From the Trains special edition, to the CREATE project to improve running through the Windy City to the many observations on this board, Chicago is one royal mess to try and opeate trains through. Still it's important enough as an interface and a destination that almost everybody, it seems, has tried to gain access to it over the decades. Grade seperations, belt lines and connceting railroads try to ease the flow and untangle the mess. Yet more that once I have read that the alternative of Saint Louis isn't much looked at-for the reasons of high costs and/or slow transit times via the TRRA. If it's enough to make Chicago look good, I would think that they must be substantial. So, a few questions that come to my mind:
I know the answer is not as simple as suggested by any of the questions but this layman doesn't know enough to know what/where/when/why. Enlightenment, please!
Thanks.
Alternatives to Chicago have been around for years, usually with lukewarm patronage.
IMO, this is because despite all it's (Chicago's) faults, it has one thing going for it, and that is EVERYBODY WHO IS SOMEBODY already goes there. The infrastructure to deal with hand offs and forwarding is already in place, so they use it and whine about the taxpayer's need to clear up THEIR mess
Geography is a factor, St. Louis is more of a gateway to the Southwest than as an East-West gateway. As mentioned in the prior post, all of the major players can and do interchange in Chicago, in part because there are few viable alternatives.
Kevin C. Smith From the Trains special edition, to the CREATE project to improve running through the Windy City to the many observations on this board, Chicago is one royal mess to try and opeate trains through. Still it's important enough as an interface and a destination that almost everybody, it seems, has tried to gain access to it over the decades. Grade seperations, belt lines and connceting railroads try to ease the flow and untangle the mess. Yet more that once I have read that the alternative of Saint Louis isn't much looked at-for the reasons of high costs and/or slow transit times via the TRRA. If it's enough to make Chicago look good, I would think that they must be substantial. So, a few questions that come to my mind: Are delays through St. Louis really all that bad? Are the costs? Is St. Louis' relatively smaller hinterland (compared to Chicago) more of a factor? Is the TRRA really the one that's to blame or are they just left holding the bag for the other ("real") problems? Isn't the TRRA owned by the Class I's serving St. Louis? If so, why haven't they simply used that control to fix the problems they have with it? I know the answer is not as simple as suggested by any of the questions but this layman doesn't know enough to know what/where/when/why. Enlightenment, please! Thanks.
The delays are not that bad in St. Louis in fact they are almost none. the cost is high from what train masters have said
The terminal is left holding the bag and for most part caused it on their own. they move trains but in the process they would move say a NS train Behind a CSX train the CSX train diverts to thier road before a NS gets to thier road , souds simple til you figure that the csx train is 1 1/2 miles long and the dispatcher for csx is not ready for them and wont run them so they wont clear the trra, so now the 1 1/2 mile long NS train has another section blocked and now the up train wont be able to move and another NS is waiting to move also. Now before a train moves everyone has clearance and things run smooth.
The TRRA ( from what ive heard rumors.. so for what its worth) is 51% NS and 25% up not sure on the others but i have a hard time believing it
Kevin:That is a great question. St. Louis has always intrigued me and looking at the map, one must wonder why it isnt used more in order to avoid the Chicago problem.
When one compares the CSX and NS traffic thru St. Louis compared to Chicago, there isnt much comparison. Chicago wins hands down. But, how much of that is intermodal?
It would be interesting comparing the actual carload trains run into and thru St. Louis vs Chicago. UP has always seemed to run it's carload traffic thru Chicago, building solid trains out of North Platte for NS and CSX. Perhaps that is due to much of that traffic moving to the Northeast, or perhaps automotive related and thus was shorter distances via Chicago.
Getting back to intermodal, Chicago seems to be the place where intermodal trains from the west coast are broken down and reblocked for east coast distribution.
One wonders how the Wabash line avoiding both St. Louis and Chicago will fare in the future.
Wabash1...how many trains does NS run out of St. Louis daily? What is the breakdown of carload trains, coal, and intermodal?
Thanks,
ed
Convicted OneAlternatives to Chicago have been around for years, usually with lukewarm patronage. IMO, this is because despite all it's (Chicago's) faults, it has one thing going for it, and that is EVERYBODY WHO IS SOMEBODY already goes there. The infrastructure to deal with hand offs and forwarding is already in place, so they use it and whine about the taxpayer's need to clear up THEIR mess
That's the answer. It's called "path dependency" and economist Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize for describing it in scientific terms. Decisions made by the first successful people in locating an enterprise affect everyone who comes later.
For instance the first semiconductor company to locate in Silicon Valley caused the location there of many businesses to provide the services needed by the industry. So the second guy went there because that's where the support businesses were.
Same logic applies to trains and the handling of freight transshipment. The infrastructure and vital skills already exist in Chicago, replicating them in St. Louis would be difficult and expensive, even though the long term results might be desirable.
Jack
Starting over 40 years ago with a direct Pennsy/Cotton Belt connection in E. St. Louis the railroads found ways to bypass St. Louis. On top of the Kansas City interchange for the NS; BNSF, UP, NS and CSXT move many trainloads of interchange via Salem and other Southern IL interchanges. The IC pulled the plug on St. Louis many years ago in favor of Memphis.
Thanks, everyone. One thing that sticks in my mind revolves around the role of the TRRA in all this. If most or all of the major facilities in St. Louis are owned or operated by it, if TRRA is owned by the Class I's operating into St. Louis and if the cost/service problems of TRRA prevent using St. Louis as a gateway option...can not the Class I's then "fix" whatever the problems are? So,
If nothing else, I would have thought that, with only a handful of companies involved, an already existing framework like TRRA would make problems easier to rectify.
Union Station is a pretty good example. I find it facinating that a facility (32 tracks) that was built not all that long after Chicago's Dearborn Street Station and contemporary to Central Station was able to handle its traffic for the next century without that much alteration to its physical plant. Yet in that time Chicago's railroads built or expanded facilities at La Salle Street, Grand Central, Union, North Western and Randolph Street. 86 tracks if both my menory and arithmatic are correct! What a cavernous station might have eventually been built if only there had been a TRRA of Chicago!
25-30 trains when not combo'd it was more before the downturn in the economy.
You have all missed one of the most important reasons in my opinion and that is the Mississippi river. Trains enter Chicago from all directions except Lake Michigan. That big stretch of the river on the east side of St. Louis was a big barrier to overcome and there aren't many crossings for trains even today. Yes Chicago is and was a bigger city which is where people wanted to go but delays in St; Louis are compounded by the river.
There already is an equivalent of TRRA in Chicago, it's called the Belt Railway of Chicago, owned by six majors (BNSF, CN, CP, CSX, NS, UP). Unlike TRRA, it was never involved with passenger facilities or operations.
My Brother-in-Law was a TRRA engineer in the 1950's and '60's. Eads Bridge is the only one across the Mississippi River in Saint Louis proper. He said the approaches on both sides of the river are such a steep grade that long trains are impossible, and rail traffic is limited to 10 MPH or less. Furthermore, there are (or were) north-south rail crossings on both sides of the river that impede cross-river traffic, which is traveling east-west. He said he often had to stop on the bridge and wait for trains to clear the crossing(s) on the east side of the river.
I've read all the comments with interest, because I live in St. Louis. At one time, we were supposed to be the second largest passenger terminal in US after Chicago, with lots of trains coming & going. TRRA owned Union Station and they in turn were owned by the RR's that served it. I never see TRRA on our side of the river any more, but I think they are still a somewhat major player on the east side. I don't recall Dad talking much about delays in the freight traffic in the old days, but Frisco didn't go east in the St. Louis area. It always seemed like there were delays in East St. Louis, IL. Lots of RR's over there with high traffic. Union Station is still in existence, but no longer a passenger terminal, just a hotel, restaurants and shops. But at least it was spared the wrecking ball. Amtrak just built a new station here last year.
I believe that 19th century politics is the issue here. Missouri was a southern 'slave' state when the railroads were being created. Anyone familiar with their history knows that the 1850s were an era of constant fighting between north and south, especially when it came to economic parity and the development of a transcontinental route. Perhaps northern interests wanted to keep an eastern terminus within their own territory.
Read about the Kansas-Nebraska act and how it related to the railroads at the time. Makes you understand why UP is called "Union Pacific".
ccaranna Read about the Kansas-Nebraska act and how it related to the railroads at the time. Makes you understand why UP is called "Union Pacific".
I'm aware of the problems caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and specifically how it upset the understanding between the states regarding slavery that had been worked out in the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
However, while the idea of a northern routed Pacific railroad was one of the central ideas of the parties that joined to become the Republicans, I'm unaware of any direct connection between Kansas-Nebraska and a transcontinental railroad. Could you elaborate on that point?
Sunnyland I've read all the comments with interest, because I live in St. Louis. At one time, we were supposed to be the second largest passenger terminal in US after Chicago, with lots of trains coming & going. TRRA owned Union Station and they in turn were owned by the RR's that served it. I never see TRRA on our side of the river any more, but I think they are still a somewhat major player on the east side. I don't recall Dad talking much about delays in the freight traffic in the old days, but Frisco didn't go east in the St. Louis area. It always seemed like there were delays in East St. Louis, IL. Lots of RR's over there with high traffic. Union Station is still in existence, but no longer a passenger terminal, just a hotel, restaurants and shops. But at least it was spared the wrecking ball. Amtrak just built a new station here last year.
If you are not seeing the trra then your not out looking. The big yard in madison keeps them busy they do switching out on the hump and flat switching and build trains for the NS,UP and CSXT The also do switching in sauget and head toward dupo, they switch industrys all the way down to the old IC yards and all the interchanges with other railroads iin the area.
cacole My Brother-in-Law was a TRRA engineer in the 1950's and '60's. Eads Bridge is the only one across the Mississippi River in Saint Louis proper.
My Brother-in-Law was a TRRA engineer in the 1950's and '60's. Eads Bridge is the only one across the Mississippi River in Saint Louis proper.
As for railroad crossings of the Mississippi River in and around Saint Louis, what about Merchants Bridge, McKinley Bridge (built by the Illinois Terminal Railway, but no longer used as a railroad bridge), and MacArthur Bridge located downtown?
Today Eads Bridge is used exclusively by the MetroLink light rail system. It has an upper level deck too that may be open (?) to automobile and truck traffic.
Bob-Fryml cacole My Brother-in-Law was a TRRA engineer in the 1950's and '60's. Eads Bridge is the only one across the Mississippi River in Saint Louis proper. As for railroad crossings of the Mississippi River in and around Saint Louis, what about Merchants Bridge, McKinley Bridge (built by the Illinois Terminal Railway, but no longer used as a railroad bridge), and MacArthur Bridge located downtown? Today Eads Bridge is used exclusively by the MetroLink light rail system. It has an upper level deck too that may be open (?) to automobile and truck traffic.
The guy said St. louis proper the other bridges dont go into downtown the merchants bridge is north of downtown and is the bridge i cross. look out the window straight down into the river no deck just wood and rails look at the pillers to see where the barges hit the bridge makes you feel real safe crossing it.
Need to correct your history.
1) The South & their congressmen left Washington in the 1860's. This left a northern legislature in place.
2) The Pacific railroad act was approved by 1862. California effectively lobbied to fund the Central Pacific. On the other side, the Union Pacific was organized.
The Northern Pacific act was enacted in 1864. The Great Northern had begun building west from Minnesota.
The Rock Island, C&NW, IC, MILW were all building west from Chicago & the Great lakes to the Mississippi & Iowa from the 1850's.
3) The Civil War shifted commerce from the Mississipi river boats to 3 great railroads: NYC, PRR, B&O, Erie. They all built west to Chicago. Only the B&O was cut due to Lee's army.
It was natural for the western & northern railroads to build to connect with Chicago. From there commerce moved east.
Once the traffic patterns were established, it has been impossible to find better & cheaper alternatives. Having CN & CP trains now routed thru Chicago adds to it's importance.
The above is quite correct, but another factor hasn't been mentioned in this interesting discussion. The first RR bridge over the Mississippi at St. Louis was the Eads bridge and it was not completed until 1874. It took another couple years before the approaches were finished.
Meantime, all the eastern roads terminated at the riverfront in E. St. Louis and crossed the river by ferry. The Wiggins Ferry Co. had the franchise and a lot of clout. They fought the bridge people tooth and nail and there are several good books about the fight.
The end result, which I remember quite well, was that all the eastern roads had their yads on the east side, which was quite a view when I was young. I had a job in a tall building on Fourth Street on the St. Louis side and could train watch all day. Wabash, PRR, B&O, NYC, IC, Louisville & Nashville, NKP, C&NW, all were spread out across the river. Ah, the old days.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.