GDLK News

[NSSD70ACe]

Hi all! I have something for you.....


Heard from a friend today that GDLK is staging cars in the next few weeks for service to Battle Creek. Ought to be interesting. They couldn't do it before because of the NS lease forbid them to go onto the other side of the mainline, but that is now void because NS no longer owns the line. Also heard about a rumor of new locomotives, which I think is possible because of the new service to BC. Not confirmed however. I'll keep my ear to the ground, though.

Comments? Post 'em here. Just keep 'em civilized.

Oh, btw: CSX_CO and MQT3001, please no golden glove arguing.

[JStryker722]

Do this mean that NS is retreating from BC?

[chapmaja]

I'm confused about something. Are you saying they are going to begin service to Battle Creek? That would appear to be a violation of the agreement between the State of Michigan and NS for the sale of the Michigan line. NS retained exclusive freight service rights on the line as part of the sale of the mainline. Has NS given up these rights to Grand Elk from Kalamazoo to Battle Creek? It would not shock me if they have because NS doesn't have much between the two cities that I know of, and it is a pain for NS to service west of Battle Creek anyway.

[JStryker722]

I read the MDOT-NS JOA and basically while NS owns the exclusive freight rights,they can lease out those rights to Shortlines neighboring the MI Line. GDLK must be their choice for lessor in a case like this case.

[Saturnalia]

I read the MDOT-NS JOA and basically while NS owns the exclusive freight rights,they can lease out those rights to Shortlines neighboring the MI Line. GDLK must be their choice for lessor in a case like this case.

Yes, it is possible that NS is leasing their BC ops to GDLK, but shouldn't we have seen SOMETHING in the way of a press release? I'm not sure about filings with the government, but things like this are usually announced with press releases.

[CSX_CO]

Yes, it is possible that NS is leasing their BC ops to GDLK, but shouldn't we have seen SOMETHING in the way of a press release? I'm not sure about filings with the government, but things like this are usually announced with press releases.

Uh, pretty sure they'd have to file something with the STB when it pertains to appointing operators of trackage rights, lease of rights, etc. That sort of thing would require review by the STB. Press releases may come after all the ducks are in a row.

STB would be interested because shippers would have the right to voice concerns about someone else providing service, etc.

Besides, NS would be pretty stupid at this point to appoint another operator. They're already saving themselves the bulk of the expense, and the per car fee is pretty minimal.

Now, perhaps what I could see NS doing, is working out an arrangement where cars for Battle Creek come up from Elkhart on the GDLK to K-zoo and NS can get them there to take back east. Could possibly shorten the trip (depending on where the cars are going), and then NS doesn't have to bring them from the east? However, I don't know how NS operates the Michigan Line post lease of everything around K-zoo.

Watco's site, and map of the GDLK doesn't show them going east of K-zoo on the Michigan Line.

http://www.watcocompanies.com/Railroads ... %20Elk.pdf

If GDLK didn't have rights to Battle Creek before the line sale, then that doesn't 'nullify' and 'lease' on the Michigan Line. Can't nullify something that didn't exist before just because NS sold the line to the state.

Practice Safe CSX

[JStryker722]

If this is being told from someone connected to the inside,then it must be only assumed that this has only been spoke about in-house until the STB filing clears. For now it's just speculation on when,why,etc.

[CSX_CO]

If this is being told from someone connected to the inside,then it must be only assumed that this has only been spoke about in-house until the STB filing clears. For now it's just speculation on when,why,etc.

Filings usually have a minimum time for 'appeals' to make concerns known, etc. Usually its more than 'a few weeks'.

CSX started running trains on the LIRC back in July. They announced their intent for a 'special easement' in June, but it wasn't affective until December. This gave towns along the line, shippers, etc time to file responses, etc. Of course, they already had a trackage rights agreement in place, but that gives you an idea of the time frame for responses to the filings.

Granting someone operating rights doesn't just happen in a 'few weeks time'. Filing usually comes first.

Practice Safe CSX

[bctrainfan]

Not sure what NS would gain from this. They now have minimized their costs for line maintenance by selling out to the state/Amtrak. They only need one crew to run the B57 BC-Augusta turn M-F nights, and that seems to move enough cars to make it profitable. They do the majority of the Post and Kellogg's work, tank cars to RockTenn paper, and then Knappen Milling in Augusta (which I am guessing gets about 50 CH's a week? maybe one of the NS guys can confirm or correct that number?) There are no other customers any more, not even potential customers that i can think of, between Augusta and Gearhart Yard. And I dont expect NS wants to hand off anything to GDLK in Elkhart and pick it back up from them in Kalamazoo or BC. When Kellogg's was sending their old PC green boxcars to Kazoo for scrapping, NS insisted on routing them via Wayne-Elkhart instead of just taking them directly from BC to Kazoo! There was a pissing match for a bit over the billing for the longer move, but it was eventually resolved and I believe NS did move them via Elkhart in the end. It would be more likely that they would lease all the way to Jackson, or even beyond.

This brought another question or two to mind. Obviously GDLK interchanes with NS in Elkhart. Does GDLK interchange directly with CN via Pavillion/Kilgore, or anywhere else? How about in GR, is that strictly with CSX?

[AARR]

This brought another question or two to mind. Obviously GDLK interchanes with NS in Elkhart. Does GDLK interchange directly with CN via Pavillion/Kilgore, or anywhere else? How about in GR, is that strictly with CSX?

Yes, GDLK interchanges with CN at either Kilgore or Pavilion and with CSX in Grand Rapids. They may also interchange with GRE in Grand Rapids.

If GDLK will be switching Battle Creek, will that include Knappen Mills in Augusta too?

[NSSD70ACe]

...If GDLK will be switching Battle Creek, will that include Knappen Mills in Augusta too?

As far as I can tell, it may just be another interchange. I'll have to find out more. It could also be possible that they'll go south to Elkhart and over to DET and back to BC....which seems really unneeded in BC.

The only thing confirmed right now is that they're staging cars to go to BC in a few weeks. No word on when, why, how, and where they'll go once in BC. Anything else is pure speculation

[Saturnalia]

This brought another question or two to mind. Obviously GDLK interchanes with NS in Elkhart. Does GDLK interchange directly with CN via Pavillion/Kilgore, or anywhere else? How about in GR, is that strictly with CSX?

Yes, GDLK interchanges with CN at either Kilgore or Pavilion and with CSX in Grand Rapids. They may also interchange with GRE in Grand Rapids.

Yes, they do interchange directly with the GRE. Through CSX, stuff also ends up over at MQT*. Lately they've been interchanging off the old 17 track between Plaster Creek and Godfrey, with the GDLK coming down from their run to the GRE, grabbing the stuff for them, going back to Hughart and returning with stuff for the CSX. On days without the GRE, they just come out and go straight to the Old 17.

MQT's agreement with CSX is all cars must go via CSX Wyoming Yard, or pay a penalty. May as well let CSX have the trouble to reclassifying everything. IIRC the GDLK was very interested for a time of re-laying tracks north of Turner St to have direct interchange with the MQT. The CSX agreement stopped them, but there might have been something with the land too. IIRC, GDLK leases the land all the way up the GR&I to Comstock Park from Fuller, but has to ask NS before they build?

[Raildudes dad]

The original GDLK lease stops at Pleasant Street. They used north of Ann St only a few times since then they interchange on the interchange track or in the GRE yard. GDLK will need a lease to serve the new Van's building if they don't already. They do not lease north of Turner

[Mike H]

MQT's agreement with CSX is all cars must go via CSX Wyoming Yard, or pay a penalty. May as well let CSX have the trouble to reclassifying everything. IIRC the GDLK was very interested for a time of re-laying tracks north of Turner St to have direct interchange with the MQT. The CSX agreement stopped them, but there might have been something with the land too. IIRC, GDLK leases the land all the way up the GR&I to Comstock Park from Fuller, but has to ask NS before they build?

Not completely true. There is no agreement that says all of the MQT traffic has to go via Wyoming yard. There is a paper barrier that say MQT has to pay a variable charge (changes yearly) for any traffic interchanged to any other railroad. The only legal PHYSICAL interchange MQT currently has is with CSX in Grand Rapids. On paper MQT can also interchange with GDLK & NS in Grand Rapids (NS has haulage right over GDLK to the GRE & MQT has haulage rights over over GDLK although they have never exercised the haulage rights.)

NS, MQT & Dow explored rebuilding track on the NS ROW north of Turner St, but never moved forward with the project & I suspect that is because NS had been negotiating with Watco for some time at that point. I am not aware of anytime that GDLK has explored rebuilding on the NS ROW, but it is possible. There is nothing preventing the track from being rebuilt except for money. There are two main advantages to building the new track, 1. Cut out the CSX switch charge. ($105 in each direction unless it has gone up which is likely) 2. Significantly reduce transit times.

The original MQT was fairly aggressive with pushing the interchange options, but I don't think G&W is the type of company that is willing to rock the boat & risk upsetting CSX. MQT had nothing to lose & a lot of traffic to gain by interchanging with NS. At the time we did the analysis there was not enough traffic moving to NS to get a decent payback on the track costs, but I think there is enough traffic going to the GDLK to justify it now. Unfortunately I don't think anyone is willing to run the risk of upsetting CSX by doing the project.

Mike H

[Saturnalia]

MQT's agreement with CSX is all cars must go via CSX Wyoming Yard, or pay a penalty. May as well let CSX have the trouble to reclassifying everything. IIRC the GDLK was very interested for a time of re-laying tracks north of Turner St to have direct interchange with the MQT. The CSX agreement stopped them, but there might have been something with the land too. IIRC, GDLK leases the land all the way up the GR&I to Comstock Park from Fuller, but has to ask NS before they build?

Not completely true. There is no agreement that says all of the MQT traffic has to go via Wyoming yard. There is a paper barrier that say MQT has to pay a variable charge (changes yearly) for any traffic interchanged to any other railroad. The only legal PHYSICAL interchange MQT currently has is with CSX in Grand Rapids. On paper MQT can also interchange with GDLK & NS in Grand Rapids (NS has haulage right over GDLK to the GRE & MQT has haulage rights over over GDLK although they have never exercised the haulage rights.)

Thanks for the write-up Mike!

One thing: When you said:

"MQT has haulage rights over over GDLK although they have never exercised the haulage rights"

Are you saying MQT has haulage rights to the GDLK or over them?

[Raildudes dad]

I was told by a reliable source that there was no financial benefit to a direct connection for MQT to the GDLK. The contract was written very tight, CSX is going to get their charges regardless. I don't believe they interchange anything that time sensitive that a a couple days transit time is important.

[Saturnalia]

I was told by a reliable source that there was no financial benefit to a direct connection for MQT to the GDLK. The contract was written very tight, CSX is going to get their charges regardless. I don't believe they interchange anything that time sensitive that a a couple days transit time is important.

AFAIK, on the average MQT southbound train of 60+ cars, around 20% goes to the GDLK, 25% to Chicago, and the remainder to Toledo. That is a rough estimate based on observations, feel free to correct me if I'm way off.

Also, it seems that most traffic from MQT layover 24 hours or so (or less) before going out. Stuff in Monday should be out of town by Tuesday night. Depends on the yard schedule and when Z151 gets in. So generally, traffic doesn't sit too long in GRR, but again this is just the observations of a railfan...

[CSX_CO]

Also, it seems that most traffic from MQT layover 24 hours or so (or less) before going out. Stuff in Monday should be out of town by Tuesday night. Depends on the yard schedule and when Z151 gets in. So generally, traffic doesn't sit too long in GRR, but again this is just the observations of a railfan...

And, if Q327 could run in late afternoon/evening westbound to Chicago, then those cars wouldn't be sitting 24 hrs. Not sure if MQT has to 'pre-block' the cuts for CSX? If everything is pre-blocked, then it would only take a couple of hours to get everything 'split up' and headed in the right directions. Not sure how the interchange agreement is worded, but I would imagine it would be at least somewhat pre-blocked?

But, can't run Q327 west in the evenings to move those cars because of the EB AMTRAK. Well, without creating a meet that wouldn't need to take place, and causing delay to Q327 and AMTRAK.

In the case of NS, with the flat fee per car, they may be saving enough money to warrant getting the Elk to make the cars available for pickup at K-zoo, and save the hassle of Elkhart-Toledo-Jackson-Battle Creek routing.

Practice Safe CSX

[Saturnalia]

Also, it seems that most traffic from MQT layover 24 hours or so (or less) before going out. Stuff in Monday should be out of town by Tuesday night. Depends on the yard schedule and when Z151 gets in. So generally, traffic doesn't sit too long in GRR, but again this is just the observations of a railfan...

And, if Q327 could run in late afternoon/evening westbound to Chicago, then those cars wouldn't be sitting 24 hrs. Not sure if MQT has to 'pre-block' the cuts for CSX? If everything is pre-blocked, then it would only take a couple of hours to get everything 'split up' and headed in the right directions. Not sure how the interchange agreement is worded, but I would imagine it would be at least somewhat pre-blocked?

Building Q327 sometimes goes until 5 or 7 pm, at least from what I have seen.

I don't think there is any blocking with MQT stuff, but since most of it seems to go to Toledo, I is probably an easier pick-apart, but I don't work in the biz. Perhaps Dok can shed some light?

[CSX_CO]

I don't think there is any blocking with MQT stuff, but since most of it seems to go to Toledo, I is probably an easier pick-apart, but I don't work in the biz. Perhaps Dok can shed some light?

Its scheduled time 'out' is 1000. If its not leaving until 1700 or 1900, then its running "Late".

Practice Safe CSX