Who had the best Twin Cities - KC route?

[Anonymous]

To set the time period (for selfish reasons - the era most interesting to me), let's say it's the mid-to-late 1960's...

Who, in terms of track condition, operating speeds, efficiency of movement, etc. etc. had the best route between the Twin Cities and Kansas City out of these railroads: MILW, ROCK, CGW and CBQ?

I always assumed the ROCK had the better route since it was geographically more direct.  To me the CBQ and MILW both seemed to have more "roundabout" routes since they hugged the Mississippi River.  The CGW's route took them through St. Joseph and as I understand it they had 4 mandatory stops on their way through that city.

Looking at today's operations, it certainly seems like the MILW and CBQ must've had the advantage, since the CGW's route was given-up by the CNW once they acquired the ROCK's "Spine Line", but that line doesn't see the same level of traffic BNSF and apparently ICE host now on their rails.

Inquiring minds want to know...

[MP173]

I assume you are referring to freight traffic...as by mid 60's there wasnt much passenger traffic moving between the two points.

In 1964, Rock carded two passenger trains 15/16 and 17/18.  The Twin Star Rocket (17-18) ran on to Ft Worth.  The 479 miles between Mpls and KC was run in a respectable 10 hours.  It carried a parlor  lounge car, sleeper, diner, and coaches, pretty much the same as 15/16 except it had no diner or parlor car....long trip without meals.  15/16 only ran to Mpls/KC and was an overnight train, leaving both cities at 9pm and arrival at 9am....no doubt carrying considerable mail.

I have no idea about freight volumes.  I would guess there would have been some grain movements between the markets, but not sure about anything else. 

ed

[sandiego]

Overall the RI was the best. Track conditions may not have been as good as CBQ but the RI still had 112/115# rail on the entire route and CTC on a good portion with ABS on the rest. Definitely the best alignment, fewest curves, moderate grades, shortest distance. South of Trenton, Mo. the line was new construction dating from 1940's. RI kept the track in OK shape, CNW was able to move trains from CGW line to RI line right after they started operating the line after the Rock folded up. Also, CNW ran a lot of "detour" trains over the RI around 1973 when they were moving all the Russian grain and they made much better time on the RI. The CNW would have kept running on the RI but the ICC raised a ruckus and forced them to stop.

That CGW was a joke south of Des Moines, curves and grades galore, 90# rail, too few and too short sidings, the tangled-up mess at St. Joe, the antique Mo. River bridge at Leavenworth with the ultra sharp 12 deg. curve on the west end, trackage rights on the MP from Leavenworth to KC, and a small, cramped yard in KC.

The Rock seemed to get most of their traffic from the Soo, at least in the 1970's (Remember the Soo's "Rocky-Soo transfer from Shoreham to Inver Grove)?

Kurt Hayek

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Strictly in terms of alignment and geography the former RI "Spine Line" would have to get the nod on that front; hopefully one day in the not too far off future it'll host Amtrak service between the Twin Cities and Kansas City where it is sorely needed.

However, despite it's seemingly "straight-shot" alignment, that doesn't always tell the whole story.  Rather, it's how you can move trains on a consistent basis.  The Milwaukee Road, especially after the segment between River Junction (La Crescent) and Marquette was rebuilt in 1981,  did an admirable job of moving trains in this corridor.

[CGW]

Overall the RI was the best. Track conditions may not have been as good as CBQ but the RI still had 112/115# rail on the entire route and CTC on a good portion with ABS on the rest. Definitely the best alignment, fewest curves, moderate grades, shortest distance. South of Trenton, Mo. the line was new construction dating from 1940's. RI kept the track in OK shape, CNW was able to move trains from CGW line to RI line right after they started operating the line after the Rock folded up. Also, CNW ran a lot of "detour" trains over the RI around 1973 when they were moving all the Russian grain and they made much better time on the RI. The CNW would have kept running on the RI but the ICC raised a ruckus and forced them to stop.

That CGW was a joke south of Des Moines, curves and grades galore, 90# rail, too few and too short sidings, the tangled-up mess at St. Joe, the antique Mo. River bridge at Leavenworth with the ultra sharp 12 deg. curve on the west end, trackage rights on the MP from Leavenworth to KC, and a small, cramped yard in KC.

The Rock seemed to get most of their traffic from the Soo, at least in the 1970's (Remember the Soo's "Rocky-Soo transfer from Shoreham to Inver Grove)?

Kurt Hayek

Even though I am a die hard fan of the Gee Wiz, I have to agree that the CGW did not have a good route to KC.  Back in the 50's the CGW looked into purchasing the Minneapolis-St Louis line primarly for the segment between Mason City and Marshalltown which would provide a much shorter route from the TC to KC by bypassing Oelwein and Waterloo.  The only problem I would see is there would need to be either a connection built at Marshalltown or a power run around procedure would need to be done because there was no wye connection.

According to my sources, after the CNW purchased the RI Spine Line, the CNW ran both the RI and the CGW KC lines like a double track line for a short time while the RI line was being rebuilt.  I believe the CGW line was used for south bound trains and the RI line was used for northbound trains.  At that time, a tremendous among of grain traffic was moving south to KC.

Does anyone know which route the BN used or still uses between the Twin Cities to KC?

Jeff

[Victrola1]

A few years earlier, M&StL/Wabash.

Old M&StL freight tables show the connection. Does anybody know if it was much used?

[Anonymous]

Overall the RI was the best. Track conditions may not have been as good as CBQ but the RI still had 112/115# rail on the entire route and CTC on a good portion with ABS on the rest. Definitely the best alignment, fewest curves, moderate grades, shortest distance. South of Trenton, Mo. the line was new construction dating from 1940's. RI kept the track in OK shape, CNW was able to move trains from CGW line to RI line right after they started operating the line after the Rock folded up. Also, CNW ran a lot of "detour" trains over the RI around 1973 when they were moving all the Russian grain and they made much better time on the RI. The CNW would have kept running on the RI but the ICC raised a ruckus and forced them to stop.

That CGW was a joke south of Des Moines, curves and grades galore, 90# rail, too few and too short sidings, the tangled-up mess at St. Joe, the antique Mo. River bridge at Leavenworth with the ultra sharp 12 deg. curve on the west end, trackage rights on the MP from Leavenworth to KC, and a small, cramped yard in KC.

The Rock seemed to get most of their traffic from the Soo, at least in the 1970's (Remember the Soo's "Rocky-Soo transfer from Shoreham to Inver Grove)?

Kurt Hayek

Even though I am a die hard fan of the Gee Wiz, I have to agree that the CGW did not have a good route to KC.  Back in the 50's the CGW looked into purchasing the Minneapolis-St Louis line primarly for the segment between Mason City and Marshalltown which would provide a much shorter route from the TC to KC by bypassing Oelwein and Waterloo.  The only problem I would see is there would need to be either a connection built at Marshalltown or a power run around procedure would need to be done because there was no wye connection.

According to my sources, after the CNW purchased the RI Spine Line, the CNW ran both the RI and the CGW KC lines like a double track line for a short time while the RI line was being rebuilt.  I believe the CGW line was used for south bound trains and the RI line was used for northbound trains.  At that time, a tremendous among of grain traffic was moving south to KC.

Does anyone know which route the BN used or still uses between the Twin Cities to KC?

Jeff

I wouldn't think that the connection at Marshalltown would've been too difficult, since the CGW main entered Marshalltown from the southwest, crossed the CNW east-west main and the M&StL entered from the northwest and crossed the CGW main first, then the CNW main over there west of the Hwy 14 overpass. 

[sandiego]

Re:

"Does anyone know which route the BN used or still uses between the Twin Cities to KC"?

When I worked at Northtown from 1989 to about 2002 the BN/BNSF ran KC traffic via the ex-GN to Willmar and Su City, then via ex-CBQ to Ashland and Lincoln, then to KC.  This would include traffic from Head of the Lakes and some from Grand Forks area.  West traffic and Grand Forks could also move via Dilworth and Breckenridge to Willmar; then added to N'town-Lincoln trains. I think that the traffic is still moving on the same routings.

Although it would seem otherwise, there isn't a tremendous amount of traffic moving TC-KC (on any railroad), and there never was either, compared with TC-Chicago or KC-Chicago. It's respectable traffic but still it's less than on other corridors.

Jeff, I'm also a die-hard CGW and M&StL fan as well as a CNW fan so it pains me to admit the RI was the far better route but after exploring all the routes and studying the track charts there's no doubt which line was better.  Looking back now it seems a miracle the both the CGW and M&StL survived as long as they did.

Kurt Hayek

 

 

[nordique72]

WIAR-

 Actually to build a connection between the MSTL and the CGW on the west side of Marshalltown would have been a tremendous pain to achieve. The CGW did enter on the southwest side and paralleled the CNW main for a short time on the south side before crossing it at the exact same spot as where the MSTL crossed coming in from the north (at a southeasterly angle through a residential area). To make the two railroads connect- another pair of diamonds (or overpass) over the CNW main line would have been needed to connect the two lines, most likely a ways west of town where the CGW grade comes in from the south and begins to parallel the CNW main. After crossing the CNW- the new connection would have needed to head north cutting out of the valley the CGW was following, over a pair of ridges before dropping back down to connect with the MSTL's line in the valley they followed into Marshalltown. The topography on the west side of town isn't the best for hacking a new connection between the two railroads.

Ironically back in the late 70s the CNW built a connector track on the east side of town between their main and the CGW's line which eliminated a needed back up move for trains arriving from the north off the CGW (and departing to the north likewise) that needed to get into the yard at Marshalltown- it also got the trains off the short segment of street trackage on the CGW main. You can see the remnants of this connection near South 18th Avenue and Main Street.

[Anonymous]

WIAR-

 Actually to build a connection between the MSTL and the CGW on the west side of Marshalltown would have been a tremendous pain to achieve. The CGW did enter on the southwest side and paralleled the CNW main for a short time on the south side before crossing it at the exact same spot as where the MSTL crossed coming in from the north (at a southeasterly angle through a residential area). To make the two railroads connect- another pair of diamonds (or overpass) over the CNW main line would have been needed to connect the two lines, most likely a ways west of town where the CGW grade comes in from the south and begins to parallel the CNW main. After crossing the CNW- the new connection would have needed to head north cutting out of the valley the CGW was following, over a pair of ridges before dropping back down to connect with the MSTL's line in the valley they followed into Marshalltown. The topography on the west side of town isn't the best for hacking a new connection between the two railroads.

Ironically back in the late 70s the CNW built a connector track on the east side of town between their main and the CGW's line which eliminated a needed back up move for trains arriving from the north off the CGW (and departing to the north likewise) that needed to get into the yard at Marshalltown- it also got the trains off the short segment of street trackage on the CGW main. You can see the remnants of this connection near South 18th Avenue and Main Street.

I always thought there was more "elbow room" over there just west of the overpass - I'm looking at some pictures I took in 1995 in Marshalltown looking west.  I can barely see the old M&StL coming in from the northwest and what was left of the CGW main on the right, with the M&StL yard to the left.  I can't really see the point where the CGW crossed the CNW (too distant with another road overpass obscuring my view), and I can see some houses way off west of the M&StL's line to Albia.  I can see a connecting track between the CGW main and the north track of the CNW main, again west of my position, connecting to the CNW north track just a little east of M&StL yard's west throat.  There are I think 3 overpasses crossing the trackage in Marshalltown now, and I'm not sure what road I was on at the time.  There's what looks to be lumber yard north of the CGW trackage.

Anyway - do you think it might've been more feasible to build a connecting line between the CGW and M&StL, say going north/south between Melbourne & Union?  If they went that way (about 26 miles of new track through good Iowa farmland) they wouldn't have had to build another bridge over the Iowa River.

[nordique72]

WIAR-

 Not to sound rude- but looking at photos from 1995 wouldn't really help illustrate how crowded the MSTL-CNW-CGW crossing in Marshalltown was. By that time the diamonds had been removed- the MSTL from the northwest by then just curved in and connected to the CNW main. The CGW crossing was totally obliterated as the CNW reconfigured the interlocker and the new 3rd Street overpass was built, replacing the spot where the CGW line came in along the CNW main with a long yard lead that ran into the former MSTL yard. The CGW "connector" that you see coming in from the north is most likely the leftover stub of CGW main that was left for a while as an industry track. Beyond the 3rd street overpass the CGW main was left in west of town as a long siding (by 1995- used only to store cars) and accessed by two new switches the CNW installed.

At the time when the CGW was still around there were only 2 overpasses over the tracks- both spanned the CNW and MSTL yards- those were Center Street (Hwy 14) and 3rd Avenue. It wasn't until later on that the third overpass was completed on 3rd street further west next to the interlocking. In the 70s when the 3 railroads still crossed there- 3rd street's crossing ran almost right over the top of the interlocker. The CNW and CGW paralleling out of town to the west could have almost been mistaken for a 3 track mainline, save for the CNW's big pole line set between them.

The CGW's story in Marshalltown is a rather interesting one- since it was the last of the 3 railroads to arrive town- they were not afforded the most ample or spacious ROW through town. As the story goes the city didn't really want the CGW running through town, essentially telling them they didn't have the room where CGW wanted to go- so one day (I think it was a Sunday) without warning the CGW's track layers showed up and pretty much layed their tracks down right on top of Nevada Ave one afternoon circumventing the city's wishes (North Western Lines had a good article about that little stunt). On the west side of Nevada Ave where the CGW spilled out- they snaked across the CNW and MSTL on an interlocking in the midst of a tight "S" curve coming off the Avenue (by the lumberyard)- then sidling up against the CNW out of town.

If this short connection had been built at Marshalltown- no new Iowa River bridge would have been needed either. The Iowa River runs across the north side of town, then dips southeasterly around town on the east side (CNW crosses it between M'town and Quarry). There is a trio of smaller creeks in town but where I'd see the connection being built they'd not needed any major bridges, just an annoying climb over the valley ridges created by the creeks. The MSTL main stayed on the south side of the Iowa River after crossing it south of Albion- so if you did build a Melbourne-Union connection, an Iowa River bridge would be needed.  Inasmuch- the Union-Melbourne connection would have been even more hill-and-dale than a short connector at Marshalltown. Leaving Melbourne the CGW had just come off a high fill that spanned the MILW main line, a creek and a county road, after which the CGW turned northeasterly on a stiff curve, then diving into a series of cuts before picking up the Timber Creek valley which it followed into Luray. If the line did leave Melbourne- they'd not only have to cross three creek watershed valleys (Timber, Linn and Minerva)- but also the CNW main line and their Roland-Zearing branch as well. It doesn't seem feasible to assume this area would be any better to build a connector on (I'd run the connection into the south side of Albion, south of the river bridge if the connection was to come out of the Luray/Melbourne area).

Safe to say if a connection was built between the two had the CGW-MSTL combined- it most likely would have been a short connector at Marshalltown with an overpass over the CNW main and connecting to the MSTL's main south of their Iowa River bridge.

[Anonymous]

Not wanting to be argumentative (just a friendly debate), but I'm looking at a Yahoo! Maps hybrid image on the proposed Union - Melbourne connector line, and Union, IA is west of the Iowa River.  The M&StL main ran through the center of Union with the river approx. 4500 ft. to the east (the railroad ran actually SE through town) and crossed the Iowa between Union & Liscomb, then crossed it again south of Albion.  The proposed line would cross the CNW main and their branch as you describe, but bridging those lines would be easier outside the more populated Marshalltown area.  But I don't see that another bridge over the Iowa River to accomplish that almost straight north-south connection would be needed (over some of the tributary creeks yes - I can see that).

I like debating stuff that never happened.

[RRKen]

The UP now has that route, and it is a favorite with CP in the CamAM corridor, as well as ethanol traffic.   The 112 pound rail is slowly going away, and more CTC is being added.   Crew change points are St. Paul, Mason City, and Des Moines.  South of Des Moines, the Spine is directional running south.  Northbound traffic comes via the Falls City sub to Omaha, then east to the Spine.   It allows far more capacity.  

 There will never be the capacity to run Amtrak on the Spine.   Same goes for Intermodal.

The IC&E route cannot compete with UP's Spine.    You end up adding an extra day of transit from Mason City for example to KC.  

[RRKen]

Although it would seem otherwise, there isn't a tremendous amount of traffic moving TC-KC (on any railroad), and there never was either, compared with TC-Chicago or KC-Chicago. It's respectable traffic but still it's less than on other corridors.

Kurt Hayek

There is a lot more traffic on the Spine today.   CN and CP to southern destinations, as well as grain every day, and coal north.  Ethanol twice a week on average, probably more now.

[sandiego]

Re:

"There is a lot more traffic on the Spine today. CN and CP to southern destinations, as well as grain every day, and coal north. Ethanol twice a week on average, probably more now."

True, as compared with historical traffic levels, but I still stand by my original statement (that TC-KC is a lesser corridor compared with other corridors) based on a review of my US Railroad Traffic Atlas by Harry Ladd (2003 edition). Here's what the Atlas showed:

Twin Cities to Mason City—Tonnage Group 4 (10 to 19.99 MGT)
Mason City to Chicago Jct. (Nevada)—Group 5 (20 to 29.99 MGT)
Chicago Jct. to Des Moines—Group 6 (30 to 39.99 MGT)
Des Moines to Polo, Mo.—Group 5 (20 to 29.99 MGT)
Polo to Kansas City (joint with ICE)—Group 6 (30 to 39.99 MGT)

MGT—Millions of gross ton-miles per mile.

In comparison both the BNSF and CP lines east from the Twin Cities to Chicago are Group 7 (40+ MGT). The atlas doesn't go any higher than 40+ MGT so their tonnage could be much more than that. Anyway, that's at least 80+ MGT on the TC-Chicago corridor, heavy stuff there.

By now, traffic probably is higher on the RI line but the relationship to the other lines should still be about the same as their traffic is higher also. That ethanol is just cannibalizing the grain traffic so it's about a wash there, too.

Re:

"There will never be the capacity to run Amtrak on the Spine. Same goes for Intermodal."

Why not? With CTC on the entire route and more sidings there should be ample capacity given the traffic levels. Consider that the CP line east from St. Paul has both Amtrak and intermodal on single track with more tonnage besides.

It would be interesting to know how many trains a day the UP is running on the RI; does anybody have some good info?

Kurt Hayek

[nordique72]

WIAR-

 Despite the second crossing I gotta disagree with you there- a 26 mile connector over that many creek valleys and two railroad crossings would be exponentially larger in cost than a 2 mile connector with one overpass (over the CNW main) at Marshalltown. Given the topography it would be easier to bridge the Iowa and join up with MSTL at Albion - not Union, which would have put the line in the Iowa flood plain until the connection (and crossing six tributary creeks, five at their mouths to the Iowa as well or even crossing the Iowa itself).

Look closely at the topographics of the area and you'll see there is very little room against the bluff wall to skirt without having to cross the river itself or several small creeks in the floodplain south of Union- look about a mile south of Union and you'll see a particularily severe horseshoe in the river by the mouth of Dowd Creek that hugs the western bluff of the river, after a sharp closing of the western floodplain- not much room to effectively put a rail line in there without bridging to the eastern floodplain (perhaps even why the Iowa Central- later MSTL- jumped west to east here?) or leaving the floodplain and then re-entering it (think of the gradients needed to do that). And check out Mormon Ridge by Minerva too! Crossing at the point to Albion I was looking at would have bridged the Iowa, Minerva watersheds and the CNW branch in one small area- while a line up to Union would have constituted two (on in my opine three) crossings of the latter for the best profile and least chance of wash outs.

 As an example of such- the ex-CNW Sioux City Sub in the Missouri floodplain btween California Jct and Sioux City is seemingly a great location for a rail line- given the low profile in the valley, but it's a maintenance nightmare with multiple creek crossings and the soft shifting grounds of the floodplain itself. UP has been constantly frustrated by the lumpiness of the profile there despite how many times they and the CNW in the past have tried to keep in in check.

Checking in southeast of the town of Marietta- south of Albion- the line could have jumped the divide and joined up without subjecting itself to running in the Iowa River floodplain (narrow as it is by topo map), avoiding Mormon Ridge, bridging the Iowa, or crossing the CNW branch with a semi-decent profile. To run it over the five creek valleys and over two rail crossings would not be more cost effective than a short connector on the far west side of Marshalltown (no houses to tear down or buy out- though still an engineering pain) or a shorter connection to the south side of Albion. Yahoo is good for the snapshot- but check the topos for the negative- and you're right- this is fun.

[nordique72]

Ken,

 How much traffic is the CN now handing the UP at Duluth/Superior to avoid Chicago nowadays? I had recalled the UP was touting this a while back to help the CN avoid their Chicago gridlock- and is the CP now doing this too via Minneapolis/St. Paul? I had noticed we get a MCPFW down here in Texas now that occasionally shoots a CP or SOO unit beyond Fort Worth here to Houston.

[Anonymous]

Ken,

 How much traffic is the CN now handing the UP at Duluth/Superior to avoid Chicago nowadays? I had recalled the UP was touting this a while back to help the CN avoid their Chicago gridlock- and is the CP now doing this too via Minneapolis/St. Paul? I had noticed we get a MCPFW down here in Texas now that occasionally shoots a CP or SOO unit beyond Fort Worth here to Houston.

Just about every UP job I see traversing the BNSF Hinckley Sub up here between Superior & Minneapolis is pulling a lot of CN-family rolling stock.  I'm not watching everyday, but I think there's a UP daily freight in both directions at least.  I've wondered for a while why there's all those CN-affiliated reporting marks rolling past.  I've even occasionally seen CN power on UP trains.

[sandiego]

I wondered in a previous message about current UP traffic on the "Spine Line" and then investigated my back issues of North Western Lines for some answers. As of February 2007 here's the train lineup (if you UP guys have newer info please post it for everyone):

Northbound:
MDMMC—Des Moines (Short Line Yard) to Mason City
MDMCN—Des Moines (Short Line Yard) to CN-South Itasca (Superior, Wisc.)
MNPSS—North Platte to South St. Paul
MKCCP—Kansas City (Neff Yard) to CP-St. Paul

Southbound:
MCPFW—CP-St. Paul to Forth Worth
MCNKC—CN-South Itasca to Kansas City (Neff Yard)
MSSNP—South St. Paul to North Platte
MMCDM—Mason City to Des Moines (Short Line Yard)

Anyway, that's six regular trains north and eight south of Mason City plus coal, grain, and ethanol; respectable indeed.

The CN traffic coming south from the Head of the Lakes goes way back to the 1970's and earlier. At one time it was handled by CNW trains 461/462 (the "North Man" as we called them on the CNW in the Cities) via the New Richmond Subdivn., later via trackage rights on the BN/BNSF after 1981 or so.

I remember reading about the UP-CN agreement on Chicago-South Itasca traffic but don't have the information available for reference. As I recall, they agreed to make interchange on traffic destined for UP points south of Chicago at South Itasca instead of Chicago. When the CN took over the WC the UP lost a lot of that traffic as the CN didn't want to short-haul themselves but I guess CN got more than they bargained for. Don't remember what they worked out on rate divisions.

Not sure of train symbols although I believe that MPRIT (Proviso-Itasca) and MITPR (Itasca-Proviso) are still running. Routing is CN (ex-SOO) to Junction City, CN (ex-MILW) to Necedah, and UP (ex-CNW) to Proviso.

Years ago the CNW handled this traffic on trains 406/417 and 408/415 (later ITPRA and PRITA) via Spooner and Altoona.

Now the CN business is about all the UP has at Duluth/Superior, unlike during CNW days when there was lots of grain traffic for boat loading and also bentonite to the DMIR (and eastern coal loadouts via lake boat going way back). UP dried up the grain business with 100-car shuttle rates to the West Coast, Mexico, and the Southern and Southwestern US. What little grain moves now are loadouts of oats, barley, and some wheat from Duluth/Superior elevators to southern mills (Quaker Oats-Cedar Rapids or Rahr Malting-Shakopee for example).

Kurt Hayek

[nordique72]

Kurt,

The MPRIT/MITPR are now run as the MBUIT/MITBU six days a week between Butler and Itasca- south of Butler the traffic is forwarded via the Proviso-Butler manifests. Train sizes vary- as the the northbound to Itasca is usually the larger train of the two. The several times I saw them this summer the southbound train was on average less than 20 cars.

1982 was when the New Richmond Sub. between Spooner and Northline was abandoned in favor of the BN's trackage rights north to the Twin Ports. ITPRA/PRITA came off the old routing via Spooner in August 1992 to the current routing via Junction City and Necedah.

 

 

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

The UP now has that route, and it is a favorite with CP in the CamAM corridor, as well as ethanol traffic.   The 112 pound rail is slowly going away, and more CTC is being added.   Crew change points are St. Paul, Mason City, and Des Moines.  South of Des Moines, the Spine is directional running south.  Northbound traffic comes via the Falls City sub to Omaha, then east to the Spine.   It allows far more capacity.  

 There will never be the capacity to run Amtrak on the Spine.   Same goes for Intermodal.

The IC&E route cannot compete with UP's Spine.    You end up adding an extra day of transit from Mason City for example to KC.  

Actually, Ken, the CP/ICE River mainline competes quite well with the (now) UP "Spine Line" mainline.  True, it isn't as direct as the "Spine Line" but the Milwaukee Road proved in the early 80's they could effectively move trains in this corridor and had the lion's share of the traffic when it had the marketing agreement with the GTW/DWP.  I have no doubt that my employer, Canadian Pacific Railway, will do a fine job with it once the acquisition is completed of the DME/ICE.

There will NEVER be enough capacity on the Spine Line for Amtrak?  Are you kidding me?  If there is ever going to be service in this corridor this is where it has to be.  I can almost see UP's argument that the "Overland Route" mainline across Iowa is too congested but the "Spine Line"?  Please. 

[sandiego]

To Nordique72:

Thanks for the train symbol info. Thanks also for the date on the switch from the New Richmond Subdivn. to the BN, I don't have all my reference material available and took a bit of a guess.

After my last message I remembered more about the switch on the north trains and thought I'd mention some other details. I was working in the CNW Twin Cities Divn. Engineering Department at the time and some of the people in the office were involved in the abandonment studies.

The New Richmond Subdivn. was all 90 and 100# rail with a few miles of 9030 CWR, tie and surface so-so, on-line business meager with some at New Richmond and Shell Lake and very little else, although at one time there had been more business, basically dairy/cheese/agricultural. Trains 461/462 were the only regular trains and they also handled whatever wayfreight work there was. However, the line was used as a detour for all-rail ore trains to avoid the Chippewa River bridge at Chip. Falls (although the bridge could handle 100 ton cars and even C628's the concentrated loading from short ore cars was too much for it).

When the bridge at Chip. Falls was reinforced the handwriting was on the wall for the New Rich. I recall that there were studies on rerouting 461/462 via Yukon Jct. at Eau Claire and then north to Spooner.

About this time BN-SLSF merger was approved by the ICC and the CNW received trackage rights on the BN to Head of the Lakes as a condition of the merger. Initially, CNW trains entered onto the ex-NP "Skally" line at a connection about a mile east of East St. Paul Yard, then used the Skally to Hinckley, and the ex-GN from Hinckley to Saunders (south of Superior).

From Saunders the first route studied was the ex-GN ore line to Allouez which split off at Saunders. CNW trains would go through Allouez Yard (the yard for ore trains going to the Allouez ore docks) and around an existing connection to the north end of Itasca Yard. The connection is still there, used by the UP for car storage but the BN end is red-flagged. Track conditions were marginal on the connection and BN train and yard movements could cause problems so the idea was dropped, although some trains may have used that routing.

The next route studied was the DMIR from Saunders to South Itasca, which is still being used.

Concurrently, the Minnesota Highway Department wanted the CNW and BN yards in downtown Duluth for highway I-35 but that's where the CNW (and also BN and MILW) interchanged with the DWP. The state ended up paying for improvements on the DMIR so the DWP could run from Nopeming (where they crossed over the DMIR) to South Itasca and also paid for the DWP's new yard at Pokegema.

As part of the deal the CNW received money to build a new yard along the south side of the DMIR at South Itasca. We did quite a bit of preliminary planning and surveying (including chopping a lot of brush) but the yard was never built; the CNW did upgrade some of the yard tracks at Itasca and installed 11525 CWR from Itasca to Superior with part of the money, but I think the CNW snuck off with the rest of it.

Around 1990 (not sure of exact year) the BN abandoned part of the Skally so the CNW trains moved over to the ex-GN line from Hinckley to East Minneapolis.

Kurt Hayek

[Anonymous]

In this discussion the major source of the UP's business between Superior & Minneapolis has been accounted-for.  What then is the CP's majority business on the Hinckley Sub?

[MP173]

Why was CNW given trackage rights to the Head of the Lakes as a condition of BN Frisco merger?  I am trying to piece that together and cannot.

ed

[sandiego]

To WIAR

CP traffic on the Hinckley Subdivn. is primarily grain, otherwise it's on the light side. I remember seeing SOO/CP trains going by Northtown enroute to Superior with two big units (SD40/SD40-2/SD60) and 20 or 25 cars, ideal size for a model railroad (not often you can model an entire train like that). Anyway, here's a listing of most of the traffic handled as follows:

Grain—As I mentioned this is the majority of the traffic, grain loads to elevators in Duluth/Superior and mtys back. Also some grain loadouts from elevators to southern destinations, mostly occurring during the winter when lake boats aren't running. I've seen many unit trains of loaded UELX/ADMX covered hoppers (to ADM at Decatur?) from CHS (ex-Harvest States) elevator being interchanged back to the CP (BN switches elevator), some other cars used also but mostly the UELX/ADMX cars.

Also CP has run grain shuttles directly into the BNSF 28th Street yard. The BNSF takes the loads to the elevator, brings the mtys back to 28th St., and makes up the outbound train complete with CP power for the CP road crew to take. At one time the SOO brought much grain to the Head of the Lakes via the Brooten line which cut off east of Glenwood at Brooton but since that line is now gone everything moves via Hinckley Subdivn.

Other traffic:

Interchange with CN (ex-DWP) at Pokegama, mostly for on-line CP destinations.

Perlite—From Antonito, Colo. (UP, ex-DRGW). Received from the UP at St. Paul.
Clay slurry—From the southeast US.
Note: These cars are "interchanged" to the BNSF at Superior who handles them to Cloquet for delivery to the Cloquet Terminal (ex-D&NE). This traffic is a holdover from MILW days when the MILW had trackage rights on the NP from St. Paul to Duluth, from Carlton to Superior, and from Carlton to Cloquet. I use quotes around interchanged because it's really CP traffic all the way to Cloquet, but just moved by the BNSF instead.

Lime—From CLM Corp. (ex-Cutler-Magner) on the Superior bayfront on the ex-LST&T (which was jointly owned by BN, CNW, and SOO). Industry switched by BNSF and cars interchanged back to CP at Superior.
Some of this lime is used at the Minneapolis Water Works in Fridley for water softening; their rail spur on the west side of Northtown Yard at 44th Ave. NE. What I found amazing was BN picked up the lime loads, gave them to the CP at Superior, CP then handled to Pig's Eye, switched cars there, then via transfer to BNSF at N'town, switched again, moved to Grove Yard and switched again, and finally spotted at industry. After all that the CP had a lower rate than BN direct!

Cement—From Holcim (St. Lawrence Cement) at Duluth (arrives via lake boat).

Steel scrap—From Azcon Corp. in Duluth.

Hardboard—From Georgia Pacific in Duluth (via BNSF switching).

I probably missed some traffic but I think this covers most of it.

Kurt Hayek

[sandiego]

Because the CNW had filed objections to the merger claiming loss of traffic and this was one condition that the CNW wanted to help compensate them (and for them to withdraw their opposition to the merger).

The Soo Line got access to Roseport (south of St. Paul on the CGW) the same way by objecting to the CNW-CGW merger.

In plain terms, it's called buying off the opposition!

Kurt Hayek

[Anonymous]

Wow, you're good!

[sandiego]

To WIAR:

Thanks for the compliment! I switched every industry in the Duluth-Superior terminal at some point or another when I was an engineer there so I was able to pick up quite a bit of info on operations.
Also got a lot of freight car photos and information; sometimes our switch engine just HAD to stop to investigate something (I won't say what) in our travels. Photos of MILW 99999 (without graffiti) anyone?

The perlite loads for Cloquet that I mentioned before were a find for me as UP used a number of CNW and DRGW 4427 CF covered hoppers (among other interesting covered hoppers) in this pool and some had pretty good paint. They got switched around the yard several times coming and going so I was able to do something with them in many cases.

One of the few fringe benefits of working for the railroad.

Kurt Hayek

[MP173]

Thanks Kurt.  Looking at the map I couldnt see a logical reason for granting the rights, but it basically was as you put it....buying them off.

Great report on the traffic moved.

ed

[wjstix]

One problem the Rock Island had is their line didn't really reach the Twin Cities. It only went as far north as I think Northfield, then used trackage rights to reach it's yards in Minneapolis and St.Paul. That's why the Soo bought the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern when it thought it was going to get the old Rock spine line, to connect the Rock Island line with the Soo's Twin City trackage.