I see reciprocal switching resulting in only "cherry picking" of those major customers between the class one carriers.
I would think that to impose such a switching zone, it would have to also apply to short lines and regionals. I don't think just imposing it on class ones would survive a court challenge. This could be detrimental to those railroads in that the class one might be able to "cherry pick" some of their best revenue producing clients. Thus leaving some of them to survive on a switching charge and whatever's left of their other customers.
It also leaves the track owner as "first/last mile" carrier. I wonder how well UP will switch out a customer who's freight will be turned over to BNSF for only a switchng charge and vice-versa.
I think in the long run the class ones should spin off more branch and secondary lines. Allow short lines/regionals to do the "first/last mile" service and have the class ones become mostly line haul carriers between major points. (I think that's what CSX was looking at on some of their lines.) The smaller companies do a better job of going after new business and then serving that, and existing, business.
Jeff
I stand by my opinion that forced reciprocal switching will result in "cherry picking" of the more lucrative customers while most of the others won't get much relief. It's not necessarily that they are going to drive each other over the brink. It's that many customers are going to find out that other carriers aren't going to go out of their way for their business. Those customers are also members, maybe the majority of shipper's groups and aren't going to see much benefit for their efforts.
If rates do go down as railroads sharpen their pencils to grab or retain some contracts, it will put more pressure for them to further cut the work force or negotiate more give backs. You know senior management and stock holders aren't going to take a cut.
PS. Many if not most field level railroad employees believe the railroads need to be reregulated. I don't, although I do think there should be some kind of penalty for not living up to their common carrier requirements, because I remember what the regulated environment was like. Most of my coworkers don't. Time as thinned the ranks of those who worked back then.
Ulrich... CN and KCS are patiently awaiting the decision of the STB on whether their merger proposal will go ahead or not. Its up to five people to decide that.. they can give the thumbs up or the thumbs down. That's alot of power vested in five people..
Those five people of the STB don't just go on a whim. They still must follow the law, back their decission with facts, and are subject to legal challange.
While having to compete generally creates winners and losers, my point with regard to three decades of interswitching in Canada is that simply hasn't occurred up there. CP may be something of a "weak sister" to CN but, I believe that has more to do with CN's network and their customer engagement rather than chasing CP business and driving rates down. Despite their differences, both CP and CN have thrived in a highly competitive environment and their shareholders have benefited as well.
I will concede your point that railroads in the US, when forced to compete, may become more aggressive at implementing cost reductions and efficiencies (God, I hate that word!) but, I suspect there is already a certain inevitability of that occurring even in the absence of competitive switching. Cost cutting is, after all, what most companies do focus on these days, whether railroads or industrial manufacturers.
Lastly, I remember the regulated environment too and would not want to return to that either. Over the past 10-15 years however, the playing field between railroads and shippers has taken a decided tilt in the railroads favor. Changes need to be implemented that return doing business with a railroad to more of a 50/50, "give and take" business relationship.
jeffhergert I stand by my opinion that forced reciprocal switching will result in "cherry picking" of the more lucrative customers while most of the others won't get much relief. It's not necessarily that they are going to drive each other over the brink. It's that many customers are going to find out that other carriers aren't going to go out of their way for their business. Those customers are also members, maybe the majority of shipper's groups and aren't going to see much benefit for their efforts. If rates do go down as railroads sharpen their pencils to grab or retain some contracts, it will put more pressure for them to further cut the work force or negotiate more give backs. You know senior management and stock holders aren't going to take a cut. Jeff PS. Many if not most field level railroad employees believe the railroads need to be reregulated. I don't, although I do think there should be some kind of penalty for not living up to their common carrier requirements, because I remember what the regulated environment was like. Most of my coworkers don't. Time as thinned the ranks of those who worked back then.
tree68They need to put the shippers and the railroad stockholders in the same room and let them argue about it. As we've discussed here before, the shippers would prefer that their goods be moved free, while the stockholders want the maximum possible return on their investment. The actual railroads are kind of stuck in the middle.
Perhaps the entire ordeal is mis-cast? Rather than insisting this is an assault against creosoted ties and welded steel rails, perhaps it more accurately might be cast as a struggle between the stockholders of the railroads, and the stockholders of the shippers?
You have an industry that has spent decades rationalizing it's plant, often at the expense of jobs and local taxes, that is now loudly obsessed with current ratio, at the expense of more jobs and often snubbed customers......and NONE of this has been going on in a vacuum. So, IMO, it should be no surprise at all that some denizens of Wall street might have noticed the commotion surrounding the railroads as of late and said "I'll have some of what they are having'...literally.
One so often hears about the evils and ills of Wall street, 'welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends'...etc.
Convicted OneOne so often hears about the evils and ills of Wall street, 'welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends'...etc.
Well, Wall Street is sure helping me have a comfortable retirement. In fact, it's sure helping a whole lot of folks have a comfortable retirement.
I will admit to being a beneficiary in this regard too.
PS to Convicted One; Brain Salad Surgery - a favorite ELP album!!!
greyhounds Convicted One One so often hears about the evils and ills of Wall street, 'welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends'...etc. Well, Wall Street is sure helping me have a comfortable retirement. In fact, it's sure helping a whole lot of folks have a comfortable retirement.
Convicted One One so often hears about the evils and ills of Wall street, 'welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends'...etc.
I wouldn't want either of you to suffer an unpleasant retirement, but I really wasn't focused on that aspect. What I was trying to convey is that we so often hear complaints about the ill effects that Wall street machinations have upon the world around them......hedge funds....stockholder greed..etc etc etc
"Wolves gonna be wolves"..... they are just trying to use the government in this instance as a tool. I really don't believe there is a "little red ridinghood" in this story.
Remember -
Those that cry the loudest about being held hostage to the monopolistic actions of a single railroad that services them are most likely monopolies in the products they provide to their own customers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDare most likely monopolies
Exacty! Monopolies with stockholders of their own, as well, hence there is no "little red riding hood" in this story. The government's involvement here is that of a "tool".
We all know that ultimately it is the consumer who pays any increased expenses associated with the cost of the products they buy. So this episode might best be viewed as a "push back" against the usual tide.
I'll argue with you on that point Balt.
Chemical companies are among the shippers generally considered captive and I can think of very few chemical products that aren't being produced by multiple companies in North America or in multiple countries around the world. I believe many steel and fertilizer manufacturers would also be captive and God knows there's a multitude of them in North America and around the world.
In fact, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to come up with many examples in the industrial and manufacturing sectors that enjoy anything close to a monopoly.
BaltACD Remember - Those that cry the loudest about being held hostage to the monopolistic actions of a single railroad that services them are most likely monopolies in the products they provide to their own customers.
Juniata ManI'll argue with you on that point Balt. Chemical companies are among the shippers generally considered captive and I can think of very few chemical products that aren't being produced by multiple companies in North America or in multiple countries around the world. I believe many steel and fertilizer manufacturers would also be captive and God knows there's a multitude of them in North America and around the world. In fact, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to come up with many examples in the industrial and manufacturing sectors that enjoy anything close to a monopoly. CW BaltACD Remember - Those that cry the loudest about being held hostage to the monopolistic actions of a single railroad that services them are most likely monopolies in the products they provide to their own customers.
Most chemical companies are selling Patented products - products that they have a monopoly on account of the Patent protections.
ronrunner This depends on the old mafia Dem shakedown that they use...AAR gives mega bucks to Dem candidates and party and problems go away if they refuse they will be swimming with the fishes in a regulatory sea for the next 4 to 8 years
This depends on the old mafia Dem shakedown that they use...AAR gives mega bucks to Dem candidates and party and problems go away if they refuse they will be swimming with the fishes in a regulatory sea for the next 4 to 8 years
So a company can choose whether or not to be on a site served by rail. Where is it written that such a site must be served by two rail companies in order to be fair to shippers? The Government attempting to force this fairness by mandating competition-inducing measures on the railroads seems oddly indirect.
Why not just use the obvious and direct solution and have the Government simply mandate the price of transportation and be done with it? Why would that be worse than mandating competing dual service to hold prices down?
Just let the shippers decide whether the Government is fairly mandating the price of shipping and then if they don't think so, they can vote for somebody else.
Absolutely true. Wall Street and Bay Street are really just mechanisms that allow the average person to particiapte in the success of others and in humanity's great endeavours in general. Every quarter I get dividend checks that I could live off of quite nicely.. by simply making my own hard earned capital available to others. sure there's a bit of risk, but in return I get to share in the success of several businesses, and to a small extent my input is welcomed. In my opinion Wall Street/Bay Street are among the world's greatest creations...they allow anyone who wants to, to tap into and be part of the success of great ventures and great minds.
That sure as heck wasn't my experience in my twenty years in the chemical industry. There wasn't a thing we produced that wasn't also being produced by at least half a dozen competitors just here in North America.
I'd hazard a guess the majority of chemicals moving by rail fall into the commodity chemical category, stuff like sulfuric acid, caustic soda, hydrogen peroxide, molten sulfur, various surfactants and so on.
BaltACD Juniata Man I'll argue with you on that point Balt. Chemical companies are among the shippers generally considered captive and I can think of very few chemical products that aren't being produced by multiple companies in North America or in multiple countries around the world. I believe many steel and fertilizer manufacturers would also be captive and God knows there's a multitude of them in North America and around the world. In fact, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to come up with many examples in the industrial and manufacturing sectors that enjoy anything close to a monopoly. CW BaltACD Remember - Those that cry the loudest about being held hostage to the monopolistic actions of a single railroad that services them are most likely monopolies in the products they provide to their own customers. Most chemical companies are selling Patented products - products that they have a monopoly on account of the Patent protections.
Juniata Man I'll argue with you on that point Balt. Chemical companies are among the shippers generally considered captive and I can think of very few chemical products that aren't being produced by multiple companies in North America or in multiple countries around the world. I believe many steel and fertilizer manufacturers would also be captive and God knows there's a multitude of them in North America and around the world. In fact, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to come up with many examples in the industrial and manufacturing sectors that enjoy anything close to a monopoly. CW BaltACD Remember - Those that cry the loudest about being held hostage to the monopolistic actions of a single railroad that services them are most likely monopolies in the products they provide to their own customers.
ronrunner Railroads should do what their peers do ...hire a Lobbyist and astroturf citizens group and give political contributions to the right politicos and party and there regulatory problems will just go away overnight....otherwise they will swimming over there heads with the fishes in a regiulotoy sea for the next 8 years
Railroads should do what their peers do ...hire a Lobbyist and astroturf citizens group and give political contributions to the right politicos and party and there regulatory problems will just go away overnight....otherwise they will swimming over there heads with the fishes in a regiulotoy sea for the next 8 years
Euclid Why not just use the obvious and direct solution and have the Government simply mandate the price of transportation and be done with it? Why would that be worse than mandating competing dual service to hold prices down?
?
... I seem to recall Staggers was to eliminate gov't regulation of rail rates.....
How would you accomplish this? Are you going to regulate all sectors of transport; ground, air, and sea as well?
I agree. Plus this isn't Canada where they have just two transcontinental C1's and a few shortlines. US is a much larger rail market with many more players and reciprocal switching would cause more damage to the system. Shortlines are the reciprocal switching. If customers want access to more than one C1. Partner with a shortline toss some dollars in the pot. Last time I checked access came at a cost not for free.
ronrunnerRailroads should do what their peers do ...hire a Lobbyist
Isn't that what the AAR is supposed to do?
SD60MAC9500 Euclid Why not just use the obvious and direct solution and have the Government simply mandate the price of transportation and be done with it? Why would that be worse than mandating competing dual service to hold prices down? ? ... I seem to recall Staggers was to eliminate gov't regulation of rail rates..... How would you accomplish this? Are you going to regulate all sectors of transport; ground, air, and sea as well?
The mood for regulation changes back and forth over time with the mood of Government. So while railroads were deregulated, they can just as easily be reregulated. I think we are now in a strong mood preferring regulation, so yes they will want to regulate all sectors of transport, and indeed, all sectors of business. There will always be the boosters of regulation in the name of fairness and the critics of regulation in the name of free market capitalism.
In my previous post, I asked why the boosters of regulation would prefer mandating reciprocal switching to make shipping costs fair when they could just as easily accomplish that objective by mandating the rates to accomplish the goal directly rather than fiddle around trying to incentivize fairness by mandating reciprocal switching.
Both types of mandates are regulatory in that they both force business to do something they may not want to do. In my opinion these boosters of fairness are unable to determine what constitutes a fair rate, so they cite a lack of competition as being the essence of unfairness. And then they call for reciprocal switching as the means to add competition.
So, to these champions of fairness, that very remedy of forcing reciprocal switching feels fairer than simply dictating rates. In other works, forcing reciprocal switching has better optics. It is a lot easier to feel for fairness than to measure it.
There is a big difference. A feature of what makes a dress market work efficiently is competition. Apparently this was either never learned or else forgotten by some.
Euclid:
I can't speak for the millennial logisticians but, for us gray haired guys who dealt with railroads for 40 years, we have a pretty doggone good idea of what a fair rate looks like.
Many rail shippers use rail costing software that incorporates the revenue and costs the railroads must report to the STB as part of their waybill sampling. After you've worked in the field for awhile, you know what a common revenue to variable cost ratio is for the products you ship and these rate modeling tools help to establish what level of rate you should be asking for from the railroad. Getting that rate is the high hurdle, of course. With a little research, these modeling tools also provide a good idea of what railroads are charging other shippers of the same type product.With regards to SD60MAC9500's post about Canada only having two Class 1's, not entirely the case. CSX and BNSF both have lines in Canada and I utilized interswitching to get from a CN served site to CSX. In fact certain regional railroads in Canada such as the late CMQ also were included in interswitching. I would also note that if you look at a rail map of the US, what you'll see is two carriers serving a very large chunk of territory in the west and two serving a large chunk in the east. Sure, CP, KCS and CN cover the central portion of the country and there you do have multiple carriers but, competitive switching doesn't cover hundreds of miles to reach an interchange. My recollection of the NITL proposal was the interchange had to be within 15-20 air miles of the captive shipper site. That certainly narrows the application. As to the suggestion a captive shipper partner with a short line to gain access to another Class 1, if you're only rail connection is to a Class 1, how do you propose getting the short line involved? Further, when most short lines are carved out of a Class 1, the carrier selling or leasing the track to the short line includes a paper barrier preventing the short line from interchanging with any Class 1 other than the original owner.
I'll add one last thought; under competitive switching there is nothing that prevents the railroad serving the captive shipper from offering a more competitive rate and retaining the business. Whether the psr mindset at most Class 1's would allow them to do so remains to be seen.
Nothing wrong with capitalism except that it has lost all its competition. Time for Government to level the playing field by forcing the return of completion.
That according to this news video on the news story linked to the OP of this thread:
Biden signs sweeping executive order 'attacking' free markets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jqur2ZCiFA
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.