Can someone give me the brief history of how this route changed from Conrail to CSX to the current regional railroad?
Before the Conrail split, NS had too much traffic to run up the NKP line into Chicago, so they got traffic rights on the former PRR line that ran parallel. Eventually they purchased the line and upgraded it with new crossing signals.
As part of the Conrail split between NS and CSX, NS was ordered to give the line to CSX so both RRs would have three tracks into Chicago. (CSX the ex B&O line that they had re-double tracked and the ex-PRR, and NS the two track ex NYC and the single-track NKP.)
CSX saw no reason to keep the exPRR so they shopped it around to a shortline. It eventually wound up in the G&W portfolio.
NS maintained traffic rights on the line and still dispatchs the line for CF&E. NS ran a mix of trains on the line prior to the split (coal trains, triple crowns, autoracks, etc) Now the mix is heavier with unit trains. NS created "temporary fueling facility" in downtown Fort Wayne to re-fuel the unit trains running through on the CF&E.
What does CF&E move and to where? Also what did G&W pay for the line?
How much traffic on the line now? If light, perhaps Amtrak could purchase it and cobble together a higher speed NYC-CHI line, passenger only in as many places as possible to avoid conflicts with freight lines.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Prior to the division of Conrail, I remember reading a description of this line as an well-maintained branch line with enough sidings to let the local freights get out of the way when the "Broadway" showed up.
schlimmperhaps Amtrak could purchase it and cobble together a higher speed NYC-CHI line, passenger only in as many places as possible
Or even better yet: MONORAIL!!
Here is some info I know about the west end. I live in Valparaiso, In. and have watched/listened to the CF&E casually.
The line accesses Chicago thru the Blue Island (IHB) Yard. Going east it uses the IHB and CSX to access the CFE tracks at Tolleston (Gary,In). From there it is a straight shot on their track to Ft Wayne. The line is however, dispatched by the NS Ft Wayne Dispatcher who also dispatches the parallel NS (former NKP line) between Chicago and Ft Wayne.
NS has trackage rights on the CFE and there are big plans to run a number of trains between East Hobart and Ft Wayne. There is a connection track at East Hobart between the CFE to the NS (Westbound) and the CFE/NS are basically ran as double track to Spriggsboro, about 10 miles east where there is a connection track. Google map this area and you will be able to follow this.
NS announced their intentions to run up to 6 trains daily on the CFE, due to congestion on the Elkhart line (up to 100 trains daily) and the expansion of Bellevue, Ohio yard (on the former NKP). Primarily this was to be oil trains...but this hasnt really occurred.
I do not have inside info, but my guess is that the line on the west end (Hobart to Ft Wayne) is not being used due to poor track conditions. I recently saw an EB CFE with 100 cars moving about 10mph. NS tried running a few trains on the line, including the 13J (daily auto rack from Ft Wayne to Gibson yard) but that seems to have ended, at least for now.
Problems on the line include:
1. Slow track speed.
2. Very few passing sidings.
3. No signals.
4. CFE trains often park at Martin Luther King Dr. in Gary as they cannot access the IHB yard and thus park...which will tie up the track.
CFE will run locals out of Warsaw west to serve a few industries in Plymouth, Hamlet, Hanna, and Valparaiso. Plus there are unit grain trains which load out of Hamlet about 3x month.
There is room for passing sidings as the former PRR was double tracked (one track removed in 1980s). How much will NS invest in this line? Time will tell.
Ed
Ed: if the sidings were to go back in, they would have to be re-engineered for present day track centers. Everything would be moving over 2-11 feet depending on location of turnouts.Not as simple as slapping panel track back down in the old locale. Fortunately the line has very few curves and was well engineered by J. Edgar Thompson et al. to start with in 1853-58. Conrail did a REALLY poor job of rebuilding the line in 1978. Fortunately, a lot of it was mothballed shortly after rehab. The unused portion saw plenty of material robbed to fix decrepit track elsewhere.
schlimm How much traffic on the line now? If light, perhaps Amtrak could purchase it and cobble together a higher speed NYC-CHI line, passenger only in as many places as possible to avoid conflicts with freight lines.
Jim200 What does CF&E move and to where? Also what did G&W pay for the line?
Sunrise grain has a load out at Crestline, Oh. CSX also uses elevator.
About Amtrak usage; not with current governor in Ohio. We almost had 3C service in 2008, then new governor refused funding(like in Wisconsin)
I haven't had a chance to check out much of the west end of this line towards Valpo, but east of there to Fort Wayne the PRR PLS's are still in use. Between this line and the NS Marion branch, there is plenty off PRR signals to keep fans happy. A majority of the trackwork I've observed is stick rail and in dire need or an upgrade. With the track as is, I can't imagine NS running oil trains down it for fear of increased derailment risk.
mudchickenEd: if the sidings were to go back in, they would have to be re-engineered for present day track centers. Everything would be moving over 2-11 feet depending on location of turnouts.Not as simple as slapping panel track back down in the old locale.
Dumb question: Is there enough room in the ROW, and is the grading and drainage suitable, to allow this much accommodation just by 'moving' the sidings or relaid second track over? Would it not be better (perhaps especially given the current state of 'improvement') to move the main track laterally as well ... and correct any problems with its structure and construction as that is being done ... in optimizing center clearance?
Wizlish mudchicken Dumb question: Is there enough room in the ROW, and is the grading and drainage suitable, to allow this much accommodation just by 'moving' the sidings or relaid second track over? Would it not be better (perhaps especially given the current state of 'improvement') to move the main track laterally as well ... and correct any problems with its structure and construction as that is being done ... in optimizing center clearance?
mudchicken
Each location will have it's own set of circumstance to work with and around.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Muschicken,
Is that 2 feet 11 inches or 2 to 11 feet?
BOB WITHORN Muschicken, Is that 2 feet 11 inches or 2 to 11 feet?
What does 2-11 feet mean in regards to track centers? I am not familiar with that. The PRR had passing tracks about every 25 miles, so in those locations (Monroeville, Columbia City etc.), the right of way was 4 tracks wide. When I checked the track around Fort Wayne several years ago, the rails had dates of 1948 on it and I don't believe it has been replaced.
Muschicken?????
I never could type. Sorry MUDCHICKEN
CSXT is still owner and lessor, CF&E is the leasee and NS has trackage rights and dispatches.
quote user="BaltACD"]
[/quote]Gotta lay off that fermenting chicken feed.
Jim611 What does 2-11 feet mean in regards to track centers? I am not familiar with that. The PRR had passing tracks about every 25 miles, so in those locations (Monroeville, Columbia City etc.), the right of way was 4 tracks wide. When I checked the track around Fort Wayne several years ago, the rails had dates of 1948 on it and I don't believe it has been replaced.
You would be lucky to fit 3 tracks into where there used to be 4 without buying more R/W for elbow room.
Standard plans and regulations have changed. I would not want to be walking between 2 moving trains w/ 12'-6" track centers, especially in a curve. The bigger cars and their overhang in curves would be lethal. It was bad enough a while back when the UP surfacing gang screwed-up in Nebraska causing a sideswipe.
(This is also partially why in some yards, every other track is now gone or relocated. a lot of this in common sense written in blood. As bad as yards can be, private industrial trackage can be worse in a clearance sense.)
Thanks for the explanation mudchicken. This reminds me of when I was a teenager and we were visiting a great uncle in Huntington, Indiana. He was a fireman on the Erie west to Chicago. He told of one dark night when their train passed an oncoming train at a road crossing. There were places west of Huntington where the distance between track centers was wider than normal. He said that when they crossed the road there was a lot of racket. When they stopped to inpect the train, they found that a young lad and his girl had stopped between the tracks and were making out. Apparently they did not know there were 2 tracks. When the trains met, they gave the car a spin. Fortunately nobody was seriously hurt, except maybe the lad's pride. I am sure the story was true, but maybe some of the details were exagerated.
I'm not sure how it was set up further east, but I can recall the EL/Erie main east of Hammond to at least Griffith. The spacing was so wide that it resembled two parallel single track mains.
mudchickenYou can't have 12'-6" or 13' -0" track centers anymore. New minimum standard is 15' and up to 25' around switches, ladder tracks and places where a trainman could get trapped between trains. When you build or extensibly upgrade, you must build to the new standard.
Did the various governments agree to fix the real-estate tax laws and conventions to reflect this additional need for ROW space?
Jim611 they found that a young lad and his girl had stopped between the tracks and were making out. When the trains met, they gave the car a spin.
Must have been a pretty wild "make out" session!
CSSHEGEWISCH I'm not sure how it was set up further east, but I can recall the EL/Erie main east of Hammond to at least Griffith. The spacing was so wide that it resembled two parallel single track mains.
I have memory of wide clearances mentioned in its advertising sixty or so years ago.
Johnny
CSSHEGEWISCHI'm not sure how it was set up further east, but I can recall the EL/Erie main east of Hammond to at least Griffith. The spacing was so wide that it resembled two parallel single track mains.
Here is a photo of where the Erie crossed Indiana route 15.
One bridge is eastbound, the other westbound.
Wizlish mudchicken You can't have 12'-6" or 13' -0" track centers anymore. New minimum standard is 15' and up to 25' around switches, ladder tracks and places where a trainman could get trapped between trains. When you build or extensibly upgrade, you must build to the new standard. Did the various governments agree to fix the real-estate tax laws and conventions to reflect this additional need for ROW space?
mudchicken You can't have 12'-6" or 13' -0" track centers anymore. New minimum standard is 15' and up to 25' around switches, ladder tracks and places where a trainman could get trapped between trains. When you build or extensibly upgrade, you must build to the new standard.
In 1913, the feds stepped in and took the taxing authority away from the locals and the states (good move, IMHO) and somewhat levelled the the playing fields. Certain states (like NY) found some ways around the feds and created new cash cows, but they are manageable compared to what existed before WW1.
Was the Erie broad gauge double track all the way to Chicago? I have memory of wide clearances mentioned in its advertising sixty or so years ago.
No, when the Erie pushed across Ohio and Indiana, it was standard gage, but they did keep the large loading gage (clearances). In many places the 2nd track was added later on a different grade, resulting in places like the photo CO linked to above. At one place, North Judson, the two tracks were far enough apart that two other railroads had a diamond interlocking between the Erie tracks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.