Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF seeks STB immediate help to start new CA to SLC IM service

I don't think this has been posted here yet but BNSF filed with the STB on 7/7/25 (1) an emergency petition and (2) support statements from IM customers CMA CGA and MSC to have UP honor its trackage rights commitments negotiated 30 years ago to operate BNSF manifest and intermodal service between the Bay Area and Salt Lake City via either the Donner Pass (aka "Southern Route") or the Feather River (aka "Northern Route") routes. Apparently BNSF while BNSF has operated manifest business (ie, H-STOPVO / H-PVOSTO1)  via this route, it has not operated IM service here. 

Here's the introductory paragraph along with selected excerpts from BNSF's emergency filing:

"BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) hereby requests that the Surface Transportation Board (“Board” or “STB”) take immediate emergency action to
prevent Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UP”) from blocking BNSF from using BNSF’s trackage rights over UP’s lines in California, Nevada, and Utah, for BNSF
to move double-stack intermodal trains for interchange with the Salt Lake Garfield & Western Railway (“SLGW”) in Salt Lake City, Utah. BNSF obtained these
trackage rights as a condition imposed by the Board on its approval of the merger of UP and Southern Pacific Rail Corporation (“SP”) in 1996. The Board has the
authority pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 11327 to enforce these conditions and enter the order requested by BNSF here on an emergency basis...."

"...In 2024-2025, two intermodal customers moved a significant portfolio of business from UP to BNSF. To serve this business, BNSF must use its trackage
rights over UP’s lines obtained under the UP/SP merger conditions – trackage rights that UP has consistently honored since the merger occurred nearly 30 years
ago. BNSF intends to operate using these trackage rights this week – as early as today, July 7, 2025.

In a blatantly retaliatory move, UP has indicated that it will not allow BNSF to make these trackage rights movements. And if UP eventually allows these BNSF
trains to operate, UP intends to force BNSF to use an alternative routing that will result in a windfall for UP. BNSF needs the Board’s immediate assistance to
overcome this behavior by UP intended to punish both BNSF and UP’s former customers for entering into market-based agreements that dared to shift business
away from UP...."

And lastly:

"...BNSF has the right to operate trains on either the Northern Route or the Southern Route. Additionally, at BNSF’s request, UP must provide crews for these BNSF
trains.

BNSF told UP in May that BNSF will operate this new intermodal service using UP’s crews, beginning in July 2025. Although there was no discussion of
routing at that time, BNSF has trackage rights over both the Northern Route and the Southern Route and planned for this service to use the Northern Route in both
directions. If BNSF wanted to use the Southern Route for this service, BNSF would have to pay UP for half the cost of the project (estimated at tens of millions of
dollars) that UP undertook in 2009 to clear the Donner Pass tunnel for its own double-stack intermodal service. BNSF has no such desire, given that the Northern
Route is entirely capable of handling BNSF’s double-stack intermodal trains. 

However, UP has made it clear in recent days that: (1) UP will not allow these BNSF trains to operate without UP’s approval of an operating plan, which
they claim would take another month; and (2) BNSF must use the Southern Route to move the intermodal trains eastbound to Salt Lake City, due to a purported 
westbound directional running pattern on the Northern Route that UP admittedly does not regularly adhere to. These actions are flagrant violations of UP’s
obligations under the UP/SP merger conditions..."



Link to Emergency Petition filing: BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY’S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RELIEFv

CMA CGM Support statement



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/25 02:33 by JPB.

More traffic in the Feather River Canyon would be welcomed.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

I'll get the popcorn started.........

The way I see it, the trains each week would be the same count each way so no additional trains as UP lost the contract to BNSF. 

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More traffic in the Feather River Canyon would be welcomed.

Not if the trains are run by UP crews IMHO. This is a direct kick in the teeth to Stockton-based BNSF crews.

Has the BNSF and UP settled their payments on use on Tehachipi?
Dennis

Posted from iPhone

I think it implys that at startup BNSF would not have crews qualified to run the canyon route.
RB

Would not honoring the original agreements effect the merger that was the criteria for the agreement?

Could this slice off one ot the routes and somehow make it BNSF property?

Seems kinda academic, but  both companies have changed over the years. The market for transportation has changed as well, more Intemodal, more Oil.

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it implys that at startup BNSF would not
> have crews qualified to run the canyon route.

BNSF crews are qualified from Keddie to Stockton and Roseville to Stockton. In the proposed scenario, BNSF trains would run right through Keddie (a BNSF AFHT) with UP crews aboard similar to the way the Herlong military trains are currently run (which Stockton crews also take exception to). By agreement (Keddie long pool agreement) BNSF Stockton > Keddie pool crews are supposed to protect all BNSF trains between Stockton and Keddie and Stockton and Roseville. The only reason the military trains have slipped through is that STOKED pool does still run these trains and gets the full long pool mileage but half the trip is in a van (crew swap with UP is usually at Riego Road/Pleasant Grove or Del Paso). Roseville trains are run by short pool/extra board crews, in violation of the agreement, which has probably gone on for so long without union pushback that the company thinks precedent has been set.

BNSF is recently 0 for 2 before the STB, both cases involving "prior" rights given during the
SP merger.

Out 

Some thoughts regarding this:

"BNSF must use the Southern Route to move the intermodal trains eastbound to Salt Lake City, due to a purported westbound directional running pattern on the Northern Route that UP admittedly does not regularly adhere to. These actions are flagrant violations of UP’s obligations under the UP/SP merger conditions."

1) For the most part the UP runs only w/b trains through the Canyon. Only exception is the Gypsum(?) train that runs to Nevada. Besides the BNSF inside Gateway Trains which are limited to under 6000(?) ft nothing else runs e/b unless there are detours involved. I can  see why UP wouldn't want a BNSF Intermodel train running e/b which is most likely going to be over 6000 ft. Trying to time meets between non-fitter trains (such as the typically over 12000 ft MNPRV's) in the Canyon and the Sub east of there with mostly 6000 ft sidings would be a challenge.  

2) I alway heard that BNSF did not want to run E/W traffic via the central cooridor because of the cost of the trackage rights fees. If so how are they making money on this new intermodel train if they underbid UP on the contract? Or was this a piece in a bigger package in which this piece might be break even and the other pieces make money?

3) Would these new trains originate in Stockton or Oakland on the BNSF side? 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/25 11:12 by donner_dude1.

Since the letter states the service is starting this week, what is the alternate route that BNSF can take between Salt Lake and CA?

In my opinion I seriously doubt the UP will agree to any eastbounds beyond Keddie unless they are forced to. The former WP is hobbled by all those short sidings, and with the land barges that the UP runs westbound there, any eastbound over basically 6200' in length is just going to be a losing proposition. In the 250 or so miles from Winnemucca to Keddie there are only 2 sidings in excess of 6500', those being Spring Garden and Portola.

I also seriously doubt the UP will agree to BNSF crews on anything east of Keddie or Roseville. Precedent has been set over the last almost 30 years with UP crews operating everything there. They also won't want to give up control. To anyone. At all costs. It's just the UP Way...

I too have my popcorn ready.

The Emergency Petition indicates that there is nothing in the trackage rights agreement that states there is directional running in effect as long as trains moving east of Keddie do not exceed 5,700 feet in length, only 300 feet less than the current limit on Inside Gateway trains.

Also, this new service is supposedly to connect Salt Lake City with So Cal so I'm assuming the routing BNSF proposes is SLC > Portola > Keddie > Binney > Roseville > Stockton > Bakersfield > Barstow > Los Angeles although I'm not clear on why they would not bypass Roseville and run these the way we already run the Herlong military trains.

Sounds like a CF. I'm not surprised UP is digging their heels in on this.

donner_dude1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2) I alway heard that BNSF did not want to run E/W
> traffic via the central cooridor because of the
> cost of the trackage rights fees. If so how are
> they making money on this new intermodel train if
> they underbid UP on the contract? Or was this a
> piece in a bigger package in which this piece
> might be break even and the other pieces make
> money?

For one, there is a big difference in running Salt Lake to Nor Cal vs running Denver to Nor Cal through the Central Rockies. I don't see BNSF moving any Denver-S. CA traffic off the southern transcon.

>
> 3) Would these new trains originate in Stockton or
> Oakland on the BNSF side? 

These trains are originating/terminating in S. CA per what was mentioned previously.

run them single stack? onto Denver too?  BNSF needs to furnish it's own crews...

every move UP makes is towards monopoly control if they have any say, UP way or the highway



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/25 17:17 by dan.

I kind had that impression when the hospital train
 with the steamers and 6936 was being
 moved with a very dirty GE.

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> run them single stack? onto Denver too?  BNSF
> needs to furnish it's own crews...

What??? Why would BNSF do that as it's shorter/faster to run SoCal to Denver traffic via ex-ATSF transon to Amarillo then back north via directional running to Pueblo and joint line into Denver. I get the desire of foamers to see BNSF use the entire central corridor trackage rights but BNSF makes choices for profit and not foamers picture taking. Even NorCal to Denver is more efficient running via southern transcon.


>
> every move UP makes is towards monopoly control if
> they have any say, UP way or the highway

Because the BNSF never does that...oh wait...the entire northern corridor is monopolized by BN/BNSF for decades (e.g., how's ex-MRL doing nowadays...oh wait).

bring back the milw!

if bnsf wanted to have service say oak-slc or den slc service,  or something , what kind of schedule you going to get from oakland to denver now via amarillo? or la-den?

UP would make it not work  to try the central corridor..

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> run them single stack? onto Denver too?  BNSF
> needs to furnish it's own crews...
>
> every move UP makes is towards monopoly control if
> they have any say, UP way or the highway

Nope.

Why wouldn't BNSF negotiate a trackage rights agreement allowing UP to use Stampede Pass, even at 2 trains per day each way?

Why is UP having to pay BNSF higher trackage rights fees on the Transcon between KC and Chicago? At one time UP had 2-3 trains per day each way...now it's 1 each way.

Obviously BNSF is hosing the BNSF Stockton crews. Why should that be allowed to continue??

I find this saga very odd, on BNSF's part. For example, MSC already uses UP trains ZLBDV to move MSC containers from ICTF Long Beach to SLC and Denver. "Z's" are premium rate trains, but is MSC actually paying a full premium rate? We don't know.

But this smells as if it's a yes and BNSF under bid the rate. But, if so, how could BNSF make any money on running MSC containers the long way around, if loaded in Southern California (MSC's terminal is within the Port of Long Beach boundry).

Port of Oakland is an "export port".
The amount of imports there is miniscule compared to the Port's of LA and Long Beach.

Shipping rotations will, depending on company, have ships dock at Port of Oakland AND Port of LA or Long Beach. I'm guessing (I'll have to dig around for current info) CMA CGM and MSC have at least 1 ship rotation that stops at Port of Oakland first. SLC bound containers could be off loaded there instead of Long Beach, saving transit time.

CMA CGM (APL) is the contract UP lost either last year or the year before. As stated, MSC does some business with UP but not alot.

UP is also protecting the business they have with other companies, out of Oakland, on the IOANP. The majority of that train is domestic containers BUT I'm just not sure if MSC and CMA CGM are doing much transloading at Oakland.

There's alot of moving parts to this issue. Both are to blame but, all factors considered, UP has a right to play hard ball with BNSF in this situation.

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/25 14:57 by Keith_Kevet.