Perhaps more use of the Streator connection between BNSF and NS if they could work out the revenue split to their satisfaction.
One other thing I have always wondered is why NS and either BNSF, UP or both haven't developed a "Meridian Speedway" concept using Norfolk Southern's former Wabash from Kansas City, at least for a portion of their interchange traffic. There are many examples of single track line with CTC and ample sidings hosting 40+ through trains daily - the Sunset Route before the UP double-tracking project began comes to mind.
Perhaps several of those type of options could at least chip away at the Chicago bottleneck problem.
But just like New York will always be the financial hub of the United States, Chicago will always remain the rail hub of the United States even if there are some diversions of traffic to bypass routes.
Interesting points about Streator and the former Wabash out of K.C. One might make similar points about Peoria, and the TP&W and Nickle Plate lines. There were alternatives to going through Chicago that the railroads elected to minimize and even walk away from. I sometimes wonder if the per diem rules created perverse (if short sighted) incentives to have cars sit. For example I remember a story about the former SR head Brosnan who got so angry at a subordinate who seemed impressed and pleased with how stuffed one of their yards was with cars -- all that business! -- where Brosnan could only see idle assets.
Dave Nelson
Why would BNSF or UP want to shorthaul themselves by handing off traffic at KC?
CN solved the Chicago problem by acquiring lines on both sides and around Chicago. The Chicago problem will be solved when the western and eastern Class 1s merge to form true transcons.
Of course, a Meridian Speedway type of arrangement would have to be mutually beneficial to both parties, and obviously they have not been able to work out such an agreement to date.
http://www.american-rails.com/images/wabash-railroad-map.jpg
Ironically, back in steam days the Wabash apparently had a reputation for expedited freight service with a fleet of 25 hefty Northerns and another 25 similar Mountains.
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?//july99/07-11-99/wab2914.jpg
One way to expidite interchange in Chicago would be to change the 100-year-old model they currently use. Take the CN Chicago play-book and parcel out the connecting railroads IHB and BRC to the Class Is and create direct connections between the each of the Class Is. This would eliminate the "dis-interested third party" in the current interchange and possibly shorten the trip by a day or more. In theory, it should be easier to work out switching arrangements and routings at interlockings between two parties instead of three or more.
If I were an NS or BNSF stockholder, I certainly would ask some questions concerning Streator!
Problem with using Streator, is then where do you go? With the east end of the Kankakee Belt (San Pierre to South Bend) removed, any eastbound diversion is left pretty much having to go north at Schneider In, back up into the area you're trying to avoid.
Perhaps if they reconnected San Pierre to Knox, then they would have something?
http://industrialscenery.blogspot.com/2014/10/kankakee-belt-route-and-chicago-bypass.html
ConvictedOne, that does look like they would be cooking with gas. Do you have any idea how far the distance is between the Streator Line and the former NKP in Knox?
The amazing thing is that you can see on Google maps that the right away is still intact from the end of track near Wheatland at the power plant all the way to Knox.
And I answered my own question - dug out my copy of the "1928 Handy Railroad Atlas of the United States" (actual name). It is 16 miles from San Pierre to Knox. Restoration of that track would have good odds of being less costly than most CREATE projects. Conrail probably took out the track which is a pity now that NS owns the track through Knox as well as the Streator secondary.
Weel, obviously they should restore the link and upgrade the whole route and use it to capacity. What is preventing this from being done? Inertia? Not invented here? Rate divisions?
The BRC, and IHB, even in the 1890s were hardly in the "boonies" of those times. The EJ&E (Outer Belt) was, as it is 32-40 miles out. Any new line would have to be well to the west of the Fox River, maybe connecting to the north at Rochelle with the UP and BNSF and working its way south and east. But highly unlikely.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
kgbw49ConvictedOne, that does look like they would be cooking with gas.
Funny thing is, NYC and Santa Fe were doing exactly as we are talking about, before Penn Central.
I even recall seeing a picture of a train sporting an all Santa Fe consist way far (Hamlet?) into Indiana, well before run-thru's were the norm. As I recall, the practic fell out of favor, because "everyone goes to Chicago" . Meaning it's the best place to break up a train where parts of it are destined to several different locations. If you are Union Pacific and you have an eastbound manifest, where parts of it are going to 6 different locations, there is a very good chance that someone in Chicago is already building a train destined to each of those. Whereas if you run that train through to Toledo before breakin it up, some of the destinations might be problematic. Or at least more trouble than they are worth.
That's what I recall, anyway. They moan and groan about what a hassle it is to navigate Chicago, but everyone who is anyone wants to be there.
.
daveklepper If I were an NS or BNSF stockholder, I certainly would ask some questions concerning Streator!
Call me crazy, or call me Carl, but I'd like to see what would happen if more of the CREATE projects were implemented fully. I suspect that the projects that have been completed have been successful in speeding things up. The projects were supposedly agreed on by the railroads, when asked which improvements they'd like to see on any other railroad to improve service.Having said that, I also suspect that every eastern railroad in Chicago has a run-through agreement with every western railroad, and they all have agreements with the Canadian lines. Have the CREATE oprojects quickened these operations? Is every railroad operating something that doesn't have to be classified in Chicago for each of its connections?It's one thing to throw out a statistic about how long it takes a car to go through Chicago, but we need to see which railroads are doing all right with their partners and which ones aren't--then perhaps the regional oversight that is in place could help expedite things, or design projects that would do that.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
While everyone is concerned with moving through traffic in Chicago (and there is a bunch of it). There is also a tremendous amount of traffic that is destined in the greater Chicago area - stuff that can't (shouldn't) be handled in trains operating through Chicago with only crew changes as the trains change carriers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
That's true...and that's why the major chicago railroads maintain a major yard in the Chicago area (admittedly some more major than others). When I retired, our "major" yard made five classifications that would be considered Chicago-centric traffic...and some (such as IHB and Yard Center) were not exclusively for local traffic. This is 'way down from when I hired out. There are also trains that originate and terminate in our yard, rather than running through. However, these aren't germane to the subject unless they're getting in the way of the trains that have to go through the bottleneck. Crew changes: this might be one place where the railroad is shooting itself in the foot. With CREATE-funded improvements by our yard they got an extra mainline track and ways into and out of the yard where "run-through" trains can be held and kept out of the way of other operations in the yard, or commuter operations out on the main line. As often as not, trains that are sitting there when I head east toward the city are still there when I come back home (yes, they're the same train). There are other reasons a train might sit for a while (such as tieing on a lead locomotive for ATC), but coordination between railroads and within railroads (crew management) could make this as much faster as railroads want it to be. At least the concept of having a fresh crew right there makes sense.
One of my carriers major terminals is a nightmare to operate - prior to the mergers that created the terminal as it exists today, it was the destination terminal for the 5 carriers that fed it. In today's iteration it has become a through terminal, with only freight that is actually destined to local industries terminating at the terminal. The interchange tracks that connected the 5 carriers destination yards have become the Main Tracks for today's terminal and have thereby created a 'rats nest' for routings where one move can block other moves. Throw on top of that various crossings with a 'foreign' carrier that can, and does, create blockages from time to time and you have a mini-Chicago.
All the Class 1's operating into Chicago, back in the day, terminated in Chicago. The trackage between each carriers terminals was nominally interchange tracks, constructed with out any consideration for continuous through movement through the greater Chicago area.
Streator and the Kankakee Line looks great on the map as a logical bypass of the Chicago Way.
Currently NS and BNSF run 1 boxcar train each way on the line - 10R NS eastbound and 31K westbound. In addition train 36J runs from Kankakee to Elkhart daily. There is no westbound counterpart. BNSF and NS have seemed to settled on running some oil trains via Galesburg/Streator. These seem to be moving to the former NKP line at Gibson, bypassing Elkhart. Plans were for these trains to move on the former PRR, now CFE to Ft Wayne, but cooler heads prevailed with jointed rail. NS seems to be moving giant intermodals westbound on the CFE these days.
In addition there are usually 1-2 loaded coal trains to Wheatfield and then the empty movements. The former line to South Bend ends at Wheatfield.
The line could easily be resurrected east to North Judson area or Lacrosse where it could gain access to the Chesapeake and Indiana which could take trains to NS at Thomaston or CSX at Wellsboro. Connections could be made to CN at Wellsboro and even run on trackage rights to South Bend to reach the NS Elkhart line.
Rumor has it the line from Schneider to Danville Il (old NYC Egyptian line) is still in place under lots of trees. It could be used to connect the old Wabash with the Chicago lines.
Why not more trains on the Streator line you ask? Well, it is handling all the boxcar freight now. Intermodals would need to turn the corner on a pretty tight curve and then move eastward with few sidings. The BNSF - NS intermodals tend to be giant trains with 3 eastbounds in the early afternoon for Columbus and Harrisburg. With few sidings there would need to be rescheduled trains, or sidings built. Perhaps these three trains pickup blocks for JBH or EMP containers in Chicago also.
The line can be used to greater efficiency but would require pretty good chunk of asset investment for sidings and to build out east of Wheatfield. Right now, trains are rolling ok thru Chicago on the NS line (up to 100 per day) coming in from various lines.
Crude oil is down and coal isnt moving like it did. The cash cow energy trains are becoming more and more rare. Those are the big money makers which makes investment an easier decision.
Ed
The Chicago mess. Carl has hit upon a point that needs more thought. It is crew changes. Why could two RRs use a combined crew consist thru Chicago ? Example One NS and one UP Crewman boards train at Ft. Wayne. NS operates to Chicago and UP acts as conductor.. At CHI UP takes over as engineer and NS acts as conductor to UP engineer to say Rochelle. No stopping in CHI waiting for rested crew. Many routes could be built this way. Just keep any staging of trains away from CHI..
Recognize that new crew change points would be needed closer to CHI, agreement with operating unions, split payments to crews, etc.
MP173 Streator and the Kankakee Line looks great on the map as a logical bypass of the Chicago Way. Currently NS and BNSF run 1 boxcar train each way on the line - 10R NS eastbound and 31K westbound. In addition train 36J runs from Kankakee to Elkhart daily. There is no westbound counterpart. BNSF and NS have seemed to settled on running some oil trains via Galesburg/Streator. ......... Why not more trains on the Streator line you ask? Well, it is handling all the boxcar freight now. Intermodals would need to turn the corner on a pretty tight curve and then move eastward with few sidings. The BNSF - NS intermodals tend to be giant trains with 3 eastbounds in the early afternoon for Columbus and Harrisburg. With few sidings there would need to be rescheduled trains, or sidings built. Perhaps these three trains pickup blocks for JBH or EMP containers in Chicago also. The line can be used to greater efficiency but would require pretty good chunk of asset investment for sidings and to build out east of Wheatfield. Right now, trains are rolling ok thru Chicago on the NS line (up to 100 per day) coming in from various lines. Ed
Currently NS and BNSF run 1 boxcar train each way on the line - 10R NS eastbound and 31K westbound. In addition train 36J runs from Kankakee to Elkhart daily. There is no westbound counterpart. BNSF and NS have seemed to settled on running some oil trains via Galesburg/Streator. .........
There are two wicked curves at Streator causing issues. The twelve degree curve at the Santa Fe Connection with the Iowa Extension is ugly and pretty well constrained by local creekbottom drainage around the junction. (the twelve degree curve is closer to fourteen after spiralling the connecting curve behind the Santa Fe turnout frog)... The Six Degree curve at Iowa Junction is fixed in place because of a bridge (Smith Douglas Road)....NYC's Iowa Extension was pretty much built as an afterthought by NYC/3I in the bad old days. The line from CP Iowa to the Santa Fe Connection has been moved all it can be without falling off the property. PC & CR did a lot of shoddy work in the area that NS is now trying to undo as they get capital budget $$. The subgrade left by CR on the Iowa Connection is a washboard/ failed mess. A cleaner solution is out there using portions of the now abandoned Wabash and GM&O/Alton lines in the Streator "spiderweb", but that would require a serious capital outlay and a serious commitment to fleet trains over dark territory.
Streator used to be quite a railroad center with east meeting west meeting south.
Mudchicken...do you know what the yard is used for? Is that possibly storage for either frac sand cars or shuttle grain cars? I havent been to Streator in quite a while....used to go to the Vactor plant right by the junction, but that has been 15 years perhaps more.
MP173 Streator used to be quite a railroad center with east meeting west meeting south. Mudchicken...do you know what the yard is used for? Is that possibly storage for either frac sand cars or shuttle grain cars? I havent been to Streator in quite a while....used to go to the Vactor plant right by the junction, but that has been 15 years perhaps more. Ed
Hmm, maybe after that last (expensive) seven miles of the Transcon is double tracked, BNSF will want to cut the times for expedited traffic to the Upper Great Lakes Mega Region and they will work with NS on their own CREATE-style bypass project. Time will tell.
My analysis of the data from the Surface Transportation Board’s Public Use version of the 2013 “One Percent Waybill Sample” shows the following:
Out of all 2013 U.S. railroad traffic, that traffic moving between the western U.S. (roughly, from west of Chicago, St. Louis, and the Mississippi south to New Orleans) and that portion of the eastern U.S. north of the Ohio River and central Virginia, (“Trans-Chicago” and “Trans-Mississippi” for short) constituted the following percentages: (See note below.)
4.18% of all loads; 4.65% of all tons; 4.33% of all revenue
This would have included traffic moving via the following gateways: Chicago, St. Louis, Thebes, Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans, and a handful of lesser points. Volumes via individual gateways are not given, but the volumes would have been in roughly descending order of that given.
I believe these numbers explain the absence of heavy investment to “fix” the “Chicago Bottleneck” by the major railroads. They don’t see the problem as that significant. The problem gets lots of press, especially in tough winters, but not so much capital.
Consider these examples (just a few of many) of priorities outside of Chicago:
1. BNSF completes the double tracking of the southern Transcon, and invests heavily on the Northern Transcon. Logistics Parks. Billions for locomotives. 2. UP double tracks the Sunset Route. Invests in Santa Teresa (El Paso). Billions for locomotives. 3. NS doubles Bellevue. (And until recently) touts its intermodal routes such as the Crescent Corridor. 4. CSX builds North Baltimore, Ohio, and clears doublestack routes.
CREATE primarily benefits commuter routes, and receives tepid support from the majors. It appears to me that “Trans-Chicago” routes have suffered, and will continue to do so, from (reasonable (?)) “benign neglect” in U.S. Class 1 capital budgeting. (“Trans-Chicago” is, in a relative sense, more important for CN and CP, as it constitutes a portion of their through routes. Hence, CN bought EJ&E; CP shows interest in IHB.)
(Note: For those familiar with the old “Rate Bureau” boundaries, the STB continues to use them in the “Sample”. My analysis used “Mountain Pacific”, “Western Trunk Line”, and “Southwestern Lines” territories collectively as the western U.S., and “Official Territory” as the eastern U.S.)
~4%? So where are all those carloads coming into Chicago on the UP and BNSF ending up?
schlimm~4%? So where are all those carloads coming into Chicago on the UP and BNSF ending up?
A waybill won't always reflect the true origin-destination of the movement. A shipment can move on a combination rate. i.e. a load from Boston to Denver can be billed Boston to Chicago and then rebilled Chicago to Denver. The waybills wouldn't show it as a Boston-Denver shipment but either as a Boston-Chicago or a Chicago-Denver shipment. Depends on which waybill was selected in the sample.
When I was a railroader this was very common (almost universal) on intermodal shipments. There were no through rates. Everything moving into or from Official Territory got rebilled in Chicago. (It didn't delay the actual movement.) Could be the same these days.
This would throw the "analysis" off. You can't use numbers without understanding them. A lesson that gets reinforced every day.
Well, does anyone know how the carload and intermodal billing actually works today in the industry? Is the industry still using a combination of rates over the gateway? If so, that seems rather inefficient and probably more expensive. Back in my old "traffic days" combination of rates were much more expensive than "thru rates".
I would think the accounting would be a nightmare for shippers to be paying two freight bills on every movement...but perhaps that is my 1980s way of thinking of things.
It would be very interesting to see where the actual traffic is flowing in the United States. I am thinking about the trains passing thru on the NS and CSX mainlines here in NW Indiana and there are numerous run thru trains off of UP, BNSF, CN, and CP daily...for carload, unit train, and intermodal. Hmm...now I am thinking.
Mudchicken...are these frac cars loaded at Streator or just staged there? Last spring I was in Ottawa, Il and stumbled on the IR's shop. Talked to a manager and was told they were generating huge trains of frac sand just west of town at a quarry. It would make sense that some of that would be interchanged to BNSF at Streator.
Way back in the immediately post-Staggers, early independent Conrail days, the combination rate phenomenon had some life. Conrail felt that the interterritorial divisions of revenue were, in some cases, an unfair relic of regulation, and canceled some through rates. Conrail put in place so-called "proportional" rates to the gateways , which if used, yielded the revenue that Conrail believed was its "due."
Pre-Staggers, a persistent complaint of shippers (and many in the railroad industry) was the massive complexity of the "rate structure". Only members of the "green eyeshade" fraternity could, with any confidence, quote the "correct" rates. An entire cottage industry existed to "audit" fright bills for errors, living off the inevitable mistakes resulting from the obsolete and arcane method of pricing the industry's service.
Conrail's "proportional" rate strategy only added to the costly problem, both for shippers and other railroads.
Rationality began to prevail by the mid-1980s as the divisions of revenue for interline movements were arranged on a mutually agreeable basis (as opposed to the old ICC "prescribed" basis."
Disclosure: My direct involvement in railroad pricing ended in the mid-1980s, as the Conrail phenomenon was beginning to wind down. I cannot aver that "combination" rates were insignificant in 2013, but I believe that to be the case. Intermodal interterritorial movements are predominately with ocean carriers or the J.B. Hunts, Hubs, etc. Unit train movements of coal, CBR, etc. are on individually negotiated contracts, and the thought that such an archaic method of pricing would sill be in place seems implausible. Perhaps for some "loose car" traffic? Could be, but one would have to seriously ask, "Why?" See MP173 comments immediately below.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.