CN-UP Routing Protocol

[Anonymous]

NOVEMBER 24, 2004 - 10:03 ET

CN AND UNION PACIFIC REACH ROUTING PROTOCOL AGREEMENT
TO EXPEDITE INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC

MONTREAL, QUEBEC and OMAHA, NEBRASKA–(CCNMatthews - Nov. 24, 2004) - CN
and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) announced today that they have reached a
routing protocol agreement to streamline their exchange of rail traffic
at major gateways. The agreement will help to reduce rail congestion at
Chicago.

Under the protocol, CN and UP have established a structured plan to
direct rail traffic flows through the most efficient interchange
locations, a change that will improve transit times and asset
utilization for the customers of CN and UP. The new routing protocol
will be implemented over a three-month period.

James Foote, CN’s executive vice-president, sales and marketing, said:
“With the significant amount of North American rail freight travelling
over more than one carrier, we work continually with our rail partners
to find new and innovative ways to improve customer service and rail
efficiency. We firmly believe this routing protocol with UP will help to
expedite shipments, generate more system capacity, improve equipment
cycles and help to control costs.”

Jack Koraleski, UP’s executive vice-president - marketing and sales,
said: “It is very important that Union Pacific move freight across the
continent as seamlessly as possible. This agreement with CN will help to
improve traffic flows and network fluidity, permit better planning, and
increase our ability to make the best use of our system.”

The major interchange points for traffic moving between CN and UP are
Superior, Wis., Chicago, Salem, Ill., Memphis, Baton Rouge, La., and,
via Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Vancouver, B.C.

The routing protocol will result in a number of changes in traffic

[daveklepper]

About time, but good news anyway

[CShaveRR]

Greetings from the choke-point!

It sounds like we’ll be somewhat less busy when these changes are put into effect. but if it improves the traffic flow overall, it’s a good thing. As someone who sees the interchange movement between CN and UP at Proviso, I can only hope that things improve–an examination of which cars go where is long overdue.

Note that all three scenarios deal with avoiding Chicago by taking traffic off the UP through there.

“Wisconsin traffic between Texas and Arkansas” Boy, if that doesn’t sound like our car-service folks, taking business between Texas and Arkansas and routing it via Wisconsin! If what is meant was “traffic between Wisconsin and Texas or Arkansas”, it sounds like a pair of run-through trains between WC and IC will be handling this. The western-traffic routing sounds like a lot of the chemical and petroleum business will go south on the Spine Line instead of southeast through Chicago. The UP’s Kansas City terminal will become busier as a result of this one. Traffic for the south from eastern points will move from GTW to IC (for Salem), instead of being delivered to Yard Center and going down to St. Louis (I assume it goes to Yard Center–we don’t get much southbound traffic off the old GTW at Proviso).

I just hope it doesn’t mean that we’ll be cutting back on any yard jobs or transfer runs here at Proviso, or one of the manifest schedules between here and St. Louis (or beyond). One casualty might by trains MPRIT/MITPR, since CN might want to route things over its own (former WC) lines between Chicago and the Twin Cities/Twin Ports instead.

[MP173]

I am a little confused by the Eastern Canada - Southwest routing via Memphis. It makes sense to me for CN, as a long haul carrier to do this. However, that traffic is now being handled by a CN train 394, which is I believe a Toronto - UP Salem train.

It is handled via the EJE at Griffith and avoids Chicago. Perhaps I am incorrect and it does go to Yard Center. But, what would be the benefit for UP of interchanging at Memphis instead of Chicago?

My thoughts are that perhaps Salem is not equipped to classify it and it is going thru Little Rock yard and by going via Memphis it will speed things up, or perhaps it is a quid pro quo, with the CN giving up some traffic at Superior and thus reducing revenue, they make it up with a longer haul and revenue to Memphis on this segment of business.

Any thoughts?

ed

[dehusman]

One correction to Mark’s post. Business destined to Texas and west off the IC in Memphis would go to Pine Bluff, not N Little Rock.

Dave H.

[daveklepper]

I wonder who thought up the change? IC people now in the CN? Or UP people?

[CShaveRR]

I know the current state of affairs has made both railroads unhappy, so I don’t think credit for coming up with the idea would go to one railroad over the other. Both realized that things needed to be done.

I will watch the inbound WC train and MNLPR to see whether (or, more accturately, how soon) there is an effect. These two trains will be the most affected at Proviso. MNLPR’s train has been made up with at least 33% WC cars, and the WC inbound run was at about the same rate with cars destined for Pine Bluff (and beyond). Both trains also contain a lot of hazmat cars following these routings; while our rules allow them to be humped, it’s a time-consuming process that almost anyone would be glad to see handled more efficiently.

[MP173]

Mark and others:

I believe the current CN-UP traffic is moving on train 399 ( I had previously indicated train 398 in error). That movement is GTW,Griffith, EJE, Chicago Heights, CEI.

I do not know how much is moving on that train. I listen to scanner and will check my notes for frequency of the train. I do know it’s counterpart 398 (reverse move) from UP to CN is a very frequent train (daily). As far as I know CN would not move any UP traffic to Clearing, normal routing would be either via the EJE, or possibly to Yard Center, if moving southwest. CN does run a train 393 to Proviso for the west freight.

The Toronto-Memphis trains (396-397) are usually pretty good sized trains. I would think there would be considerable chemical traffic on this train.

Perhaps you are correct in that the current traffic is thin and therefore put it on another train and free up much needed slots on the GTW and CEI.

You mention the CEI is packed, the GTW is a mess right now. Last night there were several outlawed crews and it took train 392 from 5:15pm until nearly 10pm to get up the Valpo hill and leave town. It tied up the single track for about 3 hours.

They seem to have solved the coal train problems…they now double the hill frequently, but heavy eastbound manifests often stall, particularly if the power is questionable…which seems frequent these days.

As a stockholder, I just shake my head at the return I have received off of my original investment in IC; however this is one messed up section of railroad, IMHO. Granted I am NOT a railroader, but have a pretty good business mind and really wonder if the rest of the system is as stressed. If so, at some point in time the wheels will start slipping.

Anyway…thanks for the input and I wish all a very safe, warm, and restful holiday. Time for turkey!

ed

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this change will effect train MPRPB (Manifest, Proviso, IL to Pine Bluff, AR), which is routed via the old C&NW to Barr then the old C&IM to Ridgely (Springfield) where it picks up the GM&O to East St. Louis (then Cotton Belt for the remainder of its journey). This train, along with counterpart MASPR (Manifest, Alton & Southern to Proviso, IL) always seem to carry much CN/WC traffic. I always see twin-bay cement cars and WC and CN boxcars on these trains - some lumber traffic too.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for clearing this up for me.
Now how can I get the other topic deleted? shoot!

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Ed: The existing route would be CN from eastern Canada to Chicago, interchange to UP south on the C&EI and across the Thebes Bridge to Little Rock, then into what used to be called the southwest territory – Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma. The new route would still go through Chicago, but CN to IC to Memphis, then onto the former Rock Island to Little Rock.

Here’s what I think is happening. I suspect that the CN-UP traffic between the Southwest Territory and eastern Canada doesn’t amount to more than a good-sized block each way daily. I don’ t know if UP and CN were block-swapping on the south side of Chicago or running the traffic into Clearing Yard and sorting it there. The new plan would combine CN-to-IC South traffic with CN-to-UP Southwest traffic, and that I think would easily amount to a train a day. The advantage in this case I think is only partially in Chicago, as the GT crosses the C&EI at Thornton Jct., down on the south side, and Harvey, where it crosses the IC, is actually one diamond further, but getting rid of a block swap or running into Clearing Yard isn’t to be dismissed. It might even save a day each way by not having the dwell time in Clearing. The greater advantage is that the C&EI is fairly well choked whereas the IC is not.

Chemical shippers on the TX/LA Gulf Coast care a lot about reliability so the can minimize their car fleets. A world scale plastic plant will be looking at a 2,000-3,000 car fleet assuming the normal four turns per year ( yes, that is correct - four turns per year!). Anytime you can avoid CHGO/ESTL you are going to increase reliability because you can make the road haul to road haul interchange with fewer chances for srew ups. Salem is very busy with CSXT and NS going into the Northeast so it makes sense to run the IC stuff via Mempis.

[Anonymous]

“paper and roofing shingle granules (the contents of those two-bay covered hoppers).”

I keep forgetting that this traffic is granules and not cement. Thanks for reminding me. I figure some of that lumber traffic may be diverted to another routing.

Wishful thinking I know, but it’s too bad CN-UP didn’t pick Peoria (my hometown) as a major interchange point (the old direct connection at South Pekin was removed in March 2002 but perhaps traffic could be routed via TZPR).

[CShaveRR]

I’d submit that the rooofing-granule traffic falls into that strangely-named second category (“Wisconsin traffic between Texas and Arkansas”), and therefore might be eligible for the expediting moves.

As for “skirting” the Chicago terminal, I don’t think so, either. Those trains from Nelson land smack in Proviso after contributing slightly to the congestion on the east-west main. We still have to switch out those trains–there’s no pre-blocking at all on the inbound WC trains, nor is there anything on MASPR or MNLPR. We’ve been pretty good at getting the cars out on the proper connections, but that’s still good for several hours’ dwell time that a run-through service will hopefully eliminate.

[CShaveRR]

My gut reaction, as someone who actually puts those cars over the hump, is that those figures are low. It might be 20 cars per day each way. I’m assuming, though, that (for example) everything arriving on the WC train and destined for Pine Bluff or North Little Rock would be fair game for one of the two scenarios dealing with WC traffic. That might not be the case.

So far, no change that I can see (if the changes have been made, maybe the source is correct, after all!).

There was a news article in Saturday’s Tribune about how this could be the start of something big, where all of the railroads move traffic out of Chicago, which is why government money should be spent on keeping the business here. There was some other BS about eastern railroads, and figures about intermodal loading (which is not at all affected here!). They missed the point entirely–the cars from Wisconsin will still go through Chicago, but will stay on CN instead of being handed off to UP here. CREATE’s projected CN corridor will be absolutely perfect for something like that!

Mind you, I want this development to be significant!