Thank U 4 all that super info. [:D][:)][:p]
Soon I will be at the SLC & Ogden juncture points so I will see 1st hand what they are doing. [:)][:D][:p]
[quote]
Originally posted by chad thomas
Bottom Line, BNSF is currently more profitable than UNP.
Camparison UNP
Market Cap: 18.16B
Employees: 48,000
Rev. Growth (ttm): 5.70%
Revenue (ttm): 12.22B
Gross Margin (ttm): 35.78%
EBITDA (ttm): 2.41B
Oper. Margins (ttm): 10.60%
Net Income (ttm): 604.00M EPS (ttm): 2.305
PE (ttm): 30.18
PEG (ttm): 2.18
PS (ttm): 1.48
BNI
Market Cap: 20.91B
Employees: 38,000
Rev. Growth (ttm): 16.30%
Revenue (ttm): 10.95B
Gross Margin (ttm): 36.61%
EBITDA (ttm): 2.70B
Oper. Margins (ttm): 15.40%
Net Income (ttm): 791.00M EPS (ttm): 2.095
PE (ttm): 26.42
PEG (ttm): 1.27
PS (ttm): 1.91
Question for Chad.
A few years back, the tunnel clearances over Tehachapi were increased to allow double stacks thru the tunnels. Was this partly because of the clearances over Donner Pass?
I do not think that trains on the T Loop are coming or going to Donner. Trains transiting the loop are going to Mojave/Barstow or Mojave/Palmdale/Cajon. The other direction the Salinas Valley/Stockton & Oakland for both roads. [:D][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose
[
Thanks I was only relaying what was on TV last nite. I guess if U wish by contacting MSNBC I would suspect U could find that Cramer guy who said what I posted. [:D]
Spbed, check your e-mail
The Southern Pacific and Union Pacific have generally routed double stacks in and around the Los Angeles area to points east of the Moffit Line. I forget the reason why. From time to time double stacks where run thru Tennessee Pass. This is partly why the coatline was used for the stack trains as was Beamont Hill and Cajon Pass. Lots of container and stack traffic enters the area from the port of Long Beach.
Thank U received & replied to. [:D][:)][:p]
Thespcaboose,
The SP had no need to increase clearances in Tehachappi. They could run the shorter containers. This is primarily a north south route for them. And they mainly hauled lumber products in this corridor not intermodial. Though they did run TOFC trains at times.
The Santa Fe on the other hand wanted to run domestic doublestacks over Tehachappi, as this is there access to the SF bay area. SP was not interested. They had no need or want to add clearance. So finally SF inded up footing the whole bill and clearances were increased. But because SP refused to share any cost, they were not allowed to use the “new clearance”.
So basically the whole thing was a Santa Fe project to allow them to run Domestic doublestacks to the bay area / stockton.
Does this answer your question?
Yes I used to be a Traffic Manger for a large steamship line.
DS traffic destined for like Houston/New Orleans are routed on the Sunset Route.
DS traffic bound for say Dallas & the SE USA is routed Sunset Route to Sierra Blanca then T & P
DS traffic to Chicago & E/coast can be routed Sunset route to El Paso/GSR to Hutchinson KS then the BNSF transcon to either Chicago for turnover to either CSX or NS to get to the E/coast. The UPRR other DS route is over the Cajon pass via trackage rights on the BNSF exit at Dagget then Vegas, SLC, Ogden, Green River, Cheyenne, No. Platte then the old CNW overland route to Chicago & if it is going to the E/coast turnover to CSX or NS. [8D][:D][:p]
[quote]
Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose
That was a super history lesson & from my dealings with the RRs while I do not wi***o generalize that is what typical RR mentality was at that time. Yessiree if the T mountains fell down the BNSF bay are traffic is good bye real fast. Thanks [8D][:p][:o)][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by chad thomas
An interesting side note:
Way before my time the Santa Fe looked into alternatives. One was to build track over TEJON pass, roughly the route of I-5, into Los Angles directly. They went so far as to survey the route. And I think they also secured some real estate too. This was a move to get out from under SP thumb on Tehachappi. Ultimatly it was decided that it was not justifiable.
I can understand that especially because as time wore on the SPRR became weaker & weaker. That maybe why they wanted to merge with SP to protect there Bay area flank. [:D][:)][:p]
[quote]
Originally posted by chad thomas
[
I’m no expert. But the reason Santa Fe wanted to merge with SP was not really the railroad. They were interested in the other assets like the pipelines, real estate holdings, sprint, ect. When the ICC nixed the merger, the SPSF corp. stripped SP of its non railroad assets and sold the railroad to Phillip Anshutz (DRGW). One more nail in SP’s coffin.
Aha. [8D][:o)]
[quote]
Originally posted by chad thomas
[
Yes Chad, that does answer my question.
Living closer to the old SP Saugas line, most of what I saw where TOFC, lumber and oil traffic on this line.
In the case of ATSF, this was their only way into Southern California. I understand why the BNSF of today would want double stack clearances to get to Northern California. Even if, which I don’t know for sure, had containers entering thru the ship yards of San Diego for tansport to the Bay Area would need to work on the Tehachapi tunnels.
Maybe we can connect when I get their in late Aug this year? [:D][:p][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by TheS.P.caboose
According to a recent conversation with a UP conductor down here in south Texas, UP’s left hand doesn’t know what its right one is doing… He also expressed great concern about UP’s lack of track maintenance and the increasing risk of derailments. On the other hand, BNSF always seems to have it together.
I hear ya trainluver1.
It seems kind of like UP has taken a page out of SP’s book as far as track goes.
If you really want a barometer of UP’s problems relative to BNSF, consider that UP’s average train speed is 21.0 mph compared to BNSF’s average of 24.2 mph, and average terminal dwell time for UP is 29.7 hours compared to BNSF’s 9.9 hours.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=6523