Thanks to everyone for answering my questions regarding the Surf Line, trackage rights, and run throughs. This is a great example of the value of participating in these forums.
Johnny's description of trackage rights is correct. In a trackage rights agreement, and they are all by agreement, the owning railroad allows one or more tennant railroads to operate the tennant's trains over the owner's line between specified points, the tennant paying the owner for the right to do so.
The tenant may or may not have the right to serve customers located on the line segment involved. If I had to guess it would say NOT is much more common than MAY. Of course in the ATSF case you are discussing where the owner is a passenger carrier, the seller obviously retained rights to serve freight customers on its former line.
Haulage rights are logicaly related. In this case the owning road hauls the tennant's traffic in the owner's trains. Freight revenue, car hire and freight claims all stay in the tennant's account as is also the case with trackage rights.
Mac McCulloch
Sam1 CSSHEGEWISCH: That is not an unusual situation. BNSF would have trackage rights on that line for freight operations with the appropriate payments to Metrolink and North County Transit District. Similarly, Metra owns the former Rock Island main line between Joliet and Chicago and the suburban line between Gresham and Blue Island. CSX and IAIS have freight trackage rights between Joliet and Blue Island and Chicago Rail Link has freight trackage rights north of Blue Island. Thanks for the information. What is the difference between trackage rights and run through? I am sure someone has address this issue in other postings, but I am too lazy this morning to chase it up. Also, on the Monday after Mother's Day, whilst going to Los Angeles from Anaheim, I noticed heaps of photographers trackside and on the pedistran crossovers. I wonder what this is all about, I thought. Well, I found out. A steam locomotive with a consist of 50s era cars passed us headed south. Anyone know what that was all about?
CSSHEGEWISCH: That is not an unusual situation. BNSF would have trackage rights on that line for freight operations with the appropriate payments to Metrolink and North County Transit District. Similarly, Metra owns the former Rock Island main line between Joliet and Chicago and the suburban line between Gresham and Blue Island. CSX and IAIS have freight trackage rights between Joliet and Blue Island and Chicago Rail Link has freight trackage rights north of Blue Island.
That is not an unusual situation. BNSF would have trackage rights on that line for freight operations with the appropriate payments to Metrolink and North County Transit District.
Similarly, Metra owns the former Rock Island main line between Joliet and Chicago and the suburban line between Gresham and Blue Island. CSX and IAIS have freight trackage rights between Joliet and Blue Island and Chicago Rail Link has freight trackage rights north of Blue Island.
Thanks for the information. What is the difference between trackage rights and run through? I am sure someone has address this issue in other postings, but I am too lazy this morning to chase it up.
Also, on the Monday after Mother's Day, whilst going to Los Angeles from Anaheim, I noticed heaps of photographers trackside and on the pedistran crossovers. I wonder what this is all about, I thought. Well, I found out. A steam locomotive with a consist of 50s era cars passed us headed south. Anyone know what that was all about?
WIth trackage rights, Road A crews take the train on across Road B, back to Road A, on across Road C and Road D to the terminal (I am thinking especially of how the City of Miami and the Seminole came into Birmingham with IC crews; Road A was the IC; Road B was the GM&O; Road C was the Southern; Road D was the Frisco). The IC crews had to be qualified for operation on each section of track that the trains used.
Amtrak crews have to be qualified for each section of foreign roads that they use.
Johnny
Sam1 I have a couple of other questions regarding the Surf Line. I had no idea that Cardiff was so close to Solana Beach. In the late 50s I was stationed at Camp Pendleton. I used to take the Santa Fe from Oceanside to San Diego. If I remember correctly, which is not so easy these days, the first stop south of Oceanside at that time was Del Mar. Is this correct? If it is, then at some later date the station in Del Mar was closed and a new station was built at Solana Beach or the station that I thought was Del Mar was really Solana Beach and was re-named.
I have a couple of other questions regarding the Surf Line. I had no idea that Cardiff was so close to Solana Beach.
In the late 50s I was stationed at Camp Pendleton. I used to take the Santa Fe from Oceanside to San Diego. If I remember correctly, which is not so easy these days, the first stop south of Oceanside at that time was Del Mar. Is this correct? If it is, then at some later date the station in Del Mar was closed and a new station was built at Solana Beach or the station that I thought was Del Mar was really Solana Beach and was re-named.
Sam,
The boundary between Cardiff-by-the-Sea (part of the city of Encinitas, formed in 1986 from the unincorporated communities of Encinitas, Leucadia, Olivenhain and Cardiff) and Solana Beach is the San Eliijo lagoon.
You are correct in remembering Del Mar as a stop on the Surf Line - story as to why it is no longer a stop is: When NCTD was planning for the Coaster service, Del Mar made it clear that they did not want a Coaster stop in town, so the stop was put in Solana Beach. Amtrak didn't want the expense of an Amtrak only stop, so moved their stop to Solana Beach as well. Another possible reason for the change in stops was a fatal pedestrian accident in the early 1990's, whee two women were killed by an AT&SF freight train that the women mistook for the northbound Amtrak train they were trying to catch.
- Erik
Mario_v That's precisely the CCS thing that caught my aattention. The same happens between Schenectady (where the 'higher' speeds of upstate NY end) and Buffalo. At least it used to happen in Conrail times. In any case I would like to see an old NYC ETT from thos segment of track, becayse I suspect that 'back then' higher speeds (maybe 80 or 90 Mph) where common. And of course, there's always the maintenance issue. I believe that 79 mph is the highest speed permitted for FRA Cat 4 class track.
That's precisely the CCS thing that caught my aattention. The same happens between Schenectady (where the 'higher' speeds of upstate NY end) and Buffalo. At least it used to happen in Conrail times. In any case I would like to see an old NYC ETT from thos segment of track, becayse I suspect that 'back then' higher speeds (maybe 80 or 90 Mph) where common. And of course, there's always the maintenance issue. I believe that 79 mph is the highest speed permitted for FRA Cat 4 class track.
The NYC would only have had speeds >79 where they had ATS installed. Not sure if that included the mainline in NY or not.
Class 4 track is good for 60 freight, 80 passenger. Road that operate intermodal trains at 70 have to have class 5 track, which would be good for 90 passenger. At one point, some railroads tried to claim that TOFC trains were really passenger trains and should be allowed >60 mph on class 4 track. FRA said "no."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCH That is not an unusual situation. BNSF would have trackage rights on that line for freight operations with the appropriate payments to Metrolink and North County Transit District. Similarly, Metra owns the former Rock Island main line between Joliet and Chicago and the suburban line between Gresham and Blue Island. CSX and IAIS have freight trackage rights between Joliet and Blue Island and Chicago Rail Link has freight trackage rights north of Blue Island.
erikem Sam, The Surf Line in San Diego County is owned by the North County Transit District, north of there is owned by Metrolink. The main reason the tracks don't continue along the coast south of Del Mar s that the unstable bluffs in what is now Torrey Pines State Park are ~400' high with the high tide line reaching the base of the bluffs. The ROW through what is now downtown La Jolla wouldn't be all that great either. There have been proposals over the last 100 years to dig a tunnel between Sorrento Valley and Rose Canyon, bypassing the curves and 2.2% grade on the northern side of Miramar Hill. My guess is that the tunnel would cut off at least 7 minutes from the travel time and would be a major benefit to Amtrak and the Coaster. Double tracking more of the line would help as well. FWIW, the Solana Beach station is 4 miles as the car drives from my house - Erik
The Surf Line in San Diego County is owned by the North County Transit District, north of there is owned by Metrolink.
The main reason the tracks don't continue along the coast south of Del Mar s that the unstable bluffs in what is now Torrey Pines State Park are ~400' high with the high tide line reaching the base of the bluffs. The ROW through what is now downtown La Jolla wouldn't be all that great either.
There have been proposals over the last 100 years to dig a tunnel between Sorrento Valley and Rose Canyon, bypassing the curves and 2.2% grade on the northern side of Miramar Hill. My guess is that the tunnel would cut off at least 7 minutes from the travel time and would be a major benefit to Amtrak and the Coaster. Double tracking more of the line would help as well.
FWIW, the Solana Beach station is 4 miles as the car drives from my house
Erik,
On my latest trip to California, which was two weeks ago, I stayed in Anaheim and rode the train to or from Los Angeles and to or from San Diego. I noticed a lot of BNSF freight trains between Fullerton and Los Angeles. Does the BNSF pay Metrolink rent to use the tracks north of Fullerton similar to Amtrak's paying rent to the freight railroads to hoist many of its trains?
Thanks,
Sam
FWIW, the Solana Beach station is 4 miles as the car drives from my house - Erik
Thanks for the information. Over the years I have ridden the Surf Line more than 100 times. Now, with the information you have provided, I will find the ride even more interesting in the future.
Speaking of the LA-San Diego corridor, who owns the track? At one time, of course, it was owned by the AT&SF.
Also, after Solana Beach, heading toward San Diego, the rail line turns away from the coast to climb over a fairly high ridge line. The track, with numerous curves, winds up the side of the mountain or ridge. The train slows to less than 35 mph by my guess. It appears that increasing speeds on this portion of the line would require a major re-build. Why was the line built this way as opposed to running along the coast?
If the taxes in California were not so high, I would consider moving to San Diego and taking an apartment in one of the new apartment buildings overlooking the San Diego depot. Nothing like walking our your front door and stepping onto a train for wherever.
Mario_v Just 2 quick notes . Isn't CP Baron to CP Gord owned by CNNA ? I think I remeber seeing a note in an NS ETT about it referring that between these points CNNA speeds are in effect. The second note, and also from the same doc. I remember seeing in it thta between Pittsburgh & Cleveland (NS's Cleveland line, a former PRR route) CSS rule 251 is in effect. I believe that means having a working cab signal system in use. If it is so, why speed in that line is limited to 79 mph? I suspect that it's also related to track maintenance standards, meaning that higher speeds depend of other factors such as higher maintenace standards and obviously more money spent on such lines
Just 2 quick notes . Isn't CP Baron to CP Gord owned by CNNA ? I think I remeber seeing a note in an NS ETT about it referring that between these points CNNA speeds are in effect.
The second note, and also from the same doc. I remember seeing in it thta between Pittsburgh & Cleveland (NS's Cleveland line, a former PRR route) CSS rule 251 is in effect. I believe that means having a working cab signal system in use. If it is so, why speed in that line is limited to 79 mph? I suspect that it's also related to track maintenance standards, meaning that higher speeds depend of other factors such as higher maintenace standards and obviously more money spent on such lines
I am not familiar with the CSS rule book, however, historically Rule 251 on all the rule books I have come in contact with refer to tracks signaled in one direction - the signal system used on the great preponderance of double track that existed from the 40's onward. Trains operating with the 'current of traffic' operated on signal indication. Trains operating against the current of traffic required Train Orders or other means of protection against opposing trains. Most of the trackage that operated under Rule 251 was maintained to the 79 MPH limit and cab signals were not normally a part of the installation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
As some one wiser than myself said " its not the high speed that counts but the elimination of slow speeds that count"
Let us look at CHI - Detroit
it is 281 miles from CHI - DET. Those trains average 10 intermediate stops taking 6:30 or an average speed of 43 MPH. If each stop is considered to take 5 minutes including slowing then accelerating that is a total loss of 50 minutes.
If the whole route was 110 MPH ( not really high speed ) the trip would take approximately 3:50 ( 3:00 [ slowing for DET & CHI } + :50 ) or an average speed of 73 MPH. An express with one stop at Battle Creek would average 88 MPH.
There are at present 3 intermediate locations that slow amtrak down between DET - CHI. The first is the announced passing track being built west of Detroit.at ( west detroit ? ).
The next is the NS part in Battle Creek from Baron CP to Gord CP ( ~ 1.7 miles ) that NS is not selling to the state of Michigan as it is a busy freight section for NS. This a location looking for delays as NS will probably control both CPs and may give preference to their freights. This location is certainly a candidate for s separate track to advoid these potential delays but the Amtrak station is located on this short section.
The next is west of Porter on NS that is under study for improving times but would I suspect require dedicated trackage.
Note: when just the planned improvements of this line are implemented its timing will be better than the New Haven - WASH ( similar mileage ) segment of the NEC for regional trains.
Its all a matter of eliminating the slow orders.
t
dutchie Several on going projects including (Chicago-St Louis,Portland-Seattle,Raleigh-Charlotte,and LA-San Diego) are under way some for several years to up grade track to 110 mph.Yet none of this seems to be reflected in implementation of higher speeds in Amtrak timetables Why not? Dutchie.
Several on going projects including (Chicago-St Louis,Portland-Seattle,Raleigh-Charlotte,and LA-San Diego) are under way some for several years to up grade track to 110 mph.Yet none of this seems to be reflected in implementation of higher speeds in Amtrak timetables Why not? Dutchie.
Of the corridors you listed, only Chicago to St. Louis will be getting upgrades for 110 mph speeds. Track work is underway on Chi-StL with 110 mph speeds to start over a short 18 mile segment later this year with more segments getting faster speeds in 2013 and 2014. The speed upgrades are not just a matter of replacing the track, but also signal, grade crossing, passing track and interlocking upgrades. Chicago to Detroit is the other Midwest corridor that will see significant 110 mph improvements in the coming years, now that the sale of the NS tracks to Michigan is approved.
Only a small number of the projects funded by the HSIPR awards have started construction yet. It has taken a long time to get the EIS documents and reviews done, agreements signed with the host railroads, bid packages put together, contracts put out for bid and negotiated. Many more of the construction work projects will finally start this summer.
Portland-Seattle, Raleigh-Charlotte, LA-San Diego will remain 79 or 90 mph max speed corridors with trip time improvements and more reliable service, but it may take until 2015, 2016 to fully realize them. The first significant HSIPR funded trip time reduction we may see will be around 25 minutes taken off of the Vermonter schedule north of MA in the fall schedule.
Paul Milenkovic The big governing factor is the requirement for Automatic Train Stop or Positive Train Control or such system for 80 MPH or greater, hence the famous 79 MPH speed limit, even with the best track. The need-PTC-to-go-80-or-better was the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) trying to over incentives to the railroads to install ATS/PTC. Instead, with a few exceptions, the railroads said, fine, we are getting out the passenger biz anyway, we will simply apply a 79 MPH speed limit. 79 MPH is faster than you can go most place by car, for example. I am thinking there is this 2015 deadline for all railroads to install ATS/PTC, whether they go 9 MPH or 79 MPH (OK, maybe not 9 MPH, you might not need it within Yard Limits, but maybe Don Oltmann can straighten me out on that one.) So there is the Waiting for Godot, putting in the track upgrades waiting for ATS/PTC to arrive, only it seems to never come. Ah! By 2015 it will be here? With regard to Godot Getting Here (was that the sequel to the first play?) I will believe it when I see it. Don Oltmann has pointed out that there are some technological problems in train handling, of an automated system stopping those long unit trains with mid-train power with the same finesse as a human train driver, and in the absence of such sophistication, ATS/PTC is simply going to increase legal separation between trains and gum up the works, but good.
The big governing factor is the requirement for Automatic Train Stop or Positive Train Control or such system for 80 MPH or greater, hence the famous 79 MPH speed limit, even with the best track.
The need-PTC-to-go-80-or-better was the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) trying to over incentives to the railroads to install ATS/PTC. Instead, with a few exceptions, the railroads said, fine, we are getting out the passenger biz anyway, we will simply apply a 79 MPH speed limit. 79 MPH is faster than you can go most place by car, for example.
I am thinking there is this 2015 deadline for all railroads to install ATS/PTC, whether they go 9 MPH or 79 MPH (OK, maybe not 9 MPH, you might not need it within Yard Limits, but maybe Don Oltmann can straighten me out on that one.) So there is the Waiting for Godot, putting in the track upgrades waiting for ATS/PTC to arrive, only it seems to never come. Ah! By 2015 it will be here?
With regard to Godot Getting Here (was that the sequel to the first play?) I will believe it when I see it. Don Oltmann has pointed out that there are some technological problems in train handling, of an automated system stopping those long unit trains with mid-train power with the same finesse as a human train driver, and in the absence of such sophistication, ATS/PTC is simply going to increase legal separation between trains and gum up the works, but good.
Yes. That's pretty much it. The big difference between ATS and PTC is one is reactive and the other is predictive. ATS says, "Yikes! We just ran past a stop signal! Apply the brakes now!" PTC says, "We are coming up to a stop signal, better start slowing down and if you don't start slowing down fast enough, I will apply the brakes to make sure you get stopped before the signal."
The issue is how does PTC know how fast the train can practially slow down? An empty grain train can slow down pretty fast. A loaded one much, much slower. Is the rail wet or snow covered? Leaves on the track? How many inoperative brakes on the train? Is all or any of this info going to be available to PTC to calculate the braking curves or will it just use worst case braking curves? If you are going to try to use detailed consist information, how can you insure it's accurate? It's part of the safety system now, not just the yard management/car reporting system.
As for 110 mph track... Michigan is the only place with enough of it to make a difference but just at the time the speeds went up, the rest of the line went to pot. No sense shaving 10 minutes off the existing schedules if you have 30 minutes of delay elsewhere. Amtrak is actually taking CN to the STB over delays on this route and NS, Michigan and Amtrak were recently sideways over who had to pay to fix some slow orders. When Michigan gets ownership of most of the rest of the route, then you'll see the timetable changes start to happen. Probably a year or so away.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
That's a good question all I know is that there are other factors governing speed besides the track class.
NCDOT has reduced the travel time between Raleigh and Charlotte by more than 35 minutes since the work began in 2001.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.