Doesn't the CP have rights through the CN tunnel, which can clear double stacks, for two trains each way per day?
BaltACD Michael Vomvolakis It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity. For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line. Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled. The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains. PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains.
Michael Vomvolakis It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity. For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.
For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length.
A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.
Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled.
The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains. PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains.
Our recrew reports sometimes list "subdivision capacity" as a reason crews couldn't make their next crew change within their HOS. They ain't talkin' about tonnage capacity.
Subdivisions, especially single tracked ones can only handle so much traffic within a set time period. Those 20K ton trains, exclusive of bulk commodity types, gum up the works when they might only fit at one or two sidings. Not so bad if there is only one or two, even better if they're going the same direction. However, that's not often the case. Get a bunch of no-fitters each direction and things bog down fast.
But if they save one crew, the bean-counters deem it a success.
Jeff
jeffhergert BaltACD Michael Vomvolakis It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity. For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line. Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled. The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains. PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains. Our recrew reports sometimes list "subdivision capacity" as a reason crews couldn't make their next crew change within their HOS. They ain't talkin' about tonnage capacity. Subdivisions, especially single tracked ones can only handle so much traffic within a set time period. Those 20K ton trains, exclusive of bulk commodity types, gum up the works when they might only fit at one or two sidings. Not so bad if there is only one or two, even better if they're going the same direction. However, that's not often the case. Get a bunch of no-fitters each direction and things bog down fast. But if they save one crew, the bean-counters deem it a success. Jeff
Mismanaged subdivisions decrease the subdivisions tonnage capacity.
Too many bean counters at headquarters look at a 200 mile single track railroad with 10 or 12 sidings of varying capacity and can't comprehend how that segment of railroad could ever be FULL.
I have worked too many territories where bean counters were making the decisions on what trains to operate and when - and codlocking the railroad tigher than the kill knot on a hangmans rope as they in fact killed the railroad until time and other actions could get it fluid again. Operating 15K foot trains in both directions on subdivisions that only have 10K foot sidings is a good start.
You are overlooking the one thing about bean counters - if something can be accomplished once with the assistance of special actions and additional personnel, they think that should become the standard operating procedure WITHOUT the special actions and additional personnel.
Remember carriers get paid for the tonnage they haul, not the number of trains it takes them to haul the tonnage.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
greyhounds Doesn't the CP have rights through the CN tunnel, which can clear double stacks, for two trains each way per day?
No CP ended rights on the CN back in 2006.
I had heard or read somewhere that the CP can't enlarge the tunnels via Detroit again without compromising them and risking failure. They enlarged them once already for autoracks. I think they are stuck with the doublestacks and need new bores altogether if they want to send those through Detroit.
The one thing I hate is bean counters here. Why well we just had one that said cutting the HP of the fleet would save fuel costs according to his models. I then asked him what was his model based off. He went a flat route with no wind and no traffic intervention. I said run it on a route to Salt Lake City and back maximum weight headwinds out and with possible crosswinds. He does that and cringed. The specs we are running beat his so called perfect ones by .6 mpg and he said that's impossible. All I said was real world experience versus silicon chips doing the matching. His specs had us gear bound and dropping gears in the smallest of hills. Our fleet specs can power over most smaller climbs without dropping a gear.
Shadow the Cats ownerThe one thing I hate is bean counters here. Why well we just had one that said cutting the HP of the fleet would save fuel costs according to his models. I then asked him what was his model based off. He went a flat route with no wind and no traffic intervention. I said run it on a route to Salt Lake City and back maximum weight headwinds out and with possible crosswinds. He does that and cringed. The specs we are running beat his so called perfect ones by .6 mpg and he said that's impossible. All I said was real world experience versus silicon chips doing the matching. His specs had us gear bound and dropping gears in the smallest of hills. Our fleet specs can power over most smaller climbs without dropping a gear.
In a similar vein, at one point in time CSX had a maximum speed for coal trains of 40 MPH systemwide.
I was working the Atlanta Division at the time. Most of Georgia is a series of rolling hills until you get to the coastal plains. Division officials thought that the 40 MPH speed limit on the division was wasting fuel, despite the bean counters beliving it was saving fuel. Division officials finally were able get a 'real world' test with two coal trains of similar size and identical power types. The 'test' train was allowed track speed. The test was between Atlanta and Waycross. Once the numbers were taken an verified - the track speed train used 150 gallons per unit less than the 40 MPH train.
The 40 MPH train had to apply the brakes coming downgrade on the hills to maintain 40 MPH and did not have the additional momentum to assist them in climbing the next hill and thus had to use more power to top the grade and then throw away the momentum on the next downgrade.
Where we nailed his program was the climb up from Omaha towards Cheyenne. You're Climbing a mile and it does take more fuel to do that than you realize. We really hammered him when headwinds where figured into his program.
Ajsik From the Newswire article: Chicago Bypass CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago. The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision. Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City Seems like Milwaukee will be seeing a lot less of CPKC than we currently see of CP.
From the Newswire article:
Chicago Bypass CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago. The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision. Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City
Chicago Bypass
CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago.
The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision.
Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City
Seems like Milwaukee will be seeing a lot less of CPKC than we currently see of CP.
Hmm...buried within the 'TRAINS PER DAY BY SUBDIVISION' projections on Page 922 of the application is an estimate that traffic on the Watertown sub will actually INCREASE by an average of 0.9. This is in spite of the 6.6 per day which are bypassing Chicago via the Marquette sub.
Realistic projection of overall traffic growth or wild optimism? Or (always a strong possibility), am I missing something?
We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread. I leafed thru the first 1150 or so pages of hte application and took notes on certain things, such as train count, tonnage projections, increases in growth, etc.
Very fascinating report filled with tons of data, at least the first 1100 pages.
I noticed also some growth where it was not expected, perhaps this is organic growth in the system, perhaps due to the COVID slowdowns and combinations of trains....but only my thoughts.
Other subdivisions showed little or no growth. Surprized by the lack of traffic on the line from Shreveport to New Orleans. Only 2 trains daily with no projected growth. Would think there would be serious chemical and agriculture movements on that line.
Mexico lines are far busier than I suspected.
Big changes in store on the Chicago - Sabula - Davenport - Kansas City line and then on the KCS line south from KC. Big changes.
ed
MP173 We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread.
We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread.
Oh, sorry I missed that. The original post was in regards to the selection of the CPKC name, a topic I'll let others debate. Thanks for continuing the train count discussion in this thread.
MP173 Very fascinating report filled with tons of data, at least the first 1100 pages.
I've only had time to do a cursory look for details related to the effects we'll see here in the Milwaukee area. I hope to have time to do a deeper dive during the holidays and will pick your brain if anything interesting jumps out at me.
I just got the CP Annual Report in the Mail. On page 68 they state that Calgary, Alberta will be the global HQ of the merged railroad. I read somewhere else it was going to be Kansas City.......so I guess KC is out the window now.
On another page it says the initial name will be CPKC after the merger, it also states that CP will be the Parent company and KCS a wholly owned subsidiary of CP. So that to me says the CPKC name is not a permanent one and will be along the lines of Lake States Transportation, IMHO. Time will tell I guess but I have a real hard time believing the Canadians would allow a permanent name change to CP.
AjsikHmm...buried within the 'TRAINS PER DAY BY SUBDIVISION' projections on Page 922 of the application is an estimate that traffic on the Watertown sub will actually INCREASE by an average of 0.9. This is in spite of the 6.6 per day which are bypassing Chicago via the Marquette sub. Realistic projection of overall traffic growth or wild optimism? Or (always a strong possibility), am I missing something?
Yeah. Chicago to Twin Cities via former Milwaukee Road is shorter and faster than Twin Cities to Bensenville via Marquette sub. So it stands to reason they will use Twin Cities to Bensenville for traffic headed East of Twin Cities. Specifically intermodal trains......and that traffic is increasing currently for CP.
Specifically CP is targeting Ohio Valley, Columbus, Dayton, etc. They are also attempting to expand their intermodal offerings to include acquiring refrigerated containers for hauling perishables.
Also, I think you will find that not all the Oil trains are going to be bound for the Gulf Coast, some are headed East. There are refineries on the East Coast. Last but not least, stay tuned on rail haulage of LNG. Still being debated with AAR pushing for it.
CMStPnPI just got the CP Annual Report in the Mail. On page 68 they state that Calgary, Alberta will be the global HQ of the merged railroad. I read somewhere else it was going to be Kansas City.......so I guess KC is out the window now.
KC will just be the HQ of the US operations. I'm sure they will answer to Calgary.
Agree with CMStPnP. The name Canadian Pacific carries the same prestige, weight, and historical connotation in Canada as Union Pacific does in the US. Ultimately the railroad will be Canadian Pacific.
And Canadian Pacific is just fine. After all, the lines from the original 1867 confederation provinces to the west and the south both end at the Pacific Ocean.
I received my monthly union news journal a few days ago. It has an update on the national contract negotiations. (Not much about details given, they're still bargaining.) What caught my eye was all the US lines of the two Canadians still exist on paper.
Here's a list of CN or CP US lines party to the negotiations.
Cedar River Railroad, d.b.a. CN (It was the branch line that Jack Haley bought from IC before he bought most of what was the IC's old Iowa Division and started up the Chicago Central & Pacific.)
Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP*
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN
Illinois Central Railroad Co and Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN
Soo Line Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP*
Wisconsin Central Ltd, d.b.a. CN
* = Only party to Health and Welfare benefits negotiations. They still have the On-Property agreements for work rules and wages.
One that is missing that I believe still exists on paper, under the CPRS banner, is Dakota Minnesota & Eastern. They had a separate contract and may be totally On-Property for everything, including H&W.
jeffhergertI received my monthly union news journal a few days ago. It has an update on the national contract negotiations. (Not much about details given, they're still bargaining.) What caught my eye was all the US lines of the two Canadians still exist on paper. Here's a list of CN or CP US lines party to the negotiations. Cedar River Railroad, d.b.a. CN (It was the branch line that Jack Haley bought from IC before he bought most of what was the IC's old Iowa Division and started up the Chicago Central & Pacific.) Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP* Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN Illinois Central Railroad Co and Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN Soo Line Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP* Wisconsin Central Ltd, d.b.a. CN * = Only party to Health and Welfare benefits negotiations. They still have the On-Property agreements for work rules and wages. One that is missing that I believe still exists on paper, under the CPRS banner, is Dakota Minnesota & Eastern. They had a separate contract and may be totally On-Property for everything, including H&W. Jeff
For those that do not know d.b.a means "Doing Business As". It is a Corporate term that is used by Secretary of States that a business operates in to change the spoken name of the company but not the contractual name. So agreements and contracts all have to use d.b.a terminology until the name is officially changed via the various State paperwork.....via Secretary of State offices in which the firm does business in.
Officially the definition is in the link below:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/doing-business-as-dba
Without the d.b.a. a company could claim they never had a valid contract with a contract claimant as the name on the contract is not the name the company is registered under. That is the legal basis for using it. Though I am not sure any company in the past attempted to manipulate the law in such a way.
I have the full merger application and it states that Kansas City will be US headquarters and that a small number of employees will be moved there. The rest will have to find other positions at Minneapolis or find other employment.
CP has leased space in Canadian Pacific Plaza in downtown Minneapolis as the current US headquarters. I don't know for sure if dispatchers are still there. But I seem to recall they were. It used to be Soo Line Plaza but CP sold it for $68.8 million in 2015.
https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/blog/real_estate/2015/11/artis-reit-buys-canadian-pacific-plaza-minneapolis.html
Downtown Minneapolis is a shell of what it used to be, with significant vacancy rates and many companies relocating out. Perhaps CP will vacate downtown Minneapolis completely.
St. Paul yard is the only hump yard left on the CP system and has a large diesel shop, so operationally it should remain a key point on the CP system. They still have a turntable and a portion of the roundhouse in operation.
44.9403282, -93.0468588
Kansas City is probably no more than a 3-hour Gulfstream flight from almost any point on the proposed system. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out as to the official headquarters in Calgary and the de facto headquarters where the CEO resides.
I seem to recall stories printed about EHH running CP from his ranch in Florida.
CMStPnPI have a real hard time believing the Canadians would allow a permanent name change to CP.
Still in training.
Lithonia Operator, I believe he means that the railroad will ultimately just be known as Canadian Pacific, not CPKC, because of the importance of Canadian Pacific to Canadian history.
Had CP not been built so close to the 49th parallel between the Lake of the Woods and the West Coast, there was real thought at the time that the US might have continued to expand to the north, leaving Canada as its four original provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, formed as Canada in 1867.
Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador in the east would probably have still joined Canada, but at the time there was a lot of consideration as to whether everything west of Ontario north of the 49th parallel to the Alaska Territory border (purchased from Russia in 1867) might in fact become part of the United States instead.
Prior to 1818, the United States claimed a significant part of what is now British Columbia, and the 49th parallel treated enacted in 1818 set the boundary as we know now. However, as we all know, boundaries changed a lot in the 1800s and even the early 1900s. There is nothing to say that the British Empire would not have sold the wild, untamed, and lightly settled Western Canada at some point to the United States as Russia did Alaska, particularly as it needed revenues to garrison its empire around the globe in the latter half of the 1800s and early 1900s.
The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty.
kgbw49 Lithonia Operator, I believe he means that the railroad will ultimately just be known as Canadian Pacific, not CPKC, because of the importance of Canadian Pacific to Canadian history.
I think that's a real possibility. I'd prefer a name that incorporates Canda, US and Mexico. But I'd prefer Canadian Pacific to CPKC.
Lithonia Operator kgbw49 Lithonia Operator, I believe he means that the railroad will ultimately just be known as Canadian Pacific, not CPKC, because of the importance of Canadian Pacific to Canadian history. I think that's a real possibility. I'd prefer a name that incorporates Canda, US and Mexico. But I'd prefer Canadian Pacific to CPKC.
Could very well end up - CAM - Canadian American Mexican.
Earlier I suggested Canada America Mexico, CAM. (Nouns, not adjectives.) But I think I might like your version better.
kgbw49 The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty.
The last time I looked, Canada had ten provinces and three territories.
And you would be correct! Brain-lock on my part. I know better. Apologies to any Canadian friends out there!
CSSHEGEWISCH kgbw49 The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty. The last time I looked, Canada had ten provinces and three territories.
What are the distinctions between Porvince and Territories? Is one disenfranchised in comparison to the other?
kgbw49 een the Lake of the Woods and the West Coast, there was real thought at the time that the US might have continued to expand to the north, leaving Canada as its four original provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, formed as Canada in 1867. Prior to 1818, the United States claimed a significant part of what is now British Columbia, and the 49th parallel treated enacted in 1818 set the boundary as we know now. However, as we all know, boundaries changed a lot in the 1800s and even the early 1900s. There is nothing to say that the British Empire would not have sold the wild, untamed, and lightly settled Western Canada at some point to the United States as Russia did Alaska, particularly as it needed revenues to garrison its empire around the globe in the latter half of the 1800s and early 1900s. The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty.
een the Lake of the Woods and the West Coast, there was real thought at the time that the US might have continued to expand to the north, leaving Canada as its four original provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, formed as Canada in 1867.
Well there is 54-40 or fight!! Can it be revived ?
Fifty-four Forty or Fight—The U.S./Canada Boundary (thoughtco.com)
BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH kgbw49 The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad did as much to "seal" the border with the United States to result in the Canada with its 13 provinces that we all know today,as much as the original 1818 treaty. The last time I looked, Canada had ten provinces and three territories. What are the distinctions between Porvince and Territories? Is one disenfranchised in comparison to the other?
The three territories are not sovereign states.
Well today CP's shareholder's voted to merge their US subsidiaries with KCS. They also voted to change the name of the holding company to "Canadian Pacific Kansas City" contingent upon receiving final approval to dissolve the Voting Trust and take full control of KCS. The next step is for KCS shareholder's to vote on accepting CP's offer, which they will do on Friday December 10th, 2021.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.