VANCOUVER - U.S. regulators are not likely to make a decision on Canadian National Railway’s purchase of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad until early next year, according to a ruling released Friday. But the U.S. Surface Transportation Board agreed to Canadian National’s request to put limits on the length of an ongoing environmental review, which CN has warned would scuttle the $300-million (U.S.) deal for the Chicago-area rail carrier if it drags on past the end of the year.
I work in the medical device industry - this surprises me in that the STB takes longer on their decisions than the FDA.
I can’t help but recall how the ICC’s bureacracy and foot-dragging went-on for 10 years before approving the UP buyout/merger with the ROCK, only to have UP walk-away from the deal.
Pretty intersting article in the Tribune this morning. The map indicating the changes in trains was very telling about the CN’s intentions.
It appears that Markham will be used considerably less than today, with the Gary Yard (Kirk now, Harrison later?) picking up the action. The J line to Gary would really increase in activity.
My opinion is that CN is really going to have to sweeten the deal to get this done. They are notorious for 10000 foot trains which need to be held to get into yards. (Think Joliet).
First, I am a CN shareholder and have done very well with the investment. It makes a lot of sense for them both operationally and as an investment to purchase the J, at a reasonable price.
Second, they do, as mentioned previously, run long trains. That is part of their success. That leads to problems at times with road crossings. I must say that CN’s overall level of operations has improved dramatically the past couple of years (as far as road crossing problems), at least in the community I live in. We have about 35 trains daily and they keep the trains moving along with a minimum in delays to the motorist. A couple of years ago there were problems regarding stalled trains and blocked crossings. DPU units on the coal trains from UP and BNSF seem to have solved that issue. The trains were notriously underpowered.
Who should bare the cost of the improvements needed? What should those improvements be? What will be the determining method for allocation of resources to communities and road crossings.
To sit back and simply blame the NIMBY crowd and the lawyers is not looking at the entire picture here. There are legitimate issues which need to be addressed. I know that if the crossings in my community were blocked regularly (several times daily) it would be a major problem for safety (fire, ambulance, police) and for the convenience of the community members.
Even my love of watching the trains pass would not offset a 10 minute delay.
I find it unusual that a Gary yard would be used for a number of reasons. That seems like it is a much more round about route when the GTW IC interchange is right above Woodcrest. Woodcrest is in better area (but not much) and has an intermodal terminal. That will add at least an hour to go to Gary on the EJ&E and backtrack to the Harvey/South Holland area for interchange with the GTW when a connection could be made to the IC in Matteson if it doesn’t already exist. The EJ&E line along the lakefront is no gem and has numerous crossings and no room for expansion that I can see. Does anyone know the volume of trains that are just passing through Chicago on CN that just need to be relayed or need to be remade? I don’t recall an interchange in Griiffith Indiana where all the crossings are but I suppose one could be put there also.
At first I was a little surprized when Kirk Yard and Joliet Yard were announced to have significant roles in the new CN operations in Chicago area. Thinking about it a little bit has left me wondering if the movement 15 years ago by IC to reduce the loose car capacity at Markham has left them with reduced capabilities.
Kirk Yard is a hump yard and has considerable capacity. The number of cars humped now by EJE has to be just a few hundred. I am not sure how many tracks are at Kirk, but will check it later tonight on Google Earth when all the chores are done and house is quiet. Is it possible CN is wanting to add capacity to the intermodal operations at Markham and remove current classification tracks?
It would also be interesting to take a look at incoming and outgoing traffic movements on the segments…ex GTW, ex IC, and ex WC to see what kind of patterns there are and where the classification is occuring.
I will also work on the ex GTW tonight.
I think they are looking at Kirk as a great chance to increase capacity for the short term and future. Ditto Joliet…and then shut down Glenn.
I have only taken a quick look at a small piece of the draft EIS, but it goes into great detail as to the construction of interchange enhancements and 2nd track and sidings additions, and also provides details on the additions and reductions of trains on various segments of the involved lines.
It really heavily covers the present and proposed operations, and when I take the time to look at the whole draft, I think I will get all of my questions answered. Recommended reading.
Great recomendation. That is interesting reading. There is a ton there to digest and then some. It is pretty obvious that the Kirk Yard has huge capacity for CN’s future growth. They obviously want to get out the operations down the old IC to the Airline…they could no doubt sell that real estate to King Richard’s buddies for more condo and townhouse growth.
The outer suburbs could have STAR service up and down the J, which would be a feather in their cap.
This could work out pretty well, if planned correctly.
I think you are way off base attacking Sen. Durbin on the Canadian National issue.
Sen. Durbin has a history of pandering, if you must call it that, to rail passenger and transit advocates. He entered the fray to get assurance from the CN that the Amtrak route to Carbondale and New Orleans would not be severed. This was done outside the formal review and hearing process that is being used to hammer the CN.
The Senator is trying to to find some reconcilliation between the railroad and his constituent NIMBYs complaining about 25 trains while some Chicago-area lines have close to 150 a day. He understands the transcontinental scope and importance of CN rail service through the Chicago area and the impact this has on energy consumption and emissions. The easy political choice is to side with the NIMBYs to effectively kill the deal.
The CREATE Plan has stalled for lack of funding, perhaps for the better. From what I’ve seen, there was no systematic identification of traffic lanes that would expose the conflicts that needed to be sorted out, only corridors of use. Moreover, little accommodation was made for the CN. I guess trains were supposed to disappear at one end of the City and emerge on the other.
While Sen. Durbin is a ranking Democrat, how much political capital can he spend for federal traffic and noise mitigation funding earmarks, especially when the State cannot get a decent capital bill?
I no longer am amazed or amused by how a community can stubbornly oppose a suburban rail service until it can be embraced to foil increased freight service.