[RedMelon]

Ya CN is a little sneaky, all the deals they make with little railroads like this one, they always get operating rights, and the right to buy back the trackage for a reasonable price incase of an Industry Boom, Its why CN is so successful.



Another possibility is maybe south simcoe railway can get involved, Maybe buy the track or pay barrie for operating rights on the days BCRY doesnt use it since they dont run on weekends it would work, also it would bring people from collingwood to barrie, it would work better for them as are area has a way bigger market then beeton. They would need to fix the track tho, the used track would be the way to fix it!

 

[RedMelon]

So Cn can go to Barrie still

 

[smallspy]

So Cn can go to Barrie still View attachment 279411

As part of the terms of sales of all of the respective corridors, CN retained the rights to provide freight service (and receive the revenues from said service) on all of the now-Metrolinx corridors.

There are rumours going about however that Metrolinx would like to end this arrangement.

Dan

 

[Northern Light]

We don't have a separate thread for North American freights; so while tangential to this thread, I thought I'd leave this here to see what @smallspy and @crs1026 had to say about this:

 

[micheal_can]

We don't have a separate thread for North American freights; so while tangential to this thread, I thought I'd leave this here to see what @smallspy and @crs1026 had to say about this:

View attachment 279422

You mean like how in Canada there is effectively a duopoly between CN and CP?

 

[Northern Light]

You mean like how in Canada there is effectively a duopoly between CN and CP?

I don't 'mean' anything.

Its a quote of a U.S. senator.

The purpose of posting is to illicit opinions from those who may know what impact, if any, this would have on CN/CP.

 

[smallspy]

We don't have a separate thread for North American freights; so while tangential to this thread, I thought I'd leave this here to see what @smallspy and @crs1026 had to say about this:

View attachment 279422

First off, the quote has some problems with it. CN carries almost as much traffic south of the border as the "big 4" railways in the US, and should be counted amongst them. (CP carries a far smaller amount, and operates in a far more geographically restricted area.)

Second, because of how the railways in the US are fractured and laid out, with the exception of the area between Chicago and the Mississippi Delta there are really only 2 or maybe 3 railways in any geographical area. CSX and NS service the north-east to the south-east and up to Chicago, whereas BNSF and UP split the western half of the country.

So unless you're a major shipper - say, an auto manufacturer - you're really only have the ability of negotiating with 2 railways.

Dan

 

[Northern Light]

First off, the quote has some problems with it. CN carries almost as much traffic south of the border as the "big 4" railways in the US, and should be counted amongst them. (CP carries a far smaller amount, and operates in a far more geographically restricted area.)

Second, because of how the railways in the US are fractured and laid out, with the exception of the area between Chicago and the Mississippi Delta there are really only 2 or maybe 3 railways in any geographical area. CSX and NS service the north-east to the south-east and up to Chicago, whereas BNSF and UP split the western half of the country.

So unless you're a major shipper - say, an auto manufacturer - you're really only have the ability of negotiating with 2 railways.

Dan

Supposing though that Congress decided it wanted to break-up one or more of the 'Big Four'.

Would that have any implications for CN/CP.

As large as CN is, I'm assuming it would not be a large-scale beneficiary.

Would CP?

I know BNSF has some trackage in BC and a tiny bit connecting to Winnipeg; CSX I think has a tiny sliver in both ON, and Quebec.

Just curious what the knock-on affects might be for rail up here.

 

[crs1026]

^CN's territory in the US is a bit anomalous in that it mostly runs north-south. If you look to CP-affiliated Kansas City Southern, and ignore the north-south traffic on CSX and NS, it's a somewhat similar issue of competition between two railroads towards the Gulf of Mexico, and to Mexico itself. The event that created a significance for these two routes was NAFTA. If the US had in fact nullified NAFTA in a bigger way, CP and CN might not have had as strong an interest in those lines.

There's no doubt that having only two viable rail competitors in any location is not really "competition". Adding a third dilutes the traffic base, but doesn't really improve competitiveness. Very few locations would actually have the opportunity to put their traffic on that third line. The root problem is weak rules around "interswitching".... the inability to say to the competing railroad "come and get my traffic". The rules favour directing the traffic to whatever line actually serves the particular location, and that railroad is free to try and retain the traffic for as much of the trip as possible. That's why, for instance, TTC LRV's destined for Bombardier in Quebec are interchanged from CP to CN in Montreal, whereas on the way back they are interchanged in Toronto. The originating railroad maximises their share of the trip, and hence the revenue. Without changes to those rules, to let customers direct who will haul their traffic, having a third railway in the area doesn't help.... although I maintain that the threat of allowing a third entity direct access to current customers would smarten CP and CN up drastically.

A strong case can be made that the railroads' current strong financial showing is at the expense of their customers. The railroads are more efficient every day, but they do not deliver value as customer serving entities. Arguably the railroads should be directing more of their net income towards customer service instead of paying dividends to the shareholders. Better service to BCRY is a perfect example of that.

There is also the reality that loose-car railroading may be close to extinct. Intermodal is all about hubs and not about serving specific customers at their plant siding. Transloading is pretty close to intermodal, the hubs are just located in a different place.

My bottom line - splitting up the existing railroads is not the solution. But government ought to be putting far more pressure on the large railroads towards a more "competitive" system that will support and develop business with smaller loose-car shippers. That traffic should not be allowed to die.

- Paul

 

[HighIron905]

I have been watching this thread for a while and I would like to share my thoughts.

Shutting down the BCRY and going to transload only is a bad solution for a few reasons. The first is that eliminating all trackage and spurs isn't a pure savings. Factor in the cost of increased pressure on roads, both congestion and damage, from the trucks needed to take the freight from railhead to facility. Also factor in the investment needed to build and equip a transload yard capable of filling all the customers' needs. This reduces your potential savings quite a bit.

The second reason transload-only is a poor solution is that it increases the cost for the existing industrial users. This one is quite simple. It will always be cheaper for an industry to unload a car at their facility than it is to transfer between modes off site and do multiple trips to unload a single car. It may be the case that this increased hassle motivates the industries using the line to migrate to truck-only delivery, bypassing transload altogether. This may also be enough to see customers leave town entirely. The value added in having spurs to facilities is significant. If you lose this, you lose the ability to attract sizeable industry to your town which means the BCRY has failed in its whole mission to prevent Barrie from becoming just a bedroom community.

Transload-only also fails to address the core cause of the issues of BCRY, which is unreliable interchange. This is where CN comes in.

I think we can put to bed any idea that CN would be interested in returning to Barrie, thus making the BCRY a non-operating entity. Barrie is out of the way for them and there isn't enough business to make it worthwhile becoming a contractor. This doesn't mean CN isn't a useful asset to improving the BCRY. What could be done is to create an interchange somewhere on the Newmarket sub and make a once or twice weekly run down there to drop cars at the interchange. This has the positive impact of providing more routing options for customers and improving reliability of interchange. Of course the trackage to Utopia would remain critical as it expands the railway's reach to industrial parks being developed in the city's west end and keeps the option for customers to interchange with CP.

Bottom line is that the railway is an important resource to city. Moving to transload-only severely hinders its ability to serve the city and make it attractive to businesses that might want to locate there. Remember, Haliburton Timber is proof that it is possible to attract customers to use the BCRY. There is hope. The end isn't yet near.

 

[lenaitch]

Not long ago, Cando proposed a petroleum bulk transfer (transload) facility at Utopia. Some residents objected. A few years back, they were storing some brand new, never used tank cars on the line west of Utopia. Some residents objected. What's a railway to do.

 

[smallspy]

Supposing though that Congress decided it wanted to break-up one or more of the 'Big Four'.

Would that have any implications for CN/CP.

As large as CN is, I'm assuming it would not be a large-scale beneficiary.

Would CP?

I know BNSF has some trackage in BC and a tiny bit connecting to Winnipeg; CSX I think has a tiny sliver in both ON, and Quebec.

Just curious what the knock-on affects might be for rail up here.

I can't see any move whatsoever to break up the "Big Four" actually happening. As it is, in the past 25 years respective US governments have presided over a merger of two major western railroads into one (Santa Fe and BN into BNSF), and the splitting of the third major player in the east (Conrail) via the sale of its assets to the remaining two.

That, coupled with the rise of the shortline railway movement and the subsequent and more recent rise and purchase of a large number of them into a couple of large players (RailAmerica, subsequently and Gennesee & Wyoming) means that in most cases the customers that are there are adequately served, and the ones in smaller centers frequently have a smaller company that is willing to work with them to get them onto the service, rather than trying to work with one of the big guys and going nowhere. Considering the lack of appetite to further regulate the industry, it's pretty much status quo from here on.

Dan

 

[smallspy]

I have been watching this thread for a while and I would like to share my thoughts.

Shutting down the BCRY and going to transload only is a bad solution for a few reasons. The first is that eliminating all trackage and spurs isn't a pure savings. Factor in the cost of increased pressure on roads, both congestion and damage, from the trucks needed to take the freight from railhead to facility. Also factor in the investment needed to build and equip a transload yard capable of filling all the customers' needs. This reduces your potential savings quite a bit.

The second reason transload-only is a poor solution is that it increases the cost for the existing industrial users. This one is quite simple. It will always be cheaper for an industry to unload a car at their facility than it is to transfer between modes off site and do multiple trips to unload a single car. It may be the case that this increased hassle motivates the industries using the line to migrate to truck-only delivery, bypassing transload altogether. This may also be enough to see customers leave town entirely. The value added in having spurs to facilities is significant. If you lose this, you lose the ability to attract sizeable industry to your town which means the BCRY has failed in its whole mission to prevent Barrie from becoming just a bedroom community.

Transload-only also fails to address the core cause of the issues of BCRY, which is unreliable interchange. This is where CN comes in.

I think we can put to bed any idea that CN would be interested in returning to Barrie, thus making the BCRY a non-operating entity. Barrie is out of the way for them and there isn't enough business to make it worthwhile becoming a contractor. This doesn't mean CN isn't a useful asset to improving the BCRY. What could be done is to create an interchange somewhere on the Newmarket sub and make a once or twice weekly run down there to drop cars at the interchange. This has the positive impact of providing more routing options for customers and improving reliability of interchange. Of course the trackage to Utopia would remain critical as it expands the railway's reach to industrial parks being developed in the city's west end and keeps the option for customers to interchange with CP.

Bottom line is that the railway is an important resource to city. Moving to transload-only severely hinders its ability to serve the city and make it attractive to businesses that might want to locate there. Remember, Haliburton Timber is proof that it is possible to attract customers to use the BCRY. There is hope. The end isn't yet near.

Here is ultimately what it boils down to....

What is the owner's goal for that particular rail line? It's an easy question to ask, but not an easy one to answer.

In the case of Orangeville, their purchase of the line was - at that time - to protect their industrial interests. To that end, they worked with a shortline operator (then Cando) to offer a service tailored to the couple of customers left in town. This meant providing on-call switching services, and free storage of cars to allow the plant to operate as a just-in-time facility. And for many years, it's worked.

And that Cando was able to pick up a couple of additional customers in the north part of Brampton didn't hurt their cause, either. And it's not like they weren't trying to drum up more business before their decision to step away from the operation.

But as frequently becomes the case with a government-owned entity, it became a political football. Yes, the line has been operating at a fiscal loss for many years. But does the tax revenue of the businesses that are continuing to operate in town due to the line help offset that cost? The taxes of those employed by the facility or the railroad, most of whom live in town? How about the reduction in truck traffic, and thus maintenance/wear-and-tear on the roads? I don't have answers to those questions - and frankly, I suspect that very few if any of the Councillors in the Town of Orangeville do, either.

Those questions are also applicable to the BCRY and the City of Barrie, although I'd suggest that the answers are going to be even harder to find. Unlike Orangeville-Brampton which had a stable customer base, BCRY has not.

Dan

 

[RedMelon]

I have been watching this thread for a while and I would like to share my thoughts.

Shutting down the BCRY and going to transload only is a bad solution for a few reasons. The first is that eliminating all trackage and spurs isn't a pure savings. Factor in the cost of increased pressure on roads, both congestion and damage, from the trucks needed to take the freight from railhead to facility. Also factor in the investment needed to build and equip a transload yard capable of filling all the customers' needs. This reduces your potential savings quite a bit.

The second reason transload-only is a poor solution is that it increases the cost for the existing industrial users. This one is quite simple. It will always be cheaper for an industry to unload a car at their facility than it is to transfer between modes off site and do multiple trips to unload a single car. It may be the case that this increased hassle motivates the industries using the line to migrate to truck-only delivery, bypassing transload altogether. This may also be enough to see customers leave town entirely. The value added in having spurs to facilities is significant. If you lose this, you lose the ability to attract sizeable industry to your town which means the BCRY has failed in its whole mission to prevent Barrie from becoming just a bedroom community.

Transload-only also fails to address the core cause of the issues of BCRY, which is unreliable interchange. This is where CN comes in.

I think we can put to bed any idea that CN would be interested in returning to Barrie, thus making the BCRY a non-operating entity. Barrie is out of the way for them and there isn't enough business to make it worthwhile becoming a contractor. This doesn't mean CN isn't a useful asset to improving the BCRY. What could be done is to create an interchange somewhere on the Newmarket sub and make a once or twice weekly run down there to drop cars at the interchange. This has the positive impact of providing more routing options for customers and improving reliability of interchange. Of course the trackage to Utopia would remain critical as it expands the railway's reach to industrial parks being developed in the city's west end and keeps the option for customers to interchange with CP.

Bottom line is that the railway is an important resource to city. Moving to transload-only severely hinders its ability to serve the city and make it attractive to businesses that might want to locate there. Remember, Haliburton Timber is proof that it is possible to attract customers to use the BCRY. There is hope. The end isn't yet near.

I like the Idea, CN goes up to Bradford already to serve customers, why not up to Barrie and bring cars to there yard, they can go up the newmarket sub, and switch on to the meatford sub at Allendale, then continue to the yard, Maybe CN would be interested in buying the line in the Barrie areas to add more customers to the Newmarket sub trains. Or perhaps CN can be the new Rail operator after cando leaves.

 

[smallspy]

I like the Idea, CN goes up to Bradford already to serve customers, why not up to Barrie and bring cars to there yard, they can go up the newmarket sub, and switch on to the meatford sub at Allendale, then continue to the yard, Maybe CN would be interested in buying the line in the Barrie areas to add more customers to the Newmarket sub trains. Or perhaps CN can be the new Rail operator after cando leaves.

CN can operate to Barrie if they wanted to. Their agreements with Metrolinx allow it.

But they may have found it easier - or cheaper - to simply tell Cando to "send it via CP" than to operate up to Barrie themselves.

Dan