So I am curious with the various rail projects around Chicago. Are we going to see a meaningful increase in speed of freight handling through the city or are more projects going to be needed? I am thinking the projects in the works now are too small to have any real impact and Chicago will still remain a city of major freight rail congestion...........which is kind of sad, that it is not being addressed in a more meaningful way.
Are there still trailers and containers being drayed on streets in Chicago for "thruough intermodal sevice?"
I'm not sure about the current situation, but they used to be moved by roads from a UP Global yard in Rochelle (~80 miles due west) to other yards in the city.
daveklepper Are there still trailers and containers being drayed on streets in Chicago for "thruough intermodal sevice?"
Unfortunately, I see human nature compensating for any and every improvement in transit times CREATE creates.
CSSHEGEWISCHdaveklepper Are there still trailers and containers being drayed on streets in Chicago for "thruough intermodal sevice?" Most definitely. I live just south of Clearing (about a mile from the crest of the hump) and not too far from Clyde and I see plenty of them on the road for interchange. A
Understand. Thanks~
Makes good sense.
Considering the multiplicity of destinations both within the Chicago area as well as final destinations of interchange traffic - it can be exceedingly difficult to aggregate a sufficient block of traffic that warrants being interchanged as a all rail block between carriers.
To even load such a block at a origin location requires a high level of dedication and skill with the loading plan.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
greyhoundsWhy do people have a problem with this?
It's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it.
The solution here is a pretty simple one though probably costly as well. The railroads solved it with UNION PASSENGER STATIONS. Do the same deal with the container yard concept. Have one per city served by all the railroads and shift the containers within the yard between railroads instead of cross town. Seems to me that would be a major cost cutter and carbon emission saver here.
Granted consolidating the yards into a central location would be difficult and getting everyone access would be difficult. So perhaps the sheer cost and effort there is what is preventing this from happening. However, I see this as something the railroads created via their competitive nature and not pushing back to figure out which way would be best so that everyone could benefit but instead having Class I carrier tunnel vision.
I don't know what can be done at this point or if making it a Federal Project would be agreeable or might help. Seems to me you would need a lot of land to accomplish possibly some new rails as well.
CMStPnP greyhounds Why do people have a problem with this? It's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it. The solution here is a pretty simple one though probably costly as well. The railroads solved it with UNION PASSENGER STATIONS. Do the same deal with the container yard concept. Have one per city served by all the railroads and shift the containers within the yard between railroads instead of cross town. Seems to me that would be a major cost cutter and carbon emission saver here.
greyhounds Why do people have a problem with this?
And as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service.
A hog can get through Chicago without changing cars. Apparently a container can't...
Borrowed freely from an early 20th century editorial...
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...
tree68Borrowed freely from an early 20th century editorial...
And that it led to the determination that very little passenger traffic actually valued going through Chicago, and the traffic that did wouldn't cover the cost to provide the service...even as a few cars, triweekly...
which is much of the point being made about the containers.
OvermodI thought it was Robert R. Young, and decidedly mid-century.
Duly noted.
The sentiment remains.
tree68 Overmod I thought it was Robert R. Young, and decidedly mid-century. Duly noted. The sentiment remains.
Overmod I thought it was Robert R. Young, and decidedly mid-century.
And the carriers that operated 'through car' services through both Chicago and St. Louis only provided that service for a few years as the demand didn't benefit the bottom line in black ink.
BaltACD CMStPnP greyhounds Why do people have a problem with this? It's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it. The solution here is a pretty simple one though probably costly as well. The railroads solved it with UNION PASSENGER STATIONS. Do the same deal with the container yard concept. Have one per city served by all the railroads and shift the containers within the yard between railroads instead of cross town. Seems to me that would be a major cost cutter and carbon emission saver here. And as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service.
Yes it is. Until 1955 it hosted all the City Streamliners as well as the 400 Fleet.
There's a lot of old, "all or nothing" thinking on display.
Spontaneous order.
charlie hebdoThere's a lot of old, "all or nothing" thinking on display.
Coupled with a lot of 'somethng for nothing' being displayed to.
greyhounds A qualification! If a decent sized block for a destination can be aggregated at origin that block can stay on the rail for transfer in Chicago in an efficient and expeditious manner. We’d do that with LTL loads from Yellow Freight moving out of E. St. Louis to Seattle routed ICG-Chicago-BN. We got a solid 10 loads per day and would use a switch crew to move them on flatcars to the BN’s Cicero intermodal terminal. It all depends on the volume and aggregation situations.
While the vast multitude of intermodal might be rubber tired across the Chicago metro area, I've seen in train lists blocks of well cars with containers all destined for the same ramp on CSX or NS. I think these might be interchanged directly to either carrier.
Jeff
The solution to the Chicago rail congestion would be to have the final round of transcontinental mergers. That would spread some routes away from Chicago, and spread other interchange points across the country.
BaltACDAnd as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service. Add Quote to your Post
Thats true but I wonder how hard it would be to flip this to a centralized terminal of multiple carriers concept so at most you can just carry the container to another waiting train vs driving it across town.
I actually drive on the Chicago freeway system at times. The congestion with trucks is horrible at times on the freeways.
CMStPnPIt's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it.
Well, so much for trying to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion on this forum. With a response like this one, that can't happen. It would have been nice during this winter lockdown. But NO. The response is "It's kind of stupid..."
As told in my presence by one Robert Reebie (As in the RoadRailer Robert Reebie) a union intermodal terminal was proposed for Chicago when he was working for the New York Central marketing department. The proposal made it all the way up to the Real Mayor Daley, AKA King Richard the 1st. Hizhonordamayor was reported to be quite enthused with the proposal.
But then some folks with pencils, paper and adding machines (It was the 1950s) started analyzing the numbers. Things just didn’t work out money wise. If any such facility had been built it would be antiquated today.
While containers and trailers stay on their railcars through Chicago when it makes sense to do so, rubber tire interchange also is used when it’s the better option.
If you’re response to this is: "It's kind of stupid..." I’ll just say you’re in denial of reality.
greyhoundsIf you’re response to this is: "It's kind of stupid..." I’ll just say you’re in denial of reality.
Oh really? Because it doesn't read like efficiency to me and it also reads like the railroads have significant issues keeping the system fluid in their own respective terminals.
https://www.midwestinlandport.com/chicago-truckers-publishing-rail-turn-times/
CMStPnP BaltACD And as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service. Add Quote to your Post Thats true but I wonder how hard it would be to flip this to a centralized terminal of multiple carriers concept so at most you can just carry the container to another waiting train vs driving it across town. I actually drive on the Chicago freeway system at times. The congestion with trucks is horrible at times on the freeways.
BaltACD And as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service. Add Quote to your Post
CMStPnP: Although we disagree about some things, I tend to agree with you that there must be a better way. Rubber interchange is only cheaper here because the rails don't incur the full costs to the rest of society of such a scheme. If trucking within city borders were reduced/banned at certain times, perhaps that would force the rails to engage in some creative, forward-leaning thought for viable solutions? Look to how this is accomplished elsewhere, including abroad, for examples?
I am not sure where people get the idea that there is congestion in the Chicago area these days. As someone who actually railroads on a daily basis there, I can say it is in pretty good shape. That is with traffic almost at pre-pandemic levels.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/news/AAR-Railroads-close-out-2020-with-traffic-near-pre-pandemic-levels--62377
I would say the one thing that is slowing things down is the reluctance to accumulate horsepower hours from other railroads. Mainline power swaps on run through trains can make it tricky at times.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944I am not sure where people get the idea that there is congestion in the Chicago area these days.
I think it might be due, in part, to the persistent propaganda pieces we read hyping the imperative to spend additional money on C.R.E.A.T.E. type projects.
Once you become accustomed to the "never ending" nature of such appeals, I think it's just human nature to accept that either there must be genuine problems worthy of attention, or alternately conclude that the appeals are outright fraud. So, in a way, I think you could say that endorsement illustrates a willingness to try and be sympathetic towards mass-transit needs?
Actually containers are moving thru Chicago by rail.
Union Pacific originates a train at their intermodal terminal south of Joliet (ICOG4) which is handed off to CSX (Q192) for North Baltimore, the big sorting yard for containers.
BNSF hands off 2 trains, one originates on Los Angeles and the other in Ft. Madison, Iowa which are handed off to CSX in Chicago (Q170 and Q172). Train Q170 is BNSF train QLACNWH6 while Q172 carries the symbol QFTMCXO1.
Meanwhile over on the NS side, train 20W is a Chicago - Croxton NJ train which is handed off from BNSF (ZLACNYC). This train originates in Los Angeles. Not sure where it picks up enroute, my guess would be Clovis, NM. This train is a very high priority movement of trailers and container, nearly all domestic UPS, FedX, YRC, and other domestic carriers. It usually carries about 150-175 trailers/containers with about 50 UPS units and perhaps 25 FedX.
There is volume concentrate to profitably move from LA to NOrth Baltimore and LA to Croxton NY. These 3 EB trains collectively will have 400 - 500 containers on a daily basis.
From North Baltimore, CSX is breaking these trains down for distribution to Louisville, Detroit, Columbus, and other locations.
I am unfamiliar with Ft. Madison operations on BNSF, so I cannot comment on how they are building that train, but my guess is block swapping is occuring with Chicago bound trains dropping off Texas, Kansas City, and other intermediate intermodal locations.
The Q192 from Union Pacific will typically only have about 100-150 domestics containers. This train typically will carry XPO branded containers with CSX and pool containers...very seldom internationals. Further, the first 30 or so cars are general freight, with refers in the mix. My guess is that CSX and UP have worked out an agreement to handle what was the "Apple Train" between Washington/California to Albany area on a daily move to North Baltimore where it is built into a Selkirk train.
So, yes there are hogs moving thru Chicago (always slaughtered) and containers. No passengers tho, without changing trains.
Ed
Reasons like this are why the pershible market for railroads has died. My boss is starting to dab his toe in the water of this market so to speak with return loads from Texas back to Illinois. Our drivers are literally going to up to 10 different places to get a trailer load of produce for a local grocery warehouse. Let alone if we ever decided to play in the West Coast markets. I asked my hubby that pulled produce out of California for years how many places he picked up out of. He pulled out his map of the coolers of Salinas and stopped counting at 90 places in a 30 mile radius of that one city. Then throw in Oxnard for berries Bakersfield for grapes and carrots the rest of the Central Valley for other produce. He literally picked up out of 300+ places in his career that all where going to about anyplace in this nation. Just imagine the railroads and their limited marketing departments trying to keep up with that today.
Shadow the Cats ownerOur drivers are literally going to up to 10 different places to get a trailer load of produce for a local grocery warehouse ... Just imagine the railroads and their limited marketing departments trying to keep up with that today.
Railroads gave up these niches, effectively, long ago. Even if management pursued them, labor considerations would likely preclude it -- even in the happy world we'd have had if RoadRailers had caught on for the traffic that would allow the heavier tare weight...
Where the rails shine is when there is aggregate traffic from the great many initiating points to put reasonable blocks or trainloads together, through to locations where the great many terminating points can then be served ... with different trucks and drivers. In my opinion the UP 'logistics' service to Rotterdam was clearly an example, and the fact they chose not to sustain it is a cautionary tale here. The same could be said, at a lesser scale, of CP Expressway used the ways that best applied.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.