mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NWP is *not* "screwed" as other commenters have
> stated, but must continue to do a little dance
> with the LPG cars at Lombard whenever other cars
> arrive for interchange, using a Cal Northern
> siding. I agree with the commissioner who points
> out that this carries far more potential for an
> incident than just parking them at Schellville,
> pending a decision on the bigger issue (whether
> SMART can prohibit those cars from being on the
> line, period).
>
> This decision is really quite piddly and
> essentially says NWP needs no injunction because
> if figured out a workaround, regardless of how
> goofy it might be. So life will go one, the cars
> at Schellville are still there, the (apparently
> loaded) cars at Lombard are still there and will
> remain there indefinitely, and some other cars
> that are bound for NWP are parked out there
> somewhere waiting for things to be resolved. Not a
> particularly pleasant decisions for NWP, but not
> necessarily pointing toward a final resolution
> either.
>
> Valid question might be: who is NWP storing the
> cars for? If it's a local oil company, presumably
> the NWP contract with them could be broken
> somehow, and the cars "returned to sender." Is car
> storage other than while in transit to/from an
> on-line customer part of common carriage? If the
> cars have to be sent back, NWP would lose money on
> the storage fees, which would affect them
> financially, but so far I haven't hear that this
> is a break-the-bank proposition. Is it? Anyway,
> the 10/20 decision was on a side issue, not the
> main one, so don't get SMART-happy or -angry yet.

But, that is the main issue - that by contact, NWP is not permitted to store hazardous materials on SMART's property - which is what the STB cited in its ruling. The cars at Schellville are SIT (Store In Transit) for an off-line party. They're not consigned to an NWP customer. That's not permitted under NWP's contract.