Batooski wrote: petervonb wrote: CP can now pick up intermodal - and a whole lot of other stuff - in Kansas City and move it across their system. That would mean shipments from LA/Long Beach could be picked up in KC instead of Chicago for delivery in Toronto and Montreal. Tons of stuff from the South and Southwest (and Mexico) destined for Winnipeg and Calgary and Vancouver - or anywhere else in Canada - won't have to go through Chicago via BNSF/UP but can be picked up from KCS (or BNSF/UP) in Kansas City I thought that the originating road usually dictated the hand off points to second carriers, arranged so that the originating line got maximum mileage?
petervonb wrote: CP can now pick up intermodal - and a whole lot of other stuff - in Kansas City and move it across their system. That would mean shipments from LA/Long Beach could be picked up in KC instead of Chicago for delivery in Toronto and Montreal. Tons of stuff from the South and Southwest (and Mexico) destined for Winnipeg and Calgary and Vancouver - or anywhere else in Canada - won't have to go through Chicago via BNSF/UP but can be picked up from KCS (or BNSF/UP) in Kansas City
CP can now pick up intermodal - and a whole lot of other stuff - in Kansas City and move it across their system. That would mean shipments from LA/Long Beach could be picked up in KC instead of Chicago for delivery in Toronto and Montreal. Tons of stuff from the South and Southwest (and Mexico) destined for Winnipeg and Calgary and Vancouver - or anywhere else in Canada - won't have to go through Chicago via BNSF/UP but can be picked up from KCS (or BNSF/UP) in Kansas City
I thought that the originating road usually dictated the hand off points to second carriers, arranged so that the originating line got maximum mileage?
Dakguy201 wrote: Indeed, with improved DM&E track, there is a possible upside in this deal for ethanol being shipped out of the farm country. In South Dakota, according to data from the SD DOT (2006 data), there are 14 ethanol plants in operation or close to operation. However, 12 of those are along the BNSF and 2 on the DM&E. I do not have similiar data for Minnesota or the ICE in Iowa/Missouri.Perhaps some of these plants will be expanded. However, I question how many more ever will be built. With corn north of $3, a plant that looked great using $2.20 corn a few years ago is not such a great deal anymore. Likewise, without the federal subsidy, it is questionable that any plant would be profitable. A lot of research is being done on the production of ethanol from less costly ag products than corn. My point is that corn based ethanol production may be near its peak, and if I were the CP I would not rely upon it to generate any large increase in traffic.
Indeed, with improved DM&E track, there is a possible upside in this deal for ethanol being shipped out of the farm country. In South Dakota, according to data from the SD DOT (2006 data), there are 14 ethanol plants in operation or close to operation. However, 12 of those are along the BNSF and 2 on the DM&E. I do not have similiar data for Minnesota or the ICE in Iowa/Missouri.
Perhaps some of these plants will be expanded. However, I question how many more ever will be built. With corn north of $3, a plant that looked great using $2.20 corn a few years ago is not such a great deal anymore. Likewise, without the federal subsidy, it is questionable that any plant would be profitable. A lot of research is being done on the production of ethanol from less costly ag products than corn.
My point is that corn based ethanol production may be near its peak, and if I were the CP I would not rely upon it to generate any large increase in traffic.
Asked and Answered. See my post above yours.
About a plant being profitable without the subsidy? Yes, the specifics were mentioned in a paper from the University of Minnesota in 2004 along with a spread sheet.
Expansion of plants depend a lot upon the local supply of feedstock. Shipping corn to a plant adds cost to the bottom line. Plants as so far have depended upon local supply to meet their needs. There is still capacity in some parts of Iowa, very little though. Saturation point is also coming to Nebraska, IL, Minnesota, and Indiana.
Postbulletin.com: Editorial: Railroad sale puts area at another crossroads
The sale of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad to Canadian Pacific is a major turning point in the fight to keep coal trains out of Rochester.
But it's hard to say which way the fight has turned.
As railroads go, DM&E was a relatively small fish in a very big pond. When CEO Kevin Schieffer tried to throw his company's weight around in Washington, D.C., he didn't create a huge wake. Without a well-placed senator to champion the cause, it's unlikely that DM&E's proposed expansion would have gotten as far as it did.
With Canadian Pacific in the picture, things could change. The railroad, which dates back to 1881, is an icon of industry and a source of national pride in Canada. Canadian Pacific's 14,000 miles of track span the continent and also serve Chicago and New York. Its stock is worth $12 billion, and recent takeover speculation put a purchase price for the corporation as high as $15 billion -- almost precisely 10 times the cash price it's paying for DM&E.
If the sale gains federal approval, there's little doubt that CP would haul low-sulfur coal east on what currently are DM&E lines. That's the purpose of the deal. With CP in the conductor's seat, investors would line up to finance a project that already has a thumbs-up from the federal government -- and that's assuming the corporation doesn't simply pick up the tab itself.
So, where would that leave Rochester? It's too early to say, but local officials are wise to begin making overtures to Canadian Pacific. The relationship between Rochester and Schieffer was, at best, testy. A "fresh start" would be welcome.
The downside, of course, is that a fresh start means we could be right back where we were a few years ago in the struggle to keep coal trains out of Rochester. It's certainly possible that the coal trains would follow the former Iowa, Chicago & Eastern route, which would be the preferred option from Rochester's perspective. But that's only one of myriad possibilities that city officials and Mayo Clinic leaders need to study.
Hopefully, Canadian Pacific will tip its hand a bit in the coming weeks. When the railroad's intentions become clear, Rochester can formulate a new strategy and make a proposal that will satisfy the railroad while keeping coal trains away from downtown.
If negotiations with Canadian Pacific ultimately can be viewed as a partnership, rather than a brawl, so much the better.
Reader comments:
catrunner - 09/06/2007Will those of us lowly barnyard tomcats be let in on the "myriad possibilities that city officials and Mayo Clinic leaders need to study" as they plan their next futile move? By the way, which one of you cats said Mayo Clinic leaders could keep on calling the shots? And what strategy and proposal will surface next to "keep coal trains away from downtown"? Whose backyard will Mayo sacrifice next? jeffathompson - 09/06/2007Lookie here. Mother Mayo has found someone bigger than her! Yup coal trains here we come. Drop a few cars off at the Silver Lake power plant, make sure the brakes are set so they don't end up in the river like the trucks do. Turn up the steam to the Mayo power plant right across the tracks. Hey, how come nobody complained about that noisy ugly eyesore when it was going up? If the PB is already turning the corner, how long before Mayo does? And once that happens, who's printing the yard signs. "Coal Trains for lower Electric Prices" 131541 - 09/06/2007justice? Mrs. Schieffer? where are you? LOL 156644 - 09/06/2007Right - give it up. Enough money has been spent on this dead horse. Move on. 131551 - 09/06/2007Sorry folks- First you look down and spit on the DM&E as a broken down wreck that deserves no respect. Now, all of a sudden, you are tip toeing up the steps of CP's front office, bowing the whole time and asking for respect. They'll wave you off as some street beggar, looking for a handout to buy some cheap port wine.
Postbulletin.com: Transition from DM&E to Canadian Pacific will be gradual
It will be at least two years before Canadian Pacific builds the long-planned coal line to eastern Wyoming that made Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern a household word in southeastern Minnesota.
Canadian Pacific announced Wednesday it's buying DM&E, but the ownership transition will be gradual.
It will take perhaps a year of scrutiny from federal regulators before Canadian Pacific can assume full day-to-day control of DM&E and its sister line, the Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad. Canadian Pacific bought both railroads in a $2.7 billion deal announced Wednesday.
The IC&E railroad runs north-south through Austin into Iowa, with several road crossings, including Eighth Avenue Northeast just east of the Hormel Foods plant.
DM&E officials have focused on running a coal route through downtown Rochester but have considered an alternate route using the IC&E railway.
Austin city officials acknowledged last fall the potential for a significant increase in train traffic if the DM&E runs coal trains on the ICE railway but haven't discussed it much since.
Local officials who thought they might not have to deal any longer with Kevin Schieffer, the head -- and face -- of DM&E, might wish to think again.
"DM&E is managing this property for the foreseeable future, until the STB approves," said Fred Green, president and CEO of Canadian Pacific, in a conference call on Wednesday.
DM&E's management will report to a trustee, working on behalf of -- but also independently of -- Canadian Pacific.
"We can't do anything in the short term, under the STB rules, that would influence the day-to-day operations," Green said. "I want this transaction to go in a pristine fashion. We will not do anything to jeopardize the standards that the STB sets."
Canadian Pacific is, however, allowed to be involved in long-term capital planning. Canadian Pacific will form a joint team with DM&E to begin planning the extension of the rail line to the Powder River Basin, Green said.
That planning process will take at least a year, but probably no more than 30 months.
"Having made the decision, then we're saying probably pretty lucky to get it built in two years, and we'd be disappointed if we couldn't build it in three years," Green said. "So now you put that on top of whenever we make the decision."
If Canadian Pacific builds and operates the new line before the end of 2025, it will owe DM&E up to $1.05 billion in incentive payments. The incentives, plus a $1.48 billion cash payment due at the closing date, within the next 30 to 60 days, plus Canadian Pacific's assumption of DM&E's approximately $250 million debt, add up to the $2.7 billion purchase price.
Canadian Pacific engineers identified some $300 million in track improvements that must be done to bring the current line up to standard.
Dakguy201 wrote: HankDiggs wrote: Folks, I'm confused about what the merger will mean for the DM&E / Mayo Clinic / Rochester battle. I thought that the city & clinic were fighting DM&E expansion within Rochester that would expedite DM&E's access to the PRB. Doesn't the merger mean that DM&E / CP trains could just bypass the city?Rochester's only effective weapon to fight the DM&E was lobbying the FRA to turn down the loan request for the upgrades and the Powder River extension. To that end, they hired a whole staff of lobbyists (including the former Majority Leader Tom Dashle). They won that battle, but the presence of CP makes a federally guaranteed loan unnecessary.I don't believe DM&E has any intention of bypassing Rochester but instead continuing to run right through town. I'm sure they would be willing to discuss a bypass constructed primarily at Rochester's expense.
HankDiggs wrote: Folks, I'm confused about what the merger will mean for the DM&E / Mayo Clinic / Rochester battle. I thought that the city & clinic were fighting DM&E expansion within Rochester that would expedite DM&E's access to the PRB. Doesn't the merger mean that DM&E / CP trains could just bypass the city?
Folks, I'm confused about what the merger will mean for the DM&E / Mayo Clinic / Rochester battle. I thought that the city & clinic were fighting DM&E expansion within Rochester that would expedite DM&E's access to the PRB. Doesn't the merger mean that DM&E / CP trains could just bypass the city?
Rochester's only effective weapon to fight the DM&E was lobbying the FRA to turn down the loan request for the upgrades and the Powder River extension. To that end, they hired a whole staff of lobbyists (including the former Majority Leader Tom Dashle). They won that battle, but the presence of CP makes a federally guaranteed loan unnecessary.
I don't believe DM&E has any intention of bypassing Rochester but instead continuing to run right through town. I'm sure they would be willing to discuss a bypass constructed primarily at Rochester's expense.
Thanks Dakguy, I appreciate the clarification. Also, is there a precedent for a railroad requesting funding from the FRA? I thought the FRA's function was primarily regulatory.
Indeed, the primarily function of the FRA is regulatory. However, Senator John Thune slipped a provision into legislation that greatly expanded the federal loan guarantee program to accomodate the DM&E with the FRA as the administrator.
South Dakota politicians were very prominent on all sides of the DM&E loan proposal. Senator Thune is a former lobbyist for the DM&E. Ex-Senator Dashle was invited to join the Board of the Mayo Clinic, and his wife's lobbying firm is believed to have Mayo as a client. Bill Janklow (ex-Governor, ex-Congressman, ex-convict from a manslaughter conviction) represented Mayo.
South Dakota is a low tax, low public services state so our politicans have to find some way to put bread on their tables!
Dakguy201 wrote: South Dakota is a low tax, low public services state so our politicans have to find some way to put bread on their tables!
South Dakota stepped up to the plate in 1980 and bought several hundred miles of the CMSP&P to preserve service, and did the same again in 1982. If there was a similar situation today, would the result be the same ?
RRKen wrote: The customer dictates where, who and when, not the carriers.
Ok, I'll grant you that, but if the customer has to deal with an originating carrier for the first 1800 miles, isn't that carrier in a better position to dictate terms than a secondary carrier moving only the final 400 miles?
Pricing power comes to mind.
nanaimo73 wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: South Dakota is a low tax, low public services state so our politicans have to find some way to put bread on their tables! South Dakota stepped up to the plate in 1980 and bought several hundred miles of the CMSP&P to preserve service, and did the same again in 1982. If there was a similar situation today, would the result be the same ?
How exactly do the CP and DME systems dovetail together? Is it possible that CP can use parts of it's existing system to bypass Rochester all together? I've tried looking at the system maps located at both RR's websites, but they really do not share many landmark locations.
Funny, but CP doesn't even seem to know for sure where Louisville KY is located, they show it in 3 various locations on differing service maps
Dakguy201: Funny, and true!
Dale: In the case of DM&E,if the state had to choose between buying the line, or losing service, Im afraid the line would look a lot like the Dakota Southern. The Milwaukee's lines were, for the mos tpart, were considered vital to the state's farm economy. Most of those are still thriving, under BNSF ownership. The CNW>nowDM&E line wasn't/isn't seen as being as important.
I have a hard time believing that DM&E>now CP will ever make it into the PRB. But that's just me. You do have to give credit to Kevin Shaffer and crew. Had they not been trying to get this thing off the ground for the last 10 years, DM&E probably would have faded from sight, and the selling price would have been $1.48. Perhaps, as a reward, CP could hire him on. He could be something in the legal or PR department. Maybe *CP city/railroad planning coordinator-Minnesota division*
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I am glad that CP got the DM&E-IC&E because i was affraid that if CN got it one of the lines between the mississippi river and chicago would have been axed. unless they used those lines for some kind of directional running.
RRKen wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: I'm puzzled.This is not the first time I've seen a reference to the DM&E being a connection to KCS at Kansas City. As far as I am aware, the southmost point the DM&E achieves is Manley Iowa (or perhaps Mason City) on trackage rights on the UP. Heartland to Albert Lea via UP's Heartland sub., then south to Mason City via the Albert Lea sub. Even that will not last much longer. DME/ICE are one in the same as far as cars moving on either line. Anything on DME goes to ICE, Mason City, then east to the River before going south again to KC. Dakguy201 wrote: I think the KCS connection being discussed is the IC&E line that runs down the Mississippi and then southwest from Muscatine. Even assuming DM&E has rights over that line, for any shipment originating or terminating in the Dakotas (or Powder River), it is very much the long way around. Both the UP and the BNSF have routes that are much shorter. My figures show almost 600+ miles more from the PRB to KC via DME/ICE versus UP's route via the Marysville to KC. Not even close to being competitive as far as coal. CP feeds lots of traffic to UP every day out of St. Paul for Ft. Worth, and DME interchanges most all their traffic for the south to UP at Mason City. It has been my experience that most of the traffic ends up at customers on UP's lines anyway. UP's Spine line can out run the ICE line to KC by almost a day. And CP's traffic from St. Paul does not sit in some yard on UP. The train only works one station all the way to FTW. In most cases, by the time the ICE gets to KC to interchange their cars out of St. Paul, the cars leaving about the same time on UP have almost arrived in McAlester, OK. The customer will be the final guage of what goes where off the DME.
Dakguy201 wrote: I'm puzzled.This is not the first time I've seen a reference to the DM&E being a connection to KCS at Kansas City. As far as I am aware, the southmost point the DM&E achieves is Manley Iowa (or perhaps Mason City) on trackage rights on the UP.
I'm puzzled.
This is not the first time I've seen a reference to the DM&E being a connection to KCS at Kansas City. As far as I am aware, the southmost point the DM&E achieves is Manley Iowa (or perhaps Mason City) on trackage rights on the UP.
Heartland to Albert Lea via UP's Heartland sub., then south to Mason City via the Albert Lea sub. Even that will not last much longer. DME/ICE are one in the same as far as cars moving on either line. Anything on DME goes to ICE, Mason City, then east to the River before going south again to KC.
Dakguy201 wrote: I think the KCS connection being discussed is the IC&E line that runs down the Mississippi and then southwest from Muscatine. Even assuming DM&E has rights over that line, for any shipment originating or terminating in the Dakotas (or Powder River), it is very much the long way around. Both the UP and the BNSF have routes that are much shorter.
My figures show almost 600+ miles more from the PRB to KC via DME/ICE versus UP's route via the Marysville to KC. Not even close to being competitive as far as coal.
CP feeds lots of traffic to UP every day out of St. Paul for Ft. Worth, and DME interchanges most all their traffic for the south to UP at Mason City. It has been my experience that most of the traffic ends up at customers on UP's lines anyway. UP's Spine line can out run the ICE line to KC by almost a day. And CP's traffic from St. Paul does not sit in some yard on UP. The train only works one station all the way to FTW. In most cases, by the time the ICE gets to KC to interchange their cars out of St. Paul, the cars leaving about the same time on UP have almost arrived in McAlester, OK. The customer will be the final guage of what goes where off the DME.
There is NOTHING wrong with the former MILW mainline south of La Crescent. True, it may not be a straight shot like the former CNW (nee RI) "Spine Line" mainline is but don't let that deceive you. Keep in mind that a majority of interstate commerce moves east and west, not north and south. Also, keep in mind that dwell times in yard(s) is what brings you down when it comes to moving freight. Being a CPRS employee and knowing quite a few people currently on the ICE back home in Iowa I've heard stories about how the auto traffic coming out of Ford in St. Paul has sat on the UP while ICE has given that traffic the red carpet. And I expect that CPRS will do whatever upgrading is necessary to make it an even better line than what it is right now
Batooski wrote: RRKen wrote: The customer dictates where, who and when, not the carriers. Ok, I'll grant you that, but if the customer has to deal with an originating carrier for the first 1800 miles, isn't that carrier in a better position to dictate terms than a secondary carrier moving only the final 400 miles? Pricing power comes to mind.
We have a customer who for example, choose to short haul UP to Omaha, then to BNSF for the same destination that UP also serves in California. It was not that BNSF called the shot, but the customer who decided the rate and service via BNSF was a better deal at that time UP has since gotten that tonnage back for the entire haul.
DM&E tried as it might to divert traffic off of UP, instead interchanging with KCS in KC. Customer said no, and the traffic is still on UP from Mason City off the DME. Again rates and service were the leading factor. In this case, the customer bills on a UP rate, and DME gets the division even though DME originates the loads.
We have a cement plant in town who gets empties not from UP, but DME, and ships the loads on a DME rate, with UP however being the originating carrier. All UP gets is the switching charge in this case.
A last case. An ethanol plant in Glenville, MN on UP's Spine shipped tanks to a CN customer in Chicago. At first, they shipped all UP to Chicago. But later specified the routing as UP to Iowa Falls, CN to Chicago instead of an all UP routing. The tanks were billed under a CN rate. Now the plant trucks the product from their plant to the old Cedar Valley, RR, and CN gets the whole route from end to end, despite not directly serving the customer.
I can go on with cases, but interchange is governed by AAR, and customers instructions must be followed. It is up to the carriers to make the best deal with the customer to get longer hauls.
Wonder now if other RR executives were in their boardrooms/war rooms late this last week looking at possible options in regard to CPRS' planned acquisition of DME/ICE? Even though, on paper anyway, the CPRS - DME/ICE merger is classified as a "minor" transaction, in reality it's a major transaction as it now puts my employer back in the Kansas City gateway (where it should have been all along) and puts CPRS in a position to possibly expand beyond Kansas City (PLEASE take the KCS next Fred!!). In particular, I'm wondering now if BNSF and CN might start getting cozy again. As I see it, here are some possibilities:
CPRS + KCS
CN + BNSF + NS
UP + CSXT
The other class 1s will be looking to gain something from this. BNSF wants control of the crossing in Savanna, for example. There is a rumour that NS wants CP's 49% ownership of the IHB.
I really can't see CP getting KCS. I could see KCS selling the KC-Shreveport-New Orleans line to CP, allowing KCS to concentrate resources on the rest of their system, where prospects for growth are a lot higher.
nanaimo73 wrote:The other class 1s will be looking to gain something from this. BNSF wants control of the crossing in Savanna, for example. There is a rumour that NS wants CP's 49% ownership of the IHB.
That has to be untrue Dale, what would they gain from it. IHB isn't a cash generating machine. CP and the other carriers operate over the IHB via trackage rights which NS couldn't extinguish. What they would gain is a modest amount of fees from the trackage rights and a whole lot of Switch Jobs which most railroads want to get rid of. I can't see NS buying unless CP wanted out and the NS didn't want somebody else in. I can't see anybody buying the IHB unless it was an outsider who felt that he had found a way to extract more money from the Class Is in usage fees. The two most recent sellers (C&NW and NYC) both needed cash badly at the time they sold.
I can't see KCS selling their main North-South route either, since all but one of their coal-fired powerplants are located on these lines. If KCS sells it will be either one of their few remaining branche, or the whole railroad.
Los Angeles Rams Guy wrote: CP + KCSCN + BNSF + NSUP + CSXT
CP + KCS
Why on earth would UP or any other Class one want to offend either eastern road by a merger? UP for example has interchange with both eastern roads out of several gateways. Very good traffic too. Why risk loosing any portion of it? The status quo allows competition. And that is what the consumers want as well. You think that the STB will let those mergers go forwards? In looking at recent cases before them, I think not.
The only merger I can see happening that will not impact competition is PGR + Guilford.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
CP may buy KCS, but they (or any other potential buyer) will have to contend with KCS's midsection, which is one mean Ozark grade after another. The hills start somewhere north of Hope, AR and go past Heavener, OK, for somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 miles. I've been over the ground between Mena, AR (north of Hope) and Heavener many times, and it is railroad-unfriendly.
IIRC the highest point on the KCS is at Rich Mountain, AR, between Mena and Heavener. I've listened to trains going over Rich Mountain, with SD40's bellowing for all they were worth and barely able to move the trains. Any new owner trying to put a whole lot of traffic over that part of the line will have to spend rivers of cash to increase capacity.
gabe wrote: The part of this that really has me laughing is the effect on BNSF. I just have to believe that BNSF had a hand in a considerable amount of the resistance that was stired up over this expansion. Had it worked out the way DM&E wanted, they might have been able to continue to act as an indepentent carrier--which would not be as competitive against UP/BNSF--while conducting the PRB expansion. But, because BNSF won the battle, they are going to lose the war by having a high-roller/Class I competing in the PRB instead of a regional. I think BNSF would have been better off had they bankrolled the project for DM&E.Gabe
The part of this that really has me laughing is the effect on BNSF. I just have to believe that BNSF had a hand in a considerable amount of the resistance that was stired up over this expansion.
Had it worked out the way DM&E wanted, they might have been able to continue to act as an indepentent carrier--which would not be as competitive against UP/BNSF--while conducting the PRB expansion. But, because BNSF won the battle, they are going to lose the war by having a high-roller/Class I competing in the PRB instead of a regional.
I think BNSF would have been better off had they bankrolled the project for DM&E.
Gabe
True...harsh, but fair and true.It will be interesting to see BNSF and the UP sweat over (if any) loosing coal contracts to a dirctly connected rail line that can offer a better service of delivering coal to the power plants,since BNSF & UP cant deliver when the plants need the coal.Furthermore,there are plenty of power plants that are complaining about the lack of coal trains not arriving on time by the BNSF and the UP.As for Rochester,MN, and the Mayo Clinic...gee..wasting money in the courts..when they cant even finish a building they started to build more than 10 years ago.Figure that one!!!
well...i'm glad ICE went to the beaver and not the noodles. CP runs things a LOT better than CN. and i also cant see anymore class 1 mergers. i COULD see a few regionals buying up shortlines or 2 shortlines merging together into a regional somewhere. but not 2 class 1s. in fact, i wouldnt be surprised if the government eventually breaks some of these mega roads apart one day.
this all is good news to some of my friends down in IA claiming that SOO power might come back to their area now. and i must say it'll make some of the consists look nice. CP red and ICE blue together
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
A.K. Cummings wrote:Why would CP want to bypass Rochester? Andy CummingsAssociate EditorTrains MagazineWaukesha, Wis.
Why, to keep the good people of Rochester happy of course.
Unfortunately for Rochester, and I think a previous poster pointed this out, CP rail is not the DME. They don't need federal funding, and to be honest I don't think they are going to sign on to adding millions of dollars to the construction costs just as a 'feel good' line item in the budget. Not only that, but if CP WANTED to route around Rochester, then the NIMBY's could fire up the old 'we need to do 80 environmental impact studies on the new route' thereby delaying the construction for another 10 years.
I think Rochester is going to be in for a little rain in their lives pretty soon.
News Flash!
According to the Railway Age news report for today, the name of the railroad is the Detroit, Minnesota & Eastern. CP's getting a better deal than they thought?
(It's like those videos on TV--you laugh, but man, that's gotta hurt!)
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)
spokyone wrote:Railway Age has since edited both of their stories about DM&E. On their Sept 6 report they say,"utilities captive to BNSF and UP are unlikely to be affected by this acquisition and could provide BNSF and UP with some offset to pricing pressures elsewhere"Sounds like we need another thread about Open Access.
Is that the thread that says the Carriers will be bled to death because track fees will not cover the actual costs? If you want an eye opener, go to the STB site and read Monday's decision "AEP Texas North v. BNSF".¹ Then tell me what a great thing Open Access will be.
¹ While in reading that Decision, you will find material errors on the part of both parties due to lack of arguments. Some of which were sophomoric on the part of BNSF as current industry practice would have been enough to persuaded the Board that the costs were indeed realistic.
I think this is just the first step toward a CP/KCS merger. Now that CP has DME/ICE in it's stable (upon STB approval), it has a direct connection to KCS, thus enabling CP to get all the way to Mexico to further compete with CN, UP and BNSF. KCS has the best route into Mexico with Texas-Mexican and TFM under it's control. What better way for CP to get the lion's share of the international rail traffic than to have a direct connection to KCS and the DME/ICE provides this. Take a look at a map of these rail lines (CP/DME/ICE/KCS/Tex-Mex/TFM) and see how combining them would make a superior routing, especialy in light of the fact that a new deep water port is being built on Mexico's Pacific coast (served by TFM), and a customs facility is being built in Kansas City for imports and exports to Mexico. And just where is KCS' headquarters located? Then it's just a matter of time before the KCS and it's affiliates are another fallen flag, now under the huge umbrella of CP.
If that pertains to my question on how the 2 systems dovetail together, and whether the combined system might make doing so possible... then merely as a means to bypass Mayo clinic's protests and all the related headaches.
It seems like the two biggest obstacles to building into the PRB have been money, and Mayo. So I was curious if now that the first dragon has been slain, I was wondering if CP's system offered a natural solution to the latter.
Batooski wrote: A.K. Cummings wrote:Why would CP want to bypass Rochester? Andy CummingsAssociate EditorTrains MagazineWaukesha, Wis. If that pertains to my question on how the 2 systems dovetail together, and whether the combined system might make doing so possible... then merely as a means to bypass Mayo clinic's protests and all the related headaches. It seems like the two biggest obstacles to building into the PRB have been money, and Mayo. So I was curious if now that the first dragon has been slain, I was wondering if CP's system offered a natural solution to the latter.
I would expect that as and if the coal trains become more numerous, some will use the ICE route. Four problems come to mind, none are unsolveable, but will entail above average expenditures. The need to use IANR tracks in Northern Iowa, The junction at Marquette, IA is laid out for EB to SB movements, good for trains to Iowa and Chicago but bad for trains to Wisconsin, the junction at Sabula, IA is laid out for NB to EB movements bad for those same trains to continue to Chicago, and finally heavier grades on the route via ICE to Chicago will require more power on trains routed that way(higher operating expense-more locomotives and more fuel burned).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.