5 ms·

This is a nice article. Two observations: 1. The article mentions that the average freight train speed is ~28 miles per hour. From what I can find, the aver

by OldHand2018 6y ago

This is a nice article. Two observations: 1. The article mentions that the average freight train speed is ~28 miles per hour. From what I can find, the average freight train speed in the US is ~26 miles per hour. I’m not sure that these numbers are actually apples-vs-apples though. 2. From what I can see on that map, it looks like Moscow is the central hub for freight rail regardless of which China-Europe route you take. Smart move by Russia. Chicago is kind of the North American equivalent and it has really benefited Chicago quite a lot.

hinkley 6y ago
If Chicago didn't exist, someone else would have put a city within a handful of miles of the same location. It's about as centrally located to the US as you can get from the Great Lakes, and once a canal opened (in this case, the Eerie, but shorter canals could have existed, it was just in NYC's interests to have that particular canal), then that's about as far as a boat can go, and water traffic is more efficient than rail. So you would have trains leaving 'Chicago' to go everywhere, and someone would have thought to build a canal to get to the Illinois river and hence the Mississippi. I'm not so sure that "St Louis" had to be exactly where it is, but Chicago is virtually a foregone geographical conclusion.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  Reminds me of US Steel selling off a rail that bypassed the Chicago railtraffic jam for big money: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-09-27-0709260847-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-09-27-070926...
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  French explorers recognized the strategic importance of the area in the 1600s. For sure, a large city would eventually sprout in the area where Chicago is. When France ceded the lands of the Illinois Country (east of the Mississippi) to Great Britain in the 1700s, all the French had to GTFO. St Louis was the highest land along the Mississippi anywhere close to the confluences of the Missouri, Ohio and Illinois rivers. Since the Mississippi flooded almost every spring, this was the best place to put a city and it allowed the French to maintain more control over the area than they were supposed to have. The railroads were built by men, however, and could have gone anywhere. The negotiations and influencing that got them all built through Chicago has had a huge ROI for the last 150+ years.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    > St Louis was the highest land That explains it. I kept thinking there must be better spots to put it. It does appear though that it’s surrounded by wide flood plains on several sides and certain spots would be harder to ford than the narrows that bracket the city on two sides.
- Wohlf 6y ago
  St. Louis would have likely been in the same general area too because of the Missouri river.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  The Chicago portage is also the shortest distance between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes. So it was more or less destiny.
mc32 6y ago
Isn’t Bailey Yard in North Platte, NE the biggest rail yard in the US with about 14,000 rail cars going through it daily.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Yes. But there's one railroad line that goes through North Platte. There once were ~38 railroad lines into Chicago. Some are no longer in service (at least as through lines), but Chicago is still far more widely served than North Platte.
  - OldHand2018 6y ago
    The Chicago region has dozens of very large rail yards, with construction of new yards and expansion of existing yards ongoing. It would take a lot of investment elsewhere to eclipse: Russia/Moscow is making a strategic investment that will pay large dividends for them for decades to come.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Chicago is where all the Class I (i.e., big railroads) meet: UP, BNSF, CN, CP, KCS, CSX, NS. There are several railroad yards in the city and surrounding environments, so much so that the rail lines are really visible on Google Maps who otherwise loves to deemphasize rail routes.
  - sjsamson 6y ago
    Indeed, Chicago and the Mississippi River is the dividing line in the North American rail network. UP and BNSF dominate western US, CSX and NS the eastern US, CN and CP dominate Canada, and large regionals like KCS, the Mexico side is similarly or more abysmal. Unfortunately they don’t integrate that well together to form a cohesive network. CP is attempting to buy KCS/KCSM to create something of a NAFTA/USMCA railroad, but it’s not clear it would deliver those benefits without harming competition in the existing setup. Ideally the rail infrastructure would be publicly owned and invested in, and any train operator could transport from any location to any location on the North American rail network.

hinkley 6y ago

If Chicago didn't exist, someone else would have put a city within a handful of miles of the same location. It's about as centrally located to the US as you can get from the Great Lakes, and once a canal opened (in this case, the Eerie, but shorter canals could have existed, it was just in NYC's interests to have that particular canal), then that's about as far as a boat can go, and water traffic is more efficient than rail. So you would have trains leaving 'Chicago' to go everywhere, and someone would have thought to build a canal to get to the Illinois river and hence the Mississippi. I'm not so sure that "St Louis" had to be exactly where it is, but Chicago is virtually a foregone geographical conclusion.

Scoundreller 6y ago
Reminds me of US Steel selling off a rail that bypassed the Chicago railtraffic jam for big money: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-09-27-0709260847-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-09-27-070926...
OldHand2018 6y ago
French explorers recognized the strategic importance of the area in the 1600s. For sure, a large city would eventually sprout in the area where Chicago is. When France ceded the lands of the Illinois Country (east of the Mississippi) to Great Britain in the 1700s, all the French had to GTFO. St Louis was the highest land along the Mississippi anywhere close to the confluences of the Missouri, Ohio and Illinois rivers. Since the Mississippi flooded almost every spring, this was the best place to put a city and it allowed the French to maintain more control over the area than they were supposed to have. The railroads were built by men, however, and could have gone anywhere. The negotiations and influencing that got them all built through Chicago has had a huge ROI for the last 150+ years.
- hinkley 6y ago
  > St Louis was the highest land That explains it. I kept thinking there must be better spots to put it. It does appear though that it’s surrounded by wide flood plains on several sides and certain spots would be harder to ford than the narrows that bracket the city on two sides.
Wohlf 6y ago
St. Louis would have likely been in the same general area too because of the Missouri river.
bobthepanda 6y ago
The Chicago portage is also the shortest distance between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes. So it was more or less destiny.

mc32 6y ago

Isn’t Bailey Yard in North Platte, NE the biggest rail yard in the US with about 14,000 rail cars going through it daily.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Yes. But there's one railroad line that goes through North Platte. There once were ~38 railroad lines into Chicago. Some are no longer in service (at least as through lines), but Chicago is still far more widely served than North Platte.
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  The Chicago region has dozens of very large rail yards, with construction of new yards and expansion of existing yards ongoing. It would take a lot of investment elsewhere to eclipse: Russia/Moscow is making a strategic investment that will pay large dividends for them for decades to come.
jcranmer 6y ago
Chicago is where all the Class I (i.e., big railroads) meet: UP, BNSF, CN, CP, KCS, CSX, NS. There are several railroad yards in the city and surrounding environments, so much so that the rail lines are really visible on Google Maps who otherwise loves to deemphasize rail routes.
- sjsamson 6y ago
  Indeed, Chicago and the Mississippi River is the dividing line in the North American rail network. UP and BNSF dominate western US, CSX and NS the eastern US, CN and CP dominate Canada, and large regionals like KCS, the Mexico side is similarly or more abysmal. Unfortunately they don’t integrate that well together to form a cohesive network. CP is attempting to buy KCS/KCSM to create something of a NAFTA/USMCA railroad, but it’s not clear it would deliver those benefits without harming competition in the existing setup. Ideally the rail infrastructure would be publicly owned and invested in, and any train operator could transport from any location to any location on the North American rail network.