Chicago to Omaha was referred to as a classic example of excess rail capacity.
Viewing the Association of American Railroads web site showing congestion in need of investment by 2035 one finds two of the remaining Chicago Mains. The old CB&Q and more so the old Chicago & Northwestern.
Two surviors not shown are the old Illinois Central and Rock Island. CN takes the longer way home.
The Union Pacific faces by far the greatest need according to my interpretation of the maps. To address more capacity, do you lay another set of tracks along what you own, or take over the Iowa Interstate and make improvements there?
For fans of what if, what if the Milwaukee Road in this corridor were still around? It was long ago double track roughly 2/3 of the way across Iowa. The Milwaukee Road was within close proximity of the Chicago & Northwestern for much of its trans Iowa Route.
The Milwaukee Road option would have grading, bridges, etc. capable for relaying of longer sidings and even a second set of tracks. The Milwaukee Road skirted towns of any size. No need to slow down for Des Moines, Iowa City, nor the Quad-Cities, etc.
Making the assumption that the old Milwaukee were in roughly the same physical condition and price range as the current Iowa Interstate, would the obtaining Milwaukee Road make more sense than obtaining the old Rock Island? Would investing in more capacity on on the already owned Chicago & Northwestern be the better option to meet the projected demands of 2035 and possibly beyond?
All I can say is the future is here for UP on the ex-CNW “Overland” route Chgo - Omaha. Have you ever seen the stacked-up stack trains trying to squeeze thru Rochelle and around UP’s Global III terminal?
Being a native Iowan who well remembers the former MILW mainline from Green Island to Council Bluffs, yeah, I can’t help but think sometimes “what if”. I do think there was some short-sighted thinking back in the late '70’s and early 80’s. Beyond that, there’s no doubt that the UP would be especially interested in the Tama - Council Bluffs segment if it were still around.
Would UP be interested in the IAIS? It’s certainly possible someday. I was an IAIS employee back in the late 80’s when the UP acquired an option to purchase the IAIS when the CNW was undergoing a proxy fight led by Jack Haley if my memory serves me correct. A lot of work would have to be done to get it up to Overland Route standards, though.
On another front, I would be hesitant to dismiss the CN’s former ICG Iowa Division mainline as a non-player in all this. They (CN) have done a lot of work on not only the mainline itself but also the secondary mains to both Cedar Rapids and Sioux City.
Though I am not familiar with the entire CNW route I would expect the UP to be able to double and triple track within the exixting ROW. If CTC is installed it should function very well. The BNSF Transcon will soon have two and three tracks with CTC for about 2100 miles and I expect UP will step up in similar fashion.
The Milwaukee ROW has been compromised to where it would not be feasible to rebuild.
Can we say full circle? Dont count the Interstate out as a main line.if UP wanted to they could pass on their junk trains out of Chicago to them and let the coal and intermodal go over the on C&NW.Same with traffic out of Omaha.
Iowa Interstate and the CN shouldnt be counted out as they have prett good routes in.BNSF going Omaha to Chicago is a circle the wagons affair. Most of the stuff outof CHicago stops n Galesburg.Reshuffled and then goes out west. If we have Omaha cars I do believe they go to Lincoln then up on the local.
This is the end point in NE Cedar Rapids for the CN spur that used to be the MILW. The rails in this shot have since been pulled up, so they’d have to relay them and wipe out that nice new building across the street.
Another “roadblock” just a couple of miles west of this point- Iowa Highway 100, a four-lane divided limited access thoroughfare, has replaced the MILW roadbed.
I couldn’t see the UP getting-away with that. No way the government would permit that - it’d be a perfect case of a counter-competitive acquisition. I think there’d be grain shippers screaming bloody murder from Council Bluffs to Blue Island. Didn’t the IC buy back the CC&P to have a major east-west operation so either the UP or BNSF couldn’t get approval to buy them?
I think we’ve had a thread on here before explaining why a railroad would prefer to expand its own right-of-way instead of buying or building another line to increase capacity.
IAIS and CN (and ICE, for that matter) make nice emergency detour routes for UP. But if they want more traffic for themselves, they’ll have to compete with the big guys for it. But think about it–if IAIS or CN wanted to compete for some freight to haul out west, what would happen at Omaha? They’d have to give it to either UP or BNSF. IAIS doesn’t have anything east or west to ally with. CN could route some of its own stuff to Omaha, but has a rough time interchanging with itself (in a manner of speaking) at Chicago–at least until they buy or can use the EJ&E to their advantage.
The maps in the magazine reflect conditions as of 2005, I’m led to believe. Since then, both western railroads have made some significant improvements on their lines from Chicago to Omaha, and more are in progress. On the UP, the Overland Route should be CTC all the way with completion of projects in Iowa and Nebraska, scheduled for this year.
My gut feeling is that added track isn’t really going to be the issue across Iowa. Elimination of choke-points should do it. That’s why you’re seeing a new Kate Shelley Bridge, and probably some expansion of through-train-handling capacity in or near Clinton. I suspect that replacing the bridge over the river at Clinton with something that permits speeds greater than 10 m.p.h., or has to open less frequently, would do more for increasing capacity than a lot of third track. They need to increase capacity to get yard-bound freights off the main lines, and through freights beyond their yards or crew-change areas. I suppose a third main track, between Proviso and Nelson, would leave two tracks for operation once it’s filled up with trains waiting to go elsewhere.
As Carl points out, so much of the capacity issues do not have to deal with getting traffic from say, Omaha to Chicago, its getting the traffic THROUGH Chicago. When you lose one track because you have eastbound after eastbound waiting for the Harbor, Belt, B&OCT, or one of the other roads to accept it, you will lose capacity really fast. IMHO, if and when CREATE happends, you will a lot of capacity open up not only in Chicago but for miles around.
Through or in some cases AROUND Chicago would be nice. A couple of months ago I heard poiliticians praising this billion-plus-dollar project called CREATE. Hoya, hoya, hoya but where are the brass tacks? Or should I say “Show me da money!” - a. s.
Does the BNSF line have capacity issues between Chciago and Omaha? Is it anticipated they will in the future? If so, what is the feasibility of BNSF running a train or two on the old IC mainline thru Iowa and then at East Dubuque retain their own rails for the balance of the trip to Chicago?
Is there a connection in Omaha/CBluffs to accomplish that?
[(-D] Yeah, I’ve been there a few times, although it’s no longer Cedar Brewing. They changed ownership a year or so ago- I forget what the name is now.
i really hope UP doesn’t try to devour IAIS. i love that road and their sleek shiny motive power. i wanna see them live long enough to possibly obtain some SD40-2s
Last summer I stopped-off in Manchester, IA and was disappointed to see an eastbound unit coal train with three orange & green BNSF locomotives roar-through on the former IC main. Maybe it was just a CN train with some run-through power, or perhaps the BNSF was detouring. I was hoping for a grain train with an all-IC consist since there are still quite a few of the black & white IC locomotives serving under CN.
The BN bought the westbound Chicago Central & Pacific’s former IC trackage between Galena and East Dubuque in 1992 and took-over dispatching, so there certainly is a connection there.
Two parallel but separated routes through similar country, which is what the C&NW and Rock Island, or C&NW and Milwaukee Road are, as compared to adding another track on the primary right-of-way, require:
I think we’ve had a thread on here before explaining why a railroad would prefer to expand its own right-of-way instead of buying or building another line to increase capacity.
IAIS and CN (and ICE, for that matter) make nice emergency detour routes for UP. But if they want more traffic for themselves, they’ll have to compete with the big guys for it. But think about it–if IAIS or CN wanted to compete for some freight to haul out west, what would happen at Omaha? They’d have to give it to either UP or BNSF. IAIS doesn’t have anything east or west to ally with. CN could route some of its own stuff to Omaha, but has a rough time interchanging with itself (in a manner of speaking) at Chicago–at least until they buy or can use the EJ&E to their advantage.
The maps in the magazine reflect conditions as of 2005, I’m led to believe. Since then, both western railroads have made some significant improvements on their lines from Chicago to Omaha, and more are in progress. On the UP, the Overland Route should be CTC all the way with completion of projects in Iowa and Nebraska, scheduled for this year.
My gut feeling is that added track isn’t really going to be the issue across Iowa. Elimination of choke-points should do it. That’s why you’re seeing a new Kate Shelley Bridge, and probably some expansion of through-train-handling capacity in or near Clinton. I suspect that replacing the bridge over the river at Clinton with something that permits speeds greater than 10 m.p.h., or has to open less frequently, would do more for increasing capacity than a lot of third track. They need to increase capacity to get yard-bound freights off the main lines, and through freights beyond their yards or crew-change areas. I suppose a third main track, between Proviso and Nelson, would leave two tracks for operation once it’s filled up with trains waiting to go elsewhere.
The IC has a direct connection to the UP at Transfer in Council Bluffs. To get from the BNSF to the IC via Omaha would require using trackage rights on UP across UP’s Missouri River Bridge from Omaha to Council Bluffs. Via Pacific Junction it would be a runaround move at Transfer as there’s no “east leg” of the wye in Council Bluffs – the IC enters from the north and swings west to Transfer, and the CB&Q enters from the south and also swings west to Transfer.
The IC is laid with fairly light stick rail and would need CWR, ties, and surfacing to accommodate any significant increase in gross ton miles. I don’t know about the condition of the bridges and whether they can accommodate a lot of GTM in a hurry without requiring significant renewal.
I would really like to see CREATE in my remaining career. But I may need to live longer than I thought. California has no qualms about dropping $3 billion into its railroads this year via Proposition 1B, but Illinois, whose economy is far more inextricably tied to railroads … ?
Checking some rankings, I find that Illinois ranks number 22 for state and local taxes as a percent of income. Other measures of tax burden put Illinois fairly far down the list especially when compared to other “big” states. I don’t know anything about Illinois’ budget and where the money goes, but they sure do have big battles over a few million added here and there to the total.
