RailRoadFan.com

I know this is a overgrown topic. But if CP actually merges with KCS, would they want purchase the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub across Michigan? Or would they want to retain trackage rights via Norfolk Southern because it is much more direct? I am just curious. I would love to see the Wyoming Yard in Grand Rapids become a major chokepoint similar to what CN does in Battle Creek. I know track capacity and signals would have to be upgraded. Not to mention it is the longer way from Detroit to Chicago. But the more I get older, CSX seems to only care about Detroit in Michigan. A railroad like LSRC or CP can really make the Plymouth sub come alive with traffic similar to what LSRC does with the Saginaw Sub when they leased it from CSX back in 19. Plus not to mention West Olive is closing its doors soon in 2023 or 2025 and that seems like the only thing that is keeping the Grand Rapids Sub. So what kind of business would CSX have that they care about from Plymouth to Porter? Just my speculation.

Would CSX be interested in selling to CP and enabling a competitor to bridge a gap in it's network?

even if CSX was willing to sell to its competitor, it would be a large capital investment. CP's Traffic Volume would likely require some sidings (like Saugatuck on the GR) to be extended. Not to mention the Plymouth Sub would need to get PTC & new signals. Further, Saugatuck Hill has shown to be a large obstacle and any CP trains would need extra power or a stationed helper set.

Then they would have to hop onto the NS at Porter anyway

PatAzo wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:46 pm

Would CSX be interested in selling to CP and enabling a competitor to bridge a gap in it's network?

Thank you!

In any discussed scenario, CP will be beholden to NS.

1. Trackage rights on the Wabash/Chicago Line (the current arrangement)

2. Purchasing/leasing the Plymouth and GR Subs, they'll still have to transfer to the Chicago Line at Porter

3. The least practical suggestion: the idea of them connecting the GR Sub with the Porter Branch, would only further complicate the current arrangement as instead of getting onto NS, trains have to CROSS over that busy line and you can guarantee CP isn't getting priority. Never mind the cost and scope of installing the diamonds and the extra burden put on maintenance forces.

Speaking strictly as a railfan, the current trackage rights setup is definitely the least interesting but it seems to be the most practical, at least for now.

One could argue that the pros of returning to CSX rails, at least via trackage rights, possibly outweigh the cons of traveling over NS. While the Plymouth-GR Sub routing is longer than the Wabash-Chicago Line connection, the train frequency is tremendously lower and I would assume much easier to dispatch a train across but they still have to contend with Porter. It's a wash, really so CP may as well roll with the punches NS deals them till further notice.

3. The least practical suggestion: the idea of them connecting the GR Sub with the Porter Branch, would only further complicate the current arrangement as instead of getting onto NS, trains have to CROSS over that busy line and you can guarantee CP isn't getting priority. Never mind the cost and scope of installing the diamonds and the extra burden put on maintenance forces.

a. Crossing over ties up the mainline for only as long as it takes for the train to get across. Running on trackage rights involves the slow process of the train entering the main (about the same as crossing over) and then the train is a part of the traffic flow and has to be dealt with for hours. If rational minds were at play, I would think NS would welcome a crossover vs a trackage rights situation.

b. I’ve heard that they were thinking of building a connector track instead of diamonds. Trains would go from CSX to NS and then cross from main to main to main and finally diverge onto the Porter branch.

If i had a dollar every time this subject was discussed on this site, I think i’d be rich.

I guess the bigger question is, why is there the expectation that the line should be more than what it is now? Especially if Consumers Power gets the approval to completely close the West Olive power plant by 2025.

MSchwiebert wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:18 pm

I guess the bigger question is, why is there the expectation that the line should be more than what it is now?

Partly wishful thinking and partly looking at railroads beyond locomotives and train symbols.

When CSX at times has stored autoracks and intermodal cars in mainline sidings, it's been easy to look at the Grand Rapids & Plymouth Sub's and see them being spun off to a short line operators. The tonnage map Trains magazine ran in 2010 showed the Plymouth Sub in the 0-10M gross tons/year. https://cs.trains.com/cfs-file.ashx/__k ... 0.Map5.jpg Comparing the 2010 Trains map with the present day CSX system they have kept more 0-10M ton/year track than they have spun off in the last 10 years.

To consider what might become of the Grand Rapids and Plymouth Subs depends chiefly on what CSX wants the future to. Looking at the Plymouth Sub alone for example 0-10M ton per year might not appear impressive but if these cars move well into the CSX system the total revenue the could be a different picture.

Suppose CSX does consider unloading the GR and Plymouth Subs. Do they sell to CP and strengthen east coast to midwest competition? If they lease to a shortline operator to they give them access to Chicago and loose control over how the 10M ton per years move?

Looking at one of the maps CP presented in it's bid for KCS the big traffic growth they project is west and south of Chicago. Grain and traffic that can bypass Chicago interchanges. For traffic east of Chicago they showed no increase in train count and only mention an additional 170/171 train between Toronto and Laredo.

What if South Shore were to get the GR Sub and LSRC get the Plymouth Sub. That would be awesome as well. LSRC especially because they know how to create business with a line that has little online industry. Just look at the Saginaw Sub they purchased. They are literally running auto racks for the first time in over a decade. CSX would never pick up that business if they would still have the Saginaw sub north of Plymouth.

What if the GRE got the GR and Plymouth subs that would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!

This would be my scenario 1.0 - MQT absorbs the GRE and the MS which is part of the GW family already and gets the line from Plymouth to Porter. 2.0 MQT gets Grand Rapids to Porter only and Watco owners of the Grand Elk get the line from Grand Rapids east to Plymouth. Scenario 3.0 would be the GLC getting the Plymouth to Grand Rapids segment. Scenario 4.0 would be LSRC to take control of the segment between Plymouth and Grand Rapids.
WARNING MINDLESS SPECULATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

My thought is that nothing will change and that you all will continue to mindlessly speculate for years to come.

SD80MAC wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:49 pm

My thought is that nothing will change and that you all will continue to mindlessly speculate for years to come.

That's the only way some of us stay sane

I enjoy “What Ifs”. That is why I manage paper railroads.

AARR wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:31 pm

I enjoy “What Ifs”. That is why I manage paper railroads.

That’s why I like reading the paper railroad forum.

Scenarios continued:
Scenario 5.0 Watco/Grand Elk takes control of the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 6.0 GLC takes control of the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 6.0 CP gets the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 7.0 Amtrak gets the line from Porter to Grand Rapids for a high-speed passenger rail corridor leasing out freight operations. The Grand Rapids to Plymouth segment it’s purchased by any number of the other railroads.

WARNING MINDLESS SPECULATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY

I developed a paper railroad, Detroit Lansing Grand Rapids (DLGR) years ago but haven't done much with it since. At this point it remains just mileage posts and customer list. Off the top of my head there would be a Lansing yard job, M-Sat, and a road job that goes to Plymouth M, W & F and to GR T, Th and Sat. The yard job would dog-catch the road job, break it up and rebuild it along with switching local industries. Or something like that.

Engines would be a couple of GP38 and a trio of SD38 type models.

I assume the Plymouth Sub is profitable so why would CSX want to get rid of it? GLC interchange at Ann Pere has grown

GR H & C wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:56 pm

AARR wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:31 pm

I enjoy “What Ifs”. That is why I manage paper railroads.

That’s why I like reading the paper railroad forum.

Scenarios continued:
Scenario 5.0 Watco/Grand Elk takes control of the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 6.0 GLC takes control of the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 6.0 CP gets the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 7.0 Amtrak gets the line from Porter to Grand Rapids for a high-speed passenger rail corridor leasing out freight operations. The Grand Rapids to Plymouth segment it’s purchased by any number of the other railroads.

WARNING MINDLESS SPECULATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY

What about the state gets the line and creating, over time of course, another high speed corridor from Plymouth to the state line? Possibly save a few dollars by diverting passenger traffic to the AML at New Buffalo.

Jim_c wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:36 am

GR H & C wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:56 pm

AARR wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:31 pm

What about the state gets the line and creating, over time of course, another high speed corridor from Plymouth to the state line? Possibly save a few dollars by diverting passenger traffic to the AML at New Buffalo.

Amtrak's current Michigan trains are viable because so many people ride them to Chicago for business or fun, and connections to other trains. Union Station is located where you don't need a car to be able to get to a lot of neat stuff. I don't see a sufficiently comparable draw for train travel between Detroit and Grand Rapids. Maybe it would be sort of popular, but the state doesn't seem to want to take the chance on spending tons only to find out that it wouldn't be especially busy. It would also be spreading hard to obtain rail resources thinly.