Is CN Rail Just a F--k up!

[SASKFARMER3]

We have a terminal that sits on a CN line it has been plugged to the rafters since Nov. CN has been so poor with Cars and spotting them the terminal cant even clean because its that full. They dropped off cars finally to be loaded Christmas day. HA HA HA. Then threatened to fine (20,000) the terminal for not getting it loaded. Yet just to south and west on CP no problems guys are hauling all is well. Starting to bug me. Hauling to south cant wait for CN to get their act together.

[Koldkanuck]

CN is and always will be a F--k up. No different in other parts of Sask. as far as I know.

[SASKFARMER3]

Thanks I thought we were the only ones that were getting a raw deal from them. Or maybe its the terminal that's screwing up but looks like its our Number 2 railway.

[ado089]

Same BS in Battleford.

[fjlip]

Same in Wadena. Siding full of loaded cars. Even blocked Viterra access road for a few days.

[Burbert]

Competition will likely clear up the back log. CN Rail will then suffer, cause customers will go elsewhere. OHHHHHH, I forgot, there is nowhere else to go. Our railway friends have a monopoly, or almost. CP will fill the gap, or do they have a gentleman's agreement, not to cut each others throat. Hence crappy service is the benchmark, which has been set, time and time again. Maybe they want their annual freight rate increase. Isn't that the way big business works????

[Fransisco]

Wheat board's doing a bang up job of keeping CN in line. Good thing we've got them watching our backs for us.

[dave4441]

I will throw this out. Revenue cap should likely be removed from the system. Could you imagine if someone told you your farm could only make so much money and at the end of the year you had to give back the last X number of dollars (last dollars are of course pure profit) because you performed better then the year before. I do not like the railways any more then anyone else, but what incentive is there to increase performance if they have to give the profits back??? If rates are controlled on a per MT basis, what sense does it make to cap the number of cars they haul.

[furrowtickler]

A forked tounge there burbot, your statement flies in the face of your blind cwb monopoly support.

[fjlip]

September 25, 2008
Winnipeg – A ruling today by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is a step forward in the long struggle to ensure adequate rail service for Prairie grain, according to six western Canadian grain shippers.

The shippers, who launched a major level-of-service complaint against CN Rail in September 2007, welcomed today’s decision to establish performance benchmarks to measure CN rail service for grain.
The CTA found CN Rail to be in breach of its legal obligations to provide adequate rail service for grain in 2007-08 to four of the six grain shippers. However, the CWB – the single largest grain shipper – is disappointed that the Agency has discounted data for eight shipping weeks in which CN’s performance was the most damaging to the CWB’s sales program and farmers’ bottom line.

GNP Transportation & Logistics manager Perry Pellerin, who represents five Prairie inland grain terminals, said he was pleased that the CTA found CN in breach of its service obligations to North East Terminal, North West Terminal, Paterson Grain and Parrish & Heimbecker.

He said CN’s continuous unilateral changes to grain transportation programs risk squeezing smaller and single-point grain shippers out of business. Several of these terminals are owned or partly owned by farmers themselves. Ongoing service shortfalls have left shippers and farmers at a disadvantage in a system designed to serve the needs of the railway alone, he added.
n March 2007, Great Northern Grain (GNG) of Nampa, Alberta filed a complaint against CN that was backed by 10 other Prairie shippers. GNG won its case, but CN refused to comply with the system-wide implications of that CTA ruling, leading to the new complaint that was decided today. In January, the CTA issued a partial ruling in the case, deeming CN to have breached its legal obligations to all six complainants for grain transportation in 2006-07. The Agency reserved decision on 2007-08, pending further information.
“Without adequate competition in Canada’s rail system, there must be some way to ensure accessible service for all shippers – not just a select few,” Bruch said. “The laws governing grain shipping were created in recognition of this imbalance. It’s a shame that we are forced to continually battle to have CN comply with those laws.”

Weisensel said the onus is now on CN as to how it responds to the spirit and letter of today’s CTA decision.

“The concept of performance measures is good and the Agency has encouraged further dialogue to ensure that those measures are adequate and reasonable,” he said. “We are very keen to participate in such a dialogue as soon as possible.”

The grain shippers involved in this case are: the CWB, North East Terminal, Parrish & Heimbecker, Paterson Grain, Providence Grain Group and North West Terminal. The case is actively supported by Great Northern Grain Terminals, Great Sandhills Terminal, Prairie West Terminal, South West Terminal and Weyburn Inland Terminal.


As it is stated, we have NO competition, that is the reason some sort of rules are needed, maybe new or better ones. Only lawyers get rich every time some one is sued. This is very childish and dumb. Compromise is needed, like in all agreements.