Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:39 PM The PCX was one of my favorites to photograph. I have one with a set of 4 clean speed lettered GP60s running elephant style that I blew up to 12x16 to frame and hang on my wall. It was taken in Soledad Canyon a few miles below Acton. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:50 PM So I guess the answer is it has been terminated. [:D] Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:55 PM That would be my guess. Like I said I didn't see it last year. And I would spend days at a time right next to the tracks in Dorris. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:27 PM OK I knew you would have the answer somehow. [:o)][:o)] Originally posted by chad thomas [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply corwinda Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 389 posts Posted by corwinda on Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:18 PM I do still see intermodal trains running through Springfield, OR on UP but they are a mix of (mostly steamship) containers and trailers. Reply TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:02 PM Thanks guys. I was thinking that UP terminated it. Regards Gary Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Thursday, March 24, 2005 7:21 PM I think they have been replaced by ZSELA, ZLASE, ZPTLA, and ZLAPT. I am not sure about the existances of the Portland trains. By the way, I do not see many May Trucking piggybacks anymore. These trains have many Interstate Distribution and Market Transport trailers. They also usually have a few Dole containers. "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:31 PM It has been a few years now since I've seen any May Trucking pigs on a train. It does make sense to see Z trains. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, March 25, 2005 6:48 AM Could be May is OOB (out of biz) or they found a cheaper way (owner operators?) or a they were bought out. [:D][:p] Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Friday, March 25, 2005 8:23 PM http://www.maytrucking.com/ "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:29 AM I said maybe but thanks [:p][:D] Originally posted by ericsp [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:22 PM Since UP ate SP and took over operations between Portland and Los Angeles, the reliability and punctuality of intermodal freight transfers through that corridor has pretty much ended up in the toilet. I see the evidence daily in the form of intermodals tied down in the holes, dead-in-law for days at a time on the Fresno Sub while nearby BNSF is running piggybacks and double stacks back to back out of their Bakersfield Sub, up and over UP's Mojave Sub. UP has really dropped the ball in that area. Reply Edit TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:27 PM I agree jadegirl, that UP has dropped the ball in ways. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:49 AM Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. [:D][:p] Originally posted by jadegirl [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:53 AM What do you think of this post in reply to jadegirl? Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:50 PM Spbed, UP runs just as many if not more trains over Tehachappi as the BNSF (when they run). And when the Coast line is out of service they run even more. Tehachappi is no longer BNSFs only northern California connect. They have track rights on the overland to Denver. They also own the inside gateway through northern Cal. & Oregon.While most of BNSFs transcon traffic moves through Tehachappi it dosen't all. Just because Tehachappi is not a transcon for UP does not mean its not a busy route. This line sees many UP trains. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 1:59 PM Yes I know BNSF owns Trights on the FRC from Sac to Den. In the overall scheme of things that is small potatoes unless the BNSF has some way to get from the bay area traffic to Sac & then use the FRC trackage rights. Then from Den they would have to reconnect with the transcon to getto Chic or beyond. Sounds to me the Tloop is far quicker then SF/Sac/FRC/Den/ transcon. You have to compare that to what the UPRR can do over either Donner or thru FRC then the direct overland route which is what the BNSF has to compete against to keep their traffic base. There is no way that UPRR would send Chic or beyond traffic over the Tloop. The only traffic that the UPRR would send over the loop from the bay area is the traffic for AZ, NM, TX & the southeast USA. [:p][B)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:55 PM That would be my guess. Like I said I didn't see it last year. And I would spend days at a time right next to the tracks in Dorris. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:27 PM OK I knew you would have the answer somehow. [:o)][:o)] Originally posted by chad thomas [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply corwinda Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 389 posts Posted by corwinda on Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:18 PM I do still see intermodal trains running through Springfield, OR on UP but they are a mix of (mostly steamship) containers and trailers. Reply TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:02 PM Thanks guys. I was thinking that UP terminated it. Regards Gary Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Thursday, March 24, 2005 7:21 PM I think they have been replaced by ZSELA, ZLASE, ZPTLA, and ZLAPT. I am not sure about the existances of the Portland trains. By the way, I do not see many May Trucking piggybacks anymore. These trains have many Interstate Distribution and Market Transport trailers. They also usually have a few Dole containers. "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:31 PM It has been a few years now since I've seen any May Trucking pigs on a train. It does make sense to see Z trains. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, March 25, 2005 6:48 AM Could be May is OOB (out of biz) or they found a cheaper way (owner operators?) or a they were bought out. [:D][:p] Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Friday, March 25, 2005 8:23 PM http://www.maytrucking.com/ "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:29 AM I said maybe but thanks [:p][:D] Originally posted by ericsp [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:22 PM Since UP ate SP and took over operations between Portland and Los Angeles, the reliability and punctuality of intermodal freight transfers through that corridor has pretty much ended up in the toilet. I see the evidence daily in the form of intermodals tied down in the holes, dead-in-law for days at a time on the Fresno Sub while nearby BNSF is running piggybacks and double stacks back to back out of their Bakersfield Sub, up and over UP's Mojave Sub. UP has really dropped the ball in that area. Reply Edit TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:27 PM I agree jadegirl, that UP has dropped the ball in ways. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:49 AM Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. [:D][:p] Originally posted by jadegirl [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:53 AM What do you think of this post in reply to jadegirl? Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:50 PM Spbed, UP runs just as many if not more trains over Tehachappi as the BNSF (when they run). And when the Coast line is out of service they run even more. Tehachappi is no longer BNSFs only northern California connect. They have track rights on the overland to Denver. They also own the inside gateway through northern Cal. & Oregon.While most of BNSFs transcon traffic moves through Tehachappi it dosen't all. Just because Tehachappi is not a transcon for UP does not mean its not a busy route. This line sees many UP trains. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 1:59 PM Yes I know BNSF owns Trights on the FRC from Sac to Den. In the overall scheme of things that is small potatoes unless the BNSF has some way to get from the bay area traffic to Sac & then use the FRC trackage rights. Then from Den they would have to reconnect with the transcon to getto Chic or beyond. Sounds to me the Tloop is far quicker then SF/Sac/FRC/Den/ transcon. You have to compare that to what the UPRR can do over either Donner or thru FRC then the direct overland route which is what the BNSF has to compete against to keep their traffic base. There is no way that UPRR would send Chic or beyond traffic over the Tloop. The only traffic that the UPRR would send over the loop from the bay area is the traffic for AZ, NM, TX & the southeast USA. [:p][B)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by chad thomas [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply corwinda Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 389 posts Posted by corwinda on Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:18 PM I do still see intermodal trains running through Springfield, OR on UP but they are a mix of (mostly steamship) containers and trailers. Reply TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:02 PM Thanks guys. I was thinking that UP terminated it. Regards Gary Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Thursday, March 24, 2005 7:21 PM I think they have been replaced by ZSELA, ZLASE, ZPTLA, and ZLAPT. I am not sure about the existances of the Portland trains. By the way, I do not see many May Trucking piggybacks anymore. These trains have many Interstate Distribution and Market Transport trailers. They also usually have a few Dole containers. "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:31 PM It has been a few years now since I've seen any May Trucking pigs on a train. It does make sense to see Z trains. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, March 25, 2005 6:48 AM Could be May is OOB (out of biz) or they found a cheaper way (owner operators?) or a they were bought out. [:D][:p] Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Friday, March 25, 2005 8:23 PM http://www.maytrucking.com/ "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:29 AM I said maybe but thanks [:p][:D] Originally posted by ericsp [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:22 PM Since UP ate SP and took over operations between Portland and Los Angeles, the reliability and punctuality of intermodal freight transfers through that corridor has pretty much ended up in the toilet. I see the evidence daily in the form of intermodals tied down in the holes, dead-in-law for days at a time on the Fresno Sub while nearby BNSF is running piggybacks and double stacks back to back out of their Bakersfield Sub, up and over UP's Mojave Sub. UP has really dropped the ball in that area. Reply Edit TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:27 PM I agree jadegirl, that UP has dropped the ball in ways. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:49 AM Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. [:D][:p] Originally posted by jadegirl [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:53 AM What do you think of this post in reply to jadegirl? Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:50 PM Spbed, UP runs just as many if not more trains over Tehachappi as the BNSF (when they run). And when the Coast line is out of service they run even more. Tehachappi is no longer BNSFs only northern California connect. They have track rights on the overland to Denver. They also own the inside gateway through northern Cal. & Oregon.While most of BNSFs transcon traffic moves through Tehachappi it dosen't all. Just because Tehachappi is not a transcon for UP does not mean its not a busy route. This line sees many UP trains. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 1:59 PM Yes I know BNSF owns Trights on the FRC from Sac to Den. In the overall scheme of things that is small potatoes unless the BNSF has some way to get from the bay area traffic to Sac & then use the FRC trackage rights. Then from Den they would have to reconnect with the transcon to getto Chic or beyond. Sounds to me the Tloop is far quicker then SF/Sac/FRC/Den/ transcon. You have to compare that to what the UPRR can do over either Donner or thru FRC then the direct overland route which is what the BNSF has to compete against to keep their traffic base. There is no way that UPRR would send Chic or beyond traffic over the Tloop. The only traffic that the UPRR would send over the loop from the bay area is the traffic for AZ, NM, TX & the southeast USA. [:p][B)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Friday, March 25, 2005 8:23 PM http://www.maytrucking.com/ "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:29 AM I said maybe but thanks [:p][:D] Originally posted by ericsp [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:22 PM Since UP ate SP and took over operations between Portland and Los Angeles, the reliability and punctuality of intermodal freight transfers through that corridor has pretty much ended up in the toilet. I see the evidence daily in the form of intermodals tied down in the holes, dead-in-law for days at a time on the Fresno Sub while nearby BNSF is running piggybacks and double stacks back to back out of their Bakersfield Sub, up and over UP's Mojave Sub. UP has really dropped the ball in that area. Reply Edit TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:27 PM I agree jadegirl, that UP has dropped the ball in ways. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:49 AM Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. [:D][:p] Originally posted by jadegirl [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:53 AM What do you think of this post in reply to jadegirl? Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:50 PM Spbed, UP runs just as many if not more trains over Tehachappi as the BNSF (when they run). And when the Coast line is out of service they run even more. Tehachappi is no longer BNSFs only northern California connect. They have track rights on the overland to Denver. They also own the inside gateway through northern Cal. & Oregon.While most of BNSFs transcon traffic moves through Tehachappi it dosen't all. Just because Tehachappi is not a transcon for UP does not mean its not a busy route. This line sees many UP trains. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 1:59 PM Yes I know BNSF owns Trights on the FRC from Sac to Den. In the overall scheme of things that is small potatoes unless the BNSF has some way to get from the bay area traffic to Sac & then use the FRC trackage rights. Then from Den they would have to reconnect with the transcon to getto Chic or beyond. Sounds to me the Tloop is far quicker then SF/Sac/FRC/Den/ transcon. You have to compare that to what the UPRR can do over either Donner or thru FRC then the direct overland route which is what the BNSF has to compete against to keep their traffic base. There is no way that UPRR would send Chic or beyond traffic over the Tloop. The only traffic that the UPRR would send over the loop from the bay area is the traffic for AZ, NM, TX & the southeast USA. [:p][B)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by ericsp [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:22 PM Since UP ate SP and took over operations between Portland and Los Angeles, the reliability and punctuality of intermodal freight transfers through that corridor has pretty much ended up in the toilet. I see the evidence daily in the form of intermodals tied down in the holes, dead-in-law for days at a time on the Fresno Sub while nearby BNSF is running piggybacks and double stacks back to back out of their Bakersfield Sub, up and over UP's Mojave Sub. UP has really dropped the ball in that area. Reply Edit TheS.P.caboose Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles) 494 posts Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Saturday, April 2, 2005 11:27 PM I agree jadegirl, that UP has dropped the ball in ways. Regards Gary Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:49 AM Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. [:D][:p] Originally posted by jadegirl [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:53 AM What do you think of this post in reply to jadegirl? Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:50 PM Spbed, UP runs just as many if not more trains over Tehachappi as the BNSF (when they run). And when the Coast line is out of service they run even more. Tehachappi is no longer BNSFs only northern California connect. They have track rights on the overland to Denver. They also own the inside gateway through northern Cal. & Oregon.While most of BNSFs transcon traffic moves through Tehachappi it dosen't all. Just because Tehachappi is not a transcon for UP does not mean its not a busy route. This line sees many UP trains. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 1:59 PM Yes I know BNSF owns Trights on the FRC from Sac to Den. In the overall scheme of things that is small potatoes unless the BNSF has some way to get from the bay area traffic to Sac & then use the FRC trackage rights. Then from Den they would have to reconnect with the transcon to getto Chic or beyond. Sounds to me the Tloop is far quicker then SF/Sac/FRC/Den/ transcon. You have to compare that to what the UPRR can do over either Donner or thru FRC then the direct overland route which is what the BNSF has to compete against to keep their traffic base. There is no way that UPRR would send Chic or beyond traffic over the Tloop. The only traffic that the UPRR would send over the loop from the bay area is the traffic for AZ, NM, TX & the southeast USA. [:p][B)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by jadegirl [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 7:53 AM What do you think of this post in reply to jadegirl? Maybe the UPRR evulation of the PCX traffic is it was not profitable enough to operate it the way the SPRR ran it. Could be a reason the SPRR went belly up also. As for the BNSF over the UPRR Mojave sub it is the BNSF ONLY link for their bay area traffic to connect with the BNSF transcon @ Barstow so you would expect it to be a very busy corridor for the BNSF. For the UPRR all there mid west ot east coast traffic from the bay area goes over the Donner pass or thru the FRC so the amount of trains they operate over the Mojave sub would be far less then the BNSF filters thru the Mojave sub. Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:50 PM Spbed, UP runs just as many if not more trains over Tehachappi as the BNSF (when they run). And when the Coast line is out of service they run even more. Tehachappi is no longer BNSFs only northern California connect. They have track rights on the overland to Denver. They also own the inside gateway through northern Cal. & Oregon.While most of BNSFs transcon traffic moves through Tehachappi it dosen't all. Just because Tehachappi is not a transcon for UP does not mean its not a busy route. This line sees many UP trains. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 1:59 PM Yes I know BNSF owns Trights on the FRC from Sac to Den. In the overall scheme of things that is small potatoes unless the BNSF has some way to get from the bay area traffic to Sac & then use the FRC trackage rights. Then from Den they would have to reconnect with the transcon to getto Chic or beyond. Sounds to me the Tloop is far quicker then SF/Sac/FRC/Den/ transcon. You have to compare that to what the UPRR can do over either Donner or thru FRC then the direct overland route which is what the BNSF has to compete against to keep their traffic base. There is no way that UPRR would send Chic or beyond traffic over the Tloop. The only traffic that the UPRR would send over the loop from the bay area is the traffic for AZ, NM, TX & the southeast USA. [:p][B)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:50 PM Spbed, UP runs just as many if not more trains over Tehachappi as the BNSF (when they run). And when the Coast line is out of service they run even more. Tehachappi is no longer BNSFs only northern California connect. They have track rights on the overland to Denver. They also own the inside gateway through northern Cal. & Oregon.While most of BNSFs transcon traffic moves through Tehachappi it dosen't all. Just because Tehachappi is not a transcon for UP does not mean its not a busy route. This line sees many UP trains. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Sunday, April 3, 2005 1:59 PM Yes I know BNSF owns Trights on the FRC from Sac to Den. In the overall scheme of things that is small potatoes unless the BNSF has some way to get from the bay area traffic to Sac & then use the FRC trackage rights. Then from Den they would have to reconnect with the transcon to getto Chic or beyond. Sounds to me the Tloop is far quicker then SF/Sac/FRC/Den/ transcon. You have to compare that to what the UPRR can do over either Donner or thru FRC then the direct overland route which is what the BNSF has to compete against to keep their traffic base. There is no way that UPRR would send Chic or beyond traffic over the Tloop. The only traffic that the UPRR would send over the loop from the bay area is the traffic for AZ, NM, TX & the southeast USA. [:p][B)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Sunday, April 3, 2005 2:33 PM Spbed, BNSF does have a way from the bay (Richmond) to the overland. Its a relativly straight shot to Stockton. Then on to Sac-FRC/Donner. And I would say almost many trains leave Stockton going north as do going south. There are at least 2 overland trains a day plus extras that are becoming more common. Then there are up to 12 trains a day on the highline/Oregon trunk. I wouldn't call that small potatoes. And the UP does send a lot of traffic over the loop and on east. For traffic in the San Joaquin valley its a shorter route with much less hill to climb to get back east. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 7:18 AM I think the trackage rights that the BNSF holds Sac/Den on the FRC is only for traffic originating & terminating in Sac no overhead traffic allowed. The FRC tape I have says that. The Trains magazine about the SJ valley shows that traffic destined for the midwest & E/coast uses the Donner or FRC exit. I donot disagree that the UPRR does use the loop but I suspect if somebody sat there say for a week 24/7 the BNSF would weight in at at least a 2 to 1 winner. [:p][:)][:D] Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by chad thomas Spbed, Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Monday, April 4, 2005 9:37 AM BNSF can and does originate/terminate traffic on the overland. The ratio of BNSF UP is 1:1. Check out the Tehachappi cam. [8D] Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 4, 2005 10:05 AM No need to if you say so OK by me. [:p][:)] Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by chad thomas Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.