I know that Chicago has always been considered the #1 railroad city, for obvious reasons. My city *might* rank around 983. What would you say is the top 10, as far as railroad cities in our country? My guess would put Kansas as #2. Beyond that, it gets a little hazy, perhaps St. Louis,Memphis, Los Angelos,Omaha, and Houston? What do you think?
Are there any cities that would have been in the top 10 list 100 years, that wouldn't be today? Milwaukee, perhaps?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
1435mm wrote:Top 10 in terms of ... carloadings? Average daily train counts? Revenue generated? If it's in terms of most train movements, are you counting *all* forms of passenger rail (light rail, heavy rail, commuter) or just commuter?
Good point! I guess I was thinking along the lines of overall rail activity. Isn't that more-or-less how Chicago is given the #1 ranking, even though I'm sure NYC commuter activity is tremendous?
Kansas City is #1 in tonnage, that should be important. St. Louis and Memphis are up there. Is there a lot of interchange going on in New Orleans ?
Pittsburgh certainly isn't what it used to be.
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
1435mm wrote:Five places that define what U.S. railroading is all about in 2006:ChicagoPowder River BasinPorts of Los Angeles- Long BeachHoustonNorth JerseyFive places that defined what U.S. railroading was all about in 1956:ChicagoPittsburghDetroitNorth JerseyNorfolk-Newport NewsFive places that defined what U.S. railroading was all about in 1906:ChicagoPittsburghNorth JerseyScranton-Wilkes BarreBuffalo
Very well put. I assume Houston and North Jersey are both due to petro-chemicals? As far as those that *slipped* from importance in the above list, is that all to do with industrial decline in the northeast?
Murphy: Houston and North Jersey are outstanding for their combination of chemicals, heavy industry, and major ports.
Scranton-Wilkes Barre -- capital of anthracite traffic, which defined a great deal of railroading 100 years ago but has virtually ceased to exist
Norfolk-Newport News -- king of bituminous coal once upon a time, but the tonnages are now a token of what they once were. The crown has moved to the Cowboy State.
Pittsburgh -- steel capital no more!
Detroit -- still an auto center but the industry has dispersed heavily into the southeast and decentralized its supply chain
I like your lists, Mr. Hadid, with the possible exception of "North Jersey". No denying that it does quite a bit for the railroads, but I think this area should be expanded (both now and in the past) to include New York and Philadelphia. Passenger/commuter railroading is still important to the industry in real terms. Philadelphia was also a significant port for coal and other shipping in past years.
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)
Good points. To be clear, I am focusing on a freight point of view, not passenger except as it coexists with freight, and when I used "North Jersey" I was definitely including the Port of New York and New Jersey. Freight traffic on the Manhattan side of the river is very little now, but that hasn't changed the importance of this rail center. It's probably a good thing from a freight point of view that Grand Central Terminal and Metro-North is an almost completely isolated operation. Imagine if all that traffic entered from the Jersey side of the river ...
I wouldn't include the Port of Philadelphia today, and "back in the day" Philadelphia, while it was an important seaport, wasn't a standout like the Port of New York. And if one included Philadelphia, then why not Baltimore and the coal docks at Curtis Bay, Bethlehem Steel at Sparrows Point, etc.? (But I think we can definitely rule out Boston.)
Speaking of New York, the original film "Naked City" is something worth owning and watching again and again, just for the wonderful footage of the city.
S. Hadid
As long as you're talking freight only, your lists are fine. But those four to six passenger stations and the 13 or so Metra routes, not to mention Amtrak, are part of what makes Chicago the great railroad spot that it is, in my opinion.
And this is a freight guy talking!
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
LAX has to be right up there
Murphy Siding wrote: I know that Chicago has always been considered the #1 railroad city, for obvious reasons. My city *might* rank around 983. What would you say is the top 10, as far as railroad cities in our country? My guess would put Kansas as #2. Beyond that, it gets a little hazy, perhaps St. Louis,Memphis, Los Angelos,Omaha, and Houston? What do you think? Are there any cities that would have been in the top 10 list 100 years, that wouldn't be today? Milwaukee, perhaps?
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
MP173 wrote:Murph...we need some parameters for the determination.If it is pure economics, then it would be pretty easy to figure. If it is economic value per capita, then you start including communities such as North Platte and Galesburg. For pure entertainment value, it probably has to be a place such as Horseshoe Curve, or Rochelle, maybe even Fostoria. When of those three has the biggest economic impact? Probably Horseshoe Curve, based on $$$ spent by tourists, tho Rochelle no doubt is moving up the charts.ed
How about average trains per day - inbound and outbound only, otherwise the top ten would all be in Nebraska!
MP173 wrote:Mr. Hadid:Your comments please on the amount of freight currently moving into the New York City market. By "market" I am referring to the city, or immediate suburbs. I am not familiar with the NYC economy, nor the rail scene, but I would guess it is primarily a consuming market, with very little manufacturing....could be wrong tho. How much freight originates/terminates in the city or immediate suburbs? Is most of it intermodal? What about "boxcar" freight (including tank cars, covered hoppers, etc). I cannot imagine local crews street running in NYC with a old switcher and a couple of box cars and a few cars of scrap metal, like Chicago, but anything is possible.ed
MP173: New York City is still the No. 1 manufacturing city in the U.S., if you rank cities by jobs in manufacturing under U.S. Department of Labor classifications, edging out Chicago and Los Angeles if only slightly. On a tonnage basis the Port of New York and New Jersey was No. 3 in the U.S. in 2004, at 152 million tons (Los Angeles/Long Beach combined was a mere 131 million tons). It handed 4.8 million TEUs (2.8 million actual boxes) in 2005 vs. 14.1 million TEUs at Los Angeles/Long Beach.
Don't think of New York just as some boroughs on islands, though -- the metro area includes northern New Jersey, where there is a tremendous volume of carload traffic both in and out, plus the ports and the intermodal and auto terminals. The city itself has very little carload traffic remaining.
So, not much manufacturing in the city, but mainly in the New Jersey area. It would be interesting to see an article on freight operations in the city. I think there was an article not too long ago in Trains about the CP operations into and out of the city...not much there.
ed
I don't think I can compete with the knowledge that has produced some of the answers thus far, so I will give my fascile list of amaturish cities that have not made anyone's list:
Atlanta, Memphis, Dallas, and Kansas City. I realize there are probably reasons why these cities make the amature list, but I have seen as much mentioned in recent rail development of these cities as compared to any.
Another interesting list is declining cities, like St. Louis, which is still important but seems to have lost some of its luster.
Gabe
gabe wrote: Another interesting list is declining cities, like St. Louis, which is still important but seems to have lost some of its luster. Gabe
That would be a long list--with the possible exception of North Platte and Bill, Wyoming, some of the luster has gone away from just about any railroad town--at least in somebody's opinion!
gabe wrote:I don't think I can compete with the knowledge that has produced some of the answers thus far, so I will give my fascile list of amaturish cities that have not made anyone's list: Atlanta, Memphis, Dallas, and Kansas City. I realize there are probably reasons why these cities make the amature list, but I have seen as much mentioned in recent rail development of these cities as compared to any. Another interesting list is declining cities, like St. Louis, which is still important but seems to have lost some of its luster. Gabe
1435mm wrote:City with the worst decline: Milwaukee. It's a gaunt remnant of its former rail greatness.
What made Milwaukee's situation change so much? I would have thought that all the money I invested in beer back in college would still be carrying over that industry!
Well, since what the criteria is is open, I'll define it as "most interesting railfan cities", limited to places I've actually been ....my top picks are:
Chicago
New York
Washington DC
San Francisco
based on variety and frequency of class 1 frt, Amtrak, commuter rail, shortlines, tourist lines and transit operations.
Second Tier:
Phila
KC
Dallas
Baltimore
Atlanta
Honorary US city:
Toronto
(you could probably talk me into St. Louis instead of Atlanta - but E. St Louis is just so...... )
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: Honorary US city: Toronto
Take it away !
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.