I don't think you factored-in the UP - Mexican railroad interchange in your evaluation.
Vermontanan2 Well, I don't believe Schneider. Again it seems too much a coincidence that the "switch" came right after the CP-KCS merger was approved. I think they are saying this because they got some kind of sweetheart deal from CPKC. The CPKC routing is costing them big time in equipment cycle time, so they must be getting something in return. The "single line" excuse only gets you so far.
Well, I don't believe Schneider. Again it seems too much a coincidence that the "switch" came right after the CP-KCS merger was approved. I think they are saying this because they got some kind of sweetheart deal from CPKC. The CPKC routing is costing them big time in equipment cycle time, so they must be getting something in return. The "single line" excuse only gets you so far.
I am sure that CP and both Schneider and K/S were talking for months before the STB decision and merger. I am also sure that CPKC undercut UP rate by at least a little bit. Note too that the agreement covers only Upper Midwest - Mexico traffic.
Beyond that, their claim makes no sense. Having been involved in mergers before, it seems unlikely that mere weeks after the merger, all of a sudden there can be seamless one-carrier tracking of their shipments and handling of their equipment. Also, CPKC's single line seamlessness isn't a real thing, since they are at the mercy of other carriers (some of which are competition) between Robstown and Beaumont, across the Chicago terminal, and between Chicago and Detroit or the Buffalo area. Couple all these inferiorities together and a direct UP-CN interchange in Joliet looks pretty darn seamless in itself.
Again I will point out the agreement only covers Mexico - Upper Midwest which may or may not include Detroit traffic. I have never seen Toronto or Montreal included in the Upper Midwest. As for UP stabbing CPKC in Houston or South Texas, well that would look good as a counter to CPKC being unable to deliver UP traffic in Laredo in a timely manner.
We don't know if this market from Mexico to Detroit or Toronto is all that lucrative. It really remains to be seen. But if it is, the will to retrieve the business and the technology to do it to create similar seamlessness akin to "single line" is clearly achievable. UP/CN can match the CPKC service Schneider supposedly likes, but CPKC will never ever be able to match the highly superior and less-costly route and operating profile of UP/CN in this lane. If the business is that worthwhile, CPKC is doomed to lose it eventually.
Remember CPKCdeM. The CPKC/UP/CN route is superior, but the FXE/UP/CN route is inferior and significantly longer than the all CPKC route.
I am just curious why they used the C&NW servicemark for this new intermodal service instead of comming up with a new name. Was C&NW's intermodal service ever offered at the premium level? Just curious.
daveklepper I don't think you factored-in the UP - Mexican railroad interchange in your evaluation.
The common concern among the other Class I railraods reflected in their filings with the STB (including UP and CN) is the border crossing at Laredo. For some reason the fear is KCS and CP can move to take that border crossing over and issue prohibitively high joint rates to get traffic across that popular crossing. Not sure where that fear is comming from as everyone knows CN is like Darth Vader and UP is just about an iron blanket over the United States West of Illinois.
Also, seems to me I never had to wait on a scheduled CP train. UP? can't seem to ever run Amtrak on time or their own steam excursions. CN? Hostile to everyone and no real community relations worth mentioning.....Darth Vader.
CN and UP seem to be fairly good with customer service though UP is kind of fraying on the edges a little I hear with their service.
CMStPnP I am just curious why they used the C&NW servicemark for this new intermodal service instead of comming up with a new name. Was C&NW's intermodal service ever offered at the premium level? Just curious.
CMStPnPWas C&NW's intermodal service ever offered at the premium level?
Certainly was! The Falcon is what helped with the demise of ATSF's Super C. The Falcon ran from Wood Street in Chicago to East LA. Bypassing Omaha on the Missouri Valley line heading to Fremont, NE where interchange took place and UP power was added, rolling onto the Overland Route for LA via Ogden, UT.. Transit time was set for a 50H Schedule with CNW/UP besting it at times.
To the CPKC SNDL and K-S contracts. CP was in talks with SNDL at the same time they inked a deal with UP. I believe UP already knew this. With the SWIFT deal CPKC is only getting roughly 50% of the traffic from Laredo. The balance will still travel UP rails in the CHI-LAR lane.
I remember seeing the Falcons sail through Dekalb, IL when I was at NIU. I recall a Northwestern official saying they chose that name because they were stealing the traffic from their competitors.
Gramp I remember seeing the Falcons sail through Dekalb, IL when I was at NIU. I recall a Northwestern official saying they chose that name because they were stealing the traffic from their competitors.
For many years, and perhaps to this very day, Geneva Subdivision dispatchers called intermodal trains "Birds" because the original TOFC Falcon train trailers had big falcon bird logos on their sides.
Today (May 11) was supposed to be the day CPKC starts its new intermodal trains. Hope to catch them on the Steel Highway railcams. They also have a couple of cams on UP's Spine Line, where larger and larger blocks of doublestack containers have been showing up on manifests in recent weeks. I think these are Twin Cities/Texas.
- Ed Kyle
We should probably have a separate thread for the initial CPKC trains, which run as the "Mexico Midwest Express" service, numbers MMX 180 and 181, between Chicago and San Luis Potosi (north of Mexico City). They say they have third-day service to Laredo, fourth-day service to/from Monterrey, and 4.5 day (98 hours transit time) to San Luis Potosi.
The interesting thing here is that in March 2022, CP/KCS/KCSdeM ran a test service from the west-coast port of Lazaro Cardenas via SLP to Chicago, with a time "from vessel arrival at Lazaro to train arrival [Bensenville Yard] in seven days". That is over a day and a half shorter than the time the Falcon "premium service" lists between Detroit and Monterrey.
Apparently an important part of Falcon Service is that it serves the 'inland port' adjacent to Silao, which is close to the geographic center of Mexico. This is reached from Halifax in 13.2 days, and Halifax from the IP in 12.8, perhaps reflecting the trans-border delay southbound that another poster was concerned with.
The northbound was out of Monterrey, MX shortly after midnight on May 11th and was headed by CP SD70ACU 7030. It was reported passing the Victoria, TX railcam shortly before 3 am on May12th. The southbound was out of Bensenville right after the commuter rush, exact time not reported. The southbound was captured on the Muscatine, IA railcam at 3:25 am on May 12th. It was lead by KCS ET44AC 5017.
Southbound CPKC Train 180 passed Muscatine at 0526 on Saturday May 13. It had two CP locomotives and 27 well cars with about 51 orange containers, all likely Schneider. I haven't seen a Train 181 yet, as of 7 AM on May 13.
JayBee I am sure that CP and both Schneider and K/S were talking for months before the STB decision and merger. I am also sure that CPKC undercut UP rate by at least a little bit. Note too that the agreement covers only Upper Midwest - Mexico traffic.
The "undercutting" corresponds roughly to the merger date. Not a coincidence, and not necessarily sustainable. That the agreement covers only Midwest-Mexico traffic speaks volumes about Schneider's expectation of CPKC service in other corridors.
JayBee Remember CPKCdeM. The CPKC/UP/CN route is superior, but the FXE/UP/CN route is inferior and significantly longer than the all CPKC route.
Indeed, a Mexico City to Chicago routing is just about the same mileage via CPKC versus FXE-UP. But the FXE-UP service is advertised from Silao (237 miles from Mexico City) and Monterrey. The salient point is that FXE has a much broader network in Mexico than CPKC, as does UP in the United States and CN in Canada, so the likelihood that CPKC will be at a mileage disadvantage for any new service lanes is very good. And mileage isn't all that matters. In the US, the CPKC route has many more grades and is without alternates to address any fluidity concerns or service interruptions.
Of course BNSF can assist CPKC to and from western Canada and NS and/or CSX to Eastern Canada on both mileage and diversions, if the traffic is there.
Somehow, I don't think that CPKC would be too willing to shorthaul itself.
But help with diversions when required?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.