The directional running agreement between CN and CP between Ashcroft and Vancouver is probably as good as it gets to illustrate how two competitors can nevertheless work together. But why not extend directional running (or at least shared trackage agreements) east clear to Calgary? It has been stated that CP's line through the mountains over Kicking Horse is more costly to operate than CN's more northerly route over Yellowhead, some have even blamed CP's poor relative performance on its grades through the mountains.
I would guess that the directional running agreement along the Fraser River benefits both RRs about equally. Extending it over the mountains would give an advantage to CP by reducing their gradient, while causing CN the disadvantage of stiffer gradient. Why would CN ever agree to such a thing?
Mike hit the big nail on the head.
In addition, CN would probably end up with a longer route than it has now, a net loss. CP westbound, the direction of the high tonnage coal, potash, and sulfur traffic has all been reduced to 1%, so there would be little, if any gain for CP and would certainly be longer mileage. Eastbound CP has pieces of 2.2 % grade which would be nice to avoid, but if it takes running on CN to do it will add mileage.
I am not sure where crew change points are but I suspect there is one intermediate, which would make two deadhead crew moves for each through train on both routes. That by itself would double everybody's crew cost. Even if there were not two competing companies involved I doubt that directional running would make sense.
Mac McCulloch
Ulrich The directional running agreement between CN and CP between Ashcroft and Vancouver is probably as good as it gets to illustrate how two competitors can nevertheless work together. But why not extend directional running (or at least shared trackage agreements) east clear to Calgary? It has been stated that CP's line through the mountains over Kicking Horse is more costly to operate than CN's more northerly route over Yellowhead, some have even blamed CP's poor relative performance on its grades through the mountains.
How about forgetting directional running Ashcroft-Calgary and running the whole show on CN except for CP's local traffic?
dakotafred How about forgetting directional running Ashcroft-Calgary and running the whole show on CN except for CP's local traffic?
With CN expecting increased traffic to Prince Rupert, why would they want to deal with their competitors extra trains?
Directional running works west of Kamloops because the two lines are shadowing each other, generally on opposite sides of the Thompson and Fraser Rivers. The crew change points of Boston Bar (CN) and North Bend (CP) are opposite each other with a bridge making it a five minute drive. So a CP crew that has brought a CP train to Boston Bar just crosses the river to take a CP train back to Kamloops, and similarly for CN crews on CN trains.
East of Kamloops CN actually heads north rather than east. If you look at a map, the two routes end up something like 150 miles apart. It is just not realistic to start deadheading crews 150 miles as part of every round trip. While haulage agreements are a possibility (and that is the case when derailments force detours) there is absolutely no possible benefit for CN to do this on a regular basis. For one thing, CP's grades will require more locomotives than CN usually assigns, and when they get to Calgary they will have to head 180 miles north before continuing eastwards.
Yes, in part CP's poor relative performance is due to its far tougher passage through the mountains, and indeed in other areas including the Prairies. But to drift a little off the thread, there is another factor in play, namely revenue. CN as the most northerly route enjoys quite a bit of territory where it has somewhat of a monopoly and can charge accordingly. It is often thought that a prime reason for their purchase of the BCR was to consolidate that monopoly. CPR lies between two major competing railways, the CN to the north and BNSF just across the border to the south (and in SOO line territory) so does not have the same ability to get top dollar. That is a reality that Pershing and Mr. Harrison will have to face. Providing the customer with the service he desires is the best weapon CP has to compete, and that will cost a little more. But Mr.Harrison puts the so-called precision railroading above customer service, and I expect p..'d off customers to quickly start looking for alternatives. EHH at CP may well be CN's best sales rep, even if that is not his intention!
John
MidlandMike dakotafred: How about forgetting directional running Ashcroft-Calgary and running the whole show on CN except for CP's local traffic? With CN expecting increased traffic to Prince Rupert, why would they want to deal with their competitors extra trains?
dakotafred: How about forgetting directional running Ashcroft-Calgary and running the whole show on CN except for CP's local traffic?
Why does BNSF accept UP hotshots off the Golden State Route at Kansas City for forwarding to Chicago?
CN might do it for the money, Mike -- if capacity would allow. (I'll admit, I have no idea what CN's unused capacity might be, now or with the anticipated increased traffic you mention.) For CP, the issue would be: Would they save enough over operating their own route to make the deal worthwhile?
MidlandMike I would guess that the directional running agreement along the Fraser River benefits both RRs about equally. Extending it over the mountains would give an advantage to CP by reducing their gradient, while causing CN the disadvantage of stiffer gradient. Why would CN ever agree to such a thing?
Obviously CP would have to make that attractive to CN.. perhaps by offering running rights/directional running elsewhere in its network. There's still alot of duplication in the East for instance.. Moreover any additional cost bt CN in having CP trains running ove rits network could be charged to CP.. CN and CP agreed to directional running west of Ashcroft.. that seems to work to the benefit of both...but cearly there's always so give and take. Where one roads sees a benefit then the other has to give up something elsewhere provided the deal puts both roads further ahead overall.
dakotafred Ulrich: The directional running agreement between CN and CP between Ashcroft and Vancouver is probably as good as it gets to illustrate how two competitors can nevertheless work together. But why not extend directional running (or at least shared trackage agreements) east clear to Calgary? It has been stated that CP's line through the mountains over Kicking Horse is more costly to operate than CN's more northerly route over Yellowhead, some have even blamed CP's poor relative performance on its grades through the mountains. How about forgetting directional running Ashcroft-Calgary and running the whole show on CN except for CP's local traffic?
Ulrich: The directional running agreement between CN and CP between Ashcroft and Vancouver is probably as good as it gets to illustrate how two competitors can nevertheless work together. But why not extend directional running (or at least shared trackage agreements) east clear to Calgary? It has been stated that CP's line through the mountains over Kicking Horse is more costly to operate than CN's more northerly route over Yellowhead, some have even blamed CP's poor relative performance on its grades through the mountains.
There appears to be alot of redundancy in the two networks. Both railroads run lines between Montreal and Toronto for example. They might see some advantage to combining forces and sharing one line. Just prior to the privatization of CN in 1995 a merger/alliance of CN and CP for all lines east of Montreal was considered. Had that gone through both roads would now have access to (and share the cost of) all markets currently served by rail in Easten Canada. At the present time a customer who wants to ship via rail in Nova Scotia has one choice: CN. In New Brunswick they have the MM&A if they're near Saint John, but for the most part the choice is, again, only CN.
More to your point...running the whole thing on CN's more updated network...that might not be such a far out and bad idea. I'm outside of Toronto and all I see here is a bunch of underutilized tracks belonging to both CN and CP. CP's superelevated double track line west out of Toronto lays idle for hours betwen trains, and that's on a busy day. Surely more can be done by looking at the bigger picture and perhaps by combining forces that would benefit both roads and most important of all, the shipper. Over time, yard facilities might be consolidated...and I understand that that can only happen over many years. But there's obvious waste in having a separate yard for each road in the main centers.
What are the train volumes on both CP and CN into and out of Vancouver? Is most of the traffic transcontinental in nature? Does Calgary and Edmonton generate much freight and is it mainly handled by the carrier with their mainlines thru the cities (CP - Calgary, CN - Edmonton)?
CN appears to have 2 lines east from Edmonton? Is one a secondary line, or are both used directionally? Sorry for all the questions, but this CN shareholder really doesnt understand much of their Canadian operations.
Ed
dakotafred MidlandMike: dakotafred: How about forgetting directional running Ashcroft-Calgary and running the whole show on CN except for CP's local traffic? With CN expecting increased traffic to Prince Rupert, why would they want to deal with their competitors extra trains? Why does BNSF accept UP hotshots off the Golden State Route at Kansas City for forwarding to Chicago? CN might do it for the money, Mike -- if capacity would allow. (I'll admit, I have no idea what CN's unused capacity might be, now or with the anticipated increased traffic you mention.) For CP, the issue would be: Would they save enough over operating their own route to make the deal worthwhile?
MidlandMike: dakotafred: How about forgetting directional running Ashcroft-Calgary and running the whole show on CN except for CP's local traffic? With CN expecting increased traffic to Prince Rupert, why would they want to deal with their competitors extra trains?
Yes, I knew about the UP on BNSF's Chicago-KC route and was wondering if someone would bring it up. I don't have any answer for that one.
If CP took the long detour over Yellowhead pass and back to Calgary, they would still have the long trip east from there over their original transcon across the prairie, which has been mentioned in this thread and in Fred Frailey's blog as being inferior to CN's line which was built later and better engineered. CP might as well just stay on CN to Winnipeg.
Instead I would draw an analogy to the UP crossing of the Sierra's in California. They have 2 lines: the ex-WP and ex-SP. The WP is a longer, low gradient line. The SP is a shorter steeper gradient line. The difference between the summit elevations is about 2000', a little more than the Canadian counterparts. And yet UP has put their money into expanding capacity on the shorter steeper route. That route over Donner pass also has big snow problems like CP.
If Harrison does take over as head of CP then he will probably look at synergies like this with competitors to help CP improve its bottom line. It's probably something he's already considered. Or else how else will he able to make the improvements he's suggested so quickly?
dakotafred Why does BNSF accept UP hotshots off the Golden State Route at Kansas City for forwarding to Chicago?
If my memory serves me right, it's a trackage rights operation that dates back to Southern Pacific. It came about at around the same time that SP picked up the Alton Route between Chicago and St. Louis. The trackage rights may have been negotiated after SP lost its bid for the former MILW line to Kansas City.
UP pays BNSF a lot for the Kansas City - Chicago, and that is why some trains use other all-UP routes, including some via St. Louis. BNSF does expadite these trains, gives them as good a priority as its similar trains, but then the UP does the same for BNSF on the Moffet and the WP and SP west of Salt Lake City
CSSHEGEWISCH dakotafred: Why does BNSF accept UP hotshots off the Golden State Route at Kansas City for forwarding to Chicago? If my memory serves me right, it's a trackage rights operation that dates back to Southern Pacific. It came about at around the same time that SP picked up the Alton Route between Chicago and St. Louis. The trackage rights may have been negotiated after SP lost its bid for the former MILW line to Kansas City.
dakotafred: Why does BNSF accept UP hotshots off the Golden State Route at Kansas City for forwarding to Chicago?
For the (old) record, Paul got it exactly right, as I rediscovered this week in my re-reading of Maury Klein's latest volume on the Union Pacific.
From Page 332 of UNION PACIFIC: THE RECONFIGURATION: "(Phil) Anschutz tried to buy the (then) Soo Line's route between Kansas City and Chicago but settled for a trackage agreement with the (then) BN that finally gave the SP access to Chicago."
Klein doesn't say, but from the context it looks as if this happened in 1990.
An interesting question, pertaining to the original CP-CN topic, would be: If it were to do over, would today's BNSF help out today's UP with the same agreement?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.