Lake Michigan Shipping

[atrainguy60]

I guess Lake Michigan is being opened up to more shipping particularly to avoid the congested bottleneck of freeways in NW Indiana. Any thoughts if this could also have possible positive results for RR's around here too? Or am I really reaching here?

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/ ... ae784.html

[wagnew0923]

It has the potential, since it is intermodal, to increase Muskegon Rail Traffic.

[Ben Higdon]

Maybe they can use Traverse City instead of Muskegon, and have a mixed train to put all those passenger rail studies to good use

[trainjunkie47]

Maybe they can use Traverse City instead of Muskegon, and have a mixed train to put all those passenger rail studies to good use

Traverse City would never put up with a port and terminal downtown. No train would ever run without rebuilding the entire line from Walton Junction into town, and without putting in a wye connection at the east end of Selma Yard in Cadillac.

[Saturnalia]

There's little hope of any West Michigan port using a significant amount of rail service. Same thing that always bites rail service in Michigan, particularly the southern tier: Chicago is too close.

For instance, outbound bulk shipments like grain and aggregate is too short a haul from inland to the ports for railroads - especially with CSX dominating the west coast. Inbound shipments, predicted to contain quite a bit of intermodal, is equally truck-friendly once offloaded.

It'll be good for the ports, the spillover traffic to the railroads, at least given the current transportation climate, wherein trucks can move stuff to and from Chicago land easily within one shift, will be small, if any develops.

[hoborich]

Lemme see here. Build an intermodel terminal in Muskegon. Build an intermodel terminal in Milwaukee. Build several small Lake Michigan sized container ships. Upgrade the roads and highways to the intermodal terminals. Not gonna happen. More studies required.

[Ben Higdon]

Lemme see here. Build an intermodel terminal in Muskegon. Build an intermodel terminal in Milwaukee. Build several small Lake Michigan sized container ships. Upgrade the roads and highways to the intermodal terminals. Not gonna happen. More studies required.

Exactly! The consultants must not be satisfied with up north passenger rail feasibility studies...container traffic across Lake Michigan makes even less sense. At least it's good for a laugh

[Raildudes dad]

Pretty thin on substance in the article. Nothing about the physical operation. Their website has all the supply chain buzz words / phases. Physical locations are 3 offices and 3 warehouses.

If it requires taking the container off the chassis and loading it on a ship, then unloading and reloading on the other shore, it isn't going to happen. Yes, it's congested and there are times and locations where it's a parking lot but even with a lot of delay, it's quicker and cheaper than the proposed service, what ever it might be.

[Super Chief]

Time to uncover the tracks on the Badger and kick the tourists off. Time to relay the CSX track east from Baldwin to Saginaw for the potash and drinking water trains too.

[hoborich]

Car ferries make more sense!

[justalurker66]

"The first marine highway designation on Lake Michigan"? Here are the existing "Marine Highways":


https://www.marad.dot.gov/ships-and-shi ... y-program/

The Great Lakes corridor is called "M-90"..
"The M-90 Corridor is the Great Lakes, Erie Canal, and connecting commercial navigation channels, ports, and harbors from Albany, NY to Chicago, IL and Duluth, MN. It spans New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan ,and Wisconsin. It connects to the M-75 Detroit/Windsor Crossing near Detroit, MI, and the M-71/77 Lake Erie Crossing near Cleveland, OH."

For such a short trip as the proposed route a ferry for trailers or containers on trailers would make sense. It would still be a "highway". (The SS Badger ferry is considered a connection between US 10 in Wisconsin and US 10 in Michigan.) I don't see the value in building a facility that lifts containers or trailers for such a short trip. Perhaps as an exit ramp on the larger "M-90" highway for trailers going a lot further than across the lake.

[PatAzo]

In the small amount of information they have published part of their model is tractors on both side running between the ports and shipper/receiver. There is a theoretical savings with the tractors and drivers handling more trailers than they would with an all highway route. In practice however I think there will be relatively few trailers originating and terminating in close proximity to the ports. This becomes a logistical headache for the shipper arranging tractors and drivers on both side. A trailer gets loaded in Milwaukee headed for say Cleveland. Once it's unloaded what happens? One of the trucks advantages is once they are unloaded they are available for a load moving almost anywhere. Does this driver have to go back to Milwaukee hoping for a back haul or can he continue on with the next load to Buffalo or Memphis?

In reality I suspect the only saving will be in fuel expense and wear of the truck. Friday afternoon Googlemaps showed transit time Milwaukee to Muskegon at 4:30. This is an automobile and Google tends to be optimistic so maybe six hours for a truck. A 17 knot ship will take over three hours to cross the lake. An hour to load, hour to unload, get to the port early and time wise it's no quicker to cross the lake than to drive around the south end. Move further afield from the two ports and any advantage diminishes. Shipping from Rockford IL to Toledo would you go north to cross the lake or stay on I80?

They say a million trucks a year off the I80/94. With a simple average 24 hours a day 365 days a year that is a truck going on ship at a rate of nearly one every 30 seconds. The ships P&O crosses the English Channel with carry 124 trucks. With a three hour + crossing, an hour plus to turn the ships around and no ebb and flow to the actual schedules, that would be a minimum five ships in constant motion loading-crossing-unload. There's that potential and Lake Express hasn't built a ship to carry trucks and the Badger stays in Ludington barely getting by?

To the original post would this boost Muskegon rail traffic...doubtful. On the Wisconsin side the class one's already want the containers and trailers driven to Chicago. On the Michigan side your box hits the ground a couple hundred miles from the nearest rail terminal along with others all headed to scattered destinations. The railroads won't want to make a short haul to Detroit or Toledo to reload them. They'll tell you to truck it to their existing terminal.

[Norm]

My take:

The Great Lakes Basin Railroad stands a better chance of coming to fruition than does the idea of ferrying cars across Lake Michigan. At least it will bypass the Chicago congestion.

Given our location in the usual cross country traffic patterns of railroading we are an outlier. We ship our products and receive necessities by rail but we are not, ans never will likely be a big player in the overall scheme of things. Coal, for generation of electricity has long been a mainstay. We have some forest products made in the northern lower peninsula and some mine products shipped from the upper. We, like Florida, are more of an importer than an exporter.

No matter which way you slice it we are low on the totem pole of traffic volume. Remember across the lake and Straits Of Mackinaw car ferries both met their demise due to low traffic volumes. Operating ferries that carry rail cars does not come cheap, hence the Port Huron Tunnel. Corporate bean counters take close looks at those costs and advise management accordingly.

Would I like to see more rail traffic in Michigan? You bet you're sweet azz I would. Am I looking for that to happen in the near future? Not unless there are major changes in the economy and Michigan's ability to adjust to them.

[hoborich]

They say a million trucks a year off the I80/94.

Planners always way overestimate the benefits of their plans.

[DLM]

Intermodal is defined as the use of two or more modes of transportation to deliver one shipment. In the case of this article, they are talking truck - ship - tuck. This is already occurring with the SS Badger.

Look at the number of truckloads between Central Michigan to/from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Why isn't the Badger doing more of this business? Because not that much really exists? The only company doing it on a regular basis is Indian Summers out of Ludington. They drop off several trailers at the dock and then send one truck and trailer across. That driver then spends the week in Wisconsin unloading and reloading trailers back to Michigan which he drops at the dock in Wisconsin.

This is more about getting free government grant money to live off of.

[tadman]

the Badger stays in Ludington barely getting by?

Is that operation doing poorly? It's private so they don't publish finances, but insiders and regulars would be able to get a feel.

[hoborich]

It's still running, although their season is short, at least for the tourist traffic.

They fought hard to keep it running, when the EPA tried to shut it down. Must be doing OK. They could have just shut it down.

[Steve B]

It's still running, although their season is short, at least for the tourist traffic.

They fought hard to keep it running, when the EPA tried to shut it down. Must be doing OK. They could have just shut it down.

The company only fought hard to keep using Lake Michigan as a landfill for coal ash. The EPA gave it the option of re-powering or installing a holding system for the ash on board. After saying it couldn't be done, eventually the company installed a holding system. Standards of what's acceptable for waste disposal have changed. The Badger still burns coal, was able to keep using its historic engines and boilers, but now doesn't dump ash into the lake.

[hoborich]

Retaining and dumping that coal ash costs them money. My point was that they must be doing well, or they would have simply gone out of business instead of finding a solution to the problem.