Dale:Not exactly sure what is going on with the DME PRB coal extention, but...if CN merges with DME and makes a charge for Wyoming, then the EJE would be a great buy, if they had a little spare change.
EJE serves a number of coal powered genstations in Chicago area. Otherwise, I cannot see CN being interested in shorthaul coal trains to Joliet, Waukegan, Stateline, etc.
I have always thought Kirk Yard in Gary is very underutilized. Not sure how it would fit into the CN Chicago system, but it would give them another option.
ed
nanaimo73 wrote: I have the feeling that the next merger will be CN acquiring the EJE, which connects with all 5 CN lines in Chicago.
Don't forget that EJ&E connects with all six of UP's lines (not counting the two trackage-rights lines) out of Chicago. I think that if CN were to try to obtain the EJ&E, the best it could do would be a draw with the UP, which delivers most of the coal to Joliet, some to Waukegan via that route, and has the potential for detouring much of its Wisconsin-bound coal over that route to bypass Proviso.
As for better utilizing Kirk Yard, don't look for CN to be the vehicle by which this would happen--it would be at the end of a long spur (from Griffith) for their purposes, with nothing but non-friendly connections on the other end.
CN pulled out of CREATE a while back--a big mistake, in my opinion. They had the most to gain if all of the plans were carried out, including a route through town that would connect all of their radiating lines and fly over (or duck under) those of the competitors.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Dan
CNW 6000 wrote:Maybe the CN and UP will split the EJ&E or do a trackage rights deal with ownership split.
Whoa, there. This is all whimsical speculation, Dan. This is how rumors start.
CN and UP would make very strange bed partners, methinks.
A great sub topic of this discussion is the value of the J. As time goes on, the value only increases. What an interesting railroad.
Poppa_Zit wrote: CNW 6000 wrote:Maybe the CN and UP will split the EJ&E or do a trackage rights deal with ownership split. Whoa, there. This is all whimsical speculation, Dan. This is how rumors start.CN and UP would make very strange bed partners, methinks.
I know PZ, my post is speculation also. I'm not the Almighty Source for either road (or any for that matter). Sometimes mutually beneficial partnerships make for strange bedfellows: that was my only overriding thought here.
MP173 wrote: A great sub topic of this discussion is the value of the J. As time goes on, the value only increases. What an interesting railroad. ed
Yes. But right now the J -- which in the "golden days" ran in the middle of nowhere (farmland far west of the population center) -- is quickly becoming surrounded by suburban sprawl. If through CREATE or another means they are going to double-track the line, they need to do it soon before more NIMBYs buy homes along the ROW.
Poppa_Zit wrote:they need to do it soon before more NIMBYs buy homes along the ROW.
Well, at least in the Mundelein area it seems that the J has pretty significant ROW space. The land around it is already developed and the subdivisions are set back pretty far where there already aren't multiple tracks. But there would be significant complications with all the highways, the Des Plaines river, and the CN and Metra tracks just in a 5 mile stretch. I can only imagine the issues that may crop up further south.
Do you think the J is profitable enough (or could be) to warrant grade separation? That would certainly save a lot of time at the Metra tracks in Rondout, just from what I have personally seen.
CShaveRR wrote: Don't forget that EJ&E connects with all six of UP's lines (not counting the two trackage-rights lines) out of Chicago. I think that if CN were to try to obtain the EJ&E, the best it could do would be a draw with the UP, which delivers most of the coal to Joliet, some to Waukegan via that route, and has the potential for detouring much of its Wisconsin-bound coal over that route to bypass Proviso.
I'm guessing UP would be happy with trackage rights to the power plants. Isn't their net income for the next few years required for the Sunset route, and other constrained lines ?
BTW Carl, I enjoy reading your posts and I am glad you are still on the forum. I feared you might leave after what happened last week.
Thanks, Dale! Too much of a railfan to stay away.
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
It seems to me that the CREATE proposal is a case of too little too late. If the projected growth in rail traffic materializes it will be outdated by the time it could be implemented and the billions spent on it will have been wasted. Far better to spend that money on the J which itself can only be a stopgap solution to Chicago's growing rail congestion.
The real solution is to keep all rail freight traffic out of the Chicago metropolitan area except that destined inside its bounds. 50 or more years ago highway planners recognized a similar need to keep through trucks and autos out of Chicago resulting in the Illinois Tollway stretching around and outside of the city from Indiana to Wisconsin. IMHO it's time to borrow a page from those planners and start thinking of a grade seperated multi-track rail bypass around Chicago built a minimum of 60 miles from Chicago's Loop. Will it ever happen - certanily not in my lifetime.
Such a project would require participation by Federal and state governments and all of the railroads serving Chicago which would be its benificiaries. These diverse entities are not at all likely to come to any agreement on such a far reaching plan any time in the near future. That's unfortunate because further delay will only increase the cost and problems associated with making it a reality.
Such a project would probably have to be spearheaded by the Federal government. I am hopeful (but not optimistic) that our lawmakers in DC will someday wake up to the need for a comprehensive national transportation policy. A policy that recognizes the need for funding rail projects on at least a semi-par with that of highway, air and waterway transport.
Mark
A couple of points:
1. The NIMBY's have their hands full for awhile with the mortgage mess.
2. What did I miss last week with Carl?
KCSfan wrote: The real solution is to keep all rail freight traffic out of the Chicago metropolitan area except that destined inside its bounds. 50 or more years ago highway planners recognized a similar need to keep through trucks and autos out of Chicago resulting in the Illinois Tollway stretching around and outside of the city from Indiana to Wisconsin. IMHO it's time to borrow a page from those planners and start thinking of a grade seperated multi-track rail bypass around Chicago built a minimum of 60 miles from Chicago's Loop. Will it ever happen - certanily not in my lifetime.
Well, 60 miles outside the loop would put the tracks outside the metro area in the west and south, but on the north and northwest side you would still be smack dab in the middle of the suburbs. Go further out and you are talking about being in Milwaukee, Rockford, and Kankakee. I think with advances in yard technology and the strategic separation of street and rail grade crossings, we would see vast improvements in the turnaround and throughway times. Besides, if the "J" is upgraded, you are talking about the same bypass, just thirty miles (+/-) out instead of sixty miles.
Krazykat112079 wrote: KCSfan wrote: The real solution is to keep all rail freight traffic out of the Chicago metropolitan area except that destined inside its bounds. 50 or more years ago highway planners recognized a similar need to keep through trucks and autos out of Chicago resulting in the Illinois Tollway stretching around and outside of the city from Indiana to Wisconsin. IMHO it's time to borrow a page from those planners and start thinking of a grade seperated multi-track rail bypass around Chicago built a minimum of 60 miles from Chicago's Loop. Will it ever happen - certanily not in my lifetime.Well, 60 miles outside the loop would put the tracks outside the metro area in the west and south, but on the north and northwest side you would still be smack dab in the middle of the suburbs. Go further out and you are talking about being in Milwaukee, Rockford, and Kankakee. I think with advances in yard technology and the strategic separation of street and rail grade crossings, we would see vast improvements in the turnaround and throughway times. Besides, if the "J" is upgraded, you are talking about the same bypass, just thirty miles (+/-) out instead of sixty miles.
Agreed Krazy, rather than an arbitrary 60 miles it would be better put at a distance outside the commuter lines. This would remove it from the suburbs however far out they may reach and would have the added advantage of eliminating the conflict between freight trains and those of Metra. While the J once ran in the boondocks, in many places today it runs through the sprawl of suburbs surrounding the city. For this reason alone, if no others existed, I think better utilization of an upgraded J route will only provide short term relief. I think now is the time for visionary, forward looking planning to solve the problems that will have to be faced in 2040-2050. Quick fix, short range patches (of which I consider the CREATE plan to be one) just aren't the answer. But again that's just my humble opinion.
KCSfan wrote:Agreed Krazy, rather than an arbitrary 60 miles it would be better put at a distance outside the commuter lines. This would remove it from the suburbs however far out they may reach and would have the added advantage of eliminating the conflict between freight trains and those of Metra.
Kenosha (60 miles), Harvard (70 miles), Elburn (50 miles), Joliet (40 miles), Manhattan (50 miles), University Park (35 miles), South Bend (100 miles)....These places are not just out there, they are way out there. By the time you build a loop around those you have racked up a few hundred miles and probably trillions in construction and aquisition costs. I believe we could do much better upgrading the current system for far less money.
KCSfan--
Years ago, the Tri-State tollway was built as a bypass around Chicago.
Then 15 years ago, the North-South tollway was built as a bypass around the bypass.
Now we need a bypass to bypass the bypasses.
pz:
It is amazing what an extra lane (on 294 and the Borman in Indiana) plus $3/gal gasoline prices does for transit times. Things hvae been pretty good this summer, except for the usual construction zones.
The old Kankakee Belt line would be looking might good for all this congestion. There has been a rumor floating that the NS was considering rebuilding the line from North Judson to Wheatfield, where the NIPSCO plant is. From North Judson they would utilize the C&I (ex C&O line) to access the Chicago NKP line at Thomaston.
Would take a couple of coins, but it would take a few trains off of the Chicago (Conrail line).
MP173 --
Thanks for the info. I always wondered why the TP&W never really developed as a cross-country route that avoided Chicago, as many once speculated.
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.
ndbprr wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
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.
Maek
jeaton wrote: 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.
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: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.
Can anyone recommend some good books about the modern railroad scene in Chicago?
-Thanks
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.