It occurs to me that we’re witnessing the start of the next major stage of the evolution of intermodal facilities. Up until now, those facilities have generally been “terminals”, and have been located at either origins - such as the Pacific Coast seaports - or at destinations - such as here on the East Coast. The “intermediate” terminals around Chicago have generally performed both functions, because that’s where the trailer or container was taken off its first train, interchanged by “rubber tire” to another terminal, and then continued its journey on another train.
But now the railroads are starting to build yards that are not “terminals” to receive and deliver boxes, but instead are primarily large-scale sorting facilities between blocks of cars, and then between trains. Very few shipments go through the gate at them, but instead leave as they came - on the rails. Examples are CSX’s new North Baltimore, Ohio facility; BNSF’s year±old one in Memphis; the one that CN recently proposed in western Canada; UP at Joliet (“Global IV”) and then BNSF, and soon NS; and BNSF’s recently announced one in Belen, NM. (I believe UP’s new facility in NM is primarily for refueling only - though i might be wrong about that.)
I think it has to happen if the railroads are to get more efficient at handling the present volume and interchange of intermodal shipments, and to get geared up to handle even more as domestic containerization takes root and grows.
Anybody else agree or disagree with this observation ? Comments, criticisms, cites, and additional support or contradictions are welcome !
It may even simplify things at the originating terminals, since all they really need to know is which “yard” the box is going to. A collection of boxes that may have gone on different trains can now go on one train, to be sorted out further down the line.
Still, every time a box is handled there is overhead, so unless they can come up with some really big conveyor belts (a la the post office) for sorting, the concept will always be limited.
Without being able to view the actual traffic that is being handled at CSX’s North Baltimore terminal, what I am about to say is just a shot in the dark.
North Baltimore, I believe is a attempt to eliminate most of the rubber tire interchange that takes place between the carriers in Chicago by sorting and creating trailer/train blocking schemes that create run-through volumes that can be operated through or around Chicago with expectation of saving 1 or more days in the total transit period. The blocking schemes are developed amongst CSX and the Western carriers for traffic moving in both directions.
Yep - and the railroad’s intermodal equivalent is those 5 (typically) giant rail-mounted portal/ lift cranes which span 8 tracks and 2 roadways or so (more or less) at each facility.
John Kneiling also proposed giant off-road trucks with side-loading trailers - say, 80 ft. long / 100 tons (4 TEUs) cap’y. - as another method to provide much the same function, for different settings (less volume) and more flexibility, such as serving patrons away from the crane rails but still within the same industrial park. There are several manufacturers of on-road versions of such trailers, mainly in Australia and Europe, though a few do operate here (Calif.).
I think you are correct in that the big change is going to be in Chicago…although I am not too sure about how much rubber tire interchange was occuring.
It seems that the issue of TRAINS missed the boat in not profiling a box moving from origin to destination, particularly thru the N.Balt terminal, similar to what David Morgan did 40 plus years ago with the article on a Ford car. Perhaps a future issue can feature that.
The new terminals are essential hump yards for boxes without the humps. Or hub and spoke, or whatever you want to use to describe the facilities.
Paul, you mentioned NS…do they have such a terminal yet, or if not, where is it planned?
Balt: You bring up something that was discussed in an older thread a year or so ago. If the rubber tire interchange is going to decrease from the 4 class 1s NS, CSX, BNSF, UP & to a lesser extent CN , CP. why not just route out of Chicago?
Maybe UP, BNSF, CSX, & NS could equally buy up the old route of the TPW (Toledo, Peoria, & Western) ? I admit that it would require a lot of capital to upgrade it to a 70 MPH double track operation but the time gained not going thru the Chicago mess might enable more traffic to be gained. UPS certainly might like the times.
The Chicago rubber tire runs were an effort to sort the containers. Now North Baltimore will sort them and NS at Columbus can do that as well. Does or will UP and BNSF have a sort location somewhere west of Chicago that could connect with the old TPW?
I’m not sure if over-the-road interchanges are as common as they used to be, but I’ve been seeing less and less reason why they ought to be necessary around Chicago.
On the UP, even more than Global IV, Global III (at Rochelle) is functioning as a well-to-well transfer point, and trains are run from there directly to the eastern railroads (59th Street for CSX, and, I believe, Ashland Avenue for NS). I’m sure that CSX and UP could probably run a train pair between North Baltimore and someplace beyond Chicago (Global III or Global IV)…if not now, then in the future.
OK: the joint intermodal terminal at Joilet certainly changes the equation for containers not classified a distance west of Chicago. But a solution for traffic to the JIT IMHO might be to double / triple track the old EJ&E track from Joilet - Griffith intersection - rebuild to: HO tower (NS NKP connection ) - McCool ( CSX ? B&O connection ) - Porter ( NS connection ) ?. Of course getting CN to agree would be very difficult probably impossible.
As so many of you posters have pointed out: Staying out of the Chicago maze is so important and can save 12 - 24 hrs which is important in grabbing traffic from truckers. Also the decrease in traffic in Chicago would speed up the remainder of train traffic & Amtrak and would probably allow quicker & less expensive completions of various Create projects.
Mr. North’s comments regarding intermediate vs final destination terminals are right on point. However, intermediate terminals are nothing new – witness the monster at North Platte. The new element may be the direct well to well transloading.
I think you are crazy, but in a good way. I also like to look at maps and “fill in the blanks”. Some of our great conversations on this forum have centered on “what if” and “that sure was a stupid abandonment”.
From a tactical standpoint the rebuilding of the EJE from Porter to Griffith makes sense. From a financial standpoint…it will probably never occur. I have no idea of the $$$ involved in such a program, but cannot see it occuring. The bike trail exists from Chesterton to Hobart, so the land is available. Looking at Google maps, it appears the trail continues on to the Merrillville area, but then a couple of quarries seem to be in the way. The last few miles into Griffith would be the challenge, from the satellite view.
The big challenge would be to get the municipalities and CN onboard. Here is my guess about volume. There would probably be about 3 intermodal trains each way to the NS and CSX, and that is just a guess based on current levels. Perhaps more. The investment in purchasing the land and rebuilding would be huge for that level of business.
Paul and others…could you throw out ballpark figures on costs to do this project? I have no idea.
Now, let’s turn our attention to the CN. There would need to be considerable investment to ramp up the Joliet - Griffith line to handle an extra 12 trains day. What about the good citizens of the south suburbs. Hunter Harrison was vilified for the the EJE purchase…now what would occur with doubling the volume. I think there would need to be elevated ROW for this to fly.
Great idea on paper. There is considerable investment in the Chicago area with CREATE, and I just dont see it changing.
I think Paul is right on the mark in defining North Baltimore as a “classification” facility as opposed to a “terminal”. I do not have knowledge of operations at CSX’s Chicago intermodal facilities, but my guess is that they are not well suited to efficiently handle and classify traffic interchanged from other railroads. I’d suggest that research would indicate the the inefficiencies (delays) to the handling of interchange traffic at Chicago is not so much due to the time required for the transfer runs between connecting carriers, but rather it is due to the processing of the traffic at the receiving yard. Accordingly, the “find a route that bypasses Chicago” is a solution to a problem that is either minor or doesn’t exist.
Many outsiders who propose “bypass” solutions seem to imply that railroad management doesn’t even consider such things. I can assure you that they do, and the best illustration is CN’s acquisition of the EJ&E. That is a good study as to just how difficult and expensive those projects can be. Not only did CN have to pay for the property, but they also had to invest very big dollars to beef up the interchange points between the “J” and all their intersecting lines. Even with all that, the environmental study prepared by HDR Engineering noted that CN would still be faced with choke points on the ex “J” line.
Ideally, CSX would have built in Chicago, but the cost of acquiring and clearing the land, then elevating and building viaducts for the intersecting streets would probably make the $165 million spent at North Baltimore look like chump change.
Louisville, KY is a decent size freight market, but CSX does not show having an IM terminal there at this time. But they’re building one.
The current problem with a market such as Louisville is that you can not aggregate loads into trainload volumes to any one destination. (Believe me, we tried!) There is simply not a trainload of IM going to any one destination.
N. Baltimore has the potential to solve that problem. CSX will have the ability to aggregate into one train volumes going to/coming from many destinationa and origins. They’ll be able to originate a train in Louisville and fill it up with loads going to many diverse destinations. N. Baltimore will then sort. And it will be able to aggregate the loads, which can be combined with loads originating elsewhere, to make a dedicated train of economical size.
The success of that will depend on their ability to efficiently and quickly sort and aggregate in N. Baltimore. N. Baltimore can open up new intermodal markets for CSX. And Louisville, KY is just one of those markets.
North Baltimore is going to have to be very efficient (low cost) for Louisville to work for containers originating west of Chicago, versus rubber tire from a Chicago terminal. On the one side you would have the dray from Chicago, on the other side you have CSX’s rail charges from Chicago to N. Baltimore and thence Louisville, N. Baltimore’s cost, Louisville’s costs, and then Louisville’s dray charge. The customer had better be south or east of Louisville.
In the discussion about bypassing Chicago, don’t forget that it is the largest destination for containers, irrespective of the rubber tired sorting going on. Draw a rough circle encompassing Minneapolis, St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Detroit. Everything within that circle is supported by warehousing and distribution centers in Greater Chicagoland for many stores and factories.
On further reflection I’d agree. I was focusing on Chicago rail interchange traffic where, ignoring the cost, a location in Chicago improve the flow of that traffic. However a “hub and spoke” operation belongs at a location at or near the intersecting lines of a system and in the center of the flow of traffic. And, you are absolutely correct in that the whole object of the project is to get the volumn of the movement to a level where the trains running between the hub and the outlying terminals produce acceptable profit margins.
Speaking of Louisville, I suspect that CSX is looking to get traffic from there moving toward the Northeast. Somewhat circuitous, but it would be interesting to see if they are able to get some of the Louisville-Chicago area traffic. With my frequent trips to Cincinnati, anything getting some trucks off I-65 would be please me.
CSX has apparently been able to justify the construction and operation of an intermodal terminal at Louisville based on projected volumes through N. Baltimore. However, once the terminal is in operation there is no reason it has to be used only for that purpose.
It will be a corporate asset and they’ll want to get as much out of their investment in the asset as they can. A west coast export load from Louisville (cigarettes, bourbon, etc.) doesn’t have to go through Chicago. It can go to the western carrier at St. Louis just as well. Or KCS can bridge it to Kansas City.
CSX probably will have excess capacity at their new Louisville terminal. It will be in their interest to sell this capacity. They could get their sales folks working on the routings with the shippers/steamship lines. Routing over St. Louis/Kansas City will not incur the added miles of routing west coast freight through N. Baltimore and put money in CSX’s pocket…
Once you get an asset it often opens up all kinds of new and different opportunities.
I may be mistaken, but I think that CSX’s new facility, is either on land that was once part of the very huge GE Appliance Park, or adjacent to that. Either way, it is a short distance to the major UPS HUB at Standiford Airport. I have not been there in a number of years, but I would imagine if they have grown that facility as FedEx has done at Memphs ;it has to be an impressive operation. An Intermodal Facility that close to a major UPS Sort Hub would definitely be an assset for the railroad. [2c]
Railroads close to their sorting faciliies, would be a real plus for servicing their customers. Bearing in mind that the Business Model for FedEx is also dooable alternative for UPS… a sort of ‘sauce for the goose is a sauce for the gander, as well.’
[Remember that FedEx has a Hubs at Newark/Liberty (Newark,NJ); Saginaw,Tx (Alliance Airport); Indianapolis,In’s (Airport), and Ontario, Ca. To name some railroad service adjacent facilities. And the facility at the former Rickenbacker (AFB) at Columbus. A regional hub for FedEx was bought 20 yearsago; A facility built there as wel for UPS., The South side of that property is the new NS Intermodal Yard and CSX (?) ] Those are some that I’ve been to when I was driving a few years back.