Star Tribune: BNSF needs more tracks

[jebr]

"[...] BNSF should consider expanding its Fargo-Staples-Minneapolis capacity. Extreme cold is a fact of life in Minnesota, and climate change suggests that extremes are likely to continue.

Unfortunately, BNSF’s $5 billion improvement budget for 2014 doesn’t include expanding capacity on the line in question[.]"

http://m.startribune.com/?id=248916731

 

[sechs]

Based on my reading of the article, it seems that BNSF has just as many tracks as it really needs. It's Northstar that needs more tracks.

Northstar needs to pony up for the improvements that they want for better timekeeping.

 

[jebr]

Based on my reading of the article, it seems that BNSF has just as many tracks as it really needs. It's Northstar that needs more tracks.

Northstar needs to pony up for the improvements that they want for better timekeeping.

BNSF signed a contract with the current schedule less than ten years ago and was paid over $100 million (last paragraph under "Background") in order to allow Northstar to use the tracks under the current schedule in perpetuity.

If BNSF is refunding most of that $100+ million, then I can see the argument. But when BNSF is signing a contract stating they'll run that train on that schedule forever, I expect them to hold their end of the agreement, especially since the line started less than ten years ago.

 

[sechs]

All that $107.5 million bought was trackage rights, the facility easements, and BNSF operating crews (presumably just for the start-up period). I didn't see anywhere that it said that BNSF agreed to run the trains on a particular schedule, let alone on time, for any period of time.

There's nothing to argue here. Northstar is getting only for what they have paid. If they want more, they have to pay for it. It's that simple.

 

[MattW]

I doubt that the contract that BNSF agreed to when they got paid didn't include some kind of performance clause. If it didn't, then that is really stupid on Metro's part.

 

[Anderson]

If BNSF sold a batch of trackage rights and slots, which it sounds like they pretty clearly did, then it's BNSF that needs the slots since they already sold part of their operating capacity.

 

[sechs]

I doubt that the contract that BNSF agreed to when they got paid didn't include some kind of performance clause. If it didn't, then that is really stupid on Metro's part.

I'm sure that it has such a clause, as Amtrak always has. It's whether there's a meaningful enforcement provision -- which, it seems pretty clear, there isn't.

 

[sechs]

If BNSF sold a batch of trackage rights and slots, which it sounds like they pretty clearly did, then it's BNSF that needs the slots since they already sold part of their operating capacity.

BNSF has the operating capacity. They're running the trains.

It's just not when Northstar wants it.

 

[Ryan]

Based on my reading of the article, it seems that BNSF has just as many tracks as it really needs. It's Northstar that needs more tracks.

Northstar needs to pony up for the improvements that they want for better timekeeping.

BNSF signed a contract with the current schedule less than ten years ago and was paid over $100 million (last paragraph under "Background") in order to allow Northstar to use the tracks under the current schedule in perpetuity.
If BNSF is refunding most of that $100+ million, then I can see the argument. But when BNSF is signing a contract stating they'll run that train on that schedule forever, I expect them to hold their end of the agreement, especially since the line started less than ten years ago.

I think it's pretty clear at this point what BNSF thinks about contracts for passenger trains.

 

[SarahZ]

BNSF Honey Badgers: They don't care.

 

[sechs]

I have to disagree. BNSF is still the most passenger-friendly of the freight railroads. But they're still a freight railroad, and freight is their business. If passenger rail wants something they have to pay for it.

And don't think that this is something special to freight railroads. I've witnessed many a time when Metrolink gave Amtrak the shaft to run its trains on time. It's a commuter railroad, and intercity doesn't pay the bills.

 

[neroden]

I doubt that the contract that BNSF agreed to when they got paid didn't include some kind of performance clause. If it didn't, then that is really stupid on Metro's part.

I'm sure that it has such a clause, as Amtrak always has. It's whether there's a meaningful enforcement provision -- which, it seems pretty clear, there isn't.

Well, not really. If there is such a clause, then regardless of whether there's an enforcement provision, then BNSF is in breach of contract. Metro doesn't need to have an enforcement provision to get their money back, and in this case that could be $100 million. At the moment BNSF can claim force majuere due to the weather, but if this keeps up in good weather...

With Amtrak, "getting its money back" hasn't amounted to a hill of beans, because Amtrak simply wasn't paying that much to its host railroads. This is a bit different, because BNSF charged a *lot* upfront. They also don't have the "it was handed to us late" excuse that the Class Is always use for Amtrak delays

That said, I expect that BNSF will get back to running Northstar on time soon after the weather clears up. They ran Northstar on time for several years, they know how to do it.

 

[neroden]

And don't think that this is something special to freight railroads. I've witnessed many a time when Metrolink gave Amtrak the shaft to run its trains on time. It's a commuter railroad, and intercity doesn't pay the bills.

Commuter railroads have to cut this crap out. Commuters don't pay the bills either. (I believe there are zero commuter routes which make an operating profit in the US, and very few in the world.) Beyond a certain point, bad dispatching is just a sign of bad attitude.

 

[sechs]

I doubt that the contract that BNSF agreed to when they got paid didn't include some kind of performance clause. If it didn't, then that is really stupid on Metro's part.

I'm sure that it has such a clause, as Amtrak always has. It's whether there's a meaningful enforcement provision -- which, it seems pretty clear, there isn't.

Well, not really. If there is such a clause, then regardless of whether there's an enforcement provision, then BNSF is in breach of contract. Metro doesn't need to have an enforcement provision to get their money back, and in this case that could be $100 million.

If BNSF hands back the money, they may no longer have to carry Northstar. A roll back, not a resolution.

And I don't think this kind of enmity is what they're after.