I know that some Pacer containers have been riding BNSF Z trains between Chicago and California for a few years now. But today I saw for the first time Pacer containers on a lower priority stack train. APL runs Pacer, and APL has always been run on the UP. Interesting…
I checked the Pacer website, and April 1st they started covering the entire BNSF intermodal network. What does UP think about this?
UP would do well to think of its own opportunities and stop fretting about lost ones.
I would think UP lost their contract with Pacer…
That’s a mighty contract to give up! It seems like on nearly every UP train I see, there are Pacer’s containers being handled. I’m interested to see how much of the Chicago-Cal business ends up riding BNSF.
THis happens alot really. Coal trains switch UP to BN and vice versa.We lose a contract to them they lose one to us.
JUst wait BN will tick someone off and that buisness will be back on the UP
Assuming Railroad X even wants Customer Y’s business. In a world where capacity is scarce and auctioned to the highest bidder, sometimes the best thing that can happen to a railroad is the other railroad underbids you for the shipper.
RWM
It takes only a short memory to recall the UPS contract where UP underbid BNSF and then was unable to perform to UPS specifications. When UPS came back to BNSF asking them to take it BNSF had to respond that it had made other commitments and could take only part of the business. This resulted in UPS having to road haul for a period of time.
On another point, it seems that competitive bidding is working well for shippers when there is more than one carrier seeking the business.
The UP - Pacer contract runs another 3 yrs which requires that Pacer run a strong majority of its business on UP - but its not exclusive. I think Pacer is smartly trying to establish relations w/ BNSF so that when the time comes to renew the UP deal… or do something else, that they have some legit options, lest UP will take the proverbial boots to them.
Thanks for the info Doublestack