There have been a couple of comments in differing places of UP ceasing to operate over the former Santa Fe between Chicago and Kansas City. These were trackage rights obtained by Southern Pacific as part of the BNSF merger. Any truth to this?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Can I ask where are you hearing this? If true obviously lots of interesting ramifications for G4 and the Golden State Route.
Until there is a filing and a decision at STB, nope. (use may just be "up on the shelf" for now)
It is difficult for this west coaster to second guess UP trackage rights operations over the BNSF in the Midwest, but in line with mudchicken’s reply, what seems to be being seen is UP rerouting Chicago-Los Angeles traffic via El Paso to Salt Lake City instead. It must be remembered that trackage rights is an expensive proposition, and what UP pays BNSF to use their tracks must be whoppingly less via Salt Lake City than via El Paso. In light of the downturn in traffic and the severe reduction of lucrative coal traffic, UP may simply be cutting costs wherever it can. Just because a railroad has trackage rights over another railroad does mean they have to use those rights. But, UP is a savvy outfit, and when Chicago-Kansas City over BNSF suits them, they will exercise those past acquired rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Another option for slower traffic should be their own line north from Kansas City, turn right in Iowa on the old C&NW. I have no idea what that interchange looks like now or the extent to which it is already used. Maybe Jeff can tell us.
The single track ex-Rock Island Spine Line between KC and Minneapolis-St Paul connects to the double track ex-CNW by a nifty double wye at Nevada, IA, just east of Ames, IA.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ames,+IA/@42.012762,-93.4652846,14z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87ee70624634a06b:0x273156083cc75200?hl=en-us
Zoom in just a hair and you should see both wyes.
With a downturn in traffic, why would the UP want to route trains via Kansas City and the BNSF instead of an historically competitive route that is all-UP?mpetitive all-UP route?
daveklepper (5-19):
Hey, Dave … Keep editing, and it will eventually look right …
Why (about your post inquiry), you ask? Via Kansas City is shorter, one or two hundred miles. BUT, UP loses control for a LONG time and is at the whim of BNSF and what is taking place on their railroad.
“All UP” is not quite right on the via Salt Lake City Route. The LA&SL (UP) route utilizes the BNSF from Daggett (CA) to at least Silverwood. Keenbrook, Colton, and Riverside are other possibilities for getting back on the UP.
Take care,
K.P.
BNSF to my knowledge has two routes from Kansas City to Chicago. The former Burlington Route and the former Santa Fe. Both Routes converge on Galesburg, IL and take seperate paths from Galesburg to Chicago.
The SP received trackage rights before the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe merged. How are UP trains now routed between Kansas City and Chicago on trackage rights?
MemphisBlue Can I ask where are you hearing this? If true obviously lots of interesting ramifications for G4 and the Golden State Route.
daveklepper With a downturn in traffic, why would the UP want to route trains via Kansas City and the BNSF instead of an historically competitive route that is all-UP?mpetitive all-UP route?
D.Carleton ... Not too long ago UP did run some of these trains over NS from Kansas City to Springfield and a connection to the former C&A north to Chicago...
... Not too long ago UP did run some of these trains over NS from Kansas City to Springfield and a connection to the former C&A north to Chicago...
Maybe NS could arrange some reciprocal trackage rights with UP, so they could get off the IC/CN to Chicago, using ex-C&A and ex-C&EI instead.
kgbw49 The single track ex-Rock Island Spine Line between KC and Minneapolis-St Paul connects to the double track ex-CNW by a nifty double wye at Nevada, IA, just east of Ames, IA. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ames,+IA/@42.012762,-93.4652846,14z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87ee70624634a06b:0x273156083cc75200?hl=en-us Zoom in just a hair and you should see both wyes.
Nifty is the word, kg. Thanks for the post.
D.Carleton MemphisBlue Can I ask where are you hearing this? If true obviously lots of interesting ramifications for G4 and the Golden State Route. In varied postings on other boards there are inferences of UP's intentions to permanently reroute trains off the BNSF transcon. Not too long ago UP did run some of these trains over NS from Kansas City to Springfield and a connection to the former C&A north to Chicago. It would appear UP has been looking for an alternative for some time. I would would highly doubt that, even if there is a permanent reroute, UP would abandon the trackage rights on BNSF. Always keep 'an ace in the hole.'
D.Carleton MemphisBlue Can I ask where are you hearing this? If true obviously lots of interesting ramifications for G4 and the Golden State Route.
In varied postings on other boards there are inferences of UP's intentions to permanently reroute trains off the BNSF transcon. Not too long ago UP did run some of these trains over NS from Kansas City to Springfield and a connection to the former C&A north to Chicago. It would appear UP has been looking for an alternative for some time. I would would highly doubt that, even if there is a permanent reroute, UP would abandon the trackage rights on BNSF. Always keep 'an ace in the hole.'
Thanks, that's interesting. Wonder what the running times are NS vs BNSF? Right now UP is not time-competitive with BNSF with their fastest LA-Chicago Z train the ZCIG4 via Galesburg, and other trains take longer. Not sure adding a few extra hours if necessary to go via NS rights would impact this business very much, so if they can get a better rate it's probably a good move.
MidlandMike D.Carleton ... Not too long ago UP did run some of these trains over NS from Kansas City to Springfield and a connection to the former C&A north to Chicago...
It's used quite a bit. The wye along the exCNW is Kansas City Jct. Along the exRI it's Chicago Jct. All switches are separate control points.
Jeff
jeffhergert kgbw49 The single track ex-Rock Island Spine Line between KC and Minneapolis-St Paul connects to the double track ex-CNW by a nifty double wye at Nevada, IA, just east of Ames, IA. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ames,+IA/@42.012762,-93.4652846,14z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87ee70624634a06b:0x273156083cc75200?hl=en-us Zoom in just a hair and you should see both wyes. It's used quite a bit.
It's used quite a bit.
dakotafred How about for LA-Chicago traffic (as opposed to the previously discussed routes)?
Remember the history of these rights. They were granted to the SP at a time when the SP did not have a credible route between KCI and CHI. They were usefull for California-CHI traffic via the Golden State Route which SP/SSW had recently pulled up out of the mud.
Today the UP has the former LA&SL/UP/CNW route. LA-CHI traffic can go that way, so UP has no obvious need for these rights for that trafffic. For Texas-CHI they have former MP/CEI routes via St. Louis.
I do not see an obvious need for these rights. If I were UP I would hold onto them "just because" and because they could be trading fodder for something else somewhere else.
Mac
When traffic was heaviest, UP did shcedule two intermodal trains each way over thsi line as a time-saving measure. That was, of course, before the paqssenger-purposed improvemets were made to its ex-GM&O St. Louis - Chicago route, which also benefit UP freight..
daveklepper When traffic was heaviest, UP did shcedule two intermodal trains each way over thsi line as a time-saving measure. That was, of course, before the paqssenger-purposed improvemets were made to its ex-GM&O St. Louis - Chicago route, which also benefit UP freight..
dakotafred jeffhergert kgbw49 The single track ex-Rock Island Spine Line between KC and Minneapolis-St Paul connects to the double track ex-CNW by a nifty double wye at Nevada, IA, just east of Ames, IA. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ames,+IA/@42.012762,-93.4652846,14z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87ee70624634a06b:0x273156083cc75200?hl=en-us Zoom in just a hair and you should see both wyes. It's used quite a bit. How about for LA-Chicago traffic (as opposed to the previously discussed routes)?
Very little. Once in a while, they route a westbound autorack south via the connection through Des Moines and to KC and beyond to California. The one I usually see doing this used to go the Overland route but recently has been going down the old C&EI to St. Louis, over the exMP to KC and then the Golden State route west. I should also note that currently the exMP from KC to Omaha and the exRI south of Chicago Jct to KC is directional traffic. Normal flow is northbounds use the MP, southbounds the RI.
The UP still maintains a crewbase in Ft Madison, IA. They may only be sending Z trains that way right now. It's always been said that it's faster using the BNSF to KC then either the Overland Route or going west on the exCNW and dropping down the exRI to KC to regain the Golden State for southern California.
Thank you, Jeff and all. Looks like UP has at least two home-rail options if speed doesn't require use of BNSF.
Again I'm reminded of the high price of ICC dithering over UP-Rock Island 40-50 years ago. The wonderful old Golden State Route segment, KC-Chicago, was ultimately lost ... to everybody. Think UP wouldn't be keeping those rails well-polished today?
D.Carleton MidlandMike D.Carleton ... Not too long ago UP did run some of these trains over NS from Kansas City to Springfield and a connection to the former C&A north to Chicago... Back in 2009 NS and CN/IC established a reciprocal trackage rights agreement called the MidAmerica Corridor: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/CN_NS.pdf Is this not working out?
Back in 2009 NS and CN/IC established a reciprocal trackage rights agreement called the MidAmerica Corridor: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/CN_NS.pdf Is this not working out?
I knew of the earlier Chicago-Gibson City trackage rights. I was unaware, or forgot, the MidAmerica Corridor.
MidlandMike D.Carleton Back in 2009 NS and CN/IC established a reciprocal trackage rights agreement called the MidAmerica Corridor: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/CN_NS.pdf Is this not working out?
D.Carleton Back in 2009 NS and CN/IC established a reciprocal trackage rights agreement called the MidAmerica Corridor: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/CN_NS.pdf Is this not working out?
Wow to the above. Talk about a government that does WAY too much to -- er, for -- us.
I understand Union Pacific was looking for alternatives to the congested BNSF Chicago-Kansas City line. Apparently not before purchasing farmland two years ago in the northeast quadrant of the grade-separated crossing with the ex-C&NW just west of Edelstein, Illinois. A NW quadrant connection opened there in 2007, and it appears UP was planning a NE quadrant connection as well so G4 intermodal trains running to and from Oakland, Portland and Seattle could avoid Chicago. My how times change. In 2007-2008, it was common to have 3-5 intermodal trains per day use the Edelstein Connection. Recently, it has been reported that UP ran one train per night on this connection. Then a week ago, I noticed the connection's railheads were rusty.
D.Carleton Reciprocal trackage rights between Chicago-Springfield and Springfield-Kansas City would make sense for UP and NS. There is one reason this may not happen. When government money was invested in the old C&A an Environmental Impact Study was performed with the criteria of how many trains were to be run on the line after construction. If the number of trains is to be increased (I am not making this up) another EIS has to be performed. If UP has extra slots for NS to use on rights then it's okay. Otherwise NS is out of luck.
Reciprocal trackage rights between Chicago-Springfield and Springfield-Kansas City would make sense for UP and NS. There is one reason this may not happen. When government money was invested in the old C&A an Environmental Impact Study was performed with the criteria of how many trains were to be run on the line after construction. If the number of trains is to be increased (I am not making this up) another EIS has to be performed. If UP has extra slots for NS to use on rights then it's okay. Otherwise NS is out of luck.
I remember a year or more ago I downloaded the CHI-STL high speed line EIS, and read the more interesting parts (IIRC it was over 100 pages). I vaguely remember they also talked about double tracking the entire corridor. I missed the part about doing another EIS for extra trains (even freights?), but I think it would be more likely a quick EA that would result in a FONSI.
UP now has a large intermodal facility in Elwood (global 4) on the former C&A and its my understanding that they are planning for an increase in IM traffic to that facility when the Panama Canal expansion brings the container traffic to the Gulf coast. Does anyone know what, if any, traffic goes by the old C&A route to/from KC?
I recall that UP indicated they were interested in running more trains on the old C&A corridor now that it was getting upgraded.
MidlandMike I recall that UP indicated they were interested in running more trains on the old C&A corridor now that it was getting upgraded.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.