Ackman/canadian pacific

[farmaholic]

ado089:

"For a bunch of people who were viscerally opposed to a monopoly on grain buying, myself included, you sure are complacent to a the existence of a transportation monopoly"

I was thinking the same thing just the other day.

[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.