RailRoadFan.com

At one point, I believe shortly after the Conrail merger, CSX had looked at connecting the GR Sub and Porter Branch seriously enough that they had engineering draw up plans for it. The plan required the GR Sub to curve more to the south starting at Locust St, tying in to the Chicago Line right at 8th St. A set of crossovers would have been installed/moved to facilitate trains crossing all the way over between the two. The plan would've required the demolition and or relocation of a few homes and businesses. Obviously, that never went beyond the blueprint phase.

BRIDGE IT! Too much money but possible. Then you rely on no one but CSX who doesn't even run anything that I know of on that sub. NS does very little. Do the switches but then you still have NS to rely on.
If and when CP gets the KCS things could change. Always been my contention to do this and then throw in a connection at Willow Spring in the NW quadrant and run 326/327 that way too. Less NS all the way around.

Doktor No wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:15 pm

BRIDGE IT! Too much money but possible. Then you rely on no one but CSX who doesn't even run anything that I know of on that sub. NS does very little. Do the switches but then you still have NS to rely on.
If and when CP gets the KCS things could change. Always been my contention to do this and then throw in a connection at Willow Spring in the NW quadrant and run 326/327 that way too. Less NS all the way around.

South of Willow Creek, CSX runs traffic to and from the IHB on the Porter Branch. Q352, X200, along with coal and pet coke trains. North of Willow Creek, just Y129 that serves the steel plant on 149, along with a few NS trains.

i did not see this here, CP/csx would need PTC on the line costing millions as well, so there is a possible confliction

I'm sure CP has been offered the line a few times - and their lack of response says all one needs to know.

Typhoon wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:20 pm

The CP was offered the line a couple of years ago. They had no interest in it, however the talks did result in the haulage trains Q166/Q165. Long story short, it is a railfan fantasy.

It is going to happen soon I bet. I am right next door pretty much to the line here in Livonia/Plymouth area. I have lived here for 12 years and I have never seen much other than storage near Beck Road. Aka you are lucky to catch more than one CSX train on the Plymouth sub in Lansing. I am willing to bet my money CSX is going to sell the line to CP sooner than later. Probably when I leave for college in 2023, I can see CP overtaking the mainline. Once CP finishes the Detroit River tunnel to accommodate double stacks and they bring back 142/143, CP will definitely want their line in Michigan and the Norfolk Southern trackage rights agreement has run out but they are only allowing them to run via the Wabash until a deal works out. Keith Creel is about growth these days. I totally see it happening within 2-3 years from now or maybe sooner.

I think CP (or CPKC for modern talk) should actually move back to the Plymouth and it seems fairly easy! They can build a new crossover at Porter (first pic) and then transfer to the Garrett sub at Portage and from their CP trains will find their way back to home rails in Chicago!

Blaze06 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:10 pm

I think CP (or CPKC for modern talk) should actually move back to the Plymouth and it seems fairly easy! They can build a new crossover at Porter (first pic) and then transfer to the Garrett sub at Portage and from their CP trains will find their way back to home rails in Chicago!

At Porter in your picture, your putting the diamond back in on the Amtrak line. CSX is to the east of your drawn in line...

Blaze06 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:10 pm

I think CP (or CPKC for modern talk) should actually move back to the Plymouth and it seems fairly easy! They can build a new crossover at Porter (first pic) and then transfer to the Garrett sub at Portage and from their CP trains will find their way back to home rails in Chicago!

It’s a little more complicated than adding a few switches and connecting tracks. You have to take Saugatuck hill into account, as well as capacity problems in Wyoming Yard, as well as many, many other things one may not think about.

Capacity problems at Wyoming Yard? WHAT capacity problems at Wyoming yard?

Doktor No wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:46 pm

Capacity problems at Wyoming Yard? WHAT capacity problems at Wyoming yard?

I was about to ask him to elaborate on that.

Not trying to burst any bubble here, but unless something comes out that officially speaks to CP coming back to the CSX line across Michigan (Plymouth and GR subs), then its really just something nice to think about.

CP can continue using the current NS routing with NO additional cost. As long as the current routing works, why incur cost in the application of a new route? It just doesn't make any business sense. Think of Return on Investment (ROI).

CP's own line across Michigan to Chicago - sure, but does the cost exceed the benefit? If so, then its likely "no soup for you" to coin a phrase.

David Lang wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:33 pm

Not trying to burst any bubble here, but unless something comes out that officially speaks to CP coming back to the CSX line across Michigan (Plymouth and GR subs), then its really just something nice to think about.

CP can continue using the current NS routing with NO additional cost. As long as the current routing works, why incur cost in the application of a new route? It just doesn't make any business sense. Think of Return on Investment (ROI).

CP's own line across Michigan to Chicago - sure, but does the cost exceed the benefit? If so, then its likely "no soup for you" to coin a phrase.

That is not entirely correct. NS has CP capped at a certain amount of tonnage, which is basically what their existing traffic levels are at. If CP ever wants to run more tonnage this way, they will need to explore other options. NS charges CP a very pretty penny for what they do currently run, I might add.

SD80MAC wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 16, 2023 9:45 am

That is not entirely correct. NS has CP capped at a certain amount of tonnage, which is basically what their existing traffic levels are at.

This may sound like a really stupid question, but why?

One would think it prevents CP from adding too many new trains to the NS routing through Indiana, plugging up NS's ability to get their own traffic to/from Chicagoland.

Assuming CSX was interested in unloading the Plymouth sub, which would be more likely? 1) Sell it to CP and help a competitor for east coast container traffic plug a gap in its network. 2) Lease or sell it to someone like G&W or Watco in a deal structured to keep the PM traffic on CSX.

The prime focus of the CP KCS merger was traffic west of Chicago. Other than a mention of increasing intermodal traffic on single trains to/from Toronto there was no forecast for traffic increases east of Chicago.

kd_1014 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:37 pm

as well as many, many other things one may not think about.

Short sidings, crappy signal system, up and down profile, and little online buisness don't help. Add in the fact that CSX will no doubt would keep east of Plymouth, means the CP would not control either end of the railroad.

Blaze06 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:10 pm

They can build a new crossover at Porter (first pic) and then transfer to the Garrett sub at Portage

That would be the Barr sub.