CPKC STB Hearing Recap (Part 1) - Shortline's Rail News & Comment Episode 10

[@Shortline819]

7:25: I didn't see this at the time but CPKC has suggested their own alt-route bypassing Houston via Texarkana, Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo.

[@TheOofertaffy]

I really hope this merger goes through and is successful with no gimmicks that the STB for whatever would give to CP-KCS, seeing the first railroad to server the whole of North America would be revolutionary!

[@Shortline819]

Indeed.

[@O-PAC]

I live in Houston so here’s my opinion….Maybe if UP hadn’t pulled up the MKT Eureka yard to Katy, TX segment in 1997 in order to widen Interstate 10 and maybe if UP hadn’t pulled up the Southern Pacific Bellaire branch connection to Eagle Lake in 2000, maybe, just maybe they wouldn’t have this problem. However, UP is fairly arrogant in its operating practices. They’d sell their soul to save a buck. UP abandoned the Rosenberg to Victoria line, ripped up the tracks, and then immediately protested when KCS came in and wanted it. They fought tooth and nail in order to prevent KCS from having it, saying they still had vested interest in the line. Well, you got rid of your vested interest when you filed for abandonment AND ripped out all the tracks and infrastructure. That obviously shows you weren’t planning on doing anything with it. So KCS was allowed to buy it, and KCS reactivated it, installing new track and infrastructure. So now that UP wants to whine about “capacity problems” in Houston, I have no sympathy. The capacity problems is of your own decision making.

[@Shortline819]

I don't disagree. There will be more about Houston in part 2. CP had a video of a KCS train running through Houston that showed UP's abysmal operating practices in the region such as running trains longer than sidings. CP CEO Creel got up in front of everyone and basically told UP how to run their railroad properly for a half hour. It was quite funny. Having a spaghetti bowl of lines like UP has (or had) in Texas comes with the benefit of operational flexibility. If one line gets clogged up you can simply divert the traffic over another one. It is more expensive; however, when you probably end up losing more money long-term due to congestion than it takes to maintain those lines. UP has a great route structure, the best in the country, but has no idea how to use it. I've also heard rumors, and maybe you have too, that UP has been running trains of unsorted cars randomly around Houston just to cut back on dwell time. Sure the yards are less clogged, but operating that way comes to bite you since your track capacity is being clogged up with pointless trains. SP did something simular in the leadup to the 1979/1980 meltdown with predictable results.

[@hortenciogomez5193]

One thing I would like to say is that CN has a friendly connection with NS at Detroit. When u watch railfanning videos about the NS Detroit to KC line (ex-Wabash), u can see that NS is hauling CN and GTW 86’ boxcars and sometimes other CN boxcars. How come CN doesn’t just ask NS to gain haulage rights or trackage rights over that line, for NS to utilize more of that line. Additionally, NS used to have Chi-KC and vice versa via trackage rights on CN’s ex-IC mainline from Chicago to Gilman, IL, and on the ex-IC Gilman district from Gilman, IL to Gibson City, IL. This is where CN could’ve have a joint venture with NS for Chi-KC trains. IMO this is a better option for CN to gain access to KC than at least gaining trackage rights on the KCS Springfield line to KC. I think the KCS Springfield line is a better fit for CPKC than CN.

[@Shortline819]

I think there are two reasons why CN is going after the Springfield Line/Gateway Western. The first is that the line was already set for an upgrade if the CN-KCS merger went through. Why not find a way to reuse all those plans then make a new one? The second is that CN wants to "get back" at CN at CP and KCS for merging. The Wabash is very interesting. It's one of the only major rail lines in the country that is significantly shorter than the highway between its endpoints. (Kansas City and Detroit.) It also bypasses both Chicago and St. Louis. For Chicago-Kansas City trains I think a joint venture along the lines of what you described makes sense. NS has been open to collaboration over the western half of the Wabash in the past. (UP got trackage rights between Kansas City and Springfield a few years ago for intermodal trains but never used them.) I think it would make the most sense for CN to try and aim for rights over the entire Wabash; however, I think it would be limited to just haulage rights rather than trackage rights or a joint venture.

[@detroitdieselseries5071]

When will part 2 be out?

[@Shortline819]

Hopefully, within the next week. I'm 2/3rds of the way editing it.

[@rondav41]

I believe that cp gave up its trackage rights between chicago and detroit on the csx a few years ago. I believe they are still happy with the trackage rights between chicago and detroit on ns and doubt they the grand trunk line would be a better alternative;

[@hortenciogomez5193]

CP only has limited trackage rights between Chicago and Detroit via NS. If CP were to increase train traffic between Chicago, Detroit, and Toronto, CP would have to run some of the Chicago bound trains that does work at Detroit-Windsor via either CSX or CN, while running the rest of CP trains via NS.