schlimm The J is near, about one mile away. Since most of their crossings are "hornless" (not expensive to implement) one hardly notices it. On the other hand, the old IC (also owned by CN) is less busy but noisier with some crossings with horns, some hornless.
Needed a good for the week. Blows up the whining and complaining of the knucklehead political hacks of Schlimm's persuasion in congress this year trying to dumb down the Train Horn Rule implementation costs.
BaltACDGrade separation in the flat lands it an expensive proposition for 'someone'!
A lasting memory of riding with the family on Highway 401 between Windsor and London is the numerous overpasses for the local roads - all of which had to be built up as the land in that part of Ontario resembles a billiards table.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The J is near, about one mile away. Since most of their crossings are "hornless" (not expensive to implement) one hardly notices it. On the other hand, the old IC (also owned by CN) is less busy but noisier with some crossings with horns, some hornless.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
IslandManThere were concerns along the EJ&E about freight trains on grade crossings effectively cutting communities in half for long periods, causing problems for school runs and delaying access by the emergency services. Noise was another issue. Elimination of grade crossings would solve the first problem. A line with 2 trains per day and grade crossings will be more of a nuisance than one with 20 trains per day and no grade crossings. As for noise, replacing jointed track with continuous-welded rail would help and for a busy line would reduce maintenance anyway. Elimination of grade crossings and better fencing would reduce the need to sound locomotive horns. Sound barriers could be used to shield sensitive locations from noise. Communities along the J have lived with a railroad in their midst for very many years. The source of local concerns stems from the fact that an old line is being asked to do a much bigger job than it did before. Bring the line into the 21st century whilst also increasing its capacity and you might find that local people are more positive.
Elimination of grade crossings would solve the first problem. A line with 2 trains per day and grade crossings will be more of a nuisance than one with 20 trains per day and no grade crossings.
As for noise, replacing jointed track with continuous-welded rail would help and for a busy line would reduce maintenance anyway. Elimination of grade crossings and better fencing would reduce the need to sound locomotive horns. Sound barriers could be used to shield sensitive locations from noise.
Communities along the J have lived with a railroad in their midst for very many years. The source of local concerns stems from the fact that an old line is being asked to do a much bigger job than it did before. Bring the line into the 21st century whilst also increasing its capacity and you might find that local people are more positive.
Grade separation in the flat lands it an expensive proposition for 'someone'! The local governments don't want the expense nor do the railroads. When that conundrum is solved something will happen.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There were concerns along the EJ&E about freight trains on grade crossings effectively cutting communities in half for long periods, causing problems for school runs and delaying access by the emergency services. Noise was another issue.
daveklepper Most NIMBYs would be placated by turning grade crossings into grade separations and by additional soiund-control barriers. A good idea.
Most NIMBYs would be placated by turning grade crossings into grade separations and by additional soiund-control barriers. A good idea.
I don't know about most NIMBYs, but my brother lives in the west suburbs of Chicago, and it seems the suburbanites along that part of the former EJ&E are incredulous that a freight line even runs thru their town.
They think that is a great idea; as long as someone else is paying for it.
Norm
CN's plan to merely increase traffic on the EJ&E brought out strong NIMBY opposition from the trendy suburbs, and CN had to do a lot of mitigation. Double tracking would be a huge fight.
Would the new line achieve anything that couldn't be done as part of CREATE?
The EJ&E sort of mirrors the proposed line. Would it be possible to multi-track and upgrade the EJ&E (for example, bridging roads where grade crossings now exist, improving junctions with other lines), especially the part skirting the south of Chicago? This would tend to avoid the NIMBY problem as no new rail corridor would be created.
For obvious commercial reasons Canadian National would not be enthusiastic about making life easier for other Class Is and they in turn would not wish to depend on CN to bypass Chicago. This is where CREATE (i.e state) funding might come in useful. In return for CREATE paying for multi-tracking/upgrading the J, CN would be expected to enter into a trackage rights agreement, or something similar, with other relevant Class Is.
Was there really a need to start a new thread on this proposal?
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/246855.aspx
An "expensive model collector"
Before they get eminent domain, they will have to show need. Thee fact that the potential users of the line are not interested in sending traffic that way, shows a lack of need.
Deggesty csxns Deggesty "We're going to do this, and it bothers us not a whit what hardships it inflicts on the current land owners." They take land from owners to build highways why not for railroads. Highways are generally open to anyone who has a vehicle to travel on them--railroads are not quite so open access.
csxns Deggesty "We're going to do this, and it bothers us not a whit what hardships it inflicts on the current land owners." They take land from owners to build highways why not for railroads.
Deggesty "We're going to do this, and it bothers us not a whit what hardships it inflicts on the current land owners."
They take land from owners to build highways why not for railroads.
Highways are generally open to anyone who has a vehicle to travel on them--railroads are not quite so open access.
This was a 12 to 13 year long battle to prevent the building of I-40 through Overton Park in Memphis,Tn. The struggle to complete that highway link at one point lead some Memphians to say"... I-40 started on the East Coast, and went straight to Overton Park, and from Overton Park to the West Coast..."
Deggesty Quoting part of the article "Ultimately, Patton says it's not about cutting up a farmer's land, but finding a way to make the project move full-steam ahead. In other words, "what do we care about the problems the current land owners will have? "We're going to do this, and it bothers us not a whit what hardships it inflicts on the current land owners."
Quoting part of the article "Ultimately, Patton says it's not about cutting up a farmer's land, but finding a way to make the project move full-steam ahead. In other words, "what do we care about the problems the current land owners will have? "We're going to do this, and it bothers us not a whit what hardships it inflicts on the current land owners."
I doubt if it will happen. However, putting your made-up, spun sentence in quotes makes it appear as though Patton had also said those words. Disingenuous at a minimum.
Johnny
Deggesty"We're going to do this, and it bothers us not a whit what hardships it inflicts on the current land owners."
Russell
We've had comments about this 'project' in several threads already.
Not to troll, but the STB comments page is here... and the deadline is now July 15th with no further extensions.
If I'm not mistaken, there are now several of the involved Class Is that have formally announced that they have no, or 'less than no', interest in participating in this project (in other words, espousing it, helping to fund it, or sending traffic to it for the cost anticipated.) That is not a tremendously hopeful sign. It may be that everyone in the business is anticipating what will happen after the original projectors lose their butts trying to build it and have to sell out at pennies on the dollar for the equivalent of cold, hard cash. (In fact, I now predict there would be several generations of projectors losing their butts on this before it settles out...)
Of course, none of this would be particularly useful for either HSR or HrSR to intermediate communities, optimized as it is to keep as many people as possible (other than farmers) out of the Blast Zone.
The Great Lakes Basin RR. Nothing new there. AFAIK, they have no funding so far or any support from the Big 6.
Honestly, I have no idea what the thinking is here but I stumbled across the article while researching western Wisconsin bike trails to ride on. I can't see this proposal will ever get far. Click on the blue link in the article to see the route map.
http://www.wkow.com/story/31519338/2016/03/19/8-billion-railroad-proposal-through-rural-rock-county-worries-farmers-as-60-day-public-hearing-opens
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.