Imagine killing two giant pterodactyls with one stone. A grade-seperated express rail or two roughly from the Strangler (CN) to the Skyway (NS) over BNSF and CSX yards and "finishing" the missing link in Interstate 90 along the same route. 16 miles instead of 22 on the road. The ability to get trains thru Shikaakwa in hours instead of days for the rails. The transport hub of the US needs a shot of grease.
NS as owner of the Streator line would likely only want to connect to it's three eastward options - the former Nickel Plate, former Pennsy on which they have trackage rights, and former NYC. Perhaps if BNSF purchases NS, or works some sort of "Meridian Speedway" type of deal, something like this will happen to cut transit time for time sensitive intermodal. Fred's solution is a compelling one.
This was discussed in another blog. Wheatland to Knox is not the simple solution thought. North Judson and the Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum across the right-of-way, followed by and industrial park. There are houses across the right-of-way from there to KnoX. At Knox, an industrial park sits across the right-of-way. Simpler solution would be Wheatland to La Cross. What I don't understand is Streator, IL to Union Mills, IN @ 240 miles, and figuring $2 million per mile would cost less than half the reported $1 billion cost of the next CREATE project. Using Streator to Union Mills at that cost would yeald a double track PTC speedway. If they threw in another $100 million, they could bridge all the cross overs and do away with any worry about delays. Over in Indiana, they would connect wih NS, CF&E, CSX and CP. For another 14 miles, NS to Elkhart. Still well under CREATE costs.
Is there anything happening with the proposed open-access Belt route?
(Trains, Sept. 2013)
So 4% or 25%? My hunch is that it is 25%, +/- 2.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
25% is the commonly cited number for national rail traffic transiting Chicago. Whether that's tonnange or carload, and what percentage is loose car, unit moves or intermodal, and what is local O&D, I'll leave for others to sort out.
MPAS claims that total TEU lift numbers are on par with the port of LA-Long Beach.
What happened? Coal, oil and steel are down, creating a capacity cushion, so why worry about it?
Victrola1"Good morning, Mr. Phelps." Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to clear a path through the City of Chicago for a major transportation project. Should you, or any of your impossible mission force be caught, or killed, the Sec. of Transportation will deny any knowledge of your mission.
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to clear a path through the City of Chicago for a major transportation project. Should you, or any of your impossible mission force be caught, or killed, the Sec. of Transportation will deny any knowledge of your mission.
CSSHEGEWISCH Is that from a bad horror movie called "The Beginning of The End"
Is that from a bad horror movie called "The Beginning of The End"
"Good morning, Mr. Phelps."
One solution to the Chicago problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVZ28O4NCpU
greyhounds: The accuracy of the result of my analysis is certainly open to refinement. Data that would improve the result of the estimate would be welcome. I am unaware of a public source of such.
So I am comfortable with the fact that the transcon intermodal business has evolved greatly from the 1970s practice of tariff-based "FAK" combination rates, using the industry's most opaque "rate item" out of TC-1 for the western "division."
I don't believe the J.B. Hunt-BNSF relationship or the UP-APL relationship or any other of the dominant multiplicity of contract-based transcontinental commercial arrangements are based on such an archaic practice. Can I prove it? No, of course not.
That said, my estimate seems consistent with my contention that "fixes" for the "Chicago bottleneck" are solutions in search of a problem that the "majors" don't see as pressing.
466lexMP173 asked: "Were the Conrail "proportionate" rates less than the point to point rates for a similar move?" There were so many variables, that I hesitate to answer. But perhaps ... typically ... maybe ... yes. "Proportional" rates (not all the common, in reality) were made for a variety of reasons, and could be made subject to a variety of limitations. Among conditions was that the resultant revenue from the "combination" rate would divide "as made" or with existing divisions. While railroad rate makers assiduously made "market-based" rates, not "cost-based" rates, the realities of distance and terminal costs (origin/termination costs higher than interchange costs), would usually result in less revenue for an interline movement from A to B (for furtherance) than a local move A to B.
I really didn't mention proportional rates. I wrote of combination rates over Chicago. With a combination rate multiple waybills are created. Each participating railroad waybills the shipment from its origin to its destination. Each railroad individually sends the responsible party a freight bill for payment.
Unless this factor is taken into account an analysis of waybill origins and destinations (which you did) will produce a wrong answer. Even if the amount of combination rates used is negligible the analyst needs to know, rather than assume, that it is, in fact, negligible. I'll call your 4% movement through Chicago numbers unsubstantiated.
The “Trains” writer concludes: “… But solving the big puzzle at 75th Street and Grand Crossing with much-needed but completely unfunded infrastructure investment is only a long-term mirage.”
It appears to me that the Class 1s believe the "mirage" is the hype about "the big puzzle."
kgbw49 Land spreadin' out so far and wide! Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside! Why do I think Mr. Haney is leasing the land to the turbine owners on a per-kWh basis?
Land spreadin' out so far and wide! Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside!
Why do I think Mr. Haney is leasing the land to the turbine owners on a per-kWh basis?
MP173 asked: "Were the Conrail "proportionate" rates less than the point to point rates for a similar move?"
There were so many variables, that I hesitate to answer. But perhaps ... typically ... maybe ... yes. "Proportional" rates (not all the common, in reality) were made for a variety of reasons, and could be made subject to a variety of limitations. Among conditions was that the resultant revenue from the "combination" rate would divide "as made" or with existing divisions.
While railroad rate makers assiduously made "market-based" rates, not "cost-based" rates, the realities of distance and terminal costs (origin/termination costs higher than interchange costs), would usually result in less revenue for an interline movement from A to B (for furtherance) than a local move A to B.
Convicted One kgbw49 It's got a new purpose now:
kgbw49
It's got a new purpose now:
I have driven I-65 through the area - Wind Farm on both sides of the Interstate for about 6 or 7 miles. Wind Turbines as far as the eye can see!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
kgbw49 some sort if intermodak terminal just over the Indiana state line.
MP-173... Goes both directions, but primarilly eastbound.
Remington, IN (floundering)
I seem to have a wisp of a memory that at some point in the 1980s or so ATSF owned TP&W and had some sort of intermodal terminal just over the Indiana state line.
Mudchicken...thanks for the update. NS switches 2-3 x daily. Is that switching for the cars moving east on NS? I see a large number of such cars on the 10R train which comes off of BNSF at Streator. I always thought those were BNSF originated, but perhaps not. Also these cars move on the 36J...Kankakee - Elkhart. now I realize why NS has such a run. Loaded with sand. I need to pay closer attention to it.
466 and Rams...thanks for commenting on the rate division/proportionate rate issue. I was one of those "green eye shade" guys back in the 80s with an LTL trucking firm. The divisions of revenue were an interesting subject back then.
So...part of developing a rate is a component for pickups, line haul, and delivery. At least in the LTL days. Pickup and delivery components were significant as there was considerable labor costs involved. Costs were spread out over multiple shipments tendered...thus "discounts" came into play.
Were the Conrail "proportionate" rates less than the point to point rates for a similar move? Lets say you received interchange from a carrier at point A and delivered to point B. At point A you received a big interchange...lets call it a 100 car train. In my world of reasoning, costs for moving that 1 car (of 100) would be considerable less than picking up 1 car at a siding and moving to destination. Does that make sense? Were these "interline rates" somewhere between the interline division and the point to point rate?Hope this makes sense.
Ed
MP173: Loaded directly from covered hopper truck to covered hopper railcar at CP Iowa by portable screw-auger conveyor, half a mile straight east of the Vactor Plant. NS switches the place 2-3 times a day.
MP173 Well, does anyone know how the carload and intermodal billing actually works today in the industry? Is the industry still using a combination of rates over the gateway? If so, that seems rather inefficient and probably more expensive. Back in my old "traffic days" combination of rates were much more expensive than "thru rates". I would think the accounting would be a nightmare for shippers to be paying two freight bills on every movement...but perhaps that is my 1980s way of thinking of things. It would be very interesting to see where the actual traffic is flowing in the United States. I am thinking about the trains passing thru on the NS and CSX mainlines here in NW Indiana and there are numerous run thru trains off of UP, BNSF, CN, and CP daily...for carload, unit train, and intermodal. Hmm...now I am thinking. Mudchicken...are these frac cars loaded at Streator or just staged there? Last spring I was in Ottawa, Il and stumbled on the IR's shop. Talked to a manager and was told they were generating huge trains of frac sand just west of town at a quarry. It would make sense that some of that would be interchanged to BNSF at Streator. Ed
Well, does anyone know how the carload and intermodal billing actually works today in the industry? Is the industry still using a combination of rates over the gateway? If so, that seems rather inefficient and probably more expensive. Back in my old "traffic days" combination of rates were much more expensive than "thru rates".
I would think the accounting would be a nightmare for shippers to be paying two freight bills on every movement...but perhaps that is my 1980s way of thinking of things.
It would be very interesting to see where the actual traffic is flowing in the United States. I am thinking about the trains passing thru on the NS and CSX mainlines here in NW Indiana and there are numerous run thru trains off of UP, BNSF, CN, and CP daily...for carload, unit train, and intermodal. Hmm...now I am thinking.
Mudchicken...are these frac cars loaded at Streator or just staged there? Last spring I was in Ottawa, Il and stumbled on the IR's shop. Talked to a manager and was told they were generating huge trains of frac sand just west of town at a quarry. It would make sense that some of that would be interchanged to BNSF at Streator.
Actually, from a Revenue Accounting standpoint, Rule 11 shipments are much easier to deal with than through, prepaid or through, collect shipments in the Interline Settlement System (I.S.S.). While I myself always liked working with through rates, getting the foreign road to agree to the divisions per the governing contract could be (and still are) challenging.
Way back in the immediately post-Staggers, early independent Conrail days, the combination rate phenomenon had some life. Conrail felt that the interterritorial divisions of revenue were, in some cases, an unfair relic of regulation, and canceled some through rates. Conrail put in place so-called "proportional" rates to the gateways , which if used, yielded the revenue that Conrail believed was its "due."
Pre-Staggers, a persistent complaint of shippers (and many in the railroad industry) was the massive complexity of the "rate structure". Only members of the "green eyeshade" fraternity could, with any confidence, quote the "correct" rates. An entire cottage industry existed to "audit" fright bills for errors, living off the inevitable mistakes resulting from the obsolete and arcane method of pricing the industry's service.
Conrail's "proportional" rate strategy only added to the costly problem, both for shippers and other railroads.
Rationality began to prevail by the mid-1980s as the divisions of revenue for interline movements were arranged on a mutually agreeable basis (as opposed to the old ICC "prescribed" basis."
Disclosure: My direct involvement in railroad pricing ended in the mid-1980s, as the Conrail phenomenon was beginning to wind down. I cannot aver that "combination" rates were insignificant in 2013, but I believe that to be the case. Intermodal interterritorial movements are predominately with ocean carriers or the J.B. Hunts, Hubs, etc. Unit train movements of coal, CBR, etc. are on individually negotiated contracts, and the thought that such an archaic method of pricing would sill be in place seems implausible. Perhaps for some "loose car" traffic? Could be, but one would have to seriously ask, "Why?" See MP173 comments immediately below.
schlimm~4%? So where are all those carloads coming into Chicago on the UP and BNSF ending up?
A waybill won't always reflect the true origin-destination of the movement. A shipment can move on a combination rate. i.e. a load from Boston to Denver can be billed Boston to Chicago and then rebilled Chicago to Denver. The waybills wouldn't show it as a Boston-Denver shipment but either as a Boston-Chicago or a Chicago-Denver shipment. Depends on which waybill was selected in the sample.
When I was a railroader this was very common (almost universal) on intermodal shipments. There were no through rates. Everything moving into or from Official Territory got rebilled in Chicago. (It didn't delay the actual movement.) Could be the same these days.
This would throw the "analysis" off. You can't use numbers without understanding them. A lesson that gets reinforced every day.
~4%? So where are all those carloads coming into Chicago on the UP and BNSF ending up?
My analysis of the data from the Surface Transportation Board’s Public Use version of the 2013 “One Percent Waybill Sample” shows the following:
Out of all 2013 U.S. railroad traffic, that traffic moving between the western U.S. (roughly, from west of Chicago, St. Louis, and the Mississippi south to New Orleans) and that portion of the eastern U.S. north of the Ohio River and central Virginia, (“Trans-Chicago” and “Trans-Mississippi” for short) constituted the following percentages: (See note below.)
4.18% of all loads; 4.65% of all tons; 4.33% of all revenue
This would have included traffic moving via the following gateways: Chicago, St. Louis, Thebes, Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans, and a handful of lesser points. Volumes via individual gateways are not given, but the volumes would have been in roughly descending order of that given.
I believe these numbers explain the absence of heavy investment to “fix” the “Chicago Bottleneck” by the major railroads. They don’t see the problem as that significant. The problem gets lots of press, especially in tough winters, but not so much capital.
Consider these examples (just a few of many) of priorities outside of Chicago:
1. BNSF completes the double tracking of the southern Transcon, and invests heavily on the Northern Transcon. Logistics Parks. Billions for locomotives. 2. UP double tracks the Sunset Route. Invests in Santa Teresa (El Paso). Billions for locomotives. 3. NS doubles Bellevue. (And until recently) touts its intermodal routes such as the Crescent Corridor. 4. CSX builds North Baltimore, Ohio, and clears doublestack routes.
CREATE primarily benefits commuter routes, and receives tepid support from the majors. It appears to me that “Trans-Chicago” routes have suffered, and will continue to do so, from (reasonable (?)) “benign neglect” in U.S. Class 1 capital budgeting. (“Trans-Chicago” is, in a relative sense, more important for CN and CP, as it constitutes a portion of their through routes. Hence, CN bought EJ&E; CP shows interest in IHB.)
(Note: For those familiar with the old “Rate Bureau” boundaries, the STB continues to use them in the “Sample”. My analysis used “Mountain Pacific”, “Western Trunk Line”, and “Southwestern Lines” territories collectively as the western U.S., and “Official Territory” as the eastern U.S.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.