Trains.com

Can somebody explain to me what is the Logistic Sceince behind putting a CSX giant intermodal facility in the middle of a cornfield in NB Ohio ?

3836 views
44 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Can somebody explain to me what is the Logistic Sceince behind putting a CSX giant intermodal facility in the middle of a cornfield in NB Ohio ?
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Saturday, August 20, 2016 1:35 PM

A wide-span crane shuffles containers at the CSX North Baltimore intermodal hub in June 2011. (Photograph by Craig Sanders)

When I ended up out here I could not help but notice these huge way out of place monster cranes that looked like Giant Praying Mantis out of a grade b horror movie. During the time I was there i also noticed that there is only a handfull of JB Hunt trucks picking up containers out of this yard a day so most of the traffic is from train to train. I was thinking rather then use huge crains would it not have it been better to create a hump at Stanley yard up in Toledo and hump the cars that way? and instead of way out here have a intermodal sorting hub in a inner city where folks actualy need jobs and can take public transporation to. I am not sure what the brains at CSX were thinking when they built this. No other railroad has or wants to copy this.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, August 21, 2016 11:55 AM

How do you hump a 5 packer at Stanley that has 6 boxes for LA and 4 boxes for Portland?

CSX Intermodal originates and terminates shipments from ports all along the East Coast - Jacksonville, Savannah, Portsmouth, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York.  N.Baltimore is bult on the idea consolidating and separating boxes as necessary and to eliminate highway interchange of boxes to get through Chicago.  It permits BNSF & UP to load all their East Coast boxes on a car(s) or train load and ship it East to N.Baltimore, where the boxes can be transloaded to car(s) and trains destined to the port areas.

Back in the day when all intermodal trains terminated in Chicago - ALL interchange between carriers was done over the highway, with resultant additional highway congestion in the Chicago area.  Real Estate in N.Baltimore is much lower in cost that it would be anywhere in the Chicago area.

Each carrier has their own physcial characteristics to deal with and those characteristics are rarely the same.  Each set of characteristics demand unique solutions to maximize the bottom line.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • 112 posts
Posted by OWTX on Sunday, August 21, 2016 12:17 PM

IF that's paywalled - try:  https://www.google.com/#q=north+baltimore+ohio+intermondal+lifts and the joc link.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, August 21, 2016 12:57 PM

 I would think for frieght headed West or East that Ohio geographically makes sense as a location to shift the containers around if needed by end distribution point as if you head much farther East I think your choice of destinations or ports by rail route efficiency dwindles.    Seems to me that you would want to block containers on flatcars much as boxcars used to be blocked in a frieght by final destination or for those containers just traveling across the continent by the name of the ship they are going to ship out on.

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Sunday, August 21, 2016 5:29 PM

Looks to me like the future of heavy-industrial building in the U.S. Misses the expensive real estate and all, or most of, the NIMBYs.

I'd say CSX showed brains and imagination in its site selection.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, August 21, 2016 5:53 PM

Consider that UP's Global III is, for all intents and purposes, also in the middle of a cornfield...

North Baltimore is on CSX's "Chicago Line."  Pretty much THE east-west CSX mainline.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, August 21, 2016 6:01 PM

http://www.joc.com/rail-intermodal/class-i-railroads/csx-transportation/csx-plans-expand-ohio-intermodal-hub_20140116.html

Do a Google (or other) search for "csx intermodal north baltimore ohio" and you'll find lots.

Briefly, it's one of the 'hubs' in CSX's developing 'hub-and-spoke' intermodal network.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 267 posts
Posted by CatFoodFlambe on Sunday, August 21, 2016 9:42 PM

Simply put - it's essentially the "Chicago Yard" for CSX's intermodal traffic - they do the same thing with containers and trailers that Willard does with carload freight.

  

 

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Sunday, August 21, 2016 9:43 PM

Why not in northern Ohio?  CSX built an intermodal yard in Chambersburg, PA some 70 or so miles from Baltimore as the crow flies.  It is off of the old Western Maryland line on the south side of town.  You access it off of Kriner road just a couple of hundred feet east of of Interstate 81 at the Wayne Avenue exit.   CSX build this intermodal yard to get some of the Harrisburg and .Mechanicsburg intermodal traffic which has been dominated by Norfolk southern.  CSX has a good reason to build a yard in Northern Ohio, just as they did in Chambersburg.

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, August 21, 2016 9:53 PM

The hub and spoke happens because there are increasing numbers of intermodal terminals.  As more terminals are built network theory enters. For each terminal started  every other one adds one more possible destination. 

So from whole trains to one destination from another you can get one unit a week from one to another.  That over simplifies but points out the need for spokes to consolidate for a destination.

.  

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, August 22, 2016 6:47 AM

Hub and spoke works for individual containers the same as hub and spoke in the air line industry works for individual people.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Monday, August 22, 2016 9:04 AM

Brownfield redevelopment is the "in thing" where I am at in in Western New York. The former Bethelham Steel Site in Laccawanna has a wind farm and CN Lumber Distrubition Faclity. The new CSX Intermodal Yard  http://www.mckeesrocks.com/   in Mckeesrocks outside of Pittsburgh is in the former P&LE yards and shops and is on a BRT Line.  Toledo has no shortage of former auto and glass factory sites and has unused space along its port.

Here is the German Container yard in action -

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEViSvA7tXunsARrAnnIlQ?p=hamburg+marshalling+yard&fr=yhs-mozilla-004&fr2=piv-web&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004#id=10&vid=d1141660157c27ec8388aa9995f96041&action=view

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, August 22, 2016 9:13 AM

kgbw49

Hub and spoke works for individual containers the same as hub and spoke in the air line industry works for individual people.

 

However, airline hubs are not situated in the middle of nowhere.  They are in major metro areas: ORD, ATL, DFW, SEA, etc.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Monday, August 22, 2016 9:14 AM

Willard has the space as well and the terminal facilities. Chambersburg PA happened because the Hagerstown MD politico establishment had there hands out for "contributions" and graft and PA taxes are much lower.

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Monday, August 22, 2016 9:36 AM

schlimm

 

 
kgbw49

Hub and spoke works for individual containers the same as hub and spoke in the air line industry works for individual people.

 

 

 

However, airline hubs are not situated in the middle of nowhere.  They are in major metro areas: ORD, ATL, DFW, SEA, etc.

 

Maybe because that's where the cities built the big airports?

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, August 22, 2016 10:02 AM

And, they built the big airports somewhat close to where the people who would use them live and/or work?

 

Johnny

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, August 22, 2016 10:05 AM

Deggesty

And, they built the big airports somewhat close to where the people who would use them live and/or work?

I'm not sure about other cities, but when Chicago Municipal Airport was opened, the only thing that was near it was Clearing Yard.  When O'Hare Field was opened, it was also at the edge of the built-up areas and not particularly close to anything.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Monday, August 22, 2016 10:21 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

 

 
Deggesty

And, they built the big airports somewhat close to where the people who would use them live and/or work?

 

 

I'm not sure about other cities, but when Chicago Municipal Airport was opened, the only thing that was near it was Clearing Yard.  When O'Hare Field was opened, it was also at the edge of the built-up areas and not particularly close to anything.

 

'cause that's where the land was available! Heck I cauld bicycle to Midway from the inner city.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, August 22, 2016 10:25 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH
Deggesty

And, they built the big airports somewhat close to where the people who would use them live and/or work?

I'm not sure about other cities, but when Chicago Municipal Airport was opened, the only thing that was near it was Clearing Yard.  When O'Hare Field was opened, it was also at the edge of the built-up areas and not particularly close to anything.

Name an airport that was originally built 'downtown'.  None were, they were all built in relatively uninhabited areas because of the need for cheap land to build them upon, as well as the potential to acquire more land economically as the runway requirements for planes increased over time. 

If the runway requirements for future planes greatly exceed those of today, there will be a new round of airport construction further out in the boonies as most airports today have the same constriction of development building up around them as the railroads have in metropolitan areas.  Transportation hubs breed development, development constricts the original hubs causing the creation of new hubs.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Sunny (mostly) San Diego
  • 1,920 posts
Posted by ChuckCobleigh on Monday, August 22, 2016 10:42 AM

BaltACD
Name an airport that was originally built 'downtown'. 

Lindbergh Field (SAN) was built pretty close to downtown San Diego (couple of miles).

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, August 22, 2016 11:08 AM

You miss the points.  When the hub and spoke era started, Hartsfield, O'Hare and DFW were already in the heart of metro areas.  Heck, even when built, they were not far from the downtowns of the core cities.  The 'hub' the CSX built is 120 miles to Cleveland, 109 to Columbus.  But...it's only 37 miles to that huge metroplolis called Toledo.

Midway started as an airport in 1923 and by 1931 claimed to be the world's busiest.  It's 8 miles from the loop, really far.   And O'Hare is way, way out - 17 miles!!

The point is to locate facilities reasonably close to customers.  By way of contrast in the railroad world, compare UPRR's various Global facilities with CSX's choice.  Global II (Proviso) is in the heart of the metro area, about 16 miles from the Loop.  The newer Global III and IV are 80 miles and 45 miles from the Loop, though much closer to most of the industrial parks and warehouse areas.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Monday, August 22, 2016 12:25 PM

CSX's N. Baltimore facility is a good idea.  But not all good ideas work.  It takes a lot of commitment and hard work to make ideas work in reality.  I hope CSX has those requirements in spades.

It's all about the need for aggregation, the Achilles Heel of rail transportation in its competition with trucking.

A truckload over the road carrier can take an aggregation of 30,000 - 46,000 pounds of freight and just go.  A railroad has to further aggregate such shipments in to economical trainload lots before movement.  This causes delay to the rail movement.  Shipments must wait while other loads arrive at the termial until an economical size production unit is assembled.  (production unit = freight train). 

N. Baltimore, OH is a concept designed to minimize this inherent disadvantage of rail transportation.  It's not so much a terminal as it is a classification yard for containers.  (It can, and will, also function as a terminal.)

The best example I know of was the CSX plan to operate an intermodal service between Louisville, KY and N. Baltimore.  Louisville does have freight to haul.  It produces appliances, whiskey, and cigarettes among other things.  But there is not enough volume to support a dedicated IM train to any one specific destination.  That's because it's not possible to aggregate the loads in a timely fashion to any one specific destination.  (The Achilles Heel strikes again.)

Going through N. Baltimore CSX will be able to aggregate freight out of Louisville to several destinations instead of one.  And do so in a timely manner.  At N. Baltimore the Louisville origins will be placed on trains going to destinations located from Montreal to Baltimore.

That's the basis for N. Baltimore.   And it's a reasonable, thought out, good idea.

 

 

 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Monday, August 22, 2016 12:40 PM

BaltACD
Name an airport that was originally built 'downtown'. None were, they were all built in relatively uninhabited areas because of the need for cheap land to build them upon, as well as the potential to acquire more land economically as the runway requirements for planes increased over time. If the runway requirements for future planes greatly exceed those of today, there will be a new round of airport construction further out in the boonies as most airports today have the same constriction of development building up around them as the railroads have in metropolitan areas. Transportation hubs breed development, development constricts the original hubs causing the creation of new hubs.

The people who planned Denver International appear to have done their homework. Many hub airports have been surrounded by development that limits future options. Denver has 54.2 square miles of land they can expand on and prevent development from encroaching on their space.

Norm


  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Monday, August 22, 2016 12:43 PM

I see North Baltimore as more of a sorting facility than a destination. Sure, some containers will be trucked to nearby cities but the rest will be sorted by destination and sent on their way.

Norm


  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Defiance Ohio
  • 13,319 posts
Posted by JoeKoh on Monday, August 22, 2016 2:02 PM

Also with the proximitiy of I-75 it makes it a plus.

stay safe

Joe

Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").

 

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Monday, August 22, 2016 4:09 PM

schlimm

You miss the points.  When the hub and spoke era started, Hartsfield, O'Hare and DFW were already in the heart of metro areas.  Heck, even when built, they were not far from the downtowns of the core cities.  The 'hub' the CSX built is 120 miles to Cleveland, 109 to Columbus.  But...it's only 37 miles to that huge metroplolis called Toledo.

Of course if you look at the air freight hub and spoke you get different picture.  UPS has hubs in huge cities like Louisville and Rockford, Kitty Hawk was located the massive metro of Fort Wayne, and Burlington Air Express is in Toledo.  Fedex is a little better, using Memphis and Indy.

 

schlimm
The point is to locate facilities reasonably close to customers.  By way of contrast in the railroad world, compare UPRR's various Global facilities with CSX's choice.  Global II (Proviso) is in the heart of the metro area, about 16 miles from the Loop.  The newer Global III and IV are 80 miles and 45 miles from the Loop, though much closer to most of the industrial parks and warehouse areas.
 

What is your point?  You conveniently leave out the fact that CSX has two facilities in the Chicago area, 59th St, located in the city proper, and Bedford Park, located next to Midway.  Those facilities serve the same function as UP's global ramps, the NW Ohio ramp is for a whole different purpose.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, August 22, 2016 4:36 PM

Seems quite complicated.  O'Hare is #4 in the US in airfreight, much of it international and with a high value: In Chicago, rail value is $533/ton, truck = $1297/ton and airfreight = $80,194/ton in 2014 (from CMAP).

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, August 22, 2016 5:01 PM

schlimm
Seems quite complicated. 

It is only complicated to minds that can't comprehend it.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, August 22, 2016 5:51 PM

BaltACD

 

 
schlimm
Seems quite complicated. 

 

It is only complicated to minds that can't comprehend it.

 

Gee, you really must enjoy insults.  You never miss an opportunity to make personal attacks.  Sure, I question the assumptions and conventional wisdom expressed by some on here.  Often they are right.  But frequently they cannot give a coherent explanation or back up contentions with facts. It's known as an exchange of ideas which does not require ad hominem attacks as you do.

n012944, unlike you, gave a lot of reasoned, relevant information that explains the purpose of the CSX facility.  

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy