As UP keeps double tracking the sunset route, will that eventually change traffic patterns to and from the West Coast? I picture it as similar to building an interstate highway. Will it cause other routes, like the LA&SLC line to lose traffic and importance, or will all the lines be needed to keep up with demand?
I recall reading recently about a mine in SW Utah that was going to re-open. I wonder if there is enough online traffic along the LA&SL to keep it viable if the long distance stuff switches over to the Golden State Route.
According to the November 2007 TRAINS, during the two-tracking of the Sunset Route, some traffic is being diverted to the LA&SL. Obviously, when the two-tracking of the Sunset Route is completed, the LA&SL will lose that extra traffic.
The big problem between Los Angeles and Chicago is expensive trackage rights. The relatively short distance in California where trackage rights must be utilized on the LA&SL route compared to the lengthy Kansas City-Chicago section for the Golden State/Sunset route speaks volumes in favor of the LA&SL route.
Would that lead to some upgrading of the LA&SL route?
Not just the LA&SL. The Overland route still always seems congested.
Norris:
If you want to gauge the future potential of a route, look at the traffic potential on that line and the cost of operation of the line. To gauge these look to see where traffic comes from and goes to, and what alternatives might exist. Questions you would ask are:
- What portion of the traffic potential is entirely local to the line (originates and terminates on the line)?
- What portion of the traffic potential is between terminals common with other lines that might provide an alternative routing? If alternative routings exist, do they have a lower intrinsic cost of operation and is there spare capacity at present?
- What portion of the traffic potential might change to an entirely different origin or destination if the price of purchasing transportation on the rail line becomes too high for the shippers purchasing that transportation?
There’s no such thing as “too high a price,” only price that goes high enough to make a lower price alternative appear. If the shipper’s choice is between an all-in price of 100 basis points and 101 basis points, after accounting for cost of transportation, cost of inventory, cost of reliability, and cost of flexibility, he will always choose 100. It’s irrelevant to the shipper what the elements of the railway’s cost are.
Routes with common end points rarely have similar rise and fall, length, number of crew districts, curvature, climate, and other operating hazards and costs. Nor do they share s
If I understand that correctly, UP, in this case, would not be looking to move traffic to a more cost efficient route, as much as it is looking to move more traffic over the same route, by doing so more efficiently?
You really lost me with that question!
I won’t comment on the recent past, current or future business plans of any specific company. What I can say is that railroads when blessed with a choice between two routes with common endpoints, will invest capital into the route that offers the highest revenue and profit potential, which is estimated by considering the operating costs of the two routes vs. the traffic potential of the two routes. Traffic is both endpoint to endpoint and intermediate.
This does not necessarily mean that once capacity is increased on a more-favorable route that all the traffic will shift to that route. The less-favorable route may have valuable on-line business that needs to be protected, and it’s not always cost-effective to slice the crew pools down to just enough to handle that level. Often it’s a good idea to keep the slow or odd traffic on the less-favorable route so it doesn’t get in the way of the heavy, consistent, fast, through traffic on the more-favorable route.
RWM
Based on that, I’d say that UP will use the Sunset/Golden State/BNSF/Peoria Sub/E-W Main Line to compete with the Transcon between LA and Chicago (alternatively, BNSF all the way from KC) for intermodal service, relegating the slower stuff to the slower route (grades, if nothing else).
Just a guess, of course–logic doesn’t always dictate.
[(-D] OK, so I’m not always that clear in my quetions.[B)] I was picturing that improvements on a favored line might take traffic of a lesser favored line. Like most questions in the life, the answer isn’t black and white, but appears to be shades of gray. My simplistic thought was that endpoint to endpoint traffic would simply shift over to the newly improved, more efficient route. I see now, that my view was too simplistic.
Less fuel…with a faster delivery, yes thats the plan.
Carl and RWM:
How much will UP be penalized (financially and operationally) by routing LA-Ch freight via KC and the BNSF transcon to UP Nelson and east? Are trackage right agreements usually in favor of the home railroad? Would the financial considerations of the agreement (understood we dont know those considerations) always place the advantage to the home team?
RWM, did you not say once that the Sunset Route is superior to the Transcon, as far as grades, mileage, etc is concerned? If not then I apologize. But looking at a flat map of the railroads it appears the BNSF route from LA to Vaughn is few miles. Yet, what kind of operating conditions do each route have? Lower grade thru the mountains for UP? I would guess so, what with BNSF peaking thru Arizona Pass at 7000’ plus.
My 1953 OG shows a mileage differential of about 64 miles in favor of BNSF from LA to Vaughn. With equal (or near equal) infrastructure (2MT CTC) for each, would the UP route be favorable routing for speed and costs? What about east of Vaughn?
Thanks,
Ed
Ed,
UP already has trackage rights agreements allowing them to run KC to Chicago over both the Transcon and a former BN routing. I don’t know the terms of the agreements, nor what it would cost to run additional trains over the Transcon.
Before this could be done (beyond what is already happening), I suspect that Nelson to Edelstein will have to be seriously upgraded, too.
Wouldn’t be surprised if UP is running detour moves over the Transcon at present (detours usually have nothing to do with trackage rights). Our main line is likely to be a mess for a while.
Thanks Carl:
Is there much coal moving? I heard the CN dispatcher inform CN707 (empty coal train to UP) to tie the train down at Blue Island yard. Sounds as if UP couldnt receive it.
SP used to run KC to Galesburg trains on the old CBQ line thru Quincy back in the 90’s. I saw quite a few trains back then on that line. Probably not so much anymore.
ed
I would assume that the coal isn’t moving at all, anywhere. Amtrak has been cancelled between Omaha and Chicago, so I guess everyone’s waiting it out.