In today’s Kellar Branch installment, there’s a new filing with the Surface Transportation Board from O’Brien Steel. Says President J. P. O’Brien:

It has come to our attention that the Pioneer Industrial Railway is petitioning the Surface Transportation Board to resume providing rail service along the Kellar Branch. Our business, O’Brien Steel Service Co., is located at the beginning of the Kellar Branch and is the largest receiver/shipper along the Kellar Branch. For the past year we have enjoyed a good working relationship with and excellent service from Central Illinois Railroad. Prior to commencement of service by Central Illinois Railroad we were served by Pioneer. Our relationship with Pioneer was contentious and a constant struggle.

O’Brien Steel Service Co. is very satisfied with our current service provider along the Kellar Branch and is strongly opposed to being forced to accept service from Pioneer Industrial Railway. Please do not allow Pioneer to resume providing rail service to O’Brien Steel Service Co.

Since O’Brien Steel is down close to the riverfront where the Kellar Branch begins, it will not be affected by the City’s rail-to-trail plan. The Park District plans to have the Rock Island Trail meet up with the Pimiteoui Trail further up the line from O’Brien, so it’s no skin off their nose if the rail line to Pioneer Park is taken out of service.

As far as I know, O’Brien has nothing against Carver Lumber, but this the second time their grudge against Pioneer Railcorp has affected Carver Lumber’s service. The first time was when O’Brien provided $175,000 to plug the funding gap for the western spur. Had the City not been able to build the spur, the trail project would have been dead and Carver likely would not have experienced the higher prices and deterioration of service.

Now O’Brien writes to the STB to try to stick it to Pioneer again. What is the source of this resentment against Pioneer? One plausible explanation has been offered by local transportation guru David P. Jordan on the PeoriaRails Yahoo Group.

Jordan says that in late 1995 or early 1996, a rail spur was built to service O’Brien Steel that was long enough to allow four gondolas (open railroad cars) to be unloaded at a time:

The downturn in the domestic steel industry and the practice of foreign steelmakers to dump steel in the U.S. market at below cost during the late 1990’s/early 2000’s reduced O’Brien’s use of rail for delivery of steel I-beams and pilings.

For the first few years [Pioneer] operated the line, O’Brien was probably getting most of its product via barge (then trucked the rest of the way) and had the habit of placing steel beams ACROSS the four-car capacity spur on their property so that only one car could be unloaded at any one time. This required additional switching when O’Brien returned to rail for the majority of its shipments. Eventually, space was cleared so that two cars could be unloaded at one time.

[…] at times, several cars would arrive off the P&PU interchange and [Pioneer] could spot only one or two cars at one time. Any additional cars delivered to O’Brien would be “constructively placed.” Since many or most of the cars arriving with product were in railroad-owned railcars, per diem charges kick in and if the consignee (O’Brien) is unable to accommodate these cars, the serving rail carrier passes on these charges in the form of demurrage. [If I remember correctly], O’Brien was always angered by this, but since their four-car capacity spur was blocked by material and they were unable to unload but one or two cars at a time, they only have themselves to blame.

To add further fuel to the fire, Jordan says, “in an earlier post to the STB prior to [Pioneer’s] pullout, O’Brien Steel claimed that a dispute between PRY and another railroad brought an end to an outbound scrap metal move. Translation: O’Brien was forced to use more costly motor carrier transportion.”

Suffice it to say, there appears to be a lot of bad blood between O’Brien Steel and Pioneer Railcorp. So that makes for a fine predicament. The shipper at one end of the line wants Pioneer and the shipper at the other end wants Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY).

There is a solution. I say the city should abandon their rail-to-trail plan and reinstate Pioneer Railcorp. Have the Public Works Director write a letter to Mr. O’Brien promising that he will get comparable service from Pioneer, and further promising that the City will take any and all legal action necessary to enforce its contract with Pioneer. Then the City can stand behind that promise the same way they’ve stood behind the promises they made to Carver Lumber about CIRY. That should do it, don’t you think?