Canadian Railroads > Saskatchewan asks for rail "inter-switching" of grain

Financial Post reports that grain farmers are frustrated by CN's inability to deliver grain cars and pick up loads in a timely fashion. One observer believes Canada's well earned reputation as a reliable trade parter is being undermined.

How this inter-switching would work isn't clear. Whether CP would even be interested in participating in a CN service bailout isn't clear. Especially as CP works off its own service needs.



http://business.financialpost.com/news/railways-feeling-the-heat-over-grain-backlogs-as-farmers-feel-the-pinch-in-their-wallets

"Interswitching" is a reality at several locations across Canada, and is written in working agreements between the unions and the railways.

Vancouver BC is a prime example. Trains terminating at a port facility on another railway can operate through to that facility without recrewing that train with a crew from that railway.

Previously, such a train would have operated to a classification yard or interchange track and waited for a new crew from the other railway.

Vancouver BC has defined "interswitching" limits based on a 1995 arbitration award.

Thanks for the info.

Would that apply in Saskatchewan if CP etc had to travel 15-20 miles on CN to fetch hoppers at an elevator served by CN? I can see lots of ways that could go wrong.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Would that apply in Saskatchewan if CP etc had to
> travel 15-20 miles on CN to fetch hoppers at an
> elevator served by CN? I can see lots of ways
> that could go wrong.

Interswitching does not necessarily entail run-through agreements. In fact, to use your example, in most cases it would involve CN bringing the cars to an interchange point (these are defined in federal transport regulations). In your example, it means that the grain elevator on CN cannot be held captive by CN. The elevator has the right to strike a deal with CP and CN cannot charge an exorbitant rate for the short haul. In fact, the interswitching rate is set by government.

There's nothing new about interswitching. It has existed in Canada since the early 1900s, but the original interswitching limit was just four miles. In 1987, this was extended to 30 kilometres and then in 2014 the Conservative government of Prime Minister Harper extended this to 160 km in the Prairie provinces, principally to benefit grain producers. At the time, the government said that would provide interswitching rights to about 150 Prairie grain elevators, compared with the then current 14.

This has been continued by the current Liberal government while a comprehensive review of the federal transit regulation regime is under review.

More about this, including a link to the current rates, can be found here: https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/interswitching-rates



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/18 12:45 by railsmith.

Thank you for the background.

Depending on what the elevator defines as the problem (not supplying cars, not picking them up, leaving them at the port, etc) this alternative might have some benefit.

Under the overhaul of transport legislation, the Canadian government is now considering long-haul interswitching.

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) would be empowered to impose a rate upon request by a shipper that is captive to one railway at either the point of origin or destination, if either of those is outside the Quebec-Windsor or Vancouver-Kamloops corridors where numerous local interchanges exist and local interswitching rates are available.

A long-haul interswitching rate could only be applied if the distance of the shipment by that railway to an interchange point with another railway is less than 1,200 km or less than half the distance of the whole journey, whichever is greater. Long-haul interswitching would not apply to intermodal or automotive shipments.

Long-haul interswitching would replace the 160-km extended limit imposed in the Prairies in 2014, and the previous 30-km radius for local interswitching would apply across the country once again. However, the CTA would have some latitude in applying the 30-km rule and could make exceptions for points that are reasonably close to that distance.

Of course if a CN train dies on the law on a single track segment, I doubt if an Interswitching Agreement would allow a CP crew to move the CN train or vice versa.

"Interswitching" is more a Commercial than Operating concept. Like Reciprocal Switching in the US, but over a greater distance, it allows commercial [rate-making] access by one railroad to customers on another railroad, without a joint rate. The owning road does the switching, but the billing is done by the railroad making the rate.

Moving closer and closer to full open access.