Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murph; You sure think up good stuff.I have only a few years of Handy Railroad Atlas by Rand-Mcnally
Illinois 1973 14,416 milesIllinois 1982 10,203 milesThat's only 4,213 difference. Now look at this: Illinois 1965 14,446. We only lost 30 miles in the next 8 years.
Some of that loss would probably be due to both the RI and MILW abandoning operations on all or part of their Iowa lines and no other carrier stepping in. I would guess there were some branch lines that under normal conditions wouldn't have been allowed to be abandoned at that time.
Of the lines that did go to other railroads, some miliage would be lost as the new operators incorporated the RI/MILW lines into their own existing lines.
Jeff
spokyone wrote: Murph; You sure think up good stuff.I have only a few years of Handy Railroad Atlas by Rand-McnallyIllinois 1973 14,416 milesIllinois 1982 10,203 milesThat's only 4,213 difference. Now look at this: Illinois 1965 14,446. We only lost 30 miles in the next 8 years.
Murphy Siding wrote: While not as drastic as Iowa losing 50%, that is still a 30% drop. I wonder how more industrialized midwest states, like Indianna and Ohio compare?
Different States were probably affected in different years. Iowa's big years were 1980 (984 miles, CRI&P, CMSP&P); 1981 (419 miles, C&NW/CGW/M&StL); followed by 1985, 1984 and 1976.
Indiana and Ohio may have had their biggest year in 1976, when Conrail took over 2/3 of Penn Central.
Montana and South Dakota probably had their biggest years in 1980 when the CMSP&P retrenched.
Indiana abandonments-http://www.ai.org/dot/div/multimodal/railroad/abandonments.pdf
Iowa chronology of abandonments:
http://www.iowarail.com/railroads/maps/Chronology_06.pdf
From: http://www.iowarail.com/railroads/maps/maphome.htm
J. Edgar wrote: has something to do with Henry Ford and his infernal combustion
Bingo! IMHO the most important date in 20th Century North American railroading was 1913. This is the year Henry Ford fired up the moving assembly line at Highland Park, MI leading to cheap automobiles for the masses. The masses insisted government provide all-weather highways to take their new Model T out on a Sunday drive.
ndbprr wrote:It doesn't surprise me too much about illinois rails. I also think it may be wrong. Did the single tracking of the IC and EJ&E make it? Is it really current as a source? Don't know but curious.
bobwilcox wrote: J. Edgar wrote: has something to do with Henry Ford and his infernal combustionBingo! IMHO the most important date in 20th Century North American railroading was 1913. This is the year Henry Ford fired up the moving assembly line at Highland Park, MI leading to cheap automobiles for the masses. The masses insisted government provide all-weather highways to take their new Model T out on a Sunday drive.
spokyone wrote: ndbprr wrote:It doesn't surprise me too much about illinois rails. I also think it may be wrong. Did the single tracking of the IC and EJ&E make it? Is it really current as a source? Don't know but curious. I don't understand your post. The RR Atlas is designed for a reference tool for the industry. The issues that I have were printed in the years I mentioned and were current as of that date.The maps show owners of every main and branch line in each state broken down by total milage and a list of each RR in that state. Another list shows the total milage of each RR and the states that it operates. I buy the atlases used, on Ebay and at train shows.
If you have 100 tracks side by side that are each 1 mile long you have 1 ROUTE mile and 100 TRACK miles. So if you lift one track on a multiple track line, you lose track miles but not route miles. So you need to check how the measurement was made.
spokyone wrote: ndbprr wrote:It doesn't surprise me too much about illinois rails. I also think it may be wrong. Did the single tracking of the IC and EJ&E make it? Is it really current as a source? Don't know but curious. I don't understand your post. The RR Atlas is designed for a reference tool for the industry. The issues that I have were printed in the years I mentioned and were current as of that date.The maps show owners of every main and branch line in each state broken down by total milage and a list of each RR in that state. Another list shows the total milage of each RR and the states that it operates. I buy the atlases used, on Ebay and at train shows.G
Generally there is an informtion lag in any publication. As an example the census takes place every ten years. Anything in between is an estimate. Then it takes a year to publish the results which make it outdated the moment it is published. Now I don't think the railroad data is that outdated but often a branch will be abandoned long before it comes off the books or whoever allows railroads to do that say's ok. I can think of several branchs in Illinois that would be hundreds of miles of reduction plus the IC mainline that runs the length of the state has been single tracked so I can account for probably 1500 miles in my head without further reserach. So my concerns are does single tracking a two track mainline count as a recution in mileage? How current is the information? I am not saying it is wrong but it doesn't sound right to me and I would like to know the facts.
Generally there is an informtion lag in any publication. As an example the census takes place every ten years. Anything in between is an estimate. Then it takes a year to publish the results which make it outdated the moment it is published. Now I don't think the railroad data is that outdated but often a branch will be abandoned long before it comes off the books or whoever allows railroads to do that say's ok. I can think of several branchs in Illinois that would be hundreds of miles of reduction plus the IC mainline that runs the length of the state has been single tracked so I can account for probably 1500 miles in my head without further reserach. So my concerns are does single tracking a two track mainline count as a reduction in mileage? How current is the information? I am not saying it is wrong but it doesn't sound right to me and I would like to know the facts.
kenneo wrote: spokyone wrote: ndbprr wrote:It doesn't surprise me too much about illinois rails. I also think it may be wrong. Did the single tracking of the IC and EJ&E make it? Is it really current as a source? Don't know but curious. I don't understand your post. The RR Atlas is designed for a reference tool for the industry. The issues that I have were printed in the years I mentioned and were current as of that date.The maps show owners of every main and branch line in each state broken down by total milage and a list of each RR in that state. Another list shows the total milage of each RR and the states that it operates. I buy the atlases used, on Ebay and at train shows.If you have 100 tracks side by side that are each 1 mile long you have 1 ROUTE mile and 100 TRACK miles. So if you lift one track on a multiple track line, you lose track miles but not route miles. So you need to check how the measurement was made.
spokyone wrote: kenneo wrote: spokyone wrote: ndbprr wrote:It doesn't surprise me too much about illinois rails. I also think it may be wrong. Did the single tracking of the IC and EJ&E make it? Is it really current as a source? Don't know but curious. I don't understand your post. The RR Atlas is designed for a reference tool for the industry. The issues that I have were printed in the years I mentioned and were current as of that date.The maps show owners of every main and branch line in each state broken down by total milage and a list of each RR in that state. Another list shows the total milage of each RR and the states that it operates. I buy the atlases used, on Ebay and at train shows.If you have 100 tracks side by side that are each 1 mile long you have 1 ROUTE mile and 100 TRACK miles. So if you lift one track on a multiple track line, you lose track miles but not route miles. So you need to check how the measurement was made.OK. Now I understand. Murphy mentioned rail miles in the original post. Is that track miles or route miles? Looking at another year, it clearly states all figures are railroad miles.
Looking at the map links provided by deepspire above, I'm reminded how much railroads have to work as a system. A lot of the railroad miles that went away in South Dakota were connected to those in Iowa:MWK,CNW, CRIP, IC. Without a line to connect them to the rest of the world, they are valueless, and headed for the scrapper.
Interesting question(s). If indeed we are talking miles of track, rather than route miles, then it would seem that yard tracks and sidings also are applicable. The former Interstate Commerce Commission required all Class 1's to file an annual Form A which among many other statistics had a complete breakdown of miles owned and/or operated by trackage rights, or other means. These were broken down by States.
The more specific question for me is why, for example, was a 2nd main taken up or a branch line abandoned. The answer is obvious, again to me, that there was insufficient business to justify the cost to maintain them. And the reverse is applicable today where additional 2nd and 3rd main tracks are being built (with very expensive CTC and other ancillary costs) because the revenues are there to support them. And very little, if any, of the new construction is replacement where track had previously been removed. The ecomomy changes: we no longer have steam locomotives and we no longer drive Model T Fords. We no lnger have RR's to every hamlet which at one time had needed them but no longer will support them.
diningcar wrote: Interesting question(s). If indeed we are talking miles of track, rather than route miles, then it would seem that yard tracks and sidings also are applicable. The former Interstate Commerce Commission required all Class 1's to file an annual Form A which among many other statistics had a complete breakdown of miles owned and/or operated by trackage rights, or other means. These were broken down by States.The more specific question for me is why, for example, was a 2nd main taken up or a branch line abandoned. The answer is obvious, again to me, that there was insufficient business to justify the cost to maintain them. And the reverse is applicable today where additional 2nd and 3rd main tracks are being built (with very expensive CTC and other ancillary costs) because the revenues are there to support them. And very little, if any, of the new construction is replacement ....where track had previously been removed. The ecomomy changes: we no longer have steam locomotives and we no longer drive Model T Fords. We no lnger have RR's to every hamlet which at one time had needed them but no longer will support them.
The more specific question for me is why, for example, was a 2nd main taken up or a branch line abandoned. The answer is obvious, again to me, that there was insufficient business to justify the cost to maintain them. And the reverse is applicable today where additional 2nd and 3rd main tracks are being built (with very expensive CTC and other ancillary costs) because the revenues are there to support them. And very little, if any, of the new construction is replacement ....where track had previously been removed. The ecomomy changes: we no longer have steam locomotives and we no longer drive Model T Fords. We no lnger have RR's to every hamlet which at one time had needed them but no longer will support them.
i would disagree with the statement.....very little if any was replacement...........CSX old B&O main thru Garrett...that was a replacement of removed 2nd main.....Stampede Pass.....how many millions poured into relaying track and tunnel work there?? those are just 2 big ones that jump out at me...... i would have to say the oppisite is true....most new work is replacing capacity once thought redundant by RR management in the 50's 60's 70's and 80's... Powder River being the exception of course
jedgar, Stampede Pass was mothballed because there was not a need for it at that time, just as Tennessee Pass is currently mothballed. This allowed the abandonment decision to be postponed while eliminating operating and maintenance costs that could not be justified under then current revenues. I am not familiar with the B&O site, how many miles was that?
The double tracking of the Sunset Route and the Transcon and the triple tracking of Cajon are examples of what present economic conditions require. And the sophisticated construction now needed, and the newer products on the market to make operations more efficient, make the former lines like Stampede Pass obsolete. But now it is a 1st class railroad and was done when the economics dictated.
There's not a consistent geographic pattern in the U.S. as neither railway or industrial development were spread evenly. Areas such as the Official Territory lost significant railway and industrial capacity, areas such as the south and west never had much of either and have lost little. The corn- and wheat-belt states lost significant railway capacity but most of it I would not consider a great loss to the nation.
In the Far West (100th meridian and west), virtually all of the capacity added in the last 35 years is new capacity. Some instances are replacement capacity, e.g., improvements to the former NP from Spokane to Pasco replaced removed SP&S capacity. There never was much double-track in the West beyond the Overland Route and Santa Fe, and the only significant piece I can think of that was removed was the NP from Garrison to Missoula, Montana.
Stampede Pass was embargoed, then re-opened. The expected surge in carload business to justify the reopening did not occur, but I would not count this reopening as an error in economic judgement. The line will come into its own within the next 5-10 years, if not sooner. BNSF's Stevens Pass and Columbia Gorge lines have exhausted both their available capacity and inexpensive means of adding capacity to these lines is also exhausted. Given hindsight, and the choice of leaving Stampede closed or reopening it at the time it was reopened, I definitely would have chosen the reopening. Embargoed lines physically deteriorate very rapidly and the political obstacles to reopening increase in inverse proportion. The better choice was never to close it at all, but at the time there was little indication that it had long-term value.
RWM
What decisions come into play, when deciding whether to abandon or simply embargo a rail line? If a rail line is embargoed, does all maintenance stop for the duration?
A major highway project in my city-Sioux Falls, S.D. is to be built, to loop around the east side of the city, displacing a fair amount of cornfield. The plan shows that an overpass is to be built over a rail line owned by the Ellis and Eastern Railroad. The problem is, that line has not seen a train in 20 years, and probably never will again. It's a remanant of former CNW track. Ellis & Eastern uses a 3-4 mile section to haul crushed rock from a quarry to an asphalt plant. The tracks are still there, another 8-10 miles east, through Brandon and Valley Springs, to Manley, Minnesota. At Manley, there is an interchange (well, sort of) with BNSF, and with the Nobles & Rock Railroad, which *could* haul cars another 50 miles east ( at 10 M.P.H.) to a connection with UP at Worthington, Minnesota.
The line has 2 -1/4 mile long steel bridges, and several old, piling trestles. In addition, there are several spots where the rails have been removed, and highways paved through the crossings.
This would seem to be an *embargoed* line? Since it would take a gazillion $ to fix up the line, for traffic that isn't there anyway, why bother with the overpass? Why bother keeping the line, for that matter?
Murphy Siding wrote: What decisions come into play, when deciding whether to abandon or simply embargo a rail line? If a rail line is embargoed, does all maintenance stop for the duration?
First, to be clear, an embargo is a short-term cessation of service due to damage such as a mudslide, flood, or tunnel collapse, or congestion from heavy traffic that needs to be cleared. The common-carrier rights and obligations continue during an embargo. An abandonment is a permanent relinquishment of the common-carrier rights and obligations. Removal of track may follow after abandonment, but not necessarily -- the railway may wish to keep the track structure in place for future use as an industrial line (on which no common-carrier rights and obligations apply), or for sale to a commuter agency, or may even decide that at some future date it will reapply for common-carrier status for that line.
A third case which is less common is cessation of use. In this case there are no active shippers on the line and it was serving entirely as a through route. The line is simply taken out of service and the through service continues, as before, on an alternate route. The railroad can put the line back into service at any time it wishes without any application to the STB, since the line was never abandoned. If an on-line shipper subsequently appears, the railroad is obligated to provide service, or file for abandonment. In the first case the shipper or any other party may file a feeder-line application in which a net liquidated value/going concern value determination is made by the ICC, and the shipper can pay the railroad that value and assume the common-carrier rights and obligations. In the second case the on-line shipper may have to bear the entire cost of returning the line to service (which might be substantial) plus its cost of transportation services (which might be substantial) since it is the the only customer and has no overhead business or other local shippers to share those costs with. If the potential on-line customer doesn't want to pay those costs, and doesn't want to pay the NLV or GCV, whichever is greater, then nothing changes: the line remains out of service and is not abandoned.
The decision to abandon is based on whether there's a reasonable expectation of future economic potential, which might be for freight and might be as a corridor for future commuter service.
Maintenance mostly stops but not always. The railroad may be obligated to maintain roadway crossing surfaces, grade crossing signaling, and prevent or maintain conditions which may cause damage to adjacent property owners. For example, if the railroad has a culvert and it is upstream of a highway culvert, and the railway allows the culvert to become clogged with debris, and during a period of heavy runoff this results in a sudden washout of the railway embankment causing failure of the highway embankment, then the railway would be liable. It is prudent in this case for the railway to keep an eye on its drainage structures. The STB and FRA may further obligate the railway to maintain track and signals.
A major highway project in my city-Sioux Falls, S.D. is to be built, to loop around the east side of the city, displacing a fair amount of cornfield. The plan shows that an overpass is to be built over a rail line owned by the Ellis and Eastern Railroad. The problem is, that line has not seen a train in 20 years, and probably never will again. It's a remanant of former CNW track. Ellis & Eastern uses a 3-4 mile section to haul crushed rock from a quarry to an asphalt plant. The tracks are still there, another 8-10 miles east, through Brandon and Valley Springs, to Manley, Minnesota. At Manley, there is an interchange (well, sort of) with BNSF, and with the Nobles & Rock Railroad, which *could* haul cars another 50 miles east ( at 10 M.P.H.) to a connection with UP at Worthington, Minnesota. The line has 2 -1/4 mile long steel bridges, and several old, piling trestles. In addition, there are several spots where the rails have been removed, and highways paved through the crossings. This would seem to be an *embargoed* line? Since it would take a gazillion $ to fix up the line, for traffic that isn't there anyway, why bother with the overpass? Why bother keeping the line, for that matter?
Heavens, I have no idea. Many things are case-specific.
(1) Big difference between AAR "embargoed" and STB "out of service"
(2) The Rand McNally and most GIS operations are totally clueless around railroads (bad or non-extant metadata, and they seem to be proud of that)..Rely on state DOT information (Most, not all, should rename themselves highway departments which is what they are) and county assessor data (tax driven, and because they do not directly collect taxes from railroads, tend to ignore them)....Garbage in-garbage out.
From the "Tennessee Encylclopedia of History and Culture", I was able to find the following:
For the State of Tennessee 1940 3573 total miles
1995 2634 total miles
I am looking for info on Alabama where I live.
Northtowne
CG9602 wrote:Wisconsin:1959 rail miles of road operated: 6,194 miles1970 rail miles of road operated: 5,984 miles1980: 5,191.94 miles1990: 4,415 miles2000: 3,548 miles2005: 3,405 miles Source: State of Wisconsin Blue Book, for the respective years indicated above.
It's odd, that Wisconsin only lost 15% during the 70's, and another 15% during the 80's. I would have thought that The MIlwaukee Road would have had a bigger effect on Wisconsin mileage totals. We vacation at the northern tip of Wisconsin. There seems to be a lot of abandonded CNW, NP, and SOO lines. When did they go out?
Murphy Siding wrote: It's odd, that Wisconsin only lost 15% during the 70's, and another 15% during the 80's. I would have thought that The Milwaukee Road would have had a bigger effect on Wisconsin mileage totals. We vacation at the northern tip of Wisconsin. There seems to be a lot of abandonded CNW, NP, and SOO lines. When did they go out?
It's odd, that Wisconsin only lost 15% during the 70's, and another 15% during the 80's. I would have thought that The Milwaukee Road would have had a bigger effect on Wisconsin mileage totals. We vacation at the northern tip of Wisconsin. There seems to be a lot of abandonded CNW, NP, and SOO lines. When did they go out?
Wisconsin has viewed preserving rail service as preserving the economy. The State stepped forward in 1980 and purchased hundreds of miles of up-for-abandonment CMSP&P trackage. South Dakota (CMSP&P) and Oklahoma (CRI&P) did the same.
Today the WSOR operates a few hundred miles in Wisconsin. Almost all of it is former CMSP&P, still owned by the State.
It is unfortunate that Arkansas and the ATSF did not preserve the Choctaw line in 1980.
What and where is this Choctaw line? It was never ATSF nor connected to Santa Fe to my knowledge.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.