Recent Trains article about UP implied they might want a connection to Peoria sub from BNSF transcon route at Princeville, IL. I took a railfan trip last winter and saw no signs of a connection being constructed.
Have any other railfans seen any action yet on this rumored connection?
Frustrated railfan in Madison, WI
I was up that way this June. The evidence you seek is probably in UP’s engineering office. The proposed connection is actually closer to Edelstein, IL.
On Page 39 of the Feb 05 Trains in Fred Frailey’s article it says UP bought the land during 2004 but there were concerns if BNSF had room for more UP trains on their line.
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=10&Z=16&X=1382&Y=22673&W
the iddy-bitty town of edelstein. dont know how many times if sat at that road crossing at the left of the picture
i kinda think its pretty funny that none of the 3 global fac. connect with each other, even semi directly…IMO
It isn’t about adding more trains to BNSF Transcon, it about taking trains off. The UP wants the connection to the old SI Line so that their trains can access the new Global III Yard in Rochelle, IL via Nelson, IL. I don’t know what the holdup is. Adding more trains to the UP Overland route could be an issue. To get from Nelson, IL to the Global III Yard, UP freights have to go through Dixon/Rock River area - lots of curves and few grades. As I’ve mentioned before on other posts regarding this subject, I think the UP should explore (if they haven’t already) about rebuilding the Nachusa Cutoff (Dixon bypass) between Nelson (mp 103) and Nachusa (mp 92.7). As a point or reference, the west end of Global III is near mp 82.
CC
I’ve wondered whether rebuilding that cutoff is even feasible any more. It would avoid the eastbound ruling grade on the Geneva Sub. So–would it be used by trains that have plenty of hp/ton like the intermodals, or something like coal trains?
I would think that the building of a connection at Edelstein (or anywhere else) would require the UP to upgrade the Peoria Sub north of there. That’s currently dark territory, and I don’t remember much in the way of sidings.
Chris,
Fred was writing about intermodal trains coming off of the Golden State route in Kansas City heading for Global 3. There should be enough capacity on the old ATSF from Cameron to Edelstein. He seems to be writing about the ATSF from Kansas City to Cameron not having more room. I do not understand what you mean by “taking trains off”.
i wonder why a partial ex CB&Q routing instead of the ex santa fe wasn’t being considered. come into galesburg on the santa fe, switch over to the ex 'Q and hang a left at buda, IL. or mabye an entire ex Q routing from kansas city as i don’t believe it’s nearly as busy as the santa fe is. just a thought anyway and i’m sure if it was better it’d be done that way.
just out of curiousity which is busier and/or in a better position to handle more trains across IL, the santa fe transcon or the overland route?
The ATSF is busier and faster from Kansas City to a place called Cameron, which is about 8 miles west of Galesburg. Most of the trains (including Amtrak) leave the ATSF at Cameron so they can access the Galesburg yard (but not Amtrak).
I don’t believe there is a lot of extra capacity between Cameron and Buda.
The UP has purchased the property and told the owner that he can harvest the crops before constuction starts. The UP has surveyed this property and is ready to start constuction.The line to the north will be upgraded with heavier welded rail (theres 115lb welded stock down that the CNW laid there in the late 80’s) and put CTC in as well. The siding at Buda will be put back in so theres 3 CTC controlled sidnigs availble when the prodjects done. BNSF has the room, just not the want for more UP trains on its tracks. Theres not much of an elevation change between the 2 lines that will need heavy grading but the new interlocking plant on the BNSF will be interesting. The ex CB&Q line in under capacity but then you have the commmuter trains in chicago to deal with and the grade seperatioon at Buda is alittle too much for a connection. The 60 trains a day in a little plush in its claim, 60 maybe on a reeaaaaally good day but more like 40 or so. I spend way too much time at Edelstien. Long live The Rock!!! Scott
To clarify my point about taking UP trains off the the Transcon… As RI4310 mentioned, “BNSF has the room, just not the want for more UP trains on its tracks”. Also, the UP doesn’t want to run their Intermodal trains that use the Transcon all the way into Chicago.
The UP wants all of their intermodal trains to be able to reach Global III because one of the duties of the new yard in Rochelle is to serve as sorting/block swapping yard for intermodal trains. Sorting the intermodal cars/containers at G3 for G2, G1 and points east reduces the number trains trying to get through Chicago’s antiquated rail infrastructure. Less trains, less congestion, or so the thought goes. Sorting at G3 also reduces the over-the-road transfers from Global 1 to say, CSX’s 59th St Yard.
There are still some issues and good points were made in regards to the condition of the old SI Line. You also have to wonder how much more traffic can be added to the UP’s own Overland route. Don’t forget that Metra service extends to Elburn starting this December and that will have some affect on the freight traffic. I was reading a news article in the CNW Historical Society’s magazine that when the freights start backing up on the Geneva Sub, crews have started to refering to Dekalb as Global 2.5 and Nelson as Global 4!
CC
Since the BNSF transcon can only be accessed by the UPRR via the Sunset route then the GSR to Hutchinson KS & Trains has said in several edition the Sunset route is presently being used to capacity so even if they build the connector how will the Sunset route support more trains?
[quote]
Originally posted by Chris30
[
i just think it’s a little humorous (maybe) that one railroad almost depends on another to get it’s trains where it wants them to go and on time. i remember back to that UPS experiment a few months ago UP using BNSF from chicago to hutchison, ks i believe. sniping the contract from the competitor and turning around and routing half the miles on the competitor’s road.
Believe it or not the bullet trains were sevaral years ago. I saw a EB one whizzing by 25 miles west of Tuscon. Really was trucking & in my estimation was exceeding the speed limit for EB trains according to the UPRR rules for the area I saw it in. [:)][:)]
The question still is though if the Sunset route is being run at capacity per Trains why invest in a new connector when you cannot pump any more trains onto the Sunset route? [:o)]
The BNSF refused to run the bullet train unless UPS cough up more dollars so UPRR told UPS it will run it without additional charges which is how they got the biz. Why UPRR chose Sunset then GSR via Hutchinson then BNSF over via Daggett/Vegas/Ogden/Wyoming/Nebraska/Iowa route is only somebody in the decision making process in Omaha would know. [8D]
I also wonder why the UPRR does not chose to higher the clearances on the Moffat tunnel so they can use the middle of the USA route instead of investing in a connector between the BNSF & UPRR in ILL. [?]
As all Sunset route trains go thru Colton & on my trainfan forays I always stop at Colton for hours at a time & I would estimate I have seen at best 2/3 trains per hour on the Sunset route moving towards the West Colton yard or EB towards Tucson. [?]
One other thing to bear in mind the UPRR trackage rights from Hutchinson are only for Intermodal & auto rackers. At KC though they also hold trackage rights over the BNSF transcon for general merchandise trains but again that would mean pumping more trains into the Sunset route that supposely is being used to capacity right now.[8)]
[quote]
Originally posted by farmer03
well ***, that ‘bullet’ train went via the ex-CB&Q? had i known that i would’ve went and watched.
I saw at Marana AZ which is about 25 miles west of Tucson. At El Paso it went out on the GSR to Hutchinson KS then the BNSF transon & I do not know how the BNSF routed it after Hutchinson. [:o)][:p]
[quote]
Originally posted by farmer03
[