OAT : Open Access Thread

[tree68]

If open access is truly open access, then a cost to use a given stretchof track will be determined based on innumerable factors like ton/miles, track quality (and therefore speed allowed), and who knows what else. The cost determination would have to be consistent nation-wide, so if I know there will be a delay on this stretch of track, I will plan on going around, and if I want a train to travel further faster, I will know the potential cost to take the necessary routes. Eventually the capability to handle detours will develop where it isn't available now, and a road doing repairs will be under the gun to get the work done fast and well since they will be losing money while the track is out of service.

There would also have to be a nationwide clearinghouse (a la air traffic control) so each change of route doesn't have to be individually negotiated, and a national credentialling system so everyone is trained to the same standard. There are pitfalls in the credentialling, too, but that could be a thread by itself.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: Do you forsee the infrastructure owning company to be The Federal Government, State Governments, Regional Railroad Authorities, or totally publicly owned? Which brings up another interesting wrinkle-what about Amtrack?

[Anonymous]

One big issue that never gets much discussion is what to do with the train at termination points. Unless you are just proposing unit train operations for OA, then the other carrier has to provide some sort of switching facility at the other end of the run to gather or disperse his cars. If you think that the mainlines have capacity issues, the terminals are even worse.

A huge risk I see in OA is if you should somehow separate the transportation company from the right of way company, that means that the routes for each carrier are pretty much the same and since the same company will be dispatching the RoW for all the carriers operating on the route equally, there will be no difference in route, transit time, or service. And since they will all be charged the same rate for the same trains over the same territory, and are using the same engines (all US RR's use either GE or EMD engines) over the same territory, the base transit and fuel costs will be the same. The only way a company can distinguish itself is by price. You will have RR companies that are currently, by some measures, marginal as far as profitability goes, driven into price wars. That will be great for consumers until the bancruptcies start rolling in again.

Smith.

[beaulieu]

Pardon me for entering this topic, and late to boot. Take a look here for how the Swiss handle "Open Access" freight. Note that Passenger service is not "Open". This is what a European Freight Company would use to calculate what their access charges would be.
http://mct.sbb.ch/mct/en/infrastruktur/infrastruktur_dienstleistungen/onestopshop/onestopshop-leistung.htm
Look at the first item, you will need Adobe Reader.

[Anonymous]

FM- In the case of all lines owned by one entity, and leasing them out on a "per use" basis, would you expect that where parallel but unequal lines between 2 points exist, would the owner be offering to lease the less desirable route between A and B for a discounted rate, or do you envision all 'inferior' routes being abandoned under such an arrangement?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

FM: Do you forsee the infrastructure owning company to be The Federal Government, State Governments, Regional Railroad Authorities, or totally publicly owned? Which brings up another interesting wrinkle-what about Amtrack?

Definitely not the feds! What I see is the current rail network continuing under private regulated ownership, lines that are still a candidate for abandonment would defer to state and regional transportation authorities, and new lines being primarily funded something like 80-20 fed/state (with the federal portion coming from that Infrastructure Trust Fund) but the states and regional authorities do the planning, constructing, and oversight of maintenance. The new lines could then either remain under state and regional control or be auctioned off to the private infrastructure operators.

As for Amtrak, let's face it - Under open access we wouldn't even need Amtrak, since now private passenger service providers can enter the market. But I run the risk of starting yet another flame war, so let's just say that Amtrak or any other rail service provider can bid for slots like every other rail service provider.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nhs792

One big issue that never gets much discussion is what to do with the train at termination points. Unless you are just proposing unit train operations for OA, then the other carrier has to provide some sort of switching facility at the other end of the run to gather or disperse his cars. If you think that the mainlines have capacity issues, the terminals are even worse.

A huge risk I see in OA is if you should somehow separate the transportation company from the right of way company, that means that the routes for each carrier are pretty much the same and since the same company will be dispatching the RoW for all the carriers operating on the route equally, there will be no difference in route, transit time, or service. And since they will all be charged the same rate for the same trains over the same territory, and are using the same engines (all US RR's use either GE or EMD engines) over the same territory, the base transit and fuel costs will be the same. The only way a company can distinguish itself is by price. You will have RR companies that are currently, by some measures, marginal as far as profitability goes, driven into price wars. That will be great for consumers until the bancruptcies start rolling in again.

Smith.

I don't beleive each rail ROW would necessarily be a carbon copy of the others. Some with the better profiles will appeal to HAL transporters, while those with more gradient may opt to pursue 3PI's. Some will keep current speed averages, others may opt for higher speeds to increase daily usage.

Also, what we would see is an evolution of the disparate trucking, railroad, barge lines, ect. into more integrated transportation companies, offering their shippers transport between Point A and Point B in a single package offering, then deciding for themselves the best combination of modes to get that job done, depending on the customer's speed/tonnage requirements.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

FM- In the case of all lines owned by one entity, and leasing them out on a "per use" basis, would you expect that where parallel but unequal lines between 2 points exist, would the owner be offering to lease the less desirable route between A and B for a discounted rate, or do you envision all 'inferior' routes being abandoned under such an arrangement?

See my reply to Smith

And as an addendum, I believe the laws of economics regarding absolute advantage and comparative advantage would come into play. The seemingly "inferior" lines may prove to be a valuable addition to the primary line. See also my theories of dispersed redundance vs consolidated redundancy in the PRB coal thread.

(Hey, Murphy, should we start a new thread to debate dispersed redundancy vs consolidated redundancy?)

[Anonymous]

beaulieu,

Thanks for the link!

[Anonymous]

OK then, should 'high volume' customers get better rates than a lesser volume operator\/?

example: Should UP be able to say "I will run 2000 trains between "A" and "B" this year, therefore I should be able to negotiate a lower charge per each than a KCS who will only run 300 trains between the 2 during the same time frame?

[Tulyar15]

When the British government privatised British Rail in 1994, the aim to enable open access operators to enter the market. But so far only a handful have done so. In order to get buyers to take on the existing Train Operating Companies (TOC's) the government had to make restrictions on Open Access. So each Open Access operator has to get approval from the rail regulator before it can start operating. At the moment a company called Grand Central is trying to get approval to introduce passenger services from London King;s Cross to Halifax, West Yorks. and Sunderland. Both these towns do not at present have direct service to London. But to get approval Grand Central have got to prove that they will generate new custom and not abstract it from existing operators.

Great North Eastern who operate the East Coast Main Line from London to Leeds and Edinburgh claim that Grand Central's services would steel their customers. But I hope Grand Central get the go-ahead for the following reasons:-

1) Not only will the provide towns which do not have a direct service to London with such a service, they will increase customer choice and the number of seats available.

2) GNER could have provided these services if it were not so risk averse. All it has done is sweat the assets it inherited from British Rail. It has spent not a penny on new trains, and constantly complains about how its franchise period is too short.

So far all but one of the open access operators in Britain have been freight operators. Some of the traffic they have gained is new but a lot of it is traffic that EWS would not have lost if it had not lost the plot. The Royal Mail traffic is a case in point. When Ed Burlhardt was in charge at EWS he negotiated a lump sum access deal with Railtrack (now Network Rail) the infrastructure provider. Basically in return for paying Railtrack a lump sum, EWS could run as many trains as it liked, subject only to track capacity constraints. But the fact that one of the open access operators was able to offer the Royal Mail a better deal suggests that EWS has got problems. The lump sum deal plus the fact that being bigger EWS should have economies of scale and it should be hard for open access operators to steal EWS's traffic. But the fact that they are suggests EWS is in trouble. So if it weren;t for open access, all the mail would now be going by road or air.

So on balance I think open access is a good thing but it needs to be careful nurtured to make it work.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: Define HAL and 3PI please. You lost me. About a seperate post concernig differing types of redundancy-wouldn't that be redundant?[:)]

[Junctionfan]

I don't really see the economical need for total open access. The only thing I would like to see is more cooperation of railroads with parallel lines to follow CN and CPs idea for directional traffic to reduce conjestion.

I would also like to see a few abandoned lines reopened including the former CASO Subdivision and one of the ex UP predecesors lines just to reduce gridlock and increase capacity to reduce road traffic and allow economic sustainability if not growth. Otherwise, rail is fine as it is; just needs some operational tweaking here and there.

[Anonymous]

Murphy:

HAL - Heavy Axle Loads - basically talking the 100 to 125 ton trucks (71,500 to 78,750 lbs per axle), as opposed to the 50 and 70 ton trucks (55,000 to 66,000 lbs per axle).

3PI - Third Party Intermodal - my reference for firms like Pacer. I think the official term for these is actually 3PL (Third Party Logistics), but I think 3PI is a more accurate term.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: Thanks for the clarification! I just watched Star Wars #1 with the kids! Was sort of thinking of Hal from 2001, a Space Odessy & C3PO.[:)]

The Anti Gates: Oooh! Oooh! I know this one! Of course, high volume customers "could" negotiate a better deal. It would seem that Open Access is to "level the playing field". After it's leveled,shouldn't all the teams get to play the game their way? Besides-donughts are always cheaper by the dozen.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding



The Anti Gates: Oooh! Oooh! I know this one! Of course, high volume customers "could" negotiate a better deal. It would seem that Open Access is to "level the playing field". After it's leveled,shouldn't all the teams get to play the game their way?

The potential for anticompetitive practices to come from such opportunity is significant

The railroads with the deepest pockets would be able to take any and all business away from the smaller or equity rich but cash poor lines, at will

[Murphy Siding]

The Anti Gates: I agree 100%. It's called competition, and I'm 100% for it. Now I didn't say I knew how the system "should" work,only that I felt I knew how it "would" work.[:)] Perhaps FM could explain how he thinks a system like this could have open access, and not have the scenario you metion.

Your comment about deep pockets rings very true-it happens now all the time.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The following questions are based on FM's proposals as expounded in other threads:
1. Since the rates charged by the infrastructure company would be tightly regulated in an attempt to level the playing field, wouldn't this be re-regulation through the back door?

2. For example, let us assume that a small grain elevator is located at the end of a 25-mile long branch and is the only business on that branch. How would open access guarantee that there would be competition for traffic on this branch, assuming that anyone would even bid to provide that service?

3. Since the rates it could charge would be regulated, what incentive would exist for the infrastructure company to increase capacity on any of the lines it owns but does not operate?

4. Would operating companies be allowed to cherry-pick the most profitable customers and services or would they have to serve everybody on the lines over which they operate? This is in the context that the operating companies would be unregulated as to rates and services.

5. Would there be provision for abandonment of a line over which nobody wishes to operate?

6. How would you sell tax abatement to school districts, municipalities and other taxpayers?

[Anonymous]

where is the incentive to the owner /operator/ maintainer of the tracknetwork to do a good job? seems like the haulage companies will make all the big bux

[tree68]

OK, here's my take on these questions -

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The following questions are based on FM's proposals as expounded in other threads:
1. Since the rates charged by the infrastructure company would be tightly regulated in an attempt to level the playing field, wouldn't this be re-regulation through the back door?

No more than what happens on a toll road. As long as you are willing to pay the toll, you can drive any legal vehicle down that road.

QUOTE:
2. For example, let us assume that a small grain elevator is located at the end of a 25-mile long branch and is the only business on that branch. How would open access guarantee that there would be competition for traffic on this branch, assuming that anyone would even bid to provide that service?

Why would a trucking company provide service to that elevator? If there is money to be made by serving the elevator, someone will probably serve it. If nothing else, the elevator can invest in an old Whitcomb and save another carrier the 25 mile hike, which might make it worthwhile for them. Open access means that if someone does want to serve the line, they can. Without OA, if the owning XYZ RR doesn't want to serve the elevator, nobody else can.

QUOTE:
3. Since the rates it could charge would be regulated, what incentive would exist for the infrastructure company to increase capacity on any of the lines it owns but does not operate?

More traffic=more income. The question becomes whether the regulated rates include money for capital improvement or merely basic maintenance.

QUOTE:
4. Would operating companies be allowed to cherry-pick the most profitable customers and services or would they have to serve everybody on the lines over which they operate? This is in the context that the operating companies would be unregulated as to rates and services.

You mean they don't do that now? What's to stop "you" from picking up an engine, meeting the necessary requirements, and cleaning up what the big boys don't want to? They may not want to switch the line, but might be willing to handle the aggregated traffic.

QUOTE:
5. Would there be provision for abandonment of a line over which nobody wishes to operate?

That's a question for the regulators. Again, however, if there is money to be made, someone will use it. If there is no money to be made, either some municipality will take it over, or it no longer needs to exist anyhow.

QUOTE:
6. How would you sell tax abatement to school districts, municipalities and other taxpayers?

That will be a tough sell for any industry unless you can prove the potential for economic development.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: How about an overview of how an open access system would work?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

OA Overview -

1. Infrastructure companies are regulated, while transporters are not.
2. Infrastructure companies would get certain tax incentives to "equalize" the various aspects of public support as exhibited by highways and waterways.
3. The tax incentives would act as the primary source of maintenance funding, supplemented by user fees. (This is not set in stone)
4. Funding for capital expansion projects would accrue from a portion of an Intermodal Trust Fund aka fuel tax paid by all modes, again with some cross funding by tax credits.
5. Additional funding for capital expansion can also come from general federal tax reciepts (porportional to that going to highways and waterways), as well as a portion coming from state coffers. (The state money source will be dictated by the state, and can be fuel taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, et al, e.g. whatever the state decides is best for its rail lines).
6. Although the current rail infrastructure network would most likely continue under private ownership, states and localities can also own, buy, and sell rail infrastructure as they see fit, and most likely would be the lead source for new rail project considerations (just as they do highway projects).
7. Transporters can consist of the remaining Class I's, as well as Class II's and Class III's, and/or current transportation companies involved in trucking, barges, short sea shipping, intermodal firms, and shipper groups - basically anyone willing to pay the entry fee and submit to all operator requirements as set forth by the infrastructure companies.
8. Rail lines of differing profile characteristics would probably evolve into actions as predicted by economic theories of absolute advantage and comparative advantage.
9. With new operating opportunities, there may be an increase in the use of bi-modal technology to take advantage of short haul lanes currently underutilized.
10. Some rail lines would gravitate toward higher speeds and/or lighter axle loads, while others would gravitate toward heavy axle loads and slower speeds.
11. With access guaranteed, there would no longer be a need for a federal passenger train service as private and regional opportunists would get to establish new passenger services, leading to new innovations.
12. Open access would likely lead to a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, since there would no longer be captive rail shippers (which are all U.S.), and thus U.S. exporters would see their transportation costs on U.S. surface corridors reduced while importers' transportation costs would likely remain constant.
13. Open access would likely render the truck driver shortage moot, since now trucking firms will be able to run their own trains. Fewer long haul truck drivers will be needed, as most will take advantage of more short haul opportunities.
14. Open access may result in a resumption of higher sustained freight and passenger speeds (a trend that halted sometime in the 1930's) as some rail lines try to maximize daily usage by increasing minimum speed limits.
15. Open access may also see a resumption of the shorter faster train as opposed to the longer slower trains.
16. OE may result in increased congestion during the initial stages of application since there would be more users on the current trackage, making new rail construction projects a must BEFORE full OE application.
17. OE would result in the rebirth of multi owner rail corridors such as the I-15 corridor from Sweetgrass MT to SL.

That's enough for now. Comment on any of the talking points as you see fit.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

OK, here's my take on these questions -

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The following questions are based on FM's proposals as expounded in other threads:
1. Since the rates charged by the infrastructure company would be tightly regulated in an attempt to level the playing field, wouldn't this be re-regulation through the back door?

No more than what happens on a toll road. As long as you are willing to pay the toll, you can drive any legal vehicle down that road.

QUOTE:
2. For example, let us assume that a small grain elevator is located at the end of a 25-mile long branch and is the only business on that branch. How would open access guarantee that there would be competition for traffic on this branch, assuming that anyone would even bid to provide that service?

Why would a trucking company provide service to that elevator? If there is money to be made by serving the elevator, someone will probably serve it. If nothing else, the elevator can invest in an old Whitcomb and save another carrier the 25 mile hike, which might make it worthwhile for them. Open access means that if someone does want to serve the line, they can. Without OA, if the owning XYZ RR doesn't want to serve the elevator, nobody else can.

QUOTE:
3. Since the rates it could charge would be regulated, what incentive would exist for the infrastructure company to increase capacity on any of the lines it owns but does not operate?

More traffic=more income. The question becomes whether the regulated rates include money for capital improvement or merely basic maintenance.

QUOTE:
4. Would operating companies be allowed to cherry-pick the most profitable customers and services or would they have to serve everybody on the lines over which they operate? This is in the context that the operating companies would be unregulated as to rates and services.

You mean they don't do that now? What's to stop "you" from picking up an engine, meeting the necessary requirements, and cleaning up what the big boys don't want to? They may not want to switch the line, but might be willing to handle the aggregated traffic.

QUOTE:
5. Would there be provision for abandonment of a line over which nobody wishes to operate?

That's a question for the regulators. Again, however, if there is money to be made, someone will use it. If there is no money to be made, either some municipality will take it over, or it no longer needs to exist anyhow.

QUOTE:
6. How would you sell tax abatement to school districts, municipalities and other taxpayers?

That will be a tough sell for any industry unless you can prove the potential for economic development.

tree - couldn't have said it better myself!

[Murphy Siding]

Glad I just asked for an overview. He He He . the whole shebang would have run 20 pages.[:P][:)]. Thanks

[GMS-AU]

Hi All

Larry (tree68) pretty well summed it up. Here in Australia anyway the infrastructure is Government owned as it was always mainly state based. The biggest problem was three different rail gauges. Standard gauge is most probably the furthermost reaching but here in Queensland it is 3'6" narrow gauge. It is the last state to fully deregulate and being a large state and decentralised it has the largest network at about 8000 klm's. It has evolved to be the most advanced narrow gauge network in the world and hauls more tonnage than any other network in Australia. This is due mainly to large coal mines that compete with American mines and as China is much closer it is booming more than ever. At present the state owned Queensland Rail hauls all of the coal but it is now open to negotiation. Anyone who wants to have a go can. You pay access fees on your tonnage so you pay for what you carry. Each line is rated to its maximum tonnage as the coal lines are the heaviest at I think 22 tonne per axle. The main coastal trunk is at 20 tonne per axle. This isn't much compared to your lines but this is a large country with a population similar to New York City and surrounds. Therefore the Government owns most of the infrastructure. The rail network is evolving to a nationally controlled network despite gauge differences and standard gauge links all mainland state capital cities. What open access has meant is some underused or abandoned branch lines has seen a resurgence. If the freight increases the infrastructure corporation looks at maintenance of all lines to see if repairs or upgrades are required. Much the way highways or dams or schools are planned. Open access is still only new but seems to be successful at the moment. The difference is the network is state owned as opposed to the US model of rail companies being privately owned, but remember when America was being opened up and developed large grants were given to rail companies as such they became asset rich for minimal investment.

Passenger services are also being privatised with funding to cover shortfalls in operations. This has happened to both long distance and local operations.

Access fees for Queensland can be found on

http://www.qr.com.au/


G M Simpson

[Murphy Siding]

FM: Re: OA guide to the galaxy point #1- Why would the infrastructure companies(IC's) be regulated,but not the transportation companies(TC's)? If only one TC provided service to some grain line in an upper midwestern state, couldn't they charge whatever they could get away with?[}:)][;)][:)]

[nanaimo73]

futuremodal,
The Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern think they are going to haul Powder River Basin coal to the barge terminal in Winona, Minnesota. The town of Rochester is going to force them to build a bypass around the town.
What would happen if a TC wanted a line like this built and the IC did not want to build it ?
Dale

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

OA Overview -

1. Infrastructure companies are regulated, while transporters are not.
2. Infrastructure companies would get certain tax incentives to "equalize" the various aspects of public support as exhibited by highways and waterways.
3. The tax incentives would act as the primary source of maintenance funding, supplemented by user fees. (This is not set in stone)
4. Funding for capital expansion projects would accrue from a portion of an Intermodal Trust Fund aka fuel tax paid by all modes, again with some cross funding by tax credits.
5. Additional funding for capital expansion can also come from general federal tax reciepts (porportional to that going to highways and waterways), as well as a portion coming from state coffers. (The state money source will be dictated by the state, and can be fuel taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, et al, e.g. whatever the state decides is best for its rail lines).
6. Although the current rail infrastructure network would most likely continue under private ownership, states and localities can also own, buy, and sell rail infrastructure as they see fit, and most likely would be the lead source for new rail project considerations (just as they do highway projects).
7. Transporters can consist of the remaining Class I's, as well as Class II's and Class III's, and/or current transportation companies involved in trucking, barges, short sea shipping, intermodal firms, and shipper groups - basically anyone willing to pay the entry fee and submit to all operator requirements as set forth by the infrastructure companies.
8. Rail lines of differing profile characteristics would probably evolve into actions as predicted by economic theories of absolute advantage and comparative advantage.
9. With new operating opportunities, there may be an increase in the use of bi-modal technology to take advantage of short haul lanes currently underutilized.
10. Some rail lines would gravitate toward higher speeds and/or lighter axle loads, while others would gravitate toward heavy axle loads and slower speeds.
11. With access guaranteed, there would no longer be a need for a federal passenger train service as private and regional opportunists would get to establish new passenger services, leading to new innovations.
12. Open access would likely lead to a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, since there would no longer be captive rail shippers (which are all U.S.), and thus U.S. exporters would see their transportation costs on U.S. surface corridors reduced while importers' transportation costs would likely remain constant.
13. Open access would likely render the truck driver shortage moot, since now trucking firms will be able to run their own trains. Fewer long haul truck drivers will be needed, as most will take advantage of more short haul opportunities.
14. Open access may result in a resumption of higher sustained freight and passenger speeds (a trend that halted sometime in the 1930's) as some rail lines try to maximize daily usage by increasing minimum speed limits.
15. Open access may also see a resumption of the shorter faster train as opposed to the longer slower trains.
16. OE may result in increased congestion during the initial stages of application since there would be more users on the current trackage, making new rail construction projects a must BEFORE full OE application.
17. OE would result in the rebirth of multi owner rail corridors such as the I-15 corridor from Sweetgrass MT to SL.

That's enough for now. Comment on any of the talking points as you see fit.

Here's a point-by-point response:
1. The lack of regulation for operating firms does nothing to guarantee that at least three operators (the "triopoly" of which you state as necessary) would be in place on any given line.
2. I assume that the prime incentive would be property tax abatement. That would be a very tough sell to other property tax payers (especially homeowners) who would have to make up the lost income.
3. Tax incentives are not income.
4. Tax credits and incentives do not generate cash for such projects.
5. State funding can be erratic, if it even exists. Federal funding could also be questionable, since it is also subject to political pressure.
6. Althouch some railroads such as the Cincinnati Southern are owned by municipalities and states, the current political climate makes it unlikely to happen now for anything beyond suburban operations.
7. This sounds a lot like the current FAA regulations related to commercial aviation, but does nothing to prevent an undercapitalized operator from setting up shop, later go out of business and lease customers stranded. Also, depending on infrastructure companies to set the entry standards could and would lead to a wide variation of standards.
8. What are you trying to say here?
9. Bi-modal technology is too specialized so any growth in this field would be incremental. Bi-modal also involves a weight penalty in highway operation.
10. This avoids the 286K issue that many shortlines are being forced to deal with.
11. Access may be guaranteed as long as the operator pays the rent, but a share of the market is never guaranteed.
12. Any effect on the trade deficit would be minimal. The difference in labor costs between the United States and overseas is a much bigger factor in the existence of the trade deficit.
13. Why would any trucking company want to run its own trains? The capital investment in locomotives, cars and Z-van trailers would be steep. They would also have to hire train crews. Other labor contract issues would also need to be addressed and could be quite expensive in their own right.
14. Higher speeds would also mean higher maintenance-of-way costs, which would be a disincentive for infrastructure companies unless their rates could be increased.
15. The short, fast train is not a panacea. Rio Grande found this out and realized that the optimum train for a given situation could be short and fast or long and slow or anywhere in between.
16. Who would put up the big bucks necessary for major improvements when the return on investment would be quite uncertain.
17. If trucks are serving the market adequately, why would a railroad operator want to enter that market.

General comment: Open access would be a godsend for customers sinces rates would theoretically go down. It would be a curse for operators since profit margins would become incredibly thin if they existed at all. Note the situation in the airline business, which as a whole is pretty sick financially although there are some exceptions.

I still doubt that the political climate exists to establish open access under this overview, especially since there is no current provision in anti-trust law to separate operations and infrastructure.

[Murphy Siding]

CSSHEGEWISCH: I had trouble with #8 also. Sort of figured it was one of those "theories" that I wouldn't understand anyway.[:)] Speaking of not understanding, can you elaborate on the last sentence of your post?

Thanks

[Murphy Siding]

Here's a different train of thought.[;)].In Wisconsin there is an L-P siding plant that doesn't buy logs from the property owners, or have any timber of it's own. They buy logs from private- operator loggers. L-P basically buys the logs at the gate,when the truck shows up. The finding,cutting, hauling and everything else is taken care of by the logger.
Could there be some sort of "Co-operative Access" formed on a rail line? Future Modal and I could buy an old GP-7. BNSF could then pay us a set fee for every car of grain we round up,( 2 or 3 at a time, or whatever ) and deliver to a designated yard somewhere. I'd get to drive, of course,but I'd let FM honk the horn now and then.[:)]
Don't laugh! This probably has as much chance of happening as open access.[:-,]