IHB to the rescue?

[Convicted One]

Details on the improvements to the former PRR line, if any one is interested:

 

http://www.journalgazette.net/blog/the-scoop/Chicago--Fort-Wayne--Eastern-railroad-announces-track-improvement-project

 

I had thought some source had mentioned that the "6 train per day" limit  for NS was being expanded as part consideration of the improvements they were funding. But I can find no hard evidence of that anywhere. So it must have been just hear-say?

[rrnut282]

CFE can help, but not in the present condition.  Kankakee line can help, but that involves routing oil trains to Galesburg then to Streator and over to CP 502 or Porter.  For awhile they were going to route these via CFE but bad track axed that plan.

NS set up a separate "fueling facility"  on the ex PRR in downtown Fort Wayne so that traffic on the CF&E can run-through without having to go up and down the busy ex-Wabash line in town to get to the fuel pad at East Wayne Yard.  So there is evidence NS hasn't given up on the idea of running run-through trains on the ex PRR.   NS still dispatches the line, too.

[kgbw49]

IIRC, CFE is leased from CSX but NS has trackage rights on the former Pennsy raceway from the Conrail split deal. So NS upgrading CFE would be similar in a way to what CSX is doing with the L & I line between Louisville, KY and Indianapolis, IN.

[Convicted One]

Yes, but....

While short "ramp up" time and lower up-front costs are likely factors, one additional possibility came to me later after first posting the above.

 

Someone might know better, but it could possibly be that by perfoming the improvements on a line that is not owned, the related costs could be "expensed" and recovered more quickly than if they were capitalized on their own property, and amortized over several years?

 

[Dreyfusshudson]

Thanks- your conclusion sounds plausible to me.

[Convicted One]

Dreyfusshudson

I was never clear why NS would want to spend money refurbishing someone else’s railroad, having a 2 track NYC main and single track NKP main heading east already. Wouldn’t a better long term bet be to upgrade one or both of these?

 

Speculating, of course, but I believe that the main purpose of all this was to get congestion on the former NYC line out of Chicago under control, so the extent of any improvements to the NYC line that would deliver what was wanted, would have been enormous (extra main all the way to Elkhart?)

I also don't believe that the former NKP line would have worked very well, since  the west end between Fort Wayne and Chicago sees a good bit of use as part of NS's Atlanta-Chicago corridor. So again, what extent would they have to go to with improvements to make the new use work in a way that doesn't impact the existing?

 

Bottom line, I suspect that NS envisions this need as being temporary, and doing what they have done to bolster an underused property was likely cheaper than the other two alternatives.

 

Plus, no "enviro" delays, no Nimby concerns, just dress up what already exists, and run 'em.

[Dreyfusshudson]

 

Many thanks for all these responses. My understanding of what is going on was clearly imperfect, and these responses bring some clarity, but the situation as described is complex, probably only truly intelligible to those who have to operate through it!

 

I should first of all say that the last time I was around Gibson yard, I shot NW2 8829 next to the coaling tower, an SD45 leading an EL TOFC train across the main street in Hammond and a Baldwin DR 6-6-2000 at Kirk Yard. Nixon was president, so yes, Mudchicken, definitely out of the loop.

 

Also, my downloaded N American RR Map, whilst invaluable in many respects is not always reliable, and certainly now out of date. This shows NS trackage rights on the Porter branch ending (very oddly) at Willow Creek. Now n0121944 says these extend to Ivanhoe, so my starting premise that NS can't directly access the IHB from the NYC at Porter falls flat.

 

What I  didn’t get from the Frailey article was why CP sends its Michigan traffic via Craigin and the BRC (see also MP173, point 4); I would have thought the IHB would have made more sense, and assumed, wrongly, the BRC routing was because of limited connections eastward off the IHB. It was said that one of the reasons CP was after CSX was to get control of the IHB, and I assumed (unnecessarily) they would have then fixed the eastern connection.

 

The bit I missed was BOCT ownership from Blue Island to McCook (n0129144 and CShaveRR) and its importance to CSX traffic. I thought CP had part ownership of all the IHB, and could use it at will- perhaps not? Implicit in my original post was that it might be possible to debottleneck the IHB if the will was there- it seems to vary between two and three mains, and there is maybe space to add more some third main in some places? If CSX’s priority is to keep other folk off their patch, this is a non-starter. I assumed that the PRR rights on the BOCT section would have been maintained, so the answer to mudchicken’s question (June 6^th) as to why and how they were allowed lapse is of interest.

 

There is still confusion in my mind over Mudchicken’s comments about the CN and IHB (June 6^th) and beaulieu’s follow up comment about CP and IHB capacity. I had thought that CN’s acquisition of the EJ&E would have made the IHB less relevant to them, and the comment about CP and IHB capacity does not seems to tally with MP173 and Frailey’s comments about CP routing.

 

I had also thought that the realignment around Gary airport had been linked to CN efforts to make life easier for itself. Need to try and get my mind round what CSX and NS are up to at the locations mentioned. At least it answers one of my other implicit questions, namely are NS and CSX willing to work together if mutual benefit can be found, and the answer is affirmative.

 

Much as the romantic in me would like to see the PRR main alive again, I was never clear why NS would want to spend money refurbishing someone else’s railroad, having a 2 track NYC main and single track NKP main heading east already. Wouldn’t a better long term bet be to upgrade one or both of these? The NYC ROW is 4 track, I believe.

 

Thanks again to all.

 

[MP173]

Late to the discussion here and most of it is pretty accurate.

NS has several access routes to Gibson:

1.  NS - Porter Branch (CSX trackage rights) from Porter west.  Currently there is a connection in place at Tolleston which allows trains off of the Porter Branch to access Kirk Yard.  This was put into service the past few months and is NOT shown on the map in Trains.  It is a critical omission to the map. Currently NS is running 2- 3 trains daily into Kirk via this connection. Also, NS is running their 31M auto racker to Gibson via this routing frequently.  Westbound 31k is a Kankakee route BNSF train which uses this routing.  

2.  NS can continue west on their mainline to CP 502 and make a left hand turn onto the IHB and access Gibson.  They do this frequently with the 31M and 31k, based on what is occuring on the CSX.  

3.  NS can access the Gibson Yard from the NKP line, turning right at Osborn and then moving up to IHB Gibson.  This is done by their auto racker 13J from Ft. Wayne daily.  For awhile earlier this year 13J was moving on the old CFE (ex PRR) from Ft. Wayne.  This was a daily move until they figured out the CFE line needed a lot of work.  Chatter earlier this year indicated NS was going to run 6-8 trains daily on the CFE.  NOPE....cannot occur in the present conditions.

4.  NS can access Gibson from the Kankakee line, although I dont think there is anything moving that way.

Meanwhile the Kankakee line is an interesting route.  Currently 10R, 31k, and 36J run this route as scheduled manifests.  There are coal trains which move to Wheatfield, In from UP (Momence) and off the NS from somewhere out east.  Usually there are 2 loaded coal trains per day to feed that hungry NIPSCO power plant.  There are some grain trains which move via this line.

Interestingly, CP trains could access IHB (whom they have ownership in) as a route to Bensenville, but they choose not to, instead running to CP509 (Rock Island Jct) and using BRC to Bensenville.  However, CP does run its intermodal train on CSX out of Bensenville and this runs via IHB.  CP runs about 6 scheduled trains on NS plus the tank trains (usually 1-2 loaded oil/ethanol per day).  

It is interesting to see how NS, CP, CSX, IHB, and AMT trains navigate from Porter to Chicago.  Remember that CSX has trackage rights from their Michigan line at Porter to CP509.  There are 3 scheduled manifests and usually 2 loaded coal trains daily plus the Amtrakers.  IHB has trackage rights and runs IHB 115 to and from Burns Harbor Yard.  

CFE can help, but not in the present condition.  Kankakee line can help, but that involves routing oil trains to Galesburg then to Streator and over to CP 502 or Porter.  For awhile they were going to route these via CFE but bad track axed that plan.

Sorry if some of this is duplicated...had several calls and emails to address.

ed

[beaulieu]

mudchicken

Hoping the OP understands that CN gobbled up most of IHB as its personal Chicago shortcut or he's got a lot of learning to do. The Google Earth & Bing Imagery has yet to catch up with the changes in the SE quadrant of Gary.(and has CN ever been busy building railroad in this same area for their Chicago bypass)

 

I think that you mean CP has gobbled up most of the IHB capacity, Mudchicken.

[mudchicken]

IHB was part owned by MILW if that qualifies as a connection (never a a major owner, but).....was supposed to be part of Il-fated Chicago Milwaukee & Gary loop. (some survived as MILW's Joliet Branch)

Millers on WAB falls between Aetna and Gary, just 200 yards west of where the G&W's Dune Park Br. crossed over Wabash....not the same as CSS-Miller or B&O Miller which are about 1-2 miles east.

Half of the B&OCT R/W was owned and used by PRR predecessor SC&S (nominally the south main track) to get to various refineries. Through a confusing series of exchanges w/ B&OCT starting in 1913, B&O took control of the R/W. However, PRR still had rights on the B&OCT from Pine to Clark and on to the west. What is confusing (to me) is why and how PC/CR quit using the line. There is no docket to cover at the federal level (just like the issue with the PRR main from Clark to Whiting condemned by InDOT in 1978)

Carl: Gary to Millers connection all happens in a box confined between Massachusetts to Virginia, 9th[WAB] to 11th[NYC] ...NS bulldozed the foundation of the old Millers depot just north of the sugar packaging plant (Indiana Sugars) at 9th & Virginia and blew a giant hole in the IHB/Gary & Western Dune Park Branch elevated fill. (only time I walked a main track with a machete and bank blade and still couldn't walk between the rails in places - fortunately we never found a dead body in the thicket/jungle of abandoned G&W or PRR R/W.)

Hoping the OP understands that CN gobbled up most of IHB as its personal Chicago shortcut or he's got a lot of learning to do. The Google Earth & Bing Imagery has yet to catch up with the changes in the SE quadrant of Gary.(and has CN ever been busy building railroad in this same area for their Chicago bypass)

[CShaveRR]

The actual point where ownership changes is known in the timetables as Superior, which is in the village of McCook, but is not the McCook crossing, as some might assume.  This explains why a friend of mine, then a Chessie employee inspecting track on the B&OCT, was chased away from Pielet Brothers by guard dogs 'way back when.

What's even more intriguing is that B&OCT was involved in a plan to extend the IHB beyond Franklin Park northeastward toward Mayfair, to interchange with the northern lines of CNW and MILW.  I can't remember whether the line was actually built or not, but it was shown on some maps, and grading was at least partially completed (a diagonal street known as Forest Preserve Drive covers about three miles of the intended route).  This was B&OCT...I can find nothing connecting IHB to the venture.

[n012944]

A couple of thing.  1st the NS has trackage rights over CSX from Porter to the IHB connectoin at Ivanhoe, and uses them.  It still crosses the CSX at grade at Willow Creek.  2nd, the IHB does not own the railroad from Blue Island to McCook.  It is owned and maintained by the B&OCT.  It is a very congested piece of railroad between Blue Island Jct and 71st.  It is one of CSX's UPS routes into and out of Chicago.  CSX is not going to permit additional connections to be built that would in turn impact its UPS traffic.

[CShaveRR]

I've missed what's going on at Millers (or Miller or Miller Beach, depending).  Help?

[mudchicken]

Boy are you ever out of the loop. (bad Chicago pun intended)

(1) As we speak, NS and CSX are reworking the connections in Chicago to accomodate a bypass at the Gary Airport to extend the airport runways. Major activity at Tolleston, Clarke Junction/CP-501 and Gary/Millers*. (CSX/NYC Porter Sub to NS/WAB Gary Sub)- they've been at this for 3+ years

IHB/G&W Dune Park Branch is dead and gone - Abandoned officially after IHB gave up on it. (Still technically owned by PC Estate)....CSX just removed the IHB (G&W) bridge at Tolleston in December. Indiana DOT and Gary have made a mess of things for the railroads. InDOT should have been shot for killing off the PRR Ft Wayne main in the 1970's (they even botched the ICC abandonment - typical clueless highway administrators, complete with a collapsing bridge)

[Dreyfusshudson]

Fred Frailey’s TRAINS article on fixing Chicago made the point that a number of changes to through routings in recent years has had a significant impact on freight congestion in the Chicago area. He went on to highlight some problem areas e.g. 75^th Street crossing where no money for a solution is in sight, and big money is needed.  This got me thinking whether other routing changes might help alleviate such problems. There is the blue sky thinking of the Great Lakes Basin; other suggestions I have read include resurrection of the Kankakee Belt Line, TP&W etc. The response to such ideas seems generally to be negative- too costly, too difficult, doesn’t really solve any problems and so forth.

The thing that struck my eye on the TRAINS map was how the IHB circles the city, usually grade separated from the lines it crosses- as noted a good route for freight interchange. This led to the idea that the IHB might play a larger role. It is not based on any knowledge of costs, traffic flows, inter- company rivalries, and may be just as off beam as others which have been demolished. Please treat it accordingly, and correct any of the assumptions which are factually incorrect.

The IHB was the NYC access past Gibson Yard to Chicago connections, and it was indeed a major owner. However, the successor to the NYC, the NS, can no longer easily connect to the IHB, and there is no connection at all from the NKP (tricky location). You can get from Gibson Yard on to the NYC/NS main at CP 502, but this involves crossing the B&O/CSX main on the flat on a big U curve. Hardly a way to minimise congestion. There is still the connection at Porter IN from the former NYC line to Gibson yard, but CSX presumably doesn’t want to make it easy for its rival by letting them use it? I assume NS didn’t think they needed this at the Conrail split.

If not, there is a disused IHB line running from Tolleston to Wilson, which passes under the NS/CSX mains just east of Gary. Environmentalists apart, this looks pretty easy to connect to the NS. Only snag seems to be that CSX has thoughtfully removed the underpass under its tracks on the way to Gibson. This would need reinstating.

Either way, NS and CP through freights for beyond Chicago could head straight onto the IHB. A reinstated connection at Chicago Ridge would allow NS easy access to Landers Yard by the not too busy METRA/Wabash line, freeing up some capacity at 75^th Street. CP lands straight at Bensenville. Upgrading pinch points on the IHB could allow more traffic- the UP might send more freight from Dolton to Proviso that way, again easing 75^th street, though they might baulk at paying CP/NS/CSX for the privilege, and prefer to continue to block things up.  Stress points might be the flat crossing at Dolton itself, and that at McCook with the BNSF. This idea seems to offer some relief at minimal cost compared to other ideas being floated- a medium term palliative.

Has the idea of improving access of the CP/NS to the eastern end of the IHB already been considered? Would CP/NS see any merit in it and if not, why not? Could the IHB be upgreaded to take more traffic?