MIGN-SOO Relationship

[AARR]

Posted by Alex Huff on 12/8/2014, 3:33 pm, in reply to "Soo Line and MN"

The Soo Line senior management followed the CP's position, since CP had controlling interest. CP thought the flag out was a "bad thing". Out in the field, sales reps for the Soo Line would make sure that shippers routing lumber east of Chicago were aware they could save 4% on their entire freight bill if the cars included Minneapolis-SOO Line-Mackinaw City-MIGN-Grand Rapids-CR (or MIGN-Reed City-C&O). To protect themselves, Soo sales reps would call MIGN collect so the home office wouldn't know they were violating "company policy".

The operating department had some heartburn issues when traffic began to back up at the Straits. Soo Line was incurring per diem charges and congestion that backed up cars all the way to Shoreham Yard. As I recall, much of the backlog was cleared by an ICC order, directing SOO Line to deliver the cars via Chicago.

The Soo Line didn't have any interest in buying MIGN. Since MIGN was merely an operator, it could be replaced whenever the state was dissatisfied. TSBY's replacing MIGN south of Petoskey is an example. Another reason was the same one that caused Conrail to have no interest in operating north of Grand Rapids, not enough on line business. This is speculation, but Soo Line and by extension CP, may not have wanted to disturb the traditional relationships between eastern and western carriers by extending across a gateway into Official Territory. In an earlier post, I erred in describing east of Chicago as Eastern Territory.