The News Wire of May 31 detailed the proposed new bypass: http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/05/Consultant%20details%20new%20Chicago%20bypass%20proposal.aspx
As described this would involve around 75 miles of new track. I’m surprised there isn’t a thread about this already.
The article, for those who can’t see it:
BNSF and CSX trains meet on the Belt Railway of Chicago in January 2013. A new Chicago bypass route would reduce rail traffic in the city.
Photo by Marshall W. Beecher
CHICAGO – “Make no little plans,” said famed architect and Chicagoan Daniel H. Burnham. Software developer and former Union League of Chicago President Frank Patton has taken that message to heart. Earlier this week, the rail industry learned of Patton’s proposal to create a new $3.5 billion Chicago bypass route, known as the Illiana Rail Bypass. Yesterday, Trains News Wire interviewed project consultant Jim Giblin of firm Flak International on the specifics of the proposal.
The proposed project would create a new 90-mile, two-track rail corridor through Indiana and Illinois to bypass congestion in Chicago, much like the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern once did. The new line would link the existing lines of five of the six Class I railroads serving Chicago: BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation, Canadian National, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific. T
The entire proposal sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. It also seems to be based on an assumption that not that much classification is done in the Chicago area anymore.
This statement in particular:
“Giblin says the new line, if completed, would enable eight hour runs between BNSF’s Galesburg, Ill., yard and CSX’s North Baltimore, Ohio, facility. “That’s a game-changer,” he adds.” That’s a distance of 435 miles or so. Pretty fast.
Well, I admire the forward thinking. If built with the propossed expressway - and BNSF, UP, CSX, NS and CN are all on board - it might work. (I suppose the railroad would have to be on one side and the expressway the other because of the industrial park ideas.) I imagine with the proposed open acess it would work something like the CN (ex ‘J’) between West Chicago and Joliet which has five class I’s sharing the rails. Here’s a link to more information:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144284979/Illiana-Rail-Bypass-Concept
This route might also be a better option to connect the newer intermodal facilities near Joliet for both the UP and BNSF to eastern connections.
CC
Back to the original article… Who Dat? and Who Dey??
Eight hours between Galesburg and North Baltimore is not going to happen on a regular basis.
Besides…why? All those containers are import containers that do not have high value/fast time requirements. Perhaps an ultra UPS train might fit that market, but how many of those would run per day?
Not saying this isn’t a valid idea, but would it be supported financially?
Ed
Skypie!
The purported consultant - Flak International, Inc. - does not appear to have even a website (from a quick Google search - see also: http://webindetail.com/ws/flakinternational.com ), though its CEO, Bruce Betts, apparently does have some history with CSX in Chicago as an Account Manager (1979 - 1986) and as AVP - Chief Marketing Officer with Iowa Interstate RR (1990 to 2003) - see: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bruce-betts/18/565/a9
Although such schemes occasionally have some validity - the Alameda Corridor is perhaps the best known - I’d wait to see for someone to put up some serious money for a comprehensive marketing and construction cost study, such as the purported project backers/ private infrastructure funds as mentioned in the linked article. Not holding my breath . . . [:-^]
All other considerations, cost, etc, aside, wouldn’t this be beneficial toward reducing congestion and delays for trains that have no other reason to go through Chicago except for crew change?
A very rough analysis.
Needs to extend to UP former CNW line to matter enough to interest UP. Assume that increases cost to $4 Billion.
Need 10% ROI, $400 million, plus cover operating costs of say $100 million per year, so need revenue of $500 million per year.
At high end of proponent’s volume estimate 100 trains per day times 300 days per year (to account for slow traffic days) have 30,000 trains per year.
Trackage rights fee must be $16,666 per train. Assuming average 100 mile move, on a 100 car train that is $1.66 per car mile, or $1.00 if 166 car train. This is high. I was told of one recent deal that was said to be $.40 per car mile, so this deal is roughly 4 times the one I was told of. At first blush this does pencil out.
Granted that operation through Chicago is expensive, saving of costs avoided in Chicago could be used to pay high trackage rights cost. The question is how high are those costs? High enough to pay the very high costs associated with this bypass?? This is all inside information but my personal sense is that Chicago costs are not that high
Possible value added would be large interchange yard for east-west containers based on same logic as BRC Clearing Yard.
Proponents seem to envision real estate/industrial development projects. Who is subsidizing who in this case?
Use of RRIF funds would tend to reduce capital costs and thus trackage rights fee to some modest degree. Public grants would reduce private capital costs, but where would such funds come from and with what strings attached?
Prediction - If this goes forward, and I suspect it will not, it will be joint venture of UP, BNSF, CSX, and NS, probably under the flag of convenience hoisted by this or another third party.
Note - I do not see CN having much interest since their routes are oriented north-south and existing Chicago terminal capacity will be freed up, reducing costs there.
Mac
Proposal seems to think that all traffic goes THROUGH Chicago…wrong.
Also the CREATE project is still on going and has been designed to minimized the operating congestion of Chicago. I don’t know enough about the Chicago traffic patterns to be able to estimate what the eventual completion of all the CREATE projects will mean to the operational efficiency of Chicago.
Had the CREATE projects never been proposed and undertaken, the ‘beltway’ concept may have had some legs, and then it would have had to have been based on the EJE trackage. Right of Way aquisition, in an of its own will financial doom this project, let alone coming up with a ‘fare structure’ that would make the carriers seek to use it.
I read the story with some interest, although, to me, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I can understand, to some degree, the need to get around Chicago’s congestion, especially for those trains that are stopping in Chicago only to change crews, in that case, how many trains would that be, and it would it be convenient for those trains to avoid Chicago.
The story talks about intermodal traffic, but what about the “oil trains” that use the BNSF through Chicago. Most of them pass my house, and most of them are NS trains, would this bypass, should it ever come to pass, benefit that traffic? Same for coal trains, although not as numerous, there are still a few with NS power on them that come through on any given week, in addition to the NS manifests (at least 1 per day)There is also CSX grain, and manifests through here as well throughout the week. Would the BNSF want to part with that revenue? I would assume they wouldn’t.
Otherwise, unless they can generate the needed traffic, and make this idea so attractive, that the railroads will go for it, I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere. Like someone else stated, I can appreciate forward thinking, but, could this idea, instead of being a solution to a problem, be a solution in search of a problem?
I remember reading a thread about this topic that predated the NewsWire article, but now I can’t find it.
The proposed bypass would parallel,and run between, the former EJ&E line and NYC’s Kankakee Belt Route. Both lines have been downgraded as bypasses. It seems Chicago has progressed in congestion mitigation to the point that they don’t need another bypass.