jeffhergertI received my monthly union news journal a few days ago. It has an update on the national contract negotiations. (Not much about details given, they're still bargaining.) What caught my eye was all the US lines of the two Canadians still exist on paper. Here's a list of CN or CP US lines party to the negotiations. Cedar River Railroad, d.b.a. CN (It was the branch line that Jack Haley bought from IC before he bought most of what was the IC's old Iowa Division and started up the Chicago Central & Pacific.) Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP* Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN Illinois Central Railroad Co and Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN Soo Line Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP* Wisconsin Central Ltd, d.b.a. CN * = Only party to Health and Welfare benefits negotiations. They still have the On-Property agreements for work rules and wages. One that is missing that I believe still exists on paper, under the CPRS banner, is Dakota Minnesota & Eastern. They had a separate contract and may be totally On-Property for everything, including H&W. Jeff
For those that do not know d.b.a means "Doing Business As". It is a Corporate term that is used by Secretary of States that a business operates in to change the spoken name of the company but not the contractual name. So agreements and contracts all have to use d.b.a terminology until the name is officially changed via the various State paperwork.....via Secretary of State offices in which the firm does business in.
Officially the definition is in the link below:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/doing-business-as-dba
Without the d.b.a. a company could claim they never had a valid contract with a contract claimant as the name on the contract is not the name the company is registered under. That is the legal basis for using it. Though I am not sure any company in the past attempted to manipulate the law in such a way.
I received my monthly union news journal a few days ago. It has an update on the national contract negotiations. (Not much about details given, they're still bargaining.) What caught my eye was all the US lines of the two Canadians still exist on paper.
Here's a list of CN or CP US lines party to the negotiations.
Cedar River Railroad, d.b.a. CN (It was the branch line that Jack Haley bought from IC before he bought most of what was the IC's old Iowa Division and started up the Chicago Central & Pacific.)
Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP*
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN
Illinois Central Railroad Co and Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Co, d.b.a. CN
Soo Line Railroad Co, d.b.a. CP*
Wisconsin Central Ltd, d.b.a. CN
* = Only party to Health and Welfare benefits negotiations. They still have the On-Property agreements for work rules and wages.
One that is missing that I believe still exists on paper, under the CPRS banner, is Dakota Minnesota & Eastern. They had a separate contract and may be totally On-Property for everything, including H&W.
Jeff
Agree with CMStPnP. The name Canadian Pacific carries the same prestige, weight, and historical connotation in Canada as Union Pacific does in the US. Ultimately the railroad will be Canadian Pacific.
And Canadian Pacific is just fine. After all, the lines from the original 1867 confederation provinces to the west and the south both end at the Pacific Ocean.
CMStPnPI just got the CP Annual Report in the Mail. On page 68 they state that Calgary, Alberta will be the global HQ of the merged railroad. I read somewhere else it was going to be Kansas City.......so I guess KC is out the window now.
KC will just be the HQ of the US operations. I'm sure they will answer to Calgary.
AjsikHmm...buried within the 'TRAINS PER DAY BY SUBDIVISION' projections on Page 922 of the application is an estimate that traffic on the Watertown sub will actually INCREASE by an average of 0.9. This is in spite of the 6.6 per day which are bypassing Chicago via the Marquette sub. Realistic projection of overall traffic growth or wild optimism? Or (always a strong possibility), am I missing something?
Yeah. Chicago to Twin Cities via former Milwaukee Road is shorter and faster than Twin Cities to Bensenville via Marquette sub. So it stands to reason they will use Twin Cities to Bensenville for traffic headed East of Twin Cities. Specifically intermodal trains......and that traffic is increasing currently for CP.
Specifically CP is targeting Ohio Valley, Columbus, Dayton, etc. They are also attempting to expand their intermodal offerings to include acquiring refrigerated containers for hauling perishables.
Also, I think you will find that not all the Oil trains are going to be bound for the Gulf Coast, some are headed East. There are refineries on the East Coast. Last but not least, stay tuned on rail haulage of LNG. Still being debated with AAR pushing for it.
I just got the CP Annual Report in the Mail. On page 68 they state that Calgary, Alberta will be the global HQ of the merged railroad. I read somewhere else it was going to be Kansas City.......so I guess KC is out the window now.
On another page it says the initial name will be CPKC after the merger, it also states that CP will be the Parent company and KCS a wholly owned subsidiary of CP. So that to me says the CPKC name is not a permanent one and will be along the lines of Lake States Transportation, IMHO. Time will tell I guess but I have a real hard time believing the Canadians would allow a permanent name change to CP.
MP173 We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread.
We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread.
Oh, sorry I missed that. The original post was in regards to the selection of the CPKC name, a topic I'll let others debate. Thanks for continuing the train count discussion in this thread.
MP173 Very fascinating report filled with tons of data, at least the first 1100 pages.
Very fascinating report filled with tons of data, at least the first 1100 pages.
I've only had time to do a cursory look for details related to the effects we'll see here in the Milwaukee area. I hope to have time to do a deeper dive during the holidays and will pick your brain if anything interesting jumps out at me.
We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread. I leafed thru the first 1150 or so pages of hte application and took notes on certain things, such as train count, tonnage projections, increases in growth, etc.
I noticed also some growth where it was not expected, perhaps this is organic growth in the system, perhaps due to the COVID slowdowns and combinations of trains....but only my thoughts.
Other subdivisions showed little or no growth. Surprized by the lack of traffic on the line from Shreveport to New Orleans. Only 2 trains daily with no projected growth. Would think there would be serious chemical and agriculture movements on that line.
Mexico lines are far busier than I suspected.
Big changes in store on the Chicago - Sabula - Davenport - Kansas City line and then on the KCS line south from KC. Big changes.
ed
Ajsik From the Newswire article: Chicago Bypass CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago. The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision. Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City Seems like Milwaukee will be seeing a lot less of CPKC than we currently see of CP.
From the Newswire article:
Chicago Bypass CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago. The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision. Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City
Chicago Bypass
CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago.
The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision.
Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City
Seems like Milwaukee will be seeing a lot less of CPKC than we currently see of CP.
Hmm...buried within the 'TRAINS PER DAY BY SUBDIVISION' projections on Page 922 of the application is an estimate that traffic on the Watertown sub will actually INCREASE by an average of 0.9. This is in spite of the 6.6 per day which are bypassing Chicago via the Marquette sub.
Realistic projection of overall traffic growth or wild optimism? Or (always a strong possibility), am I missing something?
Where we nailed his program was the climb up from Omaha towards Cheyenne. You're Climbing a mile and it does take more fuel to do that than you realize. We really hammered him when headwinds where figured into his program.
Shadow the Cats ownerThe one thing I hate is bean counters here. Why well we just had one that said cutting the HP of the fleet would save fuel costs according to his models. I then asked him what was his model based off. He went a flat route with no wind and no traffic intervention. I said run it on a route to Salt Lake City and back maximum weight headwinds out and with possible crosswinds. He does that and cringed. The specs we are running beat his so called perfect ones by .6 mpg and he said that's impossible. All I said was real world experience versus silicon chips doing the matching. His specs had us gear bound and dropping gears in the smallest of hills. Our fleet specs can power over most smaller climbs without dropping a gear.
In a similar vein, at one point in time CSX had a maximum speed for coal trains of 40 MPH systemwide.
I was working the Atlanta Division at the time. Most of Georgia is a series of rolling hills until you get to the coastal plains. Division officials thought that the 40 MPH speed limit on the division was wasting fuel, despite the bean counters beliving it was saving fuel. Division officials finally were able get a 'real world' test with two coal trains of similar size and identical power types. The 'test' train was allowed track speed. The test was between Atlanta and Waycross. Once the numbers were taken an verified - the track speed train used 150 gallons per unit less than the 40 MPH train.
The 40 MPH train had to apply the brakes coming downgrade on the hills to maintain 40 MPH and did not have the additional momentum to assist them in climbing the next hill and thus had to use more power to top the grade and then throw away the momentum on the next downgrade.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The one thing I hate is bean counters here. Why well we just had one that said cutting the HP of the fleet would save fuel costs according to his models. I then asked him what was his model based off. He went a flat route with no wind and no traffic intervention. I said run it on a route to Salt Lake City and back maximum weight headwinds out and with possible crosswinds. He does that and cringed. The specs we are running beat his so called perfect ones by .6 mpg and he said that's impossible. All I said was real world experience versus silicon chips doing the matching. His specs had us gear bound and dropping gears in the smallest of hills. Our fleet specs can power over most smaller climbs without dropping a gear.
I had heard or read somewhere that the CP can't enlarge the tunnels via Detroit again without compromising them and risking failure. They enlarged them once already for autoracks. I think they are stuck with the doublestacks and need new bores altogether if they want to send those through Detroit.
greyhounds Doesn't the CP have rights through the CN tunnel, which can clear double stacks, for two trains each way per day?
Doesn't the CP have rights through the CN tunnel, which can clear double stacks, for two trains each way per day?
No CP ended rights on the CN back in 2006.
jeffhergert BaltACD Michael Vomvolakis It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity. For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line. Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled. The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains. PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains. Our recrew reports sometimes list "subdivision capacity" as a reason crews couldn't make their next crew change within their HOS. They ain't talkin' about tonnage capacity. Subdivisions, especially single tracked ones can only handle so much traffic within a set time period. Those 20K ton trains, exclusive of bulk commodity types, gum up the works when they might only fit at one or two sidings. Not so bad if there is only one or two, even better if they're going the same direction. However, that's not often the case. Get a bunch of no-fitters each direction and things bog down fast. But if they save one crew, the bean-counters deem it a success. Jeff
BaltACD Michael Vomvolakis It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity. For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line. Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled. The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains. PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains.
Michael Vomvolakis It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity. For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.
For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length.
A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.
Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled.
The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains. PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains.
Our recrew reports sometimes list "subdivision capacity" as a reason crews couldn't make their next crew change within their HOS. They ain't talkin' about tonnage capacity.
Subdivisions, especially single tracked ones can only handle so much traffic within a set time period. Those 20K ton trains, exclusive of bulk commodity types, gum up the works when they might only fit at one or two sidings. Not so bad if there is only one or two, even better if they're going the same direction. However, that's not often the case. Get a bunch of no-fitters each direction and things bog down fast.
But if they save one crew, the bean-counters deem it a success.
Mismanaged subdivisions decrease the subdivisions tonnage capacity.
Too many bean counters at headquarters look at a 200 mile single track railroad with 10 or 12 sidings of varying capacity and can't comprehend how that segment of railroad could ever be FULL.
I have worked too many territories where bean counters were making the decisions on what trains to operate and when - and codlocking the railroad tigher than the kill knot on a hangmans rope as they in fact killed the railroad until time and other actions could get it fluid again. Operating 15K foot trains in both directions on subdivisions that only have 10K foot sidings is a good start.
You are overlooking the one thing about bean counters - if something can be accomplished once with the assistance of special actions and additional personnel, they think that should become the standard operating procedure WITHOUT the special actions and additional personnel.
Remember carriers get paid for the tonnage they haul, not the number of trains it takes them to haul the tonnage.
Michael VomvolakisIt helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity. For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.
It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity.
There's nothing that can't be fixed with enough time and dollars by the truckload thrown at it. Just look at what the BNSF did at Abo canyon in New Mexico. The biggest bottleneck on the entire transcon was double tracked just took a couple hundred million dollars to make it happen.
[quote user="Gramp"]
Interesting to see how they deal with the spindly line along the Mississippi River between Crescent City (La Crosse) and Dubuque.
That's actually La Crescent (more specifically, Bluff at MP 159.0) down to Sabula Jct. Knowing the Marquette Sub very well, I'll confess that it's not a speedway by any stretch but there's been a lot of work done on it in the last 7-10 years after CPRS acquired DME/ICE and there'll be even more work done (new and extended sidings plus CTC) that'll help even more. It's been doing just fine thus far and I expect it'll continue to do so.
CMStPnP MidlandMike The context was the Chicago corridor/ex-Water Level Route in northern Indiana. It's double track reverse CTC, Chicago to Toledo, in some places it is triple track. nowhere near congested.
MidlandMike The context was the Chicago corridor/ex-Water Level Route in northern Indiana.
It's double track reverse CTC, Chicago to Toledo, in some places it is triple track. nowhere near congested.
Porter to Chicago is very congested. Of course since the CSX line through Grand Rapids also uses that part of the NS, the CP going that way really doesn't help.
An "expensive model collector"
Interesting to see how they deal with the spindly line along the Mississippi River between La Crescent (La Crosse) and Dubuque.
MidlandMikeThe context was the Chicago corridor/ex-Water Level Route in northern Indiana.
It's double track reverse CTC, Chicago to Toledo, in some places it is triple track. nowhere near congested. Have ridden Capitol Limited Toledo to Chicago and NS nor Conrail before it had any issue letting Amtrak fly at top speed on that leg.
BTW, I have seen CP on Detroit-Toledo-Chicago and Detroit via ex-Wabash. I think CP still uses both routes.
Lots of detail here:
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/cp-and-kcs-project-dramatic-rise-in-daily-train-counts/
SD60MAC9500There's no tight capacity on NS lines east. Especially the Wabash.. Matter of fact there's plenty of capacity. If anything terminal capacity is the issue these days.
The context was the Chicago corridor/ex-Water Level Route in northern Indiana.
MidlandMike SD60MAC9500 MidlandMike Regarding CHI-DET, CP once used CSX's ex-PM route thru Grand Rapids. Could be an alternate for the more crowded corridors. CSX has sold much of their other Michigan track, maybe they would also part with this trackage. CP also once used CN's GTW Flint/South Bend Subs to get across Michigan. I think 2003-2006. NS has provided CP with a cost effective agreement plus a more direct route. Yes NS is more direct, but I was responding to a post regarding tight capacity on NS.
SD60MAC9500 MidlandMike Regarding CHI-DET, CP once used CSX's ex-PM route thru Grand Rapids. Could be an alternate for the more crowded corridors. CSX has sold much of their other Michigan track, maybe they would also part with this trackage. CP also once used CN's GTW Flint/South Bend Subs to get across Michigan. I think 2003-2006. NS has provided CP with a cost effective agreement plus a more direct route.
MidlandMike Regarding CHI-DET, CP once used CSX's ex-PM route thru Grand Rapids. Could be an alternate for the more crowded corridors. CSX has sold much of their other Michigan track, maybe they would also part with this trackage.
Regarding CHI-DET, CP once used CSX's ex-PM route thru Grand Rapids. Could be an alternate for the more crowded corridors. CSX has sold much of their other Michigan track, maybe they would also part with this trackage.
CP also once used CN's GTW Flint/South Bend Subs to get across Michigan. I think 2003-2006. NS has provided CP with a cost effective agreement plus a more direct route.
Yes NS is more direct, but I was responding to a post regarding tight capacity on NS.
There's no tight capacity on NS lines east. Especially the Wabash.. Matter of fact there's plenty of capacity. If anything terminal capacity is the issue these days.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.