GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Anything pertaining to railfanning in Indiana.
jimnorthwood
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:05 am
Location: Northwood, OH

GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by jimnorthwood »

This idea has been floating around for a while. It is a proposal to build a double track bypass around Chicago, from La Porte, Indiana through Illinois to near Milton, Wisconsin. Now it has gotten far enough along to reach Environmental Impact Statement stage at the STB. That in and of itself doesn't mean it will ever get off the ground; the proposed Tongue River coal line in Montana has been at the EIS stage for years. And with the recent changes in the coal market, it seems unlikely that line will ever come to be. Still, any proposal to construct nearly 300 miles of double track mainline in the Midwest to carry 110 trains a day is interesting and thus, seems worthy of a share:

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument

User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37900
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by AARR »

Why not just use CN's ex-EJ&E line. It can handle additional traffic and the other railroads can pay CN whatever fee they agree to. It seems like that would be far more economical than building 300 miles of new rail.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

9xs
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by 9xs »

That is part of the project that includes building a toll road from Lowell to Mokena, IL. The project is currently mothballed. I guess I-80/94 can handle all the Chicago traffic that can be thrown at it, never mind that a big snow storm or an accident strands drivers for days in 3 foot snow drifts.

Dave

User avatar
justalurker66
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by justalurker66 »

Here is the company's website:
http://www.greatlakesbasin.net/

heypal6878
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:34 pm

Increase in train traffic

Unread post by heypal6878 »

I saw this on Yahoo business today. An official with Great Lakes Basin Transportation said the portion of a proposed, three-state freight train route between Lowell and south of Wanatah could see 56 to 85 trains a day once the line is fully up and running. The information comes in a response to a request for more information from the federal Surface Transportation board about GLBT's plans for a freight train line from southern Wisconsin into LaPorte County. The response also details maximum train speeds for the line, depending on what the trains are carrying, among other factors. The maximum speeds are 70 mph for intermodal; 50 mph for coal and grain; 45 mph for oil; and 55 mph for general carloads

I was wondering if Chesterton would be seeing an increase in train traffic as well if these trains switched and went east to west. Trains coming down from Lowell to Wanatah may switch off and come from the east along the Chesterton rail. What do you think?

User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
Posts: 15385
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Michigan City, IN
Contact:

Re: Increase in train traffic

Unread post by Saturnalia »

The proposed connection is actually around La Porte proper, which is around milepost 466. Chesterton is farther to the west. So really, it'd decrease traffic in Chesterton.
Thornapple River Rail Series - YouTube
Safety today is your investment for tomorrow

User avatar
justalurker66
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by justalurker66 »

The proposed connection to the NS Chicago Line is near CD 469 west of Pinola. The Chicago Line makes a sweeping turn northwest, the GLBT line would make a sweeping turn southwest. As Saternalia noted, this is east of Chesterton (CD 481) and the proposal is to move traffic off of the NS and other lines and route trains around Chicago - so it would be a proposed decrease in traffic at Chesterton.

56 to 85 trains is optimistic. Trains would need to be pulled from NS, CSX and CN owned lines to reach that level ... and with current routing many of the trains on those lines are not passing through Chicago, they are destined for Chicago. Rerouting away from their destination would not be desirable.

northstar16
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:25 pm

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by northstar16 »

Interesting thanks for the info hate to see Chesterton traffic go down if this new plan comes to light. I was looking at the Chesterton Camera on RailStream LLC. Haven't looked on there in a few weeks but noticed today that blue lines have been painted on the number one and number two tacks before the crossing and after the crossing on the other side. What is that all about? Are they being replaced?

User avatar
justin_gram
Authority on Rabbit
Posts: 4649
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:45 pm
Location: St. Joseph CG91.9 / East Lansing CH87
Contact:

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by justin_gram »

northstar16 wrote:Interesting thanks for the info hate to see Chesterton traffic go down if this new plan comes to light. I was looking at the Chesterton Camera on RailStream LLC. Haven't looked on there in a few weeks but noticed today that blue lines have been painted on the number one and number two tacks before the crossing and after the crossing on the other side. What is that all about? Are they being replaced?
Those are more than likely a mark showing where the railroad crossing sensors are. From what I've heard, On each side of the crossing there are 2 sensors... One far away from x-ing, which activates it when train near (depending on the train speed), and the sensors you see on the cam. When train is inside this "island", it's considered on the crossing and the gates will stay down until cleared. After it's cleared there is about a 4 second delay, then gates rise.

captplaid
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:29 pm
Location: Ottawa, IL
Contact:

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by captplaid »

I'm trying to wrap my head around how this will work. I can understand how shippers for unit trains whether coal or oil would desire greater efficiency that a proposed Chicago bypass would offer, but I cant see shippers willling to pay a premium. If company ABC will sell oil to an eastern refiner at a cheaper price to go through Chicago than company XYZ will pay to take the bypass, Company ABC will make the sale every time. Who will be willing to pay the premium to bypass Chicago a few hours earlier?

I can understand Shipper would like the rail companies to pay the difference to take the GLBT "shortcut", but in the real world, that's not going to happen. Railroads aren't going to eat the additional cost.

Shippers on trains with mixed loads aren't interested in additional efficiency or paying the premium. If a glass factory in Ohio is getting 7 cars a week of Soda Ash out of Wyoming, cutting 8 to 16 hours of transit time isn't going to be critical. Plus the majority of train of mixed cars will not be willing to pay a premium for a GLBT interchange. Basically, anyone wanting a premium and quicker transfer, is along for the ride as the train is going to Chicago.

Can intermodal trains be interested in GLBT?

Without a STB mandate to use a GLBT byass, and without a round of mergers where east coast railroads meet west coast railroads, how can Great Lakes Basin Railroad succeed?

jpillinois
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 11:26 am

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by jpillinois »

The answer Captplaid is, the class 1's don't support it or plan to use it. The bypass solves nothing for the intermodal trains since they are actually heading TO Chicago and the many yards. So it is only useful only for unit trains. But the Class 1's have either been silent or opposed to participating in glbr.

Here is NS statemnt: http://www.ritdllc.com/industry-news/no ... -rail-line.
NS has just upgraded the Kankakee Line tht connects with BNS in Streator.

UP has reiterated it is not interested: http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news ... after.html

CN already has poured 100's of millions in the EJE which is meeting all of their Chicago routing needs as they can direct unit trains around Chicago or mixed freight to any intermodal yard in the region.

BNSF has several bypass options for unit trains around Chicago including the Kankakee line with NS and the new Smithboro, IL connection with CSX, specifically intended for unit trains to bypass Chicago. And they can easily connect with the extremely well located TPW in Peoria.

The only possible benefactor is CP and or WSOR owned by WATCO. CP is by far the lowest player in Chicago freight and is coming off a losing effort to acquire NS. IMHO glbr is nothing more than a shell company trying to leverage massive public funds to try to gain geographic positional leverage or a reason to even exist.

The glbr would be extremely expensive. Requiring some 18 bridges over waterways including 4 major rivers, Rock, Fox, Illinois and Kankakee. And acquisition by eminent domain of 7000 acres of highly productive farm land, and then rail/road grade crossings with 8 interstates and dozens more US and State highways. Sounds like lawyers dream job. Who will pay for all that? not some private entity.

Why not just complete the CREATE Projects and specifically the 75th st corridor; http://www.createprogram.org/factsheets/P3.pdf Here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aer4P5jNrms

The Class 1's already are on board philosophically and financially with CREATE as is the Federal gov't. That is a public private solution definition.
So instead of new greenfield development, just invest in bringing existing infrastructure up to date.

captplaid
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:29 pm
Location: Ottawa, IL
Contact:

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by captplaid »

What does WSOR have to gain? I never understood them. Are they just a state supported regional shortline? I guess I understand the basics of the big 6, especially the northern and western railroads. NS looks like they can get into the roll of northeastern regional shortline with a bunch of meandering tracks in and around the Appalachians and New England.

Does WSOR play a similar follow for Wisconsin and limit unit trains of sand out of Wisconsin?

jpillinois
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 11:26 am

Re: GREAT LAKES BASIN TRANSPORTATION, INC

Unread post by jpillinois »

Watco is the largest operator of short lines in US. But they have no real presence in Chicago. They would love to get the operator contract for this line. But only if taxpayers build it.

Currently the short hauls in Chicago are IHB and BRC both are at least partly joint owned by Class 1's.

I may have to backtrack on my CP assertion, they own 49% (51% Conrail) of IHB, which further confounds me as to who would use this. Why would CP divert to this line if they are denying themselves mileage on a route they own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_H ... t_Railroad

All Class 1's share ownership of BRC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_Railway_of_Chicago

I am just trying to follow the money to figure who is behind this LLC.

Post Reply