CPR to buy Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

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.

I would have to agree wholeheartedly here; at least I would hope this is what happens somewhere down the road when the time is right.  It seems to be a natural and would be a nice fit and I think that new I.M.S. facility down at the Port of Lazaro Cardenas is going to do a lot of business in the future.

[Anonymous]

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). 

 

Thanks, so in what cities does CP and DME/ICE already have junctions?

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Why would CP want to bypass Rochester?

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, 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). 

Actually, the junction at Marquette does have a wye for movement to either Chicago or to River Junction/Wisconsin/Twin Cities so there's no problem there.  Rather, I think where a problem may lie would be Calmar Hill where trains with even normal amounts of tonnage struggle sometimes.    

[Andy Cummings]

Batooski —

DM&E not only has permission to operate coal trains over their line through Rochester. The decision that grants them that permission has been upheld by the U.S. court of appeals. Short of going to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would be a long shot to end all long shots, the Rochester coalition has no legal recourse to stop DM&E from operating trains through town.

So what are they going to do? What are these headaches to which you refer? And in what way has the Mayo "dragon" not been slain? I'm just not getting it.

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

[Anonymous]

So what are they going to do? What are these headaches to which you refer? And in what way has the Mayo "dragon" not been slain? I'm just not getting it.

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

 

Reading others  here, and elsewhere, suggests that an adversarial relationship  exists between the Rochester coalition and the D,M,&E, over the prospect of increased traffic. A conflict that Mayo has been willing to devote resources towards their end. Time and money...those kinds of headaches.

So, I thought my initial (and as yet still unanswered) question was pertinent. Does CP's existing plant give them any creative work around?  I have no idea. For all I know, they might have a superior alternative, which is kinda why I asked in the first place.

[Andy Cummings]

Batooski —

Theoretically, the answer to your question is yes, but in practice, not really — at least, not right away. You could conceivably use IC&E north from Owatonna to a connection with the CP, then run trains east down the River Sub and thus bypass Rochester. But the switch at Owatonna faces the wrong way for that, and track conditions on the Owatonna Sub north of Owatonna are very bad. That routing would also be substantially longer. We'll have a good map of this in the December issue that will make it plain, but there's a map of the CP/DM&E/IC&E system at dmerail.com that you can get a look at and see what I mean.

Then again, DM&E already had the ability to route traffic around Rochester using IC&E south from Owatonna that would be far more practical than the routing I just described. So it's kind of a non-issue.

Unfortunately, many cities have adversarial relationships with their railroads. That doesn't mean those cities can prevent trains from passing through. Rochester tried and lost. Their only remaining option is to appeal to the Supreme Court, but they'd be guaranteed to lose.

Rochester isn't a problem in any way, shape, or form. Period. No sense giving them more credit than they deserve.

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

[RRKen]

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.

 Gosh,  you make too much sense there.  I am wondering how much time and money was spent in litigation with Mayo?  I am betting that money would have been better spent funding the bypass to begin with.  But since there is a new player in CP, that last hurdle could be removed with the stroke of a pen, and several million dollars.   CP indeed then would look like the White Knight.

[Dakguy201]

It seems to me that the Rochester folk have run out of "just say no" tactics.  With the CP in the picture, the loan becomes a nice but not absolutely necessary item.

If they want a bypass around the city, I would think they are going to have to shoulder most of the financial burden of creating it.  I've never been there and know very little about the topography, but the acquisition of the land, the grade seperations, etc. can't be a cheap item.  Off the top of my head, I would think something resembling the Reno trench on the current route would be more economical, but I suspect that if Rochester was faced with bearing the cost of either project, they would decide the status quo is preferable. 

[blhanel]

I have been there many times, and I would say that a bypass around Rochester would be very difficult to accomplish.  There are areas of steep rolling hills both south and north of the city that would have to be given a wide berth.  A trench through downtown would be very problematic as well- currently the DM&E crosses the Zumbro River just a few feet above the water.  Elevating the RR seems to be a better alternative.

[spokyone]

I worked for the Soo, CP, I&M Rail link and currently work for the ICE . When I found out last night at 0200  I couldn't believe it!!!!!!!! I Hope we get the conductor craft back. I trained in Pigs eye back in 1996 and was a qualified conductor. Then they sold us and everone took a $12 a day pay cut and removed the conductor craft. It was hell ever since. I know alot of employees have protection agreements in place and the ICE is very strong about keeping us protected. I hope it's all wrapped up in 6 months. Alot of us have been beaten prior to the ICE and worry that not much will change. I hope alot changes, we deserve a class1 status.

I would love to find a link to their T&E and Yardmasters Contracts Anyone?

Jess 

 

First of all Jess, . In your opinion, are there problems with ICE running 10 or 12 coal trains a day?

[beaulieu]

For Batooski - CP has the following interchanges with the DM&E

Winona, MN - this is the line through Rochester and is the most direct route to Wisconsin    powerplants and it has the easiest grades for loaded coal trains.

Aberdeen, SD - This is via the shortline DMV&W for misc traffic to Canada, by agreement with BNSF coal and grain to West Coast is banned from this route. 

With the IC&E

La Crescent, MN - on the Minnesota side opposite LaCrosse, WI (technically this Interchange is in St. Paul, MN with the IC&E using CP's tracks north of La Crescent).

Faribault, MN - south of the Twin Cities (inactive)

Bensenville, IL (Chicago area) - IC&E serves customers as far east as Pingree Grove, with CP serving from there into Chicago proper, interchange happens at Bensenville Yard. IC&E drops CP traffic at Bensenville, their traffic for other Chicago railroads goes to BRC's Clearing Yd. 

[beaulieu]

For everybody in this dicussion, YES a bypass around Rochester is possible, it will be expensive and there will be opponents to any bypass, the people whose homes and farms will have to be condemned to create a path for the bypass. Rochester has spent minimal or no money on seeing if a bypass is possible, they just assume it will be.

The single biggest problem with the IC&E route is the fact that the STB has said that another EIS will be necessary if the coal trains are routed this way, I don't think the CP will risk the whole PRB project on the chance that this EIS might fail, for any reason. Once the PRB project is up and running a "fait d'acommpli" then they might try for the EIS. After the EIS then Calmar Hill with its 1.5% grades are the biggest problem.

My opinion is that CP will build the PRB line without a bypass, but will sign a agreement with Rochester to spend the money for a serious Engineering study of a bypass when traffic reaches a certain level. The agreement will NOT commit CP to build the bypass, this will allow Rochester leaders to save face with the voters. The bypass will only be build if traffic reaches high levels, at which point it will probably be needed anyway.

[Andy Cummings]

John —

By my reading, DM&E can, in fact, interchange West Coast-bound grain to CP via the DMV&W/Aberdeen interchange. I've got a good chunk of the ruling pasted below, but note the relevant portion:

"...and (b) Canada (including, but not limited to, Canadian export ports and CP-affiliated shortlines), provided such interchange rights extend only to movements of agricultural commodities (STCC's 01 and 20), fertilizers, ethanol, bentonite clay, and forest products..."

I found the full ruling by searching the Federal Register for 2005 and 2006 using for search parameters: "South Dakota" and "BNSF"

Please let me know if I'm missing something — I plan on mentioning this in my news article on the subject slated for the 12-2007 issue.

Best,

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

(2) BNSF will permit DM&E and the State (or the State's designee)
to interchange with one another at Aberdeen Yard via the Interchange
Access Line for traffic originating or terminating on DM&E in South
Dakota, moving to or from points served by Canadian Pacific Railway's
(CP's) network as it existed as of April 25, 2005 in: (a) North Dakota
(not including the Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Railroad or CP-
affiliated shortlines) other than to or from industries which are (as
of April 25, 2005) jointly served by CP and BNSF (e.g., industries at
Valley City and Minot); and (b) Canada (including, but not limited to,
Canadian export ports and CP-affiliated shortlines), provided such
interchange rights extend only to movements of agricultural commodities
(STCC's 01 and 20), fertilizers, ethanol, bentonite clay, and forest
products, and further subject to certain unit train restrictions
pertaining to North Dakota points.
(3) BNSF will permit DM&E to use the Interchange Access Line in
conjunction with DM&E's existing trackage rights in order to facilitate
interchange of cars between DM&E and the State, by and through the
State's designee, on the State-owned trackage north of Aberdeen,
subject to certain restrictions.
The trackage rights granted by BNSF were scheduled to become
effective on or after December 6, 2005. The purpose of the trackage
rights is to allow DM&E to enjoy, at Aberdeen, expanded interchange
access for traffic moving to, from, or via the Aberdeen-Kidder Line.

[Andy Cummings]

John —

I mostly agree with you about the bypass. Anything is possible if you throw enough money at it, but bypassing Rochester, based on what the Coalition is asking for, would be extremely expensive.

A couple points, however:

1) Rochester is pretty much out of leverage on this issue now that the STB has ruled. What incentive does CPR have to sit down with them and even talk seriously about a bypass?

2) At what train could would a bypass make sense? There are many cities the size of Rochester that host 40-plus trains daily, and I'm not aware of any that have a bypass. I mean, bypasses for the purposes of mitigation are pretty much just not done, under any circumstances, that I'm aware of.

Rochester's rail corridor isn't as bad as city leaders claim. North Broadway would benefit greatly from a grade separation, and if traffic grows more to the east, East Circle Drive might also be a good candidate. Beyond that, the crossings are all two-lane roads. Close a couple, add quad gates to a couple, and pretty soon, you've got a relatively safe rail corridor, even for 30-plus daily trains.

At that point, if Rochester deserves a rail bypass, I can think of a lot of other cities nationwide that deserve one quite a bit more. Fargo/Moorhead, anyone?

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

[beaulieu]

Andy- I think the problem with the Aberdeen, SD Interchange is the old "ya gotta know the territory rule". The agreement does ban movements to the UP at Eastport, ID. The reason BNSF didn't ban movements through Canadian ports is because effectively Canadian law already does this, the Canadian Wheat Board controls all grain exported though Canadian ports. Maybe the Canadian law could be changed, BNSF doesn't think it will. All Soo Line unit trains moving to the West Coast reenter the US for movement to Portland, Kalamah, or Longview. (might be some to SeaTac) 

As to your second point, I agree, I don't think a bypass around Rochester will be built, but CP might offer Rochester's leaders, a piece of paper to cover their backside with. Of course it's only a piece of paper, carefully worded to not actually promise a bypass.

[samfp1943]

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.

I am reminded of an analogy to Scatman Cruthers' line when standing on the last car of the Silver Streak [in the movie of the same name]--HELLLLOOOO!  NEW ORLEANS!

      [ as welll as Mobile, Al. Beaumont,Tx and Lazaro Cardenas. ] 

      Will Big Mike Haverty become tri-lingually conversational, or retire???

       Will we get to see CP Steam running on the headend of the Southern Belle in Kansas?

[Anonymous]

Batooski —

Theoretically, the answer to your question is yes, but in practice, not really — at least, not right away. You could conceivably use IC&E north from Owatonna to a connection with the CP, then run trains east down the River Sub and thus bypass Rochester. But the switch at Owatonna faces the wrong way for that, and track conditions on the Owatonna Sub north of Owatonna are very bad. That routing would also be substantially longer. We'll have a good map of this in the December issue that will make it plain, but there's a map of the CP/DM&E/IC&E system at dmerail.com that you can get a look at and see what I mean.

Then again, DM&E already had the ability to route traffic around Rochester using IC&E south from Owatonna that would be far more practical than the routing I just described. So it's kind of a non-issue.

Unfortunately, many cities have adversarial relationships with their railroads. That doesn't mean those cities can prevent trains from passing through. Rochester tried and lost. Their only remaining option is to appeal to the Supreme Court, but they'd be guaranteed to lose.

Rochester isn't a problem in any way, shape, or form. Period. No sense giving them more credit than they deserve.

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

 

First, thankyou for  (finally) a straight forward answer to a straight forward question. My curiousity was simple enough that I was having a hard time understanding where all the friction was coming from.

I see from the portion of your text that i have highlighted, you share the same anti-rochester sentiment common to many on this board, which is fine. But, I don't really think that a company such as CP is going to make Mr Schieffer's  bygone hostilities into  a cause celebre or sacred cow just for the satisfaction of tormenting the coalition.

If it makes sense to bypass (via existing alternate routing)Rochester and doing so would save CP time, trouble, and  further hassle that they would just as soon avoid, then I am sure that is exactly what they would do.  I don't think that serving Mr Schiffer's  revenge is  high on CP's agenda, no matter how much certain parties might prefer to think otherwise

 

thanks

[Anonymous]

For Batooski - CP has the following interchanges with the DM&E

Winona, MN - this is the line through Rochester and is the most direct route to Wisconsin    powerplants and it has the easiest grades for loaded coal trains.

Aberdeen, SD - This is via the shortline DMV&W for misc traffic to Canada, by agreement with BNSF coal and grain to West Coast is banned from this route. 

With the IC&E

La Crescent, MN - on the Minnesota side opposite LaCrosse, WI (technically this Interchange is in St. Paul, MN with the IC&E using CP's tracks north of La Crescent).

Faribault, MN - south of the Twin Cities (inactive)

Bensenville, IL (Chicago area) - IC&E serves customers as far east as Pingree Grove, with CP serving from there into Chicago proper, interchange happens at Bensenville Tard. IC&E drops CP traffic at Bensenville, their traffic for other Chicago railroads goes to BRC's Clearing Yd. 

 

Thanks for all the additional information.

 Reading that and looking at the new *.PDF map of the combined systems that Andy mentioned, what occurs to me is that the route through Rochester and on eastward, linking with CP in Winona, is by far the best route to Chicago.

 

[Andy Cummings]

Batooski —

I've no ill will toward the city I was born in and grew up in — you misinterpret what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this: For CP/DM&E to use a longer routing than necessary adds a great deal of cost to the thing. Every additional mile a train travels beyond what it must results in additional fuel burned. It takes a lot of fuel to move a 13,000-ton train. Then you have to figure that the additional mileage means it takes longer for the train to get from the mine to the power plant, so you need more locomotives, cars, crews, maintenance facilities, etc., to move the same amount of coal between the same origin/destination pair. Because you have additional track miles, you need additional sidings to pass trains and maintain fluidity. And crews will have to be on duty longer to get the train moved the additional miles, so you'll have to pay more money in payroll. Without spending a lot of time on it, I can't tell you what the up-front and annual bill will be for all those things, but it's no insignificant sum.

Put that up against the "time, trouble, and further hassle" that you cite for moving trains through Rochester. You criticize me for not answering your question directly, yet you still can't name a single delay, cost, or hassle trains passing through Rochester will face.

It's not about grudges. Of course the railroad should work in good faith with the communities they serve. And, in fact, if you look at CPR's holiday train, you'll see a railroad that shows a willingness to do that. It's just that, if you wind up incurring massive additional costs by using other lines, well, what would you do if you were the guy signing the check?

Rochester has said they're opposed to any plan that brings coal trains over DM&E's existing route through town. If you look at comparable-sized cities with comparable train counts, can you name me even a single one that has a bypass, or a tunnel under the city? I can't think of any — Reno's trench is the closest thing that comes to mind, and I don't think I even need to go into how different a situation that is. So if Rochester gets a bypass, should railroads now build bypasses around every city in the country of comparable (or greater) population with comparable (or greater) daily train counts? If the answer to that is no, then why is Rochester different from any other city?

My point: We can argue about how reasonable Kevin Schieffer has been. But what Rochester is asking for is completely out of line with what other cities nationwide have. To me, that says you can't put the entire burden on Schieffer, even if, for the sake of argument, we say he has been unreasonable. And the fact remains, Rochester's leverage is gone. That's not a reason for the railroad to be belligerent, but it's also a disincentive for them to bend over backwards to please the city.

I hope I've clarified the point I'm trying to make. It's not personal. It's just business.

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

[Andy Cummings]

John —

This is really interesting. I called the Canadian Wheat Board regarding this. Their PR person talked to the head of their Vancouver operations about it. To their knowledge, there's nothing that would prevent West Coast ports from handling non-CWB grain. She described it to me that the CWB is just a customer to the West Coast ports. A large customer, I'm sure, but they aren't aware of any law that limits Canadian ports to handling only CWB grain.

Might there be something else out there? I'd definitely like to find out for sure before my story goes to press.

Best,

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

[beaulieu]

I see from the portion of your text that i have highlighted, you share the same anti-rochester sentiment common to many on this board, which is fine. But, I don't really think that a company such as CP is going to make Mr Schieffer's  bygone hostilities into  a cause celebre or sacred cow just for the satisfaction of tormenting the coalition.

If it makes sense to bypass (via existing alternate routing)Rochester and doing so would save CP time, trouble, and  further hassle that they would just as soon avoid, then I am sure that is exactly what they would do.  I don't think that serving Mr Schiffer's  revenge is  high on CP's agenda, no matter how much certain parties might prefer to think otherwise

thanks

Batooski- Rochester didn't start asking for a bypass until they failed to get the whole project cancelled, they want the railroad to build a bypass at the railroad's expense. And they don't care about anyone who's homes or farms would lie in the path of this bypass, unless of course they can vote in Rochester's elections. CP owes nothing to Rochester except that their opposition to the DM&E's plans created the opportunity for CP to buy the DM&E. CP is well aware that Rochester wants a lot, but has nothing to offer in return.

BTW - after only a cursory glance at a topographic map a Rochester bypass would be a very difficult and expensive project. The existing railroad took the best route and the city built around it. 

[beaulieu]

John —

This is really interesting. I called the Canadian Wheat Board regarding this. Their PR person talked to the head of their Vancouver operations about it. To their knowledge, there's nothing that would prevent West Coast ports from handling non-CWB grain. She described it to me that the CWB is just a customer to the West Coast ports. A large customer, I'm sure, but they aren't aware of any law that limits Canadian ports to handling only CWB grain.

Might there be something else out there? I'd definitely like to find out for sure before my story goes to press.

Best,

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

Andy, it was in a statement by by one of the Ag groups regarding the DM&E purchase, but it wasn't direct. I am no conspiracy theorist but I don't think BNSF would have left that possibility out if they thought that US grain would use Canadian Ports. If the grain could easily move via Canadian ports, the only people hurt are the UP, and the US ports. I can see them wanting to keep the business away from UP, but the US ports? If CP could move the grain via Canadian ports at a competive rate why does BNSF care if it comes back into the US at Eastport for movement via Portland? BNSF is protecting their rates pure and simple.

 

The comment was in one of the small town newspapers, amongst hundreds discovered via Google News, I'll keep looking.

I think I would contact one of the South Dakota Farm groups for their side of the story. Some of the Elevators at Vancouver can only be reached via the CN which might be part of the problem as well. It also might be useful to just ask CP about what the agreement allows and doesn't allow. 

[beaulieu]

Andy further to my previous post

 BNSF's grain train rates are lower where they face CP's competition.

US farmer's selling their grain to Pacific Rim countries don't care which ports their grain is shipped through US or Canadian.

BNSF specifically banned the grain from reentering the US through Eastport gateway.

BNSF might do this to hurt UP, but money talks and animosity doesn't.

CP isn't getting any of the grain for export to Vancouver.

I don't believe in those kind of coincidences.

I would ask a South Dakota elevator what the unit train rate is to Portland and then compare it to what the Elevator in the closest competitive location. 

 

[Anonymous]

I am not convinced that the Rochester opposition will be of no consequence from this point forward.  While it may be true that they are asking for something that many other cities are more worthy of receiving, those other cities are not making noise like Rochester.  I think their cause rises above the ostensible concerns about crossing safety, vibration, delays, dust, etc.  At their core, their objections are almost spiritual, and in the particular state of Minnesota, they have righteousness on their side.  

I am not sure what they can accomplish, but I think they will amass tremendous political sympathy for their cause from the State of Minnesota.  Plus, they will have unlimited resources to wage their fight.  Back in the days of the robber barons, CP could have said, "Mayo Be Damned," but not today.

[beaulieu]

Bucyrus, I think CP will talk to Rochester, and I think they will say that if Rochester will build an acceptable bypass the CP will lease and use it. Acceptable as in, not appreciably longer and no heavy gradients. I think Rochester will baulk at a price tag I suspect will be above $100 million dollars and that will be the end of the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus, I think CP will talk to Rochester, and I think they will say that if Rochester will build an acceptable bypass the CP will lease and use it. Acceptable as in, not appreciably longer and no heavy gradients. I think Rochester will baulk at a price tag I suspect will be above $100 million dollars and that will be the end of the conversation.

I see that as a possibility.  Somehow there will be a compromise, and I think it will pivot around extra infrastructure.  A bypass would be one such example, but the price tag for a bypass will soar as the landowners on the proposed route find themselves in the driver's seat in a confrontation where CP arrives on its knees.  And those landowners are likely to be armed with the same moral outrage as the present opposition. 

In my opinion, a more likely compromise will be special provisions for the route through the city.  There is no problem that cannot be solved by encasing it in concrete.  Kevin Schieffer once said that he was not going to build a tunnel under Rochester.  I would not be surprised if CP feels the same way.  Certainly Rochester is not going to build the tunnel, but the citizens of Minnesota probably won't mind building it.

[edbenton]

As someone that lived in MN for a year and was a patient of the MAYO clinic AKA Butchers I have something to offer here.  1.  Rochester shot itself in the foot by bringing in outsiders to lobby against the DM&E a company that has a big presence in southern MN.  2.  Mayo clinic claims to offer the best health care in the state yet in 2001 they ranked out of the top 10 in the state in QUALITY OF CARE FOR HOSPITALS.  3.  The topography alone will not allow either a bypass or a tunnel to be built in the area.  The grades would be around 1.4% to 2 % almost helper distrcts.  Rochester is right beside one of the only rivers in southern MN and the source of water for Rochester the enviromental challanges would be to severe for any company to overcome.  MN when it comes to protecting fresh water makes California look weak.  5.  Simply the head of the former DM&E Shaffer is through neogotiating with the Rochester coaliation he now has them by BOTH THE THROAT AND THE BALLS AND HE AND THEY KNOW IT.  He will just upgrade the trackage thru Rochester and then run them thru as he was going to regardless of the compalints.

[Andy Cummings]

John —

I'm just not following you here. A lot of people say a lot of things, but the trackage rights agreement even mentions that the DM&E/DMV&W/CPR routing could be used for West Coast Canadian export. Whoever made the claim you cite clearly isn't fully informed, as they seemed to think the Canadian Wheat Board is the only customer allowed to use West Coast Canadian ports, and that clearly isn't the case.

It seems to me understandable that BNSF doesn't want its competitor, Union Pacific, to get more business, and that's why Idaho, Washington, and Oregon weren't included in permissible destinations.

Just throwing this out there, but could Canada actually legally bar U.S. goods from shipping out through Canadian ports based on NAFTA? I'm no expert on this, but we know CN is moving a lot of grain to ports on the Gulf of Mexico. If the U.S. allows the practice, wouldn't it be a free-trade violation if Canada passed a law barring the opposite movement?

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

[Andy Cummings]

John —

Of course BNSF would prefer less competition to more. But keep in mind, BNSF leaders didn't grant these trackage rights out of the goodness of their hearts. There was a whole deal involved where BNSF got the core lines, which they really wanted. They also prevented any possibility of coal trains running over the DMV&W between DM&E and CP. If a judge had clarified the trackage rights deal, he could have found that DM&E and DMV&W had every right to interchange whatever commodity they wanted, regardless of destination.

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.

[Andy Cummings]

Bucyrus —

Rochester certainly has amassed political power in its fight against DM&E. That power fought to persuade the STB not to approve the project. It lost. Then, it fought to force DM&E to bypass the city. It lost. Then, it fought to deny DM&E the FRA loan. It won. But now there's no need for the FRA loan.

Enough political influence can win any political match. But the matches have all been fought, the winners all decided. How, exactly, are they supposed to stop the project now that it's been approved? They already tried the courts and lost. I just don't see any leverage on the part of Rochester in this whole deal, regardless of the political muscle they've enlisted. And interstate commerce laws pretty well protect them from any law or ordinance to try and route coal trains elsewhere.

Andy Cummings
Associate Editor
Trains Magazine
Waukesha, Wis.