CHICAGO — The founder and chairman of Great Lakes Basin Transportation owns 87.2 percent of the company, according to the Chicago Tribune. Frank Patton’s ownership was revealed in a recent filing with the Surface Transportation Board. T...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/06/13-great-lakes-ownership
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Color me surprised! [/sarcasm]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It would appear that Patton didn't want the ownership disclosed since it would show that almost nobody else has "invested" in his pipedream.
Silly question which, far as I can make out, goes unanswered:
Do the builders of this Chicago bypass propose to cross the existing trunk lines into the Chicago Switching District (CSD) at grade, or will the tracks be grade-separated? If the crossings are at grade, I can only assume another (outer) layer of bottlenecks and resultant delays for traffic entering the CSD. But grade separation will bring another cost add-on to the construction of the new line. By the way, if I were a railroad that already entered Chicagoland, I would be very unhappy at the prospect of some other line, some outsider, crossing my main lines. Plus, who would dispatch the many inevitable crossing meets? No way in h*ll would I allow any newcomer to thus control traffic movements on my property. Hey! If I'm a UP or BNSF or (even) CSX, I don't care how "efficient" this new routing may be: all I want is to keep my own traffic flowing. But this way, traffic on the bypass gets subjected to the same delays it is intended to prevent. But I'm sure the boys who cooked up this scheme have thought of all this, and I'm a just bumpkin from Virginia whose rail knowledge shrivels in comparison with that of most foamers...
billio Silly question which, far as I can make out, goes unanswered: Do the builders of this Chicago bypass propose to cross the existing trunk lines into the Chicago Switching District (CSD) at grade, or will the tracks be grade-separated? If the crossings are at grade, I can only assume another (outer) layer of bottlenecks and resultant delays for traffic entering the CSD. But grade separation will bring another cost add-on to the construction of the new line. By the way, if I were a railroad that already entered Chicagoland, I would be very unhappy at the prospect of some other line, some outsider, crossing my main lines. Plus, who would dispatch the many inevitable crossing meets? No way in h*ll would I allow any newcomer to thus control traffic movements on my property. Hey! If I'm a UP or BNSF or (even) CSX, I don't care how "efficient" this new routing may be: all I want is to keep my own traffic flowing. But this way, traffic on the bypass gets subjected to the same delays it is intended to prevent. But I'm sure the boys who cooked up this scheme have thought of all this, and I'm a just bumpkin from Virginia whose rail knowledge shrivels in comparison with that of most foamers...
http://www.greatlakesbasin.net/many of your questions are addressed at their web site.
Buslist billio Silly question which, far as I can make out, goes unanswered: Do the builders of this Chicago bypass propose to cross the existing trunk lines into the Chicago Switching District (CSD) at grade, or will the tracks be grade-separated? If the crossings are at grade, I can only assume another (outer) layer of bottlenecks and resultant delays for traffic entering the CSD. But grade separation will bring another cost add-on to the construction of the new line. By the way, if I were a railroad that already entered Chicagoland, I would be very unhappy at the prospect of some other line, some outsider, crossing my main lines. Plus, who would dispatch the many inevitable crossing meets? No way in h*ll would I allow any newcomer to thus control traffic movements on my property. Hey! If I'm a UP or BNSF or (even) CSX, I don't care how "efficient" this new routing may be: all I want is to keep my own traffic flowing. But this way, traffic on the bypass gets subjected to the same delays it is intended to prevent. But I'm sure the boys who cooked up this scheme have thought of all this, and I'm a just bumpkin from Virginia whose rail knowledge shrivels in comparison with that of most foamers... http://www.greatlakesbasin.net/many of your questions are addressed at their web site.
Thanks, for the linked site, Buslist! Billio, as well brings up some pretty good points, as well. Mr. Patton, seems to have picked himself a pretty 'tough row, to hoe'. Based on the problems CN went through with their pyrchase of EJ&E RR, I would say GLBR will face more of the same, in spades! With the majors, Class I's awaryed against him, it will be a tough sale to them to get them to agree to any 'at garde' crossings. and with the various communities on the Chicagoland perifery already hunkered down with each having its own traffic issues, GBLR will be faced with an almost impossible fight, IMHO.
Even an entirely elevated line, in conjunction with the proposed 'Beltway' would also be a hard sale, with their potential for some kind of a 'derailment'(?) at height, could be a catastrophic event. I would also wonder how the Illinois Tollway Authority, would look at a competitor, and potentially game changing neighbor, who could drain away their revenue, and traffic(?). I really see that the only outcome, if at all, is very far in the future, if ever, particularly in the political, and economic environment of Northern Ill.
CSSHEGEWISCH It would appear that Patton didn't want the ownership disclosed since it would show that almost nobody else has "invested" in his pipedream.
Could be, but thruought history there have been dreamers who no one else thought their ideas worthy of consideration. There are also those whose dreams failed given they were not recognized as worthy at the time. Those who think "outside of the box" are the ones who sometimes bring innovation previously unthought of to fruition. Bill Gates comes to mind. Would the world be the same had he not had the vision and talents to help him accomplish his goal? Imagine life in the twentyfirst century sans computers. That may give you a window into the thoughts of those who, through innovation, have made major changes in the world. Gas lights were once common. Innovation changed that. I could go on but wont. You all know the story.
Norm
Norm48327 CSSHEGEWISCH It would appear that Patton didn't want the ownership disclosed since it would show that almost nobody else has "invested" in his pipedream. Could be, but thruought history there have been dreamers who no one else thought their ideas worthy of consideration. There are also those whose dreams failed given they were not recognized as worthy at the time. Those who think "outside of the box" are the ones who sometimes bring innovation previously unthought of to fruition. Bill Gates comes to mind. Would the world be the same had he not had the vision and talents to help him accomplish his goal? Imagine life in the twentyfirst century sans computers. That may give you a window into the thoughts of those who, through innovation, have made major changes in the world. Gas lights were once common. Innovation changed that. I could go on but wont. You all know the story.
As I have said before, Great Lakes Basin Railroad is a solution in search of a problem.
Chicago is a problem, not because you can't operate trains through it, it is a problem because there isn't sufficient through merchandise traffic that can operate from outside the Chicago Area on any carrier to another point outside the Chicago Area on another carrier. The East and the West are large spaces with many destinations, destinations that in many cases are served by more than one carrier.
The carriers have been working for decades with cooperative routing guides to minimize handling of traffic between connecting carriers.
Many of the issues in getting traffic through Chicago are a result of crew and power issues. Issues that the Great Lakes Basin operations would not address.
One doesn't have to like it, but, the beliefs of Senior Operating Officers are that if there are not 'some' power and/or crew delays they believe there is too much power and/or too many crews in play. Time to put locomotives in storage, kick leased engines off the property and cut the crew boards and furlough those cut.
billio makes some excellent points above, among them this one:
"But grade separation will bring another cost add-on to the construction of the new line."
For the reasons he mentions, I doubt that at-grade crossings will be acceptable or tolerated.
Further, anyone familiar with the engineering principles of track alignment design (a much larger scale than "track geometry", although that would be the better term if it wasn't already taken) will shudder at the implications of those principles when you get down into the weeds of the details. For example:
A grade-separated crossing of even both single track lines will involve connecting tracks in most or all of the quadrants.
Grade requirements will govern - a 30 ft. vertical rail-to-rail separation, 0.5% max., 0.05% max. change in grade per 100', etc. - which means that the connecting track will have to be at least ~7,000 ft. long.
Curvature requirements for a ~90 deg. crossing angle are less space-consuming - a 4-deg. curve (R ~1,450 ft.) for moderate speeds and reliability will need 'only' about 2,250 ft. to get around that angle. (Some may say a 6-deg. [or some other] curve could be used - but even for that the R ~955 ft., which is still a lot of real estate needed.)
However, if either line has 2 tracks - and unless both tracks are bi-directional Main Tracks at all relevant times - crossovers will be necessary. Those too are problematic to keeping the both tracks fluid, as any use of them will tie up both tracks during that move.
So consider what will be needed for a train running right-handed on one of those 2 tracks to make essentially a left-hand turn onto the other railroad's line, without tying up its own railroad's track in the other direction. What you're going to get is either a 3-level crossing - first crossing its other track in the opposite direction, then the other railroad's line, both crossings being grade-separated - or a dual 'flying (or burrowing) junction' whose length will be measured in multiple miles. Or the railroad equivalent of a partial highway cloverleaf - again, with dimensions measured in miles.
Next, consider what result if both railroads are 2-track without being fully and actually 2 Main Track at all relevant times, and the same constraints of no at-grade crossings or crossover moves still apply.
Then consider what if the crossing isn't ~90 degrees, but a much sharper angle. In such a case the maximum curvature requirement may well govern for the acute angle quadrant.
Lastly, consider if any of this is taking place where land values are higher (village ?), or there are environmental constraints (wetlands ?) or conflicts (roads, etc.).
I'd like to see at least sketch plans for those crossings/ junctions which address these technical issues in a realistic, pragmatic fashion.
This may be another case where a beautiful scheme is murdered by a gang of brutal facts (or operating constraints and railroad engineering principles in this instance).
- PDN.
Norm48327 Could be, but thruought history there have been dreamers who no one else thought their ideas worthy of consideration. There are also those whose dreams failed given they were not recognized as worthy at the time. Those who think "outside of the box" are the ones who sometimes bring innovation previously unthought of to fruition...
Could be, but thruought history there have been dreamers who no one else thought their ideas worthy of consideration. There are also those whose dreams failed given they were not recognized as worthy at the time. Those who think "outside of the box" are the ones who sometimes bring innovation previously unthought of to fruition...
What unthought innovation is being brought forth? There have been plenty of Chicago "belt lines", a number of which have never met expectations or have gone out of business.
The Great Lakes Basin wants a 200 foot right of way. In some areas it wants a lot more. What kind of grade crossing or overpass would be required. There a lot of major roads, railroads, wetlands and several rivers, not to mention several hundred county roads and country roads. A lot of this has not been addressed. Mostly it is to be figured out later. Not a good answer.
I know I'm resurrecting and/ or beating a dead horse here, but a recent photo in Trains illustrates my point above better that I could have imagined.* It's by Marshall W. Beecher (perhaps taken from a drone?) on pages 68-69 of the May 2018 issue, captioned as "Chicago Loop". It shows a CN unit tank train circling around a loop of track to get from one line under a bridge to the line on top of the bridge, at Matteson, Illinois. Although I don't know if the photo could be linked, an aerial view at this location shows what I mean:
N 41.49612 W 87.70112
Does anyone know if that loop was constructed as part of the EJ&E into CN merger? It doesn't appear on the USGS topo map that's linked by ACME Mapper, so maybe it was. I'm surprised CN was able to acquire the land and permits to do that - there's a couple of water bodies on each side of the loop, and the area looks a little built-up. EDIT: Apparently so, according to this web page: http://www.railfanguides.us/il/matteson/index.htm
Somewhere a model railroader could be saying, "See? The prototype really does build tracks that way!"
*Although the editing is poor: the caption block at the upper left covers up another leg of the wye and its junction with the former IC (?) main line; that caption could have been put in the top center of that page and covered up nothing more than woods and a parking lot.
P.S. - The ACME Mapper view also has a "Mattson [sic] Train Track Overview Area" labeled - looks like an elevated platform on a fill in the NE quadrant, with a V-shaped boardwalk leading to it from a paved path by a caboose, all off of North St.! Parking visible across the street at Matteson Metra Station Lot 2. Anyway, gotta get there some day!
N 41.49743 W 87.69958
I vaguely remember a news story in Trains magazine about building the connection at the time of the CN-EJ&E merger.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.