BNSF is storing wells on a grain hauling branchline, and this has the locals all worked up…
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/02/06/breaker/doc43e7e84173183438317642.txt
OH…NOOOOOOO. The BN did it again!
Hey…would you rather have Loaded chemical cars that leak in on that 20 miles of track?
Durn them for using their tracks to store their cars.
And, by golly, the nerve of the BNSF, blocking the wonderful view of the fields on the other side of the tracks!
We ought to get a rope…
Ed
At least they haven’t ripped up the line yet. There foranuate to still have this route avaiable if needed.
Some people out in south-central Wisconsin were all bent out of shape about the Wisconsin & Southern parking railcars on a stretch of track along WIS-78. The line is basically a dead-end, the bridge at its north end having had some serious problems several years back. Suggestions were made as to the railroad moving the cars to a rail yard, yeah right, the railroad NEVER uses that… but this dead-end line should be cleared off so motorists can “see the scenery…”
Well, at least it got my name into the Wisconsin State Journal, when a researcher called me… [swg]
This is the line from Pacific Jct., MT west of Havre to Great Falls and then on to Helena, MT. This line is cut between Big Sandy and Ft Benton though the rails are still in. There is a washout of less than 50 yards between Cascade and Helena on the southern segment. BNSF seems satisfied to leave the lines severed but has announced some improvements between Great Falls and Ft. Benton to serve elevators there.
It should be noted there will be little if any graffitti applied to the cars where they are parked now.
Yards are the bottleneck of the railroad - so why store cars in your most congested spot. I see cars stored on branch lines and remote, currently unused passing sidings all over. Yes, I know that there are specifically designed/designated storage yards - but seasonal car inventories do not need to be centrally located.
dd
Reminds of a similar situation back in the 80’s, when the Nez Perce and Idaho Railroad (owned by local farmer Joe Lux) was making money storing RailBox cars on practically the whole length of the line. The ICC came in and said no no no, either operate a railroad or quit. So Joe quit.
It was too bad that it came to that. Storing the railcars was a way for the line to make some money, e.g. remain viable in a semi-mothball sort of way. Perhaps ole Joe could have made enough to eventually bring his line up to the minimal 10 mph standard. The line terminated in Nez Perce Idaho, and if you’ve ever been there you can see tons of elevator capacity that could easily have been revived once real service resumed. Thanks to the ICC, the line never got the second chance it deserved.
It would seem to me that revitalizing a piece of infrastructure that has seen use for the delivery of 4 cars since 2003 makes the issue rather moot.
Yea, Use it or loose it, but quit whineing about it.
It’s interesting to note that Montana farmers want all these branches kept in place for their occasional [:-^] use but are unwilling to pay extra for their upkeep.
I note from the article, that there is a polititian involved, who’s running for a higher office. Surely, his comments wouldn’t contain some sort of ulterior motive?[;)]
If this is such a wonderfull asset for a railroad to own, why doesn’t BNSF put a for sale sign on it? Even if BNSF can’t see the real value of the line, the new owners could whip it into shape. They could laugh all the way to the bank. BNSF could only sit and wonder how the new owners would be making money off a worn-out(?) rail line with no traffic. Surely, this would teach BNSF a lesson about how to run a railroad.[;)].
(( Author’s note for clarity: [;)] icon was used to signify sarcasm, as there is no “intellegent donkey” smilie.))[:)]
~
It is standard procedure for railroads to store excess cars on sidings or branch lines during slow periods (e.g. Off grain season they store covered hoppers, etc). So I do not think anyone shuld get bent out of shape over this.
Depends on what you consider those extra-high grain rates are paying for.
Best regards, Michael Sol
The farmers would certainly use the lines more if the BNSF had not set the rates much higher than on the mainlines. The BNSF’s stated goal is to reduce and eliminate all the track that is not in the top earnings category. They only want to keep the trackage that earns about 90% of the revenue for the railroad. Using rates and facilities will allow the railroad to move a chunk of the last 10% to mainline shipping locations regardless of the costs to the shipper.
Let’s see now, the farmers seem to expect BNSF to eat most of the expense of maintaining a branch that barely sees any traffic so they can get a rate similar to that of a community on the main line. If the farmers are the only shippers on the branch and don’t like the rate, perhaps they should set up a co-op to buy the branch and operate it themselves so they can charge themselves the lower rate to which they feel entitled.
BNSF actively encouraged this policy for a while, but then stopped cooperating with their short line spin-offs. Off course, you said this tongue-in-cheek, I am sure, as the joint rate set on such shipments is billed out by BNSF at the full rate, regardless of what the short line sets. MRL tried this for its shippers, BNSF simply billed the full rate, and kept that portion of the rate that MRL had attempted to discount to the shipper as a reduction in the MRL portion of the rate.
Now, if MRL can’t make it work, do you actually think it is a real-world proposal for the co-ops or farmers to spend a bunch of money to try the same thing? How often does this suggestion have to be made, before you would note how many times it has been tried and failed, because of “changes in policy” which constantly keeps that particular industry off-balance in terms of what to invest in and what not to invest in.
Best regards, Michael Sol
Now let’s see here. The BNSF jacks up the branchline rate and then expects the taxpayers to eat most of the expense of increased road maintenance due to the grain being trucked to the new mainline elevators. BNSF has shifted part of their costs to the local government who’s tax base includes the same farmers trying to ship grain competitively from the elevator in their back yard.
Buying the line and operating it as a co-op like the grain elevator is a great idea in theory but the reality is BNSF wants to they will raise the joint rate to a level that still makes trucking the grain to the mainline more attractive than using the co-op elevator and railroad. Think monopoly with a 900 lb gorilla here.
It’s amazing the similarities between ex-BN branches/underutilized BNSF branches in Montana and those in Eastern Washington. At least in Washington BNSF has WATCO as it’s official scapegoat.
Hmmmm, perhaps ol’ Rocky was really a scapegoat symbol!