Eastern Railroad Discussion > Q re: IM schedules impact if UP+NS moves 63rd St lifts to Global

Today NS operates 7 service lanes via 3 train pairs out of its Chicago's 63rd St IM yard (aka Park Manor):

- 28B/29P handle priority traffic (eg UPS) to/from Toledo/Buffalo
- 22M/25P handle priority traffic to/from Pittsburgh/Morrisville
- 264/265 handle non-priority traffic to from Scranton/Mechanicville/Ayer MA

The UP+NS merger application filing with the STB indicates the plan is to move unspecified NS 63rd St IM traffic to UP's Global 2 IM facility, about 25 miles further northwest. Assuming the 63rd St service lanes will be serviced out of Global 2 post merger, should there be significant transit time impact to the 2 train pairs listed above? Per Google Maps, the 25 miles can be driven by car in 30 minutes via I-290 if there's no traffic but how long should it typically take for a lengthy IM train to run between UP Global 2 to/from 63rd St via Ashland Ave (?) to NS at Park Manor? Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/26 03:56 by JPB.

---

I'm curious to know where and how traffic leaving Park Manor comes from now.

Anybody know that?

Posted from Android

Park Manor IM Yard is just little east of Englewood alongside what used to be the PRR and NYC mains where the Broadway and the Century once raced east in the steam days. The red lines represent NS track or trackage rights.

Also UP's Global 2 IM yard is barely visible in the upper left corner of the NS Chicago detail map.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/26 07:21 by JPB.

---

---

Transit time depends on day of week and time of day.

On Weekdays the Metra rush between Global Two and Kedzie Ave; and at CP 518.
A smaller rush at Brighton Park.

Any day, trains ahead on the CJ portion waiting to get on CSX at Taylor St.
and other NS eastbound monster trains ahead.

My Chicago DS feelings tell me on a great day it would be an hour between Global Two
and the east end of Park Manor.  Park Manor is located east of the big areas of congestion.

On a normal day anybody's guess how long it would take in addition to how many cars would
be unloaded by the locals wherever the train stopped.
 

It's one of a number of lousy ideas in the proposed merger plans, and a perfect example of how this financially benefits the merged company with theoretically lowered costs by facility consolidation - but not customers, workers and other stakeholders.

The old saying that "the devil is in the details" also perfectly applies. If I'm an intermodal shipper with a facility from which I ship in the city of Chicago, or one of the inner ring of suburbs, especially on the South Side or in heavily industrial Northwest Indiana (and there are still a lot of them - more than you might think), and I ship in those lanes, I probably won't care too much about the railroad operational details involved here. But I sure can understand all too well the added transit time to the yard by the drayman in heavy weekday afternoon traffic for my trailer or container to reach the new loading yard versus the current facilities right in the city. It means my shipment has to be loaded and away from my dock earlier than before to make cutoff time at the yard. That's real - and any of us who have ever worked on a factory or warehouse floor know that. And how an earlier cutoff can really impact our daily schedule.

Will our shipment be more reliable though in transit time once loaded? Highly questionable. The train that once started its eastward trip right on the mainline track of its route east now will have cross the heart of the Chicago rail plant, and multiple junctions (each a possible delay point), to reach the same mainline route east that today it achieves right out of the yard. More time. More chances for delays. Where am I as a shipper gaining anything?

Not in better service overall. Well, maybe a better rate then - sharing with me some of the financial gains of using that consolidated facility? Dream on.

This merger is about financial gains for Wall Street - period. Hard stop. And this is but one example of how and why.

MC

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/26 14:36 by ironmtn.

I read an article in the Chicago Tribune last month discussing the UP's intent to add 12 daily trains
to transit the Low Line.  That means from and to NS Ashland Avenue Yard, on the old Chicago Junction
to 14th Street, then on the former C&NW to the mains at Kedzie.  I will post the date if I find the story.
I believe the info came from the merger/takeover filings with the STB.
Oh, and by the way, good luck with a dozen more trains on the Low Line.

So, a hypothetical box from Toledo for delivery in the Chicago area will now pass Park Manor and go west to Golobal 2. Adding in a half day of transit, and then back tracking for the final miles to delivery.

Doesn't sound like putting the customer first...

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, a hypothetical box from Toledo for delivery in
> the Chicago area will now pass Park Manor and go
> west to Golobal 2. Adding in a half day of
> transit, and then back tracking for the final
> miles to delivery.
>
> Doesn't sound like putting the customer first...

Exactly. No, it is not putting the customer first. It's putting reduction in costs of not operating an intermodal terminal, Park Manor / 63rd St., and condensing everything to Global 2 as the first priority.

Customers can go pound sand.

MC

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/26 17:39 by ironmtn.

I predict a meltdown when this all takes place.
Management will want everything switched on day one
When it should be done over a few months

Posted from iPhone

farmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I predict a meltdown when this all takes place.
> Management will want everything switched on day
> one
> When it should be done over a few months
>
> Posted from iPhone

That would follow the playbook used in the takeover of Southern Pacific. Change everything on day one, and wonder why everything is stuck in molasses for weeks at a time.

This whole route (between the two yards) is an area I end up around constantly doing errands and such. What I can say is - good luck with putting long trains into it. Railfanning that whole stretch is filled with stopped trains waiting for clearance. 

From Global 2 eastward:

1. Have to work through Metra traffic all day, plus rush hours. Freight has to cross over all the mains at some point to get to the Rockwell Line. It's three tracks but a slow crossover move only fits into so many time slots. 
2. Rockwell Subdivision: whats already on it, waiting to get through the Geneva Sub Metra/UP traffic? Because rarely does a train just exit Rockwell and get onto the Geneva. Usually its a wait. 
3. The Rockwell Sub only has a few miles until you get to Ash Street / CP Brighton. Often trains are held north of the river waiting for recrews or a slot across the diamonds. 
4. Ash St/Freeport Sub is freight only, but CP Brighton has all Amtrak STL trains and 3 Metra roundtrips, so 18 passenger trains a day. They already get stabbed at that diamond frequently by UP NS.
5. Here is where it gets interesting - after those diamonds, trains quickly run into grade crossings at South Racine Ave and Morgan St. Those get blocked a lot but I don't get the sense that trains are allowed to sit for recrews blocking them, except maybe on weekends. 
It's hard to fit a lot between those diamonds and those grade crossings.
6. CP-Halsted to join the NS Chicago Line: now you've got an interlocking where freights have to cross over the Metra SWS mains, which are busy during rush hour. On the Chicago Line itself, there is plenty of Amtrak traffic. 
7. 55th St. has a lot of moves going in and out of it, those can narrow capacity and change what track space is availabe. 
8. Arrive at Park Manor!

Two shots below show CP Halsted. The stack train waiting to get on the Chicago Line is blocking two road crossings and stretches past Ashland Ave. Yard. That yard might have little going on if the merger happens, since it mostly seems to be about interchange traffic.

The other shot CP 518, where Amtrak would be on the Chicago line at the left, and Metra SWS trains crossover to get to the SWS main on the right. The stack train is waiting on something here. 

Honestly if UP wants to do this kinda nonsense (add 12 trains to this route) they should foot the bill for getting Metra SWS service onto a new alignment, via La Salle, or whatever plan. Because they'd be the ones benefitting from it. 

 

---

---

NS runs multiple intermodals out of Chicago that service Harrisbug, Croxton, and Morrisville, some originate in Park Manor and more in the much larger 47th Street just 2 miles away.  UP is not going to simply relocate the same exact trains from Park Manor (63rd) to G2, but rather reallocate market pairs to both 47th and G2 as appropriate, adjust block swapping at yards like Harrisburg and Colehaur, etc.  NS already did some of that a few years ago, with some high priority traffic shifting from Park Manor to 47th in an intermodal network redesign.  There is plenty of west side traffic that drayed from Park and 47th that now will have shorter drays to G2.  Anything to Omaha, Stockton, Seattle, and in-between will run to G2 to be block swapped.  Instead of 2 trains a day out of 47th and Park to Croxton, there may be 1 from G2 and 1 from 47th, which could actually reduce overall dray mileage.  Plus more stacks moving out of 47th as blocks swapped down the line if traffic warrants.  Very few boxes destined for 63rd and east are going to run to G2 then get drayed back, most will end up ramped at 47th. 

Park Manor hosts a lot of high priority traffic like UPS, that pay high rates and demand high service.  UP has had discussions with them about the proposed changes.  TOFC/COFC schedules to Toledo, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo of 20, 23, and 32 hours, those will almost certainly shift to 47th.  The idea that UP would add an extra half day or more transit times to a UPS that can easily switch to CSX is silly. 


 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/26 20:45 by baretables.

baretables Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS runs multiple intermodals out of Chicago that
> service Harrisbug, Croxton, and Morrisville, some
> originate in Park Manor and more in the much
> larger 47th Street just 2 miles away.  UP is not
> going to simply relocate the same exact trains
> from Park Manor (63rd) to G2, but rather
> reallocate market pairs to both 47th and G2 as
> appropriate, adjust block swapping at yards like
> Harrisburg and Colehaur, etc.  NS already did
> some of that a few years ago, with some high
> priority traffic shifting from Park Manor to 47th
> in an intermodal network redesign.  There is
> plenty of west side traffic that drayed from Park
> and 47th that now will have shorter drays to G2. 
> Anything to Omaha, Stockton, Seattle, and
> in-between will run to G2 to be block swapped. 
> Instead of 2 trains a day out of 47th and Park to
> Croxton, there may be 1 from G2 and 1 from 47th,
> which could actually reduce overall dray
> mileage.  Plus more stacks moving out of 47th as
> blocks swapped down the line if traffic
> warrants.  Very few boxes destined for 63rd and
> east are going to run to G2 then get drayed back,
> most will end up ramped at 47th. 
>
> Park Manor hosts a lot of high priority traffic
> like UPS, that pay high rates and demand high
> service.  UP has had discussions with them about
> the proposed changes.  TOFC/COFC schedules to
> Toledo, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo of 20, 23, and 32
> hours, those will almost certainly shift to
> 47th.  The idea that UP would add an extra half
> day or more transit times to a UPS that can easily
> switch to CSX is silly. 
>
>
Glad to read this! Thanks.

All of "baretables" remarks above on a shift of some Park Manor / 63rd St. intermodal traffic to 47th St. Yard make sense. Except, it's not what the merger application actually says. It makes no mention of traffic shifts from Park Manor to 47th, but flatly states that the Park Manor intermodal traffic will shift to Global 2 in the western suburb of Northlake, adjacent to the former C&NW Proviso Yard.

Direct quote, merger application, vol. 2, p. 594 (PDF index window p. 1179) - emphasis mine:

"204. UP/NS also will shift NS’s intermodal operations in 63rd Street Yard to
UP’s Global 2. The operational change will reduce duplicative operating expenses,
and Global 2 has sufficient capacity to absorb the additional operations. As a result
of the change, which involves an extension of service from 63rd Street Yard to
Global 2 , two additional intermodal train pairs per day will move over a small portion
of UP’s Geneva Subdivision that is also used by Metra, but that recently-improved
triple-track segment has provided a minimum of 25 trains per day of slack capacity
which will enable the route to accommodate the additional traffic. The change will
also eliminate approximately 130 rubber tire interchanges per day that currently
occur in the Chicago complex, which will benefit Chicago-area motorists."

If facilities consolidation is needed, it would logically make sense to move some traffic from 63rd St Yard / Park Manor to 47th St Yard. It's 16 blocks (2 miles) closer to downtown Chicago and to priority shippers there, such as a major UPS hub just south of the Loop. It has direct access to the mainline running route, just as Park Manor / 63rd St. does.

But that's not what the merger application says. And the wording in the merger application is what all of us who are commenting are focused upon. Not what we think it says. Not as with some private negotiations that we're not aware of. But what the public, formal, legal document states. So all of our comments are not only fair and germane, but they're based in the actual application document to the STB.

According to the merger application, what 47th St. Yard will do is accept intermodal traffic that currently goes to Yard Center in Dolton, which will be expanded for carload manifest service.

Direct quote, merger application, vol. 2, p. 593 (PDF index window p. 1178):

203. For intermodal traffic, UP/NS will shift UP’s intermodal operations at
Yard Center to NS’s 47th Street intermodal terminal. The operational change will
reduce duplicative operating expenses, create additional capacity to accommodate
manifest traffic growth at Yard Center, reduce train and vehicle congestion around
Dolton Tower/Yard Center, and help create surge manifest capacity in the Chicago
gateway. NS’s 47th Street Yard has sufficient capacity to absorb Yard Center’s
intermodal operations without capital improvements

In the spirit of our comments, one might question that move too, because traffic that once launched from a suburban facility at 147th to 159th Streets will be handled 100 blocks or more to the north into the heart of the city and its congestion. A longer dray into the city and into much more traffic congestion than currently, and thus a potential reduction of the shipper's origination dock release time due to a longer, more congested dray - an effective loss of cutoff time for the shipper. And if the lane an originating train serves is one that goes southward on the ex-MP / C&EI route, the train has to backtrack out of the city on the former C&WI that same distance south. That's a good route until it hits one of the busiest junctions in Chicagoland, Dolton Jct. Which a Yard Center origin, being south of there, currently avoids completely.

We are of course looking at this from the viewpoint of general patterns. We do not have access to the confidential waybill data that NS and UP have access to, which shows the customer and origination point of the shipment, dray information, origin - destination information, intermodal ramps used and trains and service lanes on which the shipment is routed. One would hope that UP and NS thoroughly analyzed those data points in their plans, and remixed the ramps and origin points for existing shippers and their traffic to optimize their shipments, origins, ramps used and trains used. Maybe it will all work out just fine in the end, and shippers will be satisfied.

But based on the actual language of the application, there are legitimate concerns for existing traffic. And even more for future traffic. Over and over the application says that the merger is all about growth. Well then, why reduce and constrain shippers' options if you want to attract more intermodal traffic, the most likely type of traffic for removal from highway shipment - which again the application repeatedly cites as a goal of the merger. Why not be more truck competitive - rather than less truck competitive?

Why create potentially longer and more congested drays, busier yards with more lifts and more potential problems especially on busy days and in bad weather? Why effectively create  earlier dock cutoff times for shippers to accommodate a longer dray to a more distant yard? Why create more congested rail routings which duplicate highway miles used during the dray - virtually doubling up the net movement on the origination leg? Why not instead have a more distributed overall operation with room for expansion, and with yards having direct access to the rail routes they serve, avoiding train movements through already busy and complex junctions and routes? As the originating yards have - now.

Where's the customer orientation - present AND future? Where's the orientation to growth through distributed, well-placed, relatively friction-free (reducing "friction" is also a big theme of the merger application) intermodal yard locations that can well serve present customers - and new ones too?

Inquiring minds wonder, and have questions. Based on the actual words of the applicants. Seems pretty responsible to me. And not "silly" at all.

MC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/26 15:25 by ironmtn.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, a hypothetical box from Toledo for delivery in
> the Chicago area will now pass Park Manor and go
> west to Golobal 2. Adding in a half day of
> transit, and then back tracking for the final
> miles to delivery.

Only if the customer is located south or east of the city.  If the customer is located in say Aurora, it is much closer from G2.   And I doubt there is anyone messing with the railroad for a Toledo to NW Indiana box.

>
> Doesn't sound like putting the customer first...

Again, it depends on the customer.

I think the Yard Center originating intermodals are all destined to Mexico or the border.  I also think much of the traffic on these trains is auto parts drayed from Michigan area.. Thus Yard Center is in a perfect location for loads coming from the east of Chicago.  I could be wrong however, been retired for a long time from MP/UP.

Mexrail

mexrail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the Yard Center originating intermodals
> are all destined to Mexico or the border.  I also
> think much of the traffic on these trains is auto
> parts drayed from Michigan area.. Thus Yard Center
> is in a perfect location for loads coming from the
> east of Chicago.  I could be wrong however, been
> retired for a long time from MP/UP.
>
> Mexrail

Thanks for that info. And if you are correct and that is the key traffic group that is indeed currently handled at Yard Center, than yes, Yard Center is a much better place to ramp it than at 47th Street. And further, if this is correct, I think that the automotive sector customers involved with such traffic may have something to say about this change. I've worked with them, and often in relation to traffic to and from Mexico, in another area of their supply chain logistics. They are very sensitive, as they always have been, about any factors that can affect scheduling, reliability, delivery windows and cutoff times, and timeliness.

As I read the merger application closely, I'm finding "micro-impacts" like this in the plan. Not the big-picture strategic gains that the application focuses on, but smaller yet very real impacts not only to current customers, but potentially for future customers and traffic growth - which is supposedly what this proposed merger is all about. Yes, there will always be such smaller impacts - there are always "winners and losers" in any merger, unfortunately. Almost never is such a plan a complete "win-win" for everyone. But it ought to be a goal of such a merger plan, supposedly based on growth and service gains, to absolutely minimize them. Especially for the kinds of high-value, time-sensitive priority-sensitive customers as we are discussing in this thread.

MC

 The application also says 2 pairs of intermodal will be added to the Geneva Sub.  But Park Manor originates and terminates 3 pair.  So yes, they are going to make changes beyond those specifically spelled out in the document.

Giving this some further thought, and if indeed Yard Center is now used as an origination point for intermodal traffic to Texas and Mexico (which is logical), the merger plan anticipates that there will be traffic growth from Detroit to Texas and Mexico via the NS former Wabash route. Using that route out of Detroit, traffic can go directly to the former MP ex-C&EI via a connection at Sidney, IL (lightly used today), then using the ex-C&EI route through southern Illinois across the Thebes Bridge, then ex-MP through Little Rock into Texas and to the Mexico gateway. To be fair, such a routing would be advantageous, and if indeed automotive parts and components traffic to and from Texas and Mexico (now heavily trucked) does now use Yard Center, it can take this route as a single-carrier route for such traffic. Traffic originating closer to Chicago could use trains originating at 47th St., maybe with a little less efficient dray than going to Yard Center, but on balance more efficient than driving it to Detroit.

The merger plan anticipates expansion and growth in lifts at the current NS Livernois Yard in Detroit, probably reflecting this.

I thought I had seen a new Detroit - Mexico Gateway train listed in my first quick overview of the document when first issued, but I can't find it now. Maybe I was just thinking about the route and conflated that with one of the new, designated trains in the merger plan.

In any case, this needs to be recognized as a positive development in the merger plan. Having worked with a lot of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio to Mexico and reverse automotive parts traffic (and the volumes are large) myself in the past outside the railroad industry and within the supply chain, mostly by truck, this new routing definitely has the potential to capture truck traffic and move it to rail intermodal.

And it is a plus in another way in that Yard Center is to be re purposed from intermodal for expanded manifest traffic. The merger plan leans a lot on the idea of developing "watershed" traffic within the Midwest (roughly 400 miles on either side of the Mississippi) and capturing that from truck to rail. If that happens for manifest traffic, there will be yard space needed. Yard Center in Dolton, IL south of Chicago can provide that space in the former intermodal portion of the yard.

MC

Dolton Yard is well positioned relative to I-94 and I-80.  So is CN's Homewood Yard.