Michael Bourque, Railway Association of Canada: Facts - Not Politics - Should Shape Canada's Grain

[bucket]

Open running rights should be implemented asap.

I live near a line CP services. All points are the same grain co.

The last point on the line has a locomotive and a 112 car spot. They could shuttle cars from a point just outside of moose jaw from either major and service their points. Weekly regular service could be implemented.

There is an idea. Utilize all points in an effective way, provide regular service, move the grain, save the highways.

Oops I better go wrap up in tin foil again.

[Braveheart]

Open running rights, nothing would change. The new entrant would cherry pick the high tariff traffic and leave the rest.

Plus, its property that belongs to the railroad. Once you go down the road of confiscating property where does it stop? It's a slippery slope.

Expanded interswitching limits helps but doesn't infringe on property rights.

[farmaholic]

....ask Sasktel.

[bucket]

Ok let's talk interswitching. The cp line I talked about comes out of moose jaw and there is a cn connection somewhere nearby. It would fall within the new 160 km. Why doesn't the local call cn to service them ?

Because graincos won't force the issue. Neither will he government.

And the railways never built the lines or bought the land they sit on. It was a ****ing gift to ensure this country moved forward.

[bucket]

And Braveheart thanks for shitting on my idea.

That's a productive way to find solutions.

[farmaholic]

"Shane" on you for hayseed suggestions...

[Hopalong]

Think Oliver 99 has some good suggestions.
Trouble is, shippers and railways do not seem willing to talk to each other.
Revenue cap and regulated rates still rankle with railways even though they are doing very well with them in short term.
By the same token, the shippers(grain companies) are biggest defenders of status quo.
Farmers often support grain companies in opposing change to revenue entitlement and I have to wonder why.

[Braveheart]

The non or at least less regulated system would involve a commercial rail logistics system.

Binding contracts between shippers and carrier with specified penalties in detailed within the contracts in case of on performance by either party would be the base of the system.

Right now, car allocation is still kind of a lassez-faire arrangement of orders matched with car supply to a zone within which the grain co head office decides which delivery point gets what. No contract exists specifying car spot date, late charges or demmurage if contract is non performed.

There is no doubt an arbiter would have to be appointed to negotiate the contract details after all, these parties would hardly agree to agree.

Contracts would allow for real courts to be involved in disputes rather than the kangaroo court we call the CTA.

[Braveheart]

To be clear about joint running rights, it's not my aim to shit on ideas. I don't think it would work for the reason I posted. I'm open. Convince me what difference it would make. What startup railway would invest money, apply for the right, operate under a revenue cap, and haul in Canada's brutal winter? Would you be a shareholder?

[Braveheart]

My fully regulated idea would be to place high tariffs on railway high revenue traffic, ie. intermodal and/or oil. The tariffs would be returned to railways incrementally as grain targets were met. Meet all targets and railways would get their full consideration.

The tariffs would have to be punitive enough to force performance on the grain side.

[Braveheart]

Revenue cap would stay in place in both examples.

Producer cars have to be protected, always. New Producer car loading spots should be available to new applicants.

[Braveheart]

Infrastructure, including loop tracks, twinning track, etc. would naturally evolve to make meeting commercial obligations or regulatory targets easier and more efficient.

[farmaholic]

Braveheart, ask oil and intermodal what they think of your model. The carrot turns into a stick, at their expense. Sounds like a subsidy to grain traffic to me.

If farming was a "normal" business that enabled us to pass on our increased costs, even if that would be higher rail freight, we could effectively compete with others for capacity. But it isn't a normal business and there is no competition to keep rail rates at "competitive" levels.

This isn't poo-pooing your idea, just the way I see it. Keep them coming.

[Braveheart]

You're right Farmaholic, this idea is a stick not a carrot.

The tariff would be paid by the railways calculated against rates applied to the underlying traffic. I'm sure intermodal and oil wouldn't like it, but, as a farmer dependent on rail, I haven't appreciated having our business displaced by intermodal or oil.

There would be no reason for any slowdown for anyone's transportation needs providing adequate performance.

As far as poo pooing ideas, that's all they are right now. If they can't stand up to criticism they were never any good anyway.

This is just how I like to brainstorm. Throw out ideas no matter how corny. It might inspire someone with good suggestions or approaches.

[Rareearth]

I'm not wishing for anything, just thinking out loud.

If ,if, if there was a two month rail strike by the union because they can, (and it cold in the winter) and also have rights, what would that impact be to Western Canada, not just the grain industry but all commodity types plus finished retail goods?
How many billions?
No one can question "essential service" under this scenario, can they?