WASHINGTON – Canadian Pacific has asked federal regulators to determine whether the Belt Railway of Chicago’s Clearing Yard is a reasonable location to interchange traffic with Canadian National.
It’s the latest twist in the Canadian railways’ long-running dispute over where to exchange traffic in Chicago.
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in December vacated an October 2020 STB decision which said CN could not unilaterally designate Clearing Yard as the railways’ Chicago interchange.
The court sent the matter back to the STB, noting that a railroad can designate a third party — like BRC — to receive interchange traffic. The ruling also said the STB did not resolve the question of who should bear the cost of the BRC’s switching services.
CN last month argued that CP should have to pay BRC’s switching fees for CN-bound traffic delivered to Clearing, just as CN pays the fees for CP-bound traffic handled at Clearing.
But CP’s filing this week says that’s not the case, and sought to bring the matter full circle by asking whether Clearing is a reasonable interchange compared to Spaulding, east of Elgin, Ill., where the railways exchanged traffic for more than a decade. Only after that determination is made, CP says, can the board then determine which railroad should pick up the tab.
“The question of reasonableness of Clearing relative to Spaulding must take into account the fact that interchange at Spaulding ensures CP is able to keep its Bensenville Yard clear of CN interchange traffic when Clearing is struggling,” CP argues. “Keeping cars out of Clearing and Chicago helps protect CP’s and the terminal’s fluidity. As CN itself represented to the Board as a prime public interest justifying its acquisition of the EJ&E, the acquisition would allow CN to keep traffic out of the Chicago terminal area – and Clearing in particular – to the benefit of all stakeholders.”
The BRC operating agreement requires each co-owner of the switching line to pay the BRC fees for traffic delivered to Clearing, CN contends. CP disagrees.
“CN’s argument conveniently ignores the fact that it voluntarily assumed the obligation to pay the BRC fees for CP-bound cars when CN asked CP to accept cars via the BRC rather than at CP’s preferred interchange location of Spaulding,” CP wrote. “CP continues to make its facilities at Spaulding available to receive cars from CN for free as the statute requires. Also CN’s argument ignores the fact that it is CN that is demanding that CP deliver cars to CN via BRC rather than delivering to CN’s interchange facilities at Spaulding which are free to CP. And the change to Clearing in both directions is for CN’s benefit.”
The railways’ dispute dates to May 2019, when CN sought to shift CP interchange from Spaulding, in Bartlett, Ill., to its own Kirk Yard in Gary, Ind. [see “Canadian Pacific, Canadian National locked in Chicago interchange dispute,” Trains News Wire, May 2, 2019]. The daily interchange at Spaulding often blocked area grade crossings and tied up CN’s busy single-track main line.
CP objected and asked the STB to intervene. CN and CP ultimately reached an interim agreement to move Spaulding interchange to Clearing, with CN temporarily reimbursing CP for the BRC’s switching fees until the STB reached a decision on the matter [see “Canadian National, Canadian Pacific settle …,” News Wire, Aug. 26, 2019]. When the board sided with CP, CN filed suit at the federal appeals court in Chicago [see “Canadian National asks federal court to overturn STB Chicago interchange order,” News Wire, Jan. 8, 2021].
Before CN bought EJ&E, where did they interchange with CP?
I think EJ&E picked it up at Spaulding and took it down to the junction at Matteson. CN took it in at Markham Yard since most of it was going south. CN has upgraded that junction considerably since they bought the J.
This is interesting because Metra has submitted its requests to the STB with regards to the CP-KCS merger, which includes ways for CP to reach Clearing without using either Bensenville or the current backup move at Cragin from the CP MILW-N line.
Metra is worried that if Bensenville gets backed up, CPKC will reroute traffic over the north line and block Metra traffic at the Bloomingdale Turn.
Also of note, CN is actually double tracking the former EJ&E in the area that includes its switch with CP at Spaulding. This will get rid of the single track blockages CN runs into periodically (as noted in the article).
This argument could be solved (it seems) with a 5 minute phone call.
It’s really simple. CN would rather pay money to BRC than help CP avoid Bensenville.
CN won’t spend money on Spaulding updates, because it really helps CP, not CN.
CN doesn’t want to have to run yet another little yard just for CP. They want everything going through Chicago in the same place.
While CP states switching is “free” at Spaulding for CN, the fact CN would rather pay BRC or IHB shows that it really isn’t free to CN. There is some undisclosed logistical cost to CN that they want to avoid.
How often do CP trains bound for Clearing Yard operate the C&M Sub to A5 and out the Elgin Sub to get to the BRC? And do any northbound (westbound) CP trains do the reverse?
I don’t think any CP trains make this move, but the WSOR Janesville-Clearing trains certainly do.
Hey guys, CNR and CPR, settle this like adults. Sit down and talk it out, and let us know what you come up with.