Not a lot of money but this is also interesting as CP Rail pulled out of the port of Milwaukee and apparently 20,000 containers a year was not enough traffic to keep CP Rail there. However, UP stayed behind. So I wonder if UP will scoop up the new business or if CP Rail will return? That will be the question I guess.
https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2019/04/26/port-milwaukees-3-7m-rehab-will-benefit-region.html
Smart move to market as an alternative to Chicago's Port though.
Article behind a pay wall. Are the improvements being done on speculation, or have shippers expressed interest or commitments in the improvements?
Chicago doesn't have a container port that I'm aware of. I can only imagine why (Good luck, Milwaukee)...
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)
MidlandMike Article behind a pay wall. Are the improvements being done on speculation, or have shippers expressed interest or commitments in the improvements?
I hate it when that happens.
Port of Milwaukee is run by City of Milwaukee. Allgedly they stated in the article there were market demands for improvements and improvements are being focused on the intermodal parts of the port, they stated in the article container shipments were growing and the investment could lead to future growth..........other developments though....
First new Great Lake steamship (bulk carrier) in years is now contracted for construction in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin.
https://fox11online.com/news/local/first-great-lakes-bulk-carrier-to-be-built-in-sturgeon-bay-in-nearly-four-decades
Feds are proposing to pay over $1 Billion to expand Soo Locks for larger ships. Which would be another firm in Sturgeon Bay, WI I believe doing that work. If Trump succeeds there it would benefit numerous down lake cities and be a small shot in the arm for Great Lakes shipping I have read. How much of a shot in the arm.........again time will tell. The Soo Locks investment is part of a larger investment in the St Lawerence Seeway to handle larger ships though.
Is this a comeback for Great Lakes shipping? Too early to tell but the developments might have influenced the spending as well. Trump is mentioning both in his speech in Green Bay today. So he is getting some political mileage out of it. St Lawerence Seeway improvements were listed in his infrastructure program as a high priority.
Great article on the increasing competiveness of shipping via St. Lawerence Seaway compared to rail from port of Newark. Looks like the size of the ships outstripped the ability of the St. Lawerence Seaway locks to handle them:
https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/improved-prospects-for-container-ships-on-the-st-lawrence-seaway
CShaveRR Chicago doesn't have a container port that I'm aware of. I can only imagine why (Good luck, Milwaukee)...
I can't tell if your joking or not but here is the link, not sure about the picture........
https://www.icontainers.com/ports/chicago/
On the other hand, blocks of container cars from Vancouver on CP could be set out at Milwaukee relatively easily. I am not sure of the backhaul opportunities for grain or other products. This could be similar to the setup that the Indiana Railroad has with CN.
If CN could work out a trackage rights or haulage deal with UP for access from the CN mainline to the port that would be another potential source.
The CN intermodal terminal at Chippewa Falls, WI does steady business.
kgbw49On the other hand, blocks of container cars from Vancouver on CP could be set out at Milwaukee relatively easily. I am not sure of the backhaul opportunities for grain or other products. This could be similar to the setup that the Indiana Railroad has with CN. If CN could work out a trackage rights or haulage deal with UP for access from the CN mainline to the port that would be another potential source. The CN intermodal terminal at Chippewa Falls, WI does steady business.
Yes Muskego Yard is still well maintained by CP Rail but relatively empty. Multiply the yard by 5 and that is the yard trackage that used to be in the Mennominee River Valley of Milwaukee. Sad we are down to just one but anyway the yard is going to be resurrected in part at least as a holding area for CP Freight trains or that is the WisDOT plan with CP.
WisDOT to pay to increase the track standards on 2-4 tracks to heavier rail with signalling through the entire yard up to the cutoffs from the Twin City mainline. Southbound CP Trains will pull into the yard at the cutoff instead of traveling through the Amtrak station. They will hold in the yard waiting for a window to use the C&M division trackage. This is the design once they go to 10 trains a day RT for Amtrak. They also are going to signal the tracks through the Amtrak station with CTC between cutoffs.........$5 million just for that work.
So with that renovation the CP still has a lot of yard tracks left for car storage and or setouts and pickups and the access to the Ports trackage is fairly easy to reach from Muskego Yard. One issue of course is in order to reach it they would need to again tie up the C&M Amtrak trains or work around them. UP RR on the other hand does not have that issue.
I don't think your going to see CN in downtown Milwaukee anytime soon. They should have inherited the trackage rights from Duplainville to Muskego Yard from Wisconsin Central and the connection is still in place at Duplainville between CN and CP (West of Milwaukee). I just don't see CN taking advantage of it unless it was a large amount of traffic like a full train or two. WSOR uses the connection though sometimes at Duplainville even though it can also enter Muskego Yard from the former North Milwaukee junction trackage of the former Milwaukee Road.
I have seen WSOR trains on the C&M division South of Mitchell Field while riding Amtrak........no idea why they would use that route but I have seen them use that route into Chicago.
The other cool change after the 10 RT per day for Amtrak is the Amtrak trains will never leave the CTC Central dispatch control for the downtown Milwaukee stop, in my view that will save some time. How much? Beats me because I have no clue as to the extra time it takes to call dispatch and get clearance once your off CTC to get back on CTC. It should save some time though. Speeds for the Empire Builder will definitely increase leaving Milwaukee for the Twin Cities since it will no longer have to traverse unsignaled track prior to cutoff tower. Perhaps CP could lift the ridiculous yard limit speed limit going past the stadium and North Milwaukee and the Empire Builder could probably pick up 7-10 min just on that short stretch of track between North Milwaukee junction and the Amtrak Depot.
CMStPnP The Soo Locks investment is part of a larger investment in the St Lawerence Seeway to handle larger ships though.
So what would the primary flow of containers through Milwaukee be? Pacific Port to Milwaukee by rail then loaded onto ships for final delivery via the Lakes, or sea going container ships coming up the St Lawrence et al to Milwaukee for transload to train for final delivery?
Convicted OneSo what would the primary flow of containers through Milwaukee be? Pacific Port to Milwaukee by rail then loaded onto ships for final delivery via the Lakes, or sea going container ships coming up the St Lawrence et al to Milwaukee for transload to train for final delivery?
I have no clue but my suspicion is the St. Lawerence Capable ships are only used between the United States and Europe and/or West Coast ports of Africa.
CMStPnPI have no clue but my suspicion is the St. Lawerence Capable ships are only used between the United States and Europe and/or West Coast ports of Africa.
Well, that is certainly a reasonable suspicion.
But would such a routing be cost effective for freight bound for Europe versus the Suez Canal? (assuming an Asian point of origin)
Edited to add: Or the Panama canal, for that matter?
CMStPnPFeds are proposing to pay over $1 Billion to expand Soo Locks for larger ships.
Presently only one of the Soo locks (Poe Lock) can handle the 1000 footers that handle most of the great lakes bulk ship traffic. The new lock will be more or less of a back-up to the 50 year old Poe Lock, which has had occasional problems. At least one of the smaller locks can handle the Seaway-max ships which are smaller than the 1000 footers.
CMStPnP I can't tell if your joking or not but here is the link, not sure about the picture........ https://www.icontainers.com/ports/chicago/
What is the transit time from the Atlantic Ocean to Chicago?
I don't see the economic value to ocean shipping companies to tie ships of limited draft up while they transit the St. Lawrence Seaway - in both directions.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnP CShaveRR Chicago doesn't have a container port that I'm aware of. I can only imagine why (Good luck, Milwaukee)... I can't tell if your joking or not but here is the link, not sure about the picture........ https://www.icontainers.com/ports/chicago/
The linked site is bizarre at best.
Have you ever seen container ships entering Hamburg or Rotterdam? Huge! Has anyone ever seen one on Lake Michigan? Huron? Erie?
The article also talks about developing Sydney, Nova Scotia as a container terminal, but yet Halifax is already operating as a deep-draft terminal with significant container capacity of over 1.1 million TEUs in place and capable of handling 11,000 TEU ships.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/big-container-ship-halifax-libra-1.4976212
They are also expanding their terminal to be able to handle two of these 11,000 TEU ships simultaneously.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-halterm-port-competition-study-1.4992083
Of course, CN is ready and willing to move all of those containers inland.
Backshop CMStPnP I can't tell if your joking or not but here is the link, not sure about the picture........ https://www.icontainers.com/ports/chicago/ Did you read your link? It doesn't make any sense. I've been interested in Great Lakes ships for 50 years and I've never seen a container ship on the Lakes.
Did you read your link? It doesn't make any sense. I've been interested in Great Lakes ships for 50 years and I've never seen a container ship on the Lakes.
I'm with Backshop. I've never seen anything that remotely resembles a container terminal in or near the Chicago River. An ocean-going container ship probably couldn't make it up (or down...Chicagoans know what I'm saying here) the Chicago River beyond the first drawbridge. Of course, there's also the little matter of a lock that has to be negotiated just to get into the river off Lake Michigan--the level of the river is lower than that of the lake by several feet.I'm not joking; I wonder whether containers.com is.
In my distant youth, I did see smaller container ships from Manchester Lines at Lake Calumet Harbor in 1969 and 1970. Not sure how long that service lasted. I believe that there is (was?) a small container faciility built at Iroquois Landing at the mouth of the Calumet River.
At any rate, container service to a Midwestern port is doomed to failure. No shipping company is going to tie up capital sending ships to the Great Lakes when they can be unloaded and loaded on the East Coast.
It would seem to only make financial sense if the Port of Milwaukee would be intending to taking cuts of intermodal cars, loaded with containers for Wisconsin destinations, dropped by CP trains from Vancouver to avoid the cost of the dray from Chicago. There really is no intermodal ramp of any consequence north of Chicago on the east side of Wisconsin, where the majority of Wisconsin’s population and heavy industry are located. Yet I-41, I-43 and I-94 have a lot of truck traffic hauling containers. I would think they are trying to carve out a niche and also perhaps figuring out a way to backhaul corn and soybeans in containers to Asia via CP and Vancouver. One would think CP has been part of the equation.
kgbw49There really is no intermodal ramp of any consequence north of Chicago on the east side of Wisconsin, where the majority of Wisconsin’s population and heavy industry are located.
The Port's website says they will build 8,000 feet of track, mentions CN withdrawl in 2012, and talks about local shippers having to dray containers to and from Chicago. That is their target market. No discussion of any railroad committment.
Good thing it is other people's money!
Mac
CShaveRRAn ocean-going container ship probably couldn't make it up (or down...Chicagoans know what I'm saying here) the Chicago River beyond the first drawbridge.
It's ridiculous. The height of ocean-going container ships is as high above the waterline as many middling-tall high rises.
The time it takes an ocean ship to travel up the St Lawrence through the Welland canal, through the Great Lakes to reach either Milwaukee or Chicago is the deal breaker on transloading containers at either port. The ecconomics of the train to the coast beats the savings of shipping all the way to the inland port. An additional limitation is the size of the ships that can be accomodated into the Great Lakes.
This press release indicates that it is a rail play and not for ocean container ships or any other container ships coming to Milwaukee:
https://portmilwaukee.com/ImageLibrary/User/portbn/PDF/News--Studies/PortRailGrantRelease.pdf
Yo add another wrinkle to this discussion of the Port of Milwaukee [Jones Island area' (?)]
I was 'unpacking' a recent post by The J.W. BarrigerIII Library [U of St.Louis], and in one of their album posts, I found the following linked photo by MILWRR@ https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/45734655271/in/album-72157703112618514/of in their post of The Milwaukee Road Project
The photo is contained in an album titled "The Milwaukee Road Project"
@ https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/albums/72157703112618514
samfp1943The photo is contained in an album titled "The Milwaukee Road Project" @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/albums/72157703112618514
If you click on the links for the other ports (Port of Indianapolis for example) the same picture is used, and they offer sample rates with no mention that Indianapolis is land locked.
There is Container service into the Great Lakes, but it isn't exactly what you are thinking. It is offered by the Spliethoff Group, a shipping company based in tthe Netherlands. They are currently offering a monthly service carrying containers as deck cargo on Break-bulk freighters serving the ports of Cleveland and Detroit to ports in the Low Countries and Scandinavia. It is planned to expand the service to Milwaukee this summer. This is a scheduled seervice rather than one where you have to charter a whole ship.
Spliethoff Group
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.