Throughout various discussions on the web and through Trains Magazine are how BNSF and UP are extensively double-tracking transcontinental routes around their system. Currently, there is a forum on BNSF’s double-tracking of their Transcon from Chicago to Los Angeles along with the one from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. With UP, a forum also discusses their Sunset Route between El Paso and Los Angeles. However, no one ever discusses CN double-tracking their mainline, particularly from Winnipeg to Taverna/Valemount. Based on what I have read and determined, there may be strong reason to do so now
Over the course of the past few months, traffic growth for the Canadian National Railway has been so significant, that the railroad is having difficulty moving the traffic from various points to anywhere else (most growth has occurred in Western Canada). The growth in traffic has been attributed to a number of factors:
- Higher movement of grain, of which CN is desperately trying accommodate
- Higher intermodal volumes, thanks to expansion at Prince Rupert and substantial growth at Vancouver
- Higher sand volumes, mainly due to operations in Grande Prairie, AB
- Higher coal volumes, mainly due to re-opening of mines near Tumbler Ridge, BC and higher demand across the Pacific
- Higher potash volumes, mainly due to increase in growth from Asia
Last year in the March 2018 Trains Magazine article about CN Rail, it mentioned how CN “was a touch behind traffic growth” (Page 58). Clearly it was not because the railroad is now suffering terrible dwell times in major yards and intermodal terminals, causing many of their customers to complain and investor confidence to fall. Recently, the stock price was at a 52 week low on the markets. The railroad is also short on cars, locomotives, mainline capacity, and human capital. Most recently, CN has leased a number of units to accommodate this growth, including ones that were originally owned by UP, BNSF, and CSXT. With further respect to human capital, the railroad also terminated their CEO Luc Jobin, who is now the shortest serving CEO of the railroad since CN became publicly traded back in 1995.
As part of their extensive capital expenditures, CN Rail is adding sidings and double-track on their system from Chicago to Prince Rupert and Vancouver. The amount of double-track (which does not include the siding extensions and new sidings) is 49 miles, of which I only know for sure of 12 miles (west of Edmonton) and not the rest. To me, this does not seem like enough to suffice the current or future growth.
As per my calculations using the timetables from the Canadian Trackside Guide, between Winnipeg and Vancouver, only 696.54 miles of the 1,543.40 miles are multi-tracked (45.1%). This includes the directional running portion between Basque and Mission, BC. That percentage of double-trackage drops if you looked at it between Winnipeg and Prince Rupert since it does not have the directional running benefit of the other route to Vancouver. If you add the 12 miles and the 28 miles to be added between Valemount/Taverna and Winnipeg, it’s still less than 50% of the line double-tracked.
Double-Tracking the Route from Winnipeg to Taverna/Valemount
The busiest section of CN’s transcontinental route is between Winnipeg and Valemount (or Taverna), BC. Winnipeg is the division of routes heading east to Chicago and Toronto while Valemount/Taverna provides the division of routes heading west to Prince Rupert and Vancouver. The route sees in excess of 100 million tons of traffic a year and has seen incredible growth over the past decade. Double-tracking CN’s transcontinental route between these two points is potentially worth doing for the fact that there is further tremendous growth opportunity, as well as to alleviate bottlenecks, that are being felt right now (and likely into the future). Double-tracking this portion may benefit in a number of areas:
- Prince Rupert: CN serves the closest port in North America to Asia. The port recently completed an expansion of their intermodal terminal which drew an influx of international container traffic. This terminal is expected to further expand its capacity for more traffic in coming years. From what I recently read, CN has now turned away traffic from the port, which has now made it a premium gateway for shippers since it is now fed by a congested railway. It is also a heavy route for grain and coal. There is further0talk and high likelihood of them building a propane terminal for export, which would see a new set of traffic for CN to this port.
- Vancouver: CN serves the second closest port in North America to Asia and busiest port in Canada. Two container ports, Roberts Bank and Vanterm, are undergoing expansion to accommodate higher container traffic, which will put pressure on CN, since with this port, they have to compete with CP, who unfortunately for them won over a large contract with the container company APL for handling its containers. In addition, they are building a new grain terminal in North Vancouver and there is talk of them building a second grain terminal Surrey. Also, CN serves a growing transload facility, accommodating to forest products, in Richmond. There is also a significant amount of interchange traffic between CN and BNSF bound for points south in Washington, Oregon, and California.
- New Free-Trade Agreements: I say this one because in the past two years, Canada has entered into two new trade agreements: the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This involves free trade with collectively 39 nations (11 TPP and 28 CETA) which would mean a lowering of tariffs for many goods, causing growth in both imports and exports. This could help CN generate business in all directions, such as from the prairies to the Atlantic Coast and new shipments of products from Ontario and Quebec to the Pacific Coast.
- Oil Traffic: with pipelines being delayed due to environmental issues and government roadblocks, CN has the opportunity to capitalize on shipping this commodity in all directions. First off, there is some oil traffic from Edmonton to Washington for refining and this business has the potential to grow. Second, there is still the possibility of exporting oil from both the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver, though at this time is unlikely due to a halt on tankers reaching the west coast as a result of government restriction. However, despite not likely happening in the near future, it could and the railroad should be prepared in this case. Finally, and this option is viable, is shipping oil to the east and the US Midwest. There are refineries in Saint John and Quebec City that do serve oil trains, along with the refineries that CN serves on the Gulf Coast. Recently, CN has been holding off shipping oil due to the risk of going via pipelines in the future, plus the fact the railroad is inundated with a lot of other traffic. Currently, they along with CP, are trying to initiate long-term contracts with oil companies to haul the commodity in order alleviate concern of this traffic being transported by pipeline.
- Grain Traffic: this is a big opportunity for CN to capitalize on and do better in, considering that this year and the end of 2017 hasn’t go too well. Recently, I went of a railfanning trip and in a period of 48 hours, I saw more grain trains on CN than I have seen, of which many short and likely rush shipments to meet customer demands and alleviate yard constraints. Right now, they are working with various grain suppliers, including G3 and GrainConnects, in being more accessible to farmers and establishing supply chains for grain movements to the West Coast. Though this statement is obvious, grain is a wonderful commodity in that it is food source for all humans and overseas markets love using it, along with North Americans.
- Forest Products: while this traffic may be impeded by the tariffs that were imposed back in April 2017 from the USA, there is still a lot of growth opportunity here and at this moment, a very high demand. The Asian markets love BC forest products and CN is utilizing this by shipping them to the transload facility in Richmond. That being said, thanks to CETA, it is time utilize agreements with the EU in transporting forest products to the Atlantic Coast from BC. Eventually, I think the shock of the tariffs will also subside and forest products will rebound between Canada and the USA.
In addition to this, double-tracking is worth it just to be ahead of growth, even if the opportunities are not short-term, rather long-term. CN could cite as a model for double-tracking BNSF’s Transcon as well as the continued double-tracking of UP’s Sunset Route (83% complete from what I have read). These routes are high on intermodal transport and while CN’s traffic is more focused on bulk commodities, it could still be worthwhile. Also, CN loves running most of their trains in excess of two miles so in building double-track sections much longer than 12,000 feet, this will allow trains to move past each other simultaneously, rather than stopping.
Where Double-Tracking May Not Be Worth It
Well I have outlined extensive double-tracking being ideal, there are some reasons where double-tracking may not be best:
- There are number of parts CN’s transcontinental mainline that would be expensive or very challenging to double-track, mostly related to bridges over major waterways:
o Fabyan Trestle: it would be very difficult to double-track the 2,775 foot trestle over the Battle River, west of Wainwright, Alberta on the same-named subdivision. However, they could use UP’s Cienaga Bridge layout as a model, of which one mainline runs over the bridge while the other runs below and crosses Battle River at another point.
o Clover Bar Trestle: another large trestle spanning the North Saskatchewan, which sees many more train movements due to transfers from Clover Bar to Edmonton’s Walker Yard, along with traffic from Calgary to the West Coast. While it would be easier than double-tracking the Fabyan Trestle, it would still be very expensive. However, it is multi-tracked on both sides of the bridge for at least five miles in each direction.
o Areas West of Hinton: though a good chunk of CN’s Edson Sub is easy to add more tracks throughout, much is not west of this Albertan town due to the mountains, the Athabasca River, and Jasper National Park. This would be a costly, time consuming project to figure out and there would also be some tunnels along the river that would have to be twinned. In addition, there is also the trestle next to Hinton along with a bridge over the Athabasca to contend with.
o Evansburg to Gainford: another segment that would be hard to double-track, due to three trestles, including one over the Pembina River and another really big one over Highway 16. One further one over a creek would be easier, however, and probably needed if CN wanted to extend their very short siding at Evansburg.
o Saskatoon: another bridge over the South Saskatchewan River, but not as high some as the ones mentioned above. It is interesting how on both sides of this bridge, like Clover Bar, it is multi-tracked for a significant distance.
o Rivers Subdivision: some of the Rivers Subdivision between Estherhazy, SK and Port La Prairie, MB is quite difficult to double-track due to some grades, including one down into the Assiniboine River Valley and several into Manitoba heading east.
- Another concern is the Prairie North Line, which runs from Portage La Prairie to Edmonton via Humboldt, SK; North Battleford, SK; Lloydminster, SK/AB; Vegreville, AB; and Fort Saskatchewan, AB. While this line isn’t as well used as the CN’s mainline, it could still provide directional running relief, particularly between Saskatoon and Edmonton. It would be tough for directional running east of Saskatoon to Portage la Prairie. Besides that, the line isn’t as direct and would not be ideal for intermodal trains and any manifests that would be considered higher priority.
Final Thoughts
I think based on what I have laid out that double-tracking is needed more than what has been slated to be built this year in CN’s capital budget. Whether the entire line between Valemount/Taverna and Winnipeg should be double-tracked is tough due to the many constraints throughout the subdivision, but it is worth considering. Again, I think CN should use BNSF and UP as models for double-tracking entire corridors, as in their cases with the Transcon and Sunset Route, respectively, as it seems to be worthwhile.
I would like to know your guys’ thoughts on this as well as to whether CN should double-track their entire corridor from Winnipeg to Valemount. You can also comment if more double-track is needed east of Winnipeg and west of Valemount/Taverna.
