GDLK Operations
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 1191
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:53 am
- Location: Three Rivers, Mi.--Indian Rocks Beach,Fl.
Re: GDLK Operations
One customer that I still can't figure out is the one with the loop track at Wayland. 3 years now and GLLXs two engines still sitting for the most part where they did when it opened? Have never seen a railcar on the loop ever. Anybody seen different?
Re: GDLK Operations
I thought I read they have received one or two unit trains of nitrogen but perhaps I am mistaken.
Super Chief wrote:One customer that I still can't figure out is the one with the loop track at Wayland. 3 years now and GLLXs two engines still sitting for the most part where they did when it opened? Have never seen a railcar on the loop ever. Anybody seen different?
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10535
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
Re: GDLK Operations
They have only received one unit train in Wayland to date. However, they do have a decent loose car business of sodium hoppers that they unload there.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
Re: GDLK Operations
Saw two or three cars on the loop back in May 2015, nothing since. But I don't drive by there much.Super Chief wrote:Have never seen a railcar on the loop ever. Anybody seen different?
Re: GDLK Operations
From today's Trains Magazine newswire:
WASHINGTON — The Surface Transportation Board has ordered CSX Transportaiton to give access to Grand Elk Railroad on 3.2 miles of CSX line in Grand Rapids, Mich., by Dec. 4.
In an unusual decision handed down Nov. 20, the board retroactively authorized Grand Elk's acquisition of trackage rights to January 2009, when the Watco Cos. leased 126 miles on Norfolk Southern between Elkhart, Ind., and Grand Rapids. Previous trackage rights agreements between CSX and NS were inadvertently omitted from the lease agreement. Those contracts expired in 2014.
Despite the oversight, CSX gave Grand Elk access to shippers in Grand Rapids but in August 2016, CSX suddenly barred Grand Elk trains. Grand Elk petitioned the STB for relief the following month, and asked the STB to grant trackage rights retroactively to 2009. The STB refused.
Before the STB's ruling could take effect, a circuit court in Grand Rapids had to rule on the validity of the CSX-NS trackage rights contracts. The court refused to rule because the contracts had expired: no contract, no ruling.
In its Nov. 20 decision, STB noted that granting anything retroactively was highly unusual in agency practice, but acting in Grand Elk's favor gives the short line an opportunity to ask the state court to reconsider its decision.
After CSX banned Grand Elk in 2016, shippers complained about lower service quality and switching fees nearly triple what Grand Elk was charging. The STB admitted, “the unintended consequence of the board’s denial of retroactivity has … enabled CSXT to frustrate GDLK’s ability to serve ... without regard to the public interest.
“CSXT's behavior also appears to conflict with the intent of the original agreements, which were negotiated to consolidate duplicative trackage while preserving competition,” the board said. “If GDLK had a right to operate over the CSXT Line prior to the expiration of the 1980s agreements … fairness dictates that GDLK should be permitted to continue to operate on the line unless and until the board authorizes abandonment or discontinuance.”
CSX has disputed Grand Elk's claims from the start, and could still petition the STB to reconsider before Dec. 4, according to someone familiar with the case who spoke on background. CSX also could negotiate a new trackage rights agreement with Grand Elk, or continue operations as they were before August 2016.
A CSX spokesman said that the railroad is evaluating the board's decision.
WASHINGTON — The Surface Transportation Board has ordered CSX Transportaiton to give access to Grand Elk Railroad on 3.2 miles of CSX line in Grand Rapids, Mich., by Dec. 4.
In an unusual decision handed down Nov. 20, the board retroactively authorized Grand Elk's acquisition of trackage rights to January 2009, when the Watco Cos. leased 126 miles on Norfolk Southern between Elkhart, Ind., and Grand Rapids. Previous trackage rights agreements between CSX and NS were inadvertently omitted from the lease agreement. Those contracts expired in 2014.
Despite the oversight, CSX gave Grand Elk access to shippers in Grand Rapids but in August 2016, CSX suddenly barred Grand Elk trains. Grand Elk petitioned the STB for relief the following month, and asked the STB to grant trackage rights retroactively to 2009. The STB refused.
Before the STB's ruling could take effect, a circuit court in Grand Rapids had to rule on the validity of the CSX-NS trackage rights contracts. The court refused to rule because the contracts had expired: no contract, no ruling.
In its Nov. 20 decision, STB noted that granting anything retroactively was highly unusual in agency practice, but acting in Grand Elk's favor gives the short line an opportunity to ask the state court to reconsider its decision.
After CSX banned Grand Elk in 2016, shippers complained about lower service quality and switching fees nearly triple what Grand Elk was charging. The STB admitted, “the unintended consequence of the board’s denial of retroactivity has … enabled CSXT to frustrate GDLK’s ability to serve ... without regard to the public interest.
“CSXT's behavior also appears to conflict with the intent of the original agreements, which were negotiated to consolidate duplicative trackage while preserving competition,” the board said. “If GDLK had a right to operate over the CSXT Line prior to the expiration of the 1980s agreements … fairness dictates that GDLK should be permitted to continue to operate on the line unless and until the board authorizes abandonment or discontinuance.”
CSX has disputed Grand Elk's claims from the start, and could still petition the STB to reconsider before Dec. 4, according to someone familiar with the case who spoke on background. CSX also could negotiate a new trackage rights agreement with Grand Elk, or continue operations as they were before August 2016.
A CSX spokesman said that the railroad is evaluating the board's decision.
-
- Roadmaster
- Posts: 4756
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:12 am
- Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Re: GDLK Operations
I skimmed thru the decision and it appears the Board reinstated the trackage rights pending a decision on another GDLK filing about this. It also says they can submit state court rulings on the matter. The Kent County Circuit Court has ruled the rights expired and they were free to renegotiate the trackage rights.
Keep in mind, Conrail paid every year to use the CSX tracks and CSX paid to use the Conrail to GRE interchange track. The rates were to be adjusted based on the Conrail traffic counts. I would be interested in knowing if they ever exchanged monies for the 30 years.
Keep in mind, Conrail paid every year to use the CSX tracks and CSX paid to use the Conrail to GRE interchange track. The rates were to be adjusted based on the Conrail traffic counts. I would be interested in knowing if they ever exchanged monies for the 30 years.
- Saturnalia
- Authority on Cat
- Posts: 15412
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
- Location: Michigan City, IN
- Contact:
Re: GDLK Operations
They said GDLK has rights until the contract matter is settled in State Court. The issue in State Court was they wouldn’t rule in GDLk’s favor without the STB ruling, effectively, since the case hinged on if GDLK had the regulatory right, which is the STB’s domain.Raildudes dad wrote:I skimmed thru the decision and it appears the Board reinstated the trackage rights pending a decision on another GDLK filing about this. It also says they can submit state court rulings on the matter. The Kent County Circuit Court has ruled the rights expired and they were free to renegotiate the trackage rights.
Keep in mind, Conrail paid every year to use the CSX tracks and CSX paid to use the Conrail to GRE interchange track. The rates were to be adjusted based on the Conrail traffic counts. I would be interested in knowing if they ever exchanged monies for the 30 years.
GDLK also cited CSX’s rate increase of $105 to $300 each way, something CSX did not refute.
-
- Roadmaster
- Posts: 4756
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:12 am
- Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Re: GDLK Operations
Kent County Circuit Court said (I can't find the ruling) the agreement expired, period - renegotiate. Quite frankly, I think NS / GDLK screwed up. They let the renewable trackage rights agreement expire.
CSX gets more than $300. I received a tariff notice from CSX that says it's $300 each way loaded and unloaded. The tariffs I've looked at are usually loaded only.
For the EHH bashers, I receive loads originating on CN both western and eastern Canada. The latest one is 10 days from from release at the mill in Eastern PQ to the GRE. The CN knows how to move cars. Yard time in Montreal or Toronto is less than 24 hours.
I have one that originated in Eureka MT on the MMT on 10/25/17, Goes BNSF to NS / Chicago. It been 8 days from arrival in Elkhart and it's still in Hughart. This car will be in transit for 5 weeks. The western mills tell me it's a bit cheaper to go NS/GDLK. CN has been bypassing interchange in Chicago in favor of Elkhart.
Go figure - about the time I think I get this RR stuff figured out, I found out something new:)
CSX gets more than $300. I received a tariff notice from CSX that says it's $300 each way loaded and unloaded. The tariffs I've looked at are usually loaded only.
For the EHH bashers, I receive loads originating on CN both western and eastern Canada. The latest one is 10 days from from release at the mill in Eastern PQ to the GRE. The CN knows how to move cars. Yard time in Montreal or Toronto is less than 24 hours.
I have one that originated in Eureka MT on the MMT on 10/25/17, Goes BNSF to NS / Chicago. It been 8 days from arrival in Elkhart and it's still in Hughart. This car will be in transit for 5 weeks. The western mills tell me it's a bit cheaper to go NS/GDLK. CN has been bypassing interchange in Chicago in favor of Elkhart.
Go figure - about the time I think I get this RR stuff figured out, I found out something new:)
- Saturnalia
- Authority on Cat
- Posts: 15412
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
- Location: Michigan City, IN
- Contact:
Re: GDLK Operations
That was the hangup. The “civil” if you will contract between CSX and GDLK expired. That’s the State court issue. But the STB’s trackage tights are a different issue, since it is a regulatory thing. So what the STB did was give the GDLK trackage rights, pending CSX and GDLK settling on an operating contract, either new or a continuance of the old one. The STB was only concerned about competition, and if you read the ruling, it is clear the CSX shot themselves by raising the tariff around the same time.Raildudes dad wrote:Kent County Circuit Court said (I can't find the ruling) the agreement expired, period - renegotiate. Quite frankly, I think NS / GDLK screwed up. They let the renewable trackage rights agreement expire.
STB’s position was that the spirit of the original agreements was to preserve competition, and yes it was a mistake but clearly CSX has taken some anti-competitive actions since, and because we want to see how this plays out in State Court and we want more competition, here you go GDLK here are trackage rights until, at the least, a State Court ruling. The thinking is that the State Court is likely to reconsider if the necessary pre-requisite for the contract is a federal regulatory ruling granting the right to operate, with the contract only providing the terms of how the right to operate will be adjourned.
My guess is that if CSX hasn’t tripled the tariff from $105 to $300 around the same time, in conjunction with allowing GDLK to operate technically without the agreement for the better part of a decade, the STB would not have carved out an exception in order to preserve competition on the north side of GRP.
Re: GDLK Operations
Yesterday afternoon there were several covered hoppers on the oval track south of Wayland. I couldn't get a good count because I was on the highway and there was lots of traffic. Pretty sure there were a minimum of 7.
Trails to Rails. Put the track back.
Re: GDLK Operations
Stock piling for spring. All the fertilizer dealers on the line are.Jim_c wrote:Yesterday afternoon there were several covered hoppers on the oval track south of Wayland. I couldn't get a good count because I was on the highway and there was lots of traffic. Pretty sure there were a minimum of 7.
- Ben Higdon
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:02 pm
Re: GDLK Operations
My dad said he saw an Elk train coming out of Botsford and heading south, with power shoving on the rear. He thought it was around 4pm yesterday. Was that a yard crew giving a shove to a southbound? Said there were quite a few covered hoppers which made me think it might not have been bound for GR.
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10535
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
Re: GDLK Operations
Sounds like the GR train if they were shoving. Plenty of covered hoppers bound for the Grand Rapids Eastern in GR via the Elk.Ben Higdon wrote:My dad said he saw an Elk train coming out of Botsford and heading south, with power shoving on the rear. He thought it was around 4pm yesterday. Was that a yard crew giving a shove to a southbound? Said there were quite a few covered hoppers which made me think it might not have been bound for GR.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:50 pm
- Location: Vicksburg, Michigan
- Contact:
Re: GDLK Operations
The covered hoppers are actually probably for the sand transloads in Moline or are Mart St. Most go to Mart St, but a small number go to Moline as well. I don't believe GDLK is handling the GR wheat traffic at this time, but I bet they will be getting it back as soon as they can start running back up there in two days.SD80MAC wrote:Sounds like the GR train if they were shoving. Plenty of covered hoppers bound for the Grand Rapids Eastern in GR via the Elk.Ben Higdon wrote:My dad said he saw an Elk train coming out of Botsford and heading south, with power shoving on the rear. He thought it was around 4pm yesterday. Was that a yard crew giving a shove to a southbound? Said there were quite a few covered hoppers which made me think it might not have been bound for GR.
Mike H
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10535
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
Re: GDLK Operations
They have been handling it on and off even during the trackage rights battle, it just gets delivered to CSX first, who brings it up to the GRE.Mike H wrote:The covered hoppers are actually probably for the sand transloads in Moline or are Mart St. Most go to Mart St, but a small number go to Moline as well. I don't believe GDLK is handling the GR wheat traffic at this time, but I bet they will be getting it back as soon as they can start running back up there in two days.SD80MAC wrote:Sounds like the GR train if they were shoving. Plenty of covered hoppers bound for the Grand Rapids Eastern in GR via the Elk.Ben Higdon wrote:My dad said he saw an Elk train coming out of Botsford and heading south, with power shoving on the rear. He thought it was around 4pm yesterday. Was that a yard crew giving a shove to a southbound? Said there were quite a few covered hoppers which made me think it might not have been bound for GR.
Mike H
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
- Doktor No
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 1082
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:49 pm
- Location: Rockford, Michigan
Re: GDLK Operations
Sand hoppers short...40 foot. Wheat hoppers bigger 60 foot. Easy to tell which is which. Flour hoppers, pressure unloaders, plastic bead hoppers just have tubular suction system. Thats your tutorial on covered hoppers.
Now USUALLY the wheat for Kings comes from the Dakota's and Minnesota and are USUALLY in off brand railroad cars...DSRC...Dakota South Rail for one.
Now USUALLY the wheat for Kings comes from the Dakota's and Minnesota and are USUALLY in off brand railroad cars...DSRC...Dakota South Rail for one.
Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Re: GDLK Operations
If it was headed south out of Botsford a Grand Rapids or Moline destination seems unlikely.Mike H wrote:The covered hoppers are actually probably for the sand transloads in Moline or are Mart St. Most go to Mart St, but a small number go to Moline as well. I don't believe GDLK is handling the GR wheat traffic at this time, but I bet they will be getting it back as soon as they can start running back up there in two days.SD80MAC wrote:Sounds like the GR train if they were shoving. Plenty of covered hoppers bound for the Grand Rapids Eastern in GR via the Elk.Ben Higdon wrote:My dad said he saw an Elk train coming out of Botsford and heading south, with power shoving on the rear. He thought it was around 4pm yesterday. Was that a yard crew giving a shove to a southbound? Said there were quite a few covered hoppers which made me think it might not have been bound for GR.
Mike H
Trails to Rails. Put the track back.
-
- The Conrail Guru
- Posts: 1085
- Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:34 pm
- Location: Bottom of Lake Mead
Re: GDLK Operations
Except for the minor detail that the train was being shoved out of Gearhart Yard. Trains headed south always have the power on the head end. All NB trains have to shove around the wye at BO and down to Gibson because there is no wye that allows a direct connection from AML to the GDLK main.Jim_c wrote:
If it was headed south out of Botsford a Grand Rapids or Moline destination seems unlikely.
the contents of the above post are my opinion and mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Re: GDLK Operations
I've wondered for a long time what the GDLK does to protect the rear (south) end of the Grand Rapids train when it shoves out of Gearhart Yard. Does the conductor ride on the last car all the way until the whole train clears the Gibson switch? Then does he walk back to the head (north) end while the train blocks crossings? Is there another plan? Surely they can't shove across the many streets unprotected. They never used that caboose they painted up, did they?
- Saturnalia
- Authority on Cat
- Posts: 15412
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
- Location: Michigan City, IN
- Contact:
Re: GDLK Operations
Conductor rides the rear. Pretty sure he then walks back up to the headed. This also gives time for traffic to clear up in downtown Kzoo, before round two begins!GAP wrote:I've wondered for a long time what the GDLK does to protect the rear (south) end of the Grand Rapids train when it shoves out of Gearhart Yard. Does the conductor ride on the last car all the way until the whole train clears the Gibson switch? Then does he walk back to the head (north) end while the train blocks crossings? Is there another plan? Surely they can't shove across the many streets unprotected. They never used that caboose they painted up, did they?