It has been a while since we have had a top-five list on here, and I am bored to tears right now . . .
Assuming that this recession does not take years to recover from and "this too shall pass," what do you think the five most needed/most likely to see capacity improvement projects are?
I am sure this is terribly amaturish, but mine are in order of most needed to least:(1) CREATE;
(2) BNSF Transcon;
(3) UP's Sunset;
(4) NEC;
(5) NS' Decatur, IL to Lafayette IN ex-Wabash main.
Gabe
gabe It has been a while since we have had a top-five list on here, and I am bored to tears right now . . . Assuming that this recession does not take years to recover from and "this too shall pass," what do you think the five most needed/most likely to see capacity improvement projects are? I am sure this is terribly amaturish, but mine are in order of most needed to least:(1) CREATE; (2) BNSF Transcon; (3) UP's Sunset; (4) NEC; (5) NS' Decatur, IL to Lafayette IN ex-Wabash main. Gabe
#1: No doubt!!
#2 & #3: these are the same thing, pretty much, Right? competing for the same business,
#4. Interesting possibility, perhaps a good platform for a WPA like project to stimulate the economy.
#5 why do you specify between Decatur AND LAFAYETTE? (curious)
To my knowledge, that is the busiest part of the line. Sometimes it staggers me to sit and watch trains on the Wabash line between Decatur and Saint Louis, and to realize that east of Decatur, the traffic from Decatur - Kansas City is included and it is still only single track. Gabe
OK, this looks like it'll be fun (I'm sharing your pain/ boredom, too !), so here's a partial response and submission:
(1) CREATE - Agree !
(2) BNSF Transcon - well underway, almost done, only 3 short segments to go, so we need to find something else;
(3) UP's Sunset - essentially ditto;
(4) NEC - Agree ! If this doesn't already include a new set of tunnels under the Hudson (North) River, then it should, because they are absolutley at capacity (19 to 22 trains per peak hour, I believe), although this could be a separate project all by itself. See also (A) below;
(5) NS - don't know enough about it to say, but it seems awful local = I haven't heard about this before.
Here's some other contenders, IMHO, in no particular order:
(A) New or upgraded freight main(s) parallel to and just inside (west) of the NEC, from Harrisburg, PA south to Miami, or at least as far as Jacksonville (FEC can take it from there). NS has been working on its Shenandoah Valley line, so that's a start, but it needs to continue further south. The CSX lines are near or at capacity from Washington, D.C. on south - just look at the Amtrak delays;
(B) New or upgraded high-speed passenger main - including electrification - to extend the NEC from Richmond south to Miami/ Jacksonville, including to the North Carolina system. Again, CSX is at capacity - look at the Amtrak delays, and TGV-class trains shouldn't be on the same tracks with freight anyway;
(C) Upgrade the ex-NYC "Water Level Route" all the way from NYC to Chicago for high-speed passenger main - including electrification, to connect those 2 hubs and the many cities along the way. Six to 8 hours ought to be the goal - roughly competitive with the airlines if travel to airports and check-in and luggage retrieval delys are counted;
(D) New or upgraded freight mains from just west of Boston up north and "down east" through Maine to St. John, N.B., and on around further east to Halifax, N.S. Halifax could be the port of choice for westbound (from Europe) container traffic, but the land conneciton is so poor now that no one will do it, and lack of a good direct route is the major impediment. Truly a "Which should come first - the chicken-or-egg ?" kind of situation;
I acknowledge this list so far has a pro-East Coast bias, because that's where I am and what I know best, so I'll leave it up to others to speak up for their parts of the country (and Canada and Mexico ?) But here's a western suggestion:
(E) New/ upgraded route through the Rockies, from Denver to San Francisco via Salt Lake City. The Transcon takes care of LA and the SouthWest, and BNSF and UP have decent passes and reasonable grades to get to Seattle, Portland, Vancouver (B.C.), and the rest of the Pacific NorthWest, but the middle West Coast is kind of left out. SF is still a struggle via either Donner Pass (ex-SP) or the Feather River (ex-WP), and via the Moffat Tunnel is scenic but slow.
Looking forward to other suggestions !
- Paul North.
I am not sure if any capacity project $$$ coming from Federal Government is going to the state of Illinois (CREATE), particularly with the past couple of days considered.
If it is flowing to Illinois, might I suggest the Olney, Il to Newton, Il segment of the former Illinois Central branchline? There really isnt any traffic to move on the line, but it sure would be nice to walk the rails on a Sunday afternoon like we did 30 years ago. Hey, I had to ask...
ed
Hmm. Since we already had a thread on resurrecting rail lines, I'll assume you meant upgrade already existing lines. That eliminates two of my choices.
1. Triple-track the ex CNW from Proviso to Rochelle. UP needs a bigger parking lot
2. Triple-track the EJ&E through the western suburbs and let any and everyone use it for run-through trains.
3. Finish the SF transcon two-track project.
4. Upgrade the I-5 corridor on the Left Coast. Not sure which line would be the best bang for the buck, but something needs to be done in that area.
5. Assuming we're still making automobiles in MI, I would two track the NS from Fort Wayne to Decatur even though NS does't like to think about it until a line gets over 50 trains a day. Once auto and parts traffic picks back up, this line will hum.
How about the KCS line through Texas to Mexico? Trains Magazine did a story some years back about KCS running on UP trackage rights, and how slow it was.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Move some of the traffic OUT of Chicago. Build up the capacity through St Louis and Kansas City. They have good east west lines throught those cities. Double or triple track them and speed train movements by braking the Chicago bottleneck..
gabeTo my knowledge, that is the busiest part of the line. Sometimes it staggers me to sit and watch trains on the Wabash line between Decatur and Saint Louis, and to realize that east of Decatur, the traffic from Decatur - Kansas City is included and it is still only single track. Gabe
That's reasonable. I was just wondering because there really isn't much divergence at Lafayette, is there?
I'd think that all the way to Logansport would be better, since the segment along IN route 25 frequently seems bound up.
This is predicated upon the auto traffic rebounding, which I seriously wonder about.
Murphy Siding Trains Magazine did a story some years back about KCS running on UP trackage rights, and how slow it was.
Trains Magazine did a story some years back about KCS running on UP trackage rights, and how slow it was.
I recall reading that as well. very interesting story...
Aren't they in progress on some of that?
Gabe,
Have you been asleep at the switch? The UP has been double-tracking the Sunset Route for the past year. Double track is now complete as far west as Tucson, Arizona, and they are working on the line between Tucson and Yuma, Arizona now. A lot of work is also being performed in California to upgrade to double track mainline all the way between Colton, California and the east coast.
There are also proposals to build a new, 6 mile long, automated hump yard at Red Rock, Arizona and a new refueling and service facility in New Mexico just outside El Paso, Texas to relieve the congestion in El Paso's yard.
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/120779.aspx
john_edwardsI'd like to play, but what is CREATE? If its Chicago I think all in RRing would agree on it being #1
Words can't do CREATE justice, so...
http://www.createprogram.org
Definitely number one on any list. And Illinois' problems notwithstanding, this program is just what the doctor ordered for infrastructure improvements, both railroad and highway.
Parallel to CREATE, but for some reason not tied to it, is the Metra plan for increasing capacity on the UP West Line. It's meant to improve Metra frequency, but the added crossovers and replacement of other interlockings will help UP traffic as well, and other Metra lines, too (the relocation of the Western Avenue crossing is what I'm thinking of here--not to mention that the whole idea of expanding the West Line was because BNSF was already at capacity).
Someone mentioned three-tracking Proviso to Rochelle. Amen to that--and UP may have plans for expansion of the third track beyond Metra territory. But why stop there? You could also use a third track as far west as Nelson, at least, and then a second track down the Peoria Sub to Edelstein.
There are other places between Nelson and Gibbon Junction where a third track would come in handy. Another track over most, if not all, of the Blair line from Mo. Valley to Fremont would be useful. If there is still any good old Double Track between Fremont and Gibbon, make it CTC--and quickly! Closer to home for me, it would be nice to see third track added at some of the places where traffic often becomes congested--from Clinton west to Cedar Rapids is rough (and I'm sure Jeff and Larry could tell us some tales about other places in Iowa!). If the new crew-change point at Low Moor will include fueling pads, there should be enough trackage to accommodate the line's capacity in trains per (however long it takes to fuel one). A new, higher bridge across the Mississippi River would do a lot to smooth things out in that area, I suspect.
Beyond this area, I have little knowledge of existing choke-points. It sounds like NS could use a third track between Elkhart and Butler, at least, as well as west of Porter, regardless of whether or not a separate route is built for passenger service.
I suspect that upgrading some routes around St. Louis, for quick connections between eastern and western lines would be helpful, not to mention the improvement that could be brought to passenger service.
There are parts of the Donner route that should definitely be restored to two tracks.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRR Beyond this area, I have little knowledge of existing choke-points. It sounds like NS could use a third track between Elkhart and Butler, at least, as well as west of Porter, regardless of whether or not a separate route is built for passenger service.
The NS west of Porter is the busiest segment with up to 100/day, but as far as I can tell, it runs pretty smoothely. I've heard that Amtrak has big delay's between here and Chicago, but I've never really seen much congestion myself, except that westbound freight trains are often held outside of the junction for very long times waiting for the Amtraks. And Porter - Elkhart has as many trains as Elkhart - Butler.
I'm not a dispatcher so I really don't know, but this line is very fluid from what I can tell, even with around 80 trains per day in places like Goshen where the Marion branch joins the main. I'm not exactly sure how NS can keep trains moving so well compared to UP's and CSX's double track east/west main lines into Chicago, even with more trains and more higher priority trains.
It seems to me RR's have made it clear they don't want out of Chicago. Recently, much of NS and UP's run through domestic intermodal business has been shifted from Memphis and St. Louis to Chicago. BTW, anybody know how much business this translates to?
A few (er dozen) flyovers in Chi-land would be most help me thinks.
Carl has hit on some good needs. While my trip on Amtrak between Chicago and DC last week was on the advertised, that was due in a large part to the obvious reduction of traffic on the west end of NS's Chicago line. My two trips earlier in the year had us snaking around trains coming and going in that area and I have seen it identified as one of the most congested pieces of mainline in the country.
A couple of things that I picked up in recent months. When I was in Sacramento, I caught a presentation by the UP that covered the latest on the Donner Pass route. It was shortly after the UP turned down $75 million from California to go toward the re-double tracking of that route. In exchange for the grant, Calfornia wanted the rights to run passenger trains on the route and while the UP does handle Amtrak's CZ on the route, they decided that the additional potential obligations for running passenger was not worth the grant offer. Double tracking is out, but they are going forward of clearing tunnels for double stacks. When done they will swing a number of trains off the Feather River route. It was pretty clear that they see the two routes providing ample capacity for their needs for the foreseeable future. Obviously, the completion of the Donner Pass double track remains a prospect for some time in the future.
The other is in regards to CREATE. From an authoritive source, work continues on that project for those pieces that can be accomplished with the limited funding-primarily work of immediate benefit to the frieght railroad operations. A good part of the projected costs for CREATE were for over/under passes at spots where major streets now cross rail lines at grade. Flyovers are another category of projects on hold. As I recall, those were designed to provide significant improvements for passenger services. Those two types of projects were shown as justified for "public" benefits. In the absence of "public" money to support such projects, they are not going to happen anytime soon.
From various presentations that I have seen or read, it is clear to me that the five US Class I's have a very good handle on both present and future specific capacity needs going out about a decade and a generalized view beyond that point. Of course there are contingencies. Electronic braking, and to a limited extent, Positive Train Control are both seen as offering some measure of additional capacity. One can also expect that with the current business climate many projects now underway may have completion dates moved back as a function both of the drop in business and the availability cash for the projects.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Capacity is added when railways want to increase volume, speed, or reliability. A rule of thumb is that in a given lane, capacity is installed incrementally in inverse proportion to its cost. Sidings in open country are the first to be extended, and typically engineered and shoved here and there to avoid having to double-track major bridges, tunnels, road crossings, high fills, and deep cuts. Eventually all the inexpensive siding extensions are accomplished, and then to create additional capacity the railway has to start dealing with the bridges, tunnels, cuts, wetlands, etc., all of which are much more expensive to attack.
Most of the easy, cheap, simple, capacity has been added already. Now we are taking on some of the expensive increases such as mountainous territory, sidehill construction with significant embankments and cuts, medium-length spans in the 50-100' range, and urban areas where there is not room to jam another main track under all the highway overpasses, there are lineside buildings that have to be purchased and demolished, and a zillion grade crossings that have to be separated. I am reviewing tonight a cost estimate on a single 20-mile installation of a third main track in a corridor that will cost $1.5 to $2.0 billion.
Twenty years from now we will have to start dealing with large bridges, long tunnels, and urban areas where land acquisitions are required, and then the pricetag will truly be breathtaking.
RWM
Paul_D_North_Jr If this doesn't already include a new set of tunnels under the Hudson (North) River, then it should, because they are absolutley at capacity (19 to 22 trains per peak hour, I believe), although this could be a separate project all by itself. See also (A) below;
If this doesn't already include a new set of tunnels under the Hudson (North) River, then it should, because they are absolutley at capacity (19 to 22 trains per peak hour, I believe), although this could be a separate project all by itself. See also (A) below;
Call me a curmudgeon but, IIRC, didn't the Pennsy build the tunnels with a capacity of 72 trains per hour? As Trains "Professional Iconoclast" once said in reply to doubts about that number, "They may have had them stacked up halfway to Montauk, but I saw it".
Kevin C. Smith Paul_D_North_Jr If this doesn't already include a new set of tunnels under the Hudson (North) River, then it should, because they are absolutley at capacity (19 to 22 trains per peak hour, I believe), although this could be a separate project all by itself. See also (A) below; Call me a curmudgeon but, IIRC, didn't the Pennsy build the tunnels with a capacity of 72 trains per hour? As Trains "Professional Iconoclast" once said in reply to doubts about that number, "They may have had them stacked up halfway to Montauk, but I saw it".
I pretty much remember that quote from John G. Kneliling, Jr. - certainly the justifiably assertive, self-confident attitude - but not that specific number. I believe the quote had to do with the Pennsy successfully handling World War II passenger traffic, probably at Christmas or New Year's, and why Amtrak (or Penn Central or the PRR, whichever it was at the time) couldn't do as well as the PRR of old back then when John was writing for Trains, or now (your point), a view that I too share often enough.
Nevertheless, I doubt that number was for the Hudson (a/k/a North) River tunnels, which are only a pair of single-track tubes. Perhaps tha figure should apply instead to the tunnels under the East River, where there are 4 Amtrak (ex-PRR) and LIRR tracks, and which is the set of tunnels closest to Montauk, and so would make more sense in that context. [Edit - add:] Additionally, if 3 tracks were assigned to one direction - westbound, in this instance - leaving 1 for any traffic in the other direction (eastbound), then 72 trains per hour over 3 tracks = 24 trains per hour per track, which is entirely consistent with the following:
Further, consider the following quote from an article in Railway Age, June 2006 issue, by William C. Vantuono, entitled "Make way for 500 more trains a day: the biggest news for New York commuters in 100 years", as found at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_6_207/ai_n26917580
"The existing Hudson River Tunnels (more commonly known as the North River Tunnels by local railroaders) are now at practical capacity, handling a maximum of 25 trains per hour and 42,500 peak-period, peak-direction passenger trips." [emphasis added - PDN]
Lastly, as a practical matter, 72 mainline passenger trains per hour in 1 direction on a single track is simply impossible, and highly doubtful even for a short-train subway system. One hour has 3,600 seconds (60 mins. x 60 secs.), and 72 trains per hour would be 1 train every 50 seconds. For example, trains of 1,000 ft. length = say 12 cars plus locomotive (I forget what the limiting platform length is there, but it's not far different from that), at 40 MPH (which is about 60 ft. per second) it would take that train 17 seconds just to pass, leaving only 33 seconds until the next one, at a spacing of about 2,000 ft. That might sound like it's feasible, but it simply isn't - the "headway" time and spacing betwen successive trains is too short for safe stopping from that speed. Further, the time interval is too short to even safely switch the trains from one track to another to allow for the station stop. And if the trains go any slower, the time and distance between them decreases, making the dilemma worse. Even making both tunnels 1-way in the same direction makes the timing for 36 trains per hour in each tunnel work out to 1 train every 100 seconds = 1 min. 40 secs. per train. That frequency is also too tight - the 25 trains per hour cited above is 144 secs. = 2 mins. 24 secs. avg. time from the loco of 1 train to the loco of the next, and substantially less than that actually between the trains.
Hope this is informative.
-Paul North.
t.winx CShaveRR Beyond this area, I have little knowledge of existing choke-points. It sounds like NS could use a third track between Elkhart and Butler, at least, as well as west of Porter, regardless of whether or not a separate route is built for passenger service. The NS west of Porter is the busiest segment with up to 100/day, but as far as I can tell, it runs pretty smoothely. I've heard that Amtrak has big delay's between here and Chicago, but I've never really seen much congestion myself, except that westbound freight trains are often held outside of the junction for very long times waiting for the Amtraks. And Porter - Elkhart has as many trains as Elkhart - Butler. I'm not a dispatcher so I really don't know, but this line is very fluid from what I can tell, even with around 80 trains per day in places like Goshen where the Marion branch joins the main. I'm not exactly sure how NS can keep trains moving so well compared to UP's and CSX's double track east/west main lines into Chicago, even with more trains and more higher priority trains. It seems to me RR's have made it clear they don't want out of Chicago. Recently, much of NS and UP's run through domestic intermodal business has been shifted from Memphis and St. Louis to Chicago. BTW, anybody know how much business this translates to? A few (er dozen) flyovers in Chi-land would be most help me thinks.
Trust me, as someone who tries to get my trains over the NS from Porter to Curtis/Rock Island Junction, the NS is anything but smooth.
An "expensive model collector"
At the Risk of more East Coast parochialism (I am a New Englander) build (or actually complete as the slurry walls were installed as part of the infamous Big Dig) the Boston North South Rail link tunnel to connect North and South stations...
I also think NS's new partnership with Pan Am railways would benefit from a project to increase clearances in the Hoosac Tunnel to accomadate full height domestic doublestacks...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
rrnut282 [clip] 1. Triple-track the ex CNW from Proviso to Rochelle. UP needs a bigger parking lot 2. Triple-track the EJ&E through the western suburbs and let any and everyone use it for run-through trains.
Both of these are funny, and good. I'd also thought of the 1st one for several different places - kind of a "cure-all" - make a place to park the lower priority trains so they don't get in the way of the more important ones, keep them from clogging things up further, and provide a basis to start to sort things out. A 5 of 10 track yard in a farm field about 3 to 5 miles out from any termial would be a good start.
The 2nd one is not one I'd thought of, but very good - I agree with the sentiment, too.
rrnut282 3. Finish the SF transcon two-track project. 4. Upgrade the I-5 corridor on the Left Coast. Not sure which line would be the best bang for the buck, but something needs to be done in that area. [clip]
4. Upgrade the I-5 corridor on the Left Coast. Not sure which line would be the best bang for the buck, but something needs to be done in that area. [clip]
3. is almost done - see above.
4. is also not one I'd thought of, but another very good one, and the comment, too.
Paul_D_North_Jr rrnut282 [clip] 1. Triple-track the ex CNW from Proviso to Rochelle. UP needs a bigger parking lot 2. Triple-track the EJ&E through the western suburbs and let any and everyone use it for run-through trains. Both of these are funny, and good. I'd also thought of the 1st one for several different places - kind of a "cure-all" - make a place to park the lower priority trains so they don't get in the way of the more important ones, keep them from clogging things up further, and provide a basis to start to sort things out. A 5 of 10 track yard in a farm field about 3 to 5 miles out from any termial would be a good start. The 2nd one is not one I'd thought of, but very good - I agree with the sentiment, too. rrnut282 3. Finish the SF transcon two-track project. 4. Upgrade the I-5 corridor on the Left Coast. Not sure which line would be the best bang for the buck, but something needs to be done in that area. [clip] 3. is almost done - see above. 4. is also not one I'd thought of, but another very good one, and the comment, too. - Paul North.
I was trying to put some thought into it and still get in something funny at the same time. I'm glad someone took it the way it was intended. BTW #5 was just a personal favorite line that I have worked on in the past. I don't see it going to two tracks for a long time.
I liked your analysis of the timing of trains in the tubes. I've got to get there and see that for myself someday.
Suggestion: Don't look out in the countryside for projects, look in:
That brings your focus into the South, the three coasts, and Chicago and the Great Lakes population belt, doesn't it? Everywhere else either has declining or static population and economic development, or is highly concentrated urban areas (see #1 above).
There is very little desire or need for alternatives to Chicago. Traffic goes to Chicago now because it needs to go to Chicago. If it doesn't need to go to Chicago, it already doesn't go to Chicago. It's not a case of everyone pining for an alternative "if we only just had one, but gosh, we don't, so we'll suck it up and send the trains to Chicago."
This reminds me very much of one of John Kneiling's columns, which I'm pretty sure was entitled "Balkanization" - that the U.S. economy was really 10 to 15 separate regions, which are pretty much defined by the same criteria above.
Interestingly, John also advised that often improving service (most often with him = cutting hours or even minutes from the in-transit running time for one of his "integral trains") with the best benefit / cost ratio was little projects. For example, upgrading an interlocking - not the big expensive ones like adding another track for many miles, which would be out in the countryside as you note above. Now, cutting minutes from 1 train's cycle time isn't quite the same as improving capacity by enabling more trains to get past a certain point or over the line segment in a given time period - but they are related, in that better speed / cycle time/ celerity benefits all trains ("a rising tide raises all the boats" kind of thing).
However, when I think about this in "hub-and-spoke" terms, what you're advocating is fixing the hub or terminal areas, not the spoke or line-haul areas (generally). That seems counter-intuitive at first - isn't the capacity constraint affecting getting over the line out in the country ? However, on further reflection, I realize that no, it isn't - we've seen time and again that the trains do just fine out in the country - where they get delayed is the 1st mile/ last mile kind of thing at the terminals - the run's not done until the train ties up in the yard. So this makes sense.
In an earlier post you mentioned evaluating a possible $1.5 to 2.0 billion for a 3rd track in an urban area, and I was wondering "Why put it there when it'll cost so much ?" Now I can begin to see the rationale at work. Thanks for the insights.
I think Kneiling's observation of Balkanization is no longer operative. In his day there wasn't a tremendous flow of goods and commodities over long distances. There were no massive flows of 40' boxes and PRB coal spanning 1/2 the continent, much less 1/2 the distance around the globe. In Kneiling's day the average move of lumber by rail was 300 miles. Now moves of 3,000 miles are commonplace.
There are some projects such as you mention where fixing a single interlocking has a very high cost-benefit ratio. But we've done most of those that are low-cost or simple. I know of quite a few single interlockings where a fix would have very high benefits, but the cost in these cases is in the $250 million range.
I like your analogy of hub and spoke, though perhaps a better way to look at it is many hubs with interlaced spokes, and the hubs are not where the trains cross but where the traffic begins. Think of the U.S. as Los Angeles, Houston-Beaumont-Baton Rouge, the PRB, North Jersey, and Chicago, and a lot of spokes interlacing them, secondary hubs such as Seattle-Tacoma, Atlanta, Norfolk, and Detroit, and crossroads such as Kansas City and Memphis. The last mile is always the ugly mile.
The case in point in my $1.5 billion example is a spoke leading out of a hub that due to geography there is no choice, except maybe tunnelling for 40 miles at $200,000/foot.
Maybe I'm wrong but, I thought the biggest challenge dispatchers face in getting a train "over the road" is finding an out of the way place for it to wait until its turn in the yard/terminal without plugging up the line?
Main line capacity enhancement is all well and good; however, when you really look at the infrastructure of today's railroads, the true limiting factor is terminal capacity. Trains arriving at a destination must be handled....either broken up and delivered to industry, or delivered in interchange to one or more connecting roads. During the 80's and 90's, the carriers in addition to performing 'plant rationalization' on their main lines; also performed it on their terminals to 'right size' them to the traffic level they were handling at that time...since then traffic has boomed (prior to the current collapse) and getting all those trains over the road more efficiently, just highlighted the terminal inefficiencies. No capacity enhancement project can overlook the capacities of the terminals to which the anticipated traffic is destined.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
rrnut282 Maybe I'm wrong but, I thought the biggest challenge dispatchers face in getting a train "over the road" is finding an out of the way place for it to wait until its turn in the yard/terminal without plugging up the line?
That is not a problem. We simply stacked them up on the main line until the yard took them. Until they took them, they couldn't run any more trains, could they! We referred to it as "jamming them down their throat."
If you go about parking trains in sidings to make the yard fluid, then the main line isn't fluid either. And if you are going to go about parking trains, it's best not to park them on sidings, because then you run out of crews and power very quickly, which means the yards are right back where they started -- plugged because now there is no way to depart trains.
Interestingly, there is a little capacity issue here in Northern Indiana that has been addressed.
This summer the Chicago Ft Wayne and Eastern experienced a FRA inspection in which nearly 30 slow orders (10mph) were placed. The track speed was normally 40mph. CF&E is owned by Rail America. The line was rehabbed this summer/late fall and track speed is now up to 40mph again.
Rumors were flying that part of the quid pro quo was that NS would be granted trackage rights between Ft Wayne and County (Hobart, In). This line is the former PRR mainline to Chicago which parallels the NS's former NKP line.
Earlier this month (Dec 1 actually) NS began running a train a day on the line. I have seen and photographed the NS25A several times on the old Pennsy. Further rumor has it that NS will have rights to run 4 trains daily over this line.
At this point the NKP line doesnt seem too congested, but this should be a great resource for them when the economy returns. This is a great safety valve as it allows them to move trains from the ex NYC Elkhart line (Porter line mentioned earlier) to the NKP/PRR routing thru Ft Wayne. It has been mentioned the capacity issues for the Porter line. NS added the CP trains (10 daily) thru Butler, a couple of years ago.
I would think that capacity in the form of secondaries and even branch lines will be explored. Perhaps in a few years a line such as the TPW will see increased traffic, or even the ex B&O St. Louis - Cincinnati line.
Meanwhile, I enjoy watching those double stacks roll thru town on the Pennsy, although it does concern me seeing those top containers sway a little due to the stick rail.
RWM and others...is there any concern for running stack trains on stick rail? Are there any dynamic forces involved with double stacks which would be a concern for a secondary main such as this?
The running of the 25A train makes great sense as it is swimming against the current of Chicago bound morning trains (233,235, 230, plus local L41 and the steel turn 323 are all running westward).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.