John & greyhounds, on the Joint Line loaded coal trains climb to Palmer Lake on a one directional track and then use the single track which is downhill from Palmer Lake to C. Springs. I think someone withcurrent info recently posted about this in relation to congestion. I do not have current info about the traffic density on the Joint Line but in a recent two day stop at La Junta I was advised that Pueblo to Las Animas Jct had 35-40 trains per day, which included all trains, not just BNSF coal trains.
Although I've never done a count of traffic on the joint line, BNSF coal trains outnumber UP by a big margin. The real bottleneck is the section of single track between Colorado Springs and Palmer Lake. From Castle Rock to Palmer Lake its a fairly steep uphill grade with slow going for the coal trains. This has no effect on northbounds as they are downhill on a separate track.
John
greyhounds Does anybody know how congested it is? I'll respectfully question your 35-40 loaded coal trains per day. The BNSF is currently originating around 55 coal trains/day out of the Powder River. http://domino.bnsf.com/website/updates.nsf/updates-service-coal/7669D0AE2CADB2C1862574DA005038AE?Open It would be surprising to me if 35-40 of them went south to Texas. But I'm questioning your figure, not disputing it.
Does anybody know how congested it is?
I'll respectfully question your 35-40 loaded coal trains per day. The BNSF is currently originating around 55 coal trains/day out of the Powder River.
http://domino.bnsf.com/website/updates.nsf/updates-service-coal/7669D0AE2CADB2C1862574DA005038AE?Open
It would be surprising to me if 35-40 of them went south to Texas. But I'm questioning your figure, not disputing it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
diningcar greyhound, you appear to be overlooking the coal train traffic between Denver and Pueblo. The Joint Line handles both loads and empties and from Pueblo eastward to Las Animas JCT, about 85 miles.s , the loads are about 35-40 trains per day.
greyhound, you appear to be overlooking the coal train traffic between Denver and Pueblo.
The Joint Line handles both loads and empties and from Pueblo eastward to Las Animas JCT, about 85 miles.s , the loads are about 35-40 trains per day.
Well good, I'd like you (or anyone else) to fill me in on capacity/congestion on the Joint Line between Denver and Pueblo.
My current understanding is that the BNSF employs direcitonal running between Pueblo and Amarillo with the loads going south via Las Animas Jct. on the ex-ATSF line and the empties going north through Trinidad on the ex-C&S line. Of course, that puts everything on the Joint Line north of Pueblo and brings us to the question of just how much, if any, extra capacity that line has.
In any event, just how congested is the line between Pueblo and Denver? Could it handle the likes of one extra hot IM each way per day without major problems?
I think we are basically in agreement except possibly how much significance to give to BNSF's own nomenclature. I remember reading a few years ago in their Annual Report/Letter to Shareholders that the Transcon had been moved. Since I don't have that document any longer, the only other thing I can think of to show the change is the fact that the Southwest Chief no longer goes thru Streator or even Chillicote, but Mendota, Princeton, Galesburg. A few miles southwest of Galesburg lies the village of Cameron where the ex-ATSF and the exx-CB&W cross, with the ATSF main heading down toward he Miss. River and Fort Madison. Definitely Fort Mad is on the Sou. Transcon. Now that Illinois has beefed up its Illinois service, there are four Amtrak trains going thru Mendota daily (the CZ doesn't stop - that I've witnessed). Also, a friend of mine who used to go thru Chilli can't do that any more.
That doesn't necessarily mean the Transcon will have fewer movements. That doesn't necessarily mean the trains will go out of their way to use the more northerly route. You're absolutely right that BNSF IM's (from, say, Fort Madison and parts west) use the old ATSF main to go to Corwith, not a large yard but the closest to downtown Chicago. And you may remember I remarked that what I could see of the old ATSF main is in great shape.
And the Northern Transcon? Makes perfect sense to me to route it west thru Burlington, IA. - a.s.
al-in-chgo Point of information, and many of you know this already, I'm sure: The Transcon route from the Western suburbs of Chicago to Galesburg is no longer ex-ATSF via Streator and Chillcothe, but exx-CB&W thru Plano and Mendota. I recently got a good look at that old Santa Fe main, and it is still in excellent condition. I think BNSF is a class act all the way. - a.s.
Point of information, and many of you know this already, I'm sure: The Transcon route from the Western suburbs of Chicago to Galesburg is no longer ex-ATSF via Streator and Chillcothe, but exx-CB&W thru Plano and Mendota. I recently got a good look at that old Santa Fe main, and it is still in excellent condition. I think BNSF is a class act all the way. - a.s.
I think you might possibly be somewhat in error with this statement.
BNSF has four intermodal terminals in the Chicago area. Of those four, three are on the old ATSF line and are served only by trains running on the ex-ATSF. These terminals are: Corwith (in Chicago), Willow Springs, and Elwood (Logistics Park). The only IM terminal on the old BN is Cicero.
Years ago, much of the Cicero carload yard was converted to IM use. It's IM trains are primarily for the Northern Transcon route.
BNSF has gone so far as to shift its Chicago-Denver intermodal service to the old ATSF route between Galesburg and Chicago. (For my own business reasons, I'd like them to shift the Chicago-Denver service entirely back to the old ATSF route by recreateing trains 184 and 481 which provided competitive Chicago-Denver intermodal service via Pueblo. I wonder if they've ever thought of that? Going through Dodge City sure would avoid coal train interferance.)
In any event, the Transcon runs through Streator, not Mendota.
It has been what, nearly a decade since the merger. How many old CB&Q, NP, etc. key people are left?
What are the qualities the new orgnaization looks for in leadership? Is there training from within? If so, what is being stressed? Where does the organization appear headed?
Tyler, not everyone is as faithful as you at reading and posting to the forums.
But since it seems to be common knowledge I can stop saying it with a clear conscience.
In many respects I am a defensive writer and try to avoid creating misunderstandings, or letting them arise.
- as
?????? Why do you keep saying this??????
From prior post: "BNSF is a darling of Wall Street and holds many of the lucrative intermodal contracts in the Chicago-West Coast arena. The big UPS contract is one of the reasons"
True, and also true that business may have fallen off, but not necessarily the no. of stack trains on the Southern Transcon.
diningcar t.winx, It would assist we readers as well as provide your post with authenticity if you would furnish the source for the numbers you used. Thanks in advance for that info. statistics
t.winx,
It would assist we readers as well as provide your post with authenticity if you would furnish the source for the numbers you used. Thanks in advance for that info. statistics
Roger that diningcar. I simply look at the investors report that lists weekly carloadings. Heres the link:
http://www.bnsf.com/investors/archives/weeklyunits_archive.html
Just for future reference - I know these #s don't automatically mean less trains on the "transcon"
A customers version of 'on time' is when can they expect the shipment every day. A slower schedule/poor time keeping makes little difference if the product shows up on the dock on a regular basis. I think we often compare freight routing/scheduling to passenger train/airplane schedules. There are two different market expectation here. Flashy advertising and a premium schedule that cannot be met(or ties up the railroad) is of little value. A number of years ago, UPS asked BNSF about running a dedicated 'faster' train for them. BNSF went through the 'numbers' and declined. They explained that the infastructure just was not there yet. UPS went over to UP; they jumped to get a piece of the UPS contract, not really looking at the scheduling that would be required. Result - either 'stick' other trains, or 'stick' the new priority train. That contract blew up within 6 months.
As far as traffic levels? They have been dropping all summer. Slow business, and China stopping shipments for 6 weeks around the Olympics has resulted in changes. Slow business is not the fault of the carriers - If BNSF was handling the traffic with large delays, the traffic would move to UP. We are seeing a general slow down in business traffic(both imports and domestic).
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Hey people - for one answer to this: "Follow the money !" Where is BNSF putting some serious cash on/ into the line ? The former ATSF TransCon route, thta's where, now especially Cajon Pass (refer to that excellent thread here and the many posts on it by K.P. Harrier), Abo Canyon, and so on. Whatever the background and history, that's where BNSF seems to think the future is, or at least the best return on investment right now. In the past, they've not been hesitiant to invest in the Powder River Basin line, or reactivate Stampede Pass. So to me, I think there's none of the PennCentral "red team vs. green team" corporate infighting. Whatever the corporate structure, I'd say the culture is either an even mix, or slightly more Santa Fe.
Plus, as a long-time stockholder - starting with the Northern Pacific in the 1960's, then BN, and now BNSF, I was glad to see the ATSF merger. It added some young blood and marketing savvy to a company that was just plodding along. In particular, Rob Krebs was the CEO of ATSF at the time. Recall that he originally started with SP subsidiary Cotton Belt (if I remember correctly - the "Thebes Bridge wars", I think was the Trains article), then rose up through the SP ranks to be its CEO at the time of the aborted ATSF-SP merger. When that fell apart, though, ATSF was smart enough to keep Krebs, and then after the BNSF merger happened and the old BN management retired, he wound up in charge. But he didn't have years and years of seniority or allegiance to ATSF, and was always more interested in performance than where someone came from, so he was probably the best guy to continue the implemententation of the merger without favoring one side over the other. Now, it's just history, and I don't sense that the legacy of either company dominates the other.
- Paul North.
jrbernier The current 'Z' trains of Santa Fe(and now BNSF) appear to be doing quite well on a somewhat slower schedule(that makes them 'fit" into the schedule better). Business on the old AT&SF 'Transcon' has never been better. Jim
The current 'Z' trains of Santa Fe(and now BNSF) appear to be doing quite well on a somewhat slower schedule(that makes them 'fit" into the schedule better). Business on the old AT&SF 'Transcon' has never been better.
I don't know about this. I know some of the Z trains, the Z8 and Z9's can be pretty regular and consistently ontime, but the others are far from that. But I guess it doesn't matter because according to the ontime statistics on thier website, they are considered ontime even if they are up to 12 hours late (or some other # like that). I am not sure how they determine if its late or not. Priority business just recently began decreasing again after a pretty static year, with trailers down 6% from last year these last two weeks. But compared to 2005 and 06, trailers are probably down something like 10-15%.
And containers are still down from last year, which are way down from 2006. Business has definately been better...
The BN management was getting 'long in the tooth'(old and approaching retirement). ATSF had new hard chargers in mangement, but was looking for a 'white knight' to save them from a merger with UP, after the ATSF/SP merger went down in flames. BN basically got the new young management they were looking for and ATSF was saved from the UP. The BN corporate HQ had already moved to Fort Worth. So what BNSF has is a lot of ex-ATSF upper management, but the HQ is in the old BN Fort Worth location and the stock is BNI(Burlington Northern Industries).
I think what really started the BN/ATSF merger going was the terrible weather related service disruptions in Kansas on the ATSF transcon. One of the 'work-arounds' was to run ATSF trains via the 'Polar Route' across the NW United States on BN, and then down the Oregon Trunk to the bay area. As long and drawn out as this seemed, it worked very well and 'greased the skids' for future joint operations. BN was very impressed with ATSF management, and ATSF was very impressed that BN could supply routes/crews on short order.
BNSF is a darling of Wall Street and holds many of the lucrative intermodal contracts in the Chicago-West Coast arena. The big UPS contract is one of the reasons
It's an interesting situation. From a legal and corporate standpoint, ATSF was merged into BN and the name was changed to BNSF so Burlington Northern was, in effect, the surviving corporate entity. However, most of the top management came from Santa Fe, so much so that I once read that BNSF really stood for Big New Santa Fe.
It is not just engines and schedules, Railwayman and DininingCar/I could spend hours on the pros and cons. BNSF is its own unique animal. It is not Santa Fe, but thankfully it is not a warmed over BN either.
Steve,
Santa Fe 'War Bonnet' engines(red/silver) looked pretty bad before the merger. They just do not 'weather' very well(WP had a similar issue with the silver/orange scheme). The yellow 'bonnet' in the standard scheme faded quite badly as well. Your perception of the 'image' sounds like the you are talking about the passenger trains of the 50's. The super fast 'Super C' had a tough time finding customers willing to pay the premium price. The current 'Z' trains of Santa Fe(and now BNSF) appear to be doing quite well on a somewhat slower schedule(that makes them 'fit" into the schedule better). Business on the old AT&SF 'Transcon' has never been better.
Of what I've seen in person among the Big Six, I'd say UP engines are the dirtiest, followed by CSX, followed by CN, followed by BNSF, about on a par with CP.
I can't tell about NS because it's all black.
Of course, what region and what lines we're fanning can create different impressions.
BNSF once stood for Burlington Northern and Santa Fe but now looking at the railroad's operations, I could call them "Burlington Northern and No Santa Fe". I'm thinking this because looking at the operations of the company their is almost no resemblance of the old Santa Fe's public image. I realize that keeping locomotives spotless 24/7 is a huge expense and prioritizing trains with 50 hour schedules just doesn't fit today's railroad enviorment but BNSF just seems more dull without at least some of Santa Fe's practices. What do you guys think about this?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.