Roseburg Forest Products, Timber Products Company and Suburban Propane and the Yreka Western Railroad finally received an answer from the Surface Transportation Board this afternoon. The companies along the West Texas and Lubbock Railroad filed for an emergency service order that would let them operate the Southern portion of the Siskiyou rail line. The filing, if approved would let West Texas move freight from Weed, California, all the way into Dillard, Oregon and back. Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad owns the tracks from Dillard to Ashland, Oregon then leases the track from Union Pacific Railroad from Ashland, Oregon to Weed, California. They objected to the original filing saying that it’s a railroad rate dispute not a service disruption issue. All of the parties agreed in September to move their objections to private talks and negotiate an operating agreement. The talks broke down quickly and action was forwarded back to the STB to decide. Today an answer came out of Washington, D.C. that was unexpected from the shippers view. The STB ruled the case is still active and open and more information needs to be filed quickly. All parties involved have been asked to send more information to prove service was disrupted from CORP’s operation last year to current date. The STB says after they receive the additional information, they will then rule on the case.
Siskiyou County, Calif. - In discussing whether there was a substantial, measurable deterioration or other service inadequacy from the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP) on the Siskiyou line, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) states in its decision, “While it is undisputed that CORP effected a substantial reduction in rail service, petitioners have not yet established that CORP’s service was inadequate under 49 U.S.C. 11123.” 49 U.S.C. 11123 pertains to situations requiring immediate action to serve the public. The STB responds to claims from the petitioners that are offered as proof of service inadequacy on the line, starting with rail car supply and retaliation. “Failure to deliver adequate empty cars can form the basis for finding a ‘substantial, measurable deterioration’ of rail service,” the STB states, but explains that in other cases where this principle has been exercised the problem was ongoing. At the time of the petition, the STB states, lack of adequate empty cars was no longer a problem. Addressing possible retaliatiory actions by CORP, the STB states that it feels only one incident could qualify as retaliation and the petitioners have only claimed “‘apparent retaliation’” in their petition. The STB discusses the claims of impacts from reduced service and service schedules, beginning with the summer of 2007, in which CORP began running trains four times per week instead of five. “They do not show, however, that this level of service had any significant effect on the shipper–petitioners,” the STB states, saying that in the absence of this evidence there is no proven substantial, measurable deterioration in service for that time period. The STB also states that the evidence provided to it shows that the two-days-per-week schedule implemented in January of 2008 was adequate for the number of cars both Timber Products and Roseburg Forest Products would require each week. In the petition to the STB, the petitioners stated that there were many instances where cars were backlogged and in some cases took multiple days to clear out. The STB states in the decision that while these incidents did occur, many of the times the cars were cleared out in two days, except in two instances where the cars were not moved for five days. Also discussed by the petitioners was a stretch of time from January 31 to February 12 2008 during which cars were not moved at all. The STB sided with CORP’s assertion that a series of major snowstorms caused a debilitation to the line and CORP did everything it could to bring back service. The petitioners also made the claim that they require a five-day service week as part of their tightly maintained production schedule, with the reduced schedule causing “severe plant congestion and measurably increased cycle time per car” and possibly resulting in losing business to competitors not facing the same delays. The STB states that it believes the problems may not be attributable solely to CORP’s schedule change, noting that CORP, in its rebuttal to the petition, claimed that the problems originated with “internal difficulties” at the mills. In order to clarify the issue, the STB states, “The record on this matter would benefit from further development. We will therefore direct the parties to supplement the record to clarify: (1) the frequency and severity of the delays RFP and TPC have endured in supplying finished goods to their customers and the consequences, if any, to them of those delays; (2) the extent to which internal difficulties at their Oregon mills contribute to the various problems about which RFP and TPC complain; and (3) the feasibility of addressing these problems through means other than a return to a five-day-a-week service schedule (i.e., building more track at the mills for loading and unloading cargo or storing raw materials at the mills).” Also discussed are diversions to truck, alternative rail options and the impact of rail rates and new traffic on the line. The STB states that contrary to CORP’s claims, a shipper’s ability to switch to trucks does not preclude a finding that service has deteriorated sufficiently. Regarding rail options, the STB states that the availability of the options is unclear and at the time of the decision the board could not conclude that the options were viable given the uncertainty. In summarizing its findings, the STB states, “The record does not establish the existence of a rail transportation emergency having a substantial adverse effect on rail shippers. Although petitioners have experienced a reduction in service frequency and have documented some service inadequacy, they have not established that a substantial, measurable service deterioration exists that would justify an alternative service order.” Regarding discussions with CORP and reasons why restoration of adequate service is unlikely, the STB states that since they did not find that CORP had failed to provide adequate service, there is no situation present in which the company could restore adequate service. The STB also discusses the requirement for a commitment from an alternative service provider, which the board feels has been met by the petitioners. The proceedings are being held open by the STB until supplemental evidence from both parties is received. For the petitioners, the STB states “petitioners should supplement the record as to their commercial needs and why CORP’s two–day–a–week service schedule is inadequate to satisfy them.” The board also suggests that the petitioners provide evidence that allowing Western Texas and Lubbock (WTL) to run the line will not degrade service over the line. The STB also states that CORP should clarify why it is opposed to alternative rail service in light of the fact that they have already lost rail traffic to truck and WTL would compensate them for operation of the line. It is also suggested that CORP respond to contentions that they failed to give notice of scaled–back rate increases and also clarify ambiguities surrounding the other rail options they claim are available to the petitioners. The supplemental statements are to be submitted by March 24, with replies on April 3.
