Ok, I am NOT in complete agreement with Dave (futuremodal) and his concepts of open access railroading, but I do have an open mind.
Just got back from a quick trip to Muscatine Iowa and as always when I make the trip I think of the old Chicago Rock Island and Pacific main across Illinois that parallels I80. A sub thought is the ICE line that runs to Kansas City.
Here are my thoughts, for your discussion. Lets just say it is the year 2020 and do to micro and macro factors the rail lines are nearly plugged. The UP main to Chicago is running upwards of 100 trains daily, the BNSF transcon is well over 100 and the Mendota sub is catching quite a bit of spill off.
What is next? I think the old Rock Island main across Illinois would be a pretty valuable property. Although it is only single track and signals are removed, the tracks are still in place.
Look at the advantages it possesses:
Hooks up with NS, CSX, CN, and CP on the south side of Chicago and can avoid much of the Chicago congestion. CREATE looks as if it is dead in the water, so if some of that traffic can skim across the south side of Chicago rather than go thru the city or around it on the Harbor Belt, so much the better.
It appears a connection exists between Rock and EJE at Joliet and then from the EJE to the Transcon line. This would enable a bypass of Chicago for traffic to and from the BNSF. Of course EJE routing exists also.
Construction of a connection could no doubt be made at Wyanet for teh BNSF line for all of that coal to bypass Chicago.
Also, coal could run from the UP across Iowa and follow the same routing via the Rock to eastern connections.
A second route to Omaha for the UP for secondary trains plus a connection could be made with the Nelson line north of Buda, giving UP trains from Kansas City a straight shot across Illinois and mostly avoiding Chicago, or allowing trains access to and from t
A minor correction…there is a connection at Joliet between Rock and BNSF, according to Terra Server, thus eliminating the need for the circular, yet interesting movement via the EJE.
For the most part, the Class I’s would oppose any such concept, for no other reason than the fact that it violates the Railroad Prime Directive - Do what ever it takes to minimize intramodal competition.
The Class I’s would rather be in the position of maximizing pricing power, even if it means turning away future (read: logical) business. New capacity means a dilution of their current pricing power, the exception of course being federal aid for internal capacity expansion that helps to maintain the current “natural” monopoly character of NA railroads.
Any such concept therefore would have to occur independently of the current Class I oligarchy.
All in favor of a multimodal Interstate Transportation System, step right this way…
I see “Conspiracy Theory Dave” is at it again. In a free enterprise system, if someone buys abandoned sections to rebuild, or builds new infrastructure for running trains, there ain’t a thing the railroads can do about it.
The whole thing just goes back to the one simple fact: building or rebuilding railroads isn’t cheap. Where are you going to find the rich sucker to pony up the money? Even though Barnum said there’s one born every minute, there aren’t very many rich ones.
And Uncle Sam is so far in debt, our great grandchildren wouldn’t be able to afford it.
I think the Rock, and I will keep the discussion to the Rock at this time, because it seems to make the most sense to me, would be rebuilt in a similar way that the KCS line is by the joint effort with NS.
What happens when UP runs out of capacity? Where do the trains go? According to Dave, they turn the business away. No they dont. They figure out a way to grow, because if they dont…the competition does and that is when the sales numbers pale in comparison, the stock languishes, and the stock options dry up.
The Rock line is a perfect example of what WILL happen eventually. The basic infrastructure is in place and investment will be made when it makes sense.
The Rock line will be the perfect toll railroad to handle the coal trains from PR. Look at a map of Chicago and it makes perfect sense.
Now the question will be…UP or BNSF? Take a look at another topic on this forum about the CN’s St. Louis line being sold and how BNSF took it out from under UP. I dont know how accurate the story is, but if it is, there appears to be a situation of a company making a long term strategic move at purchasing capacity.
Rates of return are improving. When that happens, capital becomes available from private sources. Take a look at CREATE…this issue of Trains all but admits that it is dead on arrival, government $$$ will not be available.
If UP finds the ex-CNW double track insuficient to its needs all the planners need to do is check out BNSF between Cicero and Aurora. Three tracks carry more traffic than two! All Uncle Pete needs to do is add track. Oh, but wait. They’re already doing that aren’t they?
Despite what FM Dave says, there is absolutely nothing to keep a railroad from selling its excess capacity to another railroad that needs that capacity.
It happens all the time. Just look at the recently reported CN/BNSF deal involving BNSF trackage rights over the CN from Centrailia, IL to Memphis. The CN has capacity, the BNSF wanted it, and they worked out a mutually benificial deal.
The CN also buys capacity where IT needs it, as in routing trains over the EJ&E.
The UP uses the Iowa Interstate (ex CRI&P) on an as needed basis. If and when they determine it’s in their own best interest to make a long term deal, they’ll work it out with the IAIS. Funding for needed, viable, economic improvements can be arranged. That’s what banks are for.
Let the market work. It isn’t perfect, like Democracy; but like Democracy, it’s so much better than any alternative.
I think it can be done and will be if it is marketed right. The question is one of cost of the tolls, the cost of upgrading, and the cost of upgrading the competing route. This is a case where a RRIF loan could be used to upgrade the line, with the loan secured by toll revenues.
One thing that will work against it, I think, is that in most cases relatively small marginal investments in the competing line will solve local problems as they arise. It is an interesting investment and marketing problem.
YOu have a great point, but I think at some point capacity is reached. Take for example the UP situation in Chicago. Chicago is the funnel. Everything slows down there as it has to pass from one end of the metropolitan area to the other. To get thru that area is a problem. Lots of problems actually. You have commuter trains which run on tight schedules. There goes capacity at various times during the day. Also you have restricted speeds and junctions/crossings with other rail lines.
Mac, I dont have to try to explain it to you, you are a railroader and know all the possibilities that can arise in operating a train. Now, compound it with a metropolitan area that has 5 to 10 million people in it.
Looking at the Rock (IAIS) line and it makes sense to bypass 20 plus miles of that congestion by skimming across the southern side of the metropolitan area.
JimRice you comment on adding a third track, which is a very valid point, except when most of the infrastructure such as bridges, ROW, etc are set up for 2 tracks.
My point is that at some time in the future the ROCK (IAIS) will be a very valuable piece of railroad property, perhaps even ICE. A toll system probably wont occur, as no doubt UP will eventually purchase the line, but what if RailToll did exist? It could help reduce the congestion thru Chicago of not only UP but BNSF’s coal and other traffic.
IAIS can market any of its line segments to anybody right now. I do not know Chicago geography and operations well enough to have an informed opinion but avoiding central Chicago should have value. The question is for which carriers and what traffic, carload or intermodal.
I have a somewhat related question. My knowledge of Chicago-area geography is very limited, but from what I think I know, EJ&E could pretty easily serve as an “Outer Belt” route for interchange to bypass at least most of the Chicago congestion. Did EJ&E ever market itself that way, and if not why not? Thanks.
Although the IAIS looks good on paper, remember that its connections with Eastern roads are not all that great. Keep in mind the long back-up move involved in its connection with the IHB at Blue Island. Connecting with CSX at Barr would be similar.
EJ&E did market itself as the Chicago Outer Belt, but since it is outside the Chicago Switching District, it would have to be specified in any routing instructions by the shipper. Needless to say, bridge line traffic was minimal since such routing instructions would involve a short-haul for the other roads who would prefer to interchange within the Chicago Switching District, directly or by BRC or IHB.
My lack of knowledge of the junctions at Blue Island and Barr has jumped up and bit me!
Alright, how about IAIS to Joliet and then on the EJE? It doesnt appear that there is a junction in the SW quadrant of the EJE/IAIS crossing, but it seems like it is a junk yard there. Perhaps a purchase of the property would allow a junction.
i haven’t seen mention of it here yet, but IAIS doesn’t own the ENTIRE ex-Rock. it’s IAIS from CB to Bureau Jct. in Illinois, CSX from there onto joliet and down to henry, IL and metra from joliet on in to chi-town with both CSX and IAIS having trackage rights over metra.
i can’t imagine a railroad turning down outside investment in it’s line but what happens if say CSX isn’t pleased with your plan and doesn’t want anything like that?
I see Tom “I misquote 'em as I see 'em” Diehl is at it again…
Yes, there is. They can (and most absolutely would) lobby against such intrusions into their respective territories. They would throw frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against the “new” guy. They would claim first rights against any cross-overs, underpasses, overpasses, and any interconnections.
How do we know this? Read your railroad history books once in a while, as all of the statements above occured with regularity back in the boom days. So why would anyone who claims pertinent railroad knowledge state otherwise?
Actually, there’s several born every second of every day, and there called American taxpayers. Most railroads received government aid back in the day, and some still are still. There’s no reason to expect a new player to try to go it alone without government backing. In fact, to hear established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction is down right hypocritical.
Debt is irrespective of economic investment. There is no real debt ceiling for the feds, most federal debt is due to wasteful spending which could be culled, and the feds will always have easy access to a tax b
Let me throw this out at you: Is it necessarily the best move to simply rebuild an ex-railroad grade, or would it make more sense to utilize that old grade for a grander purpose?
In my extremist right wing conspiracy view of things, I do not believe it is necessarily optimal to build a toll railroad concept as an adjunct of the 4’81/2" / 39 ton per axle / knuckle coupler / air brake / speed constrained railroad system we have now. If our nation was to embark on such a project with similarities to the Interstate Highway System, why not make it a (inclusive of but not limited to or dependent upon):
Wide gauge?
HSR?
25 to 33 ton per axle?
ECP required?
Bi-modal based?
other???
If any or all of the above are included, do old railroad ROW’s make the best ROW’s for an Interstate Rail System? Your Middle American ex-RR ROW’s might be straight as an arrow, but out West some parts of that Milwaukee ROW simply would not fit into a modernized vision of a toll railway. And if governments are the lead entities for constructing new toll railways, they might be better off using the ol’ eminent domain high speed highway ROW’s with wide sweeping curves and no cross traffic rather than curving ground level ex-RR grades.
I think Farmer 03 found the biggest stopper, METRA. The last thing they want is more freight trains and if they own the last mile IAIS has nothing to sell. If CSX has rights on METRA, and if CSX wants to fix up the Eastern End for its own reasons you still could have something. If it was easy it would have been done by now.