CN and BNSF diverting traffic away from Chicago

[Anonymous]

Since CN has concluded agreements with bouth UP and BNSF to divert traffic away from the Chicago area to cities like Memphis, does that impact Chicago in a big or small way? I know Chicago is probably far and away the largest rail hub in the nation, but I would like to know other people's opinions about this subject. Thanks.

Mike Q.

[Anonymous]

Mark is right.

What it DOES impact is the shippers and RR's--improves their quality of service by leaps and bounds.

Over the years, the RR's have tried all sorts of traffic schemes to circumvent that world-class choke point called Chicago (remember ATSF's TP&W gateway??)

When it's so bad that you can absolutely clobber the RR transit time just across town by yarding the train, setting out the pigs, unloading the trailer, hooking it up, draying it across town in traffic, and then reloading it with the rest of the process in reverse as well, you start looking for alternate routes. Even if the mileage is greater, you can still beat the bottleneck!

And Chicago is so loaded up, they'll never notice.

[dldance]

The agreements also allow 3 very large railroads to stand up to the state and federal governments and say "look what we have already done to help - now it's your turn".

dd

[Anonymous]

Yeah, and those cities that may get a few more jobs out of the deal aren't going to scream bloody murder either, at least until the increased rail traffic starts clogging up their downtowns and blocking their crossings more than currently.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the responses. I just thought hopefully this would be a decent topic for discussion since I am originaly from the Chicago area. I hope I did not offend anyone by the simplicity of the question.
Mike Q

[Anonymous]

Not in the least, from my viewpoint. Hope what little info I could provide was useful.

[Junctionfan]

Chicago strikes me as being riddled with too many diamonds instead of over and underpasses. Unfortunately I can't think of a cheap way to solve that problem other than what CN and BNSF are doing now.

[dknelson]

Too many diamonds in Chicago? If you are a railroad or a shipper or a driver waiting at a grade crossing, yes, there are too many. If you're a railfan ..... there are some wonderful opportunities!
Dave Nelson

[jchnhtfd]

Anybody but me notice the common factor? CN making really good use of the IC division! Bravo for CN!

[MP173]

The next move for CN is to purchase the EJE. It would make sense for them, similar to the purchase of the WC. Then they could control their destiny for the movements between Griffith and Mattson, Griffith and Logistics Park (BNSF) and even run the Glenn Yard trains down to Joliet and then around the J instead of running on the IHB right now.

I am not sure if they would want the steel traffic coming out of Gary, but it would be a hell of a purchase for them.

Any comments on this?

ed

[bobwilcox]

These routing agreements only work if you can show the shipper faster and/or more reliable service. Shippers have alway had the absolute right to route their freight anyway they choose. I would expect BNSF/CN will be talking about deep classification beyond the gateway if they have the volume to make it work.

[MP173]

The CN wouldn't need the entire J for it's use. In fact, it really wouldnt need anything north of Joliet. I dont think there is a feasible interchange at West Chicago with the UP....so a deal could be worked out as follows:

Oh, I forgot that they run some trains from WC down to Mundelein and then on the J to Munger, then on the old IC Iowa line.

Anyway, the "deal" probably couldnt be worked out as I envisioned it:

Purchase an "interest" in the J from Griffith to Matteson and on to Joliet. The CN would run their manifest trains and the J would continue to provide switching services to the massive steel complex in lovely Northwest Indiana. The J would also deliver all that coal to the power plants in Chicago area.

CN would get it's routing and J would get a little cash in it's pockets and still have a lot of freight to switch.

Now, this will not work out, as I see it, because what would CN and J both want? Control. Which would not be possible for both parties.

So, CN will have to just remain a tenant. By the way, I sure would like to know what a railroad pays for trackage rights. Mark, can you help on this?

CN's concern with WC was "control". What would happen if someone else bought it and the Superior - Chicago route suddenly went to another carrier? Their western Canada - Chicago freights would be controlled by someone else.

Ditto with the J. Right now that piece of the J between Griffith and Mattson is seeing several daily trains that make the big turn to the IC.

At what circumstance will CN have to make a move on the J? At what price will the J smile?

I maintain this will happen. It is so similar to the WC scenario.

Isnt it fun playing with maps and colored markers?

ed

[Junctionfan]

I don't think CN should buy any more railroads as it isn't really cost effective in achieving less operation costs. Why buy a something an inherit a possible debt, workforce, higher taxes and maintainance cost all associated with another railroad when all it takes is building another line or passing sidings? Sounds alot cheaper and easier to me. Also running rights are just as good; tactful running rights is better (one direction of traffic on the IHB the other on EJE)

[Anonymous]

If the chicago area is so stuff with railcars and the like, would it make sense for CN to get running rights over IHB and EJE?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

No -- nothing wrong with asking questions.


Drephpe, as you know there's TWO reasons to "rubber" trailers and containers across Chicago. One is to reduce the transit time required for steel-wheel interchange. The other is that the railroads are in essence using the city streets as their classification yard -- just like truckers do. Everything sorts itself out en route.

Mark--

I know. I was referring more to run-throughs and potential run-throughs where the classification had already taken place.

But the in-street classification is also gonna move if/when a venue crops up where they can do it faster than CHI.

[MP173]

Should have done a little research before opening my mind....

EJE owned by Transtar...owned by USX

I dont think the J will be for sale until the next big steel recession.

As it stands, they have an outlet for there product to all major carriers. Nice and tidy.

ed

[MP173]

I have no clue why USX would own the J....but my guess is that there is a good reason. USX is locally known as a very good steel company, the best in the region. They perhaps look at ownership as being able to control (to a certain extent) the flow of their inbound raw materials and outbound steel.

The NS runs a local from Ft. Wayne daily to Van Loon (probably 130 miles one way) to pickup J coil cars. This train can be as few as 10 cars and as many as 70. Yesterday it was 55. That train pretty much runs on clockwork. The J will have the cars ready usually by 2pm for interchange.

NS usually runs 2 hopper trains to the J. I would assume these are coke trains. They are 882 and 884. Quite often they are daily.

All in all, a very busy stretch of railroad. Throw in some overhead traffic and it could be a hell of an investment.

A couple of things are for certain in Chicago....the city is out of real estate for expansion. The latest commercial/distribution push is out in the land of the J, if not beyond. Another is there is not any room, nor any money to build new rail lines in Chicago.

Any way you slice it, it is a valuable ROW.

ed

[Anonymous]

Why do you think that the EJE route will be used more readily for commuter railroading instead of freight railroading?

[Wdlgln005]

Growth in Chicago is in inter-suburb traffic, as the metro area grows west into Kane county, etc. In the long term plans Metra could run a commuter on one of the freight belts. EJ&E may be one of the best ones, connecting Joliet with other west-north lines. Passengers could use cross-platform transfers between connecting lines.
Another idea is to have more flexibility of equipment. For example, if BNSF is blocked, perhaps some runs could be accomodated by a Heritage Corridor route that ends back at CUS.
This is actually an old crosstown idea from an experssway that will never be built. CTA could have had a direct route from Midway to O'hare via a BRC right-of way.

[Anonymous]

Getting back to the title of the original post, I guess we can expect similar news in the coming months of new routing protocals?

The UP-CN and BNSF-CN announcements of course have one railroad in common - CN. I wonder if some of the traffic being diverted was routed that way following its integration of Wisconsin Central to gain a longer haul and greater rate division?[;)]

Hopefully, if BNSF, CSXT, NS and UP are making plans to divert carload interchange away from the Chicago, they will remember the Peoria Gateway[:D] and TP&W. The Tazewell & Peoria RR (former P&PU) no longer has the classification capacity at its East Peoria "hump" Yard since it was reduced by at least 25% in 1989, but manifest trains routed over the TP&W can be pre-blocked at Galesburg (IL) and/or Argentine (KS), North Platte (NE), Bellevue (OH) and/or Frankfort (IN) and Avon (IN). Crew changes would be made on the "Nickel Plate" (train crews' and TZPR dispatcher's lingo for the Norfolk Southern Running Track).

Any thoughts?

DPJ

[MP173]

The NS traffic would be handled off at Kansas City rather than Peoria, until the Wabash line becomes crowded. Traffic from BNSF's northern area could funnel down to Galesburg and the over to Peoria. Ditto UP's traffic from Omaha, Twin Cities, etc. could be classified in Clinton, Iowa and sent down the old CNW at Nelson. I would think there is an interechange with TPW at Peoria, but perhaps not.

How is this for future planning (hey, it is not my money)....TPW to Sheldon, Indiana and then to the KBSR to Lafayette, then to CSX's Avon yard for classification.

I have no idea if the traffic flows warrent this...probably not, but what about in 20 years?

I know, I know, where will the $$$ come from for investment purposes, but my feelings are we as a nation should think long and hard before abandoning any further rail lines.

ed

[MP173]

Mark:

It is very easy to look at the map, and play "what if". I just bought $50 worth of maps from Deskmap and made blueprint copies of the maps, just to do that.

I dont doubt that there are smarter men and women who can figure this out. But, I also know there have been some incredible decisions made in the past 20 years...tearing up the B&O St. Louis mainline and CN's single tracking the GTW in parts of Michigan come to mind.

I dont have nearly all the facts to know what needs to be done. I do, however, have knowledge of what 80-94 and other major expressways are like in Chicago, driving in them 3-4 times a week. Any method of getting a few of those trucks off those expressways will be a benefit.

Someday, BNSF and UP will merge with NS and CSX and possibly CN and CP. I have no idea who will partner up with who, but it will happen. A key in those mergers will be who gets NS and can avoid the Chicago mess. The next key will be which line(s) such as TPW or Kankakee Belt will provide the competitive route around Chicago. When those mergers occur, my guess is that the intermodal traffic will then flow thru Chicago, rather than hit the highway. Those routes will have to be in place to bypass the current spaghetti bowl.

ed