Trains.com Sites
Resources
Shop
E-mail Newsletters
SEARCH THIS SITE
Help
Contact Us »
|
Customer Service
Get our free e-mail newsletters
Model Railroader
(weekly)
Model Railroader VideoPlus
(weekly)
Trains
(weekly)
Classic Toy Trains
(bi-weekly)
Garden Railways
(bi-weekly)
Classic Trains
(bi-weekly)
By signing up I may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers from Trains.com. We do not sell, rent or trade our e-mail lists.
Details about our newsletters »
Read our privacy policy »
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Search Community
Searching
Please insert search terms into the box above to run a search on the community.
Users Online
There are no community members online
Thread Details
Rate This
0
Replies — 1127 Views
0
Subscribers
Posted
over 19 years ago
Thread Options
Subscribe via RSS
Share this
Tag Cloud
1950s
advice
Amtrak
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Baltimore and Ohio
Boxcars
Bridges
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Caboose
Canada
Canadian National Railway
Canadian Pacific Railway
cargo
Chicago
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
Colorado and Southern
Coupler
Coupling
CSX
dcc sound
Depots
Diesel Engines
education
Emporia
fec
Home
»
Discussion Forums
»
General Discussion (Trains.com)
»
A little confusion on page 16 of TRAINS March 2005 issue
A little confusion on page 16 of TRAINS March 2005 issue
|
Want to post a reply to this topic?
Login
or
register
for an acount to join our online community today!
A little confusion on page 16 of TRAINS March 2005 issue
Posted by
Anonymous
on
Sat, Jan 29 2005 3:01 PM
"Will other railroads shift interchange away from Chicago? This isn't a new trend: BNSF and the pre-Conrail Norfolk Southern switched their interchange to Galesburg, Ill., using Toledo, Peoria & Western haulage, following the BNSF combination."
Nothing personal, but whoever wrote that should have done some more research. The interchange point was Peoria (specifically, East Peoria), not Galesburg. TP&W provided haulage services for BNSF, not NS (as implied by the above). Since TP&W provided haulage services for BNSF, the rate division point was Peoria. In addition to TP&W's train, BNSF ran a Peoria turn daily out of Galesburg to handle interchange traffic to and from NS. TP&W only got involved because P&PU had too much business and too little time to be separating NS traffic for BNSF and non-NS traffic for TP&W. Peoria - Galesburg saw two mixed freights in each direction most days from early 1996 to June 1999.
Though TRAINS' history here is a little mixed up, granted NS haulage rights to reach Galesburg might not be such a bad idea!
DPJ
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Home
»
Discussion Forums
»
General Discussion (Trains.com)
»
A little confusion on page 16 of TRAINS March 2005 issue