Samuel JohnstonThey get tiresome very very quickly
Sounds to me like someone still has "dial-up"?
20th century As to intermodal tieups in Chicago, better sorting needs to be made at the port of entry for international containers as well as domestic containers and trailers. The nation needs transcontinental railroads under one flag to help defeat these 20th century problems with railroad connections in Chicago. It is unbelieveable we have such a irratic transportation system in the industry. 20thCentury
As to intermodal tieups in Chicago, better sorting needs to be made at the port of entry for international containers as well as domestic containers and trailers. The nation needs transcontinental railroads under one flag to help defeat these 20th century problems with railroad connections in Chicago. It is unbelieveable we have such a irratic transportation system in the industry.
20thCentury
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Willow Springs services one customer for the BNSF and one customer only that being UPS. Everything in and out of Chicago on the BNSF goes thru there if it is headed towards the west coast even towards the Northwest.
diningcar UPS's Willow Springs operation with BNSF has significantly improved their Chicago issues.
UPS's Willow Springs operation with BNSF has significantly improved their Chicago issues.
I recall an article not so long ago (or so it seemed to me as I started this post) in the magazine about Willow Springs and the large number of trains handled in a 24 hour period.
It was 2012, from the index: 24 hours at Willow Springs, Dec 46-55.
This is from a friend of my husband that's running intermodal up around Chicago. His normal waiting time to get into any terminal in the Chicago area is between 1 to 2 hours with a trailer or container hooked up. Getting back out he's looking the same and that is at each railroad. He's lucky to get 2 containers a day moved before his clock expires. If he's draying them to a final customer he can't move more than 1 a day most days with the delays at the terminals. That's why rates for the draying carrier's that do this are high. Their time is valuable also. The railroads need more people at the terminals to get people in and out plus instead of the crane jockeys seeing how close they can drop it to it's neighbor give them some room to get in there for the dolly legs.
Does anyone have any accurate figures on the length of time rubber tire interchange at Chicago is actually taking? Arrival on rail of the inbound carrier to departure on rail of the outbound carrier.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bypass routes such as TP&W or M&StL did pick up some traffic in the past but I doubt that it was consequential. NYC advertised the Kankakee Belt route in the OG for years but it wasn't until the PC era that any through freights to western connections (one with RI, one with ATSF) were actually operated and they were rarely more than mixed carload freight.
NKP guy Samuel Johnston Can you just get rid of those stupid ant-like figures? They get tiresome very very quickly! Did you ever get to see the pudgy cat sledding along at 60 mph? (I loved seeing that cat!)
Samuel Johnston Can you just get rid of those stupid ant-like figures? They get tiresome very very quickly!
Did you ever get to see the pudgy cat sledding along at 60 mph? (I loved seeing that cat!)
I've liked all the signature animation Balt has used.
Jeff
Imagine how valuable Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway's "Peoria Gateway" would be today. 70 years ago no one predicted that Chicago would become such a bottleneck.. Sometimes mergers aren't for the better.
Samuel JohnstonCan you just get rid of those stupid ant-like figures? They get tiresome very very quickly!
If you are paying that much attention to 'signatures' - you need to pay more attention to the text in the thread.
Can you just get rid of those stupid ant-like figures? They get tiresome very very quickly!
Generally, the Chicago interchange of IM business works well. Some operational changes are being made and this requires people to go down a learning curve on how to handle the new system. That's commonly a bump in the road, but things will smooth out.
Chicago IM interchange is handled in several ways. One of those ways is to ground the trailer/container and dray it cross town. This seems to drive some folks bonkers. It's actually a very efficient and timely way to do the interchange. But it's only one way to do that. Just use the most efficient and timely way. That way may change with circumstances. This drayage is subject to the normal road user fees paid by all trucking. So it's not a free ride.
Replacing Chicago with a route through St. Louis or elsewhere will aggrevate the railroad problem of aggregating traffic in to economical trainload lots. No benefit is free of cost. The railroads need to aggregate quickly in order to provide truck competitive transit times.
Building a single, large IM terminal for Chicago is problematic. Land acquisistion is difficult. That's why the UP wound up with an IM terminal way out in Rochelle, IL. The NS is having a difficult time getting land to expand an IM terminal in one of the most blighted areas of Chicago. The Englewood area.
If an IMC can't get a trucker to do a crosstown then the IMC can't do its job. There's no shortage that more money won't cure.
NKP guy So, I'll take that bet. Nothing gets done, ever.
I wholeheartely agree.
If there's a bright spot there, it is North Baltimore. I would submit that its building might signal (or might have signalled) a willingness to do exactly what you say - head for STL and build that megafacility in that area. The key will be the availability of routes for all parties involved.
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...
NKP guy tree68Looking at the issues with the J, passing new, heavier traffic through some of the 'burgs will face some serious pushback. And grade-separating those lines won't be cheap. That's not to say it can't happen, but it won't be easy. Although you make several good points, tree68, I'll take that bet. A new mega facility in Chicagoland will never be built in our lifetimes or that of our children. Because of the aforementioned NIMBYs and the general timidity in private sector financing, such a capital improvement, no matter how great its future financial benefits, can be of any interest to corporations and managements driven by an intense focus on next quarter's or this year's stock price. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to double track the main lines running into St. Louis and build some modern yards there? I mean, just imagine the costs and litigation fees involved in doing anything similar in Chicagoland! So, I'll take that bet. Nothing gets done, ever. The days of America building great things like the transcontinental railroad, or the Panama Canal, or the George Washington Bridge, let alone the Interstate highway system, appear to be over once and for all. So much for Chicago's Daniel Burnham's advice to "make no little plans." Little plans are all we do these days.
tree68Looking at the issues with the J, passing new, heavier traffic through some of the 'burgs will face some serious pushback. And grade-separating those lines won't be cheap. That's not to say it can't happen, but it won't be easy.
Although you make several good points, tree68, I'll take that bet. A new mega facility in Chicagoland will never be built in our lifetimes or that of our children. Because of the aforementioned NIMBYs and the general timidity in private sector financing, such a capital improvement, no matter how great its future financial benefits, can be of any interest to corporations and managements driven by an intense focus on next quarter's or this year's stock price.
Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to double track the main lines running into St. Louis and build some modern yards there? I mean, just imagine the costs and litigation fees involved in doing anything similar in Chicagoland!
So, I'll take that bet. Nothing gets done, ever.
The days of America building great things like the transcontinental railroad, or the Panama Canal, or the George Washington Bridge, let alone the Interstate highway system, appear to be over once and for all.
So much for Chicago's Daniel Burnham's advice to "make no little plans." Little plans are all we do these days.
The availability of land and it's cost is not that much different in St. Louis than it is in Chicago. NIMBY's are NIMBY's everywhere.
Railroads are the proof of 'Build it and they will come'. The railroads built cities, directly and indirectly, and the cities have grown to strangle the railroads abilities to grow their own facilities. Remember, anything built today, will be attempting to solve the needs of commerce in 2050 and beyond - and the past portends that the size of any vehicle today will be seriously larger by then.
As I have said, part of the reason intermodal traffic centers on Chicago in addition to all the interchange infrastructure that is already in place, there is a large contingent of traffic, from both East and West, that is destined to customers in the Greater Chicago area. I don't know what the ratio is between through and terminating traffic.
I don't know what the ratio would be between through and terminating traffic in St. Louis either, other than the Greater St. Louis area is smaller than Chicago wo relatively there would be less terminating traffic in St. Louis.
You can throw the Memphis and New Orleans gateways into the equations, however their terminating traffic would be minimal compared to either St. Louis or Chicago.
CSX does have intermodal traffic through Memphis and New Orleans gateways as well as through service to Atlanta through Birmingham with the BNSF.
I will agree that the 'what have you done THIS QUARTER' mentality of investors is a major deterrent to BIG PLANS.
[quote user="tree68"]Looking at the issues with the J, passing new, heavier traffic through some of the 'burgs will face some serious pushback. And grade-separating those lines won't be cheap. That's not to say it can't happen, but it won't be easy.
diningcarThere have been many responses but my suggestionn is: Hire all of the wisdom exhibited here at this site!!!
Hire all of the wisdom exhibited here at this site!!!
In many cases, mine in particular, I don't want to be rehired to exhibit my 'wisdom'! Been there, done that and enjoy my retirement.
The biggest issue with building a mega facility in the Chicago area is where to build it, and how to get around the NIMBYs.
North Baltimore was literally built in a corn field. You have to get a fair distance outside Chicago to find an available cornfield, then you have all of the rerouting of the various lines to get to it.
Looking at the issues with the J, passing new, heavier traffic through some of the 'burgs will face some serious pushback. And grade-separating those lines won't be cheap.
That's not to say it can't happen, but it won't be easy.
There have been many responses but my suggestionn is:
One of the major problems is that the railroads do not want to invest in a truly modern or futuristic intermodal operation. Essentially, the railroads are still working with a railroad network in Chicago designed in the late 1800's. What ought to be designed and built is a massive new collection yard operation that merges east and west intermodal trains so containers and trailers can be interchanged within a yard facility. Dray would only be used for the last mile deliveries in the region. Furthermore, the industry should merge into truly transcontinental operations. Having huge hubs in Chicago are operationally obsolete in todays shipping environment.
charlie hebdo Of course he was better known as (E. M.) Frimbo, his nom du plume.
Of course he was better known as (E. M.) Frimbo, his nom du plume.
And if you can find his book "All Aboard With E.M. Frimbo" don't pass it up, it's a great read.
The "New Yorker" was the gold standard back in Whittaker's day, that's for certain.
Certainly Whittaker was a much better writer than Lucius Beebe. What Lucius really should get credit for is making railfanning respectable, for lack of a better term. After all if an urban sophisticate like Beebe could "go public" with his fascination for railroading it certainly demonstrated it was acceptable for all and not just the province of cranks.
And it has been said Beebe is the one who jump-started the rail photo book industry.
Lucius' writing does take some getting used to, not quite out of the 19th Century and not quite into the 20th. It does make you dust off the dictionary and thesaurus! It's not bad when you get used to it.
Whittaker should be a lot better known when it comes to rail reading though.
Rogers E. M. Whitaker was a much better writer than Lucius Beebe. Of course, it didn't hurt that he was on the staff of the "New Yorker".
You're welcome NKP guy!
I was thinking about Whittaker's writing in "DOTT" today. In a way, it's almost like he's written the history of a battle, which in a way is what the railroads fought during those years. The lead-up, the battle itself, and then the aftermath.
A superb writer indeed. The prose is, for lack of a better word, almost haunting at times. Hard to put it down once you start.
Firelock76For a great tutorial (if you haven't read it already) pick up a copy of "Decade Of The Trains" by Don Ball Jr. and Rogers E.M. Whittaker. Whittaker was assigned to the Office Of Defense Transportation during the war and his prose gives you a front-row seat as to what was involved. A great read!
Thanks for the recommendation, Firelock. This book is on my shelf, although I haven't opened it for a long while except to look at the photos. You've motivated me to read the Rogers Whitaker pieces inside. He was a superb writer, whether writing about trains, the music of the 1920's, football, Broadway, or anything else.
Firelock76 charlie hebdo Firelock76 Well I don't know, bottlenecks have always existed in one form or another, but it seems to me the railroads managed to get the job done and the supplies the military needed during World War Two moved in a pretty expeditious manner, no excuses accepted. I won't say it was easy, far from it, but they got it done. Or maybe it was the idea in the back of everyone's mind that if the stuff didn't get where it had to be quickly then someone's son, either your brother's, your sister's, your neighbor's, your co-workers, or yours was going to die if you didn't. Pretty powerful motivator, that. Rail capacity was greater in WWII. Since then, some mainlines have been removed, and double or multi-track lines made single track or downgraded. Quite true. But remember, I said it still wasn't easy, especially considering the sheer increase in volume. For a great tutorial (if you haven't read it already) pick up a copy of "Decade Of The Trains" by Don Ball Jr. and Rogers E.M. Whittaker. Whittaker was assigned to the Office Of Defense Transportation during the war and his prose gives you a front-row seat as to what was involved. A great read!
charlie hebdo Firelock76 Well I don't know, bottlenecks have always existed in one form or another, but it seems to me the railroads managed to get the job done and the supplies the military needed during World War Two moved in a pretty expeditious manner, no excuses accepted. I won't say it was easy, far from it, but they got it done. Or maybe it was the idea in the back of everyone's mind that if the stuff didn't get where it had to be quickly then someone's son, either your brother's, your sister's, your neighbor's, your co-workers, or yours was going to die if you didn't. Pretty powerful motivator, that. Rail capacity was greater in WWII. Since then, some mainlines have been removed, and double or multi-track lines made single track or downgraded.
Firelock76 Well I don't know, bottlenecks have always existed in one form or another, but it seems to me the railroads managed to get the job done and the supplies the military needed during World War Two moved in a pretty expeditious manner, no excuses accepted. I won't say it was easy, far from it, but they got it done. Or maybe it was the idea in the back of everyone's mind that if the stuff didn't get where it had to be quickly then someone's son, either your brother's, your sister's, your neighbor's, your co-workers, or yours was going to die if you didn't. Pretty powerful motivator, that.
Well I don't know, bottlenecks have always existed in one form or another, but it seems to me the railroads managed to get the job done and the supplies the military needed during World War Two moved in a pretty expeditious manner, no excuses accepted. I won't say it was easy, far from it, but they got it done.
Or maybe it was the idea in the back of everyone's mind that if the stuff didn't get where it had to be quickly then someone's son, either your brother's, your sister's, your neighbor's, your co-workers, or yours was going to die if you didn't.
Pretty powerful motivator, that.
Rail capacity was greater in WWII. Since then, some mainlines have been removed, and double or multi-track lines made single track or downgraded.
Quite true. But remember, I said it still wasn't easy, especially considering the sheer increase in volume.
For a great tutorial (if you haven't read it already) pick up a copy of "Decade Of The Trains" by Don Ball Jr. and Rogers E.M. Whittaker. Whittaker was assigned to the Office Of Defense Transportation during the war and his prose gives you a front-row seat as to what was involved. A great read!
This is, at least in part, about costs and revenues. By letting the taxpayers, local and federal, subsidize them by providing roads (Which get beaten up badly by the "switcher" trucks, the rails can avoid the various costs of rail interchange, such as switching, yard expansion and local engine operation. By not using various bypass routings, they avoid short-hauling themselves and losing revenue. These increase profits but reduce efficiency.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.