MidlandMike Randy Stahl ... It flatout did . It wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore. Some container traffic has returned but not enough to justify two competative routes between Montreal and the East. The expressway system had nothing to do with this , the loss of rail traffic was directly a result of the seaway and its fleet of icebreakers. Randy The St Lawrence Seaway runs west from Montreal. What does the seaway have to do with rail traffic east of Montreal?
Randy Stahl ... It flatout did . It wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore. Some container traffic has returned but not enough to justify two competative routes between Montreal and the East. The expressway system had nothing to do with this , the loss of rail traffic was directly a result of the seaway and its fleet of icebreakers. Randy
...
It flatout did . It wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore. Some container traffic has returned but not enough to justify two competative routes between Montreal and the East. The expressway system had nothing to do with this , the loss of rail traffic was directly a result of the seaway and its fleet of icebreakers.
Randy
The St Lawrence Seaway runs west from Montreal. What does the seaway have to do with rail traffic east of Montreal?
!!!! A lot! St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes lanes run south and west from Montreal to Detroit then north to Sx St. Marie to Chicago and Duluth If things are railed out of Chicago or Buffalo it goes to Mid Atlantic or New England ports and not via Montreal east to New Brunswick and New Foundland or Nova Scotia, or any Canadian ports, therefore virtually nothing runs on rails east of Montreal, even into New England.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Randy StahlIt [the St. Lawrence Seaway] wiped out the CP Rail international of Maine and ALL CP service East of Montreal. It nearly wiped out the CN east of Quebec. Export Canadian grain didn't go by rail to the Port of St John NB anymore.
Randy,
The Canadian Government clearly wanted the seaway. After all, they paid for half of it. Traditionally it has always been cheaper to ship by water than by rail even though water is subject to freezing in winter. I don't know if low water in summer is a problem for the St. Lawrence. But this story began many many years ago when New York State was concerned that the New York Central would compete with the Erie Canal.
John
Its enough to make the return on investment low...so many not earning wages, time to button down, time to unbutton. No, 10 weeks is not enough to keep a railroad in business, but add the shut down and start up becomes an economic burden and is unpredictable because it could be 8 or 12 weeks or open and then close again...not for the feint of heart.
CSSHEGEWISCH Even with icebreakers, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway is still shut down for 4-5 months every year.
Even with icebreakers, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway is still shut down for 4-5 months every year.
10 Weeks. From the end of December to the Mid/end of March. Hardly enough to keep a railroad in business.
henry6 It flat out did. Ships were of course much smaller then, too, so heavy commodities could be loaded or unloaded at Chicago or Duluth and sent down the St. Lawrence River instead of transloading once or eve twice in the 1000+ miles between them and the Atlantic Ocean. NY Harbor took a beating as did Philadelphia and Baltimore, even Boston and other New England ports all lost to the Seaway. And the Seaway coupled with the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system were big blows to New England and Mid Atlantic harbors, manufacturing, and rail transporters. Industries also moved south to warmer climates and cheaper labor rather than rebuild ancient factory buildings with outdated and worn machinery and layouts. As the industry moved and the freight didn't, people started migrating south and west, too. Today, the metropolises of the East have grown again but the rural and country towns have withered.
It flat out did. Ships were of course much smaller then, too, so heavy commodities could be loaded or unloaded at Chicago or Duluth and sent down the St. Lawrence River instead of transloading once or eve twice in the 1000+ miles between them and the Atlantic Ocean. NY Harbor took a beating as did Philadelphia and Baltimore, even Boston and other New England ports all lost to the Seaway. And the Seaway coupled with the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system were big blows to New England and Mid Atlantic harbors, manufacturing, and rail transporters. Industries also moved south to warmer climates and cheaper labor rather than rebuild ancient factory buildings with outdated and worn machinery and layouts. As the industry moved and the freight didn't, people started migrating south and west, too. Today, the metropolises of the East have grown again but the rural and country towns have withered.
John WR jrbernierdouble stack rail movement is very cost effective and handles the bulk of this traffic. Jim, Can railroads ship double stacked containers as cheaply or more cheaply than ships in the Seaway? John
jrbernierdouble stack rail movement is very cost effective and handles the bulk of this traffic.
Jim,
Can railroads ship double stacked containers as cheaply or more cheaply than ships in the Seaway?
John,
Water movement is cheaper - The problem is the cost of trans-loading the containers from a typical container ship that cannot use the Seaway to a smaller ship that can 'fit'. Time is money and this is a one-two punch against the Seaway.
The Twin Ports(Duluth/Superior) got into trouble with export grain shipments when longshoreman refused to load Russian ships during the big Russian grain sale in the 70's. That traffic moved to Gulf ports and never really came back to previous levels.
Also the winter shut-down of shipping on the Upper Great Lakes is a factor. Grain is harvested in late summer and shipped to the elevator. This only leaves a few months to move this product out of the Great Lakes before 'freeze-up'.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Victrola1 Is there any such agitation to expand lock sizes on the St. Lawrence as it ages?
Is there any such agitation to expand lock sizes on the St. Lawrence as it ages?
I wouldn't call it agitation, but increasing capacity is being discussed, particularly channel depths.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
carnej1 ..the migration of US manufacturing South to the Sunbelt (and then Overseas) has just about nothing to do with the St. Lawrence Seaway..
..the migration of US manufacturing South to the Sunbelt (and then Overseas) has just about nothing to do with the St. Lawrence Seaway..
tree68 John WR Can railroads ship double stacked containers as cheaply or more cheaply than ships in the Seaway? It's not so much capacity or price, it's time. Reaching Chicago from Montreal can take a week by ship. NY harbor would take much longer - maybe 10 days. A through rail trip with stops only to recrew/service could be completed in a day. I'd imagine that if a container ship were loaded at the "source" and took the containers overseas (or vice versa), you might save slightly over carrying the containers to (or from) an ocean port by rail and transloading the boxes there.
John WR Can railroads ship double stacked containers as cheaply or more cheaply than ships in the Seaway?
It's not so much capacity or price, it's time.
Reaching Chicago from Montreal can take a week by ship. NY harbor would take much longer - maybe 10 days.
A through rail trip with stops only to recrew/service could be completed in a day.
I'd imagine that if a container ship were loaded at the "source" and took the containers overseas (or vice versa), you might save slightly over carrying the containers to (or from) an ocean port by rail and transloading the boxes there.
I think the problem with "liner services" for containers between tthe Great Lakes and Europe/Asia is that the size limitations for ships that can traverse the Seaway are just not economical compared to a combined haul...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
John WR henry6Industries also moved south to warmer climates and cheaper labor rather than rebuild ancient factory buildings with outdated and worn machinery and layouts. As the industry moved and the freight didn't, people started migrating south and west, too. Today, the metropolises of the East have grown again but the rural and country towns have withered. And those factory buildings still stand. Some are used for other things. Others are just empty.
henry6Industries also moved south to warmer climates and cheaper labor rather than rebuild ancient factory buildings with outdated and worn machinery and layouts. As the industry moved and the freight didn't, people started migrating south and west, too. Today, the metropolises of the East have grown again but the rural and country towns have withered.
And those factory buildings still stand. Some are used for other things. Others are just empty.
The St. Lawrence Seaway comments remind of the canalization of the Upper Mississippi River in the 1930s.
In the 1920's, newspapers along the waterway contained articles agitating for the project. Everything would be cheaper if were transported by water. The depression and public works projects it spawned led to the Upper Mississippi 9 foot channel by a system of locks and dams.
The Federal Barge Line was formed. Freight houses were build by the Federal Barge Line in various, larger cities along the river. These buildings were constructed to handle the transfer of general merchandise.
General merchandise on the river never developed. Some of the Federal freight houses were leased to LTL trucking operations that were expanding. Bulk commodities were what moved on the river.
Great predictions of growth in bulk commodities were made. Communities along the river would grow greatly as result. Bulk commodity movements grew. Communities did not necessarily grow because of bulk commodity movements on the river.
Grain flowing downstream for export is now much of the river's traffic. Coal, fertilizer and other bulk commodities move also. Tonnage moved has largely leveled off. Unit trains have captured grain once you move around 150 miles from the river. More grain is being processed domestically.
Like the St. Lawrence Seaway, lock size has become an issue on the Upper Mississippi. Larger tows push more barges. Unlike an ocean vessel, barges maybe separated. Doing two lockages takes time and sometimes causes others to wait.
The Upper Mississippi lock and dam system is is nearing 80 years old. Components need replaced. This includes lock systems. Do you replace with larger lock chambers?
The corn growers and other river commercial river navigation interests have agitated to increase lock sizes on the Upper Mississippi. Environmentalists protest. Others protest saying the cost to benefit ratio does not justify lock expansion. The debate continues.
Is there any such agitation to expand lock sizes on the St. Lawerance as it ages?
Transit and transportation has always been a moving and changing thing. Canals were the rage but the railroad closed them down....highways kicked rail freight and air the passenger. The St. Lawrence Seaway dried up harbors along the East Coast but was supplanted by Supersized tanker and container ships which in turn gave rails a chance to recapture some of the traffic as former harbors were reincarnated via container ports The Interstate highways have become clogged with traffic and producing pollutants and taking up land so rail has been able to retrieve some of that traffic. Passenger planes, too, have become supersized and skip over so many airports so that smaller "cigars" or commuter planes are filling the gap or bus and private car drives off onto the Interstate further clogging and polluting on a failing infrastructure to some want to turn back to the trains... History is fun to watch....
Having grown up about a mile and a half from Lake Calumet Harbor in Chicago, I've observed that boat traffic on the Seaway began to decline in the early 1970's, mostly due to containerization. In the early to mid-1960's, it was not unusual to see five or six foreign-flag boats at Lake Calumet at any given time, usually handling general cargo, one shipment was a boatload of export locomotives for Taiwan. By the 1980's, you would be lucky to see any, and they were usually at the grain elevators, handling bulk grain.
jrbernier The Seaway initially took traffic away from railroads. But it was traffic that would be shipped out to sea. Ore traffic was mainly lake boat traffic, and was always cheaper than an 'all rail' movement. These large ore boats are too large to fit through the Seaway and are land locked, as is the USCG's ice breaker. Since the Seaway was completed with the last locks built to the original St Lawrence River lock sizes, ocean going ships were limited in size to what can fit in the Seaway system(740' long/78' wide/26.5' depth). At first this really was not a big problem. As ocean going ships got larger, it limited the volume of traffic on the Seaway. From 1980 through 2005, the volume of Seaway traffic actually dropped. There has been an increase over the past several years, but it has fluctuated. There was hoped for container traffic(and it did increase), but double stack rail movement is very cost effective and handles the bulk of this traffic. The New PanaMax size container ships will not fit through the locks(as did the older PanaMax size ships).. Shipments 'out to sea' still center on grain, but changing customer conditions have grain moving via rail to Gulf ports and West Coast ports. Most cargo ships that can fit in the Seaway handle this traffic to European destinations. One of the big 'inbound' traffic sources over the past several years are wind turbine parts manufactured 'off shore', and there is a large dock in Duluth used to stage these units for rail shipment to the Midwest. PamaMax size is 965'/107'/39.5') - New PanaMax is 1200'/160.7'/49.9') Jim
The Seaway initially took traffic away from railroads. But it was traffic that would be shipped out to sea. Ore traffic was mainly lake boat traffic, and was always cheaper than an 'all rail' movement. These large ore boats are too large to fit through the Seaway and are land locked, as is the USCG's ice breaker. Since the Seaway was completed with the last locks built to the original St Lawrence River lock sizes, ocean going ships were limited in size to what can fit in the Seaway system(740' long/78' wide/26.5' depth). At first this really was not a big problem. As ocean going ships got larger, it limited the volume of traffic on the Seaway. From 1980 through 2005, the volume of Seaway traffic actually dropped. There has been an increase over the past several years, but it has fluctuated. There was hoped for container traffic(and it did increase), but double stack rail movement is very cost effective and handles the bulk of this traffic. The New PanaMax size container ships will not fit through the locks(as did the older PanaMax size ships).. Shipments 'out to sea' still center on grain, but changing customer conditions have grain moving via rail to Gulf ports and West Coast ports. Most cargo ships that can fit in the Seaway handle this traffic to European destinations. One of the big 'inbound' traffic sources over the past several years are wind turbine parts manufactured 'off shore', and there is a large dock in Duluth used to stage these units for rail shipment to the Midwest. PamaMax size is 965'/107'/39.5') - New PanaMax is 1200'/160.7'/49.9')
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
It may have - but you'd almost have to look at it by commodity to be able to tell.
This site has a nice discussion: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/appl7en/ch7a1en.html
One also has to consider the end-points.
The Seaway's stock-in-trade, of course is bulk shipments. One site I found indicated that the average salty was equal to about 3.5 trains - which might otherwise have gone from Duluth (or other points in the upper midwest) to an ocean port.
The Seaway averages about 50 million tons of cargo per year. Depending on what figures you use, you could conclude that some 2,500 trains are replaced by the ships, more or less.
Containers is an area where the Seaway can't really compete - it can take a ship up to a week to travel through the Seaway - a train can do it in a day or so.
It may have at the time. But I think that containerization and stack trains have brought the business back to the railroads. That, and the fact that some of the locks won't accommodate more modern ships.Muskegon, Michigan, used to have an annual Seaway Festival. And foreign ships used to call at their harbor. But not so much lately...and I can't remember what their festival is called now.
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,
Alfred Perlman thought it did. It was extremely expensive with the cost shared by the US and Canada. It allows sea going vessels to go as far west as Duluth, MN at the western tip of the Great Lakes.
Did the opening of the Saint Lawrence Seaway in 1959 take traffic away from the eastern railroads?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.