Re: Reciprocal switching


Tim O'Connor
 

Dennis

I guess usage has changed then. It sounds to me like you
are describing what is now called "haulage rights" (versus
trackage rights). The word "reciprocal" implies that each
side gets something in return for giving something. Why
would a railroad short haul itself by giving another railroad
the right to bill cars to its customers in return for a fee,
unless that railroad in turn got the same deal for the
customers of the other railroad? A different solution is a
joint switching district. Many people don't realize that
Conrail still exists, in the form of an NS-CSXT jointly owned
operation.

Tim O'Connor

Does it mean that RR A could spot a car on the industry's siding
located along RR B?

Gene Green
No. As I understand it, either railroad could be the originating or
terminating road, the same as if the industry was physically on their
own rails. The road that actually switched the industry received a
flat fee for the service.

From a modeler's standpoint, it does very little to the visible
operations; it basically involved shuffling the paperwork in a
different fashion. The only noticeable difference is that if an
industry was on the MILW but open to the C&NW via reciprocal
switching, if the car was billed as originating on the C&NW, that road
was expected to supply the Mty.
Dennis

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.