Ships waiting

[bucket]

Railways need more?

Why? They provide the pulling power and that's it.

When freight rates are tied to performance, level of service agreements signed and an understanding that demurrage is not farmers cost, it might make sense. Until then - NO.

They have used the same argument many times. Give us more we will do better. Never happens.

[BreadWinner]

Your farm is performance based so why shouldn't the railways want the same? Railways own the pulling power, the rails and most of all the rights to those grain cars you thought were yours, just like you thought the cwb was yours.

[BreadWinner]

Either we start paying more to get more grain to the export end or the grain companies will continue to fleece us. We want free enterprise but yet we go crying to the government all the time.

[bucket]

I have heard this song before. Pay more get better service.

It's a bullshit line. It's blackmail. And continuing to buy into it is nonsense.

We pay more than in 1997 yet the problems of 1997 keep cropping up two years running.

[wmoebis]

Railways have met grain obligations, mostly, says @pmharper. Says govt is tracking closely.

So Gov't says RR aren't the problem.

[bucket]

Wmoebis

Is that from sarm convention?

Was he asked about the backlog?

Pretty nice winter to allow railways to move less than last winter?

[BreadWinner]

The grain companies say getting rid of the regulation would raise shipping costs for farmers and traders, and drive up the price of Canadian crops on international markets.

They note farmers and grain elevators usually have no choice which railway they use, and their businesses depend on reliable rail service at prices that are fair.

“Removing the grain revenue entitlement is a risky proposition,” said Wade Sobkowich, president of the Western Grain Elevator Association, which includes Cargill Ltd. and Richardson International Ltd.

The grain group said the rule does not prevent railways from moving more grain, nor investing in hopper cars.

The rule, they say, simply limits the amount the railways can charge per tonne – not the overall amount of revenue it can make from moving crops – and ensures the rise in freight rates is in line with inflation.

“There is no evidence to show that shippers would get better service if it were eliminated. In fact, there is existing evidence that poor service and insufficient capacity would remain,” Mr. Sobkowich said.

The Western Grain Elevator Association, in its submission to the review panel, seeks greater government oversight of railway service and the right for shippers to financially penalize railways that fall short.

I am starting to question the grain companies motives and I think all of us should. The grain companies have us held hostage and they like it that way. Don't always think the grain companies are looking out for the farmers best interests.

[bucket]

If the railways are not the problem, doesn't the government have a duty to find out who is?

[wmoebis]

As far as I know. Just copied a post off twitter. I believe it came from SARM conv.

[wmoebis]

Breadwinner maybe someone could enlighten us as to what the "price of Canadian crops on the international market" is.

[BreadWinner]

"Raising shipping rates will make canadian grain cost more in world markets". As far as I know the farmer had been paying the shipping costs not the buyer so how would it change the price. I think they are full of crap. They are maybe charging both the buyer and the seller, I wouldn't be surprised. We are always getting screwed.

[Oliver88]

What is the breakdown of the 28 ships waiting?

Prince Rupert= ___

Vancouver= ___

[northfarmer]

the western grain revenue entitlement is the establishment of so called fair rate per tonne for shipping and is not a revenue cap and in fact doe not even apply to all ag commodities on all train runs. in fact grain not under the cap as in to us destination and to eastern Canada are outside the cap and there performance is even worse than the regulated rate runs.

competitive market ideology does not apply to a non properly regulated oligopoly or duopoly

This is a distraction strategy by the railways to avoid the much needed regulation to govern the performance of the rails for the betterment of all industries using them for the sake of the Canadian economy than for the shareholders of railways stock that have experienced exponential growth in shareholder value over recent years.

The estimated 115 paid lobbyists working for the railroad interests in Ottawa are working harder than ever greasing the political and pr machine.

The problem is exacerbated by the other logistics issues but in the end a properly functioning competitive marketplace that is efficient will only occur if we have capacity in our logistics system imho

Then we might see competitive basis, prompts acceptance of contracts, and new players entering the trade. who in the hell would want to set up shop buying grain from prairie farmers in this shit show we have going on

[ianben]

The grain companies are the same the world over.

They price grain FOB ie load on a boat. That is the same what ever country you farm in near enough.

Any cost involved before that has to come from the producers pocket it is just pure maths, they just take their cut.

In the future if they can make money from your grain they will build the infrastructure necessary to get it a port.

They do here anyway, our grain is to wet for most export destinations so they have built three large drying plants, all owned by different grain cos, at different ports so they can buy our grain at 15% and export it at 12/13% of course we pay for this in the price they offer.

Eventually they will improve the whole process of getting your grain to market as they decide to invest as and where make sense for their operation. ``You will of course pay for this investment be careful what you wish for!!

[foragefarmer]

Harper's on top of it. Nothing to worry about, it's all good

March 12 (Reuters) - Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd and Canadian National Railway Co have such huge market power that they cannot be allowed to dictate how Canada's grain shipment backlog is cleared, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Thursday.

Harper said in an appearance in Saskatchewan that the grain backlog was not nearly as bad as it was a year ago in the wake of the record 2013 harvest, but he said the government was still concerned.

He said that for the most part, the two main railways had complied with compulsory minimum shipments of grain that the government had required.

"We are tracking this very closely. The system is clearly not under anywhere near the strain it was a year ago, but nevertheless we remain concerned. ... This is a major, major export for this country," he said.

Justifying the government's action, Harper said he recognized Canada's is a market economy, and the grain and railway businesses are market-based.

"But we understand, and it's important that everyone who's looking at this system understands, that this is an unusual situation where in the marketplace you have two large suppliers - the two big railway companies - where they have extraordinary market power," he said.

"And we simply cannot accept outcomes where those two big companies would dictate to the market just what they think is satisfactory in their interests. That is not going to serve the wider interests of grain farmers or of the Canadian economy."

The Conservative government is committed to making sure there is legislation and rules that allow the grain transportation system and the transportation system more generally to function in the best interests of everyone, Harper said.