Western Railroad Discussion > UPS Chicago-LA traffic switch to UP? (unconfirmed)

Saw a railroader discussion that BNSF lost a UPS contract for Chicago-LA because of poor service. It also mentioned Amazon but I can't see that as in the same category, Amazon is notoriously horrendous on pricing and my guess would be they don't have a premium rate on the level of UPS.

This is totally unconfirmed, so seeing if there is any more info. If true, I know contracts shift but that seems like a larger than usual shift for UPS, especially given that Willow Springs/UPS is a BNSF ramp.

inCHI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saw a railroader discussion that BNSF lost a UPS
> contract for Chicago-LA because of poor service.
> It also mentioned Amazon but I can't see that as
> in the same category, Amazon is notoriously
> horrendous on pricing and my guess would be they
> don't have a premium rate on the level of UPS.
>
> This is totally unconfirmed, so seeing if there is
> any more info. If true, I know contracts shift but
> that seems like a larger than usual shift for UPS,
> especially given that Willow Springs/UPS is a BNSF
> ramp.

I suppose this could be true. UP's ex-SP LATC intermodal facility near downtown LA is very close to UPS's facility.

I would think it could be a diversion of some UPS stuff to get BNSF's attention, but who knows.

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android

I wonder what would happen if Jim Vena did in fact take Katie Farmer's favorite pet(UPS) away, and Amazon follows suit. I would expect some heads would be rolling in Fort Worthless. I would also suspect that prices from UP stock would rise significantly. I'd also wonder if the shareholders would reap the benefits from it in the form of a higher dividend yield. 

Drew Mitchem
Centralia, WA

I thought that BNSF had the shortest route between Chicago and LA and could offer faster transit times. What route would UP use between Chicago and LA and how does it compare time and distance with the former Santa Fe?

DutchDragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought that BNSF had the shortest route between
> Chicago and LA and could offer faster transit
> times. What route would UP use between Chicago and
> LA and how does it compare time and distance with
> the former Santa Fe?

UP could go Chicago-North Platte-Salt Lake-LA. 
Or they could use there BNSF rights from Chicago to KC and use the Golden State Route. 
MILW86A 

UP has always had UPS contracts in the same lanes as BNSF, for instance, they carry UPS between Lathrop and Chicago, also between City of Industry and Chicago.   Just way less volume.   It's hard to believe all the UPS would go to UP, who would then carry it to Chicago on BNSF's own trackage east of KC.   

memphisfreight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UP has always had UPS contracts in the same lanes
> as BNSF, for instance, they carry UPS between
> Lathrop and Chicago, also between City of Industry
> and Chicago.   Just way less volume.   It's
> hard to believe all the UPS would go to UP, who
> would then carry it to Chicago on BNSF's own
> trackage east of KC. 

Too many late "Z" trains apparently.

BNSF has really tossed alot of their resources into volume shipping of marine boxes into and out of the Ports of LA and Long Beach, especially for MSC. It's almost incredible how many MSC boxes BNSF is moving.

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android

MILW86A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DutchDragon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought that BNSF had the shortest route
> between
> > Chicago and LA and could offer faster transit
> > times. What route would UP use between Chicago
> and
> > LA and how does it compare time and distance
> with
> > the former Santa Fe?
>
> UP could go Chicago-North Platte-Salt Lake-LA. 
> Or they could use there BNSF rights from Chicago
> to KC and use the Golden State Route. 
> MILW86A 

UP can make pretty good time out to Wyoming from Chicago, but west of there getting into LA can be slow. Echo Canyon into Salt Lake City adds up time as well as snaking through the canyons north of Las Vegas. They would then need to get on BNSF trackage at Yermo/Barstow, which if they are stealing former BNSF traffic those switches might not get lined for them very quick. 

I have heard this but don't work that area so I don't know. I do know the North lines are kinda a mess because of crew issues due to rest cycles from the contract starting. I do know that at least between Seattle and Spokane via Wenatchee everything and I mean everything seems to be running twice the HPT (1.0 now 2.0) and are exempt from 0/40 and 5/50 throttle restrictions. I've hear that some trains EB out of Pasco have also had speed increases and most trains east of Spokane. So it seems like there might be some movement to improve train speeds and times.

MILW86A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UP could go Chicago-North Platte-Salt Lake-LA. 
> Or they could use there BNSF rights from Chicago
> to KC and use the Golden State Route. 
> MILW86A 

I believe UP BNSF trackage rights from Hutinson, KS - Edelstein, IL limited to one train east/west per day.

PCBill

It's not the number of trains that are limited, it is the amount that BNSF charges us per train, to utilize those trackage rights. It's costs us a lot of coin to run more than one train per day on Uncle Warren's property.

ItsInEight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not the number of trains that are limited, it
> is the amount that BNSF charges us per train, to
> utilize those trackage rights. It's costs us a lot
> of coin to run more than one train per day on
> Uncle Warren's property.

Knowing UP if they got all the LA to Chitown UPS they'd probably try to run one 20,000 ft monster with 3 sets of midtrain DPUs.   

Regulary watch the cameras on the Transcon and appears to be notable reduction in UPS traffic. 

I thought the UP rights over BNSF (Ft. Madison example) as originally set up by the STB allowed like a maximum of 6 trains a day.

If you watch the Ft. Madison cam, there's a westbound UP scheduled to hit there about 4PM each day that is a predictable monster double-stack, stretches from the crew change all the way back into Illinois on many days.

So is it still a train count limit?   If that's the route, it's getting maxed out by count & length already.

Not that much IM traffic on the LA&SL anymore, the SLC-Denver Z pair is just about it (it also carries UPS IIRC). So any additional UPS traffic on UP will almost certainly run the Golden State Route. I wonder how performance on that route will hold up with increased volume and increased UPS service demand though

Concur on the expense of the BNSF rights Chicago-KC via Ft. Madison as the reason only one (long) Z train runs that route. The remaining Chicago IM traffic either runs KC-Council Bluffs (EB) and Nevada-Des Moines-KC (WB) for G2 or via StL for G4 to gain the GSR at KC. But maybe if they captured enough premium price UPS traffic a second train start on the direct and fast route would be worth the expense?

I suppose it's all speculation though until there's some announcement/press release. Any anecdotally observed reduction in current BNSF UPS volume on the Southern Transcon might only reflect an overall UPS volume drop at this time also.

The only other tidbit I saw, also totally unconfirmed, is that the start date for some traffic to shift was April 1st... Though typing that date certainly doesn't help this sound serious, ha.

pbouzide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> I suppose it's all speculation though until
> there's some announcement/press release. Any
> anecdotally observed reduction in current BNSF UPS
> volume on the Southern Transcon might only reflect
> an overall UPS volume drop at this time also.

i see trains on the seligman sub everyday and i have not YET observed any significant reduction in ups containers/trailers..........

66

I believe that Today was the last day for the LA business. Where it goes now, I'm sure there will be an announcement. When your service dips below the agreed too performance level, time to make a change. Times are not good right now on the management side of things, and changes may be on the way. I'll keep hoping for the best, but not going to hold my breath just yet. The place needs help. Bad.
 

How much upgrading is still going on the Golden State route r cotton rock

Posted from Android

How much upgrading is still going on the Golden State route r cotton rock

Posted from Android