The US Railroad wall map has been a great addition, as outlined in another thread.
Inooking at the map, the superiority of the BNSF Transcon line becomes so apparent, at least on paper. Except for the rapidly decreasign single track area in Kansas/Oklahoma, the Transcon provides a pretty darned good route.
I never realized how much of a left turn the UP makes at El Paso to get on the old Tucumcari line. The go pretty much straight north for a couple hundred miles before turning northeasterly. Then as UP gets to Kansas City....they really dont have a good shot to Chicago. Trackage rights, or else go up the Spine Line to Des Moines or go across Missouri to St. Louis and up the C&EI.
Does UP run any LA-Chicago traffic via ElPaso then across the Texas Pacific line and up the Cotton Belt to Southern Illinois and then up the C&EI route after crossing the Mississippi?
Or does it run on the old City of Los Angeles route up to Salt Lake City/Ogden and then make a hard right? UP seems to have three possible routes from the SoCal area to Chicago, but none very good. Am I overlooking something obvious? Is the connection on the former CNW line at Edlestein really going to help much? Is UP doomed to second fiddle on this important route?
ed
Check it out! Using the UPRR Sunset Route LA/El Paso then the UPRR GSR route to Hutchinson KS then using there trackage rights over the BNSF transcon to Chic the mileage is only 50 miles longer then direct BNSF transcon LA/Chic. The "bullet" train run by UPRR for UPS used to use this route when it was operating. Also, the UPRR is building a connector from the BNSF transcon to a former CNW line @ Edelstein IL where they will exit the BNSF transcon go 60 miles north & enter the former CNW tramscon mainline. The UPRR are also double tracking the Sunset route from El Paso to LA so you can suspect that the UPRR ultimate goal is to make more use of the there BNSF trackage rights by routing more trains from/to LA via the Sunset route to El Paso then the GSR to Hutchinson KS then the BNSF to Edelstein then the former CNW line to the former CNW manline I beleive at Nelson IL
MP173 wrote: The US Railroad wall map has been a great addition, as outlined in another thread. Inooking at the map, the superiority of the BNSF Transcon line becomes so apparent, at least on paper. Except for the rapidly decreasign single track area in Kansas/Oklahoma, the Transcon provides a pretty darned good route. I never realized how much of a left turn the UP makes at El Paso to get on the old Tucumcari line. The go pretty much straight north for a couple hundred miles before turning northeasterly. Then as UP gets to Kansas City....they really dont have a good shot to Chicago. Trackage rights, or else go up the Spine Line to Des Moines or go across Missouri to St. Louis and up the C&EI.Does UP run any LA-Chicago traffic via ElPaso then across the Texas Pacific line and up the Cotton Belt to Southern Illinois and then up the C&EI route after crossing the Mississippi?Or does it run on the old City of Los Angeles route up to Salt Lake City/Ogden and then make a hard right? UP seems to have three possible routes from the SoCal area to Chicago, but none very good. Am I overlooking something obvious? Is the connection on the former CNW line at Edlestein really going to help much? Is UP doomed to second fiddle on this important route?ed
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
You have to compare the route miles and grades as well as trackage/signaling conditions. The UP has several options for LA traffic: The'Overland Route to SLC, then the LA&SL line to LA is one. The various ex C&EI/MoPac routings to the Cotten Belt/Rock lines, or even the ex-SP traffic rights over the ex-CB&Q to KC is another route. For Chicago-LA traffic, the former ATSF 'Transcon' is the best routing. The UP Chicago-SF route is the best overall route in that market(Overland Route). UP has has a couple of 'Service Melt-Downs' in the past 10 years, but is still very competative. That said, I have to agree that the BNSF intermodal operation is still the 'gold standard' others are measured by.....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
UP is not double tracking the SL&LA line - they are double tracking the Sunset Line. Following the money that is the transcon line out of LA they are most likely to use. Note the UP Overland route serves the ports of Oakland, Portland and Seattle and gets a lot of traffic.
dd
Well, UP sure used to run with the Santa Fe.
Chicago-LA (CNW-Freemont-UP) via the LA&SL is about the same distance as Chicago-LA on the Santa Fe.
In the mid 70's they had a "speed war" and both were offering (and keeping) 50 hour schedules on the route. The WB train on the SF was #188. The CNW/UP train was "The Falcon".
While 188 was a solid LA train from Chicago the Falcon's performance was all the more remarkable in that it left "The Falcon's Nest" on Wood Street in Chicago with trailers for Seatle, Oakland, Salt Lake City, etc. So it had to be worked somewhere along the way. It still gave the ATSF good competition.
In fact, the UP won the mail contract away from the ATSF with the Falcon service.
spbed wrote: Check it out! Using the UPRR Sunset Route LA/El Paso then the UPRR GSR route to Hutchinson KS then using there trackage rights over the BNSF transcon to Chic the mileage is only 50 miles longer then direct BNSF transcon LA/Chic. The "bullet" train run by UPRR for UPS used to use this route when it was operating. Also, the UPRR is building a connector from the BNSF transcon to a former CNW line @ Edelstein IL where they will exit the BNSF transcon go 60 miles north & enter the former CNW tramscon mainline. The UPRR are also double tracking the Sunset route from El Paso to LA so you can suspect that the UPRR ultimate goal is to make more use of the there BNSF trackage rights by routing more trains from/to LA via the Sunset route to El Paso then the GSR to Hutchinson KS then the BNSF to Edelstein then the former CNW line to the former CNW manline I beleive at Nelson IL
I think Ed's original question has to do with UP running its trains on UP rails the entire trip.
Looking at a map it seems as though there would be more hem-haw'in around to get a UP train from Chicago-L.A. but they seem to keep pace with BNSF. On the other hand, I'd say that BNSF has their 'trunk' routes laid in better areas though. Chicago-Pacific Northwest, Chicago-Denver/Powder River Basin, and the Trans-con. For the most part the Chc-Seattle and the Trans-con routes are intermodal and the Chicago-Denver etc. is coal...maybe keeping everything on their respective routes moving more fluid.
UP has to run everything from the Powder River basin, Pacific Northwest and the Bay area and so on and so forth over the Overland Route...slow trains/fast trains don't mix well.
I found it a bit on the humorous side when UP ran that "bullet train", half the route was trackage rights over BNSF rails.
Great points.
If you look at the map, from Vaughn, NM, where the Transcon Line and the UP route cross, to Kansas City, it looks pretty even. Of course, BNSF line is rapidly becoming double track while the ex RI line is mostly single track (as far as I know).
Does UP run from KC to Galesburg on the ex CBQ Quincy line or on the ATSF line, or both. I recall seeing SP trains on the line in the early 90's. It seems as if BNSF could hold the Quincy line out as a negotiations tool in future considerations. In other words, trade the Quincy line for something they need, such as the Rio Grande/WP line to give them access to Oakland.
Does BNSF have the superior route from Powder River? To me, it would seem their line frm Denver would be a conveyor route for coal, while the UP route, as previously discussed handles all sorts of traffic.
UP really owns the Chciago - Houston lane, or at least on the map it does. Comments on that?
Well to answer the Quincy question no UP doesnt run that line, nor do I think they would want to.Its hard enough for us to get the 101 miles to Quincy without dying enroute. Most of the sidings cant handle coal loads or the SEMBIRS ( too short) Plus with the new Carl Sandburg running we get held out a lot.
Also if we gave them that line we would cut off the Beardstown sub and we wouldnt want to do that.
Now the UP runs up the transcon and some even run up the Mendota sub, but other than that we keep them out of the way and on double track (so we can blow by them on the other main with a local
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
MP173 wrote: UP really owns the Chicago - Houston lane, or at least on the map it does. Comments on that?ed
UP really owns the Chicago - Houston lane, or at least on the map it does. Comments on that?
I'll agree with that.
Only 3 bridges across the Mississippi carry over 100 GMT, UP (C&NW) at Clinton, BNSF (ATSF) Fort Madison, and the UP (MP-SSW) Thebes bridge.
Ok, I didnt think about Beardstown line.
What is SEMBIRS?
By saying "the 101 miles" I assume you mean Quincy/Galesburg. Why is that so difficult to make the run without dying? I can understand now with 4 Amtraks daily that would affect the line, but what other factors are there?
When I travelled to Quincy, I seldom saw many trains on the line.
MP173 wrote:Ok, I didnt think about Beardstown line.What is SEMBIRS?<snipped>ed
SEMBIRs as in U-SEMBIR, the loaded Taconite Pellet train from Mountain Iron, MN to Birmingham, AL a heavy train. BIR is fairly obvious, the SEM comes from the interchange with the CN (DM&IR) at StEelton, Mn.
SEMBIR - Thanks!
Does that train run down the Beardstown line and then on the IC from Centralia to Memphis or via Quincy and down the river line thru St.L to memphis? How often does it run?
So did I depending on your rival to run your train on time for almost 1/3 of the way between LA & Chic took a lot of confidence on UPRR part that the BNSF would not put the screws to it along the route Hutchinson/Chic. You were talking of pleasing UPS here notr some small time customer.
I caught a EB "bullet" train at Marana AZ about 25 miles west of Tucson & he had the pedal to the metal. I wish I had a radar gun to see his actual speed but to me it seem higher then the posted speed limit of 55MPH in that area
Gambi80 wrote: spbed wrote: Check it out! Using the UPRR Sunset Route LA/El Paso then the UPRR GSR route to Hutchinson KS then using there trackage rights over the BNSF transcon to Chic the mileage is only 50 miles longer then direct BNSF transcon LA/Chic. The "bullet" train run by UPRR for UPS used to use this route when it was operating. Also, the UPRR is building a connector from the BNSF transcon to a former CNW line @ Edelstein IL where they will exit the BNSF transcon go 60 miles north & enter the former CNW tramscon mainline. The UPRR are also double tracking the Sunset route from El Paso to LA so you can suspect that the UPRR ultimate goal is to make more use of the there BNSF trackage rights by routing more trains from/to LA via the Sunset route to El Paso then the GSR to Hutchinson KS then the BNSF to Edelstein then the former CNW line to the former CNW manline I beleive at Nelson IL I think Ed's original question has to do with UP running its trains on UP rails the entire trip. Looking at a map it seems as though there would be more hem-haw'in around to get a UP train from Chicago-L.A. but they seem to keep pace with BNSF. On the other hand, I'd say that BNSF has their 'trunk' routes laid in better areas though. Chicago-Pacific Northwest, Chicago-Denver/Powder River Basin, and the Trans-con. For the most part the Chc-Seattle and the Trans-con routes are intermodal and the Chicago-Denver etc. is coal...maybe keeping everything on their respective routes moving more fluid.UP has to run everything from the Powder River basin, Pacific Northwest and the Bay area and so on and so forth over the Overland Route...slow trains/fast trains don't mix well. I found it a bit on the humorous side when UP ran that "bullet train", half the route was trackage rights over BNSF rails.
Yes that Falcon service was terrific. I used to route my companies MLB traffic via UPRR-Fre then CNW-Chic & that train would arrive Chic around 10AM, The CNW would then dray my containers over to the eastern RR for that nites departure so my companies containers would arrive in say NYC some 96 hours after departing LA. With the UPRR/CNW service my company sales department was able to secure new accounts that we could never secure without the aid of those 2 RRs
greyhounds wrote: Well, UP sure used to run with the Santa Fe.Chicago-LA (CNW-Freemont-UP) via the LA&SL is about the same distance as Chicago-LA on the Santa Fe.In the mid 70's they had a "speed war" and both were offering (and keeping) 50 hour schedules on the route. The WB train on the SF was #188. The CNW/UP train was "The Falcon".While 188 was a solid LA train from Chicago the Falcon's performance was all the more remarkable in that it left "The Falcon's Nest" on Wood Street in Chicago with trailers for Seatle, Oakland, Salt Lake City, etc. So it had to be worked somewhere along the way. It still gave the ATSF good competition.In fact, the UP won the mail contract away from the ATSF with the Falcon service.
The ore trains roll down to quincy and one to St Louis. The problems are the fact some sidings are full of trains or equipment etc. The choke point seems to be Bushnell at times others its just stacking trains from Abingdon to darn near Quincy while Galesburg says I cant handle the trains. It isnt fun. Also the length of Coal trains is killing the line as they cant hit a siding anywhere on the line.
It has been getting busier over here. A lot of the KCK trains are coming over it instead of the transcon.Plus mty grain loaded grain and other trains are going along here.
Checked a BN ETT from the mid 90's.
Those sidings do seem pretty small south of Avon. 7100', 6900', 7300, 6600', 7500' 6800' and 7500' at West Quincy.
Roughly how many trains operate on that line daily? I have heard there are 8-10 on the Beardstown line. Is that accurate? Then, about how many from Quincy to Galesburg?
Also, you indicated that line is being used as an overflow for teh Transcon line. If a person is in Galesburg, can they be called for any of the lines radiating out of Galesburg that they are qualified on? Or do you mainly stay on one line?
http://www.icerail.com/Sys%20Map.html
The Union Pacific has another Kansas City to Chicago option. The old Rock Island and Milwaukee Road routes between those points played tag from splitting apart at Muscatine, IA to almost the Missouri border. The Iowa Chicago & Eastern is the heir to one route, mostly Miolwaukee, made of what once were two.
It would not be all that far to build a connection from Allerton, IA where the Rock's K. C. to Chicago line met the Spine Line and head east to the I C & E. Allerton to Chicago via Clinton, IA would be much shorter than C & N W at State Center, IA and head east.
Being no expert, the Chicago and Eastern Iowa looks to be in much better shape than either the Rock Island and Milwaukee Road routes looked 30 years ago. However, it does not appear to be up to earning extra fare from Golden State patrons. High speed would take bucks to bring about.
ed: These are all good questions (and many useful responses). The situation on the ground is a lot more complex than most people realize, and while solutions are relatively simple to desribe for any route's drawbacks or insufficiencies, the cost of executing these solutions is quite high and the competition for those dollars is substantial. The ROI threshold is very high and it can easily end up lost if traffic patterns shift or never pay off if the economy goes into a recession. Railroading is replete with examples of stranded investments.
Some of the things you look at as you compare routes are:
Total length. This has a very high impact on equipment costs by increasing cycle times, fuel costs, and labor costs.
Total rise/fall. This impacts fuel as well as cycle times and labor costs (because trains slow down).
Double-track vs. single, and if single, length of sidings and running times between sidings. Siding locations can impact you significantly and often they're in a not-quite-right place.
Turnout size on sidings. Impacts how long it takes a train to enter and leave a siding.
Method of Operation, e.g., CTC, TWC, DTC. This has some significant impacts on train speed.
Signal spacing and signal type (route vs. speed signaling). This has impacts on train spacing, train speeds, and whether overtakes are more or less feasible.
Terminal layouts. This is a real bugaboo. Many terminals were laid out 100 years ago for traffic patterns that ceased to exist , and while they'll work for today's traffic they don't work very well.
Curvature. This not only slows trains significantly it also means engineering will be out on the track a lot more transposing curve rail, replacing spike-killed ties, etc.
Subgrade. Some locations have some serious subgrade/drainage issues that not only reduce train speeds during large portions of the year, they also require more engineering time on the track.
Grade crossings. There's nothing like a grade-crossing collision to bring your railroad to a halt for the day.
On-line Industries. The more there are -- and especially if they're off the main track or a controlled siding between terminals -- they have large impacts on capacity because locals are out there using up track capacity switching them.
Location of crew changes. This can really be a problem. You can't just move them to wherever you like them, and lots of places where you'd like to build a terminal or change crews are logistically unsupportable.
Gradient, curvature, and terminal impacts on train length, tonnage, and makeup. A lot of times you find you can't block a train properly because then it won't meet operating requirements over a mountain district. The result is that the train has to get blocked at a less than ideal location on the other side of the mountain. Or, the originating terminal isn't arranged properly to build the train the main line can handle without killing the throughput of the yard, e.g., its class tracks are too short and tripling it over ties up the yard leads while other trains need to be arriving or departing, or the switch engine needs to work.
****************
Comparisons between lines, even superficial, will tell you that something's up; one of the lines seems to have traffic types and densities the other doesn't have. The solution to making an inferior line meet or improve on a superior line are, well, very expensive. Because more than 90% of the entire railroad fixed plant in the U.S. is a legacy investment where even relatively small rearrangements have costs in the billion-dollar range, railroads must use targeted investments with an iterative proof-of-value process to extract the maximum value from an investment dollar pool that's pathetically small in relation to the value of the entire fixed plant.
It's easy to see what the problems are. It's easy to see what the fixes are. The dollars aren't available to do it. Railroads are by no means unusual in that respect.
S. Hadid
Mr. Hadid:Very good summary. Which basically leads to the point that the industry is a very capital intensive, yet low margin investment. Those superior routes were (are) worth obtaining.
While no expert on the industry, particularly the western US, it seems that UP has had it's mainline that has been a very superior line, yet most other lines other than the Texas petrochemical market is not quite up to BNSF. The Chicago - Houston UP routing appears far superior than BNSF's. But, growth is coming leaps and bounds from imports, which BNSF seems to be developing a much better franchise.
The Golden State route required enormous investment and effort and it appears that it handles....perhaps 25% of the Transcon route? Maybe a bit more.
The growth is in intermodal, particularly in import. It is a very low margin business, but shows signs of improvement as contracts are churning. Those port which are capable of handling the ships and those lines which are most efficient at transporting the boxes east will be the winners. With higher efficiencies and thus lower costs, it appears BNSF will be the dominant intermodal (growth) carrier in the west. Coal appears to be a draw, with both handling all they seem to want to.
Is BNSF making any inroads into the petrochemical business in Texas? I have no way of knowing. It appears BNSF has the upper hand in the grain markets, although that might be just my perception. Grain, particularly corn has all the makings of becoming energy in a big way. BNSF seems to be positioned to leverage that movement.
I am rambling on a bit, but when I look at that map on my wall, I see BNSF winning...and the key is the Transcon line. It was built for speed. The former BN mainlines slug it out with coal and grain, a pretty ideal situation.
MP173 wrote:Mr. Hadid:Very good summary. Which basically leads to the point that the industry is a very capital intensive, yet low margin investment. Those superior routes were (are) worth obtaining. While no expert on the industry, particularly the western US, it seems that UP has had it's mainline that has been a very superior line, yet most other lines other than the Texas petrochemical market is not quite up to BNSF. The Chicago - Houston UP routing appears far superior than BNSF's. But, growth is coming leaps and bounds from imports, which BNSF seems to be developing a much better franchise.
The superiority of a route can't be looked at end to end as what matters more where traffic originates and terminates. A superior route "A" between endpoints 2000 miles apart is of little utility if the traffic originates at midpoints on inferior route "B" that route "A" can't economically access. For example, box traffic originating at LA/Long Beach travels in heavy volumes to the gateways of Kansas City, Memphis, and Dallas/Fort Worth, as well as Chicago.
Current train density on the Golden State is on the order of 24-30 trains per day, but the traffic mix and origins are quite different than on the Transcon. The Golden State is really a Kansas City/St. Louis to Los Angeles railroad.
Steamship intermodal is indeed a high-growth business. The margins, however, are not low but are high. The ports won't be sorted out by throughput efficiency as much as other factors: ability to dredge ever deeper (if required at all); size of the adjacent loadcenter; rail connections to the hinterland; union strength. I wouldn't make any assumptions about which carrier will be dominant in either steamship boxes or coal.
The grain business isn't much fun. It's highly unpredicable and instable, and equipment is either in short supply or there isn't enough room to store it while it rusts. As for corn = energy, the ethanol plants are located adjacent to the corn sources and all or nearly all of their input is trucked to the plants. The cornbelt is in a band stretching east from eastern North Dakota around the southern tip of Lake Michigan into Ohio, and south from southern Minnesota into northern Missouri. Both BNSF and UP have ample access to that area.
All of the nine Class Is have strong franchises (including TFM and Ferromex as Class I equivalents). Otherwise they'd be gone by now. The relative differences between them turn on finer points.
Mr. Hadid:I was under the assumption that margins on intermodal import boxes were very low. By margins, I mean either gross margins or profit margins. If the profit margins are indeed high...BNSF has a real winner at this time.
MP173 wrote:Mr. Hadid:I was under the assumption that margins on intermodal import boxes were very low. By margins, I mean either gross margins or profit margins. If the profit margins are indeed high...BNSF has a real winner at this time.ed
Ed, as you know railroads are a volume business, and when the volume rises above certain thresholds the margins become highly attractive.
Your impression points to a basic fallacy we're all subject to, that of relying on conventional wisdoms rather than objective fact. The obvious fact that there is substantial investment being made to add capacity for steamship intermodal, and that the investors approve that investment, should have been all the evidence necessary to demonstrate that the margins were now very attractive, elsewise we could only conclude that the investors were to the last man and woman a collection of chowderheads. "Conventional wisdom" is a generalization about what worked yesterday and is a poor plank on which to bridge to the future.
ALL, not just one, of the Class Is have a real winner on their hands with steamship intermodal as demonstrated in their annual reports.
I recall a very good article several years ago in Trains which discussed the lower margins, yet growth of intermodal vs the high margins of the "boxcar' business.
I wonder how much of the objective fact is based on other factors, such as high energy costs/efficient method of transportation for the rails.
There certainly are macro economic factors at hand here which are leading to increased investment in the rails. The flood of imports from Asia is certainly one of those factors. It will be interesting to see how railroad pricing holds up during the next recession.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.