There have been a couple of comments in differing places of UP ceasing to operate over the former Santa Fe between Chicago and Kansas City. These were trackage rights obtained by Southern Pacific as part of the BNSF merger. Any truth to this?
Can I ask where are you hearing this? If true obviously lots of interesting ramifications for G4 and the Golden State Route.
Until there is a filing and a decision at STB, nope. (use may just be “up on the shelf” for now)
It is difficult for this west coaster to second guess UP trackage rights operations over the BNSF in the Midwest, but in line with mudchicken’s reply, what seems to be being seen is UP rerouting Chicago-Los Angeles traffic via El Paso to Salt Lake City instead. It must be remembered that trackage rights is an expensive proposition, and what UP pays BNSF to use their tracks must be whoppingly less via Salt Lake City than via El Paso. In light of the downturn in traffic and the severe reduction of lucrative coal traffic, UP may simply be cutting costs wherever it can. Just because a railroad has trackage rights over another railroad does mean they have to use those rights. But, UP is a savvy outfit, and when Chicago-Kansas City over BNSF suits them, they will exercise those past acquired rights.
Another option for slower traffic should be their own line north from Kansas City, turn right in Iowa on the old C&NW. I have no idea what that interchange looks like now or the extent to which it is already used. Maybe Jeff can tell us.
The single track ex-Rock Island Spine Line between KC and Minneapolis-St Paul connects to the double track ex-CNW by a nifty double wye at Nevada, IA, just east of Ames, IA.
Zoom in just a hair and you should see both wyes.
With a downturn in traffic, why would the UP want to route trains via Kansas City and the BNSF instead of an historically competitive route that is all-UP?mpetitive all-UP route?
daveklepper (5-19):
Hey, Dave … Keep editing, and it will eventually look right …
Why (about your post inquiry), you ask? Via Kansas City is shorter, one or two hundred miles. BUT, UP loses control for a LONG time and is at the whim of BNSF and what is taking place on their railroad.
“All UP” is not quite right on the via Salt Lake City Route. The LA&SL (UP) route utilizes the BNSF from Daggett (CA) to at least Silverwood. Keenbrook, Colton, and Riverside are other possibilities for getting back on the UP.
Take care,
K.P.
BNSF to my knowledge has two routes from Kansas City to Chicago. The former Burlington Route and the former Santa Fe. Both Routes converge on Galesburg, IL and take seperate paths from Galesburg to Chicago.
The SP received trackage rights before the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe merged. How are UP trains now routed between Kansas City and Chicago on trackage rights?
In varied postings on other boards there are inferences of UP’s intentions to permanently reroute trains off the BNSF transcon. Not too long ago UP did run some of these trains over NS from Kansas City to Springfield and a connection to the former C&A north to Chicago. It would appear UP has been looking for an alternative for some time. I would would highly doubt that, even if there is a permanent reroute, UP would abandon the trackage rights on BNSF. Always keep ‘an ace in the hole.’
Back in 1995 SP petitioned and received trackage rights on the former ATSF main between KC and Chicago for intermodal trains as a condition of the BNSF merger. This became the northern link for the Golden State route from LA via the former Rock Island. When UP absorbed the SP they inherited the trackage rights.
Maybe NS could arrange some reciprocal trackage rights with UP, so they could get off the IC/CN to Chicago, using ex-C&A and ex-C&EI instead.
Nifty is the word, kg. Thanks for the post.
Thanks, that’s interesting. Wonder what the running times are NS vs BNSF? Right now UP is not time-competitive with BNSF with their fastest LA-Chicago Z train the ZCIG4 via Galesburg, and other trains take longer. Not sure adding a few extra hours if necessary to go via NS rights would impact this business very much, so if they can get a better rate it’s probably a good move.
Back in 2009 NS and CN/IC established a reciprocal trackage rights agreement called the MidAmerica Corridor: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/CN_NS.pdf Is this not working out?
It’s used quite a bit. The wye along the exCNW is Kansas City Jct. Along the exRI it’s Chicago Jct. All switches are separate control points.
Jeff
How about for LA-Chicago traffic (as opposed to the previously discussed routes)?
Remember the history of these rights. They were granted to the SP at a time when the SP did not have a credible route between KCI and CHI. They were usefull for California-CHI traffic via the Golden State Route which SP/SSW had recently pulled up out of the mud.
Today the UP has the former LA&SL/UP/CNW route. LA-CHI traffic can go that way, so UP has no obvious need for these rights for that trafffic. For Texas-CHI they have former MP/CEI routes via St. Louis.
I do not see an obvious need for these rights. If I were UP I would hold onto them “just because” and because they could be trading fodder for something else somewhere else.
Mac
When traffic was heaviest, UP did shcedule two intermodal trains each way over thsi line as a time-saving measure. That was, of course, before the paqssenger-purposed improvemets were made to its ex-GM&O St. Louis - Chicago route, which also benefit UP freight…
That sub was already and capable of handling any UP freight at the normal maximum speeds for that equipment, albeit on old infrastructure. CN was not maintaining or dispatching north of Joliet as it should have though.