WATCO abandoning service on Washington State owned lines! (read: BNSF does it again!)

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The issue that FM and others have not mentioned is: What is the traffic volume on the line to be abandoned?

[daveklepper]

Very sad news, at least they ought to bank the line!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Do the math....5 grain cars. What does a 140 ton car cost to ship? Figure a three man crew on a basic yard day. Approx $500- $550 in just wage, no arbitraries. Fuel. An engine or two (which we are power short these days). Storage space if there is to be a unit train built or switching if it will go on a junker. Time to spot the cars once delivered. Where is the profit?

Perhaps from the higher rate charged?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Do the math....5 grain cars. What does a 140 ton car cost to ship? Figure a three man crew on a basic yard day. Approx $500- $550 in just wage, no arbitraries. Fuel. An engine or two (which we are power short these days). Storage space if there is to be a unit train built or switching if it will go on a junker. Time to spot the cars once delivered. Where is the profit?

[edblysard]

I think it is the evil, monopolistic, captive shipper, anti open access BNSF making bad business decisions that only benefit BNSF instead of the grain shippers...this is after failing in their moral debt to the public, stealing all that free land through abusing government land grants, and failing to rebuild the Milwaukee Road...

Of course, it could just be that lose car load railroading , outside of heavy industrial hubs/locations, is a thing of the past, and no one wants the expense of dispatching a crew and locomotives to gather up five and ten grain cars from a bunch of elevators scattered all over the place...
Ed

[bobwilcox]

It is the evil BNSF again or is that just a "guess".

[kenneo]

If WATCO would handle 110 car grain trains, the BN would be johnny on the spot ---- to take the RR back!!!!!

I'm not a bit suprised.

[Anonymous]

WATCO is giving up on plans to sell one Washington State branch line (the Cheney to Coulee City ex-NP line) to the State, opting to file for abandonment altogether on that line, and is giving up the operating rights over the Marshall-Pullman ex NP line that the State already has purchased.

http://www.aginfo.com/reportView.cfm?recordid=5635

WATCO will continue to operate the ex-UP line from Hooper to Pullman/Moscow as part of it's Palouse & Coulee City (PCC) shortline. Seems UP does a good job of getting car orders when they are needed, and also allows the PCC to operate short haul grain shuttles over UP tracks from Hooper to the barge port at Wallula on the Columbia River. By contrast, BNSF has been a poor mentor for the ex BN lines operated under the PCC banner, and WATCO I guess has just become to fed up with BNSF's poor business practices to continue to operate those lines. Seems BNSF prefers that grain be trucked over State and county roads to it's shuttle elevator in Ritzville rather than having carloads and small car lots interchanged with BNSF in Cheney or Marshall.

It is somewhat ironic in that at the time of the sale to WATCO, the ex-UP lines were in the worst shape, while the ex BN Marshall line was in great shape (due to a 1970's rebuild of the entire line for future shorthaul grain shuttles to Lewiston ID, an idea scrapped a few short years later due to a management change at BN). Yet it is the UP that is providing the car orders in expedient fashion, while BNSF won't.

I guess the lesson is this: If you are a state or local government body looking to purchase a shortline whose only interchange is with BNSF, you're better off letting it go, because you'll buy the line only to have the operator give up anyway and send all that freight to your state and county roads anyway, e.g. it won't pay to do so. If the shortline connects with UP, go ahead and buy the line, it will pay to do so.