Chicago Magazine errors

[Anonymous]

Youve probably already talked about this in another topic, but after frequently visiting the chicago area i noticed a few things wrong with the "trains per day section." First i live along the former Wisconsin Central now CN mainline north of Fond Du Lac WI. the traincount normally climbs above 20 and can see upwards to 25. thats north of Fond Du Lac, where as the Chicago sub can reach as high as 30 trains per day not 12 as described. Also the Norfolk southern Chicago line and CSXTs Chicago lines carry more traffic than shown as the lines tend to reach 60 trains per day later in the week not 32 trains. A few others: the Union Pacific line west doesnt carry 70 freights/ day, the former Grand Trunk mainline runs more trains than that. The Canadian Pacific traincount isnt that high, and wheres all the CP and CSX trains that run northeastward via porter junction to Grand Rapids and Detroit.
I do realize the "count" was supposedly taken on a Monday, but honestly the traincounts are way off. If anybody notice this i'd be glad to hear about it.
Thanks

[Anonymous]

Youve probably already talked about this in another topic, but after frequently visiting the chicago area i noticed a few things wrong with the "trains per day section." First i live along the former Wisconsin Central now CN mainline north of Fond Du Lac WI. the traincount normally climbs above 20 and can see upwards to 25. thats north of Fond Du Lac, where as the Chicago sub can reach as high as 30 trains per day not 12 as described. Also the Norfolk southern Chicago line and CSXTs Chicago lines carry more traffic than shown as the lines tend to reach 60 trains per day later in the week not 32 trains. A few others: the Union Pacific line west doesnt carry 70 freights/ day, the former Grand Trunk mainline runs more trains than that. The Canadian Pacific traincount isnt that high, and wheres all the CP and CSX trains that run northeastward via porter junction to Grand Rapids and Detroit.
I do realize the "count" was supposedly taken on a Monday, but honestly the traincounts are way off. If anybody notice this i'd be glad to hear about it.
Thanks

[Anonymous]

Dear Reader: It would be an error had we mistranscribed the data we were provided, but we didn't. The data is true. There's no "supposedly" about the date at all: as stated in Trains, the count was taken on the date shown by the Illinois Commerce Commission, and it was taken in Chicago on the line segments described, not in another state. If you think the ICC made mistakes, that would be the place to start asking about it, not with us.

Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges. Your results are probably distilled from many brief observations (I assume you didn't religiously camp by the track for 24 hours a day for an entire week to obtain your results!). The ICC took a snapshot at one point in time for a 24-hour period, which tells one only about that moment in time. A different day would give different results, an average of a week would have been different yet, and an average of a year, different again. Different users prefer different data. From a railroad's point of view, picking a day to give a maximum train count might not be particularly meaningful as building a railroad to handle the worst-case scenario is very expensive. Or, picking a day that gave a maximum train count might be advantageous if you were trying to prove a case that someone else should pay for a grade crossing separation.

You'd have to take it up with the ICC why they chose that day, and that day of the week. We were fortunate that they shared with us and the readers their data, and we're not in a position to tell them what to do.

[Anonymous]

Dear Reader: It would be an error had we mistranscribed the data we were provided, but we didn't. The data is true. There's no "supposedly" about the date at all: as stated in Trains, the count was taken on the date shown by the Illinois Commerce Commission, and it was taken in Chicago on the line segments described, not in another state. If you think the ICC made mistakes, that would be the place to start asking about it, not with us.

Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges. Your results are probably distilled from many brief observations (I assume you didn't religiously camp by the track for 24 hours a day for an entire week to obtain your results!). The ICC took a snapshot at one point in time for a 24-hour period, which tells one only about that moment in time. A different day would give different results, an average of a week would have been different yet, and an average of a year, different again. Different users prefer different data. From a railroad's point of view, picking a day to give a maximum train count might not be particularly meaningful as building a railroad to handle the worst-case scenario is very expensive. Or, picking a day that gave a maximum train count might be advantageous if you were trying to prove a case that someone else should pay for a grade crossing separation.

You'd have to take it up with the ICC why they chose that day, and that day of the week. We were fortunate that they shared with us and the readers their data, and we're not in a position to tell them what to do.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but something still seems way off about the ICC's train counts. (Incidentally, I live near the same ex-WCL CN main line and we often see 15 or more trains on that line...)

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but something still seems way off about the ICC's train counts. (Incidentally, I live near the same ex-WCL CN main line and we often see 15 or more trains on that line...)

[Anonymous]

I was simply asking if anyone noticed this. If my post sounded a bit harsh, i apologize.

[Anonymous]

I was simply asking if anyone noticed this. If my post sounded a bit harsh, i apologize.

[dknelson]

Government data MUST be true. Mustn't it?
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

Government data MUST be true. Mustn't it?
Dave Nelson

[eolafan]

We're from the Government and we're here to help you! RIGHT, N-O-T!

[eolafan]

We're from the Government and we're here to help you! RIGHT, N-O-T!