Trains.com

Chicago drowning in trains

16674 views
198 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Sunday, August 19, 2007 10:50 PM

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

 

  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Monday, August 20, 2007 12:09 AM
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
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Monday, August 20, 2007 12:20 AM

 joemcspadden wrote:
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.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • 724 posts
Posted by snagletooth on Monday, August 20, 2007 3:17 AM
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?
Snagletooth
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, August 20, 2007 6:32 AM

 snagletooth wrote:
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.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Joliet, IL
  • 1,646 posts
Posted by EJE818 on Monday, August 20, 2007 4:54 PM
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.
Robby Gragg - EJ&E fan Railpictures photos: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=5292 Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24084206@N08/ Youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=EJE665 R-V videos: http://www.rail-videos.net/showvideos.php?userid=5292
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 2,535 posts
Posted by KCSfan on Monday, August 20, 2007 6:18 PM

 EJE818 wrote:
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

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Monday, August 20, 2007 6:42 PM

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.

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)

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Joliet, IL
  • 1,646 posts
Posted by EJE818 on Monday, August 20, 2007 8:15 PM
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.
Robby Gragg - EJ&E fan Railpictures photos: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=5292 Flickr photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24084206@N08/ Youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=EJE665 R-V videos: http://www.rail-videos.net/showvideos.php?userid=5292
  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Monday, August 20, 2007 9:17 PM
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
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 2,535 posts
Posted by KCSfan on Monday, August 20, 2007 11:45 PM

 joemcspadden wrote:
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

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:07 AM
 KCSfan wrote:

 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.Banged Head [banghead]  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.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:38 AM
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
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:59 AM

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

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:11 AM

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.

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:30 AM
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
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:24 PM

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 2,535 posts
Posted by KCSfan on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:30 PM
 MP173 wrote:

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 

  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:37 PM
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
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:49 PM

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 

  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:26 PM
Back to the question of a Chicago bypass, if NS were to develop one
involving the Kankakee Belt and the new connection at Thomaston
(I suppose to send trains east on the NKP), my question concerns
the current gap:

The logical route would be the abandoned Monon from Lacrosse
south to San Pierre and then west on the abandoned Kankakee
segment from San Pierre to the NIPSCO plant. Is there anything
remaining of either of these two lines? Have they been turned
into trails? Is some track still in place? Ect.. etc.??

Joe
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:39 AM

I didnt even think of Lacrosse to San Pierre.  Just whack me across the head.  That would make a lot more sense than taking the CKIN to North Judson.

There is nothing left of the Monon line south of Lacrosse.  I cant remember about the bridge over  the River Kankakee, I think it is gone.  That land is flat as the middle of a pancake, no grade whatsoever.

 

ed 

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: hillbilly hide away and campground C, M-ville,ILL
  • 2,153 posts
Posted by inch53 on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:56 AM

 MP173 wrote:

isnt KCS/CSX running a Schneider intermodal train now on a similar routing, except running down to St Lou?

The Schneider inter-mobiles are running the CSX tracks from St. Louis through Indy. Most the time still using KCS power.

The line could handle some more traffic but not a lot, since most of it's single track.

 

 joemcspadden wrote:

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.

The old Cairo line doesn't go clear into Danville. It ends in a coal mine just south of there, unless they've taken it on in to town in the last few years.

There's nothing left of the tracks [taken out in the 80's] from Paris on south to Mt. Carmel, but some of the old roadbed and a few bridges. It's even been built on through the towns along the way.

inch

http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309

DISCLAIMER-- This post does not clam anything posted here as fact or truth, but it may be just plain funny
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:25 PM
The 'Chicago Solution' requires only two things....Money and Time....both in mass quantities.  The Class I carriers have been working over the past several years to improve their traffic routing and blocking schemes to minimize both costs and delays at the various gateways.  The transcontinental East-West gateways are nominally, Chicago, St.Louis, Memphis and New Orleans, much work has been done to restructure the routings over the appropriate gateways where it makes economic sense.  Economic realities drive railroad operations.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:01 PM

      Is Chicago such a pivot point for railroads, that a major storm could conceivably bog down the whole rail system?

 

( closed circuit to Ed MP173: check your PM Smile [:)])

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: saginaw,mich
  • 82 posts
Posted by GTW4914 on Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:22 PM
Well this is just an idea why don't they just put the kankakee belt route back in between south bend ind and wheatfield ind then everybody has a better chance of bypassing chicago. Then put track back in between kankakee and points west i know there was track that also went northwest of kankakee besides the present route west. if both tracks were extended to there former end points the skies the limit as far as the future is concerned of bypassing chicago.
Bruce
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 2,535 posts
Posted by KCSfan on Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:59 PM
 Murphy Siding wrote:

      Is Chicago such a pivot point for railroads, that a major storm could conceivably bog down the whole rail system?

 

( closed circuit to Ed MP173: check your PM Smile [:)])

Murph,

The answer is both yes and no. Yes, Chicago is a major "pivot point" in the nation's rail system. No, a major storm in Chicago might temporarily play havoc with its railroads but the whole rail system wouldn't shut down. Also Chicago is not at all prone to storms like Katrina which completely paralyzed New Orleans. It might get a tornado occasionaly but it's not located in "Tornado Alley" and the effects of one would most likely be confined to a pretty localized area of the city. Chicago can also get an infrequent downpour that overwhelms its drainage system and causes flooding. However the water from one of these drains off fairly quickly and leaves only little if any lasting damage.

Mar

Mark

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Champaign, IL
  • 185 posts
Posted by DennisHeld on Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:36 PM
One possible bypass I haven't seen in this thread is the old P & E (Peoria & Eastern). Most is intact since Conrail sold it to NS before NS & CSX purchased Conrail. Everything between Champaign, IL and Peoria is intact. (That Conrail was using) Though, the segment between Mansfield, IL and Bloomington, IL hasn't seen a train in 6 or 7 years. The segment between Urbana, IL and Danville, IL is the only section pulled up. This line would connect Peoria to Indianapolis with connections in between. NS has the Bloomington to Mansfield railbanked for some reason. Perhaps this is why.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 2,535 posts
Posted by KCSfan on Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:39 PM

 DennisHeld wrote:
One possible bypass I haven't seen in this thread is the old P & E (Peoria & Eastern). Most is intact since Conrail sold it to NS before NS & CSX purchased Conrail. Everything between Champaign, IL and Peoria is intact. (That Conrail was using) Though, the segment between Mansfield, IL and Bloomington, IL hasn't seen a train in 6 or 7 years. The segment between Urbana, IL and Danville, IL is the only section pulled up. This line would connect Peoria to Indianapolis with connections in between. NS has the Bloomington to Mansfield railbanked for some reason. Perhaps this is why.

Dennis,

I'll confess to only thinking as far south as the TP&W at Gilman and forgot about the P&E. I don't know why as I spent many an hour when I was a student at the UofI train watching at both the P&E station in Champaign and the IT station located almost directly across the tracks from it. I wonder why the NS abandoned the piece between Urbana and Champaign. I'd have thought they'd have left it intact to give them access to Peoria from an interchange with the former Wabash at Danville. You didn't specifically mention that part of the P&E between Danville and Indianapolis. Is any or all of it still in place and being operated by the NS or anyone else. Also I can't place Mansfield - is it east or west of Bloomington?

Mark

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:49 PM

Forget the title of this topic--we're just drowning tonight, period!

Now back to your regularly-scheduled discussion.

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)

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy