Probably a crazy idea, but given the poor routing they’ll have between Chicago and Kansas City, I can’t help but wonder about other possibilities for CPKC.
Specifically, the TPW from Logansport, IN to Peoria, IL would put them ‘close’ to existing trackage rights on one end and to home rails on the other. A trackage rights deal with NS from Butler, IN to Logansport, IN; a deal to invest in or purchase the TPW from end-to-end; and a trackage rights deal with the UP from Peoria, IL to Springfield, IL fills in the gaps. If UP can’t be persuaded, how much would it cost to buy the Illinois and Midland?
Since at least some of the traffic which would use the rights between Butler and Logansport would otherwise be using the rights to Chicago, perhaps this isn’t as farfetched as it sounds? I realize there are a number of reasons CPKC fought the CN attempt to take over the Springfield - KC line, but this would certainly make it strategically important.
I’m know I’m glossing over lots of details (such as whether the STB would approve), but that’s the prerogative of a slightly knowledgeable railfan. I look forward to the responses from the more educated members of the group.
I would think a better alternative would be trackage rights from NS to Springfield, Il…extend from Butler.
Unsure of level of traffic on the old Wabash line and the infrastructure (siding lengths) but that would make sense and provide a very effective bypass of Chicago…possibly save 24 hours, if not longer.
Definitely a better routing, but not sure if the amount of traffic diverted off Butler to Chicago would be significant enough to justify the longer trackage rights (not even sure it’s enough to negotiate my proposal of Butler to Logansport).
Perhaps directional running between Springfield and KC would give CPKC a bargaining chip?
From what I have heard, perhaps on this forum, the NS line west of Decatur is down to about 6 - 8 trains daily. Dont think there is a need for directional running.
Looking at the CP-KCS merger application, most of the modest amount of anticipated traffic growth (4-5 million gross tons) to Eastern Canada will be via haulage rights trains running on CSX between Chicago and Buffalo. This is probably double stack intermodal traffic that cann’t be routed thru the tunnel at Detroit The small amount of projected manifest growth (<1 million gross tons) on the route to Detroit will be accomodated on existing trains.
Directional running is really only an option on parallel lines with equivalent signalling systems and operating speeds. CPKC would have to plough a TON of money into the old Alton line across Missouri to get it up to NS’ standards. Even then why would NS want to reroute their traffic? Their current infrastructure can handle the current reduced traffic volumes, plus a pair or two of CPKC trains if necessary.
I think the key to CPKC growing their traffic into Eastern Canada is to get the tunnel issue at Detroit fixed. I don’t know if one of the existing tunnels can be enlarged or not.
The current CP trains on CSX - 1 intermodal each way (CSX I165 and I166) generally have about 100-150 containers, the majority of which are international boxes. I have not observed a recent CN Eastern Canada to Chicago intermodal of late, but typically those trains in the past would have well excess of 200 containers with a healthy mix of international and domestic.
Current CP operations on the NS has 1 set of general merchandise trains CP230/231 and an auto rack train for Gibson Yard in Hammond a few days a week. There are also occasional ethanol trains…not much volume.
Will CPKCS be successful in capturing the Eastern Canada - Tx/Mexico traffic? I have no idea how much moves. It was discussed on the Illinois Central/Iowa thread the potential for Chicago to Mexico and Iowa to Mexico refer movements of protein with return of fruits and vegetable. That will be an interesting development.
CPKC will be hamstrung without its own high capacity route to eastern Canada from Chicago. Adding insult to injury is the lack of a double stack capable tunnel at Detroit. CP should have solved that problem back in the 1990’s when CN enlarged its tunnel at Sarnia, ON. If CP hadn’t been so short sighted on the value of the former Soo Line mainline thru Wisconsin, they would have a powerful bargining chip to hammer out an access deal with CN. CP’s management back in the 80’s and 90’s feel asleep at the switch and they have be behind the CN 8-ball ever since. If it wasn’t for a somewhat activist STB, CN would have ended up with KCS too. From a strictly “take trucks of the road” point of view that probably would have been a better outcome. I was personally hoping the STB would have split ownership of KCS between CP and CN ala Conrail and granted CP unfettered access to route trains east over the GTW.
One of the tunnels was enlarged in the 1990s for autoracks and lower double stacks, however, not the full size double stacks. A later plan to build a new larger tunnel was put on hold when the new international highway bridge was approved.
Here is a photo of the two tunnel portals where the tunnel that has been notched is apparent:
This would NEVER be implemented, but a potential route, which would benefit both CPKCS and CN would be:
CN grant CPKCS trackage rights from the IHB/CN (ex IC) junction at Riverside, Il. to Springfield, Il. on the ex IC mainline of MidAmerica to Gilman then down to Springfield. CPKCS then jumps on their line to KC.
CPKCS trackage rights granted to CN from Springfield, Il to Kansas City.
CPKCS gains one day in transit time and CN gains a new market. Of course it will never be considered as both would be competing for the same lane from Eastern Canada to KC.
The fun of looking at old Official Guides is one can pretend to be Empire Builders.
I bet there are some CN people who would like to give Harry Bruce a piece of their mind for selling off the line to Kansas City. ICG raised a lot of money thru line sales, but in the process threw some valuable properties away never to be recovered again.
Edit: Railroads love to talk about competition. Other than the NS/CSX Conrail split I have never seen them actually try to achieve it with a merger. With a bit of cooperation both CPKC and CN could have built a new, mutually beneficial competitive routing between Chicago and KC and taken a lot of trucks off the road. But that’s not how the railroad merger “permanently screw the competition” game is played.
Hey I am curious, didn’t there used to be a CONRAIL Southern Chicago Bypass type connection at Streator, IL with AT&SF? What happened to it? Is it still operational?
Look at how far it had to get, around the whole Chicagoland area as developing (and increasingly NIMBYfied/BANANAcated) in order to get out as far as Streator. And which railroad ‘gets’ the handed-over traffic from BNSF with enough timeliness, and enough end-to-end lane development, to justify doing it directly – probably with no less than block traffic?
