I read this article: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/shipper-coalition-urges-federal-regulators-to-permit-reciprocal-switching/
But I don’t think I really get what reciprocal switching is. And even if I sort of get it, I’m unclear on why it’s called “reciprocal switching.” Who is reciprocating what with whom?
Could someone give me a layman’s-level explanation of this? Like with an example using two railroads and a customer company, real or hypothetical.
[quote user="Lithonia Operator"]
I read this article: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/shipper-coalition-urges-federal-regulators-to-permit-reciprocal-switching/
But I don’t think I really get what reciprocal switching is. And even if I sort of get it, I’m unclear on why it’s called “reciprocal switching.” Who is reciprocating what with whom?
Could someone give me a layman’s-level explanation of this? Like with an example using two railroads and a customer company, real or hypothetical.
[/quote]
President’s Island, Memphis ,Tn. [ A mixed useage industrial area is islolated by a long Causway, with about a 3 mile (?) long railline.].
When it was ‘opened’ up, local railroads {then:IC, Frisco} split the switchng duties on what seemed to be a six month on, and 6 month off, roatation. MoPac would bring a cut of cars down about every day(?)} Did not see SouRwy, and L&N on The Island(?). I have no idea how it works these days- since copnsolidations have happened-( BNSF and IC now CN ). It seemed to be worked 24 hrs a day back then.
This article explains it well:
https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/stb_rolls_out_proposed_reciprocal_switching_regulations
The one thing that is not highlighted is the two to four day delay in car cycle times for cars that end up in a reciprocal switching arrangement.
Nominal 1 day delay in arriving carrier #1’s yard.
Switched to Carrier #2 on day 2 (if before 7 AM consignee is notified, if not the next 7 AM)
Day 3 or 4 car is switched to consignee in the next regular switch.
Cars will be delayed going back to Carrier #1, however there is no notification requirements.
Minimum delays are 2 days inbound and 2 days outbound, and possibly more.
That’s not a lot different from the single operator (CSX) operations here. Substitute “through freight with drops” for train number 1, and “local” for #2 and you’re on the mark. In fact, if the local is going south today, then the car will have to wait until tomorrow, when the local goes north, to be delivered to the consignee.
Remember - what you are effectively doing is piling one carriers normal operating delays on top of a second carriers normal operating delays - on both the inbound and outbound sides of any movements between the carriers. If the consignee doesn’t get daily switching even more days are added to the overall trip.
In other words, “it’s complicated…” No question about that.
If the businesses involved value car cycle time - reciprocal switching will add days to the cycle times and thus increase the number of cars that will be needed to sustain the same level of product transported.
Of the total number of rail customers served by only one railroad, what percentage of them would meet the logistical requirments to be granted the right to reciprocal switching? What percentage would actually take advanatage of it by installing the necessary trackwork? What would be done if both railroads involved in a reciprocal switching agreement offered almost the exact same price all of the time?
Reciprocal switching already exists at some locations. Where it does exist, it may not be extended to all customers. Right now, it’s done by mutual agreement of the railroads involved.
I don’t think it’s possible at this time to say how many new customers will benefit from forced reciprocal switching. It depends on how it’s done in the final form. One proposed scheme (proposed by a shipper’s group a few years back) had a zone of 31 miles from any interchange point. I’m sure that proposed zone would cover all the large customers, but leave out many others that are probably more dependent on rail than the large customers.
Installing new track (an interchange track) is a good question. There’s lots of places where railroads used to interchange cars, but those tracks have been removed. Could railroads be compelled to restore interchanges that, in many cases, have long since been removed?
I imagine, all things be equal, where two railroads offer the same price the one with better service will get the business. All things may not always be equal. A customer on railroad A may send/receive a lot of cars to points on railroad B. It may be in railroad A’s favor to grant reciprocal switching to railroad B in exchange for access to customers on B.
Jeff
[quote user=“jeffhergert”]
Euclid
Of the total number of rail customers served by only one railroad, what percentage of them would meet the logistical requirments to be granted the right to reciprocal switching? What percentage would actually take advanatage of it by installing the necessary trackwork? What would be done if both railroads involved in a reciprocal switching agreement offered almost the exact same price all of the time?
Reciprocal switching already exists at some locations. Where it does exist, it may not be extended to all customers. Right now, it’s done by mutual agreement of the railroads involved.
I don’t think it’s possible at this time to say how many new customers will benefit from forced reciprocal switching. It depends on how it’s done in the final form. One proposed scheme (proposed by a shipper’s group a few years back) had a zone of 31 miles from any interchange point. I’m sure that proposed zone would cover all the large customers, but leave out many others that are probably more dependent on rail than the large customers.
Installing new track (an interchange track) is a good question. There’s lots of places where railroads used to interchange cars, but those tracks have been removed. Could railroads be compelled to restore interchanges that, in many cases, have long since been removed?
I imagine, all things be equal, where two railroads offer the same price the one with better service will get the business. All things may not always be equal. A customer on railroad A may send/receive a lot of cars to points on railroad B. It may be in railroad A’s favor to grant recipro
I have mentioned this in previous threads involving reciprocal switching. The concept before the STB currently is similar to the interswitching process that has been in place in Canada since about 1986. Roughly 72-75% of rail served points in Canada may utilize interswitching. It has not harmed the railroads financially or operationally. It has not resulted in significant increases in transit time of shipments.
Prior to retirement my employer made extensive use of interswitching at our Canadian plants. Depending on the lane, our service generally was better than had we used the carrier serving us for the initial linehaul. By way of example, we had a production site in Valleyfield, PQ that was switched by CN. About 2-3 miles distant was a CN/CSX interchange yard known as Cecile Junction. We could have routed shipments to the southeastern US via CN over Buffalo thence CSX (which was the routing protocol CN insisted on) but, by utilizing interswitching and having CN deliver the traffic to CSX at Cecile, we actually saved at least 4-5 days. And CN’s interswitching fee was simply included in the CSX linehaul rate and invisible to us.
We also used interswitching for awhile to move traffic from the same production site to destinations in the south central US on KCS. To reach KCS, we could use either CN or, through interswitching - CP. We would have both carriers bid on these lanes when contracts came up for renewal. In these instances, as Balt notes previously, the CP routing had slightly longer transit times (2 days longer, if memory serves) but, that was more than offset at times by CP providing more competitive rates over their portion of the move. CN eventually got “the message” and started using a sharper pencil when providing contract quotes.
Interswitching or reciprocal switching won’t necessarily be the best answer in every situation so shippers need to make intelligent decisions on where and when to use it.
CW
Reciprocal switching is not new. It goes back before railroad deregulation when rates were overseen by the ICC.
Jeff
I would like to see Model Railroader run an article or a column on how reciprocal switching could be incorporated into a model train layout operating session.
In addition to persons serving as “road crews” and “switching crews” and “dispatchers”, you could add to the fun of model train operation by having some of your friends serve as “attorneys” and “STB administrators” working out the details of reciprocal switching on your pike?
On model railroads; the rates are always rock bottom and the service first class! Don’t need no stinking reciprocal switching! 
CW
The rates may be rock bottom, but do model train operators always keep up with the operating session fast clock?
Derailments can be frequent, but most model railroads have the graffiti situation under control?
Model railroads don’t have to call Hulcher or other contractors for their derailments - just the big hand of the operator.
True, but if there are frequent derailments, a person hosting a model-train operating session at their layout suffers social embarrassment and loss-of-face with ones friends? Depending on the drop, some derailments can do serious damage to prized pieces of model rolling stock?
Also, are “re-railing frogs” a thing of the past for low-speed derailments in yards on switches or sharp curves, or are cranes called out in every instance?
(1) The train crew is not re-railing their mistake (and not reporting it)
(2) The train crew is rules compliant on both railroads and knows the territory?
(3) The rerailing frogs (and wood blocks) generally are in the possession of the mechanical department, understaffed and many miles away. Then there is the issue of damaging more track as they drag things up and destroy more track (suddenly exceeding the threshold of FRA reportable … which they always object to [:-,]) … a CAT 980 or 988 loader is preferred to a crane or the damned side-boom tracked CATs that tear up even more track.
In 1:1 scale railroading -
That I am aware of the 3 hour Arbitrary payment for crews rerailing cars they derailed no longer exists. Pictures from the steam era tend to show tenders being equipped with rerailing frogs - pictures of diesels of that era and of today do not tend to show them carrying rerailing frogs. Rerailing frogs still exist and are in the hands of Car Dept, they als