Western Railroad Discussion > Hot rumor on the Moffat Line in Utah

I spent some time up in the Soldier Summit area in Utah yesterday. I was hoping to find a UP guy somewhere and inquire about traffic levels after cancellation of the MNYRO/MRONY pair of manifest freights a week or so ago, but to no avail. After a while waiting, here comes a westbound BNSF trackage rights train; a pretty long one too. I got several shots of it of the usual roadside variety at the usual spots. The weather was stunning; absolutely crystal clear blue sky with nary a cloud.
 
As I was following the BNSF train down Spanish Fork Canyon my scanner perked up and I listened in on the following conversation between a UP track inspector and either the conductor or the engineer on the BNSF train.
 
After exchanging pleasantries the UP guy asks “So what are you hearing about you guys taking over this line?”
 
BNSF guy  “I heard that they are talking about it right now.”
 
UP track inspector  “ Any idea when this is supposed to happen?”
 
BNSF guy  “ some time within the next two years”
 
So, there you have it. I understand that this may be just the usual “railroad rumor” , but I have been thinking a lot lately about the future of the Moffat line in Utah. In my 43 years living here I have seen it busy in the Rio Grand days, very busy in the SP days and dying a slow death by starvation under the UP. It is now pretty much a dead man walking!  Enough whining on my part, here are some pictures. All taken between Kyune on the east side of the pass and gilluly on the west on the UP Provo sub.
 
Dick Ebright
Roosevelt, Utah
 

---

---

---

Thanks for the info. VERY interesting. UP seems to be ready to ceed anything for the shareholders impression/dividends. All good, however from the sound and look of what is going on BNSF will eat UP alive after UP full implements all the new plans. What's next? Sell the WP to BNSF?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/18 07:05 by bluesman.

I've thought about the possibility of the UP spinning off the old WP to the BNSF too. But I think it's unlikely, especially for the Shafter Sub. The Great Salt Lake causeway is notorious about being unstable and washout prone. The Shafter Sub is a well maintained, CTC equipped bypass around the problems on the lake. I think they will keep it.

Dick Ebright
Roosevelt, Utah



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/18 08:35 by 2ebright.

Sounds like a yard office rumor to me. It’s right up there with UP getting rights over Stampede and BNSF getting the MRL back.

2ebright Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've thought about the possibility of the UP
> spinning off the old WP to the BNSF too. But I
> think it's unlikely, especially for the Shafter
> Sub. The Great Salt Lake causeway is notorius
> about being unstable and washout prone. The
> Shafter Sub is a well maintained, CTC equipped
> bypass around the problems on the lake. I think
> they will keep it.
>
> Dick Ebright
> Roosevelt, Utah

I'm sure if BNSF made an offer on the WP they would have no problem in giving UP trackage rights on the Shafter Sub. They could even upgrade it to two main tracks if the traffic is there.

Wonder if UP would get rights thru Fort Morgan and any other horse trading that has been simmering, wasn't there something in missouri?   UP would probably retain rights, West Elk?  UPS switch back to the Moffat?

It wouldn't surprise me if there's a lot of behind the scenes deal-brokerings. UP is definitely going through a new era of operations.

Very NICE shots with an interesting rumor.

Larry

I imagine that UP would be delighted to unload the Moffat.  But why in the would BNSF want it?  I don’t see much gain in traffic there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/18 10:06 by Copy19.

they are more long  sited than the  UP , with help from Warren, UP doesn't like hills

IMHO about as likely as the revival of Tennessee Pass.
JB

While it's easy to blame higher UP management, this is all driven by the investment community demanding higher profits and lower operating ratios. If UP management doesn't deliver they'll lose their jobs. Of course once the investors get what they want, they'll sell, take their profits, and leave UP a practically worthless shell. Gee, how many other American companies have gone down this road - short term profits over long term company health.

Up here in Eugene, the local manager in charge of Eugene Yard has been quoted as telling the crews on locals to "not worry about the customers"; they're more worried about eliminating overtime. UP has told shippers when they'll get switched and many only get switched a couple of times a week even though the locals are right there and the customer wants service. There is a large customer moving into Springfield who wants to receive tank cars of gas (oxygen). The area they have bought already has a spur although it needs refurbishing, which they want to do. They have already been told by UP they will not get serviced as they don't fit "UP's operating plan". 

It sure sounds like UP is trying to drive off as many "small" shippers so they can concentrate on intermodal, coal, and any major shippers - the little guys are screwed. Evidently UP economists figure they can "save" UP into profitability rather than increase revenues to create value and profitability. 

they are  cost analyzing everything to death, not sure what their rate of return they require to do buisness with you, even if thier return is great they want big volume.  The frac sand on the craig branch example #1 customer wants 80 car trains, UP wanted 100, customer is now doing biz from Utah via BN.  #2 oil can trains  on the coast.     BNSF and shortlines is getting the customers , thAt UP doesn't want to deal with.  It costs UP $200,000 to train a two man crew, they want a huge return and loose carload traffic isn't worth they have concluded.

Maybe Uncle Phil can make a move here and shake everything up again.
Good post for the Nostalgia board.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that in virtually every other industry that premium service can demand a premium price.
Customer wants 80 car train, charge them as such rather than just saying "no!". Our service centers averaged 22 different
pricing matrixes for their respective customer base, they paid for what they got. Unfortunately the more recent management
has embraced the model UP is using and well things aren't quite so rosy anymore.

Out

Look at the map,  If they get Moffet and could get the WP then they will have the west coast wrapped up.   Being able to work with shippers and not be holding to Wall Street would mean tha UP might start to loose business bit time.   Want to cut operating ratio's, don't run as many trains.

Awesome Series!

SouthWest RailCams
CA, NM, CO, TX, AZ
https://SouthWestRailCams.com

Copy19 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I imagine that UP would be delighted to unload the
> Moffat.  But why in the would BNSF want it?  I
> don’t see much gain in traffic there.

Unfortunately, this is probably all rumors, maybe those crews were talking to each other in jest?  However, it would be great to see happen.  I suppose if UP does piss off their customers and goes the downward spiral that CSX is now on, that BNSF could start picking up former UP customers.  The BN-DRGW was quite effective competing with UP in the past on intermodal through Denver, might this happen again (though they would have to single stack the cars on the Moffat)?  Again, probably wishful thinking.  It would also seem that BNSF would need better facilities in the SLC area, maybe Roper Yard could be that since UP seems to be moving most SLC area terminal work to Ogden?  Open up an intermodal terminal there?  Yeah, I could go on and on.

One thing that I wouldn't be surprised to see is if UP off loaded the lower former WP Feather River canyon to the BNSF, and then UP kept trackage rights for their heavy westbound trains that run the on the former WP through there now and detours when Donners is out of service.  The same might be true for the former WP in Utah?

Ok, wow, starting to wonder what was in that brownie I just ate?!?!  Yeah, I can't see BNSF plunging the huge amount of dollars this would take.  However, I definitely DO NOT think that the government would let UP abandon (or materially downgrade) any part of the former DRGW through route that's in service now, so maybe UP is in a mood to deal???

Copy19 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I imagine that UP would be delighted to unload the
> Moffat.  But why in the would BNSF want it?  I
> don’t see much gain in traffic there.


Exactly! I highly doubt this rumor as it seems more like someone's pipe dream (e.g. Tennessee Pass opening). If BNSF was that interested in this route they would be running more than a token train or two. The facts remain that despite the old ATSF being 250-300 miles longer from KC to northern CA, it's cheaper and faster to run this routing than via the DRGW and WP for BNSF, hence why BNSF can easily compete with UP in this corridor. Additionally, UP is not selling the ex WP for a variety of reasons. Specifically, UP still runs directionally across NV, heavy westbounds over the Feather River route along with backup with Donner issues, and SLC traffic via Shafter sub along with being a fail-safe for every time the Lakeside has problems. So this means it would be just about Denver to Salt Lake with BNSF magically making a gigantic leap in business to Salt Lake than they have now (not likely).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/18 12:40 by AaronJ.

jlcKS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at the map,  If they get Moffet and could
> get the WP then they will have the west coast
> wrapped up.  

What? They already have a great route into northern CA and somehow purchasing the old DRGW won't change the fact it is faster and cheaper to run via the old ATSF.