 |
Re: Deadline Nears on Coos Bay Rail Line Purchase
Author: SP5103
Date: 02-01-2009 - 17:09
If you had a business that needed rail service on a "questionable" rail line - where do you gamble your money?
Do you keep investing in your physical plant assuming that you will have rail service in the future? Do you "invest" additional money in the rail line?
I think many shippers are having trouble the justification in investing money (especially in these times) in a "questionable" rail service versus planning on relocating their operations to a mainline (or other sustainable rail line); or just planning on reloading which often gives them the option of more than one carrier.
While most businesses will publically yell and scream that they must have dependable rail service, few are willing to invest their own money, pay any surcharge, or even commit to shipping everything they resonably can by rail instead of truck.
Unless there is a change in the situation (fuel shortages, subsidies, re-regulation), I believe any shortline that does not have a substantial traffic base in comparison to its track length (and operating/maintenance challenges) is an endangered species.
The current figure being promoted is that a shortline must move 100 loads per track mile per year. I do know of some operations that are succesful at a lesser rate, but have also worked on those with far less. Unless you only have 10 or 20 miles of average track, you had better have annual carloads in the thousands, not hundreds.
Do you keep investing in your physical plant assuming that you will have rail service in the future? Do you "invest" additional money in the rail line?
I think many shippers are having trouble the justification in investing money (especially in these times) in a "questionable" rail service versus planning on relocating their operations to a mainline (or other sustainable rail line); or just planning on reloading which often gives them the option of more than one carrier.
While most businesses will publically yell and scream that they must have dependable rail service, few are willing to invest their own money, pay any surcharge, or even commit to shipping everything they resonably can by rail instead of truck.
Unless there is a change in the situation (fuel shortages, subsidies, re-regulation), I believe any shortline that does not have a substantial traffic base in comparison to its track length (and operating/maintenance challenges) is an endangered species.
The current figure being promoted is that a shortline must move 100 loads per track mile per year. I do know of some operations that are succesful at a lesser rate, but have also worked on those with far less. Unless you only have 10 or 20 miles of average track, you had better have annual carloads in the thousands, not hundreds.
