Hi!
As a little background, I'm a newly retired business analyst and lifelong train nut. When I was a kid in the '50s, I spent vacations in Anna Illinois (50 miles north of Cairo) at my Grandmom's house located right next to the IC "racetrack". At that time, there were two mains, one passing siding, and one freight siding - giving me 4 tracks to watch for trains. Life was good!
Today, only a single main line track remains, and this trend has been duplicated all over the country justified by cost, CTC, etc.
As someone who looked at the profitability (or not) of many kinds of business operations over the years, I have tried to determine the justification for this.
Obviously, fewer track miles equals less maintenance and a lower headcount. But on the other hand, trains are significantly restricted in their movements (time is money!), and those fancy signals are expensive and need higher priced help to work with them. Dual trackage allows work gangs to maintain long stretches of track without dealing with traffic (trains are rerouted to the other line). And lastly, it has to be difficult highballing a freight or Amtrack on trackage where other trains are headed in the opposite direction!
Of course, there are areas (ATSF main - Chicago to Los Angeles) where multiple trackage is being put back in place, obviously for the very heavy traffic - but why did they get rid of it in the first place?
OK, I'm not a railroad analyst - and I suspect there really is justification for single trackage to win out over multiple trackage, but I just can't figure it out. What am I missing????
Thanks!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
At the time most of this this happened (60's - 70's), rail business was in decline: trucks were taking a lot of the freight traffic and airlines were doing the same to the passenger traffic. Railroads consolidated and shed what at the time was excess capacity (in the form of trackage) to reduce costs. For a while their strategy seemed to be sound, although as of late more and more railroads are now bringing back this lost capacity, although at a much slower pace than it was removed.
In more recent times, some of the abandonments were considered questionable with regards to long-term strategy, although it provided an immediate boost to the bottom line. Now the railroads are probably regretting many of these moves as their business has increased and capacity is strained. As fuel costs continue to rise, one can only imagine that some of these abandonend lines may once again be broght back to life.
EDIT: I did not really answer your question.... From my armchair position, it seems to me that in the long run, the cost savings over the years have surely justified the one time hits of removing / adding the trackage as needed. I am sure others on here can provide an industry perspective into this issue.
Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
A lot of trackage was removed up through the 70's. Traffic was down,and it was justified. Track maintenace is labor expensive(most of it was jointed rail too). Those 'fancy' signals are a lot cheaper that open train order offices and train order operators 24x7.
In the late 80's, traffic improved and some railroads have added trackage. In the case of the ex-AT&SF transcon line - They have be adding track to single track areas that never have had multiple tracks.
In the case of the IC mainline you mentioned, when double track is removed, are there still enough controlled sidings to keep the traffic flowing?
Two Main Tracks(as opposed to Double Track) with cross-overs can provide flexible operation in maintenace windows, but most of the time the track crews will need to 'unmount' from their equipment while a passing tran moves by them at restricted speed. UP & BNSF have bee using 20+ foot track centers so that work crews can work while a train passes. There is enough traffic in the PRB so that they are building 2 complete 2 main track lines side by side in areas to allow maintenace and operational flexibility.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Mobileman 44,
Just to set the record straight the Santa Fe never enjoyed a double track mainline across their entire route. They are putting it in place as I write. I believe the last segment to be double tracked is going to be Abo Canyon in New Mexico. The railroad since becoming part of the BNSF system now finds it necessary to triple track Cajon Pass that has become more and more of a bottleneck for freight. On one of the other threads KP has been keeping us informed on the progress of this huge undertaking with almost weekly photos.
The Union Pacific has installed triple track in parts of Nebraska to increase train numbers and are double tracking the Sunsest route between Los Angeles and El Paso. The old SP route through Tucumcari is being upgraded as fast as the UP can do it as well with longer sidings and more of them. This is the former joint Rock Island / Southern Pacific route between LA and Chicago.
The BNSF is installing longer sidings and more of them on the former GN transcontinental route always a single track main before. They are reopening Stampede Pass and installing again longer sidings and CTC to speed trains to Pasco. I would imagine they are still kicking themselves for donating the former SP&S route between Pasco and Spokane to the State of Washington becoming a hiking trail. I haven't heard yet but the old NP main between Pasco and Spokane will certainly require longer and more frequent sidings for this line. I understand there is very little possibility of adding additional sidings along the former SP&S route along the North Bank of the Columbia River between Pasco and Vancouver.
Al - in - Stockton
mobilman44 wrote: Hi!As a little background, I'm a newly retired business analyst and lifelong train nut. When I was a kid in the '50s, I spent vacations in Anna Illinois (50 miles north of Cairo) at my Grandmom's house located right next to the IC "racetrack". At that time, there were two mains, one passing siding, and one freight siding - giving me 4 tracks to watch for trains. Life was good!Today, only a single main line track remains, and this trend has been duplicated all over the country justified by cost, CTC, etc. As someone who looked at the profitability (or not) of many kinds of business operations over the years, I have tried to determine the justification for this. Obviously, fewer track miles equals less maintenance and a lower headcount. But on the other hand, trains are significantly restricted in their movements (time is money!), and those fancy signals are expensive and need higher priced help to work with them. Dual trackage allows work gangs to maintain long stretches of track without dealing with traffic (trains are rerouted to the other line). And lastly, it has to be difficult highballing a freight or Amtrack on trackage where other trains are headed in the opposite direction! Of course, there are areas (ATSF main - Chicago to Los Angeles) where multiple trackage is being put back in place, obviously for the very heavy traffic - but why did they get rid of it in the first place? OK, I'm not a railroad analyst - and I suspect there really is justification for single trackage to win out over multiple trackage, but I just can't figure it out. What am I missing????
First, I think I will speak to the premise that there was a vast decline in physical plant. There was much less second, third, or fourth main track pulled out than I think you realize. The Santa Fe, which you mention, lost no double track on its principal Chicago-Los Angeles freight route; what has been installed during the last decade never existed. The overwhelming preponderance of the multiple main track removed existed to support intercity passenger trains, or localized concentrations of intensive industrial switching and delivery of carload business, such as in places like the Mahoning Valley, Pittsburgh, and New England. The intercity passenger traffic has dwindled to less than 1/100th of what was formerly operated, and the carload-intensive industry spread along main tracks has reformed itself into intermodal- and truck-served business revolving around intermodal terminals. The most noted reduction of trackage occurred in the Official Territory, where four-track mains were built to enable through passenger to occur without interference from drag freight and local switching. With the disappearance of the passenger and local -- and the installation of CTC to replace towers and current-of-traffic signaling -- two of those mains became useless.
The second premise is that the signaling is expensive and requires expensive maintenance. True, signaling has a high first-cost of installation, but maintenance requirements are very low. The components do not wear like track. In relative terms, the cost per mile on a two-track CTC main line with moderate to heavy traffic, to maintain the CTC is about 1/100th the cost of maintaining the track.
The third premise is that there was a choice -- that railroads had the option to hold onto the unneeded physical plant. Yes, they could have left it in place, but what were they to do with it? Take it out of service? Wood ties deteriorate all on their own regardless of traffic over them. Assuming that the ties were on average halfway through their 35-year lifetime, after just 10 years the track would have had so many defective ties it would have been essentially unusable. Signaling systems do not like being deactivated; they turn into junk within a few months all on their own.
The fourth premise is that the multiple main track of old offered greater capacity than what remained -- two main tracks became one with sidings; three became two; four became two. Actually, the old double, triple, and quadruple track was all current-of-traffic and configured for passenger service. It had very little flexibility either for run-a-day operations or especially for maintenance. Maintenance at that time was localized, unmechanized, and extraordinarily labor-intensive; rather than taking tracks out of service for a mechanized tie, rail, or surfacing gang to do work, maintenance got its track time by walking onto the track right after a train departed, and walking off the track just before the next train arrived. The flexibility that was ostensibly available for operations was in fact almost zero because the tracks were not signaled for reverse movement. Trains were restricted in length and tonnage, and motive power was intensively maintained at great cost because road failures were highly disruptive to traffic.
While opinions vary, there is not even a small faction within the railroad industry who believes the decision to remove this track was incorrect. The cost of buying new rail instead of repurposing the second-hand rail from pulled-up track would have put the bankrupt carriers deeper into bankruptcy, and much sooner. The traffic patterns had fundamentally changed. And most important, it would be colossally foolish from a financial perspective. The cost of installing a mile of new additional main track, where an old main track has been pulled up, is equivalent to about 15 years of maintenance on a main track.
The number, configuration, and Method of Operation of main lines cannot be isolated from every other aspect of the railroad, such as traffic demands and costs, labor costs and availability, motive power, train blocking and scheduling, and finance. Everything is entangled and interdependent. To hold onto the track that was removed would have required changing everything about the railroad, and the ramifications of that are enormous. The cost of labor -- an independent variable over which railroads had no control -- would have forced the issue all by itself even if nothing else had changed.
RWM
One thing not yet mentioned - real estate taxes.
Removing an underused second track on a double-track main would translate directly into a reduction in valuation for tax purposes. Since railroads were frequently taxed at 'special' rates higher than anyone else's, this could result in a considerable reduction in an unavoidable annual (quarterly?) expense.
Just the saving in real estate taxes during the years when the second track was not present would have been a potent argument for removal in an era of declining need and escalating costs.
Chuck
tomikawaTT wrote: One thing not yet mentioned - real estate taxes.Removing an underused second track on a double-track main would translate directly into a reduction in valuation for tax purposes. Since railroads were frequently taxed at 'special' rates higher than anyone else's, this could result in a considerable reduction in an unavoidable annual (quarterly?) expense.Just the saving in real estate taxes during the years when the second track was not present would have been a potent argument for removal in an era of declining need and escalating costs.Chuck
You'd have to look at each state's tax law. Some states taxed by assessment of value of property, some by counting the track and the property, and some by a fixed piece of the system revenue. Most states today tax on the basis of revenue and do not bother to try to measure the track or the land of the railroad company.
I would say Illinois Central made the right choice in single tracking the line from Edgewood to New Orleans. CN has been trying to add more traffic to that line (BNSF's and their own) so I can't see that the single line now in place is at capacity.
Perhaps the line which should have been left as double track would be the former ACL between Richmond and Savannah.
Southern's route from Washington to Atlanta was double track, and Don O. might be able to tell us if it needs a second track now.
Well stated by others on a macro industrial basis, I will offer a little information on the IC mainline specifically.
First of all, regarding Anna, check out the current issues (July 14-21 double issue) of the Sports Illustrated's "Where are they now?" In the 1998 section Anna is address, specifically Anna Kournikova. She has aged well.
Now, back to Anna, Illinois...my October 1958 Official Guide lists 14 daily passenger trains thru Anna. Throw in the coal movements, banana specials, hot manifests, and local freights and it was a pretty busy stretch of railroad.
Today one sees only 2 passenger trains daily and not so many freight trains. If you take a close look, essentially the IC main is double tracked. Roughly 30 miles east is the Bluford cutoff which runs from Edgewood south. This cutoff allowed the IC to utilize one less crew than via Anna and was built later and was CTC equipped.
The second main on the IC was lifted in the late 1980's as the train count didnt justify the investment. Sections of the 2nd main were left for sidings and the excess track was either used within the system or sold as scrap or usable rail, basically paying for the CTC installation on the Mainline. Towers and train order facilities were shut down.
Today's tonnage on the CN mainline is not burdening the single line, as far as I know. Remember, they have the flexibility of the Bluford and utilize it quite a bit.
From what I understand Centralia is no longer classifying or building blocks or trains. Perhaps that has changed.
Mobilman, you should pickup a Moody's Transportation Manual from the 1970's. It is chocked full of finanicals for all railroads. Interesting reading and research.
Do you recall the Cobden Appleknockers?
ed
MP173 wrote: Well stated by others on a macro industrial basis, I will offer a little information on the IC mainline specifically.First of all, regarding Anna, check out the current issues (July 14-21 double issue) of the Sports Illustrated's "Where are they now?" In the 1998 section Anna is address, specifically Anna Kournikova. She has aged well.Now, back to Anna, Illinois...my October 1958 Official Guide lists 14 daily passenger trains thru Anna. Throw in the coal movements, banana specials, hot manifests, and local freights and it was a pretty busy stretch of railroad.Today one sees only 2 passenger trains daily and not so many freight trains. If you take a close look, essentially the IC main is double tracked. Roughly 30 miles east is the Bluford cutoff which runs from Edgewood south. This cutoff allowed the IC to utilize one less crew than via Anna and was built later and was CTC equipped.The second main on the IC was lifted in the late 1980's as the train count didnt justify the investment. Sections of the 2nd main were left for sidings and the excess track was either used within the system or sold as scrap or usable rail, basically paying for the CTC installation on the Mainline. Towers and train order facilities were shut down. Today's tonnage on the CN mainline is not burdening the single line, as far as I know. Remember, they have the flexibility of the Bluford and utilize it quite a bit.From what I understand Centralia is no longer classifying or building blocks or trains. Perhaps that has changed.Mobilman, you should pickup a Moody's Transportation Manual from the 1970's. It is chocked full of finanicals for all railroads. Interesting reading and research.Do you recall the Cobden Appleknockers?ed
The Cobden Appleknockers! One of the last small high schools to make it to the finals of the Illinois state basketball tournament. Southern Illinois was (is?) like Indiana, basketball is king. But unlike the movie "Hoosiers" where the small school won, Cobden lost the championship game to the Pekin "Chinks" who are now the Pekin Dragons.
I was at the ICG when the decision was made to single the line. As Ed said, most of the freight went down the Blueford District and didn't use the double track line. There simply wasn't enough traffic on the double track to justify its continuation. They ran the proposal by the Marketing Department and no one could think of a reason to object.
nanaimo73 wrote: Southern's route from Washington to Atlanta was double track, and Don O. might be able to tell us if it needs a second track now.
I have been doing quite a bit of research on this line recently, mostly because it is the nearest NS line to my home and I do quite a bit of railfanning along there. Specifically, I noticed there were a number of single track bridges that were obviously either built to handle double track or actually were double tracked at one time. My research revealed that Southern double tracked this line during WWII to cope with the massive volume of troops and supplies that were moving between the south and the northeast in support of the war effort. After the war, much of the second track was removed as traffic returned to pre-war levels. In fact, while the NS Atlanta-Washington mainline may appear to be mostly a single track mainline with passing sidings, technically all of the sidings are second main tracks; signalled and notated as such in company timetables.
Currently, while this line is a vital link in the NS network, I do not believe it is anywhere near capacity and serves about 25 trains a day in most areas. In fact, NS is actually focusing on improving track capacity on other lines that feed into/off of the northern end of the ATL-WASH mainline, such as the B-line between Manassas and Font Royal, VA, and the former N&W Shenandoah line north of Front Royal. The goal of these efforts is to bring the capacity of these latter lines up to that of the ATL-WASH line to handle the ever growing intermodal traffic between the south and the northeast.
A true Sothern afficianado may have more info on this topic.
Hi again!
Thanks for all the replies and invaluable input!
Your answers are consistent with what I have read over the years, that being that the maintenance of track (mostly sectional) was just not justified - especially since traffic (and profits) were down.
However, given the significant rise in energy costs, some of those long removed double tracks might be put back in place - assuming the "powers that be" begin to utilize the full potential of rail transportation.
Ha, I suspect my question was clouded by sentiment, as I sure do miss the multiple tracks and all those trains that I saw as a kid.
Thanks again,
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Multiple tracks tend to be expensive to maintain. One of the things that happened to multiple track railroads was the change from ABS to CTC systems. A lot of multiple track was ABS IE all that was there was a signal system to try to keep trains from smacking into each other.
Also much of that (ABS) was only signaled in the direction of travel. ie the on a 2 track railroad the north track was west bound the south track was east bound. Kind of like a 2 lane road. Having a signal installation also increases costs.
If you had a railroad that had enough business to have multiple tracks you also unually had a railroad that needed a signal system. When CTC came out it was cheaper to install CTC and change to a single track the railroad.
I would suspect that CTC installation came with single tracking a lot of double track railroad as I think the ICC would have had to approve all of this.
One of the biggest advantages to railroads that were single tracked with CTC is it is now easier to put the 2nd track back in as the at least the grading is already done.
narig02 wrote: Multiple tracks tend to be expensive to maintain. One of the things that happened to multiple track railroads was the change from ABS to CTC systems. A lot of multiple track was ABS IE all that was there was a signal system to try to keep trains from smacking into each other. Also much of that (ABS) was only signaled in the direction of travel. ie the on a 2 track railroad the north track was west bound the south track was east bound. Kind of like a 2 lane road. Having a signal installation also increases costs. If you had a railroad that had enough business to have multiple tracks you also unually had a railroad that needed a signal system. When CTC came out it was cheaper to install CTC and change to a single track the railroad. I would suspect that CTC installation came with single tracking a lot of double track railroad as I think the ICC would have had to approve all of this. One of the biggest advantages to railroads that were single tracked with CTC is it is now easier to put the 2nd track back in as the at least the grading is already done.
That's correct; the ICC (now the FRA) had authority to regulate material changes in a signaling system. Formerly application had to be made for any change. Today in practice it's any change that will diminish the quality or extent of signaling, e.g., discontinuance of an ABS system and converting a line to yard limits or TWC. The ICC then and STB now do not have statutory authority over changes in the track capacity such as single-track to double-track, or vice versa; only signaling because it is a safety appliance.
By definition ABS on double-track is current-of-traffic (one way) signaling. There were some instances of bi-directional ABS on double-track such as D&RGW from Helper to Kyune, Utah, but they were extremely uncommon. There is still some lengthy stretches of "251 Territory" (ABS double-track) but the extent is diminishing quickly and I doubt there will be much of it remaining by the time I retire.
Two main tracks are essentially twice as expensive to maintain as one.
narig02 wrote: One of the biggest advantages to railroads that were single tracked with CTC is it is now easier to put the 2nd track back in as the at least the grading is already done.
Not always. Much of the second track that the UP replaced in Western Iowa that the CNW removed is not on the original road bed. When they started replacement, the FRA wanted the wider track centers and the Iowa Dept of Transportation wanted more distance between US 30 and the nearest railroad track. In some areas the road bed is used for an access road for MOW/Signal employees. The large bridges were reused, but there are a few smaller ones that were not.
Over the years there is talk of replacing the second track from Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs. I've heard both that since it was once double track, the road bed could be "grandfathered" in and that a new road bed with wider track centers plus an access road would be required. They are respacing signals on this line, so I don't think there will be any new track added anytime soon.
The track spacing requirement I heard was one of the things that held up the second track being added to the Cedar River bridge at Cedar Rapids/Beverly.
I'm sure Mudchicken or Railway Man could speak a lot more authoritatively on this subject than I can.
Jeff
Jeff, I'm not aware of any FRA minimum requirement for distance between two main tracks, though some state PUCs (or the equivalent) have them. Generally the tracks can be as little as 14' apart and still clear most equipment but most railroads now use 15' as the standard minimum separation.
Tracks at 25' centers on the other hand are advantageous (see 49 CFR 217, wherein the FRA defines "adjacent tracks" as less than 25' center-to-center). With tracks at 25' or greater, a Form B issued on one main track is not required to be issued on both main tracks at that location.
On the other hand, the cost of spreading two main tracks to 25' is substantial. The obvious cost is in the drainage structures, but often it's right-of-way acquisition, too. A 100' right-of-way will usually fit both main tracks and an access road without the toe of the embankment or the wings of the culverts crowding the fence line, but if there are house tracks, bad-order setouts, or runners involved, on one side of the right-of-way the toe of the embankment is onto the neighboring property. If it's federal property or wetlands, this gets very expensive to acquire, and retaining walls are expensive too. I'm somewhat familiar with your territory and I suspect a great deal of the land the single-track portion crosses is jurisdictional wetland.
At grade crossings in urban areas, space is at a premium, and pushing the track centers out to 25' often is pushing the roadway approach into adjacent roadway intersections, and if the track is on any kind of embankment relative to the roadway surface, then this entails a lot of revision of the roadway surface to raise it up to the track level, feathering way back out. Pretty soon the railroad is looking at buying not only a lot of asphalt and curb, but a new traffic signal system too.
There's nothing to stop a railroad from tucking in the 25' centers to fit under a highway overpass or onto an existing double-track bridge with narrower centers, but then any time a Form B overlaps that location everyone has to remember it applies on both tracks, not just one track. Plus on clearance restrictions for high-wides it gets messy -- it's an oversight waiting to happen.
RWM:can you name a couple of long distance rule 251's out there?
Here in NW Indiana, the former NKP line from Van Loon into Chicago falls in that category (at least that is my impression).
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
jrbernier wrote: In the case of the IC mainline you mentioned, when double track is removed, are there still enough controlled sidings to keep the traffic flowing? Jim
I know from Homewood Ill to the Edgewood Cutoff, there are sidings that are every 10 miles, with signal blocks 2.5 miles (approx) apart. The sidings are about 2 miles long. Just long enough to fit a 143 car autorack train plus 2 SD75s in it....with about 2 feet to spare, and thats with authority to go past the red signal and back the train to push the slack in. Happened at Tolono, first siding south of Champaign ill
There are times where you can sit on the CNIC line from anywhere 2-12 hours without seeing anything. Then again, you can see 20 trains during the daylight hours in October/November
Paul
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
Thanks, RWM. Maybe it was Iowa wanting the wider spacing and everyone assumed it was the Feds doing. The projects I mentioned are in-state. I can see IDOT caring about how close the track is to their highway, but it's hard to think they care much else about railroad construction. Although rail freight is getting more attention, it's clear the highway interests are of first importance.
Or maybe, has so often is the case, something gets changed as things go from person to person.
nanaimo73 wrote: I would say Illinois Central made the right choice in single tracking the line from Edgewood to New Orleans. CN has been trying to add more traffic to that line (BNSF's and their own) so I can't see that the single line now in place is at capacity.Perhaps the line which should have been left as double track would be the former ACL between Richmond and Savannah. Southern's route from Washington to Atlanta was double track, and Don O. might be able to tell us if it needs a second track now.
Double track from Atlanta to Meridian would be a nice thing to have, now. North from Atlanta, single CTC is sufficient. You can get a sense of this by looking at how the Crescent performs north and south of Atanta.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
From the end of the Second World War until the 1990's railways were in a state of decline in the U.S. As Pasadena Sub pointed out, trucks and airlines were continually stripping business away from the railroads, and most roads were cutting costs every where they could, not just to continue profitability, but to ensure corporate survival.
The few rail executives that I have known, at least in the North East, have always pointed out that the extremely high taxes paid by the railroads before the creation of Conrail in 1976 played a big part in the need for the creation of Conrail.
IIRC someone told me that before the 1970's collapse of railroads in the east (and the tax relief that followed), that the entire New York State school system was primarily funded by taxes on the railroads. I have also been told that the CNJ was "taxed out of business" by the state of New Jersey. Since those taxes were levied by track mileage rather than just square footage, a mile of single track was half the taxes of a mile of double track.
While I am sure that many railroads would love to have back some of the track that was lifted years ago. I am equally sure that a lot is not missed at all. The decision to go from double track ABS to single track CTC was a good business decision at the time, but it sure is nice to see them building new track.
Tulyar15 wrote:Judging by the news items on page 26 of the July 2008 issue of trains concerning the Missouri 'Mule' it seems like singling has had similar consequences on the 'Mule's route.
Tulyar, singling has not taken place on this route. The eastern half of the line, from St. Louis to Jefferson City, is double track. The western half, from Jefferson City to Kansas City, is made up of two parallel lines, which are mostly 20 to 30 miles apart. Amtrak uses the line through Sedalia WB and EB, but I believe this line is used by mostly WB freight, with the heavier EB freight on the other line. This leaves Amtrak's EB trains fighting traffic for 150 miles from Kansas City to Jefferson City.
Based on an earlier question regarding sufficient sidings for the CN south of Chicago, here are the MP's, Stations, and length of sidings for IC line:
turnout siding
MP41.2 - 43.3 Peotone 10519 40 40
MP49.5 - 55.4 Kankakee 29528 20 20
MP60.4 Otto 13224 40 40
MP70.6 - 72.9 Ashkum 10921 40 40
MP100.7 -103.6 Paxton 14552 40 40
MP113.0 - 115.8 Rantoul 14033 40 40
MP124.2 - 127.4 Leverett Jct 15928 25 40
MP137.1 -139.3 Tolono 9984 25 25
MP161.2 - 163.5 Humboldt 11472 25 25
184.4 - 186.7 Neoga 11529 25 25
MP199.5 -203.1 Effingham 17785 25 25
MP214.6 - 218.5 LaClede 19125 25 25
MP234.9 -238.0 Tonti 15727 25 25
My ETT ends at Centralia, so I cannot comment on the sidings, lengths, etc south of Centralia.
So, there are essentially 13 sidings from Markham Yard to Centralia at MP260. These are pretty big sidings. One comment heard about the IC's conversion to CTC was they didnt place intermediate signals on the sidings. Thus, there were signal/speed restrictions within the siding which really slowed down the trains in sidings. Perhaps someone out there can correct me or clarify the significance of that.
No doubt on certain sidings such as Kankakee and Effingham there might be intermediate signals in place.
edit: Note that I have placed the turnout speeds and siding speeds as indicated in ETT#3 dated June 2, 2002.
Tulyar15 wrote:I was under the impression that the live of the rails was directly proportional to the number of trains that run over them. So if you single a line, you'll have twice as many trains running over the remaining set of rails so they'll have a shorter life expectancy.I debated this subject on a British forum and an American member made the point about property taxes.In Britain a number of lines have been singled since the 1960's and in most cases it has played havoc with timekeeping. In one or two cases in recent years lines have been re-doubled and there is clamour for more re-doubling.Judging by the news items on page 26 of the July 2008 issue of trains concerning the Missouri 'Mule' it seems like singling has had similar consequences on the 'Mule's route.
"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
Pasadena Sub makes good points with his discussion of the Southern main out of Washington. However, it was double-tracked long before World War II--the map in my July 4, 1920, Southern timetable idicates that it was double track then, all the way from Seminary (outside Alexandria, Va.) through Atlanta to Austell, Ga. (where the H line, from Chattanooga to Brunswick, Ga. joined it to run into Atlanta). Perhaps the second track was added during World War I.
There were other sections that had double track which now are single or single with long sidings or pass tracks. Eighty-eight years ago, there were several sections of double track on the Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Texas Pacific between Cincinnati and Harriman Junction, Tenn. (the junction with the line to Knoxville); this was fully double-tracked before 1951--and reduced to single track in the sixties. Another line, that was reduced even earlier, was between Meridian, Miss., and York, Ala., where the line from Selma joined the Crescent Route. Apparently, there was quite a bit of traffic out of Selma for Meridian and points south and west until a steamboat destroyed the bridge at Demoplis, Ala. There was even a through passenger train from Rome, Ga., through Selma, to Meridian!
As to the Illinois Central/CN, I lived in Wesson, Miss (55 miles south of Jackson) from 1962-1965. There was a total of eight trains each way each day--four passenger, three through freights, and the local freight. Usually, one track would have been sufficient except, perhaps between one thirty and two thirty in the afternoon if either train 3 or 4 were running late. One night, though, the second track was quite useful--a southbound through freight had to back over onto the northbound track to get out of the way of the City of New Orleans.
Johnny
Deggesty wrote: Pasadena Sub makes good points with his discussion of the Southern main out of Washington. However, it was double-tracked long before World War II--the map in my July 4, 1920, Southern timetable idicates that it was double track then, all the way from Seminary (outside Alexandria, Va.) through Atlanta to Austell, Ga. (where the H line, from Chattanooga to Brunswick, Ga. joined it to run into Atlanta). Perhaps the second track was added during World War I.
You know, until your post I never even considered that "the war" that was referenced in my research materials could have been WWI and not WWII. Which brings up an interesting follow-up question...if it was double tracked during WWI, when did the second track come up? It was always just "sometime after the war," but if the war was WWI then was it still around for WWII? Would assume so, but I will have to dig further. Jamie
WM7471 wrote:From the end of the Second World War until the 1990's railways were in a state of decline in the U.S.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.