Chicago drowning in trains

[GTW4914]

Thats a good idea dennis boy i tell you the railroad execs are getting alot of good ideas i wonder if they are paying attention to what all of us are writing.

[DennisHeld]

.

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

Mark,
Actually, Conrail abandoned the piece between Urbana and Danville. NS acquired Champaign to Bloomington afterwards. The tracks are still in place between Danville and Indy. They're a bit rusty. I think they are operated by a shortline whose name escapes me. Mansfield, IL is about 15 miles NW of Champaign where the NS line going north of Decatur (ex-WAB) intersects on its way to Gibson City.
NS still gets to Peoria easily from Decatur on their line through Mansfield to Gibson City. At Gibson City they take their ex-NKP west to Bloomington, IL then northwest to Peoria. NS sends a lot of auto trains to Mitsubishi in Normal, IL. Both from Decatur and Chicago.
I've always thought the ex P&E from Peoria to Danville/Indy would be a great bypass of Chicago for traffic from the northwest to the southeast. Say picking up BNSF in Peoria to CSX in Danville. I have no idea IF there IS any NW to SE traffic.

[DennisHeld]

Thats a good idea dennis boy i tell you the railroad execs are getting alot of good ideas i wonder if they are paying attention to what all of us are writing.

I certainly hope so. The old P&E runs 3/4 mile north of my house and 1/2 block south of my work. My office overlooks the tracks in Champaign. I only get to see about 3 short locals a week during business hours. I wouldn't mind seeing a boatload of through freights all day long on their way to/from Indy or Peoria. Even if it delayed my getting home to lunch.

[greyhounds]

      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 )

Well, "The Whole System" is a bit of a reach, but a heavy snowfall in Chicago along with some wind will cause a lot of delayed freight, on the rail and on the road (along with stranded airline passengers).  It happens.

Chicago isn't "a" pivot point, it's "the" pivot point of North American railroading.  To bypass the city you have to have another acceptable "pivot point", which is what Schneider does at Kansas City.  Going around Chicago is not possible unless you have another place to "Hub" the railcars/trailers/containers. 

For about 140 years Chicago has proven to be generally the best geographical point to "Hub".  It can be done in other places, but Chicago still dominates despite its congestion and weather.

I've got a nice house down by Chicago, but I'm working in Fond du Lac, WI.  I'll find out if anything happened to my house tormorrow night.  They had 70 MPH winds through virtually the whole area and 3 inches + of rain. 

[MP173]

Murph:

No messages in PM.  Did you get your package?

 

ed

[BaltACD]

      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 )

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

The one weather event that will bring Chicago to a standstill, from a freight railroad perspective, is a good old fashioned double digit accumulation blizzard....especially when the double digits get up around the 24 mark and there is no place to put the snow that is out of the way of operations.  The Blizzard of 67 shut Chicago down for over two weeks, with all the railroads sending nearly every available M of W person (and there were a whole lot more of them then than there is now) to Chicago for snow clearing duties.

[joemcspadden]

Here's the deal on the P&E in Indiana. The line is not only intact
between Indianapolis and Crawfordsville--it is used almost daily
by Amtrak for its trains between Chicago and Indianapolis.

Unfortunately, the 28 miles between Crawfordsville and Olin was
abandoned by Conrail in 1982. The only section on which a short
line has operated is the few miles between Olin and Danville.

Regards, Joe

[ndbprr]

While the number of railroads going through Chicago continues to decline the number of routes needed and the car classification at other yards come into the picture. I don't think anybody wants to make a place like Elkhart the Chicago reclassification yard so trains can move through Chicago easier.  Railroads average something like 14mph per car and the remaining customers are satisfied for the most part. Increasing average car speed and lessening delivery time makes perfect sense from a business standpoint.  I'm not sure the railroads really want to deliver bulk commodities any faster than they are right now and bypassing Chicago commits them to doing that.  If Streator was such a good idea why is it dead?  Because the railroads for some reason killed it.

[KCSfan]

While the number of railroads going through Chicago continues to decline the number of routes needed and the car classification at other yards come into the picture. I don't think anybody wants to make a place like Elkhart the Chicago reclassification yard so trains can move through Chicago easier.  Railroads average something like 14mph per car and the remaining customers are satisfied for the most part. Increasing average car speed and lessening delivery time makes perfect sense from a business standpoint.  I'm not sure the railroads really want to deliver bulk commodities any faster than they are right now and bypassing Chicago commits them to doing that.  If Streator was such a good idea why is it dead?  Because the railroads for some reason killed it.

IMHO you have reached some wrong conclusions here my friend. I think the railroads all want to move freight easier and faster than it now moves through Chicago. Add to that the problems of handling the future increases in rail traffic. Though I personally doubt it will be that much, some projections have it tripling by 2030.

Mark

[Anonymous]

If one has to drown, drowning in trains is not a bad way to go.

Hahahahaha!!!!!

[SALfan]

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.

Also, the RR's are finally starting to work together, in some cases, to route traffic around Chicago or interchange in places other than Chicago, to move the traffic more quickly.  Not too long ago CN and another RR agreed to move the interchange point on some traffic to Memphis, and changed the interchange point on other traffic to someplace else.  That is an encouraging sign.  There's enough traffic that HAS to interchange in Chicago to keep everyone busy, so bypass Chicago when possible. 

[Poppa_Zit]

With CREATE, one of the concepts is to create better rail interfaces between railroads in Chicago -- right now, according to the Chicago Tribune, as much as 30 percent of the heavy truck traffic on city streets is trucks hauling containers from one RR yard to another. Better interfaces would not only eliminate this road-busting traffic, but cut down on the number of handlings of containers -- and ostensibly speed things up.

Let's not forget that Global III in Rochelle and BNSF's Logistics Park in Elwood are catching a lot of freight before it even gets into town nowadays -- with another to be built near Lorenzo Road off the former ATSF transcon.

[KCSfan]

 as much as 30 percent of the heavy truck traffic on city streets is trucks hauling containers from one RR yard to another. Better interfaces would not only eliminate this road-busting traffic, but cut down on the number of handlings of containers -- and ostensibly speed things up.

Poppa,

This seems to imply that containers coming into Chicago on one railroad (e;g., the BNSF) are being unloaded then trucked to another railroad's (e.g., NS) yard where they are reloaded to continue by rail to their destinations. This seems like a lot of wasted effort to me. If the statement in the Trib is factual have you any idea why it's being done this way? Seems like it would be much easier and cheaper to leave the containers on the rail car and just transfer the car and and all to the outbound RR's yard.

Mark

[Murphy Siding]

 as much as 30 percent of the heavy truck traffic on city streets is trucks hauling containers from one RR yard to another. Better interfaces would not only eliminate this road-busting traffic, but cut down on the number of handlings of containers -- and ostensibly speed things up.

Poppa,

This seems to imply that containers coming into Chicago on one railroad (e;g., the BNSF) are being unloaded then trucked to another railroad's (e.g., NS) yard where they are reloaded to continue by rail to their destinations. This seems like a lot of wasted effort to me. If the statement in the Trib is factual have you any idea why it's being done this way? Seems like it would be much easier and cheaper to leave the containers on the rail car and just transfer the car and and all to the outbound RR's yard.

Mark

Ed (MP173) sent me some Chicago maps.  The place is crawling with rail yards.  If so much of the containers are shipping on trucks between railyards, does that mean all these yards are over their capacity, or is it just quicker to send containers accross town by truck?  Or, maybe cheaper?

[Poppa_Zit]

 as much as 30 percent of the heavy truck traffic on city streets is trucks hauling containers from one RR yard to another. Better interfaces would not only eliminate this road-busting traffic, but cut down on the number of handlings of containers -- and ostensibly speed things up.

Poppa,

This seems to imply that containers coming into Chicago on one railroad (e;g., the BNSF) are being unloaded then trucked to another railroad's (e.g., NS) yard where they are reloaded to continue by rail to their destinations. This seems like a lot of wasted effort to me. If the statement in the Trib is factual have you any idea why it's being done this way? Seems like it would be much easier and cheaper to leave the containers on the rail car and just transfer the car and and all to the outbound RR's yard.

Mark

Ed (MP173) sent me some Chicago maps.  The place is crawling with rail yards.  If so much of the containers are shipping on trucks between railyards, does that mean all these yards are over their capacity, or is it just quicker to send containers accross town by truck?  Or, maybe cheaper?

Murph, Chicago's railyards once occupied more acreage than the state of Rhode Island. As you have seen on Ed's maps, we still have quite a few -- maybe 75 to 80 percent of what once was.

Simply put, some yards lack convenient and/or direct connections to interchange freight.

To wit:

Chicago's CREATE Program

The nation's Atlantic, Pacific, and Canadian railroads meet in Chicago-a development pattern that exists from the 1800s. Critical linkages between these railroads are missing which creates inefficient truck movements across Chicago to move cargo from one rail yard to another. The CREATE program seeks to modernize this network by connecting 27 major rail yards that perform 5.5 million lifts annually. More than 14,000 daily truck movements serve these lifts. An estimated $350 billion a year in freight movements traverse Chicago, with more than 60 percent of it as high-value traffic such as intermodal and finished vehicles.

As critical as these rail yards are, they are not interconnected, requiring containerized cargo to be trucked between them.

Read the whole thing:

http://www.transportation1.org/tif3report/intermodal.html

 

[Poppa_Zit]

 as much as 30 percent of the heavy truck traffic on city streets is trucks hauling containers from one RR yard to another. Better interfaces would not only eliminate this road-busting traffic, but cut down on the number of handlings of containers -- and ostensibly speed things up.

Poppa,

This seems to imply that containers coming into Chicago on one railroad (e;g., the BNSF) are being unloaded then trucked to another railroad's (e.g., NS) yard where they are reloaded to continue by rail to their destinations. This seems like a lot of wasted effort to me. If the statement in the Trib is factual have you any idea why it's being done this way? Seems like it would be much easier and cheaper to leave the containers on the rail car and just transfer the car and and all to the outbound RR's yard.

Mark

Not imply, Mark. As inefficient and expensive as it sounds, that's how it's done here. See above.

By the way -- some truck yards near railroad yards have stacks of waiting intermodal trailers (standing upright, and leaning on each other) over a city block long -- some have as many as ten or more such "rows".

There's another House bill (the last one was HB2561) that keeps getting killed (sine die) in committee that wants to mandate the State of Illinois inspect these intermodel trailers. Right now, it's based on trust -- left up to the operator -- and with so many container-haulers on our roads and expressways, every once in awhile one of those thin trailers snaps under the load (usually due to corrosion or damage). These guys are always in a BIG hurry, too, because most of them get paid by the load.

The state legislature doesn't trust a lot of operators, mainly the ones who may have bought their CDLs during the days when convicted Gov. George Ryan was Secretary of State and "encouraged" employees to raise funds for his campaign chest to keep their jobs. (They were each given thousands of dollars worth of fundraiser tickets to sell -- or buy themselves. No one in their right mind would buy them, so .... )

But the trucking lobby is a strong force in Illinois, as evident by these bills hitting brick walls.

[TimChgo9]

Hmmm. 

Aren't the various railroad yards already connected? I can trace a path from Bensenville to Proviso, to Barr, Clyde, Clearing, and Corwith via the Indiana Harbor Belt. And, when looking at Google Earth, it appears there are connector tracks all over the city (unless I am looking at abandoned, or little used trackage) to the various yards in the city. 

When I worked at the Cicero P.D. I could go by Clyde and see the trucks lining up on Ogden Ave to get into and out of the intermodal facility. But, I don't understand why the container would have to be trucked from say, Clyde, up to Proviso, when it's possible for the container cars to get to Proviso via the IHB, or some other connecting route... Unless of course we are getting into trackage/haulage rights, and things like that, in which case, I may have answered my own question. 

[MP173]

Cheaper and more convenient as it stands, to truck containers across town rather than rail them.

Why? 

Think about the flow of containers from origin to destination.  Coming from Asia, the containers are offloaded, lets say at Long Beach and loaded out.  Trains are built for destinations which have certain volumes.  Chicago is a spot in which for the most part rail systems end and begin.  Thus, there are very few thru trains thru the city.  Think of the volume needed to do so.

So, you have trains coming in via BNSF and UP, perhaps even CN and CP that are going east.  Not only that, but BNSF and UP have several lines into Chicago.  Not only that, several yards in Chicago.  So, in the mattter of efficiency and to keep the containers moving (most of these yards in Chciago are not very large, or better stated, are not large enough for today's volume), the containers are trucked to the yard in which the eastern carrier builds the train.

Why not handle by the Belt you say?  Go look at the Belt's volume.  Go look at the lack of capacity in the yards.  These containers have to keep moving.

I dont know what is happening with all the yards outside of Chicago such as Rochelle, Logistics Park and the new proposed yards on BNSF plus the Indiana yards of NS and CSX, but my guess is that these yards will begin to build trains to cross Chicago. In other words, Rochelle might be able to build a solid NS train with a couple of blocks, say NYC and Boston and then run the train thru Chciago.

Ditto coming back.  NS is considering a yard near LaPorte, In.  That could be used for WB containers (loads from Norfolk and other eastern ports) plus empties returning to Asia.  Build the trains for destinations and run thru Chicago.  Pocket the drayage charge to cover the costs of the yard operation.

Just a thought.  Anyone know if these are the plans?

ed

[KCSfan]

Hmmm. 

Aren't the various railroad yards already connected? I can trace a path from Bensenville to Proviso, to Barr, Clyde, Clearing, and Corwith via the Indiana Harbor Belt. And, when looking at Google Earth, it appears there are connector tracks all over the city (unless I am looking at abandoned, or little used trackage) to the various yards in the city. 

This is exactly what I was driving at in my most recent prior reply.

With respect to the following: "As critical as these rail yards are, they are not intrerconnected, requiring containerized cargo to be trucked between them." Change that to read ......many are not directly connected....... and I'll agree with the statement. If they weren't interconnected then boxcars, gons, tanks, autoracks, etc. couldn't move from one railroad to another. The primary purpose of the BRC, IHB and to a lesser extent the EJ&E, is to provide these interconnections where direct connections do not exist. Are they just too slow and circuitous to meet the demands of todays traffic? Does a "we've always done it this way" mentality hinder the adoption of changes in operating practices that would improve the "velocity" of interchanges? I simply don't know.

Common sense tells me that not all containerized shipments require high priority handling. It probably would make little difference if a container of Barbie and Ken dolls took 24 to 48 hours moving thru Chicago. Conversely a shipment of hi $ electronics headed for an assembly plant that works on just-in-time inventory mgmt might require far more expeditious handling. This leads me to wonder if consideration has been given to "tagging" containers at either their Asian origins or Pacific coast ports with a priority, say I, II or III, based on when that container must reach it's final destination? Perhaps it's already done, again I just don't know. I do know that it would be a "no brainer" given the IT that exists today. Hi-priority shipments might require trucking across Chicago while less critical ones could remain on their cars and simply be interchanged as normal. Unloading, trucking then reloading must significantly add to transportation costs and IMHO should only be used as a last resort.

For what it's worth, my common sense tells me that keeping thru traffic entirely out of Chicago should be the objective. While there may be quicker fixes to today's congestion problems, it's ultimately going to come down to that as rail traffic increases in the future. I've yet to see a convincing argument that will sway me from that position.

Mark

 

[joemcspadden]

Mark--I agree with you 100%. The future will involve through trains avoiding Chicago
entirely and mostly avoiding St. Louis. Like I wrote before--Memphis, Meridian MS, New
Orleans, Kansas City, and "cornfield connections" in Illinois using one or more of the
previously-discussed lines (TPW, Kankakee Belt, etc) will have to be the absorbers of
future increased traffic.

You responded before about Kansas City being a "no-brainer" for NS due to NS getting
the longer haul. Well, that doesn't mean it isn't going to be part of the future. The western
carriers are just going to have to gulp and accept the fact that they will be getting shorter
hauls on certain intermodal trains.

Let me give an example. 21G is a long and heavy stack train that goes from Croxton to
Corwith on the Water Level Route. At Corwith, the train is handed over to BNSF in tact
for delivery to the Los Angeles area. Every time congestion builds up on the Chicago Line
due to winter weather or whatever, the train is re-routed onto the ex-Wabash and handed
over to BNSF at Argentine Yard in Kansas City, KS. Last winter, this temporary re-routing
was used for over a month. It worked just fine! In fact, I'll bet the train arrived in SoCal
about 24 hours quicker during the "delays" than it does normally. But it wasn't permanent
presumably because BNSF insists on getting the long haul into Chicago.

Well, as far as the future is concerned, tough noogies--the western carriers aren't going to
get quite as long a haul on some of their trains, and that's just the way it will have to be.

Joe

[vlmuke]

In the RR community there are all sorts of rumors flying around the about the Laporte yard from everything to they are laying track and it will be open within a year(not true) to NS is looking into buying property( probably true), but this is what I know for a fact, is last week they had a community meeting regarding the Laporte yard in a town nearby and it was met with a lot of opposition the local TV news covered it.  Many local people have put up signs near the tracks opposing the yard I haven't heard anything on the NS side though 

in addition there is also a proposed bridge to be built at englewood  to allow metra and freight to pass without interfearance to reduce congestion in that spot

 

[KCSfan]

Joe,

Glad you're seeing the big picture. CREATE, to me at least, seems to be too little, too late and is not the ultimate solution. IMHO by the time it is funded and implemented traffic will have grown to the point that congestion is at least as bad as it is today. Any $ spent on CREATE would be better spent on the bypass route(s) instead of on a quick fix that at best is only a temporary patch. Kind of like spending money to get a flat fixed on a bald tire instead of biting the bullet and buying a new one. The time to plan for tomorrow is right NOW.  

Well, as far as the future is concerned, tough noogies--the western carriers aren't going to
get quite as long a haul on some of their trains, and that's just the way it will have to be.

Joe

When it comes to pass, the TP&W, KKK Belt and maybe parts of the old P&E will become hot properties instead of the red headed step children they've always been. The big roads will be fighting like a couple of tom cats to acquire them to keep the line haul miles they stand to lose.

Mark

[n012944]

Trucking containers across town makes perfect sense when one takes a deep look at it.  One has to remember that each "car" has up to ten containers on it, and the trucking speeds up sorting that would have to be done in Chicago anyway.  For the most part when a western railroad loads a double stack car at the port they don't load it for final destination, but just to Chicago.  On that car all ten containers might be going to the same location or all ten might be going to different locations.  Doing this allows equipment to be turned faster, better equipment usage, and it allows containers to leave the port quicker.  If the cars were loaded just for the final destination, they would either often be held until ten containers are ready for that destination, which would slow there overall trip down.  Or the cars would be dispatched less than full, which would result in needing more cars to move the same amount of containers, not a great idea in this capacity restricted enviroment.

[KCSfan]

In the RR community there are all sorts of rumors flying around the about the Laporte yard from everything to they are laying track and it will be open within a year(not true) to NS is looking into buying property( probably true), but this is what I know for a fact, is last week they had a community meeting regarding the Laporte yard in a town nearby and it was met with a lot of opposition the local TV news covered it.  Many local people have put up signs near the tracks opposing the yard I haven't heard anything on the NS side though 

Reminds me of what happened a number of years ago in Arkansas. The MoPac had a yard in Dermott and plans to expand it met with all sorts of opposition from the locals. The MoPac said to H**L with you, pulled up the Dermott yard trackage and built a big new yard a few miles up the line in McGhee which welcomed them with open arms. Dermott lost the biggest part of its tax base and property taxes in McGhee were slashed.

Some community around Laporte will likely wake up to realize getting the NS yard is the next best thing to finding a goose that lays golden eggs.

Mark 

[joemcspadden]

Norfolk Southern has repeatedly said--and quite publicly--that they are
constantly guided by this long-term goal:

to keep every piece of freight that doesn't originate or terminate in
Chicago away from Chicago.

I'm not sure CN or CP will be able to adopt a similar philosophy,
but the other class ones can, and some day they'll have to.

Joe

[Poppa_Zit]

Hmmm. 

Aren't the various railroad yards already connected? I can trace a path from Bensenville to Proviso, to Barr, Clyde, Clearing, and Corwith via the Indiana Harbor Belt. And, when looking at Google Earth, it appears there are connector tracks all over the city (unless I am looking at abandoned, or little used trackage) to the various yards in the city. 

This is exactly what I was driving at in my most recent prior reply.

With respect to the following: "As critical as these rail yards are, they are not intrerconnected, requiring containerized cargo to be trucked between them." Change that to read ......many are not directly connected....... and I'll agree with the statement. If they weren't interconnected then boxcars, gons, tanks, autoracks, etc. couldn't move from one railroad to another. The primary purpose of the BRC, IHB and to a lesser extent the EJ&E, is to provide these interconnections where direct connections do not exist. Are they just too slow and circuitous to meet the demands of todays traffic? Does a "we've always done it this way" mentality hinder the adoption of changes in operating practices that would improve the "velocity" of interchanges? I simply don't know.

Common sense tells me that not all containerized shipments require high priority handling. It probably would make little difference if a container of Barbie and Ken dolls took 24 to 48 hours moving thru Chicago. Conversely a shipment of hi $ electronics headed for an assembly plant that works on just-in-time inventory mgmt might require far more expeditious handling. This leads me to wonder if consideration has been given to "tagging" containers at either their Asian origins or Pacific coast ports with a priority, say I, II or III, based on when that container must reach it's final destination? Perhaps it's already done, again I just don't know. I do know that it would be a "no brainer" given the IT that exists today. Hi-priority shipments might require trucking across Chicago while less critical ones could remain on their cars and simply be interchanged as normal. Unloading, trucking then reloading must significantly add to transportation costs and IMHO should only be used as a last resort.

For what it's worth, my common sense tells me that keeping thru traffic entirely out of Chicago should be the objective. While there may be quicker fixes to today's congestion problems, it's ultimately going to come down to that as rail traffic increases in the future. I've yet to see a convincing argument that will sway me from that position.

Mark

Mark --

Your point in theory might be a good one.

But if it were doable -- with either time and/or money savings -- don't you think they'd be doing it already? The current rail lines, manpower, equipment and yards are working at or near full capacity now. It takes yard space plus all of the above to store interchange cars, put together trains, move them across town and re-sort them. With 14,000 moves per day, it would be near impossible.

Too bad Alpheus Beede Stickney's 18th-century concept for a Chicago clearing yard for all railroads never got off the ground. http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/896918/showpost.aspx 

At this point I shall defer to Mr. Shaver, who best understands the Chicago interchange process and can surely answer your questions with accuracy and authority.

PZ

[CShaveRR]

Mr. Shaver, unfortunately, doesn't do much on the intermodal side of things, as his job involves the carload (manifest) business.

However, I believe that trains are made in Global III (Rochelle) that go directly to NS (Ashland Abenue) or CSX (59th Street).  These were intended to reduce the amount of highway interchange.  I don't know how well they're succeeding.

Didn't I read somewhere, over a year ago, that there was going to be a road built in Bedford Park to allow boxes too heavy for normal highway weight limits to be moved from one area of the yard to another?  This may be an expression of the problem rather than a solution.

Back to Global III's trains.  If CREATE were implemented, it would allow smoother access into the city by these trains, a bit less congestion between Proviso and Oak Park (with the third main track where none currently exists), a more seamless transition off UP to either railroad at Ogden Junction, no interference from CN/Amtrak at Brighton Park (my argument is about 90 degrees off where it was on the Amtrak/high-speed thread ), and a faster roue out of town through Englewood or Dolton (assuming Metra Southeast gets built).

[MP173]

The lovely and talented GF and I drove to Laporte today for a little outing and there sure were a lot of signs up stating "No Intermodal".  I might have mentioned last week that a CN train had rocks thrown at it in Union Mills, where a second intermodal facility is being proposed.

Kids throwing the rocks?  One would think so, but it might be a deeper sentiment of the locals.  The dispatcher told crews to make sure windows were closed passing thru UM and Wellsboro.

The ex Conrail line thru Laporte and Chesterton is just flat out busy.  We were in Chesterton Saturday afternoon and the GF commented "that sure is a busy railroad."  I mean it was train after train, westbounds following on yellow blocks.  

I dont know how NS runs them all into Chicago.  They certainly seem to have gotten the lions (or thorobred's) share of freight in Chicago.   

Joe, it wont be too long until the Wabash line will reach capacity.  That would be quite an investment to add sidings or double track.

 

ed 

[KCSfan]

Your point in theory might be a good one.

Hi Poppa,

I'm beginning to feel like a man on mission - sort of a Don Quiote fighting windmills. That was not my intent. What I have tried to do in all my replies is to stimulate discussion and "outside the box thinking" about solutions to the congestion problem. I believe, to some extent, this objective has been met.

In the process I have probably been too critical of the CREATE plan and in the future will try to be more objective in any reference to it. H**l placing a compress on a severed artery that requires surgery is better than doing nothing. CREATE is a first step in solving the problem, I just don't think it looks far enough ahead. I'm 75 and will likely not live to see it but IMHO the day will come when you all will regret that today's thinking wasn't more visionary.

But if it were doable -- with either time and/or money savings -- don't you think they'd be doing it already?

Not necessarily at all because it requires setting aside too many vested interests and working together in a cooperative mode. There are just too many conflicting agendas so I'm not surprised the railroads haven't taken the lead. You can't put four bulls in one pen and expect them to peacefully agree on which is going to service a lone heifer first. How about the states then? The three that are involved, IL, IN and to a lesser extent WI, probably can't work together any better than the railroads and for the same reasons. IN and WI likely see it as IL's problem. Springfield likely sees it as Chicago's problem. For these reasons, not because it isn't "doable", the job hasn't gotten done. Because it's at least a tri-state problem if not a national one, I believe the initiative has to come from the Feds. I know much of the funding will have to come from that source.

I don't have all the answers but I sure have some strongly held personal opinions on the subject.

Mark

[joemcspadden]

Ed--the ex-Wabash has been operating at near capacity for most of the
last six years, running 35-40 trains per day on a single-track line. Sidings,
particularly between Fort Wayne and Danvile, are numerous, long, and
useful (the Lagro siding, for instance is 16,000 ft. with no crossings).

However, in the past 18 months, a few trains have been annulled. In
addition, automotive-related traffic, traditionally one of the backbones
of this line, appears to have peaked and levelled off. It could even decrease
a bit as time goes on. Between 27 and 33 trains a day are now running.
It varies by day of the week.

During last winter's storms, the line was able to accept five additional
(detoured) trains for a period of weeks and function just fine--with no
capital investment.

Two pairs of intermodals run (Rutherford-St. Louis & Rutherford-KC).
They are premium trains because they carry the US mail, but they
are short--typically 60 to 100 containers per train.

So my belief is that the ex-Wabash could double the size of those four
stack trains and add maybe two more pairs of heavy long-haul trains.
There are some auto parts trains that have been running short lately
that could be consolidated in the future into fewer, but longer,
trains. This might allow another pair of trains. This scenario woud
definitely have the line operating at absolute capacity, but it would
contribute at least something toward reducing the Chicago congestion.
And this is without any capital improvements whatsoever.

Joe