But help with diversions when required?
Somehow, I don't think that CPKC would be too willing to shorthaul itself.
Of course BNSF can assist CPKC to and from western Canada and NS and/or CSX to Eastern Canada on both mileage and diversions, if the traffic is there.
JayBee I am sure that CP and both Schneider and K/S were talking for months before the STB decision and merger. I am also sure that CPKC undercut UP rate by at least a little bit. Note too that the agreement covers only Upper Midwest - Mexico traffic.
I am sure that CP and both Schneider and K/S were talking for months before the STB decision and merger. I am also sure that CPKC undercut UP rate by at least a little bit. Note too that the agreement covers only Upper Midwest - Mexico traffic.
The "undercutting" corresponds roughly to the merger date. Not a coincidence, and not necessarily sustainable. That the agreement covers only Midwest-Mexico traffic speaks volumes about Schneider's expectation of CPKC service in other corridors.
JayBee Remember CPKCdeM. The CPKC/UP/CN route is superior, but the FXE/UP/CN route is inferior and significantly longer than the all CPKC route.
Remember CPKCdeM. The CPKC/UP/CN route is superior, but the FXE/UP/CN route is inferior and significantly longer than the all CPKC route.
Indeed, a Mexico City to Chicago routing is just about the same mileage via CPKC versus FXE-UP. But the FXE-UP service is advertised from Silao (237 miles from Mexico City) and Monterrey. The salient point is that FXE has a much broader network in Mexico than CPKC, as does UP in the United States and CN in Canada, so the likelihood that CPKC will be at a mileage disadvantage for any new service lanes is very good. And mileage isn't all that matters. In the US, the CPKC route has many more grades and is without alternates to address any fluidity concerns or service interruptions.
Southbound CPKC Train 180 passed Muscatine at 0526 on Saturday May 13. It had two CP locomotives and 27 well cars with about 51 orange containers, all likely Schneider. I haven't seen a Train 181 yet, as of 7 AM on May 13.
The northbound was out of Monterrey, MX shortly after midnight on May 11th and was headed by CP SD70ACU 7030. It was reported passing the Victoria, TX railcam shortly before 3 am on May12th. The southbound was out of Bensenville right after the commuter rush, exact time not reported. The southbound was captured on the Muscatine, IA railcam at 3:25 am on May 12th. It was lead by KCS ET44AC 5017.
We should probably have a separate thread for the initial CPKC trains, which run as the "Mexico Midwest Express" service, numbers MMX 180 and 181, between Chicago and San Luis Potosi (north of Mexico City). They say they have third-day service to Laredo, fourth-day service to/from Monterrey, and 4.5 day (98 hours transit time) to San Luis Potosi.
The interesting thing here is that in March 2022, CP/KCS/KCSdeM ran a test service from the west-coast port of Lazaro Cardenas via SLP to Chicago, with a time "from vessel arrival at Lazaro to train arrival [Bensenville Yard] in seven days". That is over a day and a half shorter than the time the Falcon "premium service" lists between Detroit and Monterrey.
Apparently an important part of Falcon Service is that it serves the 'inland port' adjacent to Silao, which is close to the geographic center of Mexico. This is reached from Halifax in 13.2 days, and Halifax from the IP in 12.8, perhaps reflecting the trans-border delay southbound that another poster was concerned with.
Gramp I remember seeing the Falcons sail through Dekalb, IL when I was at NIU. I recall a Northwestern official saying they chose that name because they were stealing the traffic from their competitors.
I remember seeing the Falcons sail through Dekalb, IL when I was at NIU. I recall a Northwestern official saying they chose that name because they were stealing the traffic from their competitors.
For many years, and perhaps to this very day, Geneva Subdivision dispatchers called intermodal trains "Birds" because the original TOFC Falcon train trailers had big falcon bird logos on their sides.
Today (May 11) was supposed to be the day CPKC starts its new intermodal trains. Hope to catch them on the Steel Highway railcams. They also have a couple of cams on UP's Spine Line, where larger and larger blocks of doublestack containers have been showing up on manifests in recent weeks. I think these are Twin Cities/Texas.
- Ed Kyle
CMStPnP I am just curious why they used the C&NW servicemark for this new intermodal service instead of comming up with a new name. Was C&NW's intermodal service ever offered at the premium level? Just curious.
I am just curious why they used the C&NW servicemark for this new intermodal service instead of comming up with a new name. Was C&NW's intermodal service ever offered at the premium level? Just curious.
Certainly was! The Falcon is what helped with the demise of ATSF's Super C. The Falcon ran from Wood Street in Chicago to East LA. Bypassing Omaha on the Missouri Valley line heading to Fremont, NE where interchange took place and UP power was added, rolling onto the Overland Route for LA via Ogden, UT.. Transit time was set for a 50H Schedule with CNW/UP besting it at times.
To the CPKC SNDL and K-S contracts. CP was in talks with SNDL at the same time they inked a deal with UP. I believe UP already knew this. With the SWIFT deal CPKC is only getting roughly 50% of the traffic from Laredo. The balance will still travel UP rails in the CHI-LAR lane.
CMStPnPWas C&NW's intermodal service ever offered at the premium level?
daveklepper I don't think you factored-in the UP - Mexican railroad interchange in your evaluation.
I don't think you factored-in the UP - Mexican railroad interchange in your evaluation.
The common concern among the other Class I railraods reflected in their filings with the STB (including UP and CN) is the border crossing at Laredo. For some reason the fear is KCS and CP can move to take that border crossing over and issue prohibitively high joint rates to get traffic across that popular crossing. Not sure where that fear is comming from as everyone knows CN is like Darth Vader and UP is just about an iron blanket over the United States West of Illinois.
Also, seems to me I never had to wait on a scheduled CP train. UP? can't seem to ever run Amtrak on time or their own steam excursions. CN? Hostile to everyone and no real community relations worth mentioning.....Darth Vader.
CN and UP seem to be fairly good with customer service though UP is kind of fraying on the edges a little I hear with their service.
Vermontanan2 Well, I don't believe Schneider. Again it seems too much a coincidence that the "switch" came right after the CP-KCS merger was approved. I think they are saying this because they got some kind of sweetheart deal from CPKC. The CPKC routing is costing them big time in equipment cycle time, so they must be getting something in return. The "single line" excuse only gets you so far.
Well, I don't believe Schneider. Again it seems too much a coincidence that the "switch" came right after the CP-KCS merger was approved. I think they are saying this because they got some kind of sweetheart deal from CPKC. The CPKC routing is costing them big time in equipment cycle time, so they must be getting something in return. The "single line" excuse only gets you so far.
Beyond that, their claim makes no sense. Having been involved in mergers before, it seems unlikely that mere weeks after the merger, all of a sudden there can be seamless one-carrier tracking of their shipments and handling of their equipment. Also, CPKC's single line seamlessness isn't a real thing, since they are at the mercy of other carriers (some of which are competition) between Robstown and Beaumont, across the Chicago terminal, and between Chicago and Detroit or the Buffalo area. Couple all these inferiorities together and a direct UP-CN interchange in Joliet looks pretty darn seamless in itself.
Again I will point out the agreement only covers Mexico - Upper Midwest which may or may not include Detroit traffic. I have never seen Toronto or Montreal included in the Upper Midwest. As for UP stabbing CPKC in Houston or South Texas, well that would look good as a counter to CPKC being unable to deliver UP traffic in Laredo in a timely manner.
We don't know if this market from Mexico to Detroit or Toronto is all that lucrative. It really remains to be seen. But if it is, the will to retrieve the business and the technology to do it to create similar seamlessness akin to "single line" is clearly achievable. UP/CN can match the CPKC service Schneider supposedly likes, but CPKC will never ever be able to match the highly superior and less-costly route and operating profile of UP/CN in this lane. If the business is that worthwhile, CPKC is doomed to lose it eventually.
CMStPnP UP already lost one intermodal client (Schnieder) to CP-KCS and CN probably realizes it will lose customers to it as well. I think Schnieder stated they are not so interested in the time it takes to move frieght as they are with the single line of service. Which in my view says the railroads can't work together jointly and the client ends up in frustration. Sad they have to merge together in order to get better customer service. It's 2023 and you would have thought the railroads would have figured out how to serve the client best by now.
UP already lost one intermodal client (Schnieder) to CP-KCS and CN probably realizes it will lose customers to it as well. I think Schnieder stated they are not so interested in the time it takes to move frieght as they are with the single line of service. Which in my view says the railroads can't work together jointly and the client ends up in frustration. Sad they have to merge together in order to get better customer service. It's 2023 and you would have thought the railroads would have figured out how to serve the client best by now.
It could be worse. Futuremodal could come crawling out from under his rock and start singing the praises of open access.
Los Angeles Rams Guy Not sure how/where you get the idea that an acquisition of KCS by (especially) UP would have more than a snowball's chance in hades of ever passing the sniff test. Let's consider: (1) UP gobbled up both MP and WP in 1982 (2) got the MKT in 1988 (3) FINALLY got its merger partner made in heaven [I guess] CNW in 1995 and (4) was inexplicably able to gobble up both SP/DRGW which should NEVER have been allowed to happen. If ANY one merger should be undone, it's UP's acquisition of SP/DRGW that effectively killed off any chance of a three-system west and whether that was as an independent SP/DRGW or in combination with CPRS - whatever. Now we have big bad arrogant UP whining and moaning about CPKC and how they're getting shut out at the Laredo gateway. You know what I say? (Expletive deleted) them. The utter arrogance of UP is seriously one of the most incredible things I've seen as either someone who has followed the industry closely or as an employee in the industry. I saw that same trait with CNW back in the day and I see they picked up quite nicely.
Not sure how/where you get the idea that an acquisition of KCS by (especially) UP would have more than a snowball's chance in hades of ever passing the sniff test. Let's consider: (1) UP gobbled up both MP and WP in 1982 (2) got the MKT in 1988 (3) FINALLY got its merger partner made in heaven [I guess] CNW in 1995 and (4) was inexplicably able to gobble up both SP/DRGW which should NEVER have been allowed to happen.
If ANY one merger should be undone, it's UP's acquisition of SP/DRGW that effectively killed off any chance of a three-system west and whether that was as an independent SP/DRGW or in combination with CPRS - whatever. Now we have big bad arrogant UP whining and moaning about CPKC and how they're getting shut out at the Laredo gateway. You know what I say? (Expletive deleted) them.
The utter arrogance of UP is seriously one of the most incredible things I've seen as either someone who has followed the industry closely or as an employee in the industry. I saw that same trait with CNW back in the day and I see they picked up quite nicely.
I think we can all agree UP and KCS wouldn't have happened even with my opinion that UP should have acquired them...
Why does the west need 3 systems? All that would do is drive up cost and create a weak performing carrier. The Rio Grande has too many cons going against it to be a through route... One.. The Moffat Road can't accommodate double-stacks. Tennessee Pass can yet has 3% grade EB with a long 1.4% grade WB. Add in heavy snow with a capacity constricted route through the Royal Gorge, and I can't forget that terrible climb both ways across Solider Summit. 2% EB, 2.4% WB?..
UP and SP always belonged together E.H.Harriman saw this back in 1900. SP/DRGW was not going to survive on its own as 3rd carrier... Flanked by BNSF and UP with greater market penetration and traffic generation.
I think we need to quit having this mindset that having a bunch of railroads competing for limited traffic will improve the industry. Industry consolidation has always been sought to drive scope and scale while eliminating interchange and lowering line haul cost.
Does trucking have such barriers?
CSSHEGEWISCH tree68 Back in the day, there was at least one "alphabet" routing that involved something like five railroads... The specifics elude me, but it was in the northeast. Thing is, they advertised this routing. I'm presuming that it worked, at least for a while. The Alphabet Route ran between Chicago and Baltimore over NKP, W&LE, P&WV and WM and it was a competitive routing.
tree68 Back in the day, there was at least one "alphabet" routing that involved something like five railroads... The specifics elude me, but it was in the northeast. Thing is, they advertised this routing. I'm presuming that it worked, at least for a while.
Back in the day, there was at least one "alphabet" routing that involved something like five railroads... The specifics elude me, but it was in the northeast.
Thing is, they advertised this routing. I'm presuming that it worked, at least for a while.
My recollection of the Alphabet Route was that the destination was New England, not Baltimore.
Once the WM got the traffic at Connellsville from P&WV it delivered it to the RDG at Lurgan, PA - I believe RDG carried it to a interchange with the CNH who inturn interchanged with the Lehigh & Hudson River that took it to a interchange with the New Haven.
https://alphabetroute.com/
I could be mistaken.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
[/quote]
SD60MAC9500 Michael Vomvolakis A UP-KCS merger? I don't think so. When the STB denied the voting trust for the CN-KCS merger, they signaled to the industry that even large mergers with far less overlap were not going to be approved. UP-KCS would not have a snowball's chance... UP would have to divest most of KCS. They would have to get rid of the Springfield Line; the "main stem" from Kansas City down through Shreveport to New Orleans; the Shreveport to Fort Worth line; the combination of trackage rights and owned lines down from Beaumont to Laredo. Take a look at a map and the amount of direct overlap is staggering. At that point what is UP buying? KSCM and the Meridian Speedway. Not surprisingly, these are the parts of the KCS network that UP made the most use of. As previously mentioned 60% of pre-merger traffic coming off KCSM at Laredo was handed over to UP. UP, while they don't have any ownership, is still a heavy user of the Speedway. I also think they could have retained the Shreveport to Beaumont line with its chemical traffic if they gave trackage rights to another railroad. If UP wanted to buy KCS, the right time was in the late 1990s or very early 2000s when the mood regarding mergers was different. Of course UP would have to divest most of the KCS. Concerning the KCMO-Beaumont Line. They already operate the Muskogee Line which bypasses the roller coaster in the Ozarks and Quachita Mts. As to the Springfiled Line I don't see that being divested from UP. Considering it connects with the UP's exisiting Alton line at Springfield. It would allow UP to bypass TRRA, and gets their IM trains off the BNSF between Joliet-KCMO. Of course the line would need a major upgrade as it does now. UP had already threw in its bid for the Mexican Northeast concession back in 1997. However just coming off a merger with SP might have been the hindrance allowing KCS to grab it. Concerning the Meridian Speedway that would go to NS. So they're not shorthauling between Atlanta-Shreveport where they currently interchange with UP. @kgbw49 I worte a piece on Linkedin last year that briefly touched on a hypothetical Conrail-esque split of KCS.
Michael Vomvolakis A UP-KCS merger? I don't think so. When the STB denied the voting trust for the CN-KCS merger, they signaled to the industry that even large mergers with far less overlap were not going to be approved. UP-KCS would not have a snowball's chance... UP would have to divest most of KCS. They would have to get rid of the Springfield Line; the "main stem" from Kansas City down through Shreveport to New Orleans; the Shreveport to Fort Worth line; the combination of trackage rights and owned lines down from Beaumont to Laredo. Take a look at a map and the amount of direct overlap is staggering. At that point what is UP buying? KSCM and the Meridian Speedway. Not surprisingly, these are the parts of the KCS network that UP made the most use of. As previously mentioned 60% of pre-merger traffic coming off KCSM at Laredo was handed over to UP. UP, while they don't have any ownership, is still a heavy user of the Speedway. I also think they could have retained the Shreveport to Beaumont line with its chemical traffic if they gave trackage rights to another railroad. If UP wanted to buy KCS, the right time was in the late 1990s or very early 2000s when the mood regarding mergers was different.
A UP-KCS merger? I don't think so. When the STB denied the voting trust for the CN-KCS merger, they signaled to the industry that even large mergers with far less overlap were not going to be approved. UP-KCS would not have a snowball's chance...
UP would have to divest most of KCS. They would have to get rid of the Springfield Line; the "main stem" from Kansas City down through Shreveport to New Orleans; the Shreveport to Fort Worth line; the combination of trackage rights and owned lines down from Beaumont to Laredo. Take a look at a map and the amount of direct overlap is staggering.
At that point what is UP buying? KSCM and the Meridian Speedway. Not surprisingly, these are the parts of the KCS network that UP made the most use of. As previously mentioned 60% of pre-merger traffic coming off KCSM at Laredo was handed over to UP. UP, while they don't have any ownership, is still a heavy user of the Speedway. I also think they could have retained the Shreveport to Beaumont line with its chemical traffic if they gave trackage rights to another railroad.
If UP wanted to buy KCS, the right time was in the late 1990s or very early 2000s when the mood regarding mergers was different.
Of course UP would have to divest most of the KCS. Concerning the KCMO-Beaumont Line. They already operate the Muskogee Line which bypasses the roller coaster in the Ozarks and Quachita Mts.
As to the Springfiled Line I don't see that being divested from UP. Considering it connects with the UP's exisiting Alton line at Springfield. It would allow UP to bypass TRRA, and gets their IM trains off the BNSF between Joliet-KCMO. Of course the line would need a major upgrade as it does now.
UP had already threw in its bid for the Mexican Northeast concession back in 1997. However just coming off a merger with SP might have been the hindrance allowing KCS to grab it.
Concerning the Meridian Speedway that would go to NS. So they're not shorthauling between Atlanta-Shreveport where they currently interchange with UP.
@kgbw49 I worte a piece on Linkedin last year that briefly touched on a hypothetical Conrail-esque split of KCS.
CMStPnPWhich in my view says the railroads can't work together jointly and the client ends up in frustration.
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...
Airlines long ago figured out how to share their passenger revenue with the large alliances between carriers.
Granted, airline passengers "switch themselves" at hubs.
BNSF has seemed to partially have figured things out with CSX to North Baltimore and both CSX and NS to Atlanta.
daveklepper Why did CN-UP-Ferromex wait until now? Why not years ago? But Falcon is not the shortest way to Western Canada, or Portland and Seattle. So....CPKCS and BNSF - will you?
Why did CN-UP-Ferromex wait until now? Why not years ago?
But Falcon is not the shortest way to Western Canada, or Portland and Seattle.
So....CPKCS and BNSF - will you?
kgbw49 MV, agree with that analysis. The UP play is a last ditch effort to divide up KCS amongst several and grab the parts it wants for itself. Basically a "Conrail-lite". The Meridian Speedway helps them penetrate the south where population growth is happening the most and a business-friendly climate is driving economic growth. It gets them awfully close to Atlanta. CN already expressed its interest in the Springfield line. If the proceeding was reopened you would see BNSF jump in. The opportunity to haul freight from the growing number of factories in Mexico to the high population growth region of the US is a significant one. It is likely to be a growth engine for CPKC that has largely been overlooked. UP has nothing to lose in trying to reopen the proceedings so they are going for it but it does seem like trying to get the results of the last Super Bowl thrown out so it can be replayed.
MV, agree with that analysis.
The UP play is a last ditch effort to divide up KCS amongst several and grab the parts it wants for itself.
Basically a "Conrail-lite".
The Meridian Speedway helps them penetrate the south where population growth is happening the most and a business-friendly climate is driving economic growth. It gets them awfully close to Atlanta.
CN already expressed its interest in the Springfield line.
If the proceeding was reopened you would see BNSF jump in.
The opportunity to haul freight from the growing number of factories in Mexico to the high population growth region of the US is a significant one.
It is likely to be a growth engine for CPKC that has largely been overlooked.
UP has nothing to lose in trying to reopen the proceedings so they are going for it but it does seem like trying to get the results of the last Super Bowl thrown out so it can be replayed.
I was more responding to SD90MAC's opinion that UP-KCS would have been preferable.
During the STB hearings, UP wanted the STB to establish what they call a “rate mechanism” for freight moving through the Laredo border crossing. As once again mentioned 60% of KSCM traffic at Laredo was handed over to UP. The merger means that CPKC doesn't have to give as much traffic to UP at Laredo anymore. UP’s “rate mechanism” would have prevented CPKC from diverting a lot of this traffic over its own network since it would lock in the pre-merger rates. If I were to guess implementing this “rate mechanism” would be UP’s main goal in this lawsuit, not splitting KCS Conrail-style.
A Conrail-syle split of KCS would have been interesting. Of course with CPKC being a done deal now, all of it is simply alternate history. It's still fun to talk about!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.