Ackman/canadian pacific

[bucket]

Braveheart

I do not see any farm group putting solutions out there and most have said on this forum individuals don't count, they have to belong to a herd to be a validated idea.

And if the people in these organizations can't read the solutions on sites like this. Well I am sure you can see where the problems starts and why solutions don't get implemented.

[bucket]

Open running rights should be implemented asap.

I live near a line CP services. All points are the same grain co.

The last point on the line has a locomotive and a 112 car spot. They could shuttle cars from a point just outside of moose jaw from either major and service their points. Weekly regular service could be implemented.

There is an idea. Utilize all points in an effective way, provide regular service, move the grain, save the highways.

Oops I better go wrap up in tin foil again.

[cottonpicken]

It sucks but its true,all sectors of the the supply chain in front of the farmer have to be profitable but......

So god damn many illegal and immoral things have happened to us and i fear they will never end so i am at a loss.....

[ado089]

Tweety, who paid for the land the rails are built on? Who funded the building and maintenance of the rail system up until the not too distant past? What obligations where imposed in exchange for getting alot for nothing? How many concessions to those obligations have been made so the poor RR's could make more money? Too many people need a quick history lesson on the RR's in Canada and a brushup on economics as it pertains to free markets and competition.

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.

[ado089]

Here's a free market solution with minimal government involvement. Split both companies at down the middle of Saskatchewan.So two operate east and two operate west. Then they would compete for traffic not only among each other on the same corridor but also east and west. Private corporations and shareholders still get to call the shots but there would be options.

[fjlip]

I suggested Ritz BEG the Chinese to create a third RR, then watch these two compete or die.

[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?