The idea is that CSX would establish North Baltimore as an eastern “union station” for intermodal trains from the west, for all western railroad connections. UP, BNSF, KCS, and ossibly CN and CP, would run intermodal trains directly to North Baltimore both for interchange with CSX and for local drayage delivery to points within 200 miles of the facility.
This could make the trans-USA “Land Bridge” more competitive. Trains from all west-coast ports could arrive and NB and swap blocks and head for all east-coast ports, without the need for a separate train from each west-coast port to each east-coast port. And the containers for local business could also be unloaded and loaded.
The whole operationi might be setup as a CSX subsidiary with its own marketing.
And this would, of course, reduce Chcago congestion.
The idea is good; having it be in North Baltimore is not. Renember the “Inland Port” intermodal-facility proposals? One of those with optimized ‘trackage rights’ for multiple carriers, built close to strategic road access, would be far superior to what would have to be negotiated going a GREAT many places within 200 miles of a facility anywhere near Baltimore. Spend any time in that area and you will know why.
If massive subsidies come out of Maryland to build and run it, the economics might start to work. A bit. Road access to the region? Maryland doesn’t have access to a hundredth of the capital to optimize that.
North Baltimore (OH) is just a few miles off I-75, giving it decent access to the I-70/I-80/I-90 corridors. While there’s not a purpose-built spur off the Interstate, the roads reaching the facility have been improved.
As I recall, it wasn’t built so much as a rail/highway interface as it was a mixing yard for containers.
It was built as a mixing center to enhance CSX Intermodal operations to a number of smaller terminals on CSX as well has making car load blocks of trailer/containers to eliminate the highway interchange that took place in the Chicago area where trailers and containers were drayed between each carriers intermodal facilities.
How much land bridge traffic is there? That is, loads taken off of a ship on one coast, sent by rail to the opposite coast, and reloaded onto a ship for further movement.
There was a lot of this bridge traffic between the introduction of transcontinental double stack movements and the improvement of the Panama Canal to take larger ships. This included whole trains. I think some of this container traffic has been lost, but some of that might come back with implementation of this idea.
The necessary access roads would be easy to arrange, and there are not many local residents who would be bothered by increases in traffic. And potential clients who lack rail sidings are available in a 250-mile radius.