As I mentioned last Friday, Carver Lumber has filed its report to the Surface Transportation Board regarding the service it has been receiving via the newly-built western spur. You can read their letter here (84KB PDF file).
They give a lot of details, but the basic facts are these:
- Deliveries that used to take 1-2 days via the Kellar Branch hauled by Pioneer Industrial Railway (PIRY) are now taking 4-8 days via the western spur hauled by CIRY — a 400% increase in delivery time.
- The cost of delivering rail cars via the western spur is double what it cost for PIRY to deliver the same cars via the Kellar Branch.
Slower delivery, higher costs. But here’s the kicker (emphasis mine):
As I believe the STB knows, service to Carver via the Kellar Branch was interrupted due a CIRY [Central Illinois Railroad Co.] runaway/derailment/collision during their first delivery attempt to Carver forcing us to transload material for a period of nearly 5 months […] resulting in costs to date of $41,605.10 which neither the City or CIRY have been willing to reimburse. We are currently seeking the aid of independent legal counsel in an effort to collect these costs. […] [W]e believe the City of Peoria is obligated to provide Carver Lumber with sufficient rail service, and that the disruption in rail service experienced by Carver Lumber should be compensable.
The city, which has $60,000 to spare for decorative garbage cans, millions for a museum, and no limit to TIF districts for local developers, is unwilling to reimburse $41,000 to Carver Lumber — a local business for over 60 years — for increased shipping costs that were the direct result of the city’s own negligence and unwillingness to enforce its contract with CIRY. And the city wonders why it’s perceived as not being business-friendly.
Carver further states they have “tried to work with both the City of Peoria (CIRY) and the Union Pacific to address the issue of guarantying minimum levels of service and rate stability to no avail.” That’s a far cry from Public Works Director Steve Van Winkle’s November 10, 2004, letter to Carver Lumber that stated (emphasis mine):
This letter is, in part, to tell you that the City has no intention of discontinuing service over the Kellar Line until the western connection is fully operational. These two projects are currently timed to coincide well. In the event that either is delayed, the City assures you that it will make an adjustment in the timeframe so that there is no interruption of your rail service. We will not discontinue service over the Kellar Line until the western connection is fully operational.
As for the ability of the City to intercede on your behalf should issues of service andlor cost arise in the future, we call to your attention that we have contracted with DOT [parent company of CIRY] for service from the West. Article 14 of that contract specifically provides that DOT shall pick up and deliver cars within 24 hours after being notified by the UP that the cars have been placed on the Peoria Pioneer Spur. The City stands ready and willing to enforce all aspects of its contract with DOT and with the Union Pacific Railroad. The City has the ability, under its agreement with DOT, for all legal remedies up to and including termination which would allow the City to replace their service with another company.
CIRY never did make a successful delivery over the Kellar Branch, thus service was discontinued before the western spur was completed, resulting in the $41,000 in extra shipping costs. Furthermore, their deliveries have been taking 4-8 days instead of the 24-hour turnaround promised by the city and specified in CIRY’s contract. Yet not only does the city not enforce their contract, which CIRY has demonstrably breached in most egregious manner, it won’t even reimburse Carver for the results of that breach of contract!
Carver concludes their report by asking that the Kellar Branch be reinstated and that Pioneer Railcorp be allowed to provide service over it, due to CIRY’s “demonstrated inability, and stated unwillingness, to provide service over the Kellar Branch.”
CJ: You’re on target once again — and just why is Carver having to seek outside legal counsel for remediation?????
When stated in the City’s letter from Director Van Winkle to Carver Lumber —
The City has the ability, under its agreement with DOT, for all legal remedies up to and including termination which would allow the City to replace their service with another company.
Carver should send its’ legal bill to the City for reimbursement. The City wastes so much money on needless trinkets and baubles, perhaps it could be charged back to Economic Development under a business retention category to offset the drain from the TIFs.
Where are the PAMBA bears on this? It’s awfully quiet…
Slight correction, C. J.
CIRY is not at fault when it comes to increased transit times. it is Union Pacific that is at fault (but ultimately the City of Peoria for imposing this disaster). What I can deduct from the 1-2 days transit time on the Kellar Branch is that when the PRY received cars from the P&PU/TZPR, they would haul them up the line either the following day or the day after that, depending on crew availability (actual running time on the entire line would have been about an hour-and-a-half each way at the 7mph speeds typically run).
Regarding the increased transit times with the new arrangement, the CIRY is supposed to deliuver any cars for Carver Lumber within 24 hours of receiving them from Union Pacific at Pioneer Jct. This takes maybe 10 minutes. The 4-8 days transit time seems to be only from the time cars arrive Peoria and are delivered to Carver Lumber (does not include transit times from origin point to Peoria, which are probably the same as before). In other words, carloads of OSB, Douglas fir and other types arrive on BNSF and CN at the Tazewell & Peoria RR’s East Peoria Yard one day and it takes four to eight days from that time to when Carver Lumber can unload them at their dock. TZPR must interchange these cars to the UP (which are tacked onto the tri-weekly freight to Clinton, Iowa) which sets them out at their Adams Street Yard. The wayfreight usually makes the delivery, often in the early evening. This shouldn’t take 4-8 days but cars must sit there and UP may well let cars accumulate rather than take single car up to Pioneer Jct.
In summary, the CIRY is only responsible for the short move from Pioneer Jct. to Carver Lumber and there is no reason to think that these cars sit for any more than a day before CIRY sends a crew to switch them.
Is there a concise summary of the whole issue and backstory somewhere? I’m SO CONFUSED. I guess I’m just transportation-ignorant, but I feel like I should understand this becuase it seems like an important issue.
Eyebrows,
You could read a history of the line that I wrote here:
http://www.wpgrr.com/index.php?section=16
I’ve worked in rail transportation so I tend to speak/write in lingo. I try to minimize the lingo but sometimes, that’s impossible!
DPJ
C. J.
I read Carver Lumber’s filing and I noticed that they believe CIRY is only providing service twice a week, not daily. I doubt if Carver’s board of directors is railroad savvy so I’m guessing that they do not realize that it is unecessary for CIRY to provide daily service when Carver does not get cars everyday (23 cars between March 16 and July 11 is certainly not daily!). CIRY’s obligation is to prove AS NEEDED service, not daily service. While I have not observed every car up there, I’ve noticed that CIRY has made prompt delivery every time UP drops any cars off at the interchange. While this may not always be the case, I suspect that it is the rule.
The problem seems to be the addition of Union Pacific to the routing of these cars.
Also, Carver Lumber states that PRY’s rates were $872.00. I find this interesting in light of JS associate editor Christine Smith’s claim that PRY had charged “below market rates.” If solely based on mileage, PRY’s rates were $102/mile (the Kellar Branch is 8.5 miles in length)and CIRY’s are $260/mile (assuming that Pioneer Park to Carver Lumber is 2.5 miles) .
So I guess CIRY’s “above market rates.”
Expect the JS to distort this one beyond imagination.
“While I have not observed every car up there, I’ve noticed that CIRY has made prompt delivery every time UP drops any cars off at the interchange.”
Should have qualified this as the few times I’ve noticed that CIRY has run a train. I’m up at Pioneer Park sometimes and notice cars sitting at the UP interchange (can be seen from Rt. 6) and they do sit for a few days, but I figure that these are empties UP has yet to pick up.
I think Carver may be hurting itself if it thinks that CIRY is the problem. CIRY’s filing included railcar tracing and probably disproves Carver’s assertion. I’ll have to look at these in more detail.
Again, the inclusion of UP in the routing is the problem.
Thank you for the correction, David.
I would still point out that Van Winkle’s letter stated, “The City stands ready and willing to enforce all aspects of its contract with DOT and with the Union Pacific Railroad” (emphasis mine). So the city either has a contract with UP that it is not enforcing, or it never had a contract and this letter was deliberately misleading.
Eyebrows – I was in about the same position as you a few months back, when I started getting curious about this.
Here are a few basic points (CJ, David, feel free to correct me)
1. This “battle” has been going on since at least 1994, probably closer to 20 years though.
2. IMHO, the trail folks/PPD jumped the gun a bit, with getting grants to build the trail and all.
3. Pioneer Rail does have that standing offer on the table to run the Kellar branch and help with the various other costs, and run some kind of light rail.
4. Peoria is one of only 4 cities in the US (with Chicago, St. Louis and Kansas City) to have 8 different rail companies providing service on our lines.
5. If you look at a map of rail lines in IL, someone could fairly easily establish commuter/whatever train service to pretty much every large midwestern city: http://www.dot.il.gov/officialrailmap.pdf
A few of my thoughts on the issue:
1. I used to live in Seattle, WA and there’s been a light rail battle going on there for about 30 years. These things take time.
2. From what I learned in Seattle, it seems the wisest choice to keep available rail lines, because tearing people’s homes and businesses down to put new ones in is a battle you don’t want to take on.
3. With Global Warming and the currently record gas prices, and the fact that I’m a strong environmentalist, I think establishing some sort of light rail for commuters from the Northwest part of town (where the majority of construction is happening in Peoria County) seems darn smart.
4. Pioneer will help build the trail. What more can you ask for?
5. I know lots of trail only proponents, so I’m rather meek about this in general. But I’ve proposed getting a group started to promote the rail/trail combo in a pushier way.
To CGISELLE12
1. Peoria Park District had “desires” going back nearly 20 years but battle lines were drawn when they applied for and was awarded the grant.
2. 100 % CORRECT Notice any correlation with “jumping the gun” today with agreement between Park DIstrict and School District re: Glen Oak School location
3. Last offer from Pioneer Rail that included 1) purchase 2) $100,000 committment to build bike trrail adjacent to rail line and 3) Pledge to develop Railroad repair/maintenance “school” here in Peoria similar to west coast facility did NOT have an expiration date
4. Don’t know if magic number is 4, but we are one of the few, and perhaps in a more exclusive group of one that takes the numersous service providers for granted.
5. We certainly have the infrastructure to develop intra city routes, but I am not sure of the Approval Authority to create commuter services on lines that are primarily and predominately used for frieght. Keep in mind the rail service along the Kellar is very low speed, low volumn which is VERY compatible with a bike trail. The dynamics of commuter service may change those compatibility issues somewhat. Compound those issues when linking communities heightens any incompatibility. The Concept is GREAT, but the devil is in the details.
C. J.
I don’t believe we have ever seen this so-called contract between the City of Peoria and the Union Pacific. perhaps I’m wrong but I suspect there isn’t one. Robert Happach’s May 13 letter to the editor of JS indicated that part of his transportarion costs include UP’s non-public tariff rate rather than a confidential contract rate. If a contract exists, it may be nothing more than a promise to provide service to the Pioneer Jct. interchange. Again, I don’t know for certain.
Gary and Cara,
Peoria is actually served by TEN railroads, though only eight of these actually do any “line-haul.” The EDC list of local railroads is never up to date. I think that there is a perception that the railroad industry is a has-been, which is not true. Locally, rail traffic has increased in recent years, though it does not compare to what we had as recently as 1979-1980 (before deregulation and declining energy prices in the 80’s). Higher energy prices are a main factor in the increase though new coal contracts and some industrial growth (ethanol plants, Caterpillar, etc.) has contributed as well.
Thanks for all the info, David and Gary.
Having read your comments, it still seems that keeping the Kellar Branch is a good idea. Pioneer Rail’s standing offer does still include a form of light rail, I assume. Why not have low speed, light rail on it. I know for damn sure I would take it (live out by Mossville and work at BU). I’d be willing to wager that there are a large bunch of Cat folks out my way who would do the same.
And as for getting rail to other cities, I did a bit of looking at maps today, and all we really need is a rail link to Bloomington, and from there, the world is ours! Or the country anyway.
The key word here is… “horses.”
Cara,
I doubt low-speed rail transit would be appealing, and I’d be the first one to say not only preserve the Kellar Branch as a rail corridor and FORGET THE TRAIL. Somehow, we’ve survived as a community without it and we’ll continue to survive.
Peoria really isn’t big enough (now) for light rail transit but preservation of the Kellar Branch as a rail freight corridor could lead to tourist trains and even light rail in the future (parking availablity and a station in the Pioneer Park area is feasible now that there is a line diverging west past Allen Road where there is room for such development). The corridor needs to be preserved for something beneficial to the community as a whole, and that is not as a bike trail (“whole” includes area businesses, which is more than the JSEB formula of “trail users = the community”).
Regarding “low-speed rail transit” — I asked Pioneer about that. The city has a speed limit for trains of 10 mph in the city, plus the Kellar Branch is in poor repair. Pioneer said that if the track were brought up to class 1 standards and crossing gates were installed, trains could go as fast as 35-40 mph. They further said that cities do not have jurisdiction over speed limits on rail lines — the federal government does. They envision putting a “park and ride” lot up on Allen road and having the train stop at the Heights shopping district, Junction City, and downtown.
So, it wouldn’t be “high-speed” rail transit, but it would offer a straight shot from Dunlap to downtown — no stoplights, only a couple of stops, no parking costs. It sounds plausible.
Dig it all up and put in a canal. Let the horsies pull the barges back and forth, to and fro… and get some of those homeless guys with shaggy beards to guide the equines.
Imagine the tourism… imagine the notoriety… load ’em, pals.