Here is some UP traffic information:
https://www.up.com/investors/attachments/factbooks/2008/factbook.pdf
See page 31 of 40 of the 2008 UP Fact Book.
9.261 million carloads in 2008 (9.852 million in 2006 - the all-time peak) but many of these were coal trains from the Powder River Basin, prior to the natural gas boom.
In 2017, UP had 8.588 million revenue carloads per their 2017 Fact Book.
In 2018, UP had 8.908 million revenue carloads per their 2018 Q4 Financial Press Release.
in 2008, UP had 2.328 million revenue loads in their Energy Sector, of which 90% or 2.095 million were coal loads from the PRB or CO/UT (per 2008 Fact Book).
In 2018, UP had 1.650 million revenue carloads in their Energy Sector per their Q4 financial report, but that also included frac sand, ethanol and crude oil trains. No full-year coal load info was broken out, but Q4 coal loads were 252,000, which would correlate to about 1.0+ million coal loads for the year.
If UP again has 4% growth in carloads in 2019 as they did in 2018, they will have about 9.264 million carloads and will have finally exceeded 2008 carloads (though not have yet surpassed 2006).
RailRoader608 Would we run out of terminal capacity first? or linehaul capacity? And do bottlenecks already exist today along some routes? I'm not really sure which answer is easier to solve either; both adding a track and building a new terminal sound incredibly expensive.
Would we run out of terminal capacity first? or linehaul capacity?
And do bottlenecks already exist today along some routes? I'm not really sure which answer is easier to solve either; both adding a track and building a new terminal sound incredibly expensive.
Terminal. The line haul stuff is easier to fix, generally. Launching and putting trains away in terminals chews up capacity like crazy.
But, quadrupling is a tall order....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
kgbw49 Here is some UP traffic information: https://www.up.com/investors/attachments/factbooks/2008/factbook.pdf See page 31 of 40 of the 2008 UP Fact Book. 9.261 million carloads in 2008 (9.852 million in 2006 - the all-time peak) but many of these were coal trains from the Powder River Basin, prior to the natural gas boom. In 2017, UP had 8.588 million revenue carloads per their 2017 Fact Book. In 2018, UP had 8.908 million revenue carloads per their 2018 Q4 Financial Press Release. in 2008, UP had 2.328 million revenue loads in their Energy Sector, of which 90% or 2.095 million were coal loads from the PRB or CO/UT (per 2008 Fact Book). In 2018, UP had 1.650 million revenue carloads in their Energy Sector per their Q4 financial report, but that also included frac sand, ethanol and crude oil trains. No full-year coal load info was broken out, but Q4 coal loads were 252,000, which would correlate to about 1.0+ million coal loads for the year. If UP again has 4% growth in carloads in 2019 as they did in 2018, they will have about 9.264 million carloads and will have finally exceeded 2008 carloads (though not have yet surpassed 2006).
The loss of coal is what's mostly reduced the train count in my neck of the woods. A few trains, including one coal train, were rerouted away from our route. I'm not sure if those rerouted trains still run anymore. I can think of 7 or 8 power plants that had a loaded train about every day. A couple were good for two about every day. And then throw in the empties going back.
It's amazing how things have changed.
Jeff
We are all sincerely pulling for UP and you, Jeff!
kgbw49We are all sincerely pulling for UP and you, Jeff!
Their stock is doing fantastic, I have more than doubled my original investment of just 8 years ago. It's approaching $200 a share, bought near $80.....400+ shares and climbing slowly due to divident reinvestment.
jeffhergertI can think of 7 or 8 power plants that had a loaded train about every day. A couple were good for two about every day. And then throw in the empties going back.
zardoz jeffhergert I can think of 7 or 8 power plants that had a loaded train about every day. A couple were good for two about every day. And then throw in the empties going back. The Pleasant Prairie power plant has closed recently, although WE Energies is using the facility for storing the unused empty cars.
jeffhergert I can think of 7 or 8 power plants that had a loaded train about every day. A couple were good for two about every day. And then throw in the empties going back.
The Pleasant Prairie power plant has closed recently, although WE Energies is using the facility for storing the unused empty cars.
That was one that was good for two loads and returning empties about everyday.
I'm pretty safe with my seniority. It's those on the bubble I'm concerned about. One day they're working the conductor's pools with a fairly comfortable cushion below them. A few weeks later they're worried about being regulated to the AWRR (retention board where you work two days a week) or worse, being furloughed completely. Right now we're starting down the cutting back mode again, while a new hire class is ready or has started.
Jeff, which coal operation is missing now, if I may be so bold?It was a little startling to see the Pleasant Prairie plant with no steam coming from its stack yesterday. Guess it's done, huh, and all WEPX trains through here are now going to Oak Creek?(When I hired out, Pleasant Prairie didn't exist, but Oak Creek did. What goes around comes around, I guess.)
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRRIt was a little startling to see the Pleasant Prairie plant with no steam coming from its stack yesterday. Guess it's done, huh, and all WEPX trains through here are now going to Oak Creek?
On a personal note, I was glad to see the plant close as it generated an annoying amount of black dust that made hanging laundry a bad idea when the wind was coming from the wrong direction. And then there's the other pollutants (mercury) that we were exposed to. Too bad the plant didn't last long enough to burn T.Rumps "clean coal".
The Elm Road Generating Station in Oak Creek (just north of the Oak Creek Generating Station) is 1,268 MW. The 634 MW Unit 1 commenced commercial operation In 2010 and the 634 MW Unit 2 commenced commercial operatiin 2011.
https://www.we-energies.com/home/elm-road-generating-station.htm
CShaveRR Jeff, which coal operation is missing now, if I may be so bold?It was a little startling to see the Pleasant Prairie plant with no steam coming from its stack yesterday. Guess it's done, huh, and all WEPX trains through here are now going to Oak Creek?(When I hired out, Pleasant Prairie didn't exist, but Oak Creek did. What goes around comes around, I guess.)
I can only say by destination, I don't always know which power company owned what. Off the top of my head some regular destinations gone are Powerville (Marshalltown, IA-new gas plant), Waukegon and Will County, Kinkaid, Fruitland (Muscatine). I haven't seen a Michigan City for quite awhile, but we still have a few Wheatfield trains. It seems like not as many though. The Cedar Rapids area used to be good for trains to Alliant and ADM. The Alliant trains kind of tapered off, I haven't seen one for awhile but they could be getting trains via other railroads. I know BNSF-IAIS now has the ADM contract, so there is always a chance to regain it. There was one run-through to CSX that they rerouted across Missouri to avoid Chicago. I don't know if it still runs.
The Fruitland trains still run, only via BNSF-CPRS. Fruitland is (primarily) a Mid-America plant. Mid-America, has is BNSF, is in the Berkshire Hathaway camp. It wasn't a surprise we lost that contract.
And of course, Pleasant Prairie is gone.
The Federal Government created an estimate for railroad capacity in 2035 in 2007. It is instructive. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/trainvolcap2035.htm
SAMUEL C WALKER The Federal Government created an estimate for railroad capacity in 2035 in 2007. It is instructive. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/trainvolcap2035.htm RailRoader608 Would we run out of terminal capacity first? or linehaul capacity? And do bottlenecks already exist today along some routes? I'm not really sure which answer is easier to solve either; both adding a track and building a new terminal sound incredibly expensive.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
SAMUEL C WALKER The Federal Government created an estimate for railroad capacity in 2035 in 2007. It is instructive. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/trainvolcap2035.htm
Update for Carl, and anyone else. I see a Waukegan coal train on the line up, so they're not completely gone. I line up for it, all 180 cars of it. Normal trains are more like 135 +/-.
Maybe the question isn't where will the bottlenecks be if traffic volumes increase. Maybe it should be will those railroads practicing PSR even want increased volumes?
Some former EHH railroads have since found after he left that you have to have growth, and spend money to do so. They may not have abandoned PSR completely, but they've realized only cutting takes you so far.
jeffhergert . . . Some former EHH railroads have since found after he left that you have to have growth, and spend money to do so. . . .
- PDN.
jeffhergertbut they've realized only cutting takes you so far.
Which rather follows the concept that cutting only moved money to where it to could removed by the investors interested only in the money...
There was no long-term planning in their strategy.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I can say this from my perspective on my industry. If freight volume goes up that much without a major investment in the invastructure in this nation especially the roads then more than likely the entire logistics chain would collaspe from the bottlenecks in the major cities alone. Just getting in and out of the areas around the old Joliet Arsenal in Illinois are a major pain in the rear anytime of the day. Why the local roads into and out of the logistics parks can't handle the volume of traffic. If you're heading north into Chicago it's 3 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic almost a solid 8 hours a freaking day now for 50 miles between Joliet and Chicago. The beltway interstates are the same the bypass aka 294 around it your basically racing at Talladega from Indiana to Wisconsin while praying not for a major accident anywhere on it. When it can take 90 minutes to go 30 miles in rush hour traffic on a Friday night to just go from the Tristate to I 80 there's no more room for growth in traffic on the road.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.