The main reason for ocean ships to come to Duluth or Thunder Bay was grain. Grain traffic is now way down in Duluth, only a shadow of what it once was. Thunder Bay is pretty much the same thing. Most grain now goes to the west coast or gulf and into larger ships.
The ore traffic was affected some from allowing St Lawrence ore to get into the Great Lakes, though most of this now goes out over the ocean.
Other than token shipments of ore and grain out of the Great Lakes, that traffic is pretty much captive above Lake Huron. The railroads have also made some serious inroads there, especially when the steel industry is booming.
Over the years there have been "Food for Peace" shipments that were subsidized by the government that went out through Duluth. Not so much anymore.
Windmill parts and oversize loads have been significant the last 20+ years. This traffic goes both ways, surprisingly, with locomotives and windmill parts outbound and outsize oil refinery parts and windmill parts inbound. Duluth has handled over a million tons of windmill parts the last few years, some outbound and some inbound.
For general cargo, the combination of containers and large container ships has made the St Lawrence Seaway largely obsolete for its inteneded purpose. In 1959 when it was first built most ocean ships would fit. Now very few do. Also in 1959 Europe was a major general merchandise export destination for American goods. Not so much any more. Now we are a major importer ourselves and most of that comes in through the west coast.
narig01 The lasting legacy though of the Soviet grain sales is the invasion of Zebra Muscles.
The lasting legacy though of the Soviet grain sales is the invasion of Zebra Muscles.
The zebra mussels have been a mixed blessing. The threat to water intakes hasn't been as much of a problem as was initially thought, and they have cleaned the water up - never used to be able to see bottom in 6' of water off my aunt's cottage.
They may have had an effect on the fisheries - we used to see/catch a lot more perch that we do today, but that may be due in part to the cormorants that have taken up residence in the area.
We always wore sneakers when swimming anyhow, due to the rocky bottom of that bay.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
narig01 The major loss for railroads was I suspect the grain shipments from the midwest. IIRC Chicago or the state of Illiinois built grain elevators to take advantage of the Seaway. And this is what Al Perlman may have been complaining about. I think some other grain loading facilities were built on Lake Michigan (Milwaukee
It is exactly what Al Perlman was complaining about. It was government subsidized competition for the New York Central Railroad. The seaway ran parallel to NYC tracks from Chicago to the Port of New York.
The major loss for railroads was I suspect the grain shipments from the midwest. IIRC Chicago or the state of Illiinois built grain elevators to take advantage of the Seaway. And this is what Al Perlman may have been complaining about. I think some other grain loading facilities were built on Lake Michigan (Milwaukee?).
I think the first big grain movements were the sales to Soviet Union in the 70's. The problems and crazyness that happened with these sales were many.
1.Zebra Muscles(suspected of being imported in the ballast tanks of Soviet freighters).
2.Quality and misgrading of export wheat(some of the shipments were as much as 20% chaff).
3.Soviet complaints about the above.
4.Suspected KGB bugging of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange(never proven but what was recovered had cyrillic letters on it)
5.Suspected price gauging by traders on the CME.
6.Complaints that Soviets would play hard ball on verbal contracts not signed(it was believed that they were just playing the game a little better with info from 4 to deal with 5 and 2 above).
I know a lot of this is way off topic but see what technology and change bring you.
Rgds IGN
The real issue with ocean going ships in the Seaway is not the lock size. It is the draught limitation in the St. Lawrence River, which cannot meaningfully be changed. There are also height limitations in the river relating to the many bridges at Montreal, Trois Rivieres, Quebec City and elsewhere. PanaMax and PostPanaMax ships could never even get past the Gulf of St. Lawrence, let alone up the river to Quebec or Montreal.
tree68 If one were to spend a little time over the course of the Seaway navigation season, one could probably get a pretty good idea of what is shipped over the waterway by researching the ships that are found on it. "How do I do that?" you ask? http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/navigating/map/index.html The site will (in season) show name and direction of travel of all the ships on the system. A quick search on each ship's name will probably give one a decent idea of what commodity the ship may carry. If one were to plot their locations, including where they're stopping, a further sense of their cargo might be discerned. Could be an interesting project for one so inclined. Since I live just off the Seaway, I'll often check to see if I'll be seeing anything when I'm near the river.
If one were to spend a little time over the course of the Seaway navigation season, one could probably get a pretty good idea of what is shipped over the waterway by researching the ships that are found on it.
"How do I do that?" you ask?
http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/navigating/map/index.html
The site will (in season) show name and direction of travel of all the ships on the system. A quick search on each ship's name will probably give one a decent idea of what commodity the ship may carry. If one were to plot their locations, including where they're stopping, a further sense of their cargo might be discerned.
Could be an interesting project for one so inclined.
Since I live just off the Seaway, I'll often check to see if I'll be seeing anything when I'm near the river.
Hi All
I believe one can also check St Lawrence Seaway Annual Statistics of Commodities Hauled (this was data needed to calculate income from tolls), which IIRC were contained in their Annual Reports. These reports were posted on their website and would I expect still be posted on their website. I haven't checked for quite some time but remember being quite impressed by the data sets available.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
Confusion alert!
Randy was speaking of Saint John, New Brunswick. CP's eastern port when the Port of Montreal froze each winter. There is no ferry involved.
St. John's NL was served by a ferry to the the SW corner of the island of Newfoundland, and the CN narrow gauge line. The trucks were changed there before cars could go to St. John's, on the eastern side of the island.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
tree68 Methinks it's all a learning experience. I probably wouldn't have thought about traffic to St. Johns being affected, because I wasn't necessarily aware that it was a factor. My US-centric view unfortunately points me to US roads and ports. And even if I factor in a Canadian component, I, too, would probably think of Montreal instead of St. Johns. Thus the value of having the myriad viewpoints we enjoy here.
Methinks it's all a learning experience. I probably wouldn't have thought about traffic to St. Johns being affected, because I wasn't necessarily aware that it was a factor. My US-centric view unfortunately points me to US roads and ports. And even if I factor in a Canadian component, I, too, would probably think of Montreal instead of St. Johns.
Thus the value of having the myriad viewpoints we enjoy here.
Rail traffic to St John's was more affected by the need for a trainferry to bring the cars to the Island, and then regauge the cars with narrow gauge trucks. St. John (no 's) required neither.
henry6I was very emphatic that the Seaway was not the lone problem...there were other problems and they all worked together to change transportation patterns east and west from the Atlantic Coast.
I agree Henry. But isn't this change a constant of our history than began in the days all freight had to come down the Mississippi River and getting back up was so difficult boats would be left behind while people walked?
John
Henry, I was only referring to the posts which replied to my posts concerning the Canadian side of things, not the earlier posts in this thread.
I was very emphatic that the Seaway was not the lone problem...there were other problems and they all worked together to change transportation patterns east and west from the Atlantic Coast. Interstate highways, migration of business and industry south and west and the people that followed the jobs. And bigger and bigger jet planes to take them away. All that and people's tastes and needs changed,too.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
CX500, thanks for your concise reply regarding the relationship of the Canadian RRs west of Montreal (Seaway) with those east of Montreal (which itself has always been an ocean going port.) Your post gave plausible explanations for the varying fortunes of the different line segments. Most other posters dismissed any consideration other than that the Seaway caused all the problems, with little explanation other than it was a "no brainer".
carnej1 Correct me if I'm wrong but when has general merchandise ever been a major factor in traffic on the Seaway?
Correct me if I'm wrong but when has general merchandise ever been a major factor in traffic on the Seaway?
Depends upon what you consider "General Cargo" if anything other than bulk commodities is General Cargo, then there is a significant amount of general cargo moving through the Seaway. Things such as Wind Turbine parts moving both ways, structural steel, steel coils, various other types of "Project Cargo". Iron Ore is mostly inbound through the Seaway from Labrador, while Coal, Grain, and other Bulk Ag Commodities such as Beet Pulp Pellets dominate outbound.
Statistics for 2012 for the Port of Duluth-Superior
1.3 million tons of coal exported other than to Canada
Grain 697, 000 tons down significantly from 2011 again other than Canada
Ship visits by Foreign Flagged Ships (other than Canadian) 68
231 Canadian ship visits
jrbernier Also the winter shut-down of shipping on the Upper Great Lakes is a factor. Grain is harvested in late summer and shipped to the elevator. This only leaves a few months to move this product out of the Great Lakes before 'freeze-up'.
Thanks for your explanation, Jim.
This seems like an issue that has been around since the 1850's when the New York Central and Erie were completed from Buffalo to New York. I guess it will be around for a while longer.
Apparently, the OP was a little ignorant on his geography. Oops! that OP was me. . I guess I had it in my mind, that the Saint Lawrence Seaway, and the river, kind of went straight east from Buffalo. (double ) I was interested in how the seaway affected all the rail traffic east (and northeast). The only real mention I've ever seen was that it took the grain traffic away from the railroads.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
General merchandise has been a factor on the rails, not the Seaway. But, the rail traffic patterns. empties, loads, directions, schedules, all were affected and changed.....The problem is that there are never black or white, left or right,, up or down answers to much, there are always grays, shadows, overtones, misdirections, and other variations which muddle a straight or simple answer.
henry6 carnej1 ..the migration of US manufacturing South to the Sunbelt (and then Overseas) has just about nothing to do with the St. Lawrence Seaway.. No but was a contributing factor to the decline of rail traffic in and out of the Northeast. The two combined for the one and two of a one, two, three punch, the Eisenhower Highway system being three. But with goods and such being delivered to docks along the shores of Lake Michigan and other lakes, transloading to barges for the mighty Mississippi or to westbound rails did factor in, too.
carnej1 ..the migration of US manufacturing South to the Sunbelt (and then Overseas) has just about nothing to do with the St. Lawrence Seaway..
..the migration of US manufacturing South to the Sunbelt (and then Overseas) has just about nothing to do with the St. Lawrence Seaway..
Certainly not in the age of containerization... The traffic is heavily weighted towards raw material exports (i.e outbound)and I doubt it led to significant amounts of goods imports going to Midwest ports that you speculate about.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Next up in the equation is, of course, the new Panama Canal...
A few comments. The original poster referred to "eastern railroads" without indicating exactly what he intended. Likely it was intended to cover east of Chicago rather than the narrower sense some have used, (east of Montreal). You also have to separate two factors which have affected the Canadian railways. One is of course the Seaway, from Montreal west to the Great Lakes. The second is the effective opening of the St.Lawrence River east of Montreal to year round navigation, using government ice breakers. The International of Maine was always far busier in the winter, so likely it was the extended navigation season that removed the traffic. Grain was also a big winter commodity, but much of that is now hauled west to Pacific ports for other reasons.
In 1959 the seaway almost certainly took traffic away from the railroads, with ocean going vessels able to serve inland ports directly. But many of those vessels increased in size so that is less true today. In addition the large domestic "lakers" could now reach the lower St.Lawrence ports and transfer more or less directly to the "salties". Today the railways have become far more efficient and can come close to competing with the ships in price while taking days out of the shipping time. And transit time has become a more important economic consideration today than before.
The ship operators periodically agitate for enlargement of the Seaway, but of course without volunteering to pay the enormous cost themselves. And climate change, while lengthening the average navigation season, may also be responsible for the reduced water levels that are restricting the loading of the ships.
Well the Port of Montreal is a better port than St. John, NB. It has a bigger city, highly likely that the vast majority general cargo is bound for Montreal or Toronto. Since water transport is cheaper than rail it makes sense to transport the cargo to a port closest to its destination, so long as some other factor doesn't offset the lower cost of water transport. The Port of Montreal is on the St. Lawrence River, but is not part of the Seaway and is not affected by the Seaway Locks or winter shutdown. During the winter shutdown of the Seaway the Port of Quebec City is the eastern export point for Canadian Grain. Up until the split up of Canadian Pacific, the Port of Montreal was the main port of call for CP Ships, both passenger and freight.
I don't understand the argument.... I am on the ground in Montreal often enough to see the ocean going vessels loaded with grain or potash headed East on the river with an Eastbound train consist in my hand and know EXACTY where the shortline traffic has gone. Is there not a good reason CP abandoned the rail lines East of Montreal or did they do it for fun?
Now the only traffic left on the shortline international of Maine division is traffic going to the province of NB only. Little to no export traffic anymore. The vessels are loaded on the great lakes avoiding rail movement beyond the lakes.
The OP asked if there was an effect on the rail carriers resulting from the opening of the seaway , isn't that a no brainer ??? The international of Maine is a perfect example because the railroad was abandoned by the CP directly as a result of the seaway!
Without the new crude oil trains the entire line would have likely been torn out altogether from Lake Megantic Que. to Brownvill Jct. or sold to government entity.
Randy
tree68 Mike - I suspect you are looking at two disparate factors here. It's no doubt true that rail traffic in central and eastern Ontario (Thunder Bay-Montreal) was affected by the Seaway. I don't have any numbers. It would come down to the load/unload pairs. I would guess that much of the grain originated on the prairies. I don't know that the eastern shore of Lake Huron generates great amounts of traffic. Randy's comment deals with the second factor, and it no doubt had a similar effect on the US eastern seaboard ports (and rail traffic thereto). Before the Seaway was built, bulk ship movements of commodities (ie, grain) from the upper Great Lakes to off-shore destinations (ie, Europe) had to be moved to ports on the east coast. That included New Brunswick as well as the usual US ports. Once salties could venture all the way to Duluth,it was no longer necessary to haul those commodities by rail to an ocean port like St. Johns. This is why rail traffic east of Montreal was affected.
Mike - I suspect you are looking at two disparate factors here.
It's no doubt true that rail traffic in central and eastern Ontario (Thunder Bay-Montreal) was affected by the Seaway. I don't have any numbers. It would come down to the load/unload pairs. I would guess that much of the grain originated on the prairies. I don't know that the eastern shore of Lake Huron generates great amounts of traffic.
Randy's comment deals with the second factor, and it no doubt had a similar effect on the US eastern seaboard ports (and rail traffic thereto).
Before the Seaway was built, bulk ship movements of commodities (ie, grain) from the upper Great Lakes to off-shore destinations (ie, Europe) had to be moved to ports on the east coast. That included New Brunswick as well as the usual US ports.
Once salties could venture all the way to Duluth,it was no longer necessary to haul those commodities by rail to an ocean port like St. Johns. This is why rail traffic east of Montreal was affected.
Yeah...not that Thunder Bay to Montreal wasn't affected but that Montreal east was more affected.
henry6 Uh...Thunder Bay is not east of Montreal. I stand on my statement as being true. The maps, geography and history build a case for it...I don't see that you have built a case to make what I said wrong.
Uh...Thunder Bay is not east of Montreal. I stand on my statement as being true. The maps, geography and history build a case for it...I don't see that you have built a case to make what I said wrong.
Who said anything about Thunder Bay being east of Montreal? I said "The original post talks of rail downsizing east of Montreal, but does not comment on rail lines between Montreal and the Thunder Bay area, which should have been effected directly by the SL Seaway." In other words, he is commenting on lines east of Montreal, as opposed to lines west of Montreal (the Seaway to the Canadian lakehead at Thunder Bay). I have not "...built a case to make what (you) said wrong." I simply pointed out that there were rail options from Chicago to Montreal.
Actually you don't have to build a rigid case. You may have some commonly known historical examples to illustrate your points, but you have not shared them with us. All's I'm asking is for you to connect the dots.
MidlandMike The original post talks of rail downsizing east of Montreal, but does not comment on rail lines between Montreal and the Thunder Bay area, which should have been effected directly by the SL Seaway.
The original post talks of rail downsizing east of Montreal, but does not comment on rail lines between Montreal and the Thunder Bay area, which should have been effected directly by the SL Seaway.
The original post said nothing about Montreal - just "railroads in the east."
henry6 MidlandMike Randy Stahl ... It flatout did . It wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore. Some container traffic has returned but not enough to justify two competative routes between Montreal and the East. The expressway system had nothing to do with this , the loss of rail traffic was directly a result of the seaway and its fleet of icebreakers. Randy The St Lawrence Seaway runs west from Montreal. What does the seaway have to do with rail traffic east of Montreal? !!!! A lot! St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes lanes run south and west from Montreal to Detroit then north to Sx St. Marie to Chicago and Duluth If things are railed out of Chicago or Buffalo it goes to Mid Atlantic or New England ports and not via Montreal east to New Brunswick and New Foundland or Nova Scotia, or any Canadian ports, therefore virtually nothing runs on rails east of Montreal, even into New England.
MidlandMike Randy Stahl ... It flatout did . It wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore. Some container traffic has returned but not enough to justify two competative routes between Montreal and the East. The expressway system had nothing to do with this , the loss of rail traffic was directly a result of the seaway and its fleet of icebreakers. Randy The St Lawrence Seaway runs west from Montreal. What does the seaway have to do with rail traffic east of Montreal?
Randy Stahl ... It flatout did . It wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore. Some container traffic has returned but not enough to justify two competative routes between Montreal and the East. The expressway system had nothing to do with this , the loss of rail traffic was directly a result of the seaway and its fleet of icebreakers. Randy
...
It flatout did . It wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore. Some container traffic has returned but not enough to justify two competative routes between Montreal and the East. The expressway system had nothing to do with this , the loss of rail traffic was directly a result of the seaway and its fleet of icebreakers.
The St Lawrence Seaway runs west from Montreal. What does the seaway have to do with rail traffic east of Montreal?
!!!! A lot! St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes lanes run south and west from Montreal to Detroit then north to Sx St. Marie to Chicago and Duluth If things are railed out of Chicago or Buffalo it goes to Mid Atlantic or New England ports and not via Montreal east to New Brunswick and New Foundland or Nova Scotia, or any Canadian ports, therefore virtually nothing runs on rails east of Montreal, even into New England.
The original post talks of rail downsizing east of Montreal, but does not comment on rail lines between Montreal and the Thunder Bay area, which should have been effected directly by the SL Seaway. (I know there has been downsizing there, but there are still CP and CN lines to Montreal). Lines east of Montreal may have more to do with port competitiveness of Halifax (CN) vs St John (CP).
And "If things are railed out of Chicago.." they may go on either CN or CP to Montreal or east of there.
I am not saying that you are not right, I just don't see that you have built a case for it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.