First of all, the original owners would not lose their right to operate trains on their own property if indeed the company is broken up into two separate legal entities. The transporter comprised of the original railroad would have to pay the same fee as any other transporter, but they have equal right to use the property. It is this transparency between ROW costs and operating costs
This may be a bit subtle for FM to understand but the term “closed access” is actually an oxymoron. I’ve also noticed that my advice to him on other threads has been duly ignored, very disappointing but not unexpected.
“Closed access” is quite easy to understand for the sake of discussion - “Access” is “closed” to all but the owning railroad. Much more in line with the single owner-operator philosophy of the railroads than using the term “limited access” or “restricted access”. And since “closed” is the opposite of “open”, it makes it easier for folks to understand the dichotomy of the debate.
I love how proponents of fooli***hings get their spin doctoring going…
“Closed Access” Wait just a minute. There is plenty of service on most lines, yet this moniker makes it sound a bit too much like some sort of negative thing that a railroad runs on its own tracks and serves its own customers.
“Captive Shipper” Is anybody holding a gun to these guys??? Don’t they have trucks?? Sorry, no kidnapping going on here.
Try using terms that reflect reality FM, not just hanging some spin out there…
If you want reality, you might want to start with your “closed access” thought process. Gee, LC, everyone else in the discussion is using the terms “closed access” and “captive shipper”. You and the other closed minds are the only ones stuck in either semantic obfuscation or the “Let them eat cake” retro-philosophy. The rest of the real world is already using the captive term, and it won’t be long before “closed access” takes it’s place in the lexicon of discussion when debates over open
So move it by wire FM, after all you are the worlds biggest advocate of utility type deregulation aren’t you??? String some wires then if you think what we do is isn’t worth what is paid and throw up some mineside power stations…I’ll give you 6 months before you file for Chapter 7…FOFLMAO…
What Jay and LC are trying to do is to legitimize the inherent disingenuousness of the “let 'em use trucks” excuse as proof of the viability of trucks as a competitive alternative to railroads.
For the record, occasionally trucks are used (mostly back east) to move coal from small mines to the nearest railhead. The average truck haul in coal transportation is about 40 miles, compared to the average rail haul of 800+ miles.
Nowhere is it even remotely suggested that trucks are a viable alternative to rail transportation for moving coal from mine to power plant. Only the most addled extremist would suggest such a thing, or perhaps people in denial about the realities of captive rail shippers.[;)]
FM again shows his complete and utter ignorance of all things east of the Mississippi River…
There are indeed numerous power stations and steam plants at large institutions (universities, prisons, mental institutions) that rely exclusively on trucks from mines in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia to move coal over 300 miles to sites in New York, New England and Pennsylvania. There are also coastal barges used to move native and import coal to steam plants and power stations as far north as Maine…