Chicago drowning in trains

[MP173]

Thanks Joe for the info...I have nothing on the dates, etc.

 

I do know that the line is still in place at certain spots.  If it is still intact south of Morocco, I cannot say for sure.

Interesting how it was never scrapped.

 

ed 

[joemcspadden]

Mark--I can't fill in for Ed regarding the "meat" of your question. but there
are a couple of things I might throw out there:

1) Conrail didn't abandon the Schneider to Danville segment until 1996--
so it hasn't really been all that long.

2) My maps show that KBS operates on a tiny segment south of Sheff,
and on a 10-mile stretch between Handy and Stewart.

3) CSX operates the line between Danville and Paris, IL. Everything
south of Paris has been abandoned, but I don't know whether any of
the track is still in place.

Joe

[KCSfan]

Now, if you want to get your Indiana DOT map out, take  a look at Scheider to Danville, Il.  The old NYC Egyptian line is still in place, yes there are trees growing between the rails, but the line is there.  If they were serious, they could piecemeal a route from Elkhart to Danville and on to Decatur and St. Louis.

ed

Ed,

I am amazed to learn that the old Egyptian Line is still in place. It's been probably 50 years since I last had a glimpse of it and had assummed that today the old ROW would be occupied by houses, farms and Walmart parking lots. From your description sound like it's in near "railbanked" status. Are the rails still in place all the way to Danville, to Harrisburg or possibly even on to Cairo? Any idea who owns the property today and is there any scuttlebutt about its possible reactivatiion? The more I think about it I seem to have a vague recollection of reading that the KB&S operates over some of it today, though this may just be a figment of my imagination.

It certainly was never a trunk line and I don't recall it ever having much traffic other than the products of on-line agriculture and coal mining. In this respect it was much like the Milw's old CT&SE line that reached down into southern Indiana. The one passenger train, the Egytian, was not much more that a local though it did sport a single Chi-Harrisburg Pullman well into the 50's.

As you suggest, I can see some possibility of the segment from Danville on north figuring into a route avoiding Chicago.

Mark 

[MP173]

Joe:

The "word" on that is to make a connection for the movement of grain off of the CKIN.  At this time their only interchange is with the CSX at Wellsboro.  I believe the state kickd some $$$ into this.  The city of North Judson bought the line from CSX and owns it rather than leases it, hence they can interchange as they want.

I wouldnt be surprized if that interchange becomes busy, particularly hauling soybeans to Claypool.  NS has demonstrated they are willing to handle shorthaul grain movements (ADM in Decatur, Il). 

Second, the gap between North Judson and Wheatfield is about 15 miles.  If they can legally get a ROW for the line...who knows.  For $30 million they could have options to avoid Chicago.

Now, if you want to get your Indiana DOT map out, take  a look at Scheider to Danville, Il.  The old NYC Egyptian line is still in place, yes there are trees growing between the rails, but the line is there.  If they were serious, they could piecemeal a route from Elkhart to Danville and on to Decatur and St. Louis. 

If they put the new intermodal terminal in at Laporte....who knows?

 

ed

[joemcspadden]

Ed (mp173 Ed, that is)--

I just read a piece of news that relates to your August 16 post in this thread:

Apparently, a major construction project is well-underway at the CKIN-NS
diamond in Thomaston. Grading has been done for wyes in both the ne
and se quadrants of the diamond, and NS has apparently already done
some major grading work on both sides of the NKP main for about a
mile and a half east of the diamond.

I know absolutely nothing more than what I just posted.

Joe

[edbenton]

I lived in Streator IL for years and being honest got a few cab rides there also the curve you are talking about is on the connector itself and is a 10 MPH curve anyway and it does handle the 89 foot autoracks everyday.  The Kankakee line would need to be signalled and have a few sidings added there are 2 one at Streator and one at Kankakee and it is dispatched via Warrent control.  They could use it for doublestackers and intermodals that are going coast to coast or also GM like they do now right now it sees a Pasco WA to Conway yard PA daily and a Conway yard PA to Argentine KS daily.

[MP173]

Wow, great discussion.

It would be interesting to breakdown the traffic on the lines radiating into Chicago to see how much could avoid the city.  For instance...just how many manifest freights daily come into Proviso or Clyde Yards to be interchanged over to NS or CSX?  How many coal trains?  How much intermodal?  Break the intermodal down even further to that destined to Chicago and that going beyond. 

Where is the beyond intermodal interchanged?  Are solid trains being built out of those yards for interchange?  I hate to use the word "consultant", but this might be an instance where one is needed...with a pretty big slide rule.

A few observations:

1.  The Kankakee Belt line is in pretty good shape.  It has limitations on capacity at this time with it being unsignaled, few sidings, and that tight curve in Streator, but the actual line itself was in good shape when it was Conrail.  I cannot imagine NS allowing it to suffer.  That could possibly be signalled, etc to increase capacity coming off the BNSF.  But...have much traffic would that take away from Chicago?  BNSF/NS are already running a Galesburg-Elkhart manifest.  Routing intermodals this way would entail the tight curve at Streator and possible derailments, plus avoiding the ability for pickups/setouts at Willow Springs, Corwith, and Logistics Park.  Is there enough business to handle either a Kansas City or Clovis to NS intermodal?  Probably, but what pressures would that add to the marshalling terminal on BNSF?

2.  The Kankakee Belt does not address the UP to NS or CSX.  I believe BNSF could access CSX at Gibson, but that would mean CSX running on the Streator - Gibson segment...on NS trackage.  Hmmm.  What could motivate NS to grant those rights?  Perhaps the ability for NS to run on the CFE (owned by CSX) from Ft Wayne to Hobart.  In other words, NS grants TRs to CSX from Streator to Gibson, invests $$$ to increase capacity and CSX allows NS rights on the ex PRR out of Ft Wayne and invests $$$ to increase capacity.  Each line would become single track CTC with sidings and possibly take 6 trains daily out of Chicago.  Plus NS gets added capacity in Northern Indiana as the ex Conrail line reach capacity and the NKP gets tighter and tighter. 

3.  What about UP?  Good point.  Access to the Kank Belt would be difficult unless a route was piecemealed together with existing shortlines and big investment.  Or, the J.  But, how efficient would the J be moving around Chciago?  Does anyone have an idea of transit time from West Chciago to NW Indiana?  My guess is that once trains were added, then bottlenecks would rapidly develope.  So, does UP then build manifests from North Platte to NS at Kansas City and shorthaul themselves?  What about to CSX?  That would involve St. Louis and it is a pretty busy line from St. Louis to KC, plus getting across the Mississippi is no picnic, not as bad as Chicago, but not easy.  The ex B&O line across Southern Illinois, thru my hometown, has already seen some investment.  It could see more. 

4.  UP/CSX enjoys an efficient interchange at Salem on the freight coming up off of the ex MoPac, while BNSF/NS seems to have the uppper hand on the Chicago interchange with the Kankakee Belt.  NS is pretty good at KC, but CSX doesnt get close.  Can you see a use of the Kansas City Southern line (ex GMO) from KC to Springield, Il then rights over the NS to Decatur and then east on the CSX?  What would CSX have to give to get those rights from Springfield to Decatur?  Quite a bit, probably.  Or, isnt KCS/CSX running a Schneider intermodal train now on a similar routing, except running down to StL?

This is fun, isnt it?  No doubt all the big class 1's have folks looking at these lines and trying to figure out the least cost/highest return investments on all these shortlines and regionals in the midwest.  Secondary mainlines that NS held onto, such as the NKP lines to Ft Wayne and Frankfort are suddenly becoming very busy and very valuable.  Long live the Nickle Plate!

ed

[joemcspadden]

Excellent points in th last two posts!!

1) It likely is slightly outside the discussion topic--so if I made a mistake by
posting it here, I apologize to all.

2) I would add two more ideas--the Frankfort District (ex-LEW between
Frankfort and Muncie) and the Marion Branch (ex-Big Four between
Goshen and Anderson) are already maintained for 50 mph speeds by
NS. Some addtional signalling plus a siding or two could greatly increase
the capacity here.

3) The double-tracking of the ex-B&O--even this was a little bit of a
"shoot yourself in the foot" deal for CSX because when the Conrail
splitup deal was made and the decision made to do this, the fact is
that CSX had just recently gotten finished with the project of ripping
up the second track and single-tracking the line.

4) Of the ideas presented, the one that I think would be most difficult
would be trying to double-track lines that have always been single
track--such as the ex-NKP or the ex-Wabash. There are just too many
things in too many towns that have been built right down to the edge
of the current right-of-way. The required "impact studies" alone
would be a huge cost--not to mention the property that would have
to be purchased by the railroads.

Joe

[n012944]

 I don't think the NS will hesitate to invest the capital needed but I'm less sure about the CSX which almost seems prone to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity.

Mark

Why is that?  It was CSX that spent the money to double track the old B&O across Indiana and Ohio after the Conrail spilt.  I have heard that CSX is considering breaking the lease with the Rail America line on the ex PRR main thru Fort Wayne.  The thought process is to use the line for some of the lower class trains that are currently on the ex B&O line from Chicago to Willard.  Its a good idea although I have heard that the ex PRR line will need some major money to bring it up to main line standards.

[KCSfan]

I'm not quite sure exactly what's being discussed here. It seems that we
have been talking about two different things. If we are talking about how
to provide greater efficiency for current traffic levels by solving the "Chicago
problem," then that's one thing. A lot of the ideas presented here are
interesting and likely all have advantages and disadvantages.

But if we are talking about planning for future traffic growth, then there's
a big "elephant in the living room" that hasn't been addressed: after the
Chicago issue has been resolved through some sort of bypass or other,
where is all the traffic going to come from/go to? The ex-NYC, the ex-NKP,
the ex-Wabash, and ex-B&O are all operating pretty much at full capacity
east of the Illinois/Indiana border. None of these lines have room for many
more trains. A Chicago bypass would only do a certain amount of good
if there's no more room for trains to get through Elkhart, Fort Wayne,
Fostoria, or Toledo.

Just a thought.

Joe

Hi Joe,

You raise some interesting points which I didn't address because I thought they were outside the scope of the Chicago congestion problem. I think the answer to current and certainly future capacity problems on the roads east of Chitown is going to have to include restoration of routes that have been downgraded, or spun off, to their former mainline status e.g, the former PRR mainline through Valpo and on to Ft. Wayne and the old Big Four line to Indy and Cincy. Other lines such as the former IC main to Memphis and NO that were single tracked during the period of "rationalization" (I hate that word) are going to have to be multi-tracked again. Where possible, others that were always single track (NKP for one) are probably going to have to be double tracked. The UP on its Sunset Route and the BNSF on its transcon have bitten the bullet and done, or are in the process of doing, just that in order to provide the capacity and increased "velocity" they need right now. It's gonna take mega buck expenditures but the ROI will come from the ability to handle increased traffic volume which translates into increased revenues and profits. I don't think the NS will hesitate to invest the capital needed but I'm less sure about the CSX which almost seems prone to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity.

Mark

[joemcspadden]

I'm not quite sure exactly what's being discussed here. It seems that we
have been talking about two different things. If we are talking about how
to provide greater efficiency for current traffic levels by solving the "Chicago
problem," then that's one thing. A lot of the ideas presented here are
interesting and likely all have advantages and disadvantages.

But if we are talking about planning for future traffic growth, then there's
a big "elephant in the living room" that hasn't been addressed: after the
Chicago issue has been resolved through some sort of bypass or other,
where is all the traffic going to come from/go to? The ex-NYC, the ex-NKP,
the ex-Wabash, and ex-B&O are all operating pretty much at full capacity
east of the Illinois/Indiana border. None of these lines have room for many
more trains. A Chicago bypass would only do a certain amount of good
if there's no more room for trains to get through Elkhart, Fort Wayne,
Fostoria, or Toledo.

Just a thought.

Joe

[EJE818]

I was just around Remington last week on my vacation to Indiana Beach. TP&W still uses Hoosierlift Yard for when its trains are laying over. I think using the TP&W and the BNSF Peoria Sub would be a excellent bypass for trains for NS and CSX that currently interchange at Clyde Yard, and would allow for them to interchange at Galesburg instead of Clyde. Not only is Galesburg much less congested then Clyde, it is one of the biggest yard in the midwest and would be a excellent place to interchange. TP&W itself already interchanges with BNSF at Galesburg via the Peoria Sub, so I wouldn't see the reason 4-6 more could do the same. It wouldn't be a huge increase in traffic, but it would be good for the TP&W since the line west of Hoosierlift that passes through Reynolds and Monticello isn't used very often. I think it could all work if the pieces are put together properly this time. Santa Fe tried it with Hoosierlift and failed, but you never know what could happen if CSX or NS tried to send trains directly down the line, as it wouldn't really be neccesary to build any yards. The Kankakee Belt line is the line that passes through Momence, Kankakee, and heads on west to Streator. I think NS could possibly run a few more trains to Streator to interchange with BNSF, but that would probably be about it.

[CShaveRR]

Mark, the "Kankakee Belt" was further south than the line you're thinking of.  I know it used to go through North Judson, presumably on its way to Elkhart.  The line that joined the old Michigan Central at Gary (actually Lake Station, or East Gary) was the MC's branch to Joliet, which is all gone (a bike trail in many parts of Illinois).

As for the TP&W, the line between Effner and Logansport (originally PRR) was transferred to the TP&W when Conrail was formed.  I believe it's still part of the current TP&W.  The Santa Fe tried to make a go of this line, actually merging it for a while, and building an intermodal facility at Remington, Indiana, but the TP&W is now the TP&W once again (except for the part west of Peoria), and Hoosierlift is no more.  I guess that incarnation of the Chicago bypass, for whatever reason, didn't work.

[KCSfan]

I think the solution would be to use the EJ&E, Kankakee Belt Line, and the TP&W as bypasses. The EJ&E connects almost all of the major Chicago lines together, and could provide any of the 6 class ones in Chicago a bypass to get from one line to another. BNSF is already taking advantage of this by running trains between Eola and Joliet to connect between their two major Chicago area lines. Now intermodal and other high priority trains coming from Seattle, Portland, the Twin Cities, and other points out west on the old BN can use the EJ&E to get to the Logistics Park intermodal yard in Elwood, avoiding going through Chicago. BNSF is looking to build another intermodal facility near Coal City and if this were to happen, it would be possible even more BNSF trains could use the EJ&E to get from the west coast to this new intermodal facility. I am actually surprized UP hasn't already rerouted its Wisconsin bound coal trains down the EJ&E to Waukegan yet. CN uses the EJ&E mainly from Munger to Leighton and West Chicago to Griffith. The trains from West Chicago are autoracks that come from the UP, use the EJ&E from West Chicago to Griffith, then are interchanged from EJ&E to UP at Griffith. East of Griffith, most of the interchange traffic from CSX and NS usually uses EJ&E's own power, and the same goes for interchange with the CP at Rondout. The Kankakee Belt line and the TP&W could be used by NS or CSX trains. Trains from NS and CSX could run down the TP&W to Peoria and the BNSF Peoria Sub to interchange with the BNSF at Galesburg Yard instead of Chicago. There are already plenty of trains from both CSX and NS that interchange with BNSF at Clyde Yard. The Kankakee Belt Line could have more NS trains heading for the BNSF at Streator. I think of the two of those, the TP&W could potentially serve as the better of them as it completely bypasses Chicago.

EJ&E,

I like your ideas since they conform to my previously stated belief that ultimately it will be necessary to keep through freight completely out of Chicago and the time to start planning for it is now. I seem to recall that the Kankakee Belt line's eastern end was at a connection with the former NYC at or around Gary but I can't remember anything more specific than that. Does it even still exist today in its entirety from wherever it began in the east all the way to Streator? I could easily be mistaken but have in the back of my mind that some portion of it was abandoned (or maybe just sold off) by the PC. I think it was never signalled and was all single track which is a limitation that would have to be remedied to realize its full potential as a bypass route. Of course the same is true of the TP&W. I wonder what condition the TP&W and its former PRR connecting line are in today. On more than one occasion years ago I travelled the highway that runs alongside the TP&W east from Gilman. I was always amazed at the contrast between the well ballasted and maintained TP&W and the weed grown PRR branch that was its sole connection at Effner, IN.

Does anyone other than me remember the old Michigan Central line that paralled the J from east of Chicago Heights through Matteson and on to Joliet. I'm guessing that line was abandoned close to 40 years ago. Like with so many others, its too bad someone didn't have a crystal ball to forsee how valuable it would be today.

Mark

[EJE818]

I think the solution would be to use the EJ&E, Kankakee Belt Line, and the TP&W as bypasses. The EJ&E connects almost all of the major Chicago lines together, and could provide any of the 6 class ones in Chicago a bypass to get from one line to another. BNSF is already taking advantage of this by running trains between Eola and Joliet to connect between their two major Chicago area lines. Now intermodal and other high priority trains coming from Seattle, Portland, the Twin Cities, and other points out west on the old BN can use the EJ&E to get to the Logistics Park intermodal yard in Elwood, avoiding going through Chicago. BNSF is looking to build another intermodal facility near Coal City and if this were to happen, it would be possible even more BNSF trains could use the EJ&E to get from the west coast to this new intermodal facility. I am actually surprized UP hasn't already rerouted its Wisconsin bound coal trains down the EJ&E to Waukegan yet. CN uses the EJ&E mainly from Munger to Leighton and West Chicago to Griffith. The trains from West Chicago are autoracks that come from the UP, use the EJ&E from West Chicago to Griffith, then are interchanged from EJ&E to UP at Griffith. East of Griffith, most of the interchange traffic from CSX and NS usually uses EJ&E's own power, and the same goes for interchange with the CP at Rondout. The Kankakee Belt line and the TP&W could be used by NS or CSX trains. Trains from NS and CSX could run down the TP&W to Peoria and the BNSF Peoria Sub to interchange with the BNSF at Galesburg Yard instead of Chicago. There are already plenty of trains from both CSX and NS that interchange with BNSF at Clyde Yard. The Kankakee Belt Line could have more NS trains heading for the BNSF at Streator. I think of the two of those, the TP&W could potentially serve as the better of them as it completely bypasses Chicago.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It's already been built, it's called the EJ&E. And to many are missing out. and as far as the Kankakeee connection is concerned, it needs a serious rebuilding. And what about Peoria, Hu? That used to be a major point, now seriously under utilized. Springfield? Same thing. Carbondale, Vandalia, on and on and on. Illinois WAS the gateway state, what happened?

NYC pushed the Kankakee Belt in the Official Guide for years as a Chicago bypass, and almost nothing came of it until the Penn Central era.  TP&W and GB&W got some traffic as Chicago bypasses, the same holds for the Peoria Gateway.  But compared to what went through Chicago, they were still pretty small.

EJ&E was never a major factor because its route is outside the Chicago Switching District.  In the regulated era, this would mean that it would have to be included in routing instructions in order to get the traffic.  BRC and IHB did not have to contend with this restriction since they were withing the boundaries of the Chicago Switching District.  In effect, EJ&E had to sell its routing and services to shippers, BRC and IHB had to sell their routing and services to other railroads.

[snagletooth]

It's already been built, it's called the EJ&E. And to many are missing out. and as far as the Kankakeee connection is concerned, it needs a serious rebuilding. And what about Peoria, Hu? That used to be a major point, now seriously under utilized. Springfield? Same thing. Carbondale, Vandalia, on and on and on. Illinois WAS the gateway state, what happened?

[n012944]

Regarding east-west traffic that neither originates nor terminates in
Chicago, there's a lot of it that has no need to get anywhere near the
city of Chicago.

We may find that the majority of the future planning and long-term
capital expenditures take place in locations far removed from the Windy
City. NS, for instance, has made it pretty clear that the gateways of
Meridan, MS, Memphis, and Kansas City figure much more prominently
in their future plans than do new routes through the Chicago area.

I am not stubbornly wedded to this scenario--I just throw it out there
as food for thought.

Regards, Joe McSpadden
Wabash, IN

Well KC is kind of a no brainer for the NS to use as a gateway.  As it is a longer hall for the NS it would mean more $$$$$.  Only problem is that the western roads have a shorter hall and make less money, not something that would go over to well in Omaha and DFW.

[joemcspadden]

Regarding east-west traffic that neither originates nor terminates in
Chicago, there's a lot of it that has no need to get anywhere near the
city of Chicago.

We may find that the majority of the future planning and long-term
capital expenditures take place in locations far removed from the Windy
City. NS, for instance, has made it pretty clear that the gateways of
Meridan, MS, Memphis, and Kansas City figure much more prominently
in their future plans than do new routes through the Chicago area.

I am not stubbornly wedded to this scenario--I just throw it out there
as food for thought.

Regards, Joe McSpadden
Wabash, IN

[MP173]

Trains had a special Chicago issue several yaers ago.

 

CTC Board, May 2004 has a full issue on Chicago.  I have another railfan magazine upstairs devoted to Chicago...i will find it tomorrow.

Murph contact me by private message and I will get you a little more info.

 

ed

 

[Murphy Siding]

     Can anyone recommend some good books about the modern railroad scene in Chicago?

     -Thanks

[MP173]

Mark:

Good points about addressing future problems.  The issue with that is that a CEO will not commit capital to a project which is not necessary 20/30/40 years down the road.  If he does, he will be gone very quickly.  Think back 7 years ago and the Rob Krebs investments ("if you build it, they will come").  Well, Mr. Krebs was a visionary, but Wall Street objected to "unnecessary" investment.  Warren Buffett is very grateful, as are long term shareholders.

Nor will the government build out that far in the future and with good reason.  We are not exactly sure what that timeframe will hold for us do we?   What happens to the need for capacity if within 30 years we are suddenly generating 50% of our energy needs thru a source different than today and all those coal trains are being cut up for scrap?

Planning is critical, no doubt about it.  Investing in the future should be done with a fairly high level of certainty.

ed

[KCSfan]

If you go back to the first couple of pages of this thread and the posts by O.S., it should be appearant that the "belt line" solution, including increasing the capacity of the "J",has very little merit for a great number of reasons.  One of the biggest reasons is that with all the trunk lines radiating out of Chicago, there are very few "full trainloads" actually coming off one trunk destined intact to another trunk. 

The problem I have with this thinking is that it's based on today's modus operandi which I believe will have to change sometime in the future. Perhaps I'm thinking too "far out of the box" but I forsee a time when the trunk lines entering Chicago will make up trains consisting of blocks of cars with individual blocks destined for the railroad route they will take leaving Chicago. These blocked trains will be dropped off at the inbound trunkline's interchange with the bypass. The bypass will break the train down into its individual component blocks which will be aggregated with blocks from inbound trains interchanged from other railroads along the bypass that are destined for the same outbound route. This will occur successively along the bypass line until a full train is aggregated and moved intact to the interchange of the bypass line with the trunkline route the aggregated blocks of cars are destined to take outbound from Chicago. I can think of several variations on this scheme but this should suffice to convey my general thinking.  Of course through unit trains will simply be conveyed intact over the bypass line from the inbound route interchange to the interchange with their outbound route.

Mark

[KCSfan]

First off thanks for the comments so many of you posted in reply to my original suggested remedy to the problem. I grew up along the IC in  Flossmoor and Homewood on the far south side not too far from Matteson and married a gal from Waukegan thus I have some knowledge of the EJ&E. While I moved far away about 45 years ago, we make trips back to the Chicago area to visit relatives so I still have at least a limited knowledge of the Chicago area railroad scene.

My basic problem with all the proposals I have read about is they aren't IMHO far reaching enough. While they may alleviate today's problems I haven't seen a one that adresses the problems that can be expected 20, 30 or 40 years in the future based on projected growth in both rail traffic and the Chicago metropolitan area. I also don't think any of them factors in the possible resurgence of inter-city passenger rail service in the midwest corridors whose focus will be Chicago. Rail congestion in Chicagoland is only going to become far more acute than it currently is. Any solution should be based on keeping the expected future volume of through freight out of the Chicago metro area as it is likely to to be defined 40 or so years in the future. Mucho dinero and time will be required and now is the time to stop focusing only on alleviating today's problems and start to plan for what will be required much farther in the future. But again that is only MHO.

I like the idea of utilizing the old Kankakee Belt line particularly if it could be expanded farther west then north. It has potential for providing some much needed relief and fits my general premise of keeping as much traffic out of the metro area as possible. I also like bringing the TP&W into play as someone suggested. Perhaps someday it will truly become the "Peoria Gateway" as it once advertised.

Mark 

Maek

[jeaton]

If you go back to the first couple of pages of this thread and the posts by O.S., it should be appearant that the "belt line" solution, including increasing the capacity of the "J",has very little merit for a great number of reasons.  One of the biggest reasons is that with all the trunk lines radiating out of Chicago, there are very few "full trainloads" actually coming off one trunk destined intact to another trunk.  When there is such a condition, you can be sure that the carriers involved have worked out the best possible interchange, either right through town, using a "belt" connection or interchanging at another gateway.

More than anything else CREATE is trying to address is the congestion that results from the movement of interchange of less than trainload quantities of cars moving through the Chicago gateway.  This project has moved way beyond the "gee, we have a problem" stage.  A great deal of the work identifying the specific problem areas came from the frequent meetings of the railroads' Chicago area operating managers.  Their primary mission was to attempt to cooperate with the use of the limited resources in a manner that reduces delays.  From that you get to specifics, such as by directional signaling, a crossover here or there, and improved interchange track alignment.  A great deal more work was done by all the people assigned to the project and after some considerable effort a final plan was produced. 

The initial government funding fell way below even the minimum expected, but if I understand correctly, a few hundred million of the estimated two billon dollars needed to complete the job has been appropriated and is being applied to th "best bang for the buck" pieces.  I think the recently completed Bedford Park crossing is one piece.  If I recall correctly, CREATE calls for a flyover at that junction, but changing that at grade crossover from a mandatory stop and proceed to a proceed with a clear signal has probably provided a nice reduction in total delay minutes.

It is all about stuff like that.

[edbenton]

BNSF and NS already are exchanging whole trains at Streator IL daily to avoid Chicago whats to say in a couple years they do not ramp that up a little more.

[chicagorails]

  rochelle il, is a great hub.   bnsf needs to build one there too  

TP&W from ft. madison ia to ind. bnsf could shave a day off trains  thru there.

[Poppa_Zit]

Just for some perspective for those who have never seen *Railroad Chicago*, the acreage occupied by freight yards in the Chicago area was once larger than the area of Rhode Island.

[CShaveRR]

Just saw this thread for the first time and have two comments:

1. If true the rest of the country eat your hearts out!

2.  Went by Proviso yard on I-294 yesterday (8/15) and there must have been 60 UP diesels on the ready tracks waiting to head west.  have no idea if this is related but never saw that may before

1.  My idea of a good vacation is having friends come here and share the action.  There are still places like Cajon, Fostoria, and Camp Mookie where the action is almost as good (and seemingly better, because it's concentrated in one spot), but yes, we do love our trains around here!

2.  Possibly a bit fewer than sixty, and I'm afraid you may have been looking at a storage line (furthest south), containing a number of SD40-2s and derivatives, among other things.  Of course, there could have been a half-dozen or so sets of power there for departing trains as well.

[CShaveRR]

I'm not understanding why it would be necessary to route traffic around all of the suburbs.  The way the railroads operate in Chicago at the present time, even the EJ&E is too far out to be an effective connection.

As for conflicts with Metra, most railroads do a reasonably good job of keeping them moving.  Isn't Metra's on-time performance among the best (if not the best) in the country?  This is in spite of sharing some trackage with two of the busiest freight lines out of town.  Metra wants to expand service on UP West, and is willing to do its share toward the added crossovers and mainline trackage to accomplish it.  The other big problem I've heard about is that Metra won't put any more trains on their Heritage Corridor because of conflicts with other routes--CREATE intends to address one or two of those, too.

CREATE's intention is to make some of the routes through the city--the Western Avenue corridor and the IHB (with a few changes at the south end) into cleaned-up minimal-congestion corridors that could be utilized, with proper planning, to reduce or eliminate delays in cross-town interchange freight.  A few new tracks, but no new rights-of-way that I'm aware of.

KCSFan, you may not have heard, but Hizzoner (sorry, the son of Hizzoner) wants to plan the Crosstown Expressway again, as a quicker way through Chicago.  Wish him luck--I think thay're counting on usurping some railroad rights-of-way that "nobody" uses.

And Ed:  it was a little longer ago than last week, on a thread far, far away (locked), where I stepped (well, maybe stomped) on a few toes, rubbed some fur the wrong way, and turned a blizzard hot--a pretty fair day's work.  No, you didn't really miss anything.