Western Railroad Discussion > CORP responds to shippers coalition petition

CORP responds to shippers coalition petition

By David Smith
Siskiyou Daily News
Mon Sep 08, 2008, 09:28 AM PDT

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/homepage/x1577102698
(Photo at the link)

Yreka, Calif. -

Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) submitted their response last Wednesday to a petition filed by members of the Coos–Siskiyou Shippers Coalition (CSSC) with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), asking for the STB to step in and grant local shippers the ability to have a third party railroad run a portion of the Siskiyou Summit line, which the CSSC and others claim has been inadequately served by CORP.

CORP’s reply, a 70–page file, said, “[CORP] has met all reasonable requests for railroad service on the line between Black Butte, CA and Dillard, OR. CORP’s service is not inadequate. However, due to lack of shipper demand, CORP has not served the line between Montague, CA and Ashland, OR since May 6, 2008, the last date that service was requested.”

CORP went on to say that they want to come to an agreement with shippers over how to proceed, without having to resort to a “government–mandated solution.”

The reply goes on to say that CORP would allow Western Texas and Lubbock (WTL) to run operations over the Siskiyou Line from Montague to Ashland if WTL meets certain criteria. Those include: “components of compensation: the variable cost incurred by the owning carrier as a result of the tenant carrier’s operation over the owning carrier’s tracks; tenant carrier’s proportionate share of track maintenance and operation expenses; an interest or rental component designed to compensate the owning carrier for use of tracks; WTL would have to accept liability for any harm caused by its operations and provide sufficient insurance; CORP would require WTL to ensure that their engineers are qualified to operate on the territory and has appropriate locomotives and; CORP would expect to be compensated for any costs incurred in qualifying WTL personnel.”
If no agreement is met, according to the reply, then CORP will use the reply as a means to dissuade the STB from finding in favor of the shippers, of which CORP said in the reply repeatedly “the issue is disagreement over price, not inadequate service.”
In the reply, CORP also said that the time taken by the shippers to find WTL was not indicative of a need for emergency service, saying that the shippers “would not have ‘dallied’ if it were an emergency.”

CORP also claims that they have never stopped service over the line, instead Timber Products and Roseburg Forest Products, two of the shippers on the line, switched to trucks, which CORP insists was done willingly and as an alternative to rail.

The rates to ship over the Siskiyou Line jumped around 300 percent, which CORP said was “pricing to market,” a move which Timber Products and Roseburg said forced them to ship by truck.
CORP also claims that WTL is unqualified to run the Siskiyou Line, saying that WTL has no experience with a line in steep, mountainous terrain, also stating that WTL’s parent companies have a “history” of being behind on their rent to Rail America, CORP’s parent company.
In the conclusion to the reply, CORP states: “CORP respectfully requests the Board to hold this proceeding in abeyance to permit CORP and WTL to negotiate an agreement for WTL to provide rail operations along the lines that CORP has outlined above. In the event that the negotiations and mediation before the Board fail to result in short–term operations by WTL, CORP respectfully requests the Board to deny the emergency service sought by Petitioners because they have failed to demonstrate that over an identified period of time, there has been a substantial, measurable deterioration or other demonstrated inadequacy of rail service provided by CORP.”

Glad I jumped that ship when I did.

---

No experience running a steep grade railroad?!? Are they forgetting LaVeta Pass on the SLRG, one that RailAmerica had at least one serious runaway on not long after taking it over from UP? Of course, I am thinking Iowa Pacific as a whole and I believe CORP is only looking at WTL. It's really Iowa Pacific/Permian Basin, not just WTL involved in this-- that is just the subsidiary railroad they are using. SLRG has some very well qualified mountain runners, and I suspect they'd head for the CORP to get things started and people trained.

Mike Derrick
http://www.shortlinesusa.com

So, basically Fortress increased the rates, claims nobody wants to use the service (at the higher rates) and wants anybody who replaces them to pay them for lost revenue, at the higher rates. So if somebody claims they run the route for less money they would still have to pay Fortress.
Did I get that correct?

Grade operations? Who are they trying to kid. There are a bunch of hogheads still working for the UP that ran the Siskiyous. Also a bunch of retired old farts still around. Im sure they could get someone with a federal ticket to train them.

I think the UP should take it back and start over. Anything that is connected to CORP winds up in the hopper down the road. Look at the Coos Line and the lack of maintenance on the Siskiyous.


Nudge

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, basically Fortress increased the rates

Wow.

Yes, a bunch of suits from Fortress Investment Group were crazy enough to micromanage not just RailAmerica, but one of RailAmerica's operating subsidiary companies, to the point of settings rates.

Give me a break.

I'm sure they discussed the CORP rate tariff at the SAME EXACT meeting that they had Michael Jackson's attorneys sign the loan paperwork, too, right?

> -----
> > So, basically Fortress increased the rates
>
> Wow.
>


Very good, let us know when you finish reading the rest of the paragraph and we'll work on what it means in the context of the State, or another Company, taking over the responsibility to service the existing shippers.

What I'm looking for is does the rate hiking tactic and chasing away Customers form some sort of justification to void 'the' Contract or allow some sort of State intervention to allow another operator?
The news item from the other day was starting to make sense for the local shippers (mostly RFP).
Apologies for the sarcasm.

Railamercia's becomin' like UP, wants someone else to fit the bill and they don't pay a cent of it! Talk about C H E A P!

Same ole, same ole. Run off customers, whine about no traffic, rip up track, sell to Chinese scrap buyer, sell ROW to the state for a hiking trail. Everyone lives happily ever after. Except,,,, people driving the highways, taxpayers repairing the highways, and people who depend upon businesses forced to close after transport costs triple. They are probably in a hurry, scrap prices are falling so they must expedite the process. I expect the same program to begin for CSX after the TCI unveils their next five year operating plan.

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Railamercia's becomin' like UP, wants someone else
> to fit the bill and they don't pay a cent of it!

Well, if UP's getting away with it, why wouldn't they try it, too?

Monkey see, monkey do......

NZ

Wednesday's Siskiyou Daily Newspaper/website:

“In its unsuccessful effort to cast this proceeding as a rate case, CORP has utterly failed to rebut the extensive evidence that there has been a substantial, measurable deterioration or other inadequacy in rail service provided by CORP.”

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x213362418/Shipp
ers-coalition-Under-Fortress-CORP-offered-minimal-service-at-maximum-charge

(Copy and paste to keep the window from getting too big)