Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
It get's back to the old idea a decade ago (I'm not sure if it was part of the failed SP-SF merger, or an outgrowth of the UP-SP merger) that if a RR has two separate (redundant) mainlines from point A to point B, that you primp one for the lighter higher speed intermodal/time freight traffic and buttress the other for the slower heavy drag freights/unit trains. It was something like making the Sunset Route the faster route and the Overland Route the slower line. It makes sense to do it this way rather than running both kinds of freight on both lines because you can then do things like superelevating the curves on the faster line to increase train speed. <br /> <br />I think there are a number of redundant lines in the U.S. in which this philosophy can be implemented. You run the 10,000 to 15,000 ton coal and grain trains over one line and the 3,000 ton intermodals over the other, that way the higher speeds on the latter do not exasterbate track maintenance since the average tons per axle are much lower. In other words, it can be done if the business exists to justify the effort.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag