Trains.com

CPKC - effects on traffic flows and traffic counts?

16277 views
100 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,066 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, November 24, 2021 5:08 PM

I just got the CP Annual Report in the Mail.    On page 68 they state that Calgary, Alberta will be the global HQ of the merged railroad.    I read somewhere else it was going to be Kansas City.......so I guess KC is out the window now.

On another page it says  the initial name will be CPKC after the merger, it also states that CP will be the Parent company and KCS a wholly owned subsidiary of CP.    So that to me says the CPKC name is not a permanent one and will be along the lines of Lake States Transportation, IMHO.   Time will tell I guess but I have a real hard time believing the Canadians would allow a permanent name change to CP.

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 58 posts
Posted by Ajsik on Wednesday, November 24, 2021 4:57 PM

MP173

We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread.

Oh, sorry I missed that. The original post was in regards to the selection of the CPKC name, a topic I'll let others debate. Thanks for continuing the train count discussion in this thread.

MP173

Very fascinating report filled with tons of data, at least the first 1100 pages.

I've only had time to do a cursory look for details related to the effects we'll see here in the Milwaukee area. I hope to have time to do a deeper dive during the holidays and will pick your brain if anything interesting jumps out at me.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,719 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, November 23, 2021 11:29 AM

We are discussing the CPKCS merger on the other thread.  I leafed thru the first 1150 or so pages of hte application and took notes on certain things, such as train count, tonnage projections, increases in growth, etc.

Very fascinating report filled with tons of data, at least the first 1100 pages.

I noticed also some growth where it was not expected, perhaps this is organic growth in the system, perhaps due to the COVID slowdowns and combinations of trains....but only my thoughts.

Other subdivisions showed little or no growth.  Surprized by the lack of traffic on the line from Shreveport to New Orleans.  Only 2 trains daily with no projected growth.  Would think there would be serious chemical and agriculture movements on that line.  

Mexico lines are far busier than I suspected.

Big changes in store on the Chicago - Sabula - Davenport - Kansas City line and then on the KCS line south from KC.  Big changes.

ed

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 58 posts
Posted by Ajsik on Tuesday, November 23, 2021 8:04 AM

Ajsik

From the Newswire article:

 

 
 

Chicago Bypass

CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago.

The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision.

Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City

 

 

 

Seems like Milwaukee will be seeing a lot less of CPKC than we currently see of CP.

 

Hmm...buried within the 'TRAINS PER DAY BY SUBDIVISION' projections on Page 922 of the application is an estimate that traffic on the Watertown sub will actually INCREASE by an average of 0.9.  This is in spite of the 6.6 per day which are bypassing Chicago via the Marquette sub.

Realistic projection of overall traffic growth or wild optimism?  Or (always a strong possibility), am I missing something?

 

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,346 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:28 AM

Where we nailed his program was the climb up from Omaha towards Cheyenne.  You're Climbing a mile and it does take more fuel to do that than you realize.  We really hammered him when headwinds where figured into his program.  

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,730 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:22 AM

Shadow the Cats owner
The one thing I hate is bean counters here.  Why well we just had one that said cutting the HP of the fleet would save fuel costs according to his models.  I then asked him what was his model based off.  He went a flat route with no wind and no traffic intervention.  I said run it on a route to Salt Lake City and back maximum weight headwinds out and with possible crosswinds.  He does that and cringed.  The specs we are running beat his so called perfect ones by .6 mpg and he said that's impossible.  All I said was real world experience versus silicon chips doing the matching.  His specs had us gear bound and dropping gears in the smallest of hills.  Our fleet specs can power over most smaller climbs without dropping a gear.  

In a similar vein, at one point in time CSX had a maximum speed for coal trains of 40 MPH systemwide.

I was working the Atlanta Division at the time.  Most of Georgia is a series of rolling hills until you get to the coastal plains.  Division officials thought that the 40 MPH speed limit on the division was wasting fuel, despite the bean counters beliving it was saving fuel.  Division officials finally were able get a 'real world' test with two coal trains of similar size and identical power types.  The 'test' train was allowed track speed.  The test was between Atlanta and Waycross.  Once the numbers were taken an verified - the track speed train used 150 gallons per unit less than the 40 MPH train.

The 40 MPH train had to apply the brakes coming downgrade on the hills to maintain 40 MPH and did not have the additional momentum to assist them in climbing the next hill and thus had to use more power to top the grade and then throw away the momentum on the next downgrade.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,346 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:45 AM

The one thing I hate is bean counters here.  Why well we just had one that said cutting the HP of the fleet would save fuel costs according to his models.  I then asked him what was his model based off.  He went a flat route with no wind and no traffic intervention.  I said run it on a route to Salt Lake City and back maximum weight headwinds out and with possible crosswinds.  He does that and cringed.  The specs we are running beat his so called perfect ones by .6 mpg and he said that's impossible.  All I said was real world experience versus silicon chips doing the matching.  His specs had us gear bound and dropping gears in the smallest of hills.  Our fleet specs can power over most smaller climbs without dropping a gear.  

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,066 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, November 8, 2021 8:40 PM

I had heard or read somewhere that the CP can't enlarge the tunnels via Detroit again without compromising them and risking failure.    They enlarged them once already for autoracks.    I think they are stuck with the doublestacks and need new bores altogether if they want to send those through Detroit.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Harrison Township, Michigan
  • 1,457 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Monday, November 8, 2021 5:59 PM
 

greyhounds

Doesn't the CP have rights through the CN tunnel, which can clear double stacks, for two trains each way per day?

 

No CP ended rights on the CN back in 2006. 

 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,730 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, November 8, 2021 2:51 PM

jeffhergert
 
BaltACD 
Michael Vomvolakis
It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity.

For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. 

A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line. 

Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled.

The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains.  PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains. 

Our recrew reports sometimes list "subdivision capacity" as a reason crews couldn't make their next crew change within their HOS.  They ain't talkin' about tonnage capacity.

Subdivisions, especially single tracked ones can only handle so much traffic within a set time period.  Those 20K ton trains, exclusive of bulk commodity types, gum up the works when they might only fit at one or two sidings.  Not so bad if there is only one or two, even better if they're going the same direction.  However, that's not often the case.  Get a bunch of no-fitters each direction and things bog down fast.

But if they save one crew, the bean-counters deem it a success.

Jeff

Mismanaged subdivisions decrease the subdivisions tonnage capacity.

Too many bean counters at headquarters look at a 200 mile single track railroad with 10 or 12 sidings of varying capacity and can't comprehend how that segment of railroad could ever be FULL.

I have worked too many territories where bean counters were making the decisions on what trains to operate and when - and codlocking the railroad tigher than the kill knot on a hangmans rope as they in fact killed the railroad until time and other actions could get it fluid again.  Operating 15K foot trains in both directions on subdivisions that only have 10K foot sidings is a good start.

You are overlooking the one thing about bean counters - if something can be accomplished once with the assistance of special actions and additional personnel, they think that should become the standard operating procedure WITHOUT the special actions and additional personnel.

Remember carriers get paid for the tonnage they haul, not the number of trains it takes them to haul the tonnage.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,310 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Monday, November 8, 2021 1:33 PM

BaltACD

 

 
Michael Vomvolakis
It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity.

For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. 

A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.

 

Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled.

The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains.  PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains.

 

Our recrew reports sometimes list "subdivision capacity" as a reason crews couldn't make their next crew change within their HOS.  They ain't talkin' about tonnage capacity.

Subdivisions, especially single tracked ones can only handle so much traffic within a set time period.  Those 20K ton trains, exclusive of bulk commodity types, gum up the works when they might only fit at one or two sidings.  Not so bad if there is only one or two, even better if they're going the same direction.  However, that's not often the case.  Get a bunch of no-fitters each direction and things bog down fast.

But if they save one crew, the bean-counters deem it a success.

Jeff

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,293 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Monday, November 8, 2021 12:57 PM

Doesn't the CP have rights through the CN tunnel, which can clear double stacks, for two trains each way per day?

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,730 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, November 8, 2021 11:45 AM

Michael Vomvolakis
It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity.

For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length. 

A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.

Capacity is about the tonnage handled, not trains handled.

The basis for PSR is fewer bigger trains.  PSR makes its bones in handling a single 20K ton train instead of four 5K ton trains.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2019
  • 15 posts
Posted by Michael Vomvolakis on Monday, November 8, 2021 11:11 AM

It helps the future CPKC that the Sabula, Iowa-Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri-Shreveport, Louisiana lines are currently underutilized. Upgrades are needed on both, but imagaine the cost of the upgrades needed to handle projected traffic growth if they were at or near capacity.

For example: the KCS mainline between Kansas City and Shreveport only sees about 10-11 train per day. This line is fully equiped with CTC and has been so ever since the (Tom) Carter era in the early 70s. The line could easily handle a half-a-dozen more trains provided they are of shorter length.

 

A good comparsion I would like to know is the projected traffic counts on the future CPKC Shreveport-Chicago line vs current traffic counts CN's New Orleans-Chicago Illinois Central line.

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,346 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Saturday, November 6, 2021 5:45 PM

There's nothing that can't be fixed with enough time and dollars by the truckload thrown at it.  Just look at what the BNSF did at Abo canyon in New Mexico.  The biggest bottleneck on the entire transcon was double tracked just took a couple hundred million dollars to make it happen.  

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Brooklyn Center, MN.
  • 689 posts
Posted by Los Angeles Rams Guy on Saturday, November 6, 2021 5:29 PM

[quote user="Gramp"]

Interesting to see how they deal with the spindly line along the Mississippi River between Crescent City (La Crosse) and Dubuque. 

That's actually La Crescent (more specifically, Bluff at MP 159.0) down to Sabula Jct.  Knowing the Marquette Sub very well, I'll confess that it's not a speedway by any stretch but there's been a lot of work done on it in the last 7-10 years after CPRS acquired DME/ICE and there'll be even more work done (new and extended sidings plus CTC) that'll help even more.  It's been doing just fine thus far and I expect it'll continue to do so.  

"Beating 'SC is not a matter of life or death. It's more important than that." Former UCLA Head Football Coach Red Sanders
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,094 posts
Posted by n012944 on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 6:31 PM

CMStPnP

 

 
MidlandMike
The context was the Chicago corridor/ex-Water Level Route in northern Indiana.

 

It's double track reverse CTC, Chicago to Toledo, in some places it is triple track. nowhere near congested.   

 

 

Porter to Chicago is very congested.   Of course since the CSX line through Grand Rapids also uses that part of the NS, the CP going that way really doesn't help.  

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 872 posts
Posted by Gramp on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 5:58 PM

Interesting to see how they deal with the spindly line along the Mississippi River between La Crescent (La Crosse) and Dubuque. 

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 58 posts
Posted by Ajsik on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 4:40 PM

From the Newswire article:

Chicago Bypass

CPKC’s single-line route linking Western Canada and the Upper Midwest with points on KCS will allow traffic to bypass Chicago.

The railroads estimate that an average of 6.6 additional trains per day – traffic currently interchanged with other railroads in the Windy City – will be routed around Chicago via CP’s Marquette Subdivision.

Creel says this will help alleviate congestion in the Chicago gateway by allowing traffic moving between CP points north and west of Chicago to shift to CPKC single-line routes through Iowa and Kansas City

 

Seems like Milwaukee will be seeing a lot less of CPKC than we currently see of CP.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,066 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 10:24 AM

MidlandMike
The context was the Chicago corridor/ex-Water Level Route in northern Indiana.

It's double track reverse CTC, Chicago to Toledo, in some places it is triple track. nowhere near congested.   Have ridden Capitol Limited Toledo to Chicago and NS nor Conrail before it had any issue letting Amtrak fly at top speed on that leg.

BTW, I have seen CP on Detroit-Toledo-Chicago and Detroit via ex-Wabash.   I think CP still uses both routes.

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 58 posts
Posted by Ajsik on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 10:12 AM
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 5,800 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, October 1, 2021 9:08 PM

SD60MAC9500
There's no tight capacity on NS lines east. Especially the Wabash.. Matter of fact there's plenty of capacity. If anything terminal capacity is the issue these days.

The context was the Chicago corridor/ex-Water Level Route in northern Indiana.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Harrison Township, Michigan
  • 1,457 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Friday, October 1, 2021 3:32 PM

MidlandMike

 

 
SD60MAC9500
 

 

 
MidlandMike

Regarding CHI-DET, CP once used CSX's ex-PM route thru Grand Rapids.  Could be an alternate for the more crowded corridors.  CSX has sold much of their other Michigan track, maybe they would also part with this trackage.

 

 

 

CP also once used CN's GTW Flint/South Bend Subs to get across Michigan. I think 2003-2006. NS has provided CP with a cost effective agreement plus a more direct route.

 
 

 

 

Yes NS is more direct, but I was responding to a post regarding tight capacity on NS.

 

There's no tight capacity on NS lines east. Especially the Wabash.. Matter of fact there's plenty of capacity. If anything terminal capacity is the issue these days.

Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 5,800 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Thursday, September 30, 2021 8:36 PM

SD60MAC9500
 

 

 
MidlandMike

Regarding CHI-DET, CP once used CSX's ex-PM route thru Grand Rapids.  Could be an alternate for the more crowded corridors.  CSX has sold much of their other Michigan track, maybe they would also part with this trackage.

 

 

 

CP also once used CN's GTW Flint/South Bend Subs to get across Michigan. I think 2003-2006. NS has provided CP with a cost effective agreement plus a more direct route.

 
 

Yes NS is more direct, but I was responding to a post regarding tight capacity on NS.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Harrison Township, Michigan
  • 1,457 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:37 PM
 

MidlandMike

Regarding CHI-DET, CP once used CSX's ex-PM route thru Grand Rapids.  Could be an alternate for the more crowded corridors.  CSX has sold much of their other Michigan track, maybe they would also part with this trackage.

 

CP also once used CN's GTW Flint/South Bend Subs to get across Michigan. I think 2003-2006. NS has provided CP with a cost effective agreement plus a more direct route.

 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,234 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Wednesday, September 29, 2021 7:19 AM

While this link is from Wikipedia, it does have some historical data. Back then KCS paid what at that time was considered an enormous sum of $1.4 billion for their 50-year operating concession of what are now known as Kansas City Southern de Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_Southern_de_México

 

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,053 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Wednesday, September 29, 2021 4:18 AM

CNSF2
- If the synergies are so great, why didn't CP go after KCS twenty years ago in response to CN's acquisition of WC and IC?  For that matter, why didn't CN complete the hat trick and snap up KCS then as well?

First,25 years ago KCS was the first runner up in the contest to acquire the SP. Failing that they bet the farm on TFM which became KCSdeM. Twenty years ago no one was ready to bet on KCS due to that debt and the story playing out in Mexico.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    July 2014
  • 58 posts
Posted by Ajsik on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 3:45 PM

CNSF2
- If the synergies are so great, why didn't CP go after KCS twenty years ago in response to CN's acquisition of WC and IC?  For that matter, why didn't CN complete the hat trick and snap up KCS then as well?

Is this a more attractive merger with USMCA than when NAFTA was in effect?

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,719 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 2:30 PM

CNSF2 -

Well stated.  I agree with you on the inferiority of the CPKC route...I cannot figure out how they will able to compete on the important Toronto - Chicago and Chicago - KC lanes.  It appears time-sensitive intermodal business is out of the question. CPKC will be required to set up dependable service...if that means 2-3 days slower, then make it dependable and extract the best possible revenue possible.  Find the freight that doesnt require fast service...such as agriculture or the previously discussed oil.  This is really going to require marketing and sales to do their jobs.

Perhaps the managements understand where the big revenue is going to come from.  

Ed

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:28 AM

CNSF2

- If the synergies are so great, why didn't CP go after KCS twenty years ago in response to CN's acquisition of WC and IC?  For that matter, why didn't CN complete the hat trick and snap up KCS then as well?

For answers to your questions you mearly have to look at the railway landscape twenty years ago. Hunter Harrison was in charge at CN he was looking to cut, cut, cut to get his OR down. David O'Brien was President at CP, and he had just sold off Soo's line to KC. At KCS you had Michael Haverty. No way was the CPKC or CNKC deal going to happen with those men around, except possibly KCS buying the "Corn Lines". Perhaps shockingly it was Fred Green who realized that CP needed to reach KC. I don't think that if EHH was in charge that would have happened.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy