Michigan line
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: Just north of the CSX Detroit sub
Michigan line
So a few days ago I went west to Kalamazoo to visit some buddies of mine who happen to go to Western Michigan. I know this might seem a little over used but pardon the ignorance. But why the hell and how did Norfolk Southern not used the Michigan Line from Detroit to Chicago IL for freight traffic except for reroutes and two trains a day? I-94 is filled with truck after truck on that dangerous four lane highway and each rest stop was packed filled with trucks. I just don't understand how NS did not see it as a key link from Chicago IL to Detroit MI. I mean they use trains from Fort Wayne IN to Detroit or Toledo to Detroit. I know NS sold the line to Amtrak about a decade ago, but still with the amount of truckers that take I-94 from Detroit to Chicago is just astounding that none of it or very little is used by rail. I know CSX did the same thing with the Pere Marquette Route from Detroit to GR to Chicago. But to me it's just astounding that Michigan gets very little rail traffic on its main railroads except for the CN Main from Port Huron to Chicago and lets be honest it is nothing like it was in the early 2000s. I know in 08 drove the auto industry away but come on with the amount of truckers on I-94 and I-96 these days in 2022 there has got to be some money to be made from lines like the NS Michigan line or CSX Plymouth Sub. Yeah I really hope the Plymouth/Grand Rapids sub gets sold to CP or LSRC soon. It cannot come soon enough. Even if that number on each line went up to 10 freight trains a day it would make a huge difference and get truckers off the highway and create some competition. Michigan is not a through state, it is nowhere near gonna be close to as busy as other states like Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri Illinois and etc. But I will say this. The one thing I like about the CP and KCS merger is that they are trying to get thousands of truckers off the highways. At least CP and KCS are trying in our country. With CSX and NS all seems lost and they care more about profits. Would be cool to see LSRC get the Michigan line and the Plymouth sub. They seem know to how create new business. But what holds the future for Michigan with these old mains?
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 5922
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:04 pm
- Location: Detroit
Re: Michigan line
Duplicate Routes; Single Track Michigan Line vs Double Track Chicago Line.But why the hell and how did Norfolk Southern not used the Michigan Line from Detroit to Chicago IL for freight traffic except for reroutes and two trains a day?
Amtrak interference.
CP running over CSX across Michigan and then later NS Wabash to Chicago Line,
Oakwood is on Wabash. No "easy access" from Oakwood to the Michigan Line.
Only one train, 31M from Sterling to Gibson would make practical sense to run Michigan Line, only if 31M does not pickup more autoracks in Toledo.
- DaveO
- Read more, think more, post less
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:57 pm
- Location: Between here and there
Re: Michigan line
Why does Michigan rail not see the traffic you would like to see?
It's called Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Canada.
All are obstacles that limit traffic flow through Michigan and nothing can be done about it.
As for NS traffic, it's moving traffic between Detroit and Chicago.
It's just that the ex-Wabash line is more than sufficient for that and NS has no need for the ex-Michigan Central line.
It's called Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Canada.
All are obstacles that limit traffic flow through Michigan and nothing can be done about it.
As for NS traffic, it's moving traffic between Detroit and Chicago.
It's just that the ex-Wabash line is more than sufficient for that and NS has no need for the ex-Michigan Central line.
Re: Michigan line
Actually Conrail conveyed the trackage between Porter and Kalamazoo to Amtrak in 1976.
MDOT purchased the rest of the line between Kalamazoo and Dearborn from NS in 2013
The line is owned by MDOT and Amtrak and it's future will be as a passenger rail corridor, and unless NS gets bored with having to pay no maintenance costs to provide freight service they will hang on to the freight contract.
There are actually about 7-8 freight trains a day that NS runs over the Michigan Line...(please correct me if these are incorrect/old or I missed one):
B01 - Burns Harbor to Decatur
B05 - Burns Harbor to Lawton local (Wednesday only?)
B16 - Jackson local
B17 - Wayne Switcher
B18- Wayne Switcher
B19 - Wayne to Oakwood Yard turn
B22 - Jackson to Albion local (sometimes Chelsea)
B25 - Wayne to Jackson Road Train
B33 - Jackson to Battle Creek Road Train (affectionally known as the "Breakfast Express")
B44 - Jackson to Chelsea local (mainly serves Jiffy Mix)
B57 - Battle Creek to Augusta local
This thread provides excellent insight as to why the Michigan Line was basically mothballed by NYC. (Hint: the NYC Elkhart classification yard is one of the bigger reasons).
http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=364922
- Saturnalia
- Authority on Cat
- Posts: 15393
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
- Location: Michigan City, IN
- Contact:
Re: Michigan line
This. By the mid-1960s the NYC and then PC knew the AML was quickly losing utility. Double Track between Porter and Kalamazoo was ripped out in the 60s. By the mid-70s, the committee responsible for what lines would and wouldn't be included in Conrail had already axed Kalamazoo to Porter as wholly unnecessary for the new carrier and thus Amtrak was effectively forced to take it.
By the mid-80s the rest of the line was single-track.
Conrail already had a shorter, more effective route via Toledo or for some trains, via Kalamazoo to Elkhart. Once Conrail was split up and the Wabash between Butler and Detroit was part of the same system as the Chicago Line, the Michigan Line became even more redundant.
As for the comments about Michigan traffic generally, there's a reason why the two Canadian roads run the most through traffic in Michigan!
Re: Michigan line
I think there is one other thing to be mentioned, which I have not seen yet.
Jackson to Three Rivers to Elkhart. This was the reason the line from Kalamazoo was axed from Conrail. At the time the line from Jackson through Three Rivers to Elkhart was the main freight line for traffic coming from Detroit to the Chicago area. The K'zoo to Porter line was axed from Conrail because it wasn't needed as there were two different routes that took traffic to the main classification yard for the Chicago area. (The line I mentioned, plus to K'zoo and south to Elkhart.) As traffic declined, the line from Jackson to Three Rivers was pulled back as well, leaving only small portions intact. This happened about the time the Michigan Line was singled tracked IIRC.
One other thing that I just found out, and I don't know about the truth of it. Around the same time this line from Jackson to Three Rivers was removed, and the Michigan Line was sold off, Conrail disposed of their line from Buffalo to Detroit through southern Canada (The Canada Southern). This line apparently had housed a large portion of the east of Buffalo to Chicago traffic, but had to cross the border twice. Traffic coming from a US origin to a US destination was delayed too much by this customs crossing, so the traffic was moved to the southern side of Lake Erie, thus deeming the Canada Southern, and the lines across southern Michigan much less in demand.
Jackson to Three Rivers to Elkhart. This was the reason the line from Kalamazoo was axed from Conrail. At the time the line from Jackson through Three Rivers to Elkhart was the main freight line for traffic coming from Detroit to the Chicago area. The K'zoo to Porter line was axed from Conrail because it wasn't needed as there were two different routes that took traffic to the main classification yard for the Chicago area. (The line I mentioned, plus to K'zoo and south to Elkhart.) As traffic declined, the line from Jackson to Three Rivers was pulled back as well, leaving only small portions intact. This happened about the time the Michigan Line was singled tracked IIRC.
One other thing that I just found out, and I don't know about the truth of it. Around the same time this line from Jackson to Three Rivers was removed, and the Michigan Line was sold off, Conrail disposed of their line from Buffalo to Detroit through southern Canada (The Canada Southern). This line apparently had housed a large portion of the east of Buffalo to Chicago traffic, but had to cross the border twice. Traffic coming from a US origin to a US destination was delayed too much by this customs crossing, so the traffic was moved to the southern side of Lake Erie, thus deeming the Canada Southern, and the lines across southern Michigan much less in demand.
Re: Michigan line
Is this the line that runs through Wayne and bisects the Ford plant or the one farther south that parallels I-94?
Re: Michigan line
That route being redundant against the Cleveland route was the main reason I think, not because of customs delays. There was enough capacity south of the lake without the hassle of the Detroit tunnel clearances, long before it was partially enlarged. Conrail being owned by the US government at the time and wanting to focus on properties in the US also may have had something to do with it.
Conrail did remove through freights from the Air Line and Canada Southern about the same time, 1979 or so. The auto industry entered a nasty recession starting in late spring that year, but I'm guessing the downsizing plan was made before that started.
Does NS ever use the northwest connector at Butler? I've only seen CP use it. Of course traffic from Detroit can also go to Chicago via Ft. Wayne, in addition to via Toledo.
Amtrak bought Kalamazoo-Porter from the Penn Central estate. I don't think the sale was finalized until a couple months after Conrail Day. PC maps had shown that it wanted to abandon most of that as early as 1973 if not sooner.
Conrail offered to GIVE the line from Ypsi to Kalamazoo to Michigan around 1995, but it wasn't interested at the time. So it ended up paying NS $140 million for it.
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10463
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
Re: Michigan line
No, CP owns the northwest connection at Butler, and is therefor only used by CP trains. All NS traffic bound for Michigan takes the long way via Toledo.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 5922
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:04 pm
- Location: Detroit
Re: Michigan line
How does the NS justify allowing another railroad with trackage rights to lay track between theirs, and being excluded from using?
Re: Michigan line
I don't know that it is a matter of them not being allowed to, or more a desire to or not to. I don't know that NS wants to use that connection to move traffic. How much NS traffic would actually use that connection? Does the use of that connection by NS improve NS operations? Does it save money for NS to make use of that connection? How much would they have to pay CP to use the connection (shouldn't be much given the length of track CP has as the connector).ConrailDetroit wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 4:25 pm
How does the NS justify allowing another railroad with trackage rights to lay track between theirs, and being excluded from using?
Also, I don't see a demand for use of the connector based on train operations.
358 is Elkhart to Oakwood, but works Airline Yard and River Rouge. This is the only train I can find that would potentially use the connector, and has other work limiting the need to use the connector.
Re: Michigan line
It goes back further than Penn Central to NYC closing the Niles yard and consolidating Chicago traffic into Elkhart in the 50's. In addition to being a parallel route on a railroad suffering excess capacity there were advantages in car handling. The 1964 freight schedule shows DC-7 was able to make connections with 14 other trains and leave Elkhart with cars pre-blocked for Chicago interchanges. Run DC-7 through Kalamazoo and Porter they would flat switch in Chicago what could be humped in Elkhart.
When CP-KCS or any carrier say they want to take trucks off the highways they only want shippers with the regular volumes moving over predefined lanes and iffy on short hauls. It's a narrow slice of the freight market.
When CP-KCS or any carrier say they want to take trucks off the highways they only want shippers with the regular volumes moving over predefined lanes and iffy on short hauls. It's a narrow slice of the freight market.
- justalurker66
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am
Re: Michigan line
It is NS owned and operated track. I can imagine NS not wanting to build the connection but what would be the result if NS said no? Would CP want to run the trains down to Fort Wayne and across the Chicago District? Or would they jump off of NS and onto CSX (losing trackage rights payments for the Chicago Line segment and compensation for using Elkhart as a crew base).ConrailDetroit wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 4:25 pmHow does the NS justify allowing another railroad with trackage rights to lay track between theirs, and being excluded from using?
I'd be surprised if there is an actual prohibition against NS using that connector. I suspect any lack of use is simply a desire to route the trains through Fort Wayne where NS has a crew base for that line and the Chicago District.
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10463
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
Re: Michigan line
NS has no interest in paying CP to use their connection at Butler. What traffic NS does have flowing between Chicago and Detroit just takes the long way via Toledo.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
Re: Michigan line
This is really intriguing. Whether they go via Detroit-Ft Wayne-Chicago or Detroit-Elkhart-Chicago, they have the same crew expense because it takes two crews regardless of the route, right? Or could they run Detroit-Chicago in one crew via Butler?
Even if CP physically owned the northwest wye at Butler, if it was cost effective for NS to run Detroit to Chicago via Butler they would pay the CP the minimal cost to run over their couple hundred feet of track. You’d think that cost would be negligible.
- DaveO
- Read more, think more, post less
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:57 pm
- Location: Between here and there
Re: Michigan line
If CP owns that NW Wye, then they have the responsibility to do the inspections and maintenance.
They can contract out the maintenance but I wonder if they can contract out the required regular FRA inspections.
They can contract out the maintenance but I wonder if they can contract out the required regular FRA inspections.
Last edited by DaveO on Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- justalurker66
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am
Re: Michigan line
Do you have any proof that CP owns the connection and NS would have to pay for use of it? All I am finding are unsupported claims on the Internet (some from people who are wrong about other details of the trackage rights deal).
It reminds me of a discussion I had one night with a fan who claimed that a building on the Chicago Line in Elkhart was owned by Canadian Pacific because it had a "CP" sign on it. The sign read "CP 421". Yep, that's a Canadian Pacific building. There is a CP building in Butler too that could confuse people.
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:52 am
- Location: Inkster,MI
Re: Michigan line
IIRC, the northwest Wye is indeed CP-owned and maintained track but dispatched as part of NS. This was put in shortly after CP gained Detroit to Chicago trackage rights on NS in 2009. All this was reported in an issue of Trains Magazine back then as I recall.bnsfben wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 7:07 pmThis is really intriguing. Whether they go via Detroit-Ft Wayne-Chicago or Detroit-Elkhart-Chicago, they have the same crew expense because it takes two crews regardless of the route, right? Or could they run Detroit-Chicago in one crew via Butler?
Even if CP physically owned the northwest wye at Butler, if it was cost effective for NS to run Detroit to Chicago via Butler they would pay the CP the minimal cost to run over their couple hundred feet of track. You’d think that cost would be negligible.
My Wife says my first love is trains..anint that the truth! Lol
- Saturnalia
- Authority on Cat
- Posts: 15393
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
- Location: Michigan City, IN
- Contact:
Re: Michigan line
The Rouge River to Butler is roughly 110 miles via the Wabash, and 120 miles via the NYC and Toledo.
Hardly a difference. Given the crew districts setup in Toledo, and the ability to block swap there, that 10 miles isn't a big deal.
Plus I'm not very familiar with Detroitland operations, but it sounds like most traffic on the NS naturally wants to run via Toledo based on the Detroit origins/destinations.
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 5:47 pm
Re: Michigan line
Connection has been there since 2005...JStryker722 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:58 pmThis was put in shortly after CP gained Detroit to Chicago trackage rights on NS in 2009.