Apologies. Did not know about Monroe, NC.
In the days of passenger service Washington-Chattanooga and points south and west of Chattanooga, Monroe, Virginia, was the point at which N&W and Southern crews and engines changed. I have the impression that this became the change point when the trains through Roanoke began using the Kemper Street station instead of the Union Satation in Lynchburg.
You may remember that it was in Monroe that a new Southern engine crew boarded for the run to Spencer (just above Salisbury, N.C.)
Now, back to Monroe in the Old North State.
Johnny
Yes. I guess Dave drifted over to the Virginia Monroe. The drifting thread was about alternatives to Chicago for E-W interchange or through routing.
charlie hebdo Two Monroes. One in VA on the NS, one in NC near Charlotte on the CSX.
Two Monroes. One in VA on the NS, one in NC near Charlotte on the CSX.
What????!!!!
Old 97 Ballad: "They gave him his orders at Monroe, Virginia, saying Pete.."
CSX may serve Monroe, but the main line to Atlanta through nearbly Lynchburg, and on through Greenville and Charlotte definitely belongs to Norfolk Southern. I rode the Crescent, the Piedmont Limited, more than once.
But maybe I can learn that there was also an ACL or Seabord or whatever line or combination that became a CSX line between Monroe and Atlanta? But that is an addition to the NS line used by Amtrak.
DeggestyWas that where the Monroe-Atlanta line crossed the NC-SC state line?
Russell
daveklepper Monroe - Atlanta is ex-SouRR now NS, not CSX.
Monroe - Atlanta is ex-SouRR now NS, not CSX.
csxns kgbw49 Charlotte, NC in the south. Will the trains come to Monroe NC and take a turn and run to Charlotte or come into Bostic NC and take a turn and run to Charlotte?NS has the better route going into Charlotte but CSX tried to build a new Intermodal yard but was shot down it was going to be somewhere around the state line.
kgbw49 Charlotte, NC in the south.
Will the trains come to Monroe NC and take a turn and run to Charlotte or come into Bostic NC and take a turn and run to Charlotte?NS has the better route going into Charlotte but CSX tried to build a new Intermodal yard but was shot down it was going to be somewhere around the state line.
csxns,
Not sure of the details. For an intermodal shipment they just need to have a terminal in the metro area to unload.
The BNSF Intermodal Map shows both NS and CSX getting to the Charlotte Metro Area.
It is all conjecture but if they were to extend their intermodal network to the Charlotte Metro Area, the most logical option would be to extend their successful agreement with CSX to Atlanta.
http://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/maps-and-shipping-locations/pdf/intermodal-map-large.JPG
Sante Fe to North Baltimore from Kansas City via the B&O east of Chicago (using the old names) is two main track all the way, with, of course, all the hurdles of at-grade crossings on the southwest and south sides of the Chicago metro area.
The Wabash east of Kansas City to Detroit is all single track (bypassing St. Louis to the north, by the way). Train density will determine transit speed, of course, but it would seem to suggest that the two main track route would be faster, even with having to transit a part of Chicago.
if one looks at the BNSF Intermodal Map, probably the next thing they could do is extend their CSX haulage agreements to maybe Chambersburg, PA in the north and Charlotte, NC in the south.
charlie hebdo So barring a major investment in rebuilding, the St. Louis gateway is a non-starter, right?
So barring a major investment in rebuilding, the St. Louis gateway is a non-starter, right?
Sounds that way.
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...
tree68 charlie hebdo Have you seen some of those lines? A lot more than a few ties and some ballast would-be needed to bring up to standards. Well, I was being somewhat facetious. The point is, those lines exist, and if a railroad saw value in bringing them back up to snuff, they could do so... It's not like we're talking all new construction.
charlie hebdo Have you seen some of those lines? A lot more than a few ties and some ballast would-be needed to bring up to standards.
Well, I was being somewhat facetious. The point is, those lines exist, and if a railroad saw value in bringing them back up to snuff, they could do so...
It's not like we're talking all new construction.
The only eastbound lines left out of St. Louis are the NS old Wabash line to Detroit, and the CSX former PRR to New York. The only line that could possibly be revived, is the recently abandoned CSX, former B&O line to Washington.
The NYC and NKP lines have been gone for decades, and the land is either in private hands, or turned into hiking trails.
The NS (SOU) and fragments of the L&N (now Evansville & Western) remain, but those ultimately proceed southbound after crossing Illinois, and aren't true eastbound routes.
kgbw49 BNSF has worked out intermodal haulage agreements with CSX for, first Atlanta many years ago, and more recently North Baltimore in Ohio. modal-map.pdf It is my understanding that they have built up over the years to several trains per day to and from Atlanta. I am not sure how much traffic yet is going to and from the North Baltimore facility given it is a fairly recent agreement.
BNSF has worked out intermodal haulage agreements with CSX for, first Atlanta many years ago, and more recently North Baltimore in Ohio.
modal-map.pdf
It is my understanding that they have built up over the years to several trains per day to and from Atlanta. I am not sure how much traffic yet is going to and from the North Baltimore facility given it is a fairly recent agreement.
Yes BNSF haulage trains on CSX Birmingham - Atlanta area locations are about 5 trains each way per day. Even though BNSF operates a lot of their IM trains with DPU have never observed one BHM <> ATL. Instead they operate with 3 or 4 locos on the front only. Often observed 4th on line maintaining MAS on A&WP sub. At slower speeds often only 3 units on line.
With both of those routes and locations, with reasonable drays they are able to serve many a significant number of locations in the south and in eastern Michigan, Ohio, and the Ohio River Valley with intermodal service,
http://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/maps-and-shipping-locations/pdf/small-intermodal-map.pdf
Perhaps Oltmann or n01xxx or Jeff could give us more accurate info on run through and other interchanges in Chicago.
I don't value NS management highly for several reasons, and underutilization of the KC interchange point is certainly one of them.
Sure, utilization of KC reduces UP's and BNCF's mileage, but it also reduces their own costs. So all NS has to do, equitibly for both UP and CXS is to adjust the mileage spllt determination is such a way that NS continues to benefit, but a bit less from the split, and UP and BNSF also benefit as far as their bottom line. I'll bet BNSF's savvy management has tried to get this idea through the rigid heads at NS already!
Ulrich All of the major systems now interchange equipment easily enough...
Fred Frailey blogged that this was not so. The Class1s have no priority in making transfers to other RRs in one of his Chicago blogs. The western RRs made Chicago the interchange point to get the longest possible haul. In another blog he pointed out how NS's Kansas City line would be an obvious alternative to Chicago, but a western RR would have to have some stake in it. IMHO Transcontental mergers are long overdue.
rrnut282Re Chicago: Cue the discussion of the Great Lakes Basin Railroad.
Forgetaboutit!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Re Chicago: Cue the discussion of the Great Lakes Basin Railroad.
charlie hebdoHave you seen some of those lines? A lot more than a few ties and some ballast would-be needed to bring up to standards.
tree68 charlie hebdo Doubtful. All the best trackage comes through Chicago. Especially going east from St. Louis, it's not so good. True, but a with few ties and some ballast many of those lines would probably be more than up to the task. Given those upgraded routes, the next step would involve thinking past Chicago for traffic that has no need to be in Chicago.
charlie hebdo Doubtful. All the best trackage comes through Chicago. Especially going east from St. Louis, it's not so good.
Doubtful. All the best trackage comes through Chicago. Especially going east from St. Louis, it's not so good.
True, but a with few ties and some ballast many of those lines would probably be more than up to the task.
Given those upgraded routes, the next step would involve thinking past Chicago for traffic that has no need to be in Chicago.
Have you seen some of those lines? A lot more than a few ties and some ballast would-be needed to bring up to standards. The industry is hardly in an expansionist mode, closer to a contracting one.
All of which can be accomplished without mergers.. its not as if alternatives to routing through Chicago magically appear...the tracks are already there with or without mergers.
Ulrich Would be nice if someone could explain exactly how mergers would create capacity/improve efficiencies. Even economies of scale are subject to the law of diminishing returns beyond a certain size. All of the major systems now interchange equipment easily enough... most even have run through agreements that eliminate the need for swapping power.. As it is now many if not most shippers really have only one option when it comes to rail... further consolidation would create an "its our way or the highway" type of scenario for most shippers..
Would be nice if someone could explain exactly how mergers would create capacity/improve efficiencies. Even economies of scale are subject to the law of diminishing returns beyond a certain size. All of the major systems now interchange equipment easily enough... most even have run through agreements that eliminate the need for swapping power.. As it is now many if not most shippers really have only one option when it comes to rail... further consolidation would create an "its our way or the highway" type of scenario for most shippers..
I would think mergers between the western U.S. class 1's and the eastern class 1's would go a long way toward eliminating the Chicago bottleneck because the resulting railroads would be truly transcontinental and could find alternative ways to route traffic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.