1. Coal ain't coming back.
2. Now that it's been doubletracked, the old B&O Chicago line can handle all the traffic.
3. Face it, except for Cincinnati, the St Louis line misses every major city along the way.
Coal ain't comin' back but that exactly makes a point for the line's revival. It would be a good route for CSX for intermodal from Philly & Baltimore to St. Louis where they could connect with the UP & BNSF.
The B&O double track line to Chicago has been turned into a steel super highway, but it goes to Chicago, NOT St. Louis.
Although I still don't think this is possible, just for fun, I am in communcation with a gentleman from the Ohio Rail Development Commission. I would like them to at least take some kind of an inventory of the abandoned right of way.
If Biden and the Congress can agree on a huge infrastructure spending spree, that could possibly help fund the thing.
We built super highways in the 1950s and '60s. I wonder if the time has come to reexamine that and do something different. Perhaps Biden might even agree with that although, to be honest, I wouldn't have voted for him :(
Regards,
FMC
If you have most of your intermodal service going to and from Chicago, you have multiple connections to and from various points in the West with UP and BNSF. Where do intermodal connections in St. Louis go besides Texas?
Fred M CainCoal ain't comin' back but that exactly makes a point for the line's revival. It would be a good route for CSX for intermodal from Philly & Baltimore to St. Louis where they could connect with the UP & BNSF. The B&O double track line to Chicago has been turned into a steel super highway, but it goes to Chicago, NOT St. Louis. Although I still don't think this is possible, just for fun, I am in communcation with a gentleman from the Ohio Rail Development Commission. I would like them to at least take some kind of an inventory of the abandoned right of way. If Biden and the Congress can agree on a huge infrastructure spending spree, that could possibly help fund the thing. We built super highways in the 1950s and '60s. I wonder if the time has come to reexamine that and do something different. Perhaps Biden might even agree with that although, to be honest, I wouldn't have voted for him :( Regards, FMC
The costs of making the Cumberland - Cincinnati B&O line able to handle 21st Century clearance traffic (double stacks & auto racks) in addition to the minimal non-clearance traffic on the line, makes restoration of the line cost prohibitive.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Fred M Cain The B&O double track line to Chicago has been turned into a steel super highway, but it goes to Chicago, NOT St. Louis.
BaltACD The costs of making the Cumberland - Cincinnati B&O line able to handle 21st Century clearance traffic (double stacks & auto racks) in addition to the minimal non-clearance traffic on the line, makes restoration of the line cost prohibitive.
Mark Meyer
Backshop But the Big 4 route does. With mergers and consolidations, St Louis isn't what it once was. You also have to take into account where your western partner built up their infrastructure. There's a reason UP bought C&NW and why the BNSF southern transcon ends in Chicago.
But the Big 4 route does. With mergers and consolidations, St Louis isn't what it once was. You also have to take into account where your western partner built up their infrastructure. There's a reason UP bought C&NW and why the BNSF southern transcon ends in Chicago.
Fred M CainHowever, I guess my own personal point of view is that I do not like property taxes for the reason that the owner(s) get taxed based on what someone decided the property is worth and NOT on the owner's ability to pay that tax.
In economics class you learn that land is one of the basic components of the economy. Basing property taxes on what the land is worth tends to keep it in its most economically viable use. Purchasing or owning land is like buying anything else, if the buyer does not have the ability to pay, than he probably shouldn't buy it. Taxes are a cost of doing business. If you didn't have property taxes, then speculators would buy up all the land, and charge you a $milion to buy any of it.
MidlandMike Fred M Cain However, I guess my own personal point of view is that I do not like property taxes for the reason that the owner(s) get taxed based on what someone decided the property is worth and NOT on the owner's ability to pay that tax. In economics class you learn that land is one of the basic components of the economy. Basing property taxes on what the land is worth tends to keep it in its most economically viable use. Purchasing or owning land is like buying anything else, if the buyer does not have the ability to pay, than he probably shouldn't buy it. Taxes are a cost of doing business. If you didn't have property taxes, then speculators would buy up all the land, and charge you a $milion to buy any of it.
Fred M Cain However, I guess my own personal point of view is that I do not like property taxes for the reason that the owner(s) get taxed based on what someone decided the property is worth and NOT on the owner's ability to pay that tax.
And Zoning and Taxes have been used many times to force people off land that has been in their families for centuries by making the taxes more than the owners can afford. Racial cleansing.
O.K. This is what I'm looking at here. I don't want to get anyone's hopes up here nor do I claim to either support this or oppose it. But I was looking at Joe Biden's website here:
https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/
Then if you scroll down far enough on that page you will come to this:
Now here's the thing: I feel like I've sat through this movie before. So getting your hopes up is very, very premature.
But like I mentioned in an e-mail to the guy at ORDC, states need to start making plans just in case funds do become available. There might be possible funding for rebuilding a line like that - or not.
It didn't hurt me at all to make an effort on this. I will almost certainly get nowhere with it but, I have lost nothing.
Fred M. Cain
Fred M Cainstates need to start making plans just in case funds do become available. There might be possible funding for rebuilding a line like that - or not.
It is also relatively low down on the list of projects that state agencies have much of an interest in.
I confess to thinking that if there is sufficient interest in high speed on this route, that finishing the cutoff that was stalled in 1937, and perhaps extending it as proposed to get around Glorieta as well, makes far more sense that expensively restoring 4+%. If national-scope Keynesian funds exist to do what ATSF should have done then -- and I think it is more practical than ever, with the Chinese investments in TLM and self-launching viaduct construction -- then spend it there and don't waste time trying to turbocharge a sow's ear.
Overmod,
It was actually the Parkersburg-Cincinnati line that I wrote to ORDC about. I'm afraid the Raton Pass line might just be a "basket case". Nevertheless, the feds might end up throwing money at it anyway since it's part of the basic Amtrak "National System". We'll just have to wait and see what happens there.
Fred M CainIt was actually the Parkersburg-Cincinnati line that I wrote to ORDC about.
Fred M CainBut like I mentioned in an e-mail to the guy at ORDC, states need to start making plans just in case funds do become available. There might be possible funding for rebuilding a line like that - or not.
A big federal scheme to electrify rail lines will focus more traffic on these mainlines, and lessen the chance of rebuilding long abandoned secondary lines.
I hate to say this but Fred sounds like a hoarder. He wants to save everything "just in case".
BaltACD: My Great Uncle Jimmy Diehl was the operator/agent at Mason, WV (south of Parkersburg) for many years. I had to laugh out loud when you wrote:
BaltACD The CSX Ohio River Subdivision runs from Wheeling through Parkersburg to Guyandotte, a few miles East of Huntington where it connects with the Kanawha Subdivision that does terminate in Huntington. This line was never the Main Line to St. Louis.
I can't imagine anyone ever thinking of that line as a "Main Line" to anywhere.
One of my earliest memories is of "helping" Uncle Jimmy by hooping a "19" order to the crew of an approaching Q4 (?). The fireman had to come almost to the bottom of the steps to reach the order held up for him by a scrawny 8-year old who was scared stiff at the size of that engine bearing down on him.
ChuckAllen, TX
I'd like to add a few thoughts, and a little history.
The Northwestern Virginia Railroad built the line between Grafton and Parkersburg, opening it in 1857 to form a more-or-less continuous link between Tidewater at Baltimore and the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Northwestern Virginia was a B&O subsidiary, while the Central Ohio RR and Ohio & Mississippi RR were closely allied with the B&O.
The B&O had reached Wheeling, on the Ohio River, in late 1852. But that was largely a political decision to placate the State of Virginia. The B&O had very much wanted to hit the Ohio River Valley further to the south, partly because the Ohio was unimproved, and water levels fluctuated more the closer to Pittsburgh you got. Parkersburg was a better, and in winter a more reliably ice-free, port.
It is important to keep in mind that in those days, St. Louis was older, more prosperous, and generally more important than Chicago, which until 1833 or so was a mere frontier outpost.
At the end of the Civil War, the B&O's operating scheme was as follows:
The "Main Stem" comprised four divisions of roughly 100 miles each: Baltimore to Martinsburg, Martinsburg to Piedmont, Piedmont to Grafton, and Grafton to Wheeling.
The B&O opened the Frederick Branch in 1831, Washington Branch in 1835, and other branchs from the Main Stem. When the B&O fully absorbed the Northwestern Virginia after a few years, it simply called it the Parkersburg Branch in similar fashion. But it was always considered a main line route.
Until after WW II, there was a robust amount of local, long-haul, and bridge traffic on the St. Louis line. There many several reasons that dried up.
First was the general tendency for American industry to reinvent itself more-or-less continually--constant mergers, factory closings, consolidation, and greater efficiency. That cost a great deal of traffic.
Second was a similar trend in the railroad industry. By 1900, everyone understood the crux of the"Railroad Problem," as it was known: Too much trackage, too many companies, an increasingly complex regulatory regime (at first needed, then too rigid). Congress responded in the 1920s with a series of transportation policies, and the ICC worked with Eastern railroads to devise a system of rational mergers into 4 or 5 Big Systems. Those ideas have permeated the industry down to the present.
Obviously competition from trucks, busses, barge lines, and a little later, airlines had a profound effect, temporarily eased only by WW II.
That is background for a few additional thoughts. After about 1890, it was clear that Chicago had won primacy, and the entire railroad industry pivoted in that Direction. St. Louis continued to grow, but much more slowly, and it retained a more north-south orientation, vs. the east-west orientation of Chicago. It took about that long for the B&O to solidify full control of the through route from Parkersburg to St. Louis. The St. Louis line west of Cincinnati was never strong. There was enough online industry and interline traffic to keep it healthy, but never robust.
It is also useful to keep in mind the dizzying rate of change in the railroad industry, and American business in general, after about 1960. Traffic patterns changed, railroad mergers scrambled the logic of interchange points and pricing, technologies like dieselization, CTC, and S&C utterly revolutionized operations, as did roller bearings, hump yards, and so on.
I suppose my point is that after about 1960, the entire railroad industry was in churn and no one quite knew what to do about it. From 1960 to about 1980--what I regard as the nadir of traditional railroading--was probably the most fraught and dangerous twenty years in railroad history.
So let's not be too hard on the B&O and C&O folks who were rather desperately trying to meld the strengths of each and mitigate the weaknesses of both. One could argue that, with all of the chnges crashing around and the information available to them, the decision to essentially abandon the mid-19th century Baltimore-to-St. Louis pattern was simply survival and good business as they saw it at the time.
Abandoning the Branch from Clarksburg to Parkersburg was sad, but also inevitable. There was little if any online traffic. There was a good (better) substitute route from Clarksburg, to the Ohio River Line at New Martinsville, then a short hop down to Parkersburg.
The Branch west of Clarksburg was also a hard piece of railroad to run. Too much cross drainage, too many hills and tunnels, and far too many curves. It was slow going, as you might expect from an 1850s railroad made by hand in mountainous territory. The tunnel improvements of the 1960s helped a bit. But as has been pointed out, no one even imagined the possibilities and consequences of double stacks.
In the late 1960s, the B&O was taking up much of the second main track on the Chicago line just to make payroll. In the 1970s, Chessie was deep into downsizing, physical plant retirement, de-marketing, and generally in a fight for survival.
The East Coast-St. Louis intermodal market was never large and always hotly contested. The idea of small and medium places having their own TOFCEE facilities came to be recognized as folly, skinning whatever profits were to be had on already thin-margin business. The slow expansion of the Interstate Highway System created untenable situations. The creation of CSX sealed the St. Louis line's fate.
It was an example of death-by-a-thousand-cuts, or a practical inevitability in the changed landscape of the late 20th century. Trying to get it back would be like trying to unscramble an egg.
John Hankey,
I think that is a good historical summary and analysis. Thanks for shedding more light on this issue.
Backshop1. Coal ain't coming back. 2. Now that it's been doubletracked, the old B&O Chicago line can handle all the traffic. 3. Face it, except for Cincinnati, the St Louis line misses every major city along the way.
The reality is that Cincinnati is the only 'big' city on a nominal straight line between Baltimore/Washington and St. Louis. To include Columbus & Indianpolis on such a route would add hundreds of miles to the overall route.
BaltACDThe reality is that Cincinnati is the only 'big' city on a nominal straight line between Baltimore/Washington and St. Louis.
To make this an optimized high-speed bridge route for intermodal traffic -- likely the only service that would 'benefit' from a shorter route with insignificant online traffic generation -- would require far more expense than, say, the Pennsylvania put into a far faster route across Ohio and Indiana, via Columbus, both to St. Louis and toward Chicago. I don't think this is money the B&O ever had access to.
You know one thing that just occurred to me here after watching that PennCentral film, the taxpayers spent HUGE amounts of money to completely rebuild Conrail's St Louis line. On the other hand, taxpayers probably pain NO money to Chessie System for enlarging the tunnels or straightening curves on the Parkersburg line. This might've put the ex-B&O line at somewhat of a disadvantage following the Conrail era.
It's hard to believe that it had no effect. Indeed, the decision to downgrade and close the line completely wasn't made until 1985. By that time Conrail had a steel superhighway to St. Louis.
So, I still think the whole thing is most unfortunate. "The Nation Pays Again"
Fred M CainOn the other hand, taxpayers probably paid NO money to Chessie System for enlarging the tunnels or straightening curves on the Parkersburg line.
If strategic TOFC/COFC service from the East to St. Louis was a goal, putting money in the Conrail line made better sense. You'd throw a mint of money at that line through Cincinnati and still have an operational sow's ear by comparison. In a deregulated, more competitive world where freight cost the same to send by either route, there might be a call for making a route somewhat less uncompetitive operationally. Once you'd gotten into Staggers et al. much of this was gone, and in addition there was the misfortune of All Those Redundant Conrail Tracks to be considered.
Overmod BaltACD The reality is that Cincinnati is the only 'big' city on a nominal straight line between Baltimore/Washington and St. Louis. But any railroad between Baltimore and St. Louis will be ridiculously far from a nominal straight airline, too. To make this an optimized high-speed bridge route for intermodal traffic -- likely the only service that would 'benefit' from a shorter route with insignificant online traffic generation -- would require far more expense than, say, the Pennsylvania put into a far faster route across Ohio and Indiana, via Columbus, both to St. Louis and toward Chicago. I don't think this is money the B&O ever had access to.
BaltACD The reality is that Cincinnati is the only 'big' city on a nominal straight line between Baltimore/Washington and St. Louis.
But any railroad between Baltimore and St. Louis will be ridiculously far from a nominal straight airline, too.
The B&O didn't BUILD the line - they bought and/or merged with separate companies that built the various sections of the line West of Grafton.
The B&O itself - built less than half the physical plant that was operated at the B&O Railroad of the pre-C&O merger era. Most was from the purchase or merger of various other companies.
BaltACDThe B&O didn't BUILD the line - they bought and/or merged with separate companies that built the various sections of the line West of Grafton.
Overmod BaltACD The B&O didn't BUILD the line - they bought and/or merged with separate companies that built the various sections of the line West of Grafton. I know this. I also know that getting it to support anything larger than a ~1900 MCB freight car with archbar trucks pulled by early steam would have implied more or less complete rebuilding -- probably multiple rebuildings by the time heavy and fast bridge traffic developed.
BaltACD The B&O didn't BUILD the line - they bought and/or merged with separate companies that built the various sections of the line West of Grafton.
I know this. I also know that getting it to support anything larger than a ~1900 MCB freight car with archbar trucks pulled by early steam would have implied more or less complete rebuilding -- probably multiple rebuildings by the time heavy and fast bridge traffic developed.
Railroading from the laying of the first stone of the B&O on July 4, 1828 up to today has been a never ending series of rebuilding of the physical plant to higher and higher standards. Today's railroads are not 'finished products' they are in the process of being rebuilt to continue to exist in 2030, 2040, 2050 and beyond.
Just a few things that I looked up or thought of...
St Louis is only the 20th largest metro area in the United States. It may have been important once as an interchange point but it's not important as a destination point.
Balt can correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't St Louis mostly EB intermodal? If so, the originating western carrier has a big say-so in where they want to interchange. They also want the longest haul possible.
Even with enlarged Panama Canal, I believe that most container traffic at East Coast ports is for "local" destinations under probably 300-400 miles. I doubt if much is interchanged with the western roads. What is can be handled by the current interchanges. Another thing to remember is that the merger movement changes things completely. The B&O and then Chessie were basically Northeasten quadrant railroads. Once they merged with the Seaboard System, that opend up the southern interchanges. So stuff that came east that B&O wanted at St Louis can now go via Memphis or New Orleans if they aren't for the Northeast.
I thnk the PRR "Panhandle" route across central Ohio and Indiana, between Pittsburg and St. Louis via Columbus, would have been a superior route from St. Louis to the Mid-Atlantic region. It also parallels I-70, and a railroad/interstate co-located should be attractive to industry. Most of the route is still intact, except for the middle section between Dayton and Indianapolis. I would much rather see that restored, rather than the B&O line.
BackshopSo stuff that came east that B&O wanted at St Louis can now go via Memphis or New Orleans if they aren't for the Northeast.
Note that St. Louis built one of the largest union stations at the time -- I'll have to check if in fact is was the largest when built in 1894 -- on the promise that much of the transcontinental traffic from the Northeast to Southwestern points would go through there instead of Chicago. I suspect that at least some of this foundered on the specific fates of railroads and their combinations in this general era, particularly the spectacular failure of the Gould roads between roughly 1906 (when the Ramsay Survey offered by far the fastest route to New York) and the fallout of the panic of 1907. There were factors favoring Chicago in particular as the gateway to the routes that then mattered, and I don't think there was ever quite enough effort in the period of full regulation to make a St. Louis route distinctively competent over a longer but generally far better trafficked one.
As just noted, the ex-Panhandle route (part of which became the Ohio Central of sainted memory) is a natural high-speed connection between what remains of a Northeast industrial traffic source and a relatively uncongested route west. What may make a measurable difference here is the plan to rebuild the Merchant's Bridge with straight access and a good ballasted deck; if this were properly CBTC-signaled a tremendous amount of priority freight traffic could cross the Mississippi here, with generally better routes than available currently west of Memphis, and nearly certainly better than anything immediately west of New Orleans considering the long and not too quick dogleg south.
Memphis certainly has a reasonable route to the southeast along the ex-Frisco. But this has resolutely remained single-track starting not far west of Tennessee Yard in Capleville, and while there appears to be considerable capacity for more traffic, a considerable amount of work would be needed either to enlarge siding length or properly multiple-track it. West along the ex-Southern, or northeast on ex-L&N to Bowling Green, are not exactly fast Z-train potential, and both are ridiculous routes to the East in general. There is nothing north of Memphis that provides any sensible alternative for 'transcontinental' routing without substantial construction, and I think you'd have to go to Vicksburg and the Meridian Speedway to find anything of particular worth south of Memphis.
One thing that I never fully understood was the failure of the 35th Parallel route, which was completely built out and operated substantially into the Sixties. Make that good compensated double track and tie into logical 'train sources' for bridge traffic, and you would have a very fast railroad across two-thirds of the continent. (Of course it stops there, at Memphis...)
Uh-oh. Are you insinuating that it might be worth considering rebuilding some abandoned lines or am I misunderstanding that by a long shot? If you are even remotely suggesting such blasphemy, you are starting to think dangerously a little bit like me. :)
But, in all seriousness, I am baffled about why the railroads look upon the St. Louis Gateway and somewhat unfavorable.
They keep complaining and complaining about congestion in and around Chicago so it seems like St. Louis might be a way to bypass the mess at least as far as true transcontinental traffic is concerned.
Traffic - esp hot intermodal traffic - moving from the Northeast could be turned over to the You Pee's ex-MoPac line at St. Louis then routed over the former Golden State line west of KC to the Southwest.
It's a shame in my own opinion that we actually lost BOTH the ex B&O line from Grafton AND the ex-PRR "Panhandle" line. Guys on our group might not agree with my assessment on this but I have communicated with some others who do. I don't know what can be done about it. For CSX it appears that the best solution would be to really beef up their Cumberland-Greenwich, OH-Indianapolis route into a real speedway which might at least compensate for it being so circuitous. But first things first. They really need to address the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore.
The CSX route from Selkirk to St. Louis really isn't too bad, though.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.