New CPKC Trains

[ns145]

Vermontanan2

 

NS 145: I agree that the CPKC line from Mexico City to Laredo has the most dense amount of traffic.  But I don't with your statement, "CPKC will force the long haul to the furthest distant US interchange points possible.  And with that $31 billion purchase price they are going to have to milk the cow dry.  Circuity won't matter when the longest CPKC service routes are the cheapest ones for shippers."  

This seems contradictory.  It's true that $31 billion price tag is an albatross that needs to be addressed, but there is a point when circuity matters.  And circuity is what is going to limit what CPKC can charge and still make money.  Example: A car from Mexico to Indianapolis for CSX delivery.  On the UP routing, UP takes the car to interchange to CSX in St. Elmo, Illinois (on a run-through train), then direct to Indianapolis, 1294 miles from Laredo.  If CPKC forces the interchange to CSX in Chicago (their nearest location), the mileage balloons to 1917 miles or almost 50% more.  So on a strictly distance basis, CPKC is going to take half again as long.  Throw in CPKC's limitation of a single route with steeper grades versus UP's directional running across Texas and Arkansas on flatter terrain and with much greater meet/pass capability, and the "new" CPKC routing will likely take twice as long or more.  That begs the question:  So can CPKC really afford to be cheaper and still pay of its debt?  And is it only artificially cheaper to get the business but isn't covering the cost of the operation?  And, given the doubling of car cycle time, can the shipper really afford the extra transit time?  This depends on the commodity, but the bottom line is that CPKC's route (and there really is just one) is so skeletal, that situations like this Indianapolis example will be the rule more often than the exception.  Sure, CPKC could force cars for Mobile and Wichita to move hundreds of extra miles via Shreveport to interchange at New Orleans and Dallas for a longer haul on their railroad (with great cost), but they're not going to "corner the market" on traffic for the Western USA; UP's still going to get that.

In the end, traffic tends to gravitate to the most-efficient, lowest-cost routes.  And that's never going to be CPKC north of the Mexico-USA border.

 

 

CPKC will poison-pill their portion of joint rates with UP to meet or beat the combined CPKC/UP routing rates.

See paragraph 4 in the UP lawsuit newswire story - this is exactly what UP is concerned about:

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/laredo-and-houston-concerns-prompted-union-pacific-lawsuit-over-stbs-canadian-pacific-kansas-city-southern-merger-decision/

Post-Staggers/PSR, the most efficient routes don't always win out if one railroad has dominant control over a traffic source.  Its just too easy to manipulate joint rates and special car handling charges at interchange gateways.  All the shippers care about is what the final price is.  I'm sure many of them know that they are getting swindled in many cases, but its pretty obvious that the STB is useless in resolving these situations.  Typical American approach.  The ICC had too much power so we'll fix things by creating a new entity with not enough power.  Bad outcomes in both cases, but at least they're different bad outcomes.  Mission accomplished.

[Vermontanan2]

 

NS 145: I agree that the CPKC line from Mexico City to Laredo has the most dense amount of traffic.  But I don't with your statement, "CPKC will force the long haul to the furthest distant US interchange points possible.  And with that $31 billion purchase price they are going to have to milk the cow dry.  Circuity won't matter when the longest CPKC service routes are the cheapest ones for shippers."  

This seems contradictory.  It's true that $31 billion price tag is an albatross that needs to be addressed, but there is a point when circuity matters.  And circuity is what is going to limit what CPKC can charge and still make money.  Example: A car from Mexico to Indianapolis for CSX delivery.  On the UP routing, UP takes the car to interchange to CSX in St. Elmo, Illinois (on a run-through train), then direct to Indianapolis, 1294 miles from Laredo.  If CPKC forces the interchange to CSX in Chicago (their nearest location), the mileage balloons to 1917 miles or almost 50% more.  So on a strictly distance basis, CPKC is going to take half again as long.  Throw in CPKC's limitation of a single route with steeper grades versus UP's directional running across Texas and Arkansas on flatter terrain and with much greater meet/pass capability, and the "new" CPKC routing will likely take twice as long or more.  That begs the question:  So can CPKC really afford to be cheaper and still pay of its debt?  And is it only artificially cheaper to get the business but isn't covering the cost of the operation?  And, given the doubling of car cycle time, can the shipper really afford the extra transit time?  This depends on the commodity, but the bottom line is that CPKC's route (and there really is just one) is so skeletal, that situations like this Indianapolis example will be the rule more often than the exception.  Sure, CPKC could force cars for Mobile and Wichita to move hundreds of extra miles via Shreveport to interchange at New Orleans and Dallas for a longer haul on their railroad (with great cost), but they're not going to "corner the market" on traffic for the Western USA; UP's still going to get that.

In the end, traffic tends to gravitate to the most-efficient, lowest-cost routes.  And that's never going to be CPKC north of the Mexico-USA border.

 

[MP173]

Ed:
Great report.  I look forward to seeing it daily.  While the train count is important, to me the critical number is the number of revenue loads (containers) on the 180/181.  It will be of interest to see how that volume changes over the next few months.

On a totally unrelated topic...has anyone seen the new Virtual Railfan "Big 10 Curve" webcam?  Not much action on the line (ex Rio Grande west of Denver) but it is quite a view.  Sorry to hijack this thread.  If discussion warrants I will start a new thread.

 

ed

[Ed Kyle]

This morning (May 25, 2023) finally saw a sizable southbound stack train through Iowa.  Train 180 had 44 platforms with 86 Schneider containers, about 30 containers more than any prior train.  

Meanwhile, Train 181 has still been intermittent, running only eight times during the past 12 days through Ottumwa.  On May 22 it carried a peak of 63 containers after not running the day before.

A few doublestacks have even appeared through Dubuque on manifests headed north.  These were not Schneiders.

Overall train counts are little changed from before.  During the past 11 days an average of 6.6 trains have passed Ottumwa daily, including 2.5 manifest, 1.5 intermodal, and 1.1 tank trains.  The rest have been covered hopper, sand, or coal unit trains.  Train counts ranged from 5 to 8 per day.

[ns145]

CPKC can corner the market on the traffic that they control originating in Mexico.  According to a TRAINS article in November 2013, the KCSM lines moved 40-45% of all the rail traffic in Mexico.  They also serve something like 13 of the 16 auto plants in Mexico.  Ferromex looks way bigger and badder on a map, but in reality its mostly made up of a lot of light density lines.

With control of that traffic, CPKC will force the long haul to the furthest distant US interchange points possible.  And with that $31 billion purchase price they are going to have to milk the cow dry.  Circuity won't matter when the longest CPKC service routes are the cheapest ones for shippers.  And with traffic terminating in Mexico, they can raise their Mexico-only joint rates with UP high enough to make it more cost-effective to move traffic south in their new single line service.  There is a real threat here to UP's near-monopoly between Chicago and Mexico, which is why they are initiating legal action.

In all fairness, though, IF UP was willing to make use of its more direct routes and lower operating costs to undercut CPKC's rates by a considerable margin, I do think that UP could put CPKC in great peril.  The trouble is no Class I wants to steal traffic away from another carrier using such means.  Can't get a 55 OR going that route.  I don't dispute your "UP is physically superior argument", but given how rail economics currently work it all becomes irrelevant (which just goes to show how distorted everything has become in the rail industry).

[Vermontanan2]

MidlandMike

 

 

Vermontanan2

UP still gets more traffic at Laredo than CPKC, ...

 

 

It's unknown what will happen now that the former KCS has become part of a single line that goes beyond KC.

 

True.  But there is a lot we do already know, such as the reason that UP has most of the traffic at Laredo is because their route system is much more extensive than KCS, and will continue to be as such compared to CPKC.  We also know that wherever a car going through Laredo destined to a point “beyond KC” (served by both UP and CPKC) is going, it will take longer, require more locomotive power and fuel to get it there, and will require a longer equipment cycle time if CPKC is used.

 

Not all of the traffic going through Laredo is destined for Chicago.  And there is are a whole lot of Houstons, Oklahoma Citys, Denvers, Little Rocks, Austins, Tulsas, Des Moines (etc.) where single-car routings just aren’t possible.  Sure, CPKC goes to places UP doesn’t go, but they are relatively limited.  No one is home in North Dakota, California has almost as many people as all of Canada, and Washington and Oregon have about the same population as British Columbia and the three prairie provinces combined.

 

The route from Laredo to Chicago is 25% longer via CPKC than UP. For traffic beyond there to other locations in the Upper Midwest and Middle Atlantic (such as Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York) via interchange to CSX and NS, the mileage difference is even greater.  While CPKC HAS to interchange in Chicago, UP can hand off trains in rural Illinois in St. Elmo and Sidney – significantly shorter.  And while CPKC may tout “single line” service between Chicago, Detroit, and Toronto, having literally the longest possible route through Chicago followed by nearly 300 miles of trackage rights on a really busy route easily negates the “single line” claim being at the mercy of other railroads.

 

 

All this on a backdrop of the fact that in the USA, CPKC’s routes are longer, slower and steeper than UP where they do compete, and someway somehow, CPKC will have to address this huge operational deficiency….if it is even possible to do so.

 

 

NS145

 

CPKC is superior because they control the best rail franchise in Mexico and can corner the market.  Any traffic to/from UP via Laredo will be subject to a joint rate that CPKC will set for the portion of the movement south of Laredo.  Not too hard to imagine how CPKC can work this situation to their advantage, especially if you're UP (they know all about cornering markets).

 

 

Well, CPKC has the superior route from Laredo to Mexico City.  Not the case for the rest of Mexico and certainly not the case in the United States.

 

It’s unlikely they can “corner the market” when their “market” north of the border is so sparse.  UP goes everywhere in the Western two-thirds of the country.  CPKC has basically one route up the middle.  CPKC is never going to “corner the market” on shipments to/from Denver, Phoenix, California, Portland, or Oklahoma City.  Or even Houston where its trains to/from Mexico get to enjoy all the potential delays of operating through one of the most complex and congested terminals in the country on their competitor’s infrastructure, while at the same time not having access to the nation’s fifth-largest metro area and largest Gulf port.

 

And I’m sure UP and Ferromex will not be sitting still through all this.  With UP’s vast system, and controlling all the other Mexican interchanges, they, too can control routings.  It’s not like the CPKC merger has created a behemoth.  CPKC is still the smallest Class I railroad (by revenue) and has the smallest imprint on the largest market (the USA). 

 

I actually find all this hoopla over CPKC’s “Single Line” route quite comedic.  Why is it such a great thing now?  After all, CP got access to Kansas City in 2008.  Why not merge then?  And let’s not forget that in the interim, there were the attempted marriages with CSX and NS.  Was acquisition of KCS a really great deal or just the only remaining spinster?

 

[MidlandMike]

Vermontanan2

UP still gets more traffic at Laredo than CPKC, ...

It's unknown what will happen now that the former KCS has become part of a single line that goes beyond KC.

[ns145]

CPKC is superior because they control the best rail franchise in Mexico and can corner the market.  Any traffic to/from UP via Laredo will be subject to a joint rate that CPKC will set for the portion of the movement south of Laredo.  Not too hard to imagine how CPKC can work this situation to their advantage, especially if you're UP (they know all about cornering markets).

[Vermontanan2]

Los Angeles Rams Guy

Oh, then I guess it's just my imagination that UP has its undies all bunched up acct the Laredo gateway then, huh? 

 

It pretty much is.  While I have no standing to speak for the UP, I doubt they're sweating this as much as CPKC is.  They still handle the vast majority of traffic between the USA and Mexico simply because they have access to all the current border crossings (except Tijuana, which isn’t connected to the Mexican rail network).  UP still gets more traffic at Laredo than CPKC, and according the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2019 (a pre-Covid year) rail traffic handled at Eagle Pass/Piedras Negras was 73% that of Laredo/Nuevo Laredo, and while this is both UP and BNSF interchange to Ferromex, NONE of it was to KCSM, which is the case everywhere along the border because Laredo is the only border crossing served by KCS.  (KCSM serves Matamoros, but the interchange at Brownsville is with UP.)  CPKC has all their eggs in the Laredo basket, as well as a single longer, steeper route to get to Laredo on the USA side.  On the Mexico side, Ferromex has a much more extensive network than CPKC, and it appears (per the Ferromex system map) that they have trackage rights south from Saltillo on CPKC.

Again, I can't speak for UP, but they certainly have the ability to hold CPKC's feet to the fire with regard to walking the talk.  So far, CPKC has been mostly talk and no walk, and even with the new Schneider business, we don't know if CPKC is making any money on it.  While UP can jab CPKC in the media and the courts, CPKC needs to recoup the $31 billion purchase price of KCS as well as upgrade its railroad for the bonanza of new traffic it is promising will materialize.  This remains to be seen, of course, and pretty much the only thing we hear consistently from CPKC is their touting of "single line service."  While technology and communication can most likely improve fluidity between interchange partners like UP and FXE and UP and CN, CPKC is forever stuck with their longer, limited route from Laredo the Midwest, time-consuming traversing of the Chicago terminal, and trackage rights dependency east of there.  Case in point:  CN's route from Western Canada to Chicago is longer than CP, but they handle much more traffic across the border at Ranier, MN than the CP does at Portal, ND.  Why?  Because the mileage difference is minimal (unlike the Mexico routes), and that CN has a much more extensive network in Western Canada with lower operating costs on their superior operating profile through Yellowhead Pass and elsewhere.  They also have the superior route structure (through their acquisition of the EJ&E) through Chicago as well as their own route east of Chicago.  Over the course of time, trade between Mexico and the USA will increase as it historically has, and CPKC will get some of this, but overall – as in the case just about everywhere – traffic will gravitate to the most cost-effective route which will be UP north of the border and either CPKC or Ferromex south of the border depending on destination.

 

Los Angeles Rams Guy

So much for our "inferior" routing.  

 

Referencing the adjective “our,” I take it you’re a CPKC employee?  Please feel free to elaborate why you think CPKC is superior, and don’t forget origin/destination locations throughout the Western USA.

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Vermontanan2

 

 

CMStPnP

So I can tell from the comments above you have never been to Dallas

 

 

 

Been there literally hundreds of times in the 22 years I lived in the Metroplex.  Try again.

 

 

CMStPnP

and just looking at a route map which in the case of DFW is somewhat generalized and vague.   They have one mainline into Garland which is a suburb of Dallas.   I would not call it a "branch line" from the maintenence standards maybe might be operationally.    Off that mainline they have a branch to Plano from Wylie and I believe off to Fort Worth (Alliance).   As for minimal customer access, they have more than one intermodal facility here.   I don't know about frieght yards as their trackage is too extensive and spread out through out the metro area.   Would take days to follow it all.

 

 

 

Not really.  KCS's presence in the Dallas area is pretty limited.  Actually, their line from Shreveport to Dallas is up to main line standards - good for 60 MPH for intermodal trains and has CTC.  Most of the intermodal traffic is to/from NS interchange at Meridian, Mississippi.

They only have the one intermodal facility at Wylie.  Most KCS activity in the Metroplex is limited to this area North and Northeast of Dallas, though they do interchange with UP and DG&NO.  KCS (or CPKC) does operate trains (once a day is about it) through to BNSF's Alliance Yard via the former ATSF Dallas line through Lewisville to Metro (then on BNSF from Metro to Alliance).  But overall, KCS's presence in Fort Worth - the area's railroad center - is zilch.  The many UP and BNSF yards (Intermodal and otherwise) in the Metroplex dwarf anything the KCS has.  Arlington, Midlothian, Irving, Saginaw are just a few of the examples of HUGE areas of traffic generation in the Metroplex where KCS isn't even an afterthought.  They're just not there.

But despite the fact that you failed to prove KCS has significant relevance in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, you also missed the point:  Dallas is but one place, and all the other aforementioned places (in my previous post) CPKC will continue to be shut out of since they just have such a limited "network" in Texas.  In fact, "network" is a bit of misnomer as they have a very skeletal route structure.  Not only do BNSF and UP serve most of the customers in Texas, but unlike CPKC, they don't for the most part have just a singular route.

Should traffic to/from Texas balloon as you suggest, BNSF and UP will benefit to a much greater extent than CPKC can ever hope for considering their fantastically inferior routes.

 

Oh, then I guess it's just my imagination that UP has its undies all bunched up acct the Laredo gateway then, huh?  So much for our "inferior" routing.  

 

[Vermontanan2]

CMStPnP

So I can tell from the comments above you have never been to Dallas

Been there literally hundreds of times in the 22 years I lived in the Metroplex.  Try again.

CMStPnP

and just looking at a route map which in the case of DFW is somewhat generalized and vague.   They have one mainline into Garland which is a suburb of Dallas.   I would not call it a "branch line" from the maintenence standards maybe might be operationally.    Off that mainline they have a branch to Plano from Wylie and I believe off to Fort Worth (Alliance).   As for minimal customer access, they have more than one intermodal facility here.   I don't know about frieght yards as their trackage is too extensive and spread out through out the metro area.   Would take days to follow it all.

Not really.  KCS's presence in the Dallas area is pretty limited.  Actually, their line from Shreveport to Dallas is up to main line standards - good for 60 MPH for intermodal trains and has CTC.  Most of the intermodal traffic is to/from NS interchange at Meridian, Mississippi.

They only have the one intermodal facility at Wylie.  Most KCS activity in the Metroplex is limited to this area North and Northeast of Dallas, though they do interchange with UP and DG&NO.  KCS (or CPKC) does operate trains (once a day is about it) through to BNSF's Alliance Yard via the former ATSF Dallas line through Lewisville to Metro (then on BNSF from Metro to Alliance).  But overall, KCS's presence in Fort Worth - the area's railroad center - is zilch.  The many UP and BNSF yards (Intermodal and otherwise) in the Metroplex dwarf anything the KCS has.  Arlington, Midlothian, Irving, Saginaw are just a few of the examples of HUGE areas of traffic generation in the Metroplex where KCS isn't even an afterthought.  They're just not there.

But despite the fact that you failed to prove KCS has significant relevance in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, you also missed the point:  Dallas is but one place, and all the other aforementioned places (in my previous post) CPKC will continue to be shut out of since they just have such a limited "network" in Texas.  In fact, "network" is a bit of misnomer as they have a very skeletal route structure.  Not only do BNSF and UP serve most of the customers in Texas, but unlike CPKC, they don't for the most part have just a singular route.

Should traffic to/from Texas balloon as you suggest, BNSF and UP will benefit to a much greater extent than CPKC can ever hope for considering their fantastically inferior routes.

[JayBee]

The new Steel Highway Railcam in Clinton, IA is scheduled to go live midweek of the coming week. Due to the location of the host it will be best for CPKC, but will have a limited view of the UP mainline. I have been waiting for this camera as it will give a view of the Chicago trains out of Nahant Yd. It will also allow viewers to see the result of block swapping done at Nahant Yard (Davenport, IA) when combined with the Railcams at Muscatine.

[CMStPnP]

Vermontanan2

And there's a whole lot of Texas CPKC doesn't serve, like Houston/Texas City/Galveston, San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Lubbock, El Paso, Amarillo, Odessa-Midland, Killeen-Temple, Waco, Wichita Falls, etc.  CPKC serves Beaumont/Port Authur and Corpus Christi.  Dallas at the end of a branch line and customer access is minimal.  They will retain whatever interchange is available with NS at Meridian, MS, but otherwise they don't go to most places in Texas or their route is highly inferior.  And accent on route, as in singular.  Unlike BNSF and UP, CPKC's route to Texas from the Upper Midwest - as circuitous as it is - is all they got, circuity, heavy grades and all.

So I can tell from the comments above you have never been to Dallas and just looking at a route map which in the case of DFW is somewhat generalized and vague.   They have one mainline into Garland which is a suburb of Dallas.   I would not call it a "branch line" from the maintenence standards maybe might be operationally.    Off that mainline they have a branch to Plano from Wylie and I believe off to Fort Worth (Alliance).   As for minimal customer access, they have more than one intermodal facility here.   I don't know about frieght yards as their trackage is too extensive and spread out through out the metro area.   Would take days to follow it all.

 

[Vermontanan2]

CMStPnP

So everyone is focused on Mexico because of the press releases from the merger obviously.    Have you looked at or considered CP's new access to Texas?    Texas is growing very rapidly and should fly by California in the next 5-10 years in terms of Economy and Population growth.    Seems to me that has a corresponding impact to railroad revenue and traffic.    It's not just Mexico.

And there's a whole lot of Texas CPKC doesn't serve, like Houston/Texas City/Galveston, San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Lubbock, El Paso, Amarillo, Odessa-Midland, Killeen-Temple, Waco, Wichita Falls, etc.  CPKC serves Beaumont/Port Authur and Corpus Christi.  Dallas at the end of a branch line and customer access is minimal.  They will retain whatever interchange is available with NS at Meridian, MS, but otherwise they don't go to most places in Texas or their route is highly inferior.  And accent on route, as in singular.  Unlike BNSF and UP, CPKC's route to Texas from the Upper Midwest - as circuitous as it is - is all they got, circuity, heavy grades and all.

[Ed Kyle]

And, of course, something changed!  While southbound Train 180 has been consistent, and slowly growing (30 cars with 57 containers on May 19), northbound Train 181 did not appear at all through Iowa on Thursday May 18, 2023.  On Friday May 19, it arrived many hours later than it had previously but also with many more containers and with a tail end surprise.  181 crossed the Ottumwa Subdivision during the early to mid-afternoon (Muscatine at 1522) with KCS 4182/4532 leading 16 intermodal platforms carrying 25 containers, 5 autoracks, and, at its end, filled out with 48 presumably-empty covered hoppers!

[Ed Kyle]

Wednesday May 17, 2023 saw 180/181 again meet somewhere between Muscatine waterfront and Washington, Iowa.  Southbound 180 had 4 autoracks and 22 well cars with 43 containers, most or all Schneider, passing Muscatine at 0555.  Counterpart 181 had two well cars with 3 containers and 21 autoracks passing Muscatine at 0732.  Two locomotives on each train.

With a pattern established, I'll only update going forward if something changes.  I'll be watching for heavier container loadings on 181 for example.  All of those Schneiders going south have to come back eventually, right?

[SD60MAC9500]

traisessive1

 

 

SD60MAC9500

APL Logistics is not a part of APL anymore. APL Logistics is owned by KWE Group. 

 

 

 

 

APL Logisitics and American President Lines are not the same thing. American President Lines APL is owned by CMA CGM. 

 

APL Logistics containers are blue as well. That's my mistake. 

 

Never said they were the same. I'm fully aware of who owns APL these days. Before APL was bought by Neptune Orient Lines in 1997 they operated a few divisions including the container line. APL Land Transport (domestic intermodal network which became Pacer Stacktrain now STG Logistics), and American Eagle Tanker(which NOL sold in 2003). To get techinal NOL operations(NOL remained the name of the holding company)assumed APL's brand and image for recognition so in that regard the original APL didn't exist after 1997. APL Logistics was created in 2001 for the domestic intermodal market and forwarding service. KWE Group bought APL Logistics in 2015 from NOL prior to the CMA-CGM acquisition of NOL/APL Group in 2016.

 

 

[traisessive1]

SD60MAC9500

APL Logistics is not a part of APL anymore. APL Logistics is owned by KWE Group. 

 

 

APL Logisitics and American President Lines are not the same thing. American President Lines APL is owned by CMA CGM. 

 

APL Logistics containers are blue as well. That's my mistake. 

[JayBee]

Ed Kyle

Today's (Tuesday May 16, 2023) intermodals must have met near Muscatine.  180 passed the Muscatine, Iowa waterfront southbound at 0458, 2x0 with 30 well or spine cars and 48 containers (ish).  181 passed northbound at 0620, 2x0 with 8 autoracks and 5 well cars with 8 containers.  Adding to the fun was a northbound sand train at 0436.  Train 181 has been slowly growing since it began, but is still tiny.

 

There were two Bison containers on the first well, Bison is a Canadian trucker.

[Overmod]

MP173

I think a good marketing tool would have been to offer either free service or dramatically reduced rates for the first few trips to allow potential customers to review service.

That makes sense for trolleys, and perhaps even new regional-rail passenger service.  But not, in my opinion, for freight.

Any shipper that 'needs convincing' will watch while competitors try out the system, discover the bugs and failures and lies, and run up the 'learning curve' of the new operation.  Once it is provable established, at a minimum of risk and cost together, they may divert some of their traffic.

Evidently CPKC guaranteed enough QoS to Schneider that they contracted.  Right there you have a need to 'run the franchise' if only with midget consists or power-balancing moves.

Meanwhile, whether or not you throw away prospective revenue, the costs associated with damage or other concerns will still be applicable, but now without any financial upside at all.  In my opinion the only reason to run a 'longer' consist for very small load is if you need the additional axles in some way, for signaling integrity or adequate braking.

[MP173]

Going to take awhile for the loads to show up on those intermodals.  

Consistant service will allow growth.

I think a good marketing tool would have been to offer either free service or dramatically reduced rates for the first few trips to allow potential customers to review service.

Ed

[Ed Kyle]

Today's (Tuesday May 16, 2023) intermodals must have met near Muscatine.  180 passed the Muscatine, Iowa waterfront southbound at 0458, 2x0 with 30 well or spine cars and 48 containers (ish).  181 passed northbound at 0620, 2x0 with 8 autoracks and 5 well cars with 8 containers.  Adding to the fun was a northbound sand train at 0436.  Train 181 has been slowly growing since it began, but is still tiny.

[BaltACD]

SD60MAC9500

 

traisessive1 

JayBee

Ed, I checked, the blue containers were APL Logistics.

APL is a subsidiary of CMA CGM. 

APL Logistics is not a part of APL anymore. APL Logistics is owned by KWE Group. 

Can't tell the players without a updated scorecard.  The players in many cases want all the confusion they can generate to stay ahead of their reputations.

[SD60MAC9500]

traisessive1

 

 

JayBee

Ed, I checked, the blue containers were APL Logistics.

 

APL is a subsidiary of CMA CGM.

 

 

 

 

 

APL Logistics is not a part of APL anymore. APL Logistics is owned by KWE Group. 

[traisessive1]

JayBee

Ed, I checked, the blue containers were APL Logistics.

 

APL is a subsidiary of CMA CGM.

 

[blue streak 1]

CPKC = Very awark.  How about   ==  See Peck?

[JayBee]

Note to anyone wishing to view this train, the railcam's timeclock is still on Central Standard Time so the timestamp is 00:08.

[Ed Kyle]

The second 181 passed Ottumwa around 0108 this morning (May 15, 2023) with about 10 locomotives but only two well cars with four containers!  This train appeared to pick up a manifest and a string of empty well cars before it passed Muscatine at 0402.  Only runt trains heading into Bensenville so far.  Is the bulk of these trains making it to Kansas City?

[JayBee]

Ed Kyle

I've been reviewing the Steel Highway cams.  They have cams at Muscatine, Washington, and Ottumwa, Iowa on the CPKC Ottumwa Subdivision.  They also have cams showing CPKC at Dubuque and a couple other places.  It is interesting to see a train pass a series of cams.  It is equally interesting to see one pass a cam and then sort of disappear.  A manifest passed Washington the other day, for example, and did not reach Muscatine - only 38 or so miles away - until 18 hours had passed!

 

Yes, CPKC was stuffing sidings to wait for crews. Most of the cams have scanners attached. I heard the Trainmaster tell a crew that they were going to take 1-260 and put it in a siding from Ottumwa and then take a second train. This was on Saturday.

 

[Ed Kyle]

MP173

Ed Kyle:

Do you live in Muscatine or that area or is there a webcam you access.

I always enjoyed my travels to Muscatine...busy small town with lots of industry.  The drive on Iowa 22 along the Mississippi (and the CP line, ex Rock Island) was scenic.

Ed

I've been reviewing the Steel Highway cams.  They have cams at Muscatine, Washington, and Ottumwa, Iowa on the CPKC Ottumwa Subdivision.  They also have cams showing CPKC at Dubuque and a couple other places.  It is interesting to see a train pass a series of cams.  It is equally interesting to see one pass a cam and then sort of disappear.  A manifest passed Washington the other day, for example, and did not reach Muscatine - only 38 or so miles away - until 18 hours had passed!