Trains.com

Skipping Chicago entirely?

1391 views
6 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Skipping Chicago entirely?
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:26 PM
As many of you know, one of the major impediments to increasing the speed of both passenger and freight trains is the difficulty in getting a train through Chicago. There are horror stories of freights taking three days to get from one side to the other; passenger trains and "hotshots" lose two or three hours in this area at the very least.

Would it be possible to re-route the faster trains so as to skip the mess around the city and instead cross the Mississippi and change railroads in open country, perhaps around Keokuk IA, and then southeast to Peoria IL, and then head northeast to Fort Wayne IN and rejoin the current line? It would save UP about 150 miles on its main line and wouldn't add much to BNSF's line distance. It would be all-new construction and would allow for a very favorable alignment, perhaps allowing freights to run at passenger-train speeds.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Skipping Chicago entirely?
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:26 PM
As many of you know, one of the major impediments to increasing the speed of both passenger and freight trains is the difficulty in getting a train through Chicago. There are horror stories of freights taking three days to get from one side to the other; passenger trains and "hotshots" lose two or three hours in this area at the very least.

Would it be possible to re-route the faster trains so as to skip the mess around the city and instead cross the Mississippi and change railroads in open country, perhaps around Keokuk IA, and then southeast to Peoria IL, and then head northeast to Fort Wayne IN and rejoin the current line? It would save UP about 150 miles on its main line and wouldn't add much to BNSF's line distance. It would be all-new construction and would allow for a very favorable alignment, perhaps allowing freights to run at passenger-train speeds.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:56 PM
Well there is the NS (ex Wabash) that goes to St. Louis that by-passes Chicago. It connect with other around Ft. Wayne. But if everything by-passes Chicago at one point then that will become a bottle neck. What to do? Problem is it that a lot of coast to coast trains need to stop in Chicago to drop off and pick up.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:56 PM
Well there is the NS (ex Wabash) that goes to St. Louis that by-passes Chicago. It connect with other around Ft. Wayne. But if everything by-passes Chicago at one point then that will become a bottle neck. What to do? Problem is it that a lot of coast to coast trains need to stop in Chicago to drop off and pick up.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:13 AM
That ex wabash line running northeast thru Ft Wayne gets pretty heavy use at times, and chokes down to single track in a number of locations, There are days where NS runs two eastbound, then west, then east then west ongoing for hours on end with juse enough time to get the outbounds past the inbounds, then there they come.

Not a lot of slack to contemplate as a dependable bypass, I wouldn't think,... just based upon observations.

The old Pennsylvania to Chicago, on the other hand is nearly dead. If you could use one of the north/south lines in western Indiana to link onto that, you might have a winner....?perhaps? a former NYC route?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:13 AM
That ex wabash line running northeast thru Ft Wayne gets pretty heavy use at times, and chokes down to single track in a number of locations, There are days where NS runs two eastbound, then west, then east then west ongoing for hours on end with juse enough time to get the outbounds past the inbounds, then there they come.

Not a lot of slack to contemplate as a dependable bypass, I wouldn't think,... just based upon observations.

The old Pennsylvania to Chicago, on the other hand is nearly dead. If you could use one of the north/south lines in western Indiana to link onto that, you might have a winner....?perhaps? a former NYC route?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Defiance Ohio
  • 13,287 posts
Posted by JoeKoh on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:27 AM
The old NKP line across Indiana and Ohio is the same way.If ns put the right size trains for the sidings it would ease congestion.Until you got more trains.
stay safe
joe

Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Defiance Ohio
  • 13,287 posts
Posted by JoeKoh on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:27 AM
The old NKP line across Indiana and Ohio is the same way.If ns put the right size trains for the sidings it would ease congestion.Until you got more trains.
stay safe
joe

Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").

 

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:01 AM
I doubt that you'd ever see a new rail line constructed just to bypass Chicago. A lot of possibilities, such as Streator to Elkhart, or the EJ&E line to Porter, existed at one time, but have pretty much fizzled out.

If bypassing Chicago were that desirable, you'd see a lot more stuff going from CSX to UP via St. Louis than you do.

I'm hoping that the recently-announced plan to streamline operations for all railroads in Chicago will provide the basis for some necessary improvements, and that the railroads will take advantage of them by blocking more freights that don't need to be switched in or near Chicago.

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)

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:01 AM
I doubt that you'd ever see a new rail line constructed just to bypass Chicago. A lot of possibilities, such as Streator to Elkhart, or the EJ&E line to Porter, existed at one time, but have pretty much fizzled out.

If bypassing Chicago were that desirable, you'd see a lot more stuff going from CSX to UP via St. Louis than you do.

I'm hoping that the recently-announced plan to streamline operations for all railroads in Chicago will provide the basis for some necessary improvements, and that the railroads will take advantage of them by blocking more freights that don't need to be switched in or near Chicago.

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)

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:11 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

The old NKP line across Indiana and Ohio is the same way.If ns put the right size trains for the sidings it would ease congestion.Until you got more trains.
stay safe
joe


Joe, what about the old Nickle Plate from west Ohio to St louis? (if it's even still there)
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:11 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

The old NKP line across Indiana and Ohio is the same way.If ns put the right size trains for the sidings it would ease congestion.Until you got more trains.
stay safe
joe


Joe, what about the old Nickle Plate from west Ohio to St louis? (if it's even still there)
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 4, 2003 8:37 PM
like he said, the ex-wabash is very congested. i visit huntington indiana a lot. and there can be trains stacked up two at a time at both roanoke and andrews waiting for a triple crowne train or two.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 4, 2003 8:37 PM
like he said, the ex-wabash is very congested. i visit huntington indiana a lot. and there can be trains stacked up two at a time at both roanoke and andrews waiting for a triple crowne train or two.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy