Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF and UPS

Looking back over a March 26 thread about BNSF possibly losing UPS traffic to UP.  Thought I would start a new thread on this.  I check the Virtual Railfan cam at Fort Madison several times a day and apparently BNSF still has a pretty healthy amount of UPS containers and trailers.

Has anybody heard anymore about this?

texchief1

It would be hard to believe BNSF would lose the North Bay (CA-NBY) to Chicago traffic to UP. One
wonders how long the attractive low bid would balance out the extra 36-72 hour transit time (except
in Winter where that would be denoted in days!)

Out 

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be hard to believe BNSF would lose the
> North Bay (CA-NBY) to Chicago traffic to UP. One
> wonders how long the attractive low bid would
> balance out the extra 36-72 hour transit time
> (except
> in Winter where that would be denoted in days!)
>
> Out 
It wasn’t in the Chi-North Bay, it was Chi-LA

Posted from iPhone

texchief1, when you look back thru the 12-hour Virtual Railfan archive, do you see more than 1 UP intermodal in each direction? That could indicate new business, especially if you are seeing UPS containers and trailers.

thanks for starting this thread.

i see bnsf trains all day and still see a lot of ups trailers/containers on bnsf z trains.........

66



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/24 14:02 by goneon66.

I'm aware of that, I'm just wondering about a really split contract with one lane in
question. Or maybe just UPS doing the "rope-a-dope" with BNSF?

Out 

mapboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> texchief1, when you look back thru the 12-hour
> Virtual Railfan archive, do you see more than 1 UP
> intermodal in each direction? That could indicate
> new business, especially if you are seeing UPS
> containers and trailers.

mapboy,

I usually just go back an hour or two.  Have not noticed more than one UP and no UPS stuff on those.  Maybe I'm missing some.

texchief1

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm aware of that, I'm just wondering about a
> really split contract with one lane in
> question. Or maybe just UPS doing the
> "rope-a-dope" with BNSF?
>
> Out 

UP already had UPS business on the City of Industry to Chicago lane.    It does seem to have increased of late, but not dramatically.  

texchief1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mapboy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > texchief1, when you look back thru the 12-hour
> > Virtual Railfan archive, do you see more than 1
> UP
> > intermodal in each direction? That could
> indicate
> > new business, especially if you are seeing UPS
> > containers and trailers.
>
> mapboy,
>
> I usually just go back an hour or two.  Have not
> noticed more than one UP and no UPS stuff on
> those.  Maybe I'm missing some.
>
> texchief1

I don't know anybody that has a real good idea about what's going on. There's a recent rumor upper levels of BNSF management asked for and received, from UPS, more time (45 days?) to get their rear in gear. It sounds sensible to me.

Since UP has no direct connection (that I know of) to Willow Springs I can't see how they could handle the UPS business any better than BNSF can. And would UP eat the cost of draying UPS cans and vans to Global 2, plus the expensive trackage rights fees on BNSF just to run another train each way per day??

I still think if UPS wants to punish BNSF for not meeting the 85% on time goal in the LA-Chicago lane UPS would and could move more if not all its LA-Houston, LA-Memphis, LA-Dallas business to UP.

Keith_Kevet

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/24 15:54 by Keith_Kevet.

After having just spent the weekend around Kingman, AZ on the transcon, there is NO shortage of UPS or Z trains on the BNSF. This morning before heading home, I shot no less than 6 westbound Z's in a row in Kingman Canyon all about 10 minutes apart!

mapboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> texchief1, when you look back thru the 12-hour
> Virtual Railfan archive, do you see more than 1 UP
> intermodal in each direction? That could indicate
> new business, especially if you are seeing UPS
> containers and trailers.

BNSF allows only one UP trackage rights train per day,each direction, through Ft. Madison, although those trains seem to be getting longer.

PCBill

bmarti7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> BNSF allows only one UP trackage rights train per
> day,each direction, through Ft. Madison, although
> those trains seem to be getting longer.
>
> PCBill

Not true. The trackage rights agreement allows for more than two trains as no idea where people got that theory since even 5-10 years ago UP was running nearly SIX trains per day on the ex-ATSF. HOWEVER, the real reason UP reduced it down to a single pair is that the trackage right fees the ex-SP agreed to are EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and UP moved all but the lone Z-train pair to other routes between Chicago (headed to/from Global IV) and Southern CA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/24 17:22 by AaronJ.

Too bad Mr. Vena isn't a Trainorders member.  He could tell us exactly what's going on!

You wonder if someone at his level even has a notion of how sophisticated some of our questions
have become? I don't think we ask questions that are much different than his sales group would pose,
I mean we're not just googly eyed foamers waiting for the 4014!

Out 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/24 18:42 by callum_out.

bmarti7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> BNSF allows only one UP trackage rights train per
> day,each direction, through Ft. Madison, although
> those trains seem to be getting longer.
>
> PCBill

As more proof this isn't true, here is a post from 12 years ago showing 10 UP trains in a day running through Ft Madison under the same ex-SP trackage rights that exist now.

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2569158,2569290#msg-2569290



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/24 18:07 by AaronJ.

Keith_Kevet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> texchief1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mapboy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > texchief1, when you look back thru the
> 12-hour
> > > Virtual Railfan archive, do you see more than
> 1
> > UP
> > > intermodal in each direction? That could
> > indicate
> > > new business, especially if you are seeing
> UPS
> > > containers and trailers.
> >
> > mapboy,
> >
> > I usually just go back an hour or two.  Have
> not
> > noticed more than one UP and no UPS stuff on
> > those.  Maybe I'm missing some.
> >
> > texchief1
>
> I don't know anybody that has a real good idea
> about what's going on. There's a recent rumor
> upper levels of BNSF management asked for and
> received, from UPS, more time (45 days?) to get
> their rear in gear. It sounds sensible to me.
>
> Since UP has no direct connection (that I know of)
> to Willow Springs I can't see how they could
> handle the UPS business any better than BNSF can.
> And would UP eat the cost of draying UPS cans and
> vans to Global 2, plus the expensive trackage
> rights fees on BNSF just to run another train each
> way per day??
>
> I still think if UPS wants to punish BNSF for not
> meeting the 85% on time goal in the LA-Chicago
> lane UPS would and could move more if not all its
> LA-Houston, LA-Memphis, LA-Dallas business to UP.
>
>
> Keith_Kevet
>
> Posted from Android

UP already holds the LA-Dallas and LA-Memphis UPS contract.

Posted from iPhone

Said this before and was shot down for it but I’ll say it again (and I’m sure get shot down again for it): UP should have partnered with KCS to get co-ownership in exchange for major upgrades to the Gateway Western, after the new BNSF had no further need for GW and spun it off (through their New York investment partner) in 1997, or in intervening years after up until KCS became a key part of either CN or CP efforts to expand. The difference of routing hot IM traffic from just outside of Marshall, MO, to Roodhouse and then on to Springfield to join the line to Joliet (eventually becoming the location – nearby – of Global 4) and providing a shorter route to both Global 1 (prior to its closing a short while back) and Global 2 would have made a lot of operating and cost sense. Routing hot traffic through St. Louis adds many, many hours and is to UP’s detriment. The GW line was relatively fast from an alignment standpoint; seriously in need of track upgrades, sidings and CTC. Two moveable bridges would over time need upgrades – the Mississippi at Louisiana and the Illinois at Pearl. But UP would be in charge of its own destiny with dispatching, running time, and operating costs. Minimal alignment upgrades would have been required. But in the greater scheme of things, this roughly 210 miles would have bought UP a much more competitive position against BNSF on Southern CA to Chicago hot freight.
 
One of a number of strategic blunders that UP committed that have compromised its potential strength in a number of markets/lanes. Most of which cannot be fixed.
 
Bruce
 

It's hard to believe that BNSF beats UP from the Richmond, CA area all the way to Chicago.  BNSF has to go all the way south the Bakersfield (6-12 hours?), then over Tehachapi, then make their way through congested Barstow, etc. to Chicago.

Meanwhile, UP goes right by the UPS Northbay facility, on it's way to Donner.  Get over Donner, and it's fast running (well, it COULD be fast running...) all the way to Ogden.  Then over the Rockies, then high speed all the way to Chicago.   But BNSF is faster???  Has UP ever run a "high priority" test train to see how fast the Overland Route can be?  It's almost a straight shot, compared to BNSF.

 

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Has UP ever run a "high priority" test train to see
> how fast the Overland Route can be?  It's almost a
> straight shot, compared to BNSF.

Just before PSR (2016-2018 ish), UP ran the ZG2OA and that ran the Overland. Don't know the specifics of how the trailers were drayed from Oakland, but trailers were on that train (reviewing a video I posted and there's one UPS trailer). ZG2OA did a setout at Sparks.

For Lathrop, anyway, the UP always ran the Chicago to Lathrop Z trains fast, from ZCSLT to ZG2LT. UP back then was ambitious enough to single-stack the ZCSLT to run over Donner. This was before Donner was open to doublestacks in 2009.

I remember comparing ZNPOA running FRC vs. Donner, and when properly powered, ZNPOA ran about 2-3 hours faster over Donner.

So I think your question was already tried and answered.

Yep, you're getting shot down again based on these facts.
For one it's not even that much of a mileage savings vs UP running KC-Springfield via St. Louis at only 85 miles. For lower priority intermodal this difference is irrelevant, especially when considering that minimal mileage difference is negated due to a variety of issues noted below.

Further, spending millions of dollars upgrading the Gateway along with ability to bypass St. Louis, will not eliminate the fact the Gateway's grades, curves, stops for barge traffic on the rivers, and single track setup with multiple stops for meets...will remain. Hence, this completely eliminates that small mileage advantage when UP can run on 2-main or directional track across MO followed by nearly 60% of the ex-GM&O between Springfield and St.Louis also being 2-main track. Outside of navigating through St. Louis, UP can run at track speed with minimal issues of meets plus can make those 15-kft monster trains without worry of siding issues.

This doesn't even account for the fact that potential massive upgrades on the Gateway route would still leave it with no ability to compete with running premium intermodal via trackage rights over the ex-ATSF. UP even ran test trains on the parallel ex-Wabash several years ago and found even it couldn't meet what was needed to run premium intermodal if UP is going to compete with BNSF.

The Gateway will always be challenging, which largely explain why nobody else has jumped at getting that route.


StStephen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Said this before and was shot down for it but
> I’ll say it again (and I’m sure get shot down
> again for it): UP should have partnered with KCS
> to get co-ownership in exchange for major upgrades
> to the Gateway Western, after the new BNSF had no
> further need for GW and spun it off (through their
> New York investment partner) in 1997, or in
> intervening years after up until KCS became a key
> part of either CN or CP efforts to expand. The
> difference of routing hot IM traffic from just
> outside of Marshall, MO, to Roodhouse and then on
> to Springfield to join the line to Joliet
> (eventually becoming the location – nearby –
> of Global 4) and providing a shorter route to both
> Global 1 (prior to its closing a short while back)
> and Global 2 would have made a lot of operating
> and cost sense. Routing hot traffic through St.
> Louis adds many, many hours and is to UP’s
> detriment. The GW line was relatively fast from an
> alignment standpoint; seriously in need of track
> upgrades, sidings and CTC. Two moveable bridges
> would over time need upgrades – the Mississippi
> at Louisiana and the Illinois at Pearl. But UP
> would be in charge of its own destiny with
> dispatching, running time, and operating costs.
> Minimal alignment upgrades would have been
> required. But in the greater scheme of things,
> this roughly 210 miles would have bought UP a much
> more competitive position against BNSF on Southern
> CA to Chicago hot freight.
>  
> One of a number of strategic blunders that UP
> committed that have compromised its potential
> strength in a number of markets/lanes. Most of
> which cannot be fixed.
>  
> Bruce
>  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/24 05:30 by AaronJ.