 |
Re: Lawsuit not filed; letter sent: Smart is hurting and impeding north bay business
Author: Shortline Sammie
Date: 07-20-2014 - 11:27
mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, the letter was not a lawsuit, it was a
> letter. As with others here, I don't see the words
> lawsuit in it anywhere. However, it clearly sets
> out NWP's position and if a suit (or proceeding
> before STB) occurs, the letter clearly describes
> the basic structure of the case.
>
> Next, if it truly is supposed to be a 45 mph
> railroad for freight (were the old tracks good for
> that?), then 15 mph gauntlet tracks for freight at
> the stations are a problem. Freight trains don't
> stop there; passenger trains do. So it makes sense
> for the gauntlet track to be used by passenger
> instead of freight (with higher-speed switches of
> course) to reduce operational problems for both.
> That's what other systems do, as documented in the
> letter.
>
> The spurs are an interesting question. Other
> railroads actively remove switches because they
> don't want spur tracks off main lines. If they're
> not actively used, they're a maintenance and
> potential derailment issue, not to mention adding
> a few bumps to the ride for other trains. So SMART
> isn't out of the ordinary in wanting them gone.
> However, most of those "other railroads" are Class
> I's and large regionals. The freight service on
> NWP is anything but "through" and those spurs are
> its business. So SMART has a problem: how do you
> provide service for the freight line (which they
> are supposed to do) while maintaining the ride
> etc. for passengers? The way is to install new
> switches of adequate quality with appropriate
> controls tied into the dispatching system. Not
> rocket science. On "real railroads" the customer
> usually has to pay for those, but if they already
> have (had) one they should not have to pay for a
> replacement if it's for the railroad's benefit not
> theirs. If SMART's worried that some are in
> inconvenient locations on the main line, there's a
> solution that's been around for almost 200 years:
> the drill track. The Long Island Railroad (to
> which SMART will hardly be comparable in passenger
> traffic density) also has freight service, and
> spurs, and of course drill tracks.
>
> Pulling out the freight line's only real yard, and
> key passing sidings, is just dumb. Do these people
> not talk to each other? (Given what's been posted
> here, and in the news, I don't think that question
> really needs an answer.)
>
> Bottom line: If SMART continues with it's
> (no-)freight-related activities, this letter
> provides the basic case that will be filed,
> somewhere. SMART & NWP (NCRA) need each other to
> maintain that line, and freight service is useful
> in the North Bay even if only "as needed" on a
> terminal switching line. Good move, though, to try
> to bring MTC into it - without their funding SMART
> wouldn't exist, and bankers often can provide a
> pointed education if they see their investment at
> risk.
As to removing the existing turnouts;
At one time each potential industry that wanted rail service applied to the serving railroad for an "Industry Track Agreement" the cost of which was generally absorbed by the railroad over a period of time on some kind of a "per car" formula. In most cases where new traffic was substantial the railroad installed the turnout solely at its expense; where traffic was questionable the industry would put up a "deposit" of say 50% and the rest worked out between the parties. $400,000 to re-install a turnout is absurd!
Generally the turnout was owned and maintained by the railroad to the "clear point" which is a point where the diverging spur was thirteen feet center to center (or to and including the derail if so equipped) and the industry built, maintained and paid for the portion of the trackage past that point.
My take on this as a shortline owner is that the existing turnouts are still party to any existing Agreement between the NWP (both old and new) and the industry and is property of the railroad and a part of their common-carrier obligation SMART's obligation is to re-install and maintain it so long as the shipper is willing to provide sufficient traffic. SMART is not a common carrier and should keep their noses out of NWP's business.
Regards,
Dick Samuels
Oregon Pacific Railroad
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, the letter was not a lawsuit, it was a
> letter. As with others here, I don't see the words
> lawsuit in it anywhere. However, it clearly sets
> out NWP's position and if a suit (or proceeding
> before STB) occurs, the letter clearly describes
> the basic structure of the case.
>
> Next, if it truly is supposed to be a 45 mph
> railroad for freight (were the old tracks good for
> that?), then 15 mph gauntlet tracks for freight at
> the stations are a problem. Freight trains don't
> stop there; passenger trains do. So it makes sense
> for the gauntlet track to be used by passenger
> instead of freight (with higher-speed switches of
> course) to reduce operational problems for both.
> That's what other systems do, as documented in the
> letter.
>
> The spurs are an interesting question. Other
> railroads actively remove switches because they
> don't want spur tracks off main lines. If they're
> not actively used, they're a maintenance and
> potential derailment issue, not to mention adding
> a few bumps to the ride for other trains. So SMART
> isn't out of the ordinary in wanting them gone.
> However, most of those "other railroads" are Class
> I's and large regionals. The freight service on
> NWP is anything but "through" and those spurs are
> its business. So SMART has a problem: how do you
> provide service for the freight line (which they
> are supposed to do) while maintaining the ride
> etc. for passengers? The way is to install new
> switches of adequate quality with appropriate
> controls tied into the dispatching system. Not
> rocket science. On "real railroads" the customer
> usually has to pay for those, but if they already
> have (had) one they should not have to pay for a
> replacement if it's for the railroad's benefit not
> theirs. If SMART's worried that some are in
> inconvenient locations on the main line, there's a
> solution that's been around for almost 200 years:
> the drill track. The Long Island Railroad (to
> which SMART will hardly be comparable in passenger
> traffic density) also has freight service, and
> spurs, and of course drill tracks.
>
> Pulling out the freight line's only real yard, and
> key passing sidings, is just dumb. Do these people
> not talk to each other? (Given what's been posted
> here, and in the news, I don't think that question
> really needs an answer.)
>
> Bottom line: If SMART continues with it's
> (no-)freight-related activities, this letter
> provides the basic case that will be filed,
> somewhere. SMART & NWP (NCRA) need each other to
> maintain that line, and freight service is useful
> in the North Bay even if only "as needed" on a
> terminal switching line. Good move, though, to try
> to bring MTC into it - without their funding SMART
> wouldn't exist, and bankers often can provide a
> pointed education if they see their investment at
> risk.
As to removing the existing turnouts;
At one time each potential industry that wanted rail service applied to the serving railroad for an "Industry Track Agreement" the cost of which was generally absorbed by the railroad over a period of time on some kind of a "per car" formula. In most cases where new traffic was substantial the railroad installed the turnout solely at its expense; where traffic was questionable the industry would put up a "deposit" of say 50% and the rest worked out between the parties. $400,000 to re-install a turnout is absurd!
Generally the turnout was owned and maintained by the railroad to the "clear point" which is a point where the diverging spur was thirteen feet center to center (or to and including the derail if so equipped) and the industry built, maintained and paid for the portion of the trackage past that point.
My take on this as a shortline owner is that the existing turnouts are still party to any existing Agreement between the NWP (both old and new) and the industry and is property of the railroad and a part of their common-carrier obligation SMART's obligation is to re-install and maintain it so long as the shipper is willing to provide sufficient traffic. SMART is not a common carrier and should keep their noses out of NWP's business.
Regards,
Dick Samuels
Oregon Pacific Railroad
