Kzoo looks to close 3 crossings, move railyard

[NSSD70ACe]

https://wwmt.com/news/local/proposed-pr ... B7vkCg11kQ

In an effort to deal with traffic congestion from passing trains, the City of Kalamazoo is looking to potentially close 3 crossings (Elm, Elm Crossover, and Water) as well as study the removal and relocation of Botsford Yard.

It’s no secret that Grand Elk tends to tie up traffic when they move through downtown given the slow speed, their train lengths, and the major thoroughfares, so I guess I don’t quite understand how closing 3 low traffic crossings, 2 of them on the other side of downtown affected only by Amtrak, is supposed to help fix this. I also don’t see how relocating Botsford is even really feasible. Certainly no land near Kzoo on the south side is available, unless that remediation site near Cork and Burdick is suddenly open for business. That would leave the north side of town on the Grand Elk’s main towards GR, and it would probably have to be north of Markin Glen Park. Still going to snarl up traffic trying to get to and from the industrial spur on the north side and when they pull through to get to the new facility. Speed through there was what, 20 at best when NS was maintaining it? I doubt the Elk does more than 10 or 15 through there.

If they were to execute on this, at best they’d move maybe four train movements a day from one set of tracks to the other. They can’t take up the wye or all of the Botsford tracks because of the quarry over there. The only improvement would be moving the south local and the two road freights to the mainline vs the wye resulting in a slight increase in speed. Unless GDLK’s operations have changed that drastically since I left town..

[Dowagiac Train Dude]

https://wwmt.com/news/local/proposed-pr ... B7vkCg11kQ

In an effort to deal with traffic congestion from passing trains, the City of Kalamazoo is looking to potentially close 3 crossings (Elm, Elm Crossover, and Water) as well as study the removal and relocation of Botsford Yard.

It’s no secret that Grand Elk tends to tie up traffic when they move through downtown given the slow speed, their train lengths, and the major thoroughfares, so I guess I don’t quite understand how closing 3 low traffic crossings, 2 of them on the other side of downtown affected only by Amtrak, is supposed to help fix this. I also don’t see how relocating Botsford is even really feasible. Certainly no land near Kzoo on the south side is available, unless that remediation site near Cork and Burdick is suddenly open for business. That would leave the north side of town on the Grand Elk’s main towards GR, and it would probably have to be north of Markin Glen Park. Still going to snarl up traffic trying to get to and from the industrial spur on the north side and when they pull through to get to the new facility. Speed through there was what, 20 at best when NS was maintaining it? I doubt the Elk does more than 10 or 15 through there.

If they were to execute on this, at best they’d move maybe four train movements a day from one set of tracks to the other. They can’t take up the wye or all of the Botsford tracks because of the quarry over there. The only improvement would be moving the south local and the two road freights to the mainline vs the wye resulting in a slight increase in speed. Unless GDLK’s operations have changed that drastically since I left town..

I think the biggest issue that they run into is when they have to back their train up in order to go North to GR. I don’t understand why they don’t put a switch in from the Amtrak mainline to their mainline heading north. When the train has to back up to then head north it blocks the downtown intersections twice. I never understood why they can only go south before having to go north.

I also have no idea where they would move the yard so that it isn’t trying up traffic downtown with the train movements. As you said, there isn’t really any place to put it.

[NSSD70ACe]

I think the biggest issue that they run into is when they have to back their train up in order to go North to GR. I don’t understand why they don’t put a switch in from the Amtrak mainline to their mainline heading north. When the train has to back up to then head north it blocks the downtown intersections twice. I never understood why they can only go south before having to go north.

I also have no idea where they would move the yard so that it isn’t trying up traffic downtown with the train movements. As you said, there isn’t really any place to put it.

In order for the Elk to be able to make that turn north, they’d have to demolish several buildings that are being used by others. Financially prohibitive.

[Dowagiac Train Dude]

I think the biggest issue that they run into is when they have to back their train up in order to go North to GR. I don’t understand why they don’t put a switch in from the Amtrak mainline to their mainline heading north. When the train has to back up to then head north it blocks the downtown intersections twice. I never understood why they can only go south before having to go north.

I also have no idea where they would move the yard so that it isn’t trying up traffic downtown with the train movements. As you said, there isn’t really any place to put it.

In order for the Elk to be able to make that turn north, they’d have to demolish several buildings that are being used by others. Financially prohibitive.

I see what you mean even though I believe that only one of those buildings currently have a tenant at this time.

[kd_1014]

Didn’t they look into building a yard along the siding in Three Rivers at CP Park?

[Jim_c]

https://wwmt.com/news/local/proposed-pr ... B7vkCg11kQ

In an effort to deal with traffic congestion from passing trains, the City of Kalamazoo is looking to potentially close 3 crossings (Elm, Elm Crossover, and Water) as well as study the removal and relocation of Botsford Yard.

It’s no secret that Grand Elk tends to tie up traffic when they move through downtown given the slow speed, their train lengths, and the major thoroughfares, so I guess I don’t quite understand how closing 3 low traffic crossings, 2 of them on the other side of downtown affected only by Amtrak, is supposed to help fix this. I also don’t see how relocating Botsford is even really feasible. Certainly no land near Kzoo on the south side is available, unless that remediation site near Cork and Burdick is suddenly open for business. That would leave the north side of town on the Grand Elk’s main towards GR, and it would probably have to be north of Markin Glen Park. Still going to snarl up traffic trying to get to and from the industrial spur on the north side and when they pull through to get to the new facility. Speed through there was what, 20 at best when NS was maintaining it? I doubt the Elk does more than 10 or 15 through there.

If they were to execute on this, at best they’d move maybe four train movements a day from one set of tracks to the other. They can’t take up the wye or all of the Botsford tracks because of the quarry over there. The only improvement would be moving the south local and the two road freights to the mainline vs the wye resulting in a slight increase in speed. Unless GDLK’s operations have changed that drastically since I left town..

The old Checker Motors site would work. It would be more inconvenient interchanging with CN. I'm not sure if NS still runs in to the yard, but that could also be an issue. The old CK&S would probably be used for access. I don't think there is enough room between Pitcher and the industries to go north of Mosel.

[Erroneous Monk]

Building a whole new yard to eliminate a minimal number of trains seems like an awfully expensive project. How many tracks would this new yard need anyways?

[MiddleMI]

So, from those of us not from the area, what movement does a train have to make out of the yard to go north, and what would need to be demolished to fix this? The stuff on west side of Porter Street between Willard and Ransom?

BTW, not knowing from which direction most of the traffic comes from, I'm also a bit confused about the line in the article about removing 80% of the crossings at Michigan Avenue near the yard. I assume they would be talking about moving the yard somewhere north of where it currently is? Otherwise, you're just moving the eliminated crossings near the yard to another part of Michigan Avenue further west.

[Dowagiac Train Dude]

So, from those of us not from the area, what movement does a train have to make out of the yard to go north, and what would need to be demolished to fix this? The stuff on west side of Porter Street between Willard and Ransom?

BTW, not knowing from which direction most of the traffic comes from, I'm also a bit confused about the line in the article about removing 80% of the crossings at Michigan Avenue near the yard. I assume they would be talking about moving the yard somewhere north of where it currently is? Otherwise, you're just moving the eliminated crossings near the yard to another part of Michigan Avenue further west.

If a train wants to go north they have to back the train all the way up past Gibson St to the south of the Wye and then get on their mainline to then head north to GR. They would have to take out both buildings and parking lots that sit on the lot between Porter and Pitcher St while also taking out that section of Willard St to put in a Wye to head north from the Amtrak mainline.

[MiddleMI]

Thanks. Was just wanting to be sure I understood. Went to look up ownership of these properties on the city's GIS website. companies connected to Bell's own both the building and parking lot on Willard (they appear to use the parking lot for overflow for Bell's), and the building on Ransom which they appear to use for both indoor and outdoor storage of equipment.

The vacant lot at the corner of Ransom and Porter is owned by someone else, but I'm not sure that'd be needed, though you would kind of want that parcel just to round out the whole deal.

[NS3322]

Building a whole new yard to eliminate a minimal number of trains seems like an awfully expensive project. How many tracks would this new yard need anyways?

In terms of total train movements on GDLK through Kalamazoo I believe this is how they are still running things:

Kzoo-Elkhart Turn (2)
Kzoo-GR Turn (2)
Local to Bristol/Elkhart (2)
Kalamazoo Local to Pfizer, Graphic Packaging, or CN Interchange at Kilgore (2-4)

Roughly 8-10 train movements a day.
Not including the stone trains with NS run through power, or something like that one-off CSX grain train to White Pigeon.

CN only runs as far north as Arvco and NS has not interchanged with GDLK since early 2020.

The PRR did have Mosel Yard on the GR&I north of the city. Perhaps that could be resurrected in some form?

[justalurker66]

... I don’t quite understand how closing 3 low traffic crossings, 2 of them on the other side of downtown affected only by Amtrak, is supposed to help fix this.

Funding. MDOT will pay the city to close the crossings then the city will use the payment to fund the study to do more work.

There is no easy answer that isn't expensive. Going back 40 years to when there was a consolidation plan (and more rail traffic to block road traffic) the voters in Kalamazoo decided against that plan.

[Erroneous Monk]

Roughly 8-10 train movements a day.
Not including the stone trains with NS run through power, or something like that one-off CSX grain train to White Pigeon.

CN only runs as far north as Arvco and NS has not interchanged with GDLK since early 2020.

The PRR did have Mosel Yard on the GR&I north of the city. Perhaps that could be resurrected in some form?

That's a lot more than I thought.

What if they moved the mainline closer to Porter Street? That might allow them enough room to only sacrifice the one parking lot for a northern wye leg. Still not ideal but makes a lot more sense than moving the whole yard.

[Plannerdad]

Studies are cheap. Building and relocating a yard is not. The NEPA and environmental permit process will take 5 years at least.

[MiddleMI]

That's a lot more than I thought.

What if they moved the mainline closer to Porter Street? That might allow them enough room to only sacrifice the one parking lot for a northern wye leg. Still not ideal but makes a lot more sense than moving the whole yard.

I don't think this is being seen as an either/or but an "and." A nothern wye helps a lot, but ultimately, there is seems to be a desire for the yard to placed directly off the actual Grand Elk mainline, instead of having to share ROW off the Amtrak Michigan Line. Though, that's more a long-term project than a short-term one.

[NSSD70ACe]

That's a lot more than I thought.

What if they moved the mainline closer to Porter Street? That might allow them enough room to only sacrifice the one parking lot for a northern wye leg. Still not ideal but makes a lot more sense than moving the whole yard.

I don't think this is being seen as an either/or but an "and." A nothern wye helps a lot, but ultimately, there is seems to be a desire for the yard to placed directly off the actual Grand Elk mainline, instead of having to share ROW off the Amtrak Michigan Line. Though, that's more a long-term project than a short-term one.

It would be one thing if the AML was as busy as say, NS’s Chicago Line or the BNSF Racetrack, but it’s not. It sees a handful of moves a day so Amtrak really can’t argue it’s interfering all that much, especially since they control the dispatching. I’m sure there’s probably a financial cost to using the AML (trackage rights), but that cost I’m sure pales in comparison to building an entirely new facility with all the environmental hoopla that has to happen. I’m not sure there is a true tangible benefit from an operations standpoint to having the yard directly on the main vs where it is now, outside of the removal of the reverse moves via the BO wye. A north wye leg would almost certainly be cheaper even with the land acquisition, demolition, signal and track work. I’m not sure if a crossover would need to be put in or not, it’s been a while since I’ve been down there.

[MiddleMI]

I mean, of course, a wye is cheaper. But, again, I don't think we're talking either/or. While a move probably doesn't happen in any of our lifetimes, it'd definitely be more convenient. You can always do what you can, now, but you also have to have a vision or forward-looking perspective for long-term planning.

As someone else said, the state is probably going to give them money for the long-term vision; this does not preclude them from looking at a wye in the short-to-mid-term. It's a common sense solution regardless of what else they are looking at longer-term. There is this weird focus here on always talking about what isn't going to happen, and some of you seem to almost get offended that anyone is thinking in the longer term. Well, planning, short-, mid-, and long-term are all important & necessary types of planning.

[GP30M4216]

Here’s the language from the background section of the report presented to the Kalamazoo City Commissioners on Monday:

BACKGROUND:

As part of our Two-Way Project work on Kalamazoo and Michigan Avenues city staff have met with MDOT Rail representatives regarding rail safety improvements. Because rail crossings
impact downtown traffic flow so significantly and are a singular traffic safety concern, our
discussions included the potential for the elimination of some railroad crossings in two different scenarios:

The first is a short-range plan to eliminate three low-volume crossings as we convert Kalamazoo and Michigan Avenues to two-way operations. These three crossings are at Elm Street and AMTRAK, Elm Crossover, and AMTRAK, and Water Street at WATCO/Grand Elk. If these crossings were to be closed to car traffic, the City could receive $250,000 for each ($750,000 total, plus be eligible for funds from AMTRAK and other federal sources that could bring the total to approximately $1,000,000 in Act 51 funds with no additional restrictions). Funding would also be available to cover the removal of the crossings.

The second scenario involves the potential elimination of one of the Grand Elk tracks from
downtown, through the east side of the city, and ultimately, the relocation of the rail yard which is currently across Mayor’s Riverfront Park. Removal of this track would potentially remove up to 80 percent of the train crossings/blockages from Michigan and Kalamazoo Avenues and open up several opportunities for redevelopment and environmental improvements. This scenario has been a goal for many years for both the city and the railroad.

So, what potential other yard locations are there? Both Mosel (ex PRR) and North Yard (ex NYC) sites have been mentioned. I spent some time cruising around Google aerial imagery, bing Birds Eye maps and the Kalamazoo county GIS. Mosel and North appear to occupy substantially less acreage than Botsford Yard does. Graphic Packaging owns the former Checker Motors site. Would they consider selling some of their land to allow a larger yard to be built there? A north end connection wouldn’t be too hard to build since one existed historically. A third option is the greenfield yard site that has been mentioned before, near CP Park near Three Rivers. This would eliminate the Elk moves around the tight wye at BO and several Amtrak crossings, but Kalamazoo-bound cars would still need to get to and through Kalamazoo somehow, requiring trains passing through crossings. Nevermind the stone trains.

The fact is, much like Jackson and Owosso, Kalamazoo was once a desirable rail destination and a complex maze of tracks developed there. Many people may not know that the current wye track in the SE quadrant at BO is not original, it was a mid-20th century creation. Other wye tracks in Kalamazoo faced west, from the GR&I, NYC and CK&S. The major track rationalization of the early 1980s gave us the track layout that exists today, but it was tailored for trains coming to and from Elkhart. There wasn’t a Kalamazoo-GR road train, so there was no need to think of a track to accommodate one.

Now we have a different situation. Kalamazoo is a halfway point, with approximately 50% of interchange traffic coming from both north and south (skipping CN for the sake of argument at the moment). Traffic goes north as much as it goes south. The Elk doesn’t switch west or east of Kzoo on the MC as NS and CR did, so Botsford position is not favorable. A new wye track in the NE quadrant from MC to the Elk is possible with enough money and planning (that’s why this is long-range). But you need to start the plan now so you can be strategic about property acquisition, etc. before that area becomes desirable for some reason and opportunities are missed. Building this wye would mean some trackage along by Pitcher Street could be eliminated. Amtrak would need to reconfigure the crossovers east of BO to go from 2 to 1 to the new wye westbound - I’m still waiting for a track engineer to explain to me why they laid out the current crossovers in the way that they did, which don’t allow an Amtrak to bypass an Elk move on M2, but that’s another story…

Ideally, you’d want an Elk yard that is north-south with access from each end. If you were to replace Botsford yard entirely, my vote would be for expanding North Yard, and blazing a connection through south of Paterson to the GR&I and also a new north end connection above Mosel. Then everything from Paterson along Pitcher down to Gibson could be eliminated, with Gibson reconfigured to give a straight route on the old PRR with a diverging switch down to Elkhart.

[Plannerdad]

And leave space for a future passenger rail connection to Grand Rapids…

[Standard Railfan]

If relocating the Kalamazoo yard does happen, I think the former PRR yard north of Mosel St. would be a good site.

I had a diagram of the PRR yard (called Dock) which I cannot locate. At one time I had overlaid the diagram onto a current aerial image. I believe the majority of the land the yard sat on is currently vacant minus the trail van ramp and the locomotive service area.

It seems to me that a yard large enough to serve the PRR traffic in the mid 1950s would be more than adequate for today’s traffic.

Looking at the current layout of Botsford, I wonder if that yard is larger than what is needed. Does anyone know if Botsford yard is used to its capacity?