MikeF90A better candidate might be to "mothball" the (seemingly) grossly underutilized third MT in Nebraska (O'Fallons-Gibbon). I 'drive by' on VR almost every day and rarely see a train passing at Kearney.
Might have to retract that statement. This morning at ~2am there was a coal train breakapart seen on the west Kearney cam. One track OOS, two still available !!
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
Gramp The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer. Peter Drucker
The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer.
Peter Drucker
......that covers the cost of providing the service and generates a fair return for the shareholders!
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Lithonia Operator Johnny, what does AF stand for?
Johnny, what does AF stand for?
You may have noticed recently that occasionally VRE trains that were to continue towards Fredericksburg were diverted towards Manassas because the operator at K Tower (north of the station in Washington) was not as alert as he should have been (ask Balt about the details on that).
The C&O used the Southern tracks to Orange, where they took the track to Gordonsville (on the main passenger line) and thence west. This is the route the Cardinal uses to make its way west from Washington.
Ownership of the track north of the Virginia state line has changed from what it was when the routing was set up.
Johnny
While some call signs were probably simply what was available (instead of what would seem appropriate, if it weren't already in use), I know of at least one that reflected a previous station name. The call sign for Thendara, NY (NYC) was "FC" for "Fulton Chain," the original name of the station.
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...
Thanks, Balt.
Lithonia OperatorJohnny, what does AF stand for?
AF was the telegraph call sign for the RF&P interlocking tower that controlled the interlocking at Alexandria. That call sign as continued on an it is the name of the Control Point for CSX.
Back 'in the day' all Train Order Stations or Interlocking Towers had their own telegraphi call sign - in my experience it was one or two letters. The letters used may or may not make any sense in concert with the actual name of the location.
I worked the B&O tower at Niles Jct. OH - Call Sign 'RS' The PRR Tower controlling the shared B&O/PRR line from Akron to Warwick, OH had the call sign 'JO'. Haselton Train Order office in Youngstown, OH had the call sign 'CH'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
As to ten mile stretches of second track, when the Southern removed sections of the second track between AF and Atlanta in the sixties, it left pass tracks generally every ten miles or so. Now, if all the pass tracks were extended to be ten miles each, NS would again have a two track road --except where Camille took a bridge in Virginia (I do not remember just where), and the Southern replaced it with a single track bridge which may have been lying unused somewhere.
At the time a member of the Birmingham chapter of the NRHS remarked, "Sin in haste and repent at leisure."
I did get a nice detour because that bridge was removed--between Greensboro and AF by way of Raleigh on my way from Atlanta to Washington, adding what was then dark territory from Greensboro to Cary. I went to sleep not long after we left Greensboro, woke briefly in the Broad Street Station in Richmond, and, because I was in a setout sleeper, snoozed after we arrived in Washington.
jeffhergert BaltACD MikeF90 With todays monster trains we still need some ten mile segments of 2MT or at least five mile long sidings. Venture to say that in today's PSR railroads. Multiple track segment of less than 10 miles long should be considered a passing siding. 15K & 20K foot long trains consume miles of track. Especially when they get torn into two or three, or even more, pieces. One train the other day had two drawbars and two or three knuckles. Of course they want to blame the engineers for these as much as possible. (If EMS is engaged and running the train, then it's a 'mechanical failure.') My boss had me and another west Iowa pool engineer in the simulator last week to help develope new guidelines on how to run these monster trains. My boss said they are only going to get bigger. While there, my boss got word of an 18K manifest, with an engine consist of 5* x 1 x 2 x 1 x 2. (* I don't know if all 5 were on line. I'm guessing not.) It got a knuckle on a single track line. He said the first 1/4 of the train was going up (through a sag), the second 1/4 was going down, the thrid 1/4 was on level track and the last 1/4 was going up coming out of another sag. The engineer had all consists operating in synchronous mode, in notch 2. Because he didn't have the fence up and part of the consist in independent mode, my boss's boss is calling this a 'human factor' incident. Even though there isn't a requirement to operate DP consists independently. Jeff
BaltACD MikeF90 With todays monster trains we still need some ten mile segments of 2MT or at least five mile long sidings. Venture to say that in today's PSR railroads. Multiple track segment of less than 10 miles long should be considered a passing siding. 15K & 20K foot long trains consume miles of track.
MikeF90 With todays monster trains we still need some ten mile segments of 2MT or at least five mile long sidings.
Venture to say that in today's PSR railroads. Multiple track segment of less than 10 miles long should be considered a passing siding. 15K & 20K foot long trains consume miles of track.
Especially when they get torn into two or three, or even more, pieces. One train the other day had two drawbars and two or three knuckles.
Of course they want to blame the engineers for these as much as possible. (If EMS is engaged and running the train, then it's a 'mechanical failure.') My boss had me and another west Iowa pool engineer in the simulator last week to help develope new guidelines on how to run these monster trains. My boss said they are only going to get bigger. While there, my boss got word of an 18K manifest, with an engine consist of 5* x 1 x 2 x 1 x 2. (* I don't know if all 5 were on line. I'm guessing not.) It got a knuckle on a single track line. He said the first 1/4 of the train was going up (through a sag), the second 1/4 was going down, the thrid 1/4 was on level track and the last 1/4 was going up coming out of another sag. The engineer had all consists operating in synchronous mode, in notch 2. Because he didn't have the fence up and part of the consist in independent mode, my boss's boss is calling this a 'human factor' incident. Even though there isn't a requirement to operate DP consists independently.
Jeff
Roller Coaster railroads and long trains have never worked well together; there are too many physical differences happening at once to keep up with the needs for each segment of the train and the ground upon which it is operating.
Personal observation - railroads in the South were laid out on top of the ground with very little attempt at crating contiguous grade lines. Railroads in the North built and rebuilt their plants to have sustained grades and minimize sags and peaks. That being said - NO RAILROAD IS PERFECT for the operation of 15K foot and larger trains.
MikeF90With todays monster trains we still need some ten mile segments of 2MT or at least five mile long sidings.
jeffhergertThere has been talk, off and on, about salvaging part of the UP's double tracked line to the Powder River and using the materials to finish the Blair Subdivision double track. I don't expect it to happen because it would mean spending money on the effort.
A better candidate might be to "mothball" the (seemingly) grossly underutilized third MT in Nebraska (O'Fallons-Gibbon). I 'drive by' on VR almost every day and rarely see a train passing at Kearney.
The benefits of 2MT CTC are hard to understate. More than just volume, universal crossovers allow meets, overtakes and track maintenance important to maintaining 'system velocity' that current management doesn't seem to comprehend well.
Look at the combo of double and single track over Tehachapi Pass in CA. Despite the grades and curvature the UP dispatchers keep things moving along pretty well IMO.
With todays monster trains we still need some ten mile segments of 2MT or at least five mile long sidings.
The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer. Peter Drucker
Why not this solution ?. Do not remove any two main track segments or more if necessary. If the route is already a passenger line or may be designatd by congress or Amtrak keep it as is. The freight RR would be able to designate how much single track with passing sidings they would need for the present freight traffic. All the other 2nd main would be designated as passenger for use or potential passenger and free from all property taxes. That would also include designated CPs.
The RRs designations would be subject to review and if traffic changes designations would be also be changed. Any host caused delays of passenger trains on these segments would trigger reductions of amount of trackage not subject to taxes.
Victrola1 What about the old CB&Q between Lincoln, NE and Galesburg, IL? The route became an artery for Powder River Basin coal. There is a lot of double track across southern Iowa. The road does not see much intermodal business. Would it be a candidate for converting one track to long passing sidings?
What about the old CB&Q between Lincoln, NE and Galesburg, IL?
The route became an artery for Powder River Basin coal. There is a lot of double track across southern Iowa. The road does not see much intermodal business. Would it be a candidate for converting one track to long passing sidings?
Parts of it, I believe all west of Creston IA, have always been single track. They still have quite a bit of coal. So much that they asked the UP if they would be interested in taking over some of the contracts. UP said not at the price the BNSF got the contracts for.
There has been talk, off and on, about salvaging part of the UP's double tracked line to the Powder River and using the materials to finish the Blair Subdivision double track. I don't expect it to happen because it would mean spending money on the effort.
However, there are new survey stakes (again) on the curve west of Arlington NE (the city) and the control point of Arlington. It may have to do with a possible bridge replacement over the Elk Horn River rather than continuing the double track.
Every so often there's some small development around Clinton that makes the news. Then maybe east crews will report new survey stakes out around Low Moor where the replacement yard is supposed to go, or some other spot in the vicinity. Then everything blows over and all is quiet again.
I personally think Uncle Pete at this time isn't going to spend a penny on the railroad unless they have to. They tried getting Iowa and Illinois and the Feds to pony up money on a joint Clinton bridge project, but those others don't need a new highway bridge. The Blair Sub will not be finished, while the roadbed slowly erodes away. Bridge replacement, like the Elk Horn crossing, will be done only when it's no longer possible to put it off.
rdamonIt does allow them to get 2 trains across the diamonds when they get the green
How often, on average, do we observe this? (Including 'asynchronous' crossings where one train arrives, say, within about 20 cars of the other finishing its crossing...)
(I am well aware of the increased wear related directly to MGT going across one instead of two sets of diamonds, and that's probably a factor. I'm also cognizant of the idea that bidirectional traffic across a diamond may 'loosen it up' worse or more quickly than mostly unidirectional traffic...)
It does allow them to get 2 trains across the diamonds when they get the green
tree68The BNSF double track at Rochelle is actually just a long passing siding. Just a few miles from the diamond in both directions the line is single track.
This raises a stupid question: if that is so, what operational factors lead to the track remaining doubled where very substantial ongoing maintenance to diamonds is required by traffic? Would it not make some sense to single-track that crossing (making the 'diversion' curve its own separate track now, so only the 'right-hand' main would remain across two diamonds) with a high-speed wye switch on the 'far' side?
I would opine that "it depends." (How's that for non-commital?)
Lines like those built to handle PRB coal may lose a track, but some of them had a third or fourth track added.
Lines with substantial other traffic may keep a second main for fluidity, factors like taxes notwithstanding.
I spend time watching the diamond at Deshler. The E-W line there is double track, but coal traffic is minimal. Very little traffic there is "thermal" coal, the bulk of such traffic being coke or metallurgical coal.
The BNSF double track at Rochelle is actually just a long passing siding. Just a few miles from the diamond in both directions the line is single track.
Perhaps not completely removing a 2nd main but instead converting segments into long passing tracks. Observing UP's strategy on the Sunset Route west from El Paso; they are electing to build long passing tracks (sidings) as a change from their original double tracking concept.
Observe that BNSF is currently constructing 3rd and 4th main tracks at strategic locations.
It would be nice to think that at least some railroads will remember the problems coming out of the wholesale removal of double track, say as Conrail practiced it up to the early '80s, and retain at least the capability of returning to double-track operation with relative ease even if they operate as 'single track with very long sidings'.
On the other hand, there are probably still potentially-large tax savings from removing operating track ... and something relatively recent has made 'downsizing' track in service somewhat more practical. With the advent of commercial 'tracklaying machines' it becomes easy both to lift 'unwanted' track quickly and to regrade and lay replacement on reserved ROW if it becomes 'wanted' again.
It may then become significant whether a railroad 'reserves' the necessary real estate vs. peddling it off or formally relinquishing title in some way -- once taxing authorities become aware of how easy it's become to add or remove track strategically.
Folks like MC and diningcar will have a great deal of interesting thought on this general subject...
That depends. C&O started cutting back a wonderful 2MT-CTC line in the middle 1970s. I don't know whether they ever regretted it, but it might be enough for them now.I wouldn't be surprised if BNSF and UP lifted a track in the Powder River Basin (sad, but not surprised). I think that UP's two main tracks (including filling in the gaps on the old CNW) will survive. Maybe the third main in Nebraska will be lifted (Mind you, I say this without the benefit of actual observation, so who knows?). What I do know is that UP seems to be in no hurry to start work on the third main track in Metra territory between Kress and Pack (through Geneva), and I've not heard of much work being done on a new Mississippi River bridge at Clinton.
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)
The coal business is dwindling. Will many two track lines that handled a lot of coal soon become single track lines? Will some disappear altogether?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.