On various threads, Future Modal has interjected his open access “thoughts” into the mix. Several (OK-dozens of us [:D]) have had discussions with Dave about various issues on the subject. It’s somewhat hard for me to follow this ongoing,evolving discussion on several different threads at once. It can also get distracting for me and many others.
Can we consolidate all this discussion to this one thread? I’m not 100% in disagreement with FM on the subject (99% maybe[:)]),but I do think we all could learn something by calmly discussing it. That being said, if this isn’t your bag’ or gets your blood pressure up too much, please pass on to the next thread. At the same time, can we try to keep on topic?
I’ll try to control my sarcastic tounge. At the same time, I would ask Dave to control his “avalanche” of words. Like Joe Friday used to say-“just the facts”. If Dave dumps 1000 words at a time, the whole thing goes astray. I’m an analyzer, tending to ask questions, and thinking over the answers. Don’t overload my senses please.
So… Future Modal: In the grand scheme of things -How would this open access system work, when the Future Model Open Access Company (FMOAC) owns the rails,and the Murphy Southern Railroad ( MSR) wants to run trains over it?
Please note: [:)] means I’m just kidding! Please don’t take anything I say too seriously. I’m not an expert on anything. In fact, a fair amount of the time, I don’t know what I’m talking about LOL.
Post was edited to make it more user friendly. Murphy Siding
Post was re-edited to clear up questions about whether the subject was railroads,or supermodels [B)][:)]
Murphy,
Up here in Canada CP is spending hundreds of millions to increase capacity on their western main. They refused to go ahead with it until they got assurances from the federal Government that there would be no open access. Rail companies are not going to spend money on their lines and have someone else use them.
I think there is a safety factor as well. Railroads do not want to share their lines with “no-frills” railroads which could have poorly trained crews and unsafe equipment.
Can you imagine a new railroad operating a Spokane-Los Angeles Trailers (SPLAT) which could run into something. Splat !
nanaimo73: Did you post something, and then delete it? I read the post,then put some burgers on the grill. When I came back it was gone. I presume you meant for it to be a humorous comment, because I did get a good laugh out of it. [^]
Future Modal: I hope you’re not staying away from this thread because you may think I’m setting you up. Far from that, I’m looking forward to a good discussion on a subject that seems to be pretty well thought in your view? So…what do you think?
Not to worry! I tend to not to take life too seriously. I was more worried about halucinations I guess.[:)]. Can you think of any good reason why Future Model would avoid this thread like the plague? Now I’ll have to go back to the Shoe-fly bridge post to check that out![:O]
Since this is your thread, can I suggest you edit the topic title to the MSOAT? Thanks.
In the meantime, I am hoping someone with subcription access to the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy can provide us some of the more salient conclusions of John Bitzan’s rail competition study. I have my doubts about that study taking on the more evolved aspects of the open access debate that have found their way into this forum, such as:
Cost “equalization” of ROW construction and maintenance costs among all the transport modes. Most rail studies seem to lump all rail associated costs into the “cost of capital” category, making it difficult to ascertain what percentage is soley due to track construction and maintenance.
Somewhat related - how the use of property tax exemptions and/or maintenance tax credits for the infrastructure would affect the entire cost structure of railroads.
The apportioned costs of track usage on a speed x axle weight basis. From what I’ve found, there are studies that analyze speed affects on track wear, and studies that analyze how axle weights affect track wear, but not a combination study. For an open access analysis, the hypothesis that needs to be tested is the aspect of maximizing slot utilization vs maximizing load factor, and how both can be sythesized into the most optimal operation.
I’m still waiting for the evidence that the power industry is behind the open access conspiracy. Here all this time I thought it was comprehensively relegated to captive rail shippers.
Speaking of conspiracies, isn’t it logical to assume that if the railroad industry had a bunch of studies that showed open access won’t work, they would want to publicize these studies rather than keeping them secret?
It was the uncertainty related to a potential change in costing formulas that was more likely the cause of the alleged delay in CP’s line “upgrades”, not any assurances regarding a no open access guarantee that aided in CP’s project start. Uncertainty regading any future operation changes will cause corporations to be very conservative when it come to capital expansion projects. Since the Canadian government themselves had no idea how they would even implement such a concept as open access, it stands to reason they have decided to wait a while until the concept is more detailed.
CP’s expenditures are mostly focused on the western mainlines to “increase” capacity to Vancouver, but it is curious that they project only 4 additional trains per day with this multi-million dollar project. Logic says they would have been better off if other rail transporters had participated in this project to share the costs. Maybe then they could have spent more money more judiciously to get more than a measly 4 train per day increase. I seriously doubt that the revenues from only 4 additional trains per day is going to improve CP’s ability to recover their cost of capital, especially if these 4 extra trains per day are low margin intermodal. It wouldn’t suprise me if CP’s cost of capital recovery actually gets worse after this.
Boy do I feel dumb!-In a super model sort of way.[:I]. Thanks for the heads up. I went back and fixed all the modal / model mistakes so that future readers will think you’re picking on me / rather than that I are a dummy!![}:)]
What do you want ?
Are you concerned with South Dakota’s farmers ?
Did Dakota Southern get the trackage rights they wanted to Sioux City Iowa, and will this mean they are going to re-open the line to Chamberlain, or Kadoka ? Are DME and DMVW now allowed to interchange in Aberdeen ? Do you want DAIR to expand further ? How far do you want to go with trains in the Greater Dakota Co-Properity Sphere ?
Costings or pricing seems to be a stumbling block. What to host companies charge now for detours due to maintenance or weather problems by tenant companies. Could open access be restricted to short lines or class threes ( I’m not sure of the guidelines for this class ) in the hope they will chase smaller shippers thus getting more freight on rail and off the road. I suppose finally what is stopping a non rail company from building a track and letting anyone who is willing to pay use it if it reduces costs due to better alignment etc.
In a small response to Part 3, may I offer an area of concern. Splitting infrastructure and operating into separate companies poses a big managerial problem in dealing with the conflict generated by the issue of the how and when to perform track maintenance. As you might realize, the track fixing folks would like to be able to shut down a piece of railroad for as long as necessary to get the job done, as that can be the most cost effective way to get the job done. The operating types say “Are you nuts? What are we supposed to do with are trains, run them out through the cornfields?” If these guys work for the same place, the solution is simple. Their mutual boss says shut up and figure out a compromise that is in the best overall interest of the company.
Just to show the potential, on the other post I cited Fred Frailey’s September Trains article on the problems on the joint BNSF/UP Orin Sub on the Powder River Basin Line.
The deal is the BNSF is to do the maintanance and the costs are split. Both companies have an extremely vested interested in keeping that line in top shape and both send people out on frequent joint inspection trips.
As you might expect, coal dust flies off the loads, gets down in the ballast and raises hell with drainage. With a four year drought, no precipitation, no problem. Get this year’s heavy spring rains and snows and you wind up with a railroad better suited for swamp buggy races than coal trains. “Omaha to Fort Worth, we’ve got a problem!” The article says that *** Davidson went to see Matt Rose to personally express his extreme displeasure and attorneys have been put on alert.
Now, you can bet that this piece of railroad is going to be fixed as quick as possible, as both parties are hurt badly by the problem. Here is an interesting twist. The Norfolk Southern gets prevention by ordering its coal mine customers to configure the load trim and coat the coal in a manner to minimize dust. That is a cost born by the mines. The
Open access is kind of happening between the class 1s. For example, CN and CP share a line between Port Colborne and Fort Erie just because it is easier; NS is sharing the lines between Michigan and Chicago if I’m not mistaken, CN and CP have really partenered up in B.C with directional traffic…
I believe that Open Acess is in the process of evolution of trackage rights and agreements with other class 1s-railroads that trust other railroads. Certain regionals and shortlines with a reputation that is favoured by the class 1s such as Rail America and Ontario Northland, get to have more access to their lines such as the GEXR which gets to run on the Halton Subdivision and interchanges directly at CN MacMillan Yard near Brampton if I’m not mistaken. CN wouldn’t allow that if they weren’t certain the crews and equipment were safe enough to operate on their system. That is the key for the class 1s to consider open access.
nanimo72: that just about killed me!LOL One of my other diversions is reading a lot of history books. That only a very few people in the country would understand the reference to the Greater Dakota Co-Prosperity Sphere made it even funnier.[bow]
To your questions:
I think the Dakota Southern is pretty much dead in the water right now. The line to Chamberlain is overgrown in weeds. From Chamberlain to Kadoka, it looks like the prairie is trying to reclaim it.
DME and DMVW may be getting interchange through Aberdeen as part of BNSF buying the S.D. tracks
You are correct that there are many places where either by regulatory order or contract agreement an owning road has granted operating rights to another railroad. In the case of regulatory orders, that usually has been to maintain or increase competition. I think where joint usage agreement has developed without a regulatory order, operating efficiency has more often been the driving force. In some cases, the large railroads have given up low density lines, often branches, on the premise that the new little guy can make a buck while the big carrier can put its resources to more profitable business.
These deals are quite controled by the principals, and on that, are different than the proposal to contemplated by open access where anybody that wants to can get in.
Jay - If indeed the coal dust was the primary cause of the line deterioration, then in the open access concept of the regulated infrastructure, that problem is borne to the mines by the governing body that regulates the infrastructure. Since coating the coal is cheaper than using covered hoppers, it becomes the solution prima facia, and it falls to the entity most able to comply. If the problems were with the rolling stock, then the cost of the solution would be borne on all the transporters. That’s one of the advantages of a split organization, you are less likely to get the “I don’t care how you do it, just get it done” attitude that becomes apparent in vertically stacked corporations, e.g. there is better open accountability. That way you avoid Enronizing the problems.
Thanks for the contribution. I am hoping this thread gets more responses from the Aussies, since their open access system is more predicated to freight than the European systems, thus would provide more basis for analyzing an OE affect on NA.