Community moves in response to announced closure of UP's Global 3 facility
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/05/05-city-of-rochelle-ill-to-consider-offering-its-own-intermodal-facility
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
A big question (or so it seems to me): Can the community set up and manage the necessary long trackage-rights arrangements?
And are they prepared to make the necessary infrastructure improvements in drayage access, either 'on their nickel' or with whatever OPM they can bring to bear, that will be needed for proper competitive advantage in end-to-end service?
I can not imagine that they want to get into the real railroad business, which makes the question 'Who is their connection and how will their traffic enter and exit the national network?'
This is the same question I have about Milwaukee's recent deal.
PNWRMNM I can not imagine that they want to get into the real railroad business, ...
I can not imagine that they want to get into the real railroad business, ...
They're already in the railroad business...
https://www.cityofrochelle.net/departments/economic-development/city-of-rochelle-railroad-cir.html
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...
Tree,
I assumed they had some little railroad. It looks like a switch carrier to me.
You missed the point, which is who do they expect to play with them at the interchange point and why?
Traffic, traffic, traffic! Cost, cost, cost!
Mac
The City of Rochelle Railroad (CIR) has operated in the growing industrial park on the east side of Rochelle since 1986 and contracts its switching services to the Burlington Junction Railway. It connects to both the UP and BNSF providing first and last mile service.
The UP might be idling the Global III yard in its current configuartion, but it will be repurposed. Remember, Rochelle isn't like a lot of other towns that don't want a railroad running through their town; Rochelle consisders itself a railroad town. Ways that Global III might be re-configured:
Chris
Chris,
The UP is exiting Global III for reasons that make sense to them. Given that, it makes no sense to me for UP to turn it over to the city's contract operator and even less sense to open it to BNSF which may not be physically possible. Most IM terminals are operated by contractors, so there would be no significant cost savings to be had by a change in contract operator. If city operatiion made sense, UP could certainly have, and I think would have, suggested it before closing the facility.
I think the notion of his city railroad going into the intermodal business is the mayor's knee jerk reaction and that when/if they talk to UP, or six months goes by, the idea will sink beneath the waves.
UP didn't say that it's closing Global III. Their word is, 'idle' which to me sounds like this is an experiment to cut costs. One of the primary costs that the UP is attempting to cut are the transfer runs from Rochelle to intermodal yards closer to Chicago. If Global II & IV can handle the additional traffic, then we'll see what becomes of Global III. If Global II & IV can't handle the extra traffic and start to meltdown, then it will be interesting to see what the UP does.
My point in my previous post was to show that UP has options with the Global III yard and time will tell how this plays out. And yes, if needed, it is physically possible for BNSF to interchange traffic at Global III. (Not that UP would necessarily welcome that!)
Any other town and I would probably agree with PNWRMNM's 'mayor's knee jerk reaction' assesment. Again, Rochelle has been in the railroad business for thirty-three years; so, they at least have some idea of what they're getting into if they were to pursue operating an IM facility.
Chris, I'm not so sure I'd like to see stack cars or large power negotiate that connection, or get into the City's yard from the UP tracks, for that matter. Those curves are pretty horrendous!
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)
Chris30 UP didn't say that it's closing Global III. Their word is, 'idle' which to me sounds like this is an experiment to cut costs. One of the primary costs that the UP is attempting to cut are the transfer runs from Rochelle to intermodal yards closer to Chicago. If Global II & IV can handle the additional traffic, then we'll see what becomes of Global III. If Global II & IV can't handle the extra traffic and start to meltdown, then it will be interesting to see what the UP does. ... Chris
...
Not all 'plans' work as intended. Recall a 'plan' in CSX Baltimore Term to have Curtis Bay Yard be the only active switching yard in the terminal. Based on a simple number of cars switched per day it was thought to be feasible. When implemented it was quickly found out that the trains to and from the other yard areas could not get into or leave Curtis Bay when having to contend with the native Curtis Bay traffic. Inside of a week the 'new plan' was scrapped and the old plan was restored.
Railroads always try new methods of serving their customers always seeking the lowest cost method.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It's not real surprising to me that UP is "idling" the Global III facility. To my knowledge, it's always been a bit of a disappointment to the railroad. Part of the reason is that Rochelle isn't where UP wanted to build it. UP wanted to build it at Maple Park, IL which is 25 miles closer to Chicago than Rochelle and close to the western edge of the metro area. The reason it was built at Rochelle was because of NIMBY opposition to the Maple Park location
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.