Ackman/canadian pacific

[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.

[farmaholic]

Braveheart, ask oil and intermodal what they think of your model. The carrot turns into a stick, at their expense. Sounds like a subsidy to grain traffic to me.

If farming was a "normal" business that enabled us to pass on our increased costs, even if that would be higher rail freight, we could effectively compete with others for capacity. But it isn't a normal business and there is no competition to keep rail rates at "competitive" levels.

This isn't poo-pooing your idea, just the way I see it. Keep them coming.

[Braveheart]

You're right Farmaholic, this idea is a stick not a carrot.

The tariff would be paid by the railways calculated against rates applied to the underlying traffic. I'm sure intermodal and oil wouldn't like it, but, as a farmer dependent on rail, I haven't appreciated having our business displaced by intermodal or oil.

There would be no reason for any slowdown for anyone's transportation needs providing adequate performance.

As far as poo pooing ideas, that's all they are right now. If they can't stand up to criticism they were never any good anyway.

This is just how I like to brainstorm. Throw out ideas no matter how corny. It might inspire someone with good suggestions or approaches.

[Rareearth]

I'm not wishing for anything, just thinking out loud.

If ,if, if there was a two month rail strike by the union because they can, (and it cold in the winter) and also have rights, what would that impact be to Western Canada, not just the grain industry but all commodity types plus finished retail goods?
How many billions?
No one can question "essential service" under this scenario, can they?

[Hopalong]

The way it has worked out is as if CPR had a deep and devious sceme when they idled crews and leased out engines in 2013.
The result was government order to concentrate on the most profitable part of their grain handling business, long haul to port position on main lines.
Without revenue entitlement protection and not being ordered to, they were already leaving US and domestic grain shipping and concentrating on the more profitable haul to port.
Even though it looked good for farmers at the time, a retrospective and cynical view might be that it played into the hands of railways.
Railways are now in the somewhat odd position of opposing a policy that resulted in higher short term profit.

[farmaholic]

"Without revenue entitlement protection and not being ordered to, they were already leaving US and domestic grain shipping and concentrating on the more profitable haul to port."

How do you know this? Domestic grain shipping meaning what? Canola to crushers and canola oil away from crushers? Not much else needs to move around too much with in the Prairies. Most grain is shipped to port which they weren't doing anyway and how do you know they were already on their way "home"?

[tweety]

Well ado, get off your butt and do something about it!