|
The simple answer is that, just as the UP has found, the D&RGW & WP were never conducive to high traffic density, and it was much more efficient (not to mention cost-effective) to grab rights (as a result of not appealing the merger) than to own (and maintain & upgrade) the trackage and facilities. It is important to remember that the AT&SF could get the San Francisco Chief from Chicago to Richmond as fast (or faster) than the CB&Q-D&RGW-WP could get the CZ from Chicago to Oakland. The other aspect of this is that, frankly, traffic volume from Northern California has been on the decline for a long time. Container ships aren't as likely to stop in the Bay Area as in the LA area. Lumber has decreased (compared to 1980 levels), ag business is down and/or to trucks, etc. It is sometimes smarter to make a competitor maintain something and spend more money on his monopoly than it is to wrest it away from him. You miss the bidding war, the purchase cost, the maintenance, the merger issues, the maintenance, the stroking of shippers, and oh yeah - maintenance (and upgrading). If it weren't for the on-line traffic generators, I'm sure UP would love to sell the D&RGW to Amtrak and let them have the headaches. That's not to say the UP doesn't use it, but it isn't high on their list of through traffic lines. Basically, it's the same reason that most trucks going from Chicago (and even, Denver) to the West Coast take I-80 instead of I-70 (aside from the gap in Utah). Not to say there aren't any trucks that take the route, but...there is a significant ratio there. At 02:38 PM 7/23/2012, you wrote: Does anyone have knowledge or an opinion: why didn't either Q or BN make a play for DRGW/WP to get California access, and to keep UP from monopoly? __._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ |