Tag Archives: reciprocal switching

Boardroom battle at Norfolk Southern heats up

Ancora Advisors (some info here), an activist hedge fund with over 300 high-wealth customers, is suggesting 7 new board members for the Class I rail Norfolk Southern (NS). You may remember NS as the victim of the giant train wreck in New Palestine, OH, which released a lot of fumes; it has been criticized for having too few workers to perform required preventative inspections. Ancora also has suggestions for a new COO who is a disciple of Hunter Harrison, who implemented precision scheduled railroading.

Regulators also are suspicious of the idea. They fear that Ancora is more interested in short-term profit and will drive railroad operations back into a philosophy of cost savings rather than a culture of safety.

I looked a bit at the Ancora staff and CEO. I don’t see folks who seem like rabid cost-cutters. I do see people who might feel that NS’s current management has not done enough to address the operational problems that have recently come up, both in the safety line and in operational effectiveness in meeting customer requirements.

That too is a concern of regulators, though it’s a bit muted. Reciprocal switching is also being discussed now, and the rails are not enthusiastic about a change towards this practice, even though it would be consistent with a common carrier’s role, and would increase competition for customers.

We will watch closely to see how the boardroom battle continues.

By Ian Putzger in Toronto  28/02/2024

Boardroom battle at Norfolk Southern heats up as rail regulators weigh in

STB addresses rail service standards

The debate about reciprocal switching has been going on for years. That’s a practice that would allow shippers to use a different Class I railroad to carry their goods, even if the rail line their cargo is on is owned by a different Class I railroad. Reciprocal switching access is important in keeping competition between rail lines. Owning the tracks to a siding would seem to guarantee that the owner rail line would get all the business unless reciprocal switching contracts could be agreed.

For years it’s been difficult to get these contracts. Chemical processors have been one of the most difficult areas, because they may have only one rail siding at their plant. They have wanted to be able to negotiate with another rail line for freight rates. But examples abound, usually because of poor service on the Class I rail that owns the sidings.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) in the US has decided to walk around the problem by opening a new set of regulations defining more precisely what level of service a Class I rail must provide, and to track what level is actually being provided. If adequate service is not being provided, a shipper could ask for relief to use another rail line.

The STB proposal defines three measures, and requires their performance reporting by the Class I rails, in a standardized fashion;

  • Service Reliability, ability to deliver a shipment by the original estimated time of arrival
  • Service Consistency, maintaining a shipment’s movements through the system by looking at transit times
  • Local Service, the ability to perform local deliveries and pickups, known as spots and pulls, within the service window.

Failure to perform on any one of these would be a good reason for a shipper to petition for a reciprocal switching agreement. Some clauses require the rails to submit historical data and provide the data whenever a request is made.

The STB says the rule will incentivize the rails to maintain sufficient capability to meet the minimal service requirements.

Recall that rails have a common carrier obligation to carry the freight that is offered to them. They have it because in most cases they were given the land on which rail lines were built, often in the golden age of railroading around the turn of the 20th century. At that time there were many independent rail lines, and there was a lot of competition for cargo. Now, however, in the US there are only 7 Class I railroads, and each features a certain geographic area. So opportunities for competition on shipping are limited today.

So the ability to have reciprocal switching contracts is very important for avoiding monopoly service and giving shippers options to get better prices.

Joanna Marsh Thursday, September 07, 2023

STB takes long-awaited step in addressing rail service standards

STB poised to decide reciprocal switching rules as shippers, railroads remain at odds

I think this time around all the good arguments are on the side of the shippers. Since moving to various forms of precision scheduled railroading (PSR), railroads have been passing longer delays on to customers. They don’t have the cover of good servi8ce right now, and I bet they lose on this one.

It seems clear that the major rails have leaned out their systems so much that they can’t respond to anyone’s exceptional needs. A shift to reciprocal shipping for a larger group of customers would help that out, and foster more price competition as well as simple competition for cargoes.

Rails can’t argue that they are making investments in new lines to serve more customers. What investment there is in rail infrastructure is on maintenance, and on expanding trunk and yard lines where great congestion has occurred. It’s almost impossible for a new business to get a rail spur, let alone service at a spur. Rails don’t see themselves providing this kind of service anymore, though they continue to support those who have it. Letting other rails use the rail lines via reciprocal switching would help the shippers a lot. It would induce competition where there isn’t any now.

The rails have lots of ways to react to new rules. All the schemes contemplated would allow fair compensation for the use by other lines. And I bet there will be some limitations in who can negotiate shipper reciprocal switching rights. So big rails will continue to have enough leverage to make it a business option.

Big rails need to staff up and get more rolling stock anyway. They have cut too close to the bone to provide good service today, and everyone from ag shippers to container shippers knows it. they should make the system and infrastructure work for the customers.

Sarah Zimmerman Editor

STB poised to decide reciprocal switching rules as shippers, railroads remain at odds | Supply Chain Dive