MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote: I agree that there are more passenger trains running on the NEC than during the PRR & NH days. And they are more "standardized" so to speak meaning that trains will hourly at specific times (i.e. every hour on the hour). The trains are also running faster than before which probably means you need to have more space between trains in order to maintain a safe stopping distance.In terms of maintaining a schedule, Amtrak trains have trouble making up time partially because the engineers are not allowed to go above the speed limit. You read all the time in Trains' Railroad Readings Section about how engineers would make up time by excessively speeding. Now a days with computers and GPS, not only can the locomotive shut itself down if he speeds, but some central office will be instantaniously be notified if he violates the speed limit. There are definitely places around the Amtrak system (not just in the NEC) in which i think it is possible to go a little bit faster than the posted speed limited, but the engineers don't have that freedom anymore.
I agree that there are more passenger trains running on the NEC than during the PRR & NH days. And they are more "standardized" so to speak meaning that trains will hourly at specific times (i.e. every hour on the hour). The trains are also running faster than before which probably means you need to have more space between trains in order to maintain a safe stopping distance.
In terms of maintaining a schedule, Amtrak trains have trouble making up time partially because the engineers are not allowed to go above the speed limit. You read all the time in Trains' Railroad Readings Section about how engineers would make up time by excessively speeding. Now a days with computers and GPS, not only can the locomotive shut itself down if he speeds, but some central office will be instantaniously be notified if he violates the speed limit. There are definitely places around the Amtrak system (not just in the NEC) in which i think it is possible to go a little bit faster than the posted speed limited, but the engineers don't have that freedom anymore.
This post reminds me of a story I read some years back. Apparently sometime in the 1950s the Florida to NY bound Atlantic Coast Line Champion was running nearly one hour behind schedule. Though ACL was "supposedly" tough on following the rules, in one of the "Carolina" states where the mainline tracks were relatively straight for many miles, the engineer pushed his E units to 100+ mph in the long stretches!(What a video that would have made) Long story short, after the GG1 took over in Washington, the Champ arrived in New York right on time.
My guess would be that the "bullet train wanna-be" engineer was not chewed out for speeding.
Too bad those days are gone forever.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
What a bueracracy.
Transit and commuter agencies (at least in my neck of the woods) are taxpayer subsidized and don't make a profit. However, if they get into ventures where revenue can be made their subsidies are not cut and the additional revenue can be used for upgrades, maintenance, or whatever is targeted by management.
Yet, if Amtrak gets into ventures that can potentially generate some cash flow, its already paltry subsides are proportionately cut! What an idiotic setup. The reform council demands that Amtrak become self-sufficient, which is unrealistic, yet Amtrak is automatically handcuffed if it attempts to.
So Amtrak in the NEC really has no positive incentives to try and make some money even though opportunities are available. David Gunn really was working with the odds stacked against him. Having worked for a bueracracy I can empathize. Common sense and logic are often blowtorched in politically charged, red taped laden transportation agencies.
MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote: oltmannd wrote: I guess we just have to forget that it's our tax dollars and that it would be good for the economy and the country. ZZZZzzzZZZ.... With the catenary falling down every other month, power sub stations failing and bridges being kept in service way beyond their expected life span, it looks as if we are doing a good job at maintaining our so called "public" railroad right-of-way. Making sure the trains run on-time and people can get to work is good for the economy. There's plenty of capacity on CSX's ex-B&O/Reading Washington-North Jersey route and NS's route via Hagertown... i don't really hear them complaining about not being able to use the NEC.
oltmannd wrote: I guess we just have to forget that it's our tax dollars and that it would be good for the economy and the country.
ZZZZzzzZZZ....
With the catenary falling down every other month, power sub stations failing and bridges being kept in service way beyond their expected life span, it looks as if we are doing a good job at maintaining our so called "public" railroad right-of-way. Making sure the trains run on-time and people can get to work is good for the economy.
There's plenty of capacity on CSX's ex-B&O/Reading Washington-North Jersey route and NS's route via Hagertown... i don't really hear them complaining about not being able to use the NEC.
Not sure how deferred maint on the NEC relates to Amtrak's dissinterest in hosting freight traffic. What's the connection?
You are wrong about the capacity on CSX and NS.
The Manassas to Hagerstown to Harrisburg portion of the NS is one of the top capacity constrained portions of the network! And a 13 hour trip vs about 7 via the NEC. NS pours money into that route every year trying to improve the flow and is currently scratching their heads over what the next step is. All the easy stuff's been done. Only expensive improvements remain.
The B&O from Phila to Baltimore has capacity issues, too, since there aren't many passing sidings. From Phila to NJ the CSX route is a slow, tangled mess
NS has rights on the NEC and used them a couple of years ago, running a test intermodal train for a few weeks. Clearances and track arrangement changes since the mid 80s have made the NEC unfriendly for through freight operation, intermodal inparticular. I believe that Amtrak could actually make some money hosting NS trains on the NEC, but since it would just result in a dollar for dollar cut in their subsidy, I can see why they're not interested.
The whole run-down condition of the NEC is a result of lack of plain speaking or turning a blind eye by Amtrak during the Downs and Warrington tenures. It wasn't until Gunn that the situation was really laid out for all to see. Those chickens have come home to roost and it will take some time to fix things up.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Merrily,
What was your name before?
MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote: jeaton,Just for you information, I am not actually a relatively new person to this message board. When trains.com decided to require people with a subscription to register over the summer, i changed my forum name to MerrilyWeRollAlong. The "join date" does not take into account the 3 previous years i had been a member of this forum under a different name.But thanks for the reminder that the existance of Amtrak is a hot potato subject.
jeaton,
Just for you information, I am not actually a relatively new person to this message board. When trains.com decided to require people with a subscription to register over the summer, i changed my forum name to MerrilyWeRollAlong. The "join date" does not take into account the 3 previous years i had been a member of this forum under a different name.
But thanks for the reminder that the existance of Amtrak is a hot potato subject.
Well, that's sneaky
"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
Since you are relatively new here-and welcomed by me-allow me to give you a heads up to the responses you may get.
1. Amtrak is a big waste of taxpayers money. (Forget that replacing it with highways could cost what? Ten times as much?)
2. Highways are not paid by taxes because the gas tax is a user fee. (So it comes from users and not taxpayers.)
CSXrules4eva wrote: trainfan1221 wrote:One thing we have to keep in mind people, back then the railroadas ran their own passenger trains and owned all these lines themselves. Therefore they were all their own trains and they were running them on any lines they needed, the NEC included. This was both passenger and freight. Today, the lines sold off to passenger operators are a totally different story. Amtrak, NJTransit, Metro-North etc. don't want to deal with freights tying up their lines. It's not so much as they can't be scheduled around each other as there are places they do that. The passenger agencies apparently feel the freights are an inconvenience and probably take a toll on their infrastructure, and make strict regulations about how many and when they can run. Basically, most lines Conrail sold off were lines they no longer put a priority on as a freight thru route. There is talk about putting passenger service back on some significant lines here, such as the River Division main. This is CSX's (and Conrail's) main route into the North Jersey/New York metropolitan area. But with this the roles are reversed--why should the freight lines have to worry about passenger trains in the way, especially when many of these lines are single tracked? Another freight carrier, the Susquehenna, is supposed to be getting possible passenger service in the future as well. I think in this case though it's more a matter of the condition of this railroad for high speed commuter trains.You bring up a darn good point. This sort of reminds me of a press confrence (sp) a while back that was done by CSPAN with David Gunn as Amtrak's CEO, he said the exact same thing you mentioned, however he also added that when Amtrak run's it's long distance trains over freight line's track, it's always the freights holding Amtrak up, he called it inconciderate (sp). I guess it goes both ways Amtrak gets tired of freight tie ups on the NEC, and it's other corridors, and the freight lines get upset at Amtrack tie ups on their (freight) own lines. This is one of the reasons why Conrail back in the late 70s early 80s got rid of their E44 electrified freight runs along the NEC. There are still freight runs on the NEC, at least I've seen them in Philly.
trainfan1221 wrote:One thing we have to keep in mind people, back then the railroadas ran their own passenger trains and owned all these lines themselves. Therefore they were all their own trains and they were running them on any lines they needed, the NEC included. This was both passenger and freight. Today, the lines sold off to passenger operators are a totally different story. Amtrak, NJTransit, Metro-North etc. don't want to deal with freights tying up their lines. It's not so much as they can't be scheduled around each other as there are places they do that. The passenger agencies apparently feel the freights are an inconvenience and probably take a toll on their infrastructure, and make strict regulations about how many and when they can run. Basically, most lines Conrail sold off were lines they no longer put a priority on as a freight thru route. There is talk about putting passenger service back on some significant lines here, such as the River Division main. This is CSX's (and Conrail's) main route into the North Jersey/New York metropolitan area. But with this the roles are reversed--why should the freight lines have to worry about passenger trains in the way, especially when many of these lines are single tracked? Another freight carrier, the Susquehenna, is supposed to be getting possible passenger service in the future as well. I think in this case though it's more a matter of the condition of this railroad for high speed commuter trains.
You bring up a darn good point. This sort of reminds me of a press confrence (sp) a while back that was done by CSPAN with David Gunn as Amtrak's CEO, he said the exact same thing you mentioned, however he also added that when Amtrak run's it's long distance trains over freight line's track, it's always the freights holding Amtrak up, he called it inconciderate (sp).
I guess it goes both ways Amtrak gets tired of freight tie ups on the NEC, and it's other corridors, and the freight lines get upset at Amtrack tie ups on their (freight) own lines. This is one of the reasons why Conrail back in the late 70s early 80s got rid of their E44 electrified freight runs along the NEC.
There are still freight runs on the NEC, at least I've seen them in Philly.
A dollar a car mile for trackage rights! That's what Amtrak charges - or at least used to in the 80s. Between the freight roads, the going rate was about 1/4 of that. That'll scare the freight traffic away in a hurry! (and it did!)
Now, they made all sorts of noise about freight cars, flat wheels and concrete ties and Conrail had to install a wheel impact detector just to keep the bad wheels off the corridor (it helps keep the roller bearings from failing, too. High impacts damage roller bearings.), but in the end, they just weren't interested. Even if they could make money from the trackage rights, they'd just get their subsidy cut an equivalent amount, so why bother! I guess we just have to forget that it's our tax dollars and that it would be good for the economy and the country.
MerrilyWeRollAlong wrote: True, the old CB&Q line does do a good job at managing both passenger and freight traffic but the line still does not handle the volume of passenger trains the NEC in some segments support. A casual glance at the New Jersey Transit timetables indicate that between Newark NJ and Rahway, that anyway from 4 to 5 passenger trains per hour will pass through that segment in BOTH directions. NJT actually has a significant reverse direction commuting population which can support at least 2 trains per hour against the flow of traffic (to/from New York). Throw in a minimum of at least two Amtrak trains per hour per direction during peak times and there's no slot for a freight train to fit into. It probably possible for freight to move during off-peak times, particularly at night. I think it boils down to cost verses time savings, not necessarily scheduling. How much time would CSX save if it sent a freight train via the NEC between North Jersey and Washington instead of the ex-B&O/Reading line and if there are time savings, does the cost that Amtrak charge worth the money. I believe mileage-wise, both routes about the same length. I believe between North Jersey and Harrisburg, the ex-PRR route via Trenton is longer than the current ex-Reading/LV route via Allentown and Reading.
True, the old CB&Q line does do a good job at managing both passenger and freight traffic but the line still does not handle the volume of passenger trains the NEC in some segments support. A casual glance at the New Jersey Transit timetables indicate that between Newark NJ and Rahway, that anyway from 4 to 5 passenger trains per hour will pass through that segment in BOTH directions. NJT actually has a significant reverse direction commuting population which can support at least 2 trains per hour against the flow of traffic (to/from New York). Throw in a minimum of at least two Amtrak trains per hour per direction during peak times and there's no slot for a freight train to fit into. It probably possible for freight to move during off-peak times, particularly at night.
I think it boils down to cost verses time savings, not necessarily scheduling. How much time would CSX save if it sent a freight train via the NEC between North Jersey and Washington instead of the ex-B&O/Reading line and if there are time savings, does the cost that Amtrak charge worth the money. I believe mileage-wise, both routes about the same length. I believe between North Jersey and Harrisburg, the ex-PRR route via Trenton is longer than the current ex-Reading/LV route via Allentown and Reading.
The other side of it is how much money could Amtrak make if they were interested? The real answer is "none". Two things would happen. One, they would wind up with a lower subsidy. Two, they would gain an operating headache, exposure to more risk, and a greater workload. What sane person would volunteer for more work for the same pay?
They need to change the rules of this game.......
oltmannd wrote: The NYC west of Albany and PRR west of Harrisburg were 4 tracks wide all the way to Chicago.
I guess you mean the PRR had four tracks to Chicago, two via Fort Wayne and two on the Panhandle. But don't you think it's a stretch to add the Big Four to the LS&MS main?
Wow! As I expected you guys have an impressive wealth of knowledge that is verifiable. It is amazing how much has changed over the past 4 decades, but the corridor remains busier than ever. I certainly wouldn't envy an NEC dispatcher's job.
Having worked for a transit agency I can understand the mindset of the management team. Though they might be able to earn revenue from allowing freight runs over their rails, they would prefer not to have it at all. Some of their concerns: Scheduling, increased track/roadbed maintenance, higher insurance rates, worries about derailments involving hazardous or unusual cargo, delays caused by equipment breakdowns, etc.
Rick,
Glad you are still on the forum. I hope you're doing o.k.
Take care
If you want to see a good example of how frt and high density passenger traffic can peacefully coexist, look no further than the old CB&Q "racetrack". Admittedly, the top speed is only 70 mph, but BNSF operates their freights and Metras trains with enough precision to allow freights to operate against the flow, in certain slots, in the height of rush hour.
I think the judgement that Amtrak and the commuter agencies in the east "can't be bothered" is very close to right on. There's no incentive for them to even try.
Actually, the former PRR part of the NEC has the same block spacing and 4 aspect block signalling that was installed with the electrification in the 1930s. The Metroliners and Acelas have had to be able to slow and stop from their higher speeds within the old existing PRR block lengths.
As for speeding to make up time, you can probably get back a few minutes by ballast scorching, but 20-30 minutes Amtrak LD trains lose to mainline meets, etc. are another story! If you were 15 minutes late, and you travelled at 90 instead of 80, how many miles would you have to go to make up all the time? 180 miles!
Murphy Siding wrote: oltmannd wrote: Outside of the NEC, the traffic levels (number of trains) are lower, but the dedicated passenger tracks are long gone, too. The PRR and NYC each had a pair of "passenger" tracks between NY and Chicago that were ripped up 30 years or more ago. Can you expand a little on this please?
oltmannd wrote: Outside of the NEC, the traffic levels (number of trains) are lower, but the dedicated passenger tracks are long gone, too. The PRR and NYC each had a pair of "passenger" tracks between NY and Chicago that were ripped up 30 years or more ago.
Outside of the NEC, the traffic levels (number of trains) are lower, but the dedicated passenger tracks are long gone, too. The PRR and NYC each had a pair of "passenger" tracks between NY and Chicago that were ripped up 30 years or more ago.
Can you expand a little on this please?
Sure. The NYC west of Albany and PRR west of Harrisburg were 4 tracks wide all the way to Chicago. Two tracks were for eastbound trains and two for westbound traffic (automatic block signalling with towers at the interlockings). On the PRR, the two inner tracks were generally for freight trains and the two outer ones for passenger trains. On the NYC, the passenger pair tracks were to one side (south, I think) and the freight on the other.
If you check out a former PRR pass sta, like Lewistown PA, you'll see the platforms adjacent to the outside tracks. If you check out a former NY station, like Rome NY, you'll see the platform between the two former passenger tracks. The vestiges of this operation can also be seen just west of Selkirk yard where the former "eastbound" and "westbound" tracks connection the Sekirk yard to the mainline at Hoffmans cross each other in a rather elaborate flyover in order to get in the right order to "merge" with the mainline.
In the 60s and 70s as passenger traffic dwindled, both mainlines were converted to CTC at the same time a pair of tracks was removed. CTC allowed running on each track in either direction, but having two fewer tracks made (and continues to make) overtaking moves by passenger trains much more difficult.
At least on the NEC, PRR's 4-track mainline had designated uses. The two outside tracks were designated for passenger trains and the inner two were designated for freight. With their own track, faster passenger trains can always overtake the slower freight trains without having to slow down to switch tracks. Today the outer two are for local/commuter passenger trains and the inner two are for Amtrak/express commuter trains.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
AntonioFP45 wrote: jeaton wrote: I think this is pretty much the story on through freight operation on the NEC. There are two general combatibility problems with high speed passenger service and freight trains. Although there are early morning hours with a window when passenger trains are idle, a late running freight train could really mess with the passenger on time performance and obviously, that is the business killer for a passenger service. And then there is the matter of impact that heavy freight trains will have on the required tight track tolerances for high speed passenger trains.I understand your point but don't you find it interesting that the Pennsylvania Railroad and New Haven had much higher freight and passenger traffic levels back in the 50s and 60s than today, yet somehow most passenger trains seemed to maintain their schedules?
jeaton wrote: I think this is pretty much the story on through freight operation on the NEC. There are two general combatibility problems with high speed passenger service and freight trains. Although there are early morning hours with a window when passenger trains are idle, a late running freight train could really mess with the passenger on time performance and obviously, that is the business killer for a passenger service. And then there is the matter of impact that heavy freight trains will have on the required tight track tolerances for high speed passenger trains.
I think this is pretty much the story on through freight operation on the NEC. There are two general combatibility problems with high speed passenger service and freight trains. Although there are early morning hours with a window when passenger trains are idle, a late running freight train could really mess with the passenger on time performance and obviously, that is the business killer for a passenger service. And then there is the matter of impact that heavy freight trains will have on the required tight track tolerances for high speed passenger trains.
I understand your point but don't you find it interesting that the Pennsylvania Railroad and New Haven had much higher freight and passenger traffic levels back in the 50s and 60s than today, yet somehow most passenger trains seemed to maintain their schedules?
I suspect your are buying into an urban legend. Traffic levels (number of trains) are higher now, not "much lower". There are more passenger trains on the NEC from NY to Wash now than ever. The loss of a handful of LD trains plus a handful of thru-freights is small compared to the additional passenger traffic. And, the loss of frieght traffic isn't as complete as it might seem. The number of freight trains operating down the Port Road for operation over Amtrak isn't much lower than it was in the early 1960s under PRR - they just all move at night now.
Outside of the NEC, the traffic levels (number of trains) are lower, but the dedicated passenger tracks are long gone, too. The PRR and NYC each had a pair of "passenger" tracks between NY and Chicago that were ripped up 30 years or more ago. And, that's why passenger trains have trouble keeping to schedule.
Very interesting point, 1435.
I'm looking at this overall as a lifelong railfan/model railroader wanting to learn. You and Jeaton have brought to light some very important and interesting factors.
Smarter operations back then? No, because as pointed out railroad operations were very different from today. So much has changed indeed and I didn't consider the smaller workforce, deregulation, and the massive commuter operations that exist today.
Am I to infer from this that you think the PRR and New Haven ran smarter operations? If so, how are you zeroing out profound differences between then and now such as an immense shrinkage in employees, the elimination of regulated rates, and longer and much heavier freight trains?
S. Hadid
You may have a point. I don't have any of the RR Guides or timetables of the late PRR era so I am in no position to argue. However, if you add in the commuter traffic of today, is there still less traffic than the older times? I recall a Trains article about the job of making the schedules for the NEC and got the impression that it is pretty tight.
Other than that, there have been other changes. Making a comparison between then and now might be like trying to guess who would win a game between a sports team of a "classic" era and a present day team.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.