Does anybody think the Canadian government will allow the first Coast-to-Coast Canadian railway - the one that truly bound the provinces together - to be owned by an entity from outside Canada?
Does anybody think the US government will let any of the Big Four be owned and controlled by an entity from Canada?
It is just one opinion but it would seem very difficult for that to occur.
If there is ever a final round of mergers of the two Western and two Eastern US railroads, the two Canadian railroads would certainly be allowed their limited incursions in to the US, and they may even be granted some significant extended access to places like New York, Atlanta, Nashville and Louisville via some north-south trackage rights from Chicago, Detroit and Buffalo to enhance competition in some small manner.
But that would be much different than a Canadian entity owning one of the Big Four or vice versa.
Mr. Kelly might want to write another speculative article about where CP should go if the KCS merger doesn't happen... CP has stated they will be forced to look for another merger partner if the deal falls through. Should CP look West to find a partner?
Mark:Thanks for the excellent scouting report.
Post Covid, would love to take a field trip out to Montana...probably not this year.
Ed
Re: the line between Lethbridge and Shelby: This line normally sees one merchandise train daily in each direction. Trains originate on BNSF at Great Falls (the home terminal for crews) or Shelby and CP trains originate at Lethbridge; more or less, the trains are swapped at the border. The Coutts/Sweet Grass CP interchange to is basically the BNSF equivalent to the UP Kingsgate/Eastport interchange. While nowhere nearly as busy as Eastport, the Sweet Grass interchange receives much of the traffic from the CP routed via BNSF to Washington, Oregon, and California destinations, and of course the Intermountain west. Prior to the BNSF/ATSF and UP/SP consolidations, a lot of traffic for UP destinations in Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and California were routed through Sweet Grass and then via Great Falls, Helena, and Garrison to the UP at Silver Bow. But with the BNSF acquisition of ATSF, most of this traffic now goes to the UP at Eastport. That's why when the slipout occurred between Great Falls and Ulm over 20 years ago, BNSF didn't bother to fix the track, and why BNSF had to take back the Montana Western (Garrison to Butte) shortline trackage due to lack of business.
In addition to regular daily interchange, unit trains occur frequently. The Canpotex potash trains used to operate this way several years ago, but that's all CP-UP now. Grain trains with California destinations are the most frequent unit trains. These can originate in Saskatchewan or Central Alberta, or as close as Wilson or Sterling, Alberta, which is on the CP Montana subdvision southeast of Lethbridge. Crude oil trains for California operated this way several years ago, but not recently AFAIK; Crude trains for the Gulf Coast have gone through this interchange, but usually these trains are handed off to BNSF at Noyes, Minnesota. (Any crude trains for Washington State - such as Cherry Point or Tacoma - are interchanged to BNSF in the Vancouver, BC terminal.) And then there is the infrequent (one or two a month) metallurgic coal train from Fording, BC (Sparwood) to Burns Harbor, Indiana. These once operated all the way from origin to Chicago on CP. Around 2012-2013 or so, Coutts/Sweet Grass saw regular unit coal trains from the Powder River Basin for export via Prince Rupert, interchanged from CP to CN at Edmonton. And for awhile, there was an exceptionally long haul on BNSF from Price/Wellington, Utah to Sweet Grass via Denver, Alliance, and Great Falls, and then to Prince Rupert via Edmonton.
CP has access to the Columbia Grain elevator in Sweet Grass, but to my knowledge, little grain was actually moved via CP - it was more of a political move to advertise access to two railroads. In 2014, trackage was upgraded and the elevator became a BNSF shuttle facility to tap nearby ag producers in Alberta.
Due to the large amount of hazardous material handled, the Sweet Grass-Shelby line is PTC-equipped. At the west of of Shelby where the junction to the Sweet Grass subdivision is - once known as Virden and Sweet Grass Line Jct. - there once was a west leg of the wye (still visible with Google Earth), but no more. Interchange trains operating to/from the west to into Shelby and reverse direction; Two tracks in the south yard were lenghtened considerably (with power switches at the west end) to accommodate the moves.
Mark Meyer
Slightly off topic here...
I just read the Trains article on the 40 Mile Railroad in Alberta which connects with CP line at Stirling. The CP line froms the US border to Lethbridge and was referred to as the "Montana Sub" in the article. Looking at openrailwaymap website it appears that the line from Lethbridge thru Stirling interchanges at the border with BNSF - Sweet Grass sub which continues down to Shelby and joins the BNSF (ex GN) mainline.
Here is the question...what is the status of that Shelby - Lethbridge BNSF - CP Line? Is there much traffic on this line? General freight or commodity type (grain/fertilizer)?
Years ago I frequented eastern Iowa in my sales career (today it is all work from home, eliminating all that travel). Muscatine was a frequent location for me and I became somewhat familiar with that Davenport - KC line and also on my trips to Dubuque became familiar with the Davenport - Twin Cities line.
I concur with earlier comments...that Twin Cities - KC Line will require big $$$capex if much more traffic is added. Beautiful railroad along the Mississippi River but challenged.
Thanks for reply on the Lethbridge - Shelby line.
ed
VerMontanan Same for the CP acquisition of KCS. We'll see how that goes. KCS/CP will offer single-line service from Mexico to places in the United States, but from Laredo to just about anywhere in the US west of Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans, UP can move the shipment at much lower cost due to its superior routes. So be it CP's still-unsignaled route across Crowsnest Pass or the ex-MILW/CRI&P route across Southeast Iowa which would be the main connector between the CP and KCS systems, CP is also going to have to spend money on capacity enhancements on their existing routes to win business.
Same for the CP acquisition of KCS. We'll see how that goes. KCS/CP will offer single-line service from Mexico to places in the United States, but from Laredo to just about anywhere in the US west of Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans, UP can move the shipment at much lower cost due to its superior routes.
So be it CP's still-unsignaled route across Crowsnest Pass or the ex-MILW/CRI&P route across Southeast Iowa which would be the main connector between the CP and KCS systems, CP is also going to have to spend money on capacity enhancements on their existing routes to win business.
I agree with your outlook and what you mentioned about CP having route envy is spot on. As much as I look forward to this merger happening, and some prospects for single line service. The reality is CPKC's route south of the Twin Cities to the Gulf Coast and beyond is not a good route whatsoever.. BNSF, CN, and UP routes from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast offer more capacity and are less circuitous. CP is touting new intermodal service, but it certainly won't be expansion in domestic service between Laredo and the Midwest. With the possibility of not even moving international IM to Eastern Canada?
Currently the IM service KCS runs between Meridian, MS and Laredo, TX will likely be the only service lanes that see growth. Most of this IM traffic utilizes EMP boxes which KCS is a member of. Traffic is interchanged with NS from points East such as: Atlanta, Jacksonville (FEC), and the Carolinas. This maybe a trifecta of a road, but bulk traffic looks to be the benficiary of this merger. Not IM traffic.. Though I wonder if CPKC can muster the massive CAPEX that will be needed to speed up the railway North South East and West? It will definitely take a bite out of CP's margins. Which will end up costing CP in the long run..
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
SD60MAC9500 I'm not sure if it's a fact. When UP and CSX were running Cold Connect. As far as I know only a crew change happened in Chicago. Not many delays encountered. The train ran as is to Rotterdam. I don't think CP could provide a competitve alternative to UP-CSX.
I'm not sure if it's a fact. When UP and CSX were running Cold Connect. As far as I know only a crew change happened in Chicago. Not many delays encountered. The train ran as is to Rotterdam. I don't think CP could provide a competitve alternative to UP-CSX.
Good point. It's one thing to have a route somewhere, and something altogether different to be able to effectively compete. CP seems to have "route envy" of CN. They are proud of their new access to Saint John, NB, for instance, but they still don't go to Halifax, and CN also goes to Saint John. Also, the cycle time for locomotives and cars on CN's route - which has CTC and a higher track speed - than CP's route across Maine that they are hoping to get up to 40 MPH some day, crosses the international border twice, and still relies on a connecting railroad.
Another example is in North Dakota. For years up until the 2010s, CP had a degree of exclusivity in the central part of the state for ag products on its main line. Shuttle grain elevators were located on the BNSF lines paralleling US 2 and I-94, but between Minot and Casselton on BNSF's Northern Transcontinental route via New Rockford, there was only one such facility, while there were several on the CP route (paralleing US 52). But CP crashed big time during the Bakken Boom due to its lack of capacity. BNSF's struggles were well documented, but especially with regard to ag producers, BNSF was known to be more reliable and transparent. As a result, later in the 2010s, there are now SIX shuttle grain train facilities along the BNSF route via New Rockford. Facilities at Guthrie, Hamberg, New Rockford, Hannaford and Pillsbury now effectively compete with their CP counterparts at places like Voltaire, Harvey, Fessenden, and Kensal.
Bruce Kelly the fact that CP could easily turn UP's Cold Connect facility (formerly Railex) at Wallula, WA, into a thriving enterprise again with a competitive route to the Rotterdam, NY, facility that would avoid Chicago by hundreds of miles
the fact that CP could easily turn UP's Cold Connect facility (formerly Railex) at Wallula, WA, into a thriving enterprise again with a competitive route to the Rotterdam, NY, facility that would avoid Chicago by hundreds of miles
I'm not sure if it's a fact. When UP and CSX were running Cold Connect. As far as I know only a crew change happened in Chicago. Not many delays encountered. The train ran as is to Rotterdam. I don't think CP could provide a competitve alternative to UP-CSX. As the latters route is much better than running through the Lake Superior Region of Ontario (which can be very brutal in the winter) and around the Great Lakes. Then getting through the busy Toronto area, turning Southwest toward Guelph jct. Then turning again Eastward going through the busy Hamilton terminal. Proceeding through to Fort Erie, ON/Buffalo, NY for interchange with CSX. Not to mention two customs delays at the borders due to inspections.. Or if you're talking about an all CP routing via Montreal to Schenectady. Forget about it...
Mark,
And anyone else who's considering a writing project of your own, if you ever take on the responsibility of producing a feature-length work for publication in one of the major rail magazines (not one of the historical society mags that typically offer epic-length space for some subjects), you'll experience a number of challenges along the way, right down to the moment your carefully-crafted efforts get committed (either nicely or poorly) to ink on paper. There are two challenges that happen early on in the process, which I'll share here.
The first one is when you accept the fact that there are things you won't be able to discuss; projects and plans and operational changes and internal communications and off-the-record conversations with execs both active and retired that you've been made aware of or discovered on your own, which you're not in a position to disclose publicly.
The second one is when you accept the fact that your story, whether published in print or online, will be given a limited amount of physical space and/or word count. (Yes, even online presentation gets alotted a limited amount of space by certain publications.) Depending on the subject matter, there will likely be a LOT of highly important information that you'll be forced to exclude.
In fact, after nearly 40 years of doing this stuff, I now find that the bigger challenge is in deciding what material I must discard from my stories, or not even keyboard into place at all, because I know where that word limit lies. Research and writing and fact-checking and proofreading, those are all very time consuming, but they come much easier to me now than in the past, and I take all of it much more seriously than I did when I was in my 20s and 30s. (Mark, I know you're a stickler for research and accuracy too, and I respect that.) But making the tough choices of which nuggets of really neat history or contemporary operations you must leave out, that's where the hardest work lies. At least, for me.
With regards to the CP to Spokane or Hinkle (or Portland?) story, which was originally planned for four printed pages or less (including photos and map) but ended up online instead, there were indeed a number of things I wish there had been more space to discuss at length. Like the fact that not all of the recent and future growth in Pacific export terminals has been or will be confined to the Puget Sound and Portland areas (look upriver, WAY upriver); and the fact that the Tri Cities of SE WA continue to build and plan additional offloading terminals for bulk commodities including those out of Canada; and the fact that CP could easily turn UP's Cold Connect facility (formerly Railex) at Wallula, WA, into a thriving enterprise again with a competitive route to the Rotterdam, NY, facility that would avoid Chicago by hundreds of miles; and the potential for CP to deliver automobiles manufactured in places like Indiana, Michican, and Ontario to the ex-MILW auto ramp in Spokane that's currently served by UP.
There's a lyric from a favorite Bob Seger song that I have long felt sums up the similarity in the hardships faced by those who produce material for the music, motion picture, or magazine industries. It's where he mentions, "Deadlines and commitments, what to leave in, what to leave out."
Bruce Kelly If we were to write off as "meaningless" everything that was ever conceived about railroading but not brought to fruition, and ignored all of the proposed rail lines, summit tunnels, realignments, and terminals that had been surveyed, discussed in board rooms, and designed to scale on paper or on computer, there would have been a ton of meaningful and historically-significant subject matter left out of railway books and magazines over the past century or more. Trains magazine would have been a terribly dull read over the years with that kind of mindset. More to the point, to consider that a railroad would have seriously sought its way into another nation's coastal port region in previous years lends credence to the potential for it to attempt something similar again, especially now that conditions are more favorable to do so. Exactly which way, and when, (or even if) are still unknown. At least to the general public.
If we were to write off as "meaningless" everything that was ever conceived about railroading but not brought to fruition, and ignored all of the proposed rail lines, summit tunnels, realignments, and terminals that had been surveyed, discussed in board rooms, and designed to scale on paper or on computer, there would have been a ton of meaningful and historically-significant subject matter left out of railway books and magazines over the past century or more. Trains magazine would have been a terribly dull read over the years with that kind of mindset.
More to the point, to consider that a railroad would have seriously sought its way into another nation's coastal port region in previous years lends credence to the potential for it to attempt something similar again, especially now that conditions are more favorable to do so. Exactly which way, and when, (or even if) are still unknown. At least to the general public.
I totally agree. But back at the topic at hand – your essay – there was no evidence presented that this was an actual CP proposal, or was this too (as you stated at the beginning of the essay) hypothetical? There’s a huge difference between a proposal and something simply within the realm of possibility.
Bruce Kelly I did not say or suggest that it had to be the MILW route that reached Easton from the east. I listed the various routes, whether abandoned ROWs or still with track in place at the time, that could have been pieced together in a variety of combinations to achieve a connection to Easton.
I did not say or suggest that it had to be the MILW route that reached Easton from the east. I listed the various routes, whether abandoned ROWs or still with track in place at the time, that could have been pieced together in a variety of combinations to achieve a connection to Easton.
No, you didn’t say that it had to be, but you didn’t rule it out. The quote is: “A quarter century ago, CP may have missed an opportunity to assemble a route clear to western Washington’s Puget Sound. Had it bought UP’s former SI between Eastport and Spokane, CP could have rebuilt and connected segments of former Spokane, Portland & Seattle; Northern Pacific; or Milwaukee Road lines to reach the foot of the Cascade Range at Easton, Wash. From there, all CP had to do was cross one of two dormant railway passes: Snoqualmie (MILW) or Stampede (NP). Instead, it was BNSF who reopened Stampede Pass in 1996, and those SP&S and MILW grades became public trails.” Since you specifically chose to be vague about the route, and provided multiple options, you could logically expect speculation from your readers. That you don’t like the speculation is not the fault of the reader, it’s the fault of the lack of specificity of the parameters indicated in the essay. And the fact that you chose to use words like “all CP had to do” and, simply, “connected” suggests a simplicity that clearly is misleading. You don’t say how CP would have been granted access to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, if they would have raised clearance on tunnels (depending on the route chosen, a significant task), cross the Columbia River (even in the Tri-Cities, dependent on hostile soon-to-be competitors), obtained trackage rights through Spokane (had the UP been in place still and the SP&S option used), or explained how such an investment would still not given CP access to Columbia River grain ports. Again, lack of specificity breeds speculation.
Bruce Kelly And no, Mark, I did not say or suggest trackage rights for CP on UP west of Hinkle. The sentences you quoted prove that. If you think terms like "cash offer," "bargain," and "all the way to Portland" can only refer to trackage rights, then I apparently needed to spell that out more clearly for you.
And no, Mark, I did not say or suggest trackage rights for CP on UP west of Hinkle. The sentences you quoted prove that. If you think terms like "cash offer," "bargain," and "all the way to Portland" can only refer to trackage rights, then I apparently needed to spell that out more clearly for you.
I said in my previous post: “whatever the semantics – the “all the way to Portland” statement is pretty clear.” That you (again) were specifically vague (i.e. the multiple descriptions given above), logically leads to speculation and interpretation, and that’s as a result of the broad parameters set in your essay.
Bruce Kelly Given today's news that CP is supposedly offering $25 billion to buy its way down through the east-central U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico and into Mexico itself, the comparably smaller sum that CP would need to spend in order to reach Spokane or Hinkle for the benefit of its growing Pacific Rim exports has never seemed more affordable than now.
Given today's news that CP is supposedly offering $25 billion to buy its way down through the east-central U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico and into Mexico itself, the comparably smaller sum that CP would need to spend in order to reach Spokane or Hinkle for the benefit of its growing Pacific Rim exports has never seemed more affordable than now.
Affordability aside, there is no benefit to its “Pacific Rim exports.” Changes in infrastructure, operations, and personnel utilization can be accomplished in the corridor be it one railroad or two, especially considering both railroads will benefit. In the end, buying the 327 miles of railroad from Eastport to Hinkle simply moves the interchange point 327 miles from Eastport to Hinkle. The KCS acquisition is more about controlling both the origin and destination.
I think Mr. Kelly just might be on to something. If it means UP hits their 55.0 operating ratio target and is accretive to earnings they just might consider doing something with CP in the PNW. It begs the question of how many 15,000-foot sidings can be squeezed in along the Columbia River, but we just might find out.
Granted, CP's immediate attention will be focused on integration of KCS and upgrading CM&Q for 10,000-foot doublestack trains from Port St John, but in PSR efficiency always wins out in the long run, so it would not be surprising if something crops up.
Bruce Kelly Actually, the "what if" scenario of CP reaching across WA state toward Puget Sound was anything but meaningless a quarter century (or less) ago. Railroads have a way of exploring bold concepts that most people never get to see or hear about.
Actually, the "what if" scenario of CP reaching across WA state toward Puget Sound was anything but meaningless a quarter century (or less) ago. Railroads have a way of exploring bold concepts that most people never get to see or hear about.
And that (with elaboration) would have been something worthwhile to have mentioned in your essay. But the reality is that it was quite meaningless since it didn't happen.
Bruce Kelly Easton would have been (and still is) the common starting point up the east slope of the Cascades via either Stampede or Snoqualmie. Getting there could not have gone purely MILW because part of that grade had become occupied by city and university property in Ellensburg, so obviously it had to involve some portion of WCRC and BN, or BNSF after 1996.
Easton would have been (and still is) the common starting point up the east slope of the Cascades via either Stampede or Snoqualmie. Getting there could not have gone purely MILW because part of that grade had become occupied by city and university property in Ellensburg, so obviously it had to involve some portion of WCRC and BN, or BNSF after 1996.
Yeah, but that's not what's suggested in your essay. To quote: "CP could have rebuilt and connected segments of former Spokane, Portland & Seattle; Northern Pacific; or Milwaukee Road lines to reach the foot of the Cascade Range at Easton, Wash. " So you're specifically stating that ex-Milwaukee Road right-of-way could be used east of Easton. There are obtuse routing possibilities, I suppose, but the most logical assumption to the reader would be that it would be line main line east of Ellensburg. Sure, the MILW and NP crossed (not at grade) west of Ellensburg, but given the in-place connection at Easton, it would not be logical that a connection be built west of Ellensburg, especially since the WCRC was in place. That Central Washington University now occupies some of the MiLW right-of-way could not cancel out this "what if" because the whole project would be so expensive and iffy that an assumption could be made that this was simply part of it. And even a bypass around Ellensburg would not be that much more outlandish than upgrading the railroad through downtown Renton or convincing the state to rollback the in-place upgrades for highway 169, or whatever would need to be done to circumvent BN/BNSF not allowing operation through the Tri-Cities, Spokane, and to the ports in Tacoma and Seattle. Really, I hate to even comment on something with so many fatal obstacles coupled with the reality that it didn't happen, but I offer this simply as my interpretation based on the text in the essay.
Bruce Kelly I never suggested trackage rights for CP on UP west of Hinkle. What would be the point? UP already moves Canadian traffic there with UP crews. CP running its own trains west of Hinkle would only make sense if it bought or leased that line from UP. Far more practical, at least at first, for CP to buy or lease its way to Hinkle only.
I never suggested trackage rights for CP on UP west of Hinkle. What would be the point? UP already moves Canadian traffic there with UP crews. CP running its own trains west of Hinkle would only make sense if it bought or leased that line from UP. Far more practical, at least at first, for CP to buy or lease its way to Hinkle only.
Sure you did. Quotes from the article: "If Canpotex were to upgrade its Portland terminal to process a greater number of these mega-sized trains, it would add to the pressure that might one day push CP south of the border, then west" and "it might be difficult for Omaha to ignore a reasonable cash offer for segments of its Northwest territory. Could CP also bargain its way from Hinkle west, all the way to Portland?" And indeed, what would be the point? And I actually see no point in the CP acquiring the railroad to Hinkle, either. But call it trackage rights, haulage rights - whatever the semantics - the "all the way to Portland" statement is pretty clear. Also, you point out that CP only has direct access to only one West Coast port and you state "CP may have missed an opportunity to assemble a route clear to western Washington’s Puget Sound" and focus a lot on the Canpotex trains for Portland. While the UP gives the "Can-Am" access to all its West Coast ports, the obvious reference is to Portland.
Bruce Kelly Seattle/Tacoma is not as high on CP's priority list as it once was, at least not from the Eastport direction. And despite whatever volume UP is handling west of Hinkle now, the bulk traffic rolling out of Canada and down the Columbia is about to get a little bit busier.
Seattle/Tacoma is not as high on CP's priority list as it once was, at least not from the Eastport direction. And despite whatever volume UP is handling west of Hinkle now, the bulk traffic rolling out of Canada and down the Columbia is about to get a little bit busier.
So if it's not as high a priority for CP from the Eastport direction, which direction would it come from? The only possibility is Vancouver, BC, and there's really not a lot of anything different that could go to Vancouver that doesn't already go through Eastport. And of course, BNSF runs the show south out of Vancouver, and since they raised the clearance on the tunnels on the Bellingham subdivision in anticipation to maybe steal some of the longhaul business away from CN and CP at the port of Vancouver, it's not likely they would be interested in granting CP or anyone any access.
I don't see the point of this article at all. Changing the operation at the border to allow run-through crews seems like a given regardless of who the crews work for or if it is one railroad or two. But on the UP west from Hinkle, traffic from Spokane and the CP is just as much as inbound at Hinkle off the UP from the east. With this volume, I can't see UP granting trackage rights to the Portland terminal, and beyond there it would be up to BNSF and they probably wouldn't be enamored with the proposal.
The mention of the "what if" 25 years ago is meaningless. The article mentions somehow accessing Easton, WA from the east, but the actual west end of the Washington Central Railroad (which BNSF bought back in 1996) was Cle Elum. BNSF retained ownership west from Cle Elum, and "even if" CP could have gotten that far, it was unlikely that BN/BNSF would have granted trackage rights to the Seattle and Tacoma terminal areas. Same "what if" for the always-popular-rebuild-the-Milwaukee-Road fantasy in that BN/BNSF still owned the ex-Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way through Renton on the route that the Milwaukee needed to get to Seattle and Tacoma. And again, BN/BNSF not likely to grant access. And the hundreds of millions (more like billions now) to do all this notwithstanding, it is important to remember the Milwaukee's 2.2% climb over the Saddle Mountains which isn't a good fit for the unit trains then and even heavier ones today. Unit trains prevail on the CP/UP route, and they need to operate along the Columbia River, as they do now.
The article bemoans that CP has access to only one west coast port: Vancouver, BC. Granted, it's not the position CN is with its access to Prince Rupert, but if anyone were to want access to just one port, it would be Vancouver - handling much more cargo than Seattle and Tacoma combined. The potash and American ag products mostly go to Columbia River ports rather than Seattle and Tacoma. The reality is that for all the money it would cost to rebuild hundreds of miles of track and the "even if" of being allowed trackage rights for port access, in the whole scope of things, Seattle and Tacoma aren't that big of prize. And, the likelihood of UP and BNSF allowing a competitor in: probably not zero, but close.
Yes, the "article" is a "What-If?", but I would ask instead: What for?
Always enjoy Bruce's commentary. His article makes sense as far as Portland is concerned. As it will give CP and its customers single line service from the Midwest/Plains States and Provinces to the PNW. Not only would this reduce cost it makes for faster and more efficient service. If CP were to plan such a move. Possibly a joint trackage agreement or trackage rights between CP/UP from Hinkle to Portland? I doubt UP wants to give up its RoW entirely due to the amount of traffic it moves to the PNW via Idaho. Look at it like the Joint Line of the PNW.
Specifically:The article dated: lMarch 19, 2021, headlines:
Written by Bruce E. Kelly, Contributing Editor
Within the article; Mr. Kelly, makes the proposition that a willing partner might be UPRR ?
Personally, I've got no idea, abut the only time C:PR equipment shws up around hs area,it is in the 'custody' of BNSF. Generally, 'solid consists' are usually Potash movements, loaded westbound and empty north or eastbound(?). UPRR operates on the former Rock Is{OKTsub) about 10 miles t the West. So I'd have to relie upon some other Poster with better information.
A move South would seem to be a logical move for CPR, since their major Canadian competition seems to havne the UISA sliced roughly, in half. (CNR nee: ICRR ) between Great Lakes and Gulf Coast). IF CPR has an over abundance of cash(?); Buying out an existing North/South line might just be their ticket(?). Kansas City Southern might be a candidate, but it would seem to be awfully close to the terriotory already in the hands lof CNR(?)
Not to mention the current economics taking place here under the current political regime? Will be an intertresting outcome to follow.....
[edited for spelling]
Came across this article this afternoon on the Railway Age website. I find it a little odd that they would throw stuff out there just to throw stuff out. Then again, some of what they say here is at least plausible. Still, I think CPRS would be much better off looking to expand southward.
https://www.railwayage.com/freight-forecasting/will-cp-enter-the-u-s-northwest/?fbclid=IwAR2WFlwfEtkiWzjUsK6fuSDns7ZfK83XwblW2N9M-HYzYhUQEeqe56Qa4SY
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.