Sharing mainline trackage has become relatively commonplace…but do railways also share yards and service facilities?
In Memphis, Tn. The trackage and industrial switching facilities on President’s Island was (or,maybe.used to be(?) a joint trackage facility.
Track and ROW Was maintained by the Illinois Central( maybe now, CN?), and switching services rotated quartely between IC and BN.
There was quite a few miles of track and many heavy industries with rail service( Cargill Has large Soy Processing Plant, US Navy has/had (?) their submarine screw testing facility and tank there. and as well as large warehouse andstevador operations for loading/unloading Miss River Barges. Not sure how it sorts out now. Since I moved away;
MPRR has become UPRR ICRR, now CN, BNRR now BNSF. CSX was never part of the President Islands Ops.
Maybe someone from the area can update us on what is happening there now?
Actually, the President’s Island switching operation was rotated annually among the Frisco, Illinois Central and Missouri Pacific railroads. Today that operation has been been contracted out.
At one time in Denver the Colorado & Southern Railway performed the Santa Fe’s terminal switching functions. The engines were stencilled with C.& S. plus A.T.& S.F. initials, but it was the Burlington affiliate’s crews that actually performed the work.
The Rio Grande and the Rock Island once had joint terminal facilities in Denver and Colorado Springs, but I’m pretty certain that the former was the operator. And I bet the Rio Grande essentially took care of the Rio Grande Southern’s terminal requirements at Durango, Colo. as well.
Today the Union Pacific owned Alton & Southern Railway in East Saint Louis, Illinois performs a lot of switching and some terminal work for its owner plus the Illinois Central and Norfolk Southern.
QUESTION: Does the BNSF provide terminal support for the KCS trackage rights trains that work into and out of Omaha/Council Bluffs?
In years gone by, Potomac Yard was basically a joint facility managed and operated by RF&P. Much closer to home, Clearing Yard, which is operated by BRC, is used by just about railroad that reaches Chicago.
I think you will find that “sharing” is too strong a term for what does happen. There are various places where more than one railroad will come into a major yard, but apart from setting off or lifting a train and, maybe, running the locomotives over to the shop track, the visiting railroad has little role. In some cases the host shop may service and refuel the locomotives for a fee, but any repairs will usually wait until they are returned to a home road shop. Two railroads trying to switch in the same yard is a good way to start a war, so the host will normally assemble the trains for all the visitors prior to departure.
Another post referred to a different situation, where an industrial area may be switched by more than railroad. This is more common. Potential conflicts are often avoided by ensuring that only one train is on the branch at a time. This can be by formal times for each road (7am-7pm Railroad A, 7pm-7am for Railroad B), or ad hoc arrangements between the respective operating managers.
John
I got to thinking about this question after looking at maps of Toronto where both CN and CP have large yards and service areas. Going forward wouldn’t it make more sense for CN and CP to collaborate by developing one large state of the art classification yard/intermodal terminal/service area? Some years back CN and CP were able to work together in the telecommunications business (called CNCP)…maybe a jointly owned company called CNCP Rail could manage such a yard to the benefit of both. Same scenario could work in other cities too…Chicago for example. The present setup sure looks wasteful in terms of needless duplication… ie. two sets of locomotive fuelling areas…repair facilities…container loading areas etc…That cost could probably be reduced by combining operations…this would also greatly simplify everything that feeds the yard…trucking to and from container terminals not to mention interchange between the railroads.
Details are such a nuisance, they can interfere with ideas that look wonderful in theory. In hump yards, often each classification track is dedicated to a specific train or destination. So if you have two railroads sharing the same yard you will likely need twice as many tracks, and as a result a second hump, so most of those benefits are illusory. Where both yards are seriously underutilized it might make some sense, but otherwise the day-to-day problems will be significant, and the area and manpower requirements will only be marginally reduced.
Share locomotive repair facilities and now you have a book-keeping problem keeping track of what work was done for each railroad, and how to split the fixed costs and overheads. Will a tradesman from the ABC railroad be allowed to work on a locomotive or car from the XYZ? Unions guard their work jealously and we are talking about two different locals. Both roads have a locomotive needing a widget to get back running, but onl
Agreed…I’m looking at the broadstrokes…haven’t done a detailed analysis…however…The bookkeeping problem woudn’t be insurrmountable…it’s happening in other industries where infrastructure and human resources are shared…as in the telecommunications industry. In my own industry (trucking) we share yard, fuel, repair, and warehouse facilities; and have workable arrangements that apportion the fixed costs to the agreement of all parties involved. More and more we even share people. For example…we share safety expertise and collaborate on developing safety programs. sometimes it is hard to tell that we’re really competitors…but at the end of the day the customer wins as competition with a good mix of collaboration is a higher value and more effcient than simple blind competition.
NS and indiana northeastern share the wabash yard in montpelier ohio.They interchange cars here as well.The yard isn’t as busy as what it once was.I don’t know how they divide up the maintenance costs.
stay safe
joe