Ed Kyle blue streak 1 More likely customers waiting to sign until merge official? The merger is official, completed in mid-April. CPCK plans to add new intermodal trains 180/181 beginning May 11. New customers must not be in a hurry. It took last night's 261 four hours to go 40 miles or so Washington, IA to Muscatine, IA. It had to meet 260 somewhere between.
blue streak 1 More likely customers waiting to sign until merge official?
More likely customers waiting to sign until merge official?
The merger is official, completed in mid-April. CPCK plans to add new intermodal trains 180/181 beginning May 11. New customers must not be in a hurry. It took last night's 261 four hours to go 40 miles or so Washington, IA to Muscatine, IA. It had to meet 260 somewhere between.
Can't wait to see how this will play out with the north-south intermodal lanes- CP's current east-west seem to run a very small handful of massive, 700-800 axle trains, some of which include manifest and auto traffic. The way I see it, CP simply can't run a high speed, dedicated intermodal service with their usual mindset. Time will tell I guess...
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
JayBeeOf course you know that starting May 11th that the containers will no longer move on 260 and 261, and that railroads don't assign equal priority to every train. Imagine BNSF moving UPS traffic on H-BARGAL instead of Z-LACWSP. Also Intermodal on US railroads down 8% on CP Intermodal is up 4% in the 1Q 2023 and this doesn't include KCS.
Also Intermodal on US railroads down 8% on CP Intermodal is up 4% in the 1Q 2023 and this doesn't include KCS.
The question then becomes, what lanes on CP are up and what lanes are down.
The same questions need to be asked of the US intermodal statistics.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Of course you know that starting May 11th that the containers will no longer move on 260 and 261, and that railroads don't assign equal priority to every train. Imagine BNSF moving UPS traffic on H-BARGAL instead of Z-LACWSP.
Nine doublestack well cars with 11 containers on the end of tonight's 261 everything-train passing through Washington, Iowa. 3x1x0 power setup on a typical long slow one.
CMStPnP Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads. Seems to me that is a fairly big clue dropped by a major client that UP & CN both need to setup a single touch point for their intermodal clients on cross border and cross country traffic.
Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads. Seems to me that is a fairly big clue dropped by a major client that UP & CN both need to setup a single touch point for their intermodal clients on cross border and cross country traffic.
Actually, Schneider doesn't say that in the article. From the article: "Schneider’s growing customer base will be able to leverage CPKC’s broad network of rail lines and terminals, according to the Class I railroad. “These services, supported by Schneider’s drayage capabilities and expertise in the U.S. and Mexico, will create service reliability in lanes that until now lacked single-line, truck-competitive intermodal options,” the railroad reported." This quote is from the railroad; the quote from Schneider in the article doesn't mention the "single-line" route. (If there are other articles that do include such quotes from Schneider officials, please provide the link.)
It sure is an amazing coincidence that this new business was announced right after the CPKC merger was consummated. Could it be that CPKC is offering a rate lower than the competition? Maybe even too low just to attract customers to prove their merger a "success?"
CMStPnP Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads.
Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads.
"Marginally" is subjective, of course, but dictionary.com defines it as "by a minimal, insignificant, or almost insufficient amount." The CPKC route between Laredo and Chicago is 25% further than the UP route. Shorter does not always mean faster or less-expensive, but in this case it does - in spades. The UP has multiple routes between San Antonio and Chicago including directional running most of the way to increase fluidity. It avoids major terminals other than St. Louis. Grades are moderate. CPKC on the other hand, as one route, and is heavily dependent on UP just to get out of Texas, including traversing the Houston terminal. (Houston is well-known for congestion, but it can't be a problem for CPKC - even if their trains are severely delayed - because they're on record in their STB merger testimony stating that UP capacity here is adequate and that CPKC wouldn't need to provide any money for infrastructure upgrades.) On their home rails CPKC is proud to channel the Rio Grande of the past and tout "Through the Ozarks, not around them" compared to the competition, in reference to the 1.5% grades on Rich Hill in Oklahoma/Arkansas as well as in Northwest Arkansas and Southwest Missouri. And then there's 1.6% Rutledge Hill climbing eastward out of the Des Moines River valley at Ottumwa, Iowa. Not only that, for a service from Mexico to Michigan, Ontario and Quebec, trains arrive Chicago in the northwest part of the metro, and would have to fight their way across the city (IHB/BRC) to reach the congested NS main line southeast of the city core for their trackage rights trip to Detroit. (A UP-CN arrangement, in contrast, arrives the Chicago area from the south and uses CN's ex-EJ&E line to pretty much avoid most of the city and exit on its own rails going east.) Far from "marginal," it's easy to see where the 25% mileage disadvantage for CPKC could easily balloon to a 40% or 50% greater cost.
I just don't buy that desire for "single-line" service is that much of priority when the single-line route is so much more expensive and requires so many more resources (especially cycle time for Schneider equipment). There's something else aplay here. We'll see what happens when it's time to renew the contract. My guess is that in a couple of years after CPKC succumbs to its operational reality in this lane compared to the other railroads and its mergertime "Everything Everywhere All At Once" claims about the service they'll provide will all fade and traffic will revert back to the way it is now or by the more cost-effective routes.
CMStPnP jeffhergert Of course, UP is partnering with CN, too. UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads. Seems to me that is a fairly big clue dropped by a major client that UP & CN both need to setup a single touch point for their intermodal clients on cross border and cross country traffic. Question is, will they do that? I think American railroads approach to traffic offline is rather 1970's era and needs to be updated. I could not imagine telling a client if I had a joint rate with someone that they need to call the other person to find out about their shipment or to complain. Just seems like fairly bad customer service.
jeffhergert Of course, UP is partnering with CN, too. UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service
Question is, will they do that?
I think American railroads approach to traffic offline is rather 1970's era and needs to be updated. I could not imagine telling a client if I had a joint rate with someone that they need to call the other person to find out about their shipment or to complain. Just seems like fairly bad customer service.
Customer service is an unknown concept to most US railroads.
jeffhergertOf course, UP is partnering with CN, too. UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service
CPKC has landed some new intermodal business.
CPKC Lands Schneider Business - Railway Age
Of course, UP is partnering with CN, too.
UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service
Jeff
Ulrich Overmod MidlandMike If trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short. If trucks fully paid for the road damage they cause, the trucking industry would likely be trillions short. As we transition away from the 'good roads' movement making road and highway maintenance the same sort of 'free right' as public education, we may expect to see measures to make trucks pay their 'fair share' of this -- and with the government's proven authority to be paid revenue "owed" them (or face expedient prosecution, imposition of strict scrutiny, etc.) That "fair share" would simply be passed on to the consumer..Ultimately any subsidies are subsidies to you and me and every other consumer who buys stuff from stores that aren't located on a rail line. And let's not forget that all transportation modes benefit from taxpayer subsidies...Amtrak, VIA, and all commuter rail operations, for example are largely paid for by the taxpayer while their host railroads enjoy sub 60% operating ratios. Similarly, cheap airfares are only possible because we have subsidized airports, and security...thanks again to taxpayers.
Overmod MidlandMike If trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short. If trucks fully paid for the road damage they cause, the trucking industry would likely be trillions short. As we transition away from the 'good roads' movement making road and highway maintenance the same sort of 'free right' as public education, we may expect to see measures to make trucks pay their 'fair share' of this -- and with the government's proven authority to be paid revenue "owed" them (or face expedient prosecution, imposition of strict scrutiny, etc.)
MidlandMike If trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short.
If trucks fully paid for the road damage they cause, the trucking industry would likely be trillions short. As we transition away from the 'good roads' movement making road and highway maintenance the same sort of 'free right' as public education, we may expect to see measures to make trucks pay their 'fair share' of this -- and with the government's proven authority to be paid revenue "owed" them (or face expedient prosecution, imposition of strict scrutiny, etc.)
That "fair share" would simply be passed on to the consumer..Ultimately any subsidies are subsidies to you and me and every other consumer who buys stuff from stores that aren't located on a rail line.
And let's not forget that all transportation modes benefit from taxpayer subsidies...Amtrak, VIA, and all commuter rail operations, for example are largely paid for by the taxpayer while their host railroads enjoy sub 60% operating ratios. Similarly, cheap airfares are only possible because we have subsidized airports, and security...thanks again to taxpayers.
Iowa DOT did a study years ago, I came across it looking for something else and haven't found it since, that said automobile traffic subsidized commercial trucks. It wasn't that automobiles paid higher fees, but that when those fees were compared to the damage to highways done by the different sized vehicles, the smaller vehicles paid higher rates in proportion to the wear and tear they did to the roadways.
No matter who pays what in fees, the US Highway Trust fund has been short for a very long time and general funds used for highway infrastructure. Over the last few years I've realized that while trucks appear to be subsidized, it's really the large shippers/receivers that are being subsidized. It's like Ulrich has said, if fees were changed to cover the costs of commercial trucks, they would be passed along to the shippers/receivers and ultimately the rest of us.
Still, I wish it would. Maybe then rail would be involved more in the transportation chain like it once was. Of course, it would also mean that the major railroads would have to actually provide transportation. It was like someone on another site said. When it was the ICC, railroads were considered a vital public utility. After Staggers, railroads just became another industry.
UlrichThat "fair share" would simply be passed on to the consumer.
MidlandMikeIf trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short.
On webcams I've been seeing blocks of doublestack intermodal containers start to show up on the CPKC manifest trains running between Nahant, IA and Kansas City. They seem to be on already-existing trains so far. I also saw an autorack train, which I don't recall seeing before. All this since the merger date this week. The containers haven't appeared in Dubuque, so must be headed toward Chicago.
Harrison a few points of contention here..
1-CN has access to Mexico. It's called the CG Railway and it has 2 railcar ferries that provide service between Mobile, AL and Coatzacoalcos, MX. The ferry offers 2 day transit time which is currently on average faster than going via Laredo, TX which can can delay interchange up to 120H..
2-Most Missouri grain goes via the Mississippi. Any grain by rail on CPKC will not go east to Canada. It will go to the Gulf for export.
CPKC was a defensive merger as CP ran out of options for growth..Nor could they allow KCS to end up with BNSF, CN, UP, or NS? CN will still command a much better network.
CPKC's intermodal franchise will be fairly weak domestically and certainly can't hold a candle to vastly better route options that CN, BNSF, and UP hold between the Gulf and Midwest. CPKC believes Lazaro Cardenas-Chicago is going to jump off at the expense of the less expensive ports of POLA/POLB? No chance.. LC is more expensive to Chicago, 7 day longer sailing time and lacks transload capability.. While adding customs delays. Versus landing boxes stateside for domestic receivers..
Another stickler... CPKC only has exclusive operating concessions for the Mexican portion until 2037.. Anyone's open to bid for open access once it expires. Then 10 years later the concession will be open to bid for a new operator... Also Mexico industrial policy is pretty dicey and can change on a whim...
CPKC has alot of challenges ahead and its route structure will certainly give it a run for its own money..
Ulrich No sentimentality..and other modes.. notably trucking..pay for its infrastructure through a variety of taxes..fuel taxes (municipal, state, federal) ton mile tax..and of course road/bridge/tunnel tolls. If all collected road and fuel taxes were directed back to road infrastructure we could rebuild the interstate highway system (or at least repave it) every couple of years..
No sentimentality..and other modes.. notably trucking..pay for its infrastructure through a variety of taxes..fuel taxes (municipal, state, federal) ton mile tax..and of course road/bridge/tunnel tolls. If all collected road and fuel taxes were directed back to road infrastructure we could rebuild the interstate highway system (or at least repave it) every couple of years..
If trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short. Nevertheless, the main point I was trying to make is that the rail infrastructure is sunk costs, whereas trucks can rearrange their service area at will.
UlrichOf course railroads need to be efficient..we all do....but removing the impetus to innovate and compete doesn't work in that direction. We all work best when the wolf is at the door..human nature..
The wolf was at the door, which is why all the railroad mergers. As long as there are still two railroads, they will have to innovate/compete between themselves and also trucking, and pipelines, and barges (and hyperloops?)
UlrichNo sentimentality..and other modes..trucking..pays for its infrastructure through a variety of taxes..fuel taxes (municipal, state, federal) ton mile tax..and of course road/bridge/tunnel tolls. If all collected road and fuel taxes were directed back to road infrastructure we could rebuild the interstate highway system (or at least repave it) every couple of years.. Of course railroads need to be efficient..we all do....but removing the impetus to innovate and compete doesn't work in that direction. We all work best when the wolf is at the door..human nature..
Of course railroads need to be efficient..we all do....but removing the impetus to innovate and compete doesn't work in that direction. We all work best when the wolf is at the door..human nature..
My understanding is that despite the various taxes other transportation modes pay for the taxpayer provided facilities they use, those tax payments are far from covering the benefits they receive
Ulrich Hard to say...when there's less competition there's less incentive to innovate/hustle/improve. We would have been better off with a dozen or two class 1s..at least two competitors in every market, and ideally three or four. But, that ship has sailed, and there's no going back.
Hard to say...when there's less competition there's less incentive to innovate/hustle/improve. We would have been better off with a dozen or two class 1s..at least two competitors in every market, and ideally three or four. But, that ship has sailed, and there's no going back.
To remain competitive you must remain efficient. Railroad companies that must maintain their own infrastructure need to combine in ways that make the best use of those assets. Remember most other modes use public infrastructure. Sentimentality is not necessarily a good economic strategy.
One point to consider is that the CP/KCS merger, aside from being end-to-end, is also primarily a north-south route on a continent where most traffic is east-west.
tree68 zugmann I don't know. While it may not change the industry, I don't know if I'm ever glad to see another RR gone. Let's face it, there are those who would like to see just one railroad nationwide... Not railfans, but... It would never happen, of course. Monopolies and all that.
zugmann I don't know. While it may not change the industry, I don't know if I'm ever glad to see another RR gone.
Let's face it, there are those who would like to see just one railroad nationwide... Not railfans, but...
It would never happen, of course. Monopolies and all that.
Prior to April 14 we had seven class 1 railroads that could interchange freely with one another. After April 14 we have only six class 1s that can interchange freely with one another. End result is fewer options for shippers.. i.e. less competition. If end to end mergers unlock so much potential without inhibiting competition, then why not have UP and CSX/ NS and BNSF merge?
CMStPnP Ulrich Less competition..Prior to the merger a Canadian shipper with freight going into the southwest could choose a CP - KCS routing or CN - KCS routing. Now CP and KCS are merged as one company shippers no longer have the CN - KCS option..hence reduced options i.e. less competition. Same scenario in reverse for American shippers to Canada. What line did KCS have that served the Southwest or did you mean Mexico?
Ulrich Less competition..Prior to the merger a Canadian shipper with freight going into the southwest could choose a CP - KCS routing or CN - KCS routing. Now CP and KCS are merged as one company shippers no longer have the CN - KCS option..hence reduced options i.e. less competition. Same scenario in reverse for American shippers to Canada.
What line did KCS have that served the Southwest or did you mean Mexico?
South central US and Mexico would have been more accurate..
zugmannI don't know. While it may not change the industry, I don't know if I'm ever glad to see another RR gone.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Less competition..Prior to the merger a Canadian shipper with freight going into the southwest could choose a CP - KCS routing or CN - KCS routing. Now CP and KCS are merged as one company shippers no longer have the CN - KCS option..hence reduced options i.e. less competition. Same scenario in reverse for American shippers to Canada.
Of course KCS had an incentive to favor CP before the purchase by CP as it gave them a much longer haul rather than turning most of the traffic over to CN at Jackson, MS. East St. Louis no longer offers CN direct access to Chicago, as they sold or abandoned the direct routes to the north. KCS interchanges only with IMRR at Springfield, IL and only once per week.
Of course it's about eliminating competition..the same efficiencies that this merger supposedly "unlocks" could have been realized through operating and marketing agreements between said companies, without requiring a merger. Adding no new locomotives and not a mile of new track unlocks so much potential? Somehow I doubt it. I wish them luck, and I hope it works out.
jeffhergertI'm glad the merger happened. It's not going to change the industry too much and it doesn't reduce competition. I feel it's a much better outcome than had CN got hold of KCS.
I don't know. While it may not change the industry, I don't know if I'm ever glad to see another RR gone.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I'm glad the merger happened. It's not going to change the industry too much and it doesn't reduce competition. I feel it's a much better outcome than had CN got hold of KCS.
I suppose in theory the former IC intersects the KCS at Vicksburg, and technically the former IC and KCS connect in the greater St. Louis area. Perhaps that is what was being referred to?
And some consider Texas to be the start of the Southwest. Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston are the two biggest population centers and of course KCS reaches both.
(Also in my head as I type I am phonetically pronouncing it correctly as the natives do - TEK-sis.)
UlrichLess competition..Prior to the merger a Canadian shipper with freight going into the southwest could choose a CP - KCS routing or CN - KCS routing. Now CP and KCS are merged as one company shippers no longer have the CN - KCS option..hence reduced options i.e. less competition. Same scenario in reverse for American shippers to Canada.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.