I just read an article in the January, 1991, issue of Trains entitled, You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, about a mutually beneficial trackage-rights "swap" between NS and CSX around the Virginia-Tennessee border. The NS and CSX, though fierce competitors, found it worth-while to use one another's routes in that area as it saved each company money. The dispatcher's job on those shared routes was to keep both companies running smoothly, never "stabbing" a competitor's trains.
Are there some other cases in railroad history where competing railroads could have, or should have, done trackage-rights swap deals for mutual benefit?
Does anyone have an example where two competitors did a trackage-rights swap deal?
- Rails West
The only thing like this that comes to mind is the arrangement between Weso and Alazon, Nevada, in which all westbound traffic traveled on the SP, and all eastbound traffic traveled on the WP; this arrangement was begun during WWI, and the railroads found it advantageous so it was continued after they resumed control after the war. Of course, both tracks are now owned by the UP, which has instituted one-way traffic over many of its recently acquired lines (for instance, between Houston and Beaumont, eb traffic moves over the former MP and wb traffic moves over the former SP). This, however, was not trackage rights, but a diffferent agreement.
Johnny
Read your history books, check with your railroad societies. There are thousand of such arrangements on virtually all roads and in all areas of the country. In upstate NY, the Erie granted rights to the D&H from Binghamton to Owego so that both the D&H and LV could run a pair of daily trains between Binghamton and Sayre,PA. The Erie also granted D&H rights from Carbondale, PA to Jefferson Jct., PA until the D&H bought the railroad in the mid 50's. The DL&W and Erie ran virtually side by side from Great Bend, PA to Corning, NY but it wasn't until the late 1950's did they start sharing trackage from Binghamton to Corning leading to their late 50's merger. PA and NYC did a lot of shareing, especially on PA branches. The WP and SP did the same across Nevada. The B&O used the Reading which in turn used the CNJ to get from Philadelphia to the NY waterfront. How many roads shared trackage in and out of Chicago to reach home rails in Illinoise and Indiana? The Fort Worth and Denver shared Colorado trackage with Sante FE. So many, many times, so many, many places! Branch line, main line, a hundred feet to hundreds of miles. As I said, check with hisorical societiesand histories for details and full list.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Rumor has it (and I hope I have this rumor right) that there will someday be an actual trackage swap between UP and Metra, tied in with a relocation of the diamonds currently at Western Avenue (moving that crossing east to the vicinity of Noble Street would eliminate a few switching problems for UP and increase speeds through the crossing itself). This is reportedly somehow in the plans for upgrading Metra's UP West service.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Perhaps the most significant is Daggett to Riverside Jct., CA where UP has used BNSF (former Santa Fe) tracks since the early 20th century to reach Los Angeles.
What about the Powder River Basin Coal trains? Does UP & BNSF use each other's tracks?
igoldberg What about the Powder River Basin Coal trains? Does UP & BNSF use each other's tracks?
UP, formerly C&NW uses rights on BNSF, formerly BN. Nowhere in that area does BNSF use the UP.
CN & CP in the Fraser River canyon for a 'paired tracks' functional arrangement is one of the largest and most beneficial in the modern era - abot 8 years ago, I believe.
Within the past 2 -3 years BNSF and CN/IC negotiated some in the Illinois - Tennessee corridors.
A few years back CP and CSX negotiated some in the NorthEast US, but I'm fuzzy on the details.
These ought to be done more often - they can be an easy way to get some of the operational benefits of a merger, without the regulatory hassles and the financial 'collateral damage' . . .
- Paul North.
If it was benificial to use each others routes, then why didn't they just do a route swap?
Paul_D_North_Jr CN & CP in the Fraser River canyon for a 'paired tracks' functional arrangement is one of the largest and most beneficial in the modern era - abot 8 years ago, I believe. - Paul North.
Mr. Railman If it was benificial to use each others routes, then why didn't they just do a route swap?
Trackage rights rarely have two companies trains operating on each other's tracks between the same points thus a route swap would not be of advantage to either company.
Two instances of trackage rights that I some familiarity with. NS served a significant customer in Palatka, FL...they had approximately 50 miles of track from Jacksonville to serve the customer. A trackage rights agreement was negotiated with CSX to operate the NS train on CSX from Jacksonville to Palatka and return, and the NS trackage was abandoned. In another case CSX had a customer in Albany, GA, a trackage rights agreement was negotiated to operate the CSX train from a connection with NS to Albany, thus allowing CSX to abandon the now unnecessary trackage to reach Albany.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
An actual track swap occured in Joliet, Illinois. When the Santa Fe built north toward Joliet, they were on the west side of the old Chicago and Alton which had trackage from Coal City to Joliet.
There was no room on the west side through Joliet so they crossed the Alton and ran on the east side till they got north of downtown and crossed back to the west side and continued to Chicago where they shared Bridgeport Bridge. After crossing the bridge, the Santa Fe laid their track on the east side of the 'senior' road.
The crossing and recrossing in Joliet must have been a hardship on both roads, and swapping trackage was a logical choice.
beaulieu igoldberg: What about the Powder River Basin Coal trains? Does UP & BNSF use each other's tracks? UP, formerly C&NW uses rights on BNSF, formerly BN. Nowhere in that area does BNSF use the UP.
igoldberg: What about the Powder River Basin Coal trains? Does UP & BNSF use each other's tracks?
This isn't a good example. The PRB line is jointly owned by both UP and BNSF, and both have a right to use it. Neither has trackage rights over the other into the PRB.
I've been involved in more trackage rights deals than I can think of. Reciprocal trackage rights deals ("you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours") are VERY common. The trouble is that you can't necessarily see the reciprocity from the public filings that are made with the ICC or STB, or even from the geography.
Let me give an oversimplified example of something that happens all of the time. Railroads A & B enter into "memoroandum of understanding" (MOU) in which Railroad A agrees to give Railroad B trackage rights at 3 locations, and Railroad B agrees to give Railroad A trackage rights at 3 other locations. The locations may have absolutely no relationship to each other - they may involve line segments separated by hundreds of miles in vastly different parts of the country. What's happening is that each railroad is looking at value being given and received by the "deal" as a whole. They are trying, not only to obtain an overall benefit from the deal, but to obtain roughly as much benefit as they are giving to the other road. If not, they throw in something else (maybe in another part of the country) to create "parity" in the deal (for example, Railroad A may give trackage rights at 4 locations while Railroad B gives trackage rights at 3 locations). There are all kinds of permutations on what constitutes "parity" in the eyes of the two railroads and in what they may agree to in order to achieve it.
Now, here's the kicker. When the trackage rights deals resulting from the MOU are actually filed with STB, they will almost always be filed as separate transactions with stand alone agreements. In other words, using the above example of a "3 for 3" trade, there will be six separate trackage rights filings made with the Board, each with its own separate agreement, and the filings could be months apart. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, since each of the agreements filed with the Board will have all of the substantive terms relevant to each grant of rights, which is all that the Board requires. But it means that outside observers won't readily see the quid pro quos involved in these deals.
IIRC, the PRB was built by BN, they ran trains on it before the C&NW/UP extension was complete, and BNSF dispatches the trackage. Part of a government order was that only one line be built into the PRB, and BN had to allow C&NW to use it if they paid for part of it. C&NW almost was not able to come up with the money, and UP basically paid their share. UP is the tennent and BNSF does the maintenance on the line.
A true 'joint line' is the BNSF/CP trackage between st Paul and St Croix Tower. This dates back to CB&Q/MILW days, and uses left hand running to allow WB trains to use the ex-CB&Q low grade line WB. EB trains uses the shorter/steeper ex-MILW line down Langdon Hill. At one time, this 20 mile section of track had it's own dispatcher as well.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
jrbernier IIRC, the PRB was built by BN, they ran trains on it before the C&NW/UP extension was complete, and BNSF dispatches the trackage. Part of a government order was that only one line be built into the PRB, and BN had to allow C&NW to use it if they paid for part of it. C&NW almost was not able to come up with the money, and UP basically paid their share. UP is the tennent and BNSF does the maintenance on the line. A true 'joint line' is the BNSF/CP trackage between st Paul and St Croix Tower. This dates back to CB&Q/MILW days, and uses left hand running to allow WB trains to use the ex-CB&Q low grade line WB. EB trains uses the shorter/steeper ex-MILW line down Langdon Hill. At one time, this 20 mile section of track had it's own dispatcher as well. Jim
I'm very familiar with the PRB history and the various agreements which cover it. Your recitation of the history is essentially correct, but your conclusion that UP is a "tenant" of BNSF is not. Regardless of how CNW came to be a co-owner of the line, that is, in fact, what happened (and, in fact, what the ICC required). Both UP and BNSF today are equal owners of the jointly used part of the line. BNSF maintains and dispatches the line because of an operating agreement between the two roads, not because UP is some kind of "tenant."
I'm not personally familar with the BNSF/CP arrangement between St. Paul and St. Croix Tower but, based on your description, it appears to be "paired track" (ie., an arrangement in which two roughly parallel tracks owned by separate railroads are operated as a single, double track line). This is not the only form of "joint line" as your note seems to imply - joint ownership is common as well. The UP-CP "joint line" between Kansas City and Polo involves both arrangements. The older segment of this line between Birmingham and Polo is "paired track", with UP owning the western track and CP owning the eastern track (the deal was originaly made between the CRI&P and the Milwaukee Road). But the segment between Birmingham and KC, including the Truman bridge, is jointly owned by both roads.
When the C&EI was split between L&N and MP, the mainline between Dolton and Woodland Junction became a joint line with ownership split between L&N and MP. The IHB/B&OCT main between Blue Island Junction and Norpaul is a joint line with a difference, part of the main is owned by IHB and the other part is owned by B&OCT, with the dividing line at McCook (I think).
Then there's the special case of ConRail Shared Assets since 1997 - 1999, which is jointly owned by CSX and NS - see: http://www.conrail.com/freight.htm
BaltACD Mr. Railman: If it was benificial to use each others routes, then why didn't they just do a route swap? Trackage rights rarely have two companies trains operating on each other's tracks between the same points thus a route swap would not be of advantage to either company. Two instances of trackage rights that I some familiarity with. NS served a significant customer in Palatka, FL...they had approximately 50 miles of track from Jacksonville to serve the customer. A trackage rights agreement was negotiated with CSX to operate the NS train on CSX from Jacksonville to Palatka and return, and the NS trackage was abandoned. In another case CSX had a customer in Albany, GA, a trackage rights agreement was negotiated to operate the CSX train from a connection with NS to Albany, thus allowing CSX to abandon the now unnecessary trackage to reach Albany.
Mr. Railman: If it was benificial to use each others routes, then why didn't they just do a route swap?
Shoulda thrown in the fish camp, too.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
For more general info on this, see Michael W. Blaszak's article on "Trackage and Haulage Rights" in the "Railroading Reference - ABC's of Railroading" section here, at:
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/ABCs%20of%20Railroading/2006/05/Trackage%20and%20haulage%20rights.aspx
- Paul north.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.