Re: Reciprocal Switching Agreements
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Jeff and all,
Let's try to make this simple.
Switching agreements between railroads aka switch limits is not uncommon, this industry had them, Bakersfield, CA had them, Chicago has them. As I recall Bakersfield was based on a two year agreement. The agreements are business driven and locally political. IF one railroad wants one the other wants a trade off and that can be costly. The lines don't even have to be connected.
Reciprocal agreements were agreements that when an origin railroad furnished a car to the reciprocal industry the car did not incur interchange switch charges or should I say limited switch charges that were absorbed by the interchanging carrier not by the industry. The car marks made no difference IF the loaded car was headed to the interchanging carriers ONLINE industry. IF and car (regardless of marks) were to be handed off to a foreign road via interchange then the mandated (ICC) switch charges would apply.
Just because and industry or switch limits were reciprocal it didn't mean it was free of charges.
We here in Salem, OR we are reciprocal to the BN/BNSF and the SP/UP and there is a reciprocal switch charge ($135).
At one point Cascade Warehouse added a Cold Storage company and we had set the facility for a spur. The BNSF wanted the facility to be closed and a fight ensued between the BNSF, Cascade Warehouse, the city of Salem and Oregon state. We were urged by the state to not sign the agreement as they felt that it would have a cascading effect all along the OE from Eugene to Salem. We didn't and to this day there is no spur in place.
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Sent from AOL Desktop
In a message dated 12/1/2017 10:19:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, STMFC@... writes: