bn13814 In addition to Railway Man's comments, I understand that mergers and railroads' desire to avoid paying for the use of TRRA's Mississippi River Bridge, and also intermediate switching charges moved St. Louis down from #2 to #3 after 1980. DPJ
In addition to Railway Man's comments, I understand that mergers and railroads' desire to avoid paying for the use of TRRA's Mississippi River Bridge, and also intermediate switching charges moved St. Louis down from #2 to #3 after 1980.
DPJ
When I initially posted this topic, I suspected that this was going to be one of the conclusions. There are currently two active main railroad bridges in Saint Louis, right--not counting the now defunct McKinley Bridge and Metra-used Edes?
Does the TRRA rates apply to both active bridges?
I always wondered why the IT was not able to use its bridge accross the Mississippi more to its advantage in getting bridge traffic--no punn intended. I am sure there is an obvious answer here that will betray my novice-understanding. But, I would have to think having your own bridge accross the Mississippi wherein you do not have to pay TRRA rates would be a big advantage. As it was, I think the IT did all of its interchange on the east side.
Does KCS-CSX Saint Louis interchange have any advantage given it has its own--new, thanks to the floods of 1993--bridge north of Saint Louis? Or, is it pretty much on even footing, because NS does too?
Gabe
Railway Man Gabe, I'm not sure I understand your question, so do you mind if I offer definitions and measurements that I do understand. By hub, let's say that means both "interchange point" between line-haul railroads and "crossroads" within long-haul railroads. RWM
Gabe, I'm not sure I understand your question, so do you mind if I offer definitions and measurements that I do understand.
By hub, let's say that means both "interchange point" between line-haul railroads and "crossroads" within long-haul railroads.
RWM
Good point. I, apparently incorrectly, assumed that when Kansas City was named America's number 2 railroad city--suprassing Saint Louis--it was referring to hub interchange traffic. If the reason Kansas City is now number 2 is based largely on the fact that a large volume of Powder River Basin Coal moves through it, that more or less shatters my previous undestanding.
Thanks,
I was thinking much the same as Chuck Hawkins (above). Once the Eads Bridge was across at St. Louis and that bridgehead established, it would have given St. Louis a huge advantage over other Mississippi River towns without a railroad bridge crossing, at least until such towns got a bridge of their own. But then, the playing field would be more level as between those corssings and the towns on either side.
In contrast, KC does not have such a both compelling and limiting geographic feature / obstacle as the Mississippi River, or such an attractive response to it as a bridge, which would make it a "go to" location for a railroad. Connections and interchanges can be accomplished at other locations out that way nearly as well as at KC.
Similarly, because the Mighty Miss becomes smaller / narrower as it goes north, it would be easier to bridge further to the north than to the south.
It might be instructive to list all of the railroad bridges across the Mississippi River, from New Orleans up to the Twin Cities area, and then rank them in order by the dates when they were opened to traffic. See if a pattern forms as to when the St. Louis bridges were rendered "less essential" by - just for instance - the bridge at Thebes, the bridges at Memphis (3 of them ?), and the various bridges to the north into Iowa, and so on.
Finally, you might want to take a look at the oft-cited here James E. Vance Jr.'s The North American Railroad: Its Origin, Evolution, and Geography, Johns Hopkins University Press (1995), ISBN-10: 0801845734, ISBN-13: 978-0801845734. Although I don't have a copy with me and I can't recall what he had to say on this point, he was clearly devoted to analyzing such "articulation points". I would be surprised if he does not have a discussion of both cities.
- Paul North.
I would think that one of the major issues would be the geographical ease of access for these locations. Go back 125 years and try bridging the Mississippi at St Louis versus further north for access to Chicago. I assume that would be a controlling factor. You can also see that the most direct routes to Northern California and the Oregon/Washington areas favor more northerly lines that make Chicago a natural point.
In addition to Railway Man's comments, I understand that mergers, the railroads' desire to avoid paying for the use of TRRA's Mississippi River Bridge and also TRRA intermediate switching charges moved St. Louis down from #2 to #3 after 1980.
As for the former, N&W+NKP+WAB diverted some traffic away from St. Louis (and Peoria) and sent it through Kansas City. MP+C&EI and subsequently UP+MP gave a major western system a direct connection (Salem) with Conrail that avoided St. Louis. I suspect the 1999 Conrail Transaction also took traffic away from St.Louis. Mergers also reduced the volume of interchange between carriers at St. Louis - BN+Frisco, ITC+N&W, UP+C&NW, etc.
Still, geography and traffic flows favor some interchange via the St. Louis Switching District: BNSF with CSXT/NS and KCS with CSXT.
As for Peoria, I'm game (since I live there, and have dug up much history on the subject).
Another factor to consider is that most of the interchange in the St. Louis Switching District takes place on the Illinois side of the River.
Kansas City is only an interchange point to/from KCS and NS, neither of which are very large carriers in/out of Kansas City with only single-track railroads. BNSF and UP are through lines. IC&E is not (yet) a line-haul railroad; it's a gathering and distribution network. Kansas City, however, is a major crossroads on UP and BNSF, principally for PRB coal.
St. Louis in contrast is a major interchange point between CN, CSX, NS, UP, and BNSF, as well as a major crossroads for UP (MP-west, SSW, MP-south, SPCSL).
Perhaps you got this impression because most of what happens railroad-wise at KC is all visible in a very small area whereas at St. Louis it's much more spread out.
So, I don't see how you can say that St. Louis is less of a hub than KC. In fact, St. Louis is vastly more important for Gulf Coast (chemical, paper, agricultural) traffic than KC.
As to why St. Louis has always been lesser than Chicago, look at the traffic patterns. More traffic wants to go through Chicago than St. Louis because Chicago is:
All this stuff accretes and reinforces rail traffic. Rail traffic loves economy of scale. I wouldn't look to historical happenstance that Chicago grew and St. Louis didn't; geography was much more favorable to Chicago than it was to St. Louis, and the railways simply followed geographic logic as did the businessess that generated the traffic that demanded the rail service.
Yes, I am looking forward to my beloved Cardinals playing the Royals and seeing the Royals' new phenom pitcher, but, that is not what I am referring to.
Everytime I go to a Cardinals game in Saint Louis, I take part of the usual pregame efforts to imbibe and enjoy the general pub surroundings south of the ballpark. In addition to being a great time, it is an awesome place to watch trains. There really is quite a bit more activity as compared to watching action in Indianapolis or Cincinnati. Anyway, everytime I go there, it always makes me wonder why Saint Louis, as a hub, plays second fiddle to Kansas City.
Saint Louis hosts more railroads, it is a better river port, and it is more central to other hubs like Memphis and Chicago. For that matter, given its location farther to the south and more centrally located in the United States, I have always wondered why it hasn't give Chicago more or a run for its money.
P.S. If this thread should devolve into a tangent as to why Peoria never got off the ground to avoid Chicago congestion, I will not be too upset about it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.