What is meant by the term "reciprocal switching?"

I got the term off a list of industries in towns along the CGW. The
list apparently includes industries located along any of the other RRs
in the town. Some are marked reciprocal switching - yes and some
reciprocal switching - no.

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

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Green" <bierglaeser@...> wrote:

What is meant by the term "reciprocal switching?"

I got the term off a list of industries in towns along the CGW. The
list apparently includes industries located along any of the other RRs
in the town. Some are marked reciprocal switching - yes and some
reciprocal switching - no.

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

You got it, Gene.

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

Tim O'Connor wrote:

. . . 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?

First of all, the railroad isn't the instigator, it's the shipper, which can choose either road which serves it. Second, I don't see why you think this is a "short haul," because the load will probably go onward on whichever road is the originating road--at least I think that would be the shipper's logic.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

First of all, the railroad isn't the instigator, it's the
shipper, which can choose either road which serves it. Second, I don't
see why you think this is a "short haul," because the load will
probably go onward on whichever road is the originating road--at least
I think that would be the shipper's logic.
Tony Thompson

Yes, but as you know, the shipper can only choose a route that
is part of the published tariff. So it still begs the question
of why the owner of the track would accept a simple fee instead
of a generous percentage of the entire bill. The incentive for
the track owner is to move the car to the furthest point that
it can before turning it over to someone else. That is typically
how it would work on a tariff, and anything else is a "short haul".
So where is the reciprocity?

Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor wrote:

So where is the reciprocity?

I think you're assigning the "reciprocal" word to the wrong part
of the story. The fees aren't reciprocal, the switching privilege is.
And if you think the shipper couldn’t find a tariffed route via major
railroads, I've got a bridge you might like to own.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

Perhaps the following is another case of reciprocal switching that is
a bit different from that note in the original inquiry.

In Memphis, TN, there is an industrial district called President's
Island which is a mass of land that was left behind by a large meander
of the Mississippi River. This district was switched in turn by the
railroads that served the city. That is, the SLSF would switch the
district for four months, then the Southern for four months, then the
IC for four months. Then the cycle would replay itself. A shipper
could choose the routes available in the tariff book that they desired
without regard of the switching railroad. The railroad switching the
island at any given time acted more like a terminal switching railroad
during its time on the island. I do not have any idea of how the
railroads split the switching fees, if there were any.

Not sure if this is any help at all in this discussion, but that is
what I would name reciprocal switching.

Cheers,
-- Bill Keene

I think you're assigning the "reciprocal" word to the wrong part
of the story. The fees aren't reciprocal, the switching privilege is.
And if you think the shipper couldn�t find a tariffed route via major
railroads, I've got a bridge you might like to own.
Tony Thompson

Tony, as usual you're confusing your sarcasm with insight.
My point was that shippers cannot invent routes -- they can
only choose routes available on the tariff. If you dispute
that, then I've got a bridge or two for you.

How is railroad A's access to railroad B customers reciprocal?
I'm not at all confused about the meaning of the word. If there
is a reciprocal part to this story, no one has presented it yet.

Tim O'Connor

I know that some denizens of this group are predisposed to consider anything found on the internet as complete bullsh_t, but I think this has some validity:

http://www.uprr.com/customers/shortline/attachments/prior_uprsc.pdf

See definition on page 5.

KL

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Tony, as usual you're confusing your sarcasm with insight. My point was that shippers cannot invent routes -- they can
only choose routes available on the tariff. If you dispute that, then I've got a bridge or two for you.

I understand your point, and intended no dispute of it; but you seem to believe it was hard to find routings in the tariffs. As for me, i find it hard to believe that a shipper served by CNW and RI could not get to any major and probably about any minor destination via either road. You can keep your bridges.

How is railroad A's access to railroad B customers reciprocal?

Because railroad B got access to railroad A's customers too. Doesn't seem a subtle point to me.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

Guys,

In his book "The Railroad-What It Is, What It Does", John Armstrong says:

"When an inter-terminal switch is called for, things can get complicated. Inter-terminal switching involves complex agreements between the railroads in every city. Each railroad establishes a switching district in which it will arrange to have a car delivered, regardless of whose tracks the siding is located on. Railroads establish reciprocal agreements (we'll switch your cars, if you switch ours) to ensure that cars are delivered.

"The road handling the switch will be paid a switching charge which is determined by each railroad within each switching district."

Then in another chapter:

"Within the switching district where these reciprocal arrangements apply, the originating line-haul road will "absorb" the switching and "per diem reclaim" charges payable to the other lines involved, giving up a chunk of its "division" of the through line-haul rate in exchange for being able to compete for the traffic from shippers not located on its tracks."

gary roe
quincy, illinois

Thank you, Kurt. It is good to have the correct information even
though it spoils the idea of one RR switching at an industry of another
RR in my industrial area.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@...> wrote:

I know that some denizens of this group are predisposed to consider

anything

found on the internet as complete bullsh_t, but I think this has some
validity:

http://www.uprr.com/customers/shortline/attachments/prior_uprsc.pdf

See definition on page 5.

KL

I think there were situations where that occurred, whatever it might have been called. One situation I recall was where two roads shared trackage through or near a large plant. Road A handled pick-ups and set-offs coming from the east or heading west, Road B handled those going opposite. I think it also happened that Road A switched Mon, Wed, Fri; Road B on Tue, Thu, and Sat.

KL

What is meant by the term "reciprocal switching?"

Gene and Others,

An example of reciprocal switching could be found in San Diego,
between the Santa Fe and the SDA&E. The Santa Fe arrived first and
had spurs reaching into various streets south of the depot at
Broadway. The line ran south to National City paralleling the shore.
The SDA&E came in 1916, paralleling the Santa Fe on the inland side
and wanted to reach the depot at Broadway. Rather than have the SDA&E
cross all the industrial spurs with crossing diamonds, the Santa Fe
allowed the SD&AE to build and reconnect the Santa Fe spurs to their
tracks. In return, the SDA&E would switch the industries off those
spurs and interchange to the Santa Fe, receiving a switching fee for
each car handled. The Santa Fe would deliver cars to the SDA&E, and
take cars from them. In the original agreement, the actual language
referred to the SDA&E switching the "city" side of the tracks and the
Santa Fe switching the "bay" side.

I hope this helps.

Keith Jordan

On Dec 7, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

I know that some denizens of this group are predisposed to consider
anything
found on the internet as complete bullsh_t....

C'mon, Kurt, this is gratuitous misrepresentation. No one on this
list has made any such claim, or anything close to it. Many of us,
however, tend to distrust information found on the internet unless
there is ample corroboration. There's a fair amount of absolute BS
out there on the net, and a great deal more information that is
inaccurate or incomplete. And much of it is so ephemeral that errors
never get corrected. By contrast, if you make a mistake in a written
publication, as Mike Brock recently pointed out, you will be held
accountable for it in the community of readers you are addressing.
Those of us who write are well aware that, every time we publish a
book or article, we put our reputations on the line. That doesn't
mean we never make mistakes, but it does tend to give us (most of us,
anyway) a more cautious approach to the facts than seems typical of a
lot of stuff that can be found on the net. I can cite myself as an
example; I sometimes respond to posts on the STMFC list off the top
of my head, and sometimes I'm wrong. I tend to be a lot more
rigorous about fact-checking when I'm writing for publication.

Richard Hendrickson

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Keith Jordan <ckjordan@...> wrote:

What is meant by the term "reciprocal switching?"

In Bellows Falls, VT, the reciprocal switching agreement was called
the Murdock Agreement, created in 1939. Through a time study done by
both the Boston & Maine and the Rutland Railroad, it was agreed that
the B&M received 80% and the Rutland 20% of the income from industries
switched jointly in the Bellows Falls Terminal. This agreement
technically lasted until the end of the Rutland in '61, but actually
ended when the last Bellows Falls Switcher job was abolished.

Romi Romano

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary roe" <wabashrr@...> wrote:

"...Each railroad establishes a switching district in which it will

arrange to have a car delivered, regardless of whose tracks the
siding is located on. Railroads establish reciprocal agreements
(we'll switch your cars, if you switch ours) to ensure that cars are
delivered.

"The road handling the switch will be paid a switching charge which

is determined by each railroad within each switching district."

gary roe
quincy, illinois

You nailed it, Gary. One detail that has not been discussed is that
the reciprocal switching agreement (or Tariff) would have a list of
customers (or stations) that were open to reciprocal switching. See
Page 8 of our (CSS&SB RR) current Tariff 6001 for an example:
http://www.southshorefreight.com/custresource.htm There are other
goodies in there too for anyone wanting to get in depth into
demurrage, intermediate switching, etc...

Since there are so many connecting roads in the Chicago Switching
District, we publish via a Tariff instead of specific agreements with
each line-haul carrier. The IHB does something similar with their
8000 series Tariff. http://www.ihbrr.com/tariffs.htm The EJ&E has a
reciprocal switch agreement for lumber via BNSF on their site:
http://www.tstarinc.com/eje/eje2/EJE_Reciprocal_Swtg_02-227.pdf

The GB&W Industry Lists of 1943 and 1952 show evidence of reciprocal
switching agreements at virtually every junction town...the serving
railroads are noted:
http://www.greenbayroute.com/industries.htm#railroads

I think reciprocal switching agreements were very common in steam era
days, but from a model railroad operating point of view they would
not appear different than a standard 'interchange-delivery' shipment.
The difference was in the accounting and paper work.

Enjoy,
Andy L.
CSS&SB RR

Nothing close to it, eh? Here's some recent quotes, selected quickly for relevance and not to pick on anyone:

"I wonder where I did get the bogus information? Oh, I remember! Off the internet. Burned again!"

"About all it takes to be "a expert" on the internet is to buy a computer."

"This reminds me of the old saw about if you let a group of monkeys play with typewriters long enough they will end up writing the great American novel, by pure random chance. >>I must comment that this has been disproven by the mere existence of the internet.... :)"

Well, maybe you didn't read those. . .

The response to my post sounds pretty defensive given that I was so clearly way off base. It also describes my post as a misrepresentation but goes on to say that, "Many of us, however, tend to distrust information found on the internet unless there is ample corroboration. There's a fair amount of absolute BS out there on the net, and a great deal more information that is inaccurate or incomplete."

In other words: Many on this group *are* predisposed to consider anything found on the internet as *absolute* BS at first blush, and that which is only *near* BS is frequently just as bad because of inaccuracies and omissions.

Yeah, I can see now. I was waaaay off the mark there. . . Sheesh.

BTW, how did the response to my post further our understanding of reciprocal switching?

KL

Kurt Laughlin writes:

"Nothing close to it, eh? Here's some recent quotes, selected quickly for
relevance and not to pick on anyone:"

"About all it takes to be "a expert" on the internet is to buy a computer."

And, of course, that comment is mine. Unfortunately, my experience has shown it to be true. You should NOT, however, assume...and while I'll let others speak for themselves, I have a feeling that they will agree with me...that I was speaking of the STMFC. One of the reasons why I insist that members sign their real names on the STMFC is that it suggests that a member is prepared to support any comment they might make...and they are identified with it. It doesn't mean they are always correct but it does mean that they try to be. Regretfully...IMO...most of the internet permits...even encourages the use of aliases, presumably to provide anonymity. I belong to several groups managed that way...non RR oriented...and the content of most posts is such as to believe them at your own perile.

Mind you, just because something is delivered via a media that has editing does not guarantee anything beyond "hope" that the subject is "accurate". I attempted twice to "enlighten" the staff at Trains and Classic Trains [ which is one of my favorite publications ] regarding "errors" [ IMO ]about certain steam locomotives written by rather well published authors...to no avail...even though I presented facts from other authors writing in Trains [ Lloyd Stagner no less ]. I finally presented my case in of all places...the INTERNET. So...in some cases, the internet wins. I will note, however, that Model Railroading News did publish a few similar comments.

You might also note my question to the group regarding the painting of running boards...in which my observations seems to disagree with a comment by the very respected author Pat Wider.

So...relax. No one is taking shots at anyone in particular...unless maybe at me...and I'm used to it because I have a big target on my back.

Mike Brock