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.
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).
ed
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Thanks, Dale! Too much of a railfan to stay away.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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: 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.
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.
Dan
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.
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.
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.
I have the feeling that the next merger will be CN acquiring the EJE, which connects with all 5 CN lines in Chicago.
Could be, Dale... although I think UP would also be in the ring -- as it uses The J trackage north of Joliet more than the EJE itself.
If CN absorbs EJ&E, that would give them three of the Big 4 of the old US Steel family (only Union RR would be outside the fold).
O.S. wrote: Because Chicago historically was more of a origin/destination for traffic than it was a waystation for traffic, there were very large economic disincentives for each railroad to spend money building efficient connections to the other railroads at Chicago. These connections weren't going to be used very much in relation to the use each railroad was going to get from its own main line leading to and from Chicago. A company must spend most of its money on the things that generate most of the revenue. OS
A company must spend most of its money on the things that generate most of the revenue. OS
This still holds true for UP, BNSF, NS, CSX and CP, each of which needs to invest in other parts of their networks. CN, on the other hand, operates a lot of traffic through Chicago. This should increase this fall, as CN has big hopes for traffic between the new container port at Prince Rupert and Memphis. Chicago is pretty well the only bottleneck on CN's system, and investing in other areas probably wouldn't bring the benefits the other big 5 railroads would see. What CN needs the most are fluid connections between their Ontario, Memphis/New Orleans, Iowa, and Western Canada lines (as well as the Joliet branch). Traffic between the Ontario and Memphis lines uses EJE between Griffith and Matteson as a short cut.
Hunter Harrison has been growing CN by acquiring connecting regional and shortline railroads over the last few years, attemping to gain an equal footing with a potential merger partner among the American big 4 systems. That 60% operating ratio should allow him to buy connecting lines whenever he wants, even with the subprime problems going on.
jclass wrote:Hoping O.S. is safe and sound!!!!!!!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
nanaimo73 wrote:The most interesting, and perhaps the best, thread I've seen on the forum.
I have to agree, one of the best threads in a long time. The best thing about it is the lack of personal attacks and repetitious dogma that has marred so many other threads. Thank you O.S. for the best concise explanation of CREATE that I've seen.
Poppa_Zit wrote:An opinion piece in yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times entitled: Moving more freight by rail cuts gridlock The heart of the article by Wendell Cox: "Each year, using data from the Texas Transportation Institute, I study the impact of increased freight traffic in our most congested urban areas and report on how redirecting some of this freight from trucks on the highway to freight trains could impact a typical commuter. In the Chicago area, by 2025, shifting 25 percent of freight from trucks to freight trains would decrease drivers' commutes by 42 hours. In addition, such a shift would save each commuter $809 in annual congestion costs. Shifting freight from road to rail also has a positive environmental impact. Freight rail is more fuel efficient per ton-mile than trucks and reduces fuel consumption of other motorists by decreasing the time drivers spend idling in traffic. For example, by 2025, commuters in the Chicago area could save 66 gallons of fuel with a 25 percent shift of freight from truck to rail. Air pollution levels also would improve with an increased use of freight rail. For instance, by 2025, shifting 25 percent of freight to rail would decrease air pollutant emissions in the Chicago area by as much as 96,790 tons." Read the entire article: http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref29b.html
An opinion piece in yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times entitled:
Moving more freight by rail cuts gridlock
The heart of the article by Wendell Cox:
"Each year, using data from the Texas Transportation Institute, I study the impact of increased freight traffic in our most congested urban areas and report on how redirecting some of this freight from trucks on the highway to freight trains could impact a typical commuter.
In the Chicago area, by 2025, shifting 25 percent of freight from trucks to freight trains would decrease drivers' commutes by 42 hours. In addition, such a shift would save each commuter $809 in annual congestion costs.
Shifting freight from road to rail also has a positive environmental impact. Freight rail is more fuel efficient per ton-mile than trucks and reduces fuel consumption of other motorists by decreasing the time drivers spend idling in traffic. For example, by 2025, commuters in the Chicago area could save 66 gallons of fuel with a 25 percent shift of freight from truck to rail.
Air pollution levels also would improve with an increased use of freight rail. For instance, by 2025, shifting 25 percent of freight to rail would decrease air pollutant emissions in the Chicago area by as much as 96,790 tons."
Read the entire article:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref29b.html
I wonder whether Wendell Cox knows about the CREATE plan. I would think that a Chicago-centric article promoting rail service would urge funding of the plan, but it doesn't, at least not specifically.
(Wife and I observed progress on the new Grand Avenue grade separation in Franklin Park today.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.