What I'm amazed with is that the NS's ex- Wabash line between Kansas City and Detriot is not the hottest piece of railroad in the country. Is avoiding Chicago really that important? The trucking industry sure thinks so. They have I-74 and I-39 to miss those imfamous manual lanes on the Tri-State!
I couldn't make your link work Jay.
Dan
Murphy Siding I was thinking of stimulis funding independant of the HSR proposals. As I understand it, most states are trying to push for funding on infrastructure projects that are well into, or beyond the planning stages. Presumably, to get the money *stimulating* things sooner, rather than later. A water pipeline project in my part of the country just got some additional funding in this way. Seeing how railroads play such a big part in our economy, especially in the Chicago/midwest area, shouldn't a lot of politicians be playing cheerleader for CREATE right about now?
I was thinking of stimulis funding independant of the HSR proposals. As I understand it, most states are trying to push for funding on infrastructure projects that are well into, or beyond the planning stages. Presumably, to get the money *stimulating* things sooner, rather than later. A water pipeline project in my part of the country just got some additional funding in this way. Seeing how railroads play such a big part in our economy, especially in the Chicago/midwest area, shouldn't a lot of politicians be playing cheerleader for CREATE right about now?
This report seems to be the latest on CREATE http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm? ArticleID=46866
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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)
Murphy Siding Reason being, this thread has so much info about Chicago, and CREATE. So, I wanted to ask if CREATE shows up on the radar of any of the stimulus money things being bandied about? If, we are going to spend funds as investment for the future of our economy, (not just to debate whether we should or shouldn't), wouldn't this project be a worthy infrastructure investment in our transportaion system, and our economy?
If, we are going to spend funds as investment for the future of our economy, (not just to debate whether we should or shouldn't), wouldn't this project be a worthy infrastructure investment in our transportaion system, and our economy?
In addition the site (http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/Economic%20Recovery%20Package%20one%20pager%201.pdf) mentions the stimulus package and give some numbers regarding what effects may happen upon completion.
I also wonder about how the potential Olympic bid impacts this all too. Quite a complicated web this is!
As I understand CREATE, it is for rail improvements in Chicago, but is intended to be a template for a similar program extended nationwide in scope. Apparently that was the theme of the PBS piece last night. If this vision were suddenly fast tracked in the spirit of economic stimulus, is it a forgone conclusion that all the private railroads would take the money?
Yes- I resurrected a 5 year old thread that has been dead for 7 or 8 months. Sue me.
Reason being, this thread has so much info about Chicago, and CREATE. So, I wanted to ask if CREATE shows up on the radar of any of the stimulus money things being bandied about?
garyaiki wrote:Last week’s Economist had an article on Chicago bogging down with 1,200 trains a day, a third of the nation’s rail traffic. It can take days to get freight across town. Unlike airlines, or any efficient logistics operation railroads have no intermediary to route shipments from one carrier to another. Railroads just fax news of arriving trains.The Chicago Transportation Coordination Office (CTCO) wants to fix this and a planned Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program is waiting for federal funding (which they’ll never get from Bush).I’d imagine anyone planning logistics at FedEx or WalMart would look at this and wonder why railroads have neglected hubs that connect carriers.This looks like an obvious business opportunity for logistics entrepreneurs to save railroads and customers a huge amount of time and $ nationwide. Why aren’t railroads a lot more interested.
Also, the line continued south of Mayfair as the CNW Cragin Sub to Harding Ave and the 40th St. Yards - @ 5.5 miles. Most, if not all of this track is now gone.
CC
.....That satellite image is nice and clear.
Quentin
homedelete wrote: Random railway question:Does anyone know the name, history or ownership of the abandoned tracks clearly depicted in the link below?http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=41.988269~-87.730594&style=h&lvl=14&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11368301&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
Random railway question:
Does anyone know the name, history or ownership of the abandoned tracks clearly depicted in the link below?
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=41.988269~-87.730594&style=h&lvl=14&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11368301&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
That would be the former Chicago & North Western's Weber Subdivision, which ran from Mayfair to a connection with the Kenosha Sub. at Canal.
I discovered the tracks while in LaBagh woods. They're unusual because they run from southwest to northeast which is not often seen in Chicago. The line appears to intersect with existing Metra tracks around the Mayfair stop. The trainline extends northeast to the edge of the City before they disappear, although remnants of the former right of way still exist. I saw the line on a map of Chicago rails from 1928 but it didn't say much about that line. I ask this because this abandoned railway would make a great rails to trails project. Thanks for anyone who has any information!
Joe:Thanks for the update on teh Wabash. Did you ever see the big article in Trains back in the 90's on the NS Wabash line? It was really a great article. Almost as good as the one on the Nickle Plate line. So, is it correct to assume there is no coal traffic on the Wabash? If not, that would tend to keep things fluid, particularly around the river crossings with a little grade.
Regarding the attitudes towards Chicago from downstaters...I recall as a kid growin up in Southern Illinois (and I do mean Southern Illinois) the attitude of the locals towards the city and the politics involved. Looking at it now as an adult living just outside of Chicago, I would say those attitudes towards Chicago were correct. It is a drain for $$$.
ed
woody9 wrote: The other real problem is the Illinois legislature. The RTA act only covers the six counties around Chicago and the grandfathering of service to Kenosha. The governor and the legislature can't currently agree on anything much less approving a .25 increase in the current RTA sales tax to take care of today's business much less trains to Milwaukee. It will take some interesting taxing and funding to get folks in Carbondale (far southern Illinois) or anywhere else, to much care about Metra service to Wis. All politics are local and that's not a train reference.Woody 9
The other real problem is the Illinois legislature. The RTA act only covers the six counties around Chicago and the grandfathering of service to Kenosha. The governor and the legislature can't currently agree on anything much less approving a .25 increase in the current RTA sales tax to take care of today's business much less trains to Milwaukee. It will take some interesting taxing and funding to get folks in Carbondale (far southern Illinois) or anywhere else, to much care about Metra service to Wis. All politics are local and that's not a train reference.
Woody 9
Woody, that's precisely what I was referring to in my last reply where I said, "Springfield likely sees it as Chicago's problem. I moved away from Chicagoland 46 years ago but some things never change. The legislators from downstate were reluctant then to appropriate a dime for anything that was unique to Chicago. Always has been and likely always will be that way. You'd almost think Illinois was two distinct states with the boundary line runnning E-W about where Will County meets DuPage.
Mark
Step by step improvements are being made and will continue to be made in handling Chicago's freight traffic. We have read about up-to-date interlocking replacing stop and proceed at one major crossingm a grade crossing elimination project completed, and incrementally these will have a positive effect. Fast enough to accommodate traffic growth? Probably not in itself. But as traffic grows we will see more and more run-through trains that bypass Chicago, not only on the "J", but through Memphis and Shreveport. Money is being spent on terminal operations, and look at the Long Beach - Port of LA trench, the restoration of freight service to New York's Staten Island, etc.
There's also a grain elevator just to the east that gets cars several times a week and used to be switched by a CSX GP-40.
Quote by CShaverRR:
However, I believe that trains are made in Global III (Rochelle) that go directly to NS (Ashland Abenue) or CSX (59th Street). These were intended to reduce the amount of highway interchange. I don't know how well they're succeeding.
As far as I understand it, all EB stack trains on the UP Geneva Sub stop and drop cars/blocks/containers at Global III which are not going to the same terminal as the rest of the train. In the past a stack train for Global I in Chicago would take its entire train to Global I and the CSX and NS blocks would be trucked accross town. Now, like Carl said, Global III sorts out the blocks and makes-up transfer runs to NS Ashland Ave (IG3AH), CSX 59th St. (IG3CH) and Global II (IG2G3/IG3G2 turn). Is it working / reducing the number of trucks making transfer runs? I don't have any numbers in front of me but I would say the answer is yes. A good indication is the new Edelstein connection that was just completed to allow UP stack trains access to the old SI Line and Global III. The new connection allows UP stack trains on the BNSF that used to go straight through to Global I or IMX access to Global III where they can be sorted.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Your point in theory might be a good one.
Your point in theory might be a good one.
Hi Poppa,
I'm beginning to feel like a man on mission - sort of a Don Quiote fighting windmills. That was not my intent. What I have tried to do in all my replies is to stimulate discussion and "outside the box thinking" about solutions to the congestion problem. I believe, to some extent, this objective has been met.
In the process I have probably been too critical of the CREATE plan and in the future will try to be more objective in any reference to it. H**l placing a compress on a severed artery that requires surgery is better than doing nothing. CREATE is a first step in solving the problem, I just don't think it looks far enough ahead. I'm 75 and will likely not live to see it but IMHO the day will come when you all will regret that today's thinking wasn't more visionary.
Poppa_Zit wrote:But if it were doable -- with either time and/or money savings -- don't you think they'd be doing it already?
But if it were doable -- with either time and/or money savings -- don't you think they'd be doing it already?
Not necessarily at all because it requires setting aside too many vested interests and working together in a cooperative mode. There are just too many conflicting agendas so I'm not surprised the railroads haven't taken the lead. You can't put four bulls in one pen and expect them to peacefully agree on which is going to service a lone heifer first. How about the states then? The three that are involved, IL, IN and to a lesser extent WI, probably can't work together any better than the railroads and for the same reasons. IN and WI likely see it as IL's problem. Springfield likely sees it as Chicago's problem. For these reasons, not because it isn't "doable", the job hasn't gotten done. Because it's at least a tri-state problem if not a national one, I believe the initiative has to come from the Feds. I know much of the funding will have to come from that source.
I don't have all the answers but I sure have some strongly held personal opinions on the subject.
The lovely and talented GF and I drove to Laporte today for a little outing and there sure were a lot of signs up stating "No Intermodal". I might have mentioned last week that a CN train had rocks thrown at it in Union Mills, where a second intermodal facility is being proposed.
Kids throwing the rocks? One would think so, but it might be a deeper sentiment of the locals. The dispatcher told crews to make sure windows were closed passing thru UM and Wellsboro.
The ex Conrail line thru Laporte and Chesterton is just flat out busy. We were in Chesterton Saturday afternoon and the GF commented "that sure is a busy railroad." I mean it was train after train, westbounds following on yellow blocks.
I dont know how NS runs them all into Chicago. They certainly seem to have gotten the lions (or thorobred's) share of freight in Chicago.
Joe, it wont be too long until the Wabash line will reach capacity. That would be quite an investment to add sidings or double track.
Mr. Shaver, unfortunately, doesn't do much on the intermodal side of things, as his job involves the carload (manifest) business.
Didn't I read somewhere, over a year ago, that there was going to be a road built in Bedford Park to allow boxes too heavy for normal highway weight limits to be moved from one area of the yard to another? This may be an expression of the problem rather than a solution.
Back to Global III's trains. If CREATE were implemented, it would allow smoother access into the city by these trains, a bit less congestion between Proviso and Oak Park (with the third main track where none currently exists), a more seamless transition off UP to either railroad at Ogden Junction, no interference from CN/Amtrak at Brighton Park (my argument is about 90 degrees off where it was on the Amtrak/high-speed thread ), and a faster roue out of town through Englewood or Dolton (assuming Metra Southeast gets built).
KCSfan wrote: TimChgo9 wrote: Hmmm. Aren't the various railroad yards already connected? I can trace a path from Bensenville to Proviso, to Barr, Clyde, Clearing, and Corwith via the Indiana Harbor Belt. And, when looking at Google Earth, it appears there are connector tracks all over the city (unless I am looking at abandoned, or little used trackage) to the various yards in the city. This is exactly what I was driving at in my most recent prior reply. With respect to the following: "As critical as these rail yards are, they are not intrerconnected, requiring containerized cargo to be trucked between them." Change that to read ......many are not directly connected....... and I'll agree with the statement. If they weren't interconnected then boxcars, gons, tanks, autoracks, etc. couldn't move from one railroad to another. The primary purpose of the BRC, IHB and to a lesser extent the EJ&E, is to provide these interconnections where direct connections do not exist. Are they just too slow and circuitous to meet the demands of todays traffic? Does a "we've always done it this way" mentality hinder the adoption of changes in operating practices that would improve the "velocity" of interchanges? I simply don't know.Common sense tells me that not all containerized shipments require high priority handling. It probably would make little difference if a container of Barbie and Ken dolls took 24 to 48 hours moving thru Chicago. Conversely a shipment of hi $ electronics headed for an assembly plant that works on just-in-time inventory mgmt might require far more expeditious handling. This leads me to wonder if consideration has been given to "tagging" containers at either their Asian origins or Pacific coast ports with a priority, say I, II or III, based on when that container must reach it's final destination? Perhaps it's already done, again I just don't know. I do know that it would be a "no brainer" given the IT that exists today. Hi-priority shipments might require trucking across Chicago while less critical ones could remain on their cars and simply be interchanged as normal. Unloading, trucking then reloading must significantly add to transportation costs and IMHO should only be used as a last resort.For what it's worth, my common sense tells me that keeping thru traffic entirely out of Chicago should be the objective. While there may be quicker fixes to today's congestion problems, it's ultimately going to come down to that as rail traffic increases in the future. I've yet to see a convincing argument that will sway me from that position.Mark
TimChgo9 wrote: Hmmm. Aren't the various railroad yards already connected? I can trace a path from Bensenville to Proviso, to Barr, Clyde, Clearing, and Corwith via the Indiana Harbor Belt. And, when looking at Google Earth, it appears there are connector tracks all over the city (unless I am looking at abandoned, or little used trackage) to the various yards in the city.
Hmmm.
Aren't the various railroad yards already connected? I can trace a path from Bensenville to Proviso, to Barr, Clyde, Clearing, and Corwith via the Indiana Harbor Belt. And, when looking at Google Earth, it appears there are connector tracks all over the city (unless I am looking at abandoned, or little used trackage) to the various yards in the city.
This is exactly what I was driving at in my most recent prior reply.
With respect to the following: "As critical as these rail yards are, they are not intrerconnected, requiring containerized cargo to be trucked between them." Change that to read ......many are not directly connected....... and I'll agree with the statement. If they weren't interconnected then boxcars, gons, tanks, autoracks, etc. couldn't move from one railroad to another. The primary purpose of the BRC, IHB and to a lesser extent the EJ&E, is to provide these interconnections where direct connections do not exist. Are they just too slow and circuitous to meet the demands of todays traffic? Does a "we've always done it this way" mentality hinder the adoption of changes in operating practices that would improve the "velocity" of interchanges? I simply don't know.
Common sense tells me that not all containerized shipments require high priority handling. It probably would make little difference if a container of Barbie and Ken dolls took 24 to 48 hours moving thru Chicago. Conversely a shipment of hi $ electronics headed for an assembly plant that works on just-in-time inventory mgmt might require far more expeditious handling. This leads me to wonder if consideration has been given to "tagging" containers at either their Asian origins or Pacific coast ports with a priority, say I, II or III, based on when that container must reach it's final destination? Perhaps it's already done, again I just don't know. I do know that it would be a "no brainer" given the IT that exists today. Hi-priority shipments might require trucking across Chicago while less critical ones could remain on their cars and simply be interchanged as normal. Unloading, trucking then reloading must significantly add to transportation costs and IMHO should only be used as a last resort.
For what it's worth, my common sense tells me that keeping thru traffic entirely out of Chicago should be the objective. While there may be quicker fixes to today's congestion problems, it's ultimately going to come down to that as rail traffic increases in the future. I've yet to see a convincing argument that will sway me from that position.
Mark --
But if it were doable -- with either time and/or money savings -- don't you think they'd be doing it already? The current rail lines, manpower, equipment and yards are working at or near full capacity now. It takes yard space plus all of the above to store interchange cars, put together trains, move them across town and re-sort them. With 14,000 moves per day, it would be near impossible.
Too bad Alpheus Beede Stickney's 18th-century concept for a Chicago clearing yard for all railroads never got off the ground. http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/896918/showpost.aspx
At this point I shall defer to Mr. Shaver, who best understands the Chicago interchange process and can surely answer your questions with accuracy and authority.
PZ
vlmuke wrote: In the RR community there are all sorts of rumors flying around the about the Laporte yard from everything to they are laying track and it will be open within a year(not true) to NS is looking into buying property( probably true), but this is what I know for a fact, is last week they had a community meeting regarding the Laporte yard in a town nearby and it was met with a lot of opposition the local TV news covered it. Many local people have put up signs near the tracks opposing the yard I haven't heard anything on the NS side though
In the RR community there are all sorts of rumors flying around the about the Laporte yard from everything to they are laying track and it will be open within a year(not true) to NS is looking into buying property( probably true), but this is what I know for a fact, is last week they had a community meeting regarding the Laporte yard in a town nearby and it was met with a lot of opposition the local TV news covered it. Many local people have put up signs near the tracks opposing the yard I haven't heard anything on the NS side though
Reminds me of what happened a number of years ago in Arkansas. The MoPac had a yard in Dermott and plans to expand it met with all sorts of opposition from the locals. The MoPac said to H**L with you, pulled up the Dermott yard trackage and built a big new yard a few miles up the line in McGhee which welcomed them with open arms. Dermott lost the biggest part of its tax base and property taxes in McGhee were slashed.
Some community around Laporte will likely wake up to realize getting the NS yard is the next best thing to finding a goose that lays golden eggs.
An "expensive model collector"
Joe,
Glad you're seeing the big picture. CREATE, to me at least, seems to be too little, too late and is not the ultimate solution. IMHO by the time it is funded and implemented traffic will have grown to the point that congestion is at least as bad as it is today. Any $ spent on CREATE would be better spent on the bypass route(s) instead of on a quick fix that at best is only a temporary patch. Kind of like spending money to get a flat fixed on a bald tire instead of biting the bullet and buying a new one. The time to plan for tomorrow is right NOW.
joemcspadden wrote:Well, as far as the future is concerned, tough noogies--the western carriers aren't going toget quite as long a haul on some of their trains, and that's just the way it will have to be.Joe
When it comes to pass, the TP&W, KKK Belt and maybe parts of the old P&E will become hot properties instead of the red headed step children they've always been. The big roads will be fighting like a couple of tom cats to acquire them to keep the line haul miles they stand to lose.
in addition there is also a proposed bridge to be built at englewood to allow metra and freight to pass without interfearance to reduce congestion in that spot
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.