With the news of UPSP double tracking the Sunset Route between Los Angeles and New Orleans, I was wondering what is the track status between El Paso and Chicago via Tucumcari and other way points?
By what routing does UPSP move freight between LA and Chicago?
Hi, rjemery!
The El Paso to Los Angeles segment of the Sunset Route is being two-tracked.
!(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff19/kpharrier/sunset ca-texas/DSC09277.jpg)
Two-tracking at Toltec, AZ
New grading for second track by Salton Sea in California
El Paso to New Orleans will remain single-track.
The El Paso-Chicago line via Tucumcari is doing well.
As far as Los Angeles-Chicago, either route is used, but reports are that via El Paso (rather than Salt Lake City) is favored now.
Best,
K.P.
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/usguide/index.shtml
The above link is to the UPRR website and is a map by states served with stats and connections.
There was a recent TRAINSNewswire article on the Proposed expenditure of some $200 Million dollars for expansion improvements in Louisiana.
FTA:“…The projects include a $40 million support yard in St. James Parish, 29 miles of double track between Livonia and Addis on the Shreveport-New Orleans main line, and additional staging tracks at the Livonia yard. Young said the expansion aims squarely at the state’s lucrative chemical trade, and will come in at $200 million…”
“We want to do more business here, and we want to be more efficient,” Young said. “In 33 years, I’ve never seen so much opportunity for growth as there is right now in Louisiana…”
My question would be; ‘Which is the primary way the Chemicals and Petroleum products flow towards users?’ It would seem that the UP would be pointing improvements Northerly; not towards the West Coast, but possibly towards the Upper Midwest and Northeast (?)
Based on the fact that the improvements would seem to be pushing the improvements towards the former MoPac line in North Louisiana (?) rather than west towards the former Sp lines(?)
The above are pure speculation, and observations. With all the millions spent improving the Sunset Route west; It would seem to make sense to link those improvements(?)[ Considering that the former MoPac north from Baton Rouge ,through Southeatern Ar. has been cut/abandoned, and is no longer a route north towards Memphis. (?)
Taking the last first, two options:
From LA east, trackage rights over bnsf to Daggett, CA, thence LA&SL to Ogden, Utah, thence Overland Route to the Windy City.
From LA to El Paso via Sunset Route, thence north to Tokeka or Herington, KS (I forget which), thence (via trackage rights over BNSF) east to Edelstein, IL, thence north via ex-CNW to Overland Route at Nelson, IL, thence east to Chicago, OR (from Edelstein) straight on into the terminal neat Joliet.
Regarding track conditions, El Paso to Chicago, from El Paso to Topeka, single-track mostly CTC (some 100 miles remain to be CTC’ed); Topeka to Edelstein and Chicago two track CTC; Edelstein to Nelson, IL single track signalling unknown, Nelso to Chicago two and three track with CTC.
Item 2 would be for intermodal and maybe some automotive traffic. Other types of freight would stay on the UP and not use the BNSF trackage rights
Jeff
All things being equal (varibles aren’t and constants frequently won’t in the railroad world), the CottonRock route is faster than the Overland Route because of less congestion. Uncle Pete is about maxed-out on the Overland Route in Iowa, Nebraska and Eastern Wyoming. He’s 5 tracks wide in places and has no room to expand. The doubletracking in between El Paso and Los Angeles opens things up that SP never could afford to do.
In Louisiana, Uncle Pete is beefing up mostly west of Nawlins. (everybody keeps forgetting BNSF got part of the old SP east of Lake Charles to New Orleans as a merger condition and the capacity that went with that)…The surveyors are currently out on the ground feeding info back to the civil engineers so that the designing of the expansion work can be expedited. (and it’s quite a laundry list of projects) Uncle Pete is also doing a good job of undoing decades of neglect by cash poor SP/SSW.
Edelstein to Nelson is single-track dark.
There have been rumors of changes coming, but nothing concrete (not even the ties).
Are any regrets expressed at not having the old Golden State route from Kansas City to Chicago anymore?
In all the reports and rumors, I somehow (“somehow”) got the idea that UP boxcar traffic between Chicago and Kansas City was going to go via BNSF’s ex-CB&Q triple-track line and NOT the more direct ex-AT&SF two-track line. Can anyone substantiate that ‘somehow’ idea?
Except by frustrated photographers, none that I’m aware of. KC and Chicago were connected by too many trunk lines, and there was not enough traffic to sustain all of them. Consider: the Rock, MILW, GM&O, CB&Q, Santa Fe, even the Wabash – all connected the two points. Among these, the Rock was among, if not THE, least densely travelled, and more circuitous than Santa Fe. Santa Fe also boasted a major advantage over the other liness: for transcontinental traffic between California origins and Chicago, it alone controlled origin and destination routing; every other road which could be included in such routing had to connect with some other carrier. So…this piece of the ROCK was not, in the Prudential Insurance sense, financially rock solid. The increase in traffic over the BNSF Transcon has been insufficient to prompt anyone to suggest its revival.
I suspect that most Chicago-KC manifest goes UP Overland to Nevada, then down over the Spine Line from Des Moines to Kansas City. When last I knew anything for sure, we weren’t building any KC blocks in Proviso, but pretty much any Texas-bound traffic that didn’t go via St. Louis would take that route, as would anything for Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.
the ex-ATSF line is mostly, if not all, intermodal. There’s only so many slots available on the BNSF.
Manifest, car-load traffic out of KC would most likely go either north to Council Bluffs then to Proviso or across the old MP via St. Louis then to Chicago. There may not be a direct KC to Chicago manifest, but traffic in increments KC-CB/CB-PR or KC-SL/SL-CH etc.
Jeff
Maybe not in so many words, but the regret expressed by having to route over the BNSF for some traffic is eloquent. Making me wonder why UP at some point did not make a play for the IC&E.
My unscientific guess: it’s taken UP almost until now to learn to operate their network after swallowing the SP and CNW. They’re still paying the capital expense of upgrading both properties, a process that won’t be complete for at least five more years. Why take on another junkyard property that will require more bucks to upgrade in a relatively short haul/low revenue corridor?
Too many bottlenecks on the IC&E route that would be expensive to correct, and would still require one more crew than using the Transcon.
To name just two problems;
The at grade crossing with BNSF in Ottumwa, IA followed by Rutledge Hill to get out of the city.
The “Subway” under the Government Bridge in Davenport, IA
Back when the CNW thought they were going to acquire the MILW’s midwest core system, they planned to rebuild a small section of the old RI Golden State Route. This would’ve been between Seymour, IA where MILW crossed the RI and Allerton, IA, the former RI junction between the Golden State and the Short Line to Des Moines and Manly. The MILW between Seymour and Polo, MO would’ve then been abandoned. Then the Soo got the MILW.
There were rumors going around some time ago about the UP rebuilding that piece and then using trackage rights between Clinton and Seymour. There were some saying the CNW had actually bought some right of way before their project was shelved. I don’t remember the exact time frame, it may even have been when the IMRL was up for sale. It never happened either, just another rumor.
A friend who worked on the RI said back when the track was in good shape, it took 4 hours longer to go via Des Moines rather than direct on the Golden State line. During the very last days when the RI was being operated by the KCT, the GS line was dormant between Muscatine and Allerton. All Chicago - KC and beyond traffic went via Des Moines.
Jeff
Billio, this seems to me a better HISTORICAL argument against the old Golden State route than a MODERN-DAY argument. Today the hundreds of railroads we used to know are down to four U.S. majors, and to me it’s odd that, of all the old Chicago-K.C. routes you named, U.P. doesn’t have even one.
Nothing to be done about the old Golden State anymore, of course, but the parallel former MILW is close enough, and I will stand by my surprise that U.P. has apparently passed on several opportunities over the years to pick it up. Now that C.P. has it (again), I doubt there will be another opportunity.
Fine. We’re talking a line that connects Chicago and Kansas City. Lets consider the routing possibilities–which, for the benefit of those who may not know, are chosen by the shipper, not by the carrier. First, for a shipment that moves between Chicago and a point beyond Kansas City (let’s say the West Coast), chances are that it will be routed, even if it moves via KC, over BNSF direct or UP direct, because they’re the only two carriers whose networks stretch that far; who offer single-line service (which shippers prefer to joint-line service – only one carrier to deal with, versus two or more); and, whose joint-line rate could (note I said could) be undercut by a single line service provider. So practically speaking, for this case, another UP line between KC and Chicago is a non-issue.
The second case involves a routing ONLY between Chicago and Kansas City: the shipment originates at one city and terminates at the other. The Google Earth straight-as-the-crow-flies distance comes out to roughly 430 miles, and adding in 25 percent for railroad circuity, figure a rail distance of some, oh, 540 miles. This mileage is low enough that except
Minor point: the UP from Tucumcari runs Dalhart, Liberal, Hutchinson, Herington, Topeka.
[quote user=“billio”]
dakotafred:
Billio, this seems to me a better HISTORICAL argument against the old Golden State route than a MODERN-DAY argument. Today the hundreds of railroads we used to know are down to four U.S. majors, and to me it’s odd that, of all the old Chicago-K.C. routes you named, U.P. doesn’t have even one.
Nothing to be done about the old Golden State anymore, of course, but the parallel former MILW is close enough, and I will stand by my surprise that U.P. has apparently passed on several opportunities over the years to pick it up. Now that C.P. has it (again), I doubt there will be another opportunity.
Fine. We’re talking a line that connects Chicago and Kansas City. Lets consider the routing possibilities–which, for the benefit of those who may not know, are chosen by the shipper, not by the carrier. First, for a shipment that moves between Chicago and a point beyond Kansas City (let’s say the West Coast), chances are that it will be routed, even if it moves via KC, over BNSF direct or UP direct, because they’re the only two carriers whose networks stretch that far; who offer single-line service (which shippers prefer to joint-line service – only one carrier to deal with, versus two or more); and, whose joint-line rate could (note I said could) be undercut by a single line service provider. So practically speaking, for this case, another UP line between KC and Chicago is a non-issue.
The second case involves a routing ONLY between Chicago and Kansas City: the shipment originates at one city and terminates at the other. The Google Earth straight-as-the-crow-flies distance comes out to roughly 430 mile