What I've always imagined would work w.r.t. mixed "higher speed" passenger and freight along existing frt ROW would be an additional single track, primarily for passenger, but connected to the adjacent, existing frt tracks at some intervals. The connection would allow meets between the opposing passenger trains, allow for maintenance, and even provide opportunity for the frt road to run higher speed intermodal trains.
The track would be controlled by the frt road as part of their network. It would allow for curve realignment and selective grade crossing elimination, as well.
I figure you'd probably be able to successfully mix 110 mph passenger with std frt traffic with this arrangement.
How about Cleveland to Chicago as the first, best place to try it out?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndWhat I've always imagined would work w.r.t. mixed "higher speed" passenger and freight along existing frt ROW would be an additional single track, primarily for passenger, but connected to the adjacent, existing frt tracks at some intervals. The connection would allow meets between the opposing passenger trains, allow for maintenance, and even provide opportunity for the frt road to run higher speed intermodal trains. The track would be controlled by the frt road as part of their network. It would allow for curve realignment and selective grade crossing elimination, as well. I figure you'd probably be able to successfully mix 110 mph passenger with std frt traffic with this arrangement. How about Cleveland to Chicago as the first, best place to try it out?
Using "standard" passenger equipment, I agree that it's technically and economically feasible, at 110. 150? That's a different matter. I'm hoping we will run some RTC models later this year to see how such a 110-mph freight/passenger scenario works out, but speaking with my dispatcher's green eyeshade on, 99% of the time I believe it will operate just like it was the NYC and this was 1922, with high-wheel Atlantics flashing past on the passenger tracks and 2-8-0 hogs toiling on the freight tracks.
A bigger question is what would be the outcome of the possibly tendentious negotiations between the passenger and freight railroads over who controls what, pays for what, rents what, uses what, accepts liability for what, ad infinitum. Some of the passenger people I know are a little more creative than others. On the one hand I'm excited because things are suddenly changing fast, and on the other I'm filled with dread that once again we've got the cart before the horse -- decisions will be made, a policy will be created later to justify the decisions, and we'll all be living with less-than-ideal outcomes for a long, long time. There are people who will stick their head in the sand and hope it all goes away, people who will seek to control the outcome though they have no stake in the outcome and just like having power drip from their fingers, people who can actually solve the problems but can't get a ticket to the show because they've spent their lives seeking knowledge instead of seeking power, and people who are just cynically looking for opportunity. In other words, the U.S. at its finest.
Like the old curse says, "May you live in interesting times."
RWM
To RWM's 1st paragraph (above): "See, there isn't much new under the sun - the more things change, the more they remain the same." And like I said about a week ago, now we know why the PRR & NYC did that 4-track thing from NYC to Chicago.
To RWM's 2nd para: Oh - yeah - ditto the above.
- Paul North.
RWM: One of the things you did not mention is property taxes. If the additional trackage is owned by some government entity but controlled and operated by the appropriate RR then the capacity increase would not cause additional taxes. If signaling upgrades are also taxed the full bidirectional signaling and PTC could also be owned by the government. I'm thinking especially about the New York state property tax situation which speeded up the retirement of the 4 track water level route and caused NYC to slow their passengerf trains probably hastening NYC train's demise since interstate roads could beat complete with better travel times at the slower passenger speeds.
Railway Man A.K. CummingsRailway Man — Interesting indeed. Question: What about the eight-mile short line that serves one cannery with a single SW9 that makes five trips a week with six cars at a time to the CSX interchange? I mean, is the industry seriously concerned the feds would take the clearly asinine step of requiring installation of PTC there? Not trying to be argumentative or anything, and I'd hate to underestimate the lunacy that can come from the government process. But, seriously. This sort of thing always reminds me of the Simpsons. There's a character that show that appears every time a public policy issue is being debated. Her one single line, spoken in a freaked-out tone of voice, is: "Won't somebody PLEASE think about the CHILDREN??!!" Andy Cummings Associate Editor TRAINS Magazine Waukesha, Wis. If the SW9 is hauling PIH to the cannery, and the line passes through your typical small Wisconsin town with an elementary school, a church, and a hardware store, like a Revell catalog, all within earshot of the air horn, I doubt you will find a majority in that town considering it asinine. If the public says, "This is the safety level we require," the public, being a democracy, has the right to demand that. The public could demand all the locomotives be painted purple with pink polka-dots, if it wanted. And then, the public lives with the consequences of their decisions. The government isn't the lunacy, the government is the receptacle the lunacy is placed into. Government isn't Martians imposing their will on us from some other planet, it's people we elect, lobbyists we hire, petitions we sign. If you want to see lunacy, look at the ballot intiatives concocted by citizens that get onto the state ballots each year simply by obtaining enough signatures at a folding table in front of the Safeways. The Simpsons' character is a parody of the public. Speaking of your example, if the PTC ruling is deemed to extend to everything that hauls PIH -- and I don't see why it won't be -- then the short line will have to petition for a waiver of the common-carrier requirement to accept PIH, or the public will have to pay for the PTC, because the shipper won't and the short line's owners can't afford it. The shippers of PIH will work very hard to make sure the public and the rest of the shippers pay for as much as possible, because they can't afford it on their own for all the non-passenger, with-PIH PTC lines, and neither do they want to exit their businesses gracefully into the night. You can choose to do battle on the merits of the law (which is what you're recommending) or do battle on the flanks (which is what shippers will do). Shippers aren't going to stand up and say "PTC is not needed to keep you safe in Anyburg from our ammonia and chlorine shipments." They'll instead tacitly not disagree at least in public with the need, and then work Washington to make sure someone else pays for it. RWM
A.K. CummingsRailway Man — Interesting indeed. Question: What about the eight-mile short line that serves one cannery with a single SW9 that makes five trips a week with six cars at a time to the CSX interchange? I mean, is the industry seriously concerned the feds would take the clearly asinine step of requiring installation of PTC there? Not trying to be argumentative or anything, and I'd hate to underestimate the lunacy that can come from the government process. But, seriously. This sort of thing always reminds me of the Simpsons. There's a character that show that appears every time a public policy issue is being debated. Her one single line, spoken in a freaked-out tone of voice, is: "Won't somebody PLEASE think about the CHILDREN??!!" Andy Cummings Associate Editor TRAINS Magazine Waukesha, Wis.
If the SW9 is hauling PIH to the cannery, and the line passes through your typical small Wisconsin town with an elementary school, a church, and a hardware store, like a Revell catalog, all within earshot of the air horn, I doubt you will find a majority in that town considering it asinine. If the public says, "This is the safety level we require," the public, being a democracy, has the right to demand that. The public could demand all the locomotives be painted purple with pink polka-dots, if it wanted. And then, the public lives with the consequences of their decisions.
The government isn't the lunacy, the government is the receptacle the lunacy is placed into. Government isn't Martians imposing their will on us from some other planet, it's people we elect, lobbyists we hire, petitions we sign. If you want to see lunacy, look at the ballot intiatives concocted by citizens that get onto the state ballots each year simply by obtaining enough signatures at a folding table in front of the Safeways. The Simpsons' character is a parody of the public.
Speaking of your example, if the PTC ruling is deemed to extend to everything that hauls PIH -- and I don't see why it won't be -- then the short line will have to petition for a waiver of the common-carrier requirement to accept PIH, or the public will have to pay for the PTC, because the shipper won't and the short line's owners can't afford it. The shippers of PIH will work very hard to make sure the public and the rest of the shippers pay for as much as possible, because they can't afford it on their own for all the non-passenger, with-PIH PTC lines, and neither do they want to exit their businesses gracefully into the night. You can choose to do battle on the merits of the law (which is what you're recommending) or do battle on the flanks (which is what shippers will do). Shippers aren't going to stand up and say "PTC is not needed to keep you safe in Anyburg from our ammonia and chlorine shipments." They'll instead tacitly not disagree at least in public with the need, and then work Washington to make sure someone else pays for it.
Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC.
If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC.
And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail.
I try to guess what people, railroads, and agencies will do, not prescribe what they ought to to. Telling some people what they ought to do could get me into trouble with other people (I have very limited faith in the protection afforded by an alias on a forum). And more important, I don't think it's my place or prerogative to pronounce what policy ought to be because that enters into the political realm and leaves the technical realm. I'm like a doctor who would recommend quitting smoking if you first told me your goal was a long healthy life, whereas if you came into the room and announced that your goal was merely to get your ingrown toenail removed and that's it, I'd provide just that service and keep my mouth shut about your other choices. In other words, I'm not one who will be agreeing or disagreeing with you on what policy ought to be, only the guy who talks about what policy is, what it might be, and the consequences and implications of both.
I have no idea if the STB would choose to pick a fight with the administration over PTC and the common-carrier obligation. In fact, I still have no idea what the final rule will look like after RSAC finishes its process and the FRA does what it does. I am only making the prediction that the rule will be far-reaching, not restrictive, and that the STB as I know them and work with them will probably not disagree. Could I be wrong? Sure! But I'm going to plan for the worst case. On the other hand, the STB might uses this to just push the whole common-carrier, chemical-carrying hot potato back into the hands of Congress and let it figure out how to resolve it.
It was TIH but, then, possibly just to annoy us, the DOT and FRA started using PIH. I've been training myself to quit using TIH.
"TIH" = "Toxic Inhalation Hazard". It seems to be mainly on RR and transportation-related pages.
Railway Man Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC. And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. I try to guess what people, railroads, and agencies will do, not prescribe what they ought to to. Telling some people what they ought to do could get me into trouble with other people (I have very limited faith in the protection afforded by an alias on a forum). And more important, I don't think it's my place or prerogative to pronounce what policy ought to be because that enters into the political realm and leaves the technical realm. I'm like a doctor who would recommend quitting smoking if you first told me your goal was a long healthy life, whereas if you came into the room and announced that your goal was merely to get your ingrown toenail removed and that's it, I'd provide just that service and keep my mouth shut about your other choices. In other words, I'm not one who will be agreeing or disagreeing with you on what policy ought to be, only the guy who talks about what policy is, what it might be, and the consequences and implications of both. I have no idea if the STB would choose to pick a fight with the administration over PTC and the common-carrier obligation. In fact, I still have no idea what the final rule will look like after RSAC finishes its process and the FRA does what it does. I am only making the prediction that the rule will be far-reaching, not restrictive, and that the STB as I know them and work with them will probably not disagree. Could I be wrong? Sure! But I'm going to plan for the worst case. On the other hand, the STB might uses this to just push the whole common-carrier, chemical-carrying hot potato back into the hands of Congress and let it figure out how to resolve it. It was TIH but, then, possibly just to annoy us, the DOT and FRA started using PIH. I've been training myself to quit using TIH. RWM
Now for the substantive part. I'm not opining on what government policy on requiring PTC on short lines with TIH traffic ought to be. Rather, my comment went to what a short line's response is likely to be if such a requirement were imposed. I think it's very likely that most short lines would respond by simply refusing to handle TIH traffic - after all, what other choice do they really have?. Further, I think the odds of a short line prevailing in a refusal to provide TIH service rather than installing PTC for a few TIH (or PIH) shipments a year are excellent. There's no issue about STB picking a fight with the adminstration - I'm not aware that the administration has taken any position one way or another about whether the government should require a cash strapped shortline to bankrupt itself installing PTC to handle a few carloads of TIH traffic as opposed to refusing to handle the traffic. And the position of a short line in this scenario is very sympathetic. Unless the party demanding to transport the TIH is willing to front the money for the PTC installation, where's the short line going to get it - from its other shippers? In principle, this is no different than a shipper demanding transportation of a high/wide shipment that doesn't fit under a short line's highway bridges. Is the short line required to rebuild the bridges in order to handle the shipment (particularly if the shipper isn't willing to front the necessary funds)? Of course not.
With respect to your comment about the protection provided by an alias on a forum, I take it you are still actively employed in the railroad industry (many of your posts suggest as much, since they display a knowledge of rail strategy and economics that most railfans don't have). I, on the other hand, have the luxury of being retired from the industry (my website actively picked up noticeably once that happy event occurred). So, while I don't particularly want to advertise myself, I'm not really that worried about my cover being blown anymore. The joys of old age.
Falcon48With respect to your comment about the protection provided by an alias on a forum, I take it you are still actively employed in the railroad industry (many of your posts suggest as much, since they display a knowledge of rail strategy and economics that most railfans don't have). I, on the other hand, have the luxury of being retired from the industry (my website actively picked up noticeably once that happy event occurred). So, while I don't particularly want to advertise myself, I'm not really that worried about my cover being blown anymore. The joys of old age.
I'm envious. No disrespect intended.
Falcon48 Railway Man Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC. And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. [snip] RWM [snip] Now for the substantive part. I'm not opining on what government policy on requiring PTC on short lines with TIH traffic ought to be. Rather, my comment went to what a short line's response is likely to be if such a requirement were imposed. I think it's very likely that most short lines would respond by simply refusing to handle TIH traffic - after all, what other choice do they really have?. Further, I think the odds of a short line prevailing in a refusal to provide TIH service rather than installing PTC for a few TIH (or PIH) shipments a year are excellent. There's no issue about STB picking a fight with the adminstration - I'm not aware that the administration has taken any position one way or another about whether the government should require a cash strapped shortline to bankrupt itself installing PTC to handle a few carloads of TIH traffic as opposed to refusing to handle the traffic. And the position of a short line in this scenario is very sympathetic. Unless the party demanding to transport the TIH is willing to front the money for the PTC installation, where's the short line going to get it - from its other shippers? In principle, this is no different than a shipper demanding transportation of a high/wide shipment that doesn't fit under a short line's highway bridges. Is the short line required to rebuild the bridges in order to handle the shipment (particularly if the shipper isn't willing to front the necessary funds)? Of course not. [snip]
Railway Man Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC. And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. [snip] RWM
And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. [snip]
[snip] Now for the substantive part. I'm not opining on what government policy on requiring PTC on short lines with TIH traffic ought to be. Rather, my comment went to what a short line's response is likely to be if such a requirement were imposed. I think it's very likely that most short lines would respond by simply refusing to handle TIH traffic - after all, what other choice do they really have?. Further, I think the odds of a short line prevailing in a refusal to provide TIH service rather than installing PTC for a few TIH (or PIH) shipments a year are excellent. There's no issue about STB picking a fight with the adminstration - I'm not aware that the administration has taken any position one way or another about whether the government should require a cash strapped shortline to bankrupt itself installing PTC to handle a few carloads of TIH traffic as opposed to refusing to handle the traffic. And the position of a short line in this scenario is very sympathetic. Unless the party demanding to transport the TIH is willing to front the money for the PTC installation, where's the short line going to get it - from its other shippers? In principle, this is no different than a shipper demanding transportation of a high/wide shipment that doesn't fit under a short line's highway bridges. Is the short line required to rebuild the bridges in order to handle the shipment (particularly if the shipper isn't willing to front the necessary funds)? Of course not.
[snip]
This discussion (excerpts above) reminds me of the stories about the legendary General Manager of the Eureka & Palisade RR, John E. Sexton, in the 1925 - 1927 time frame, and his guerilla skirmishes with the bureaucracies of the U.S. Post Office, the SP, and the Nevada Railroad Commission. See Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California, David F. Myrick, pp. 107 - 110. There was quite a write-up in the NMRA Bulletin sometime in the 1970s - 1980s time frame - it's fair to say that Sexton would be a kind of counter-culture hero to the anti-government conservative set. I just saw something on-line about a book of some kind titled "A Dinkey to Call Our Own" IIRC, but I don't know anything more about that.
EDIT: The last item I referenced above now does not appear to be a book, but instead a copy of a magazine article, supplemented with some index and/ or geneaology information about the persons, places, and things mentioned in the article. The title of the article is "Our Own Dinky Railroad", by Edgar Web - date and original magazine not apparent or stated. For more information see the seller's website at: (note: I have no affiliation with and do not endorse this item - it is linked here merely "For Your Information" only)
http://www.ioffer.com/i/EUREKA-PALISADE-NARROW-GUAGE-RAILROAD-Genealogy-89687071
See also Bonanza Railroads, Gilbert H. Kneiss, Revised Edition, published by Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., Date ?, ISBN 080472413X, 9780804724135, Chapter IV - Iron Rails and Lead Pigs (Eureka & Palisade Railroad), pp. 79-101, esp. pp. 96-100.
thanks for all the discussion i have been busy working at the coal mine for the past week and read the all the opinions as to why america could not run high ( medium ) speed D M U sets loading gauge wrong... no money to pay for them ( bring the troops home for a week... that should cover it ) insurence too high etc etc etc.... in australia the australian version ,s of the british HST 125 have been running daily 600 miles north , south and west from sydney for approx 30 years and no accidents... why would the D M U ,s have to be built stronger the freight cars in australia are built to american design ( generally ) so whats the problem ????????????
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.