General Discussion

Hello. My topic has probably already been mentioned on here before, but I'm just going to ask everybody these questions as always to see what everybody thinks. Do you think the following route could be used as a transcontinental route in the United States: BNSF's ex-Santa Fe Transcon from L.A. to Kansas City, then Norfolk Southern's ex-Wabash main between Kansas City and Fort Wayne, and finally the old Pennsy main (CF&E from Fort Wayne to Crestline, then NS from Crestline to Pittsburgh and beyond) from Fort Wayne to New York? Do you think this is good or do you think there is a better route? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Too many interchange points on the above route to be realistic.  Also, the ex-PRR main west of Pittsburgh isn't what it used to be.  I would suggest the BNSF Transcon from LA to Chicago and NS from Chicago to Metro New York (ex-NYC to Cleveland, ex-PRR to Harrisburg, and the existing ex-RDG/LV into New Jersey).  IHB would be the connector in the Chicago Terminal Zone.

 That route  seems way too complex. The route I mentioned is more  straight and the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line.  I also think that using the IHB as a connector isn't very realistic either since you would have too much conflicting traffic with other railroads that like to use the IHB such as CP, IAIS,CSX, UP,CRL, and even Ithe IHB itself to name a few.

At least at KC, you can build trains for both Chicago and the East Coast at a much less congested area. The interchange points would also benefit since cities like Lafayette, Fort Wayne, Decatur, and even Illinois' state capital of Springfield could benefit from a transcontinental route like this one by building a traffic base that already exists.

The Pennsy west of Pittsburgh isn't what it used to be,  but if both BNSF and NS would be interested in doing something like rebuilding portions of the old Pennsy to start a  transcontinental route, costs would be minimal since you have two very profitable Class I's contributing to construction. 

One thing I like about the route you mentioned is the ex-RDG/LV route from Harrisburg to New Jersey in order to avoid congestion on Amtrak's route between Harrisburg and Philly. The route already exists anyway (obviously). :)

In short, it's all about efficiency. I don't think that the NYC is a bad route at all. I think that there could be other, possibly better uses for it such as a high-speed rail corridor between Chicago and Cleveland. You could serve college towns and other more populated areas more efficiently.The ex-PRR would become a freight route for high-speed intermodal and the ex-NYC can become a passenger route for high-speed rail. I think that Cleveland could become a better online city for a UP-CSX transcontinental route than BNSF-NS.

Maybe what we both have mentioned is a sign of things to come. We'll see. Thanks for your opinion.

BNSF Transcon Route from LA to Chicago

Norfolk Southern Chicago to NYC via (Chicago - Cleveland - Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - NYC)

If I had my druthers, I'd route it ex Santa Fe :LA to KC, ex wabby :KC to Butler Indiana, ex waterlevel route: Butler to Toledo OH, and then whatever routing makes sense from Toledo on eastward.

PennsyCC1:

  [snip]  The interchange points would also benefit since cities like Lafayette, Fort Wayne, Decatur, and even Illinois' state capital of Springfield could benefit from a transcontinental route like this one . . . [snip]

Wouldn't that just clutter up and delay the usually higher-speed transcontinental traffic, by forcing it to stop in a bunch of small towns to drop-off/ pick-up blocks of cars ?  Otherwise, what's the point or purpose of the shorter/ faster route that you seek, if not to expedite the transcon traffic ?

PennsyCC1:

 . . . by building a traffic base that already exists.  [emphasis added - PDN]

  Which is it ?

PennsyCC1:

  [snip] . . .  rebuilding portions of the old Pennsy to start a  transcontinental route, costs would be minimal since you have two very profitable Class I's contributing to construction.  [emphasis added - PDN]

  I don't see how the wealth of the 2 railroads would lower the costs at all - for any given scope and quantities of work, the costs should be about the same regardless of who is paying the bills.  They might be higher, if any different, because: these 2 outfits will want it done 1st class, and right the first time; and, contractors may think they can afford to pay more.  By that logic - Do you think the richest guy in town gets a new deck put on his house for less than the poorest guy ?

PennsyCC1:

  One thing I like about the route you mentioned is the ex-RDG/LV route from Harrisburg to New Jersey in order to avoid congestion on Amtrak's route between Harrisburg and Philly. The route already exists anyway (obviously). :)

The ex-RDG/ LV route probably has more traffic - around 30 to 35 trains per day, total of both ways - and so is more congested than that portion of Amtrak's system.  But the real congestion on that route is the portion of Amtrak's NorthEast Corridor from Philly to New York City.

PennsyCC1:

  In short, it's all about efficiency. I don't think that the NYC is a bad route at all. I think that there could be other, possibly better uses for it such as a high-speed rail corridor between Chicago and Cleveland. You could serve college towns and other more populated areas more efficiently.The ex-PRR would become a freight route for high-speed intermodal and the ex-NYC can become a passenger route for high-speed rail. I think that Cleveland could become a better online city for a UP-CSX transcontinental route than BNSF-NS.  [emphasis added - PDN]

[snip]

Why not use the ex-NYC to NYC for freight, too ?  It's water-level as opposed to the ex-PRR's climb over the Alleghenies from Pittsburgh to Gallitzin/ Altoona, and not much longer than going via Phila. - and would reduce the amount of rebuilding west of Pittsburgh.

What about unit trains of coal and grain, multi-levels, and esp. mixed freights, etc. ?  Which route would you have them run on ? 

- Paul North.

Was there ever any thought in the U.S. of building a transcontinental railway by the shortest direct route?  What was the reluctance to proceed ?  Instead, you have a bunch of connected railways all using each others tracks, talk about confusing and expensive and complicated, Start in New Jersey, go straight west to San Fransico, nothing complicated about that eh?

Let me clarify the topic. The transcontinental route is for intermodal traffic in order to better compete with the Panama Canal. I've never heard of vehicle, manifest, grain, etc. being attempted to go cross -country without having to be interchanged somewhere (i.e. making up blocks of cars for certain destinations).

With the Water Level Route, you still have to climb up and over mountains, in parts of upstate New York. The route isn't entirely and perfectly flat. No route ever is nor will be. The Water Level Route is more of a circle instead of a straight line. Also, with the Pennsy/LV/RDG routing you would have a more direct access to the Ports of New Jersey for oceangoing containers.  Intermodal trains typically aren't as heavy either as bulk unit trains (coal,coke, grain,etc), so the climb up and over mountains wouldn't matter as much anyway. The Water Level Route would be more suitable for bulk unit trains, but then you would have to deal with conflicting movements with passenger trains (which I think the Water Level Route is more suited for). Also, an Amtrak train takes up the capacity of about five freights because of their speed and  high-priority status.  

What I mean by an existing traffic base is that customers that exist along the route. With the addition of intermodal traffic, piggyback ramps could be built at current interchange points as well as attract new businesses to these areas and help their economies grow.

Finally, with the cost of rebuilding the Pennsy, it would be similar to how Kansas City Southern took over Mid-South's route to start a transcontinental route from the Southeast to the West Coast. The only difference being that NS already owns the track between Crestline and Pittsburgh. It wouldn't be like how KCS did it when they had to buy up an enitre shortline and rehab it. Like the Meridian Speedway, it would take some time for traffic to build on this route, but by seeing how low-priority intermodal trains do on the route first, then we could see whether it would be feasible to see if traffic on the ex-NYC could be shifted to this route or not. If it doesn't work, then it can always be downgraded again.

 Overall, it's experimental at first, but I think it could work in the long-run.

tatans:

Was there ever any thought in the U.S. of building a transcontinental railway by the shortest direct route?  What was the reluctance to proceed ?  Instead, you have a bunch of connected railways all using each others tracks, talk about confusing and expensive and complicated, Start in New Jersey, go straight west to San Fransico, nothing complicated about that eh?

Thought, yes.  Plans, yes also.  Not by anyone that was credible, however.  Was not done because there was so little economic need for such a thing.  People who floated such projects historically found it was very hard to get people to invest into them because they couldn't demonstrate economic value.

RWM

PennsyCC1:

Let me clarify the topic. The transcontinental route is for intermodal traffic in order to better compete with the Panama Canal. I've never heard of vehicle, manifest, grain, etc. being attempted to go cross -country without having to be interchanged somewhere (i.e. making up blocks of cars for certain destinations).

With the Water Level Route, you still have to climb up and over mountains, in parts of upstate New York. The route isn't entirely and perfectly flat. No route ever is nor will be. The Water Level Route is more of a circle instead of a straight line. Also, with the Pennsy/LV/RDG routing you would have a more direct access to the Ports of New Jersey for oceangoing containers.  Intermodal trains typically aren't as heavy either as bulk unit trains (coal,coke, grain,etc), so the climb up and over mountains wouldn't matter as much anyway. The Water Level Route would be more suitable for bulk unit trains, but then you would have to deal with conflicting movements with passenger trains (which I think the Water Level Route is more suited for). Also, an Amtrak train takes up the capacity of about five freights because of their speed and  high-priority status.  

What I mean by an existing traffic base is that customers that exist along the route. With the addition of intermodal traffic, piggyback ramps could be built at current interchange points as well as attract new businesses to these areas and help their economies grow.

Finally, with the cost of rebuilding the Pennsy, it would be similar to how Kansas City Southern took over Mid-South's route to start a transcontinental route from the Southeast to the West Coast. The only difference being that NS already owns the track between Crestline and Pittsburgh. It wouldn't be like how KCS did it when they had to buy up an enitre shortline and rehab it. Like the Meridian Speedway, it would take some time for traffic to build on this route, but by seeing how low-priority intermodal trains do on the route first, then we could see whether it would be feasible to see if traffic on the ex-NYC could be shifted to this route or not. If it doesn't work, then it can always be downgraded again.

 Overall, it's experimental at first, but I think it could work in the long-run.

Not sure about the need for such a project.  There is relatively little freight traffic that travels from coast to coast across the U.S. by land by any mode, or gets off a ship on one coast and travels to the other coast by train, nor is there indication there will be any substantial, disproportionate growth in transcontinental freight volumes in the future. Nor is it likely that the Panama Canal, once enlarged, will have any important effect on current or future U.S. overland rail transportation market shares or volumes.

For a brief period, some international intermodal business traveled from the West Coast to the East Coast for East Coast consumption (virtually zero was put back onto a ship for continuance to Europe). That rail market could not be sustained once the international container traffic grew beyond a low level, because very soon sufficient volume developed to support westbound liner schedules from Asia through the Suez Canal to the East Coast, supplanting eastbound liner schedules from Asia to the West Coast, and that pushed the West Coast ports out of the East Coast markets.

The divide between market basins in the U.S. for international containers is roughly a line drawn from mid-Ohio southward through Atlanta.  Customers to the west of the line are captured by the West Coast ports market basin, and customers to the east of the line by the East Coast ports market basin.  Customers on the line are sometimes in one, and sometimes in the other.  The Panama Canal's competitive target post-enlargement is the Suez Canal, not the railroads, because it is not going to be competitive with railroads due to its lengthy transit times and very small cost differentials with rail from the West Coast (if any differential at all). Regardless of the enlargement of the Panama Canal, the eastern Class 1 railroads and ports hope to shift the current market basin line westward perhaps as far as Chicago with improvements they hope to make in rail and ports infrastructure, for boxes moving through either the Suez Canal or Panama Canal or both, but that of course will depend on if the western Class 1 railroads and ports are willing to relinquish that market share or instead will find matching efficiencies or employ rate cuts.  The long-term trend in fuel efficiency for liners is strongly negative, and the long-term outlook for oil prices is strongly positive, and the larger the liners become in order to achieve capital cost, crew cost, and port cost reductions, the worse their fuel efficiency per box gets.  Thus, the greatest cost-efficiency for the liner companies is realized when they build the largest possible ship with the shortest possible run between the largest possible ports with the largest possible local demand centers, which disfavors the Panama Canal as well as the Suez Canal, and continues to favor Los Angeles and Long Beach.

RWM

Paul_D_North_Jr:

What about unit trains of coal and grain, multi-levels, and esp. mixed freights, etc. ?  Which route would you have them run on ? 

At some point in the east and west a transcontinental route is going have to have optional routes to accomodate the ports on each coast, the train regardless of its loads will be routed within that consideration.

Paul_D_North_Jr:

Wouldn't that just clutter up and delay the usually higher-speed transcontinental traffic, by forcing it to stop in a bunch of small towns to drop-off/ pick-up blocks of cars ?

The NYC line originally had sidings and multi-track main to assure priority trains would not be affected to drop off and pick ups, this would have to be reconsidered and put back in place.  Here in Ohio some of this is still intact and functional.

Paul_D_North_Jr:

By that logic - Do you think the richest guy in town gets a new deck put on his house for less than the poorest guy ?

Yes, thats why he's the richest guy in town!

 If you go back about 100 years, you may find reference to the Wabash in a collection of routes that lasted in the Gould regime. ATSF would be reluctant to short haul itself in KC to the Wabash. THe PRR had similar problems dealing with the Wabash from Buffalo to the west. It didn't like Wabash buying W&LE & other rails to reach Pittsburgh. When the money ran out, the plans stopped.

Ever since Chicago became a hub city, there has been plans for alternatives. None seem to work out. Having direct ATSF to PRR or NYC connections seem to work better. 

You could look at it this way: It may take a Warren Buffet to put a system together. It would take a good manager to make it work The route with the most customers that operates at the lowest cost wins. It would be a good topic & project for you to add up the route miles & flat profile for the lines in question.

PennsyCC1:

 The Pennsy west of Pittsburgh isn't what it used to be,  but if both BNSF and NS would be interested in doing something like rebuilding portions of the old Pennsy to start a  transcontinental route, costs would be minimal since you have two very profitable Class I's contributing to construction. 

Um one major flaw in your plan....while the old Pennsy is not operated by CSX, it is still owned by CSX from Fort Wayne to Crestline.  I doubt they would be too happy with your plan and would ax it pretty quickly.

n012944:

Um one major flaw in your plan....while the old Pennsy is not operated by CSX, it is still owned by CSX from Fort Wayne to Crestline.  I doubt they would be too happy with your plan and would ax it pretty quickly.

My source (North American Railroad Map 2007) indicates the old PRR main between Fort Wayne and Crestline is owned and operated by the CF&E with NS having trackage rights.  CSX has no current involvement.

Prior to replying, I wanted to delete all of the above post, with the exception of "climbing up, and over, the mountains in New York State" on the former NYC (aptly named!) "Water Level Route".  Can someone, please, tell me how to do this?

Regarding "the mountains", where are they?  Other than "the hill" at Albany, on the passenger routing, I can't recall any.  Even the St. Lawrence Division, and the Adirondack Division (into the Adirondacks) have no appreciable grades.  I think New York Central's toughest grades were in Pennsylvania.