Was getting rid of "multiple trackage" really justified?

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Hopefully, someday soon they can at least get that 2nd track back in the area you describe as the Joint Line is needing extra capacity; perhaps this could open the door for either Amtrak or commuter rail service on the Front Range which is desperately needed.  

Who says the Joint Line needs additional freight train capacity?

If the intent is to put passenger-rail on the corridor, the price tag for the infrastructure improvements necessary to support it starts with Billion with a B.  A second main track from Palmer Lake to Crews is just one of the elements.

I don't doubt for a second about the costs involved here; especially if we are talking about some sort of passenger rail in the (hopefully) not too distant future.  But when you take a look at the asylum that is currently I-25 between Denver and Pueblo (esp. Denver-Colorado Springs), something's got to be done here and that Joint Line portion between Palmer Lake and Kelker/Crews is nothing short of a bottleneck.

RWM

[Railway Man]

Hopefully, someday soon they can at least get that 2nd track back in the area you describe as the Joint Line is needing extra capacity; perhaps this could open the door for either Amtrak or commuter rail service on the Front Range which is desperately needed.  

Who says the Joint Line needs additional freight train capacity?

If the intent is to put passenger-rail on the corridor, the price tag for the infrastructure improvements necessary to support it starts with Billion with a B.  A second main track from Palmer Lake to Crews is just one of the elements.

RWM

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Hopefully, someday soon they can at least get that 2nd track back in the area you describe as the Joint Line is needing extra capacity; perhaps this could open the door for either Amtrak or commuter rail service on the Front Range which is desperately needed.  

[diningcar]

Usually participants here do not describe "blundered decisions" and in the next breath say " I'm no expert"!!

The decision to move the Santa Fe onto the Rio Grande between S. Colorado Springs and Palmer Lake was motivated by three primary things:

1. The Santa Fe track north from Pikes Peak St. went through a part of the city which had developed residentially since the RR was first constructed in 1886-87. There were many street crossings and several were not 90 degree crossings, but with bad angles. The situation was deteriorating as population incresed dramatically. The City approached the railroads for a solution and offered substantial funding if the RR's could consolidate. The city was given the ROW through the heavy resisential area after the consolidation.

2. The three RR's agreed because there were operational benefits to move to the Rio Grande where there was a minimum interface with street and highway traffic, both exisiting and anticipated. Also, then and still today a second track could be built parallel to the existing main and CTC could be installed if warranted. Operationally this 2nd track would be much better that the separated operations prior to the change.

3.The lawsuits from crossing accidents were increasing and each RR was vulnerable since all northward traffic used the Santa Fe line.

[oldyardgoat]

I can understand all the explanations for the reduction of muliple trackage, particularly in the 1970s.  but, in one case I believe it was a case of jumping the gun and very poor decision making.   That was on the joint line in Colorado, back in 1972.  The former Santa Fe track, the so-called "northbound" track, was taken out about 1972, as being surplus from Palmer Lake to Fountain, through Colorado Springs.  Less than a year later, coal traffic from Wyoming began rolling over the joint line to Texas, which bumped up traffic volume significantly.  In that case I do believe the right hand had no idea what left hand saw coming down the track.  Of course, Santa Fe, Rio Grande and C&S have had to deal with it (UP and BNSF today) ever since.  Maybe the "big guys" didn't let little tenant C&S have a say in the blundered decision.  I'm no expert, so maybe some one else is better informed about what happened back then. 

Aredenastationmaster.   

[sandiego]

To MP 173 re the following:

"Are there many rolling meets or does one train usually come to a stop? On the local line I monitor, the siding lengths are fairly short (about 6500 - 8000 ft) which doesn't give much room. Most meets involve at least one train coming to a stop and often waiting for a second train".

When I ran on the BN Staples Subdivn. (Northtown/Minneapolis, Minn. to Dilworth, Minn./Fargo, ND) we had a number of rolling meets on the single track CTC portion between Little Falls, Minn. and Philbrook, Minn. (6 miles east of Staples). There were three sidings in that 25 mile stretch: Darling, Randall, and Lincoln, in order from east to west. All were 25 MPH sidings with #15 TO's; lengths around 11,000' to 13,000' as I recall (don't have my trusty ETT for reference). The advance signal spacing was a little close so I would have to start braking right away to reduce speed to 25 MPH at the switch. Usually the dispatcher had the meets well timed as the opposing train would be approaching (at 60 MPH) by the time we got near the leaving end of the siding. The opposition would blast by and we would get a clear signal to leave; usually we would still be moving at perhaps 10 MPH when we got the signal if we were far enough away from it to stop if we DIDN'T get a signal to leave. It didn't take long to get up to 25 MPH then just maintain that speed until the entire train was on the main, and then highball!

In comparison, the Hinckley Subdivn. (Northtown to Superior, Wisc.) was a whole different story with ABS-TWC, 8,000' sidings with #11 TO's, and hand throw or automatic switches. At a meet it was stop at the switch, get off the power, line the switch, get back on, and drag the train in the hole at 10 MPH. Usually, by this time the opposing train would be stopped waiting for us to clear. Leaving, same deal, and drag the whole train onto the main at 10 MPH. A meet would be good for at least 30 minutes delay (with 45-60 minutes more typical) even if the opposing train was waiting for us. When I was out there there were BN, CNW (later UP), and SOO (later CP) trains on that line so there could be several meets per trip.

Obviously, you can see the difference that CTC and decent sidings make in moving trains.

KJH

[WM7471]

Reading through the posts I see several very good answers from people in the know but they don't give the real flavor of just how bad a shape the railroad industry was in during the 1950's through the 1970's.

Sandiego makes a very good point.  I don't think that it is easy for younger posters here to grasp just how bad the situation was for the railroads in the early 70's.   Everything was doom and gloom especially in the east.  Even in the west, where longer hauls and lower taxes kept profits higher, Southern Pacific's management was actively putting money from the railroad into other businesses and deferring maintenance on the railroad.

More than a few people thought that the railroads would not survive into the 21st century.  Some rail executives, including from what I have read, a number of higher ups at Seaboard (which would become the lead company in CSX) believed that the railroads were destined to become nothing but slow, wheeled conveyer belts for low cost, non-time sensitive bulk products like coal and stone.  

Then came Tropical Storm Agnes.  Agnes, I think, did more to destroy the rail infrastructure in the North East than anything else.  It is pretty well documented that Agnes forced the demise of Erie-Lackawanna, a railroad that was beginning to make a profit on intermodal trains.  A number of through routes like Penn Central's ex-Pennsylvania line from Harrisburg to Baltimore were so badly damaged that they were just abandoned.  A lot of branches and marginal lines from Georgia to New England met their demise due to flood damage from Agnes. 

I've met a few rail executives, almost all of them, if they were around in the 1970's; find the current resurgence in the rail industry as nothing short of miraculous.

[MP173]

Welcome sandiego.

It is always good to hear from those who work the system, rather than us who dont.  You are certainly correct in recalling the industry's problems in the 60's/70's. 

Those who dont understand that would do well to find a library with a Trains collection and spend an afternoon reading the monthly column by John Kneiling and other editorials by David Morgan as to how serious it was.

It is really easy for us (particularly outside the industry) to take a look at the old maps and say "What if".  We werent in the board rooms or the top executive floors attempting to decide how to make the company viable.  When the opportunity to shed track was there, it had to be done.  I think our question is along the lines of "which decisions were not prudent?"

Most examples seem to be with the CSX and actually there are only a couple of examples which come to mind right now.  That is why I asked about NS and any regrets on that system.

Was NS more prudent? or was their merger a better one?  Recall that their merger was one of the last and in many ways was defensive in nature.  There was very little overlapping of lines and in many ways it was an end to end merger.  It opened up several new lanes such as Chicago to the Southeast.  The very nature of the CSX, or Family Lines at the time meant that duplicate lines were at risk.  I can see the SAL line being rationalized, but the St. Louis line seems a bit strange.

Sandiego, you had a very descriptive example of the use of turnouts and the speeds involved.  If you could make improvements to your sub, other than the use of #20's, what would they be?

Are there many rolling meets or does one train usually come to a stop?  On the local line I monitor, the siding lenghts are fairly short (about 6500 - 8000 ft) which doesnt give much room.  Most meets involve at least one train coming to a stop and often waiting for a second train.

thanks,

ed

[ValleyX]

So, we have discussed the CSX's mistakes in abandoning lines.  Can anyone think of any such issues with NS?  I cant off hand.

ed

 

NS ripped up some double track in the late eighties that I have to wonder if they would like to have back, such as Fostoria to Bellevue on the old NKP and other areas east of Bellevue.  They sold off the onetime LE&W line west of Lima, OH, and leased part of it to R. J. Corman, severing that as a through route toward Frankfort, IN, and abandoned most of the former Cloverleaf west of Frankfort.  Although a hilly, former narrow gauge line, one has to wonder if they wish they had that alternate route into St. Louis (although the NKP actually terminated in East St. Louis).

The Lima-Frankfort line would have been a safety valve for the busy line between Detroit and St. Louis but only as far as Lafayette, IN, since the Cloverleaf was gone.

On the other hand, the railbanked Cincinnati District, popularly known as the Peavine, is still railbanked.

[sandiego]

Reading through the posts I see several very good answers from people in the know but they don't give the real flavor of just how bad a shape the railroad industry was in during the 1950's through the 1970's. There was a very real fear among rail management that the US rail system would be nationalized which drove the movement toward the holding company structure to separate rail from non-rail assets so they would not be seized by the government also. There was an article in Vintage Rails about John Kenefick (UP prez in the 60's and 70's) that discussed this extensively.

The situation was dire, no doubt about it. Railroads were doing anything they could to reduce costs and bring in cash; most of the double or multiple track had been needed more to handle passenger trains (that were rapidly disappearing) than for freight traffic so single-tracking was easily justified by railroads that weren't so much worried about increasing next quarter's earnings for Wall Street as they were worried about about meeting next week's payroll and accounts payable. There was no thought of future growth, not with traffic melting like a snowball in you-know-where, and cannibalization for sheer survival was the order of the day.

I grew up reading Trains in the 60's and 70's and also was trackside then but I was too young to realize how bad it was until much later when I read the experiences of those who were in the industry then.

On another part of this topic, that is siding speeds, my take on this as an engineer is it's not the speed THROUGH the siding that expedites traffic but the entering and leaving speeds. Say I'm blasting along the main on CTC, go by Advance Approach signal (double yellow or flashing yellow on the former BN), now know I'm going in the hole at next signal (at prescribed speed for turnout as listed in ETT). For a 25 MPH siding with #15 TO I have to be down to 25 MPH at the TO; depending on signal spacing you may really have to pinch 'em down in a hurry and can incur some high in-train forces.

For a 40 MPH siding with #20 TO you can go through the TO at 40 and be reducing speed through the siding to stop at the other end (assuming your entering signal is Approach Diverging (red-over-yellow) which mandates reducing speed to 30 or 35 MPH and being prepared to stop at next signal. The sooner your train is in the clear, the sooner your opposition gets a favorable signal, and with a 11,000' or 12,000' siding you may very well have a rolling meet and a clear signal out of the siding.

Here's where those #20 TO's help out as you can get back to 40 MPH and leave in short order. With a 25 MPH siding you have to drag the whole train through the leaving TO at 25 mph until all the train is on the main and you can start to accelerate. The time savings for several meets can add up and help keep traffic moving.

KJH

[MP173]

So, we have discussed the CSX's mistakes in abandoning lines.  Can anyone think of any such issues with NS?  I cant off hand.

ed

[CSXDixieLine]

I appreciate the discussion on the SAL vs ACL mains thru the Carolinas and the reasons for rationalizing the lines as CSX did.

I didnt communicate an earlier question well regarding the SAL.  Why did CSX sever the line at Norlina?  Is there industry or agriculture at that point which makes it an end point?  Also, is (was) there considerable on line business in or around Raleigh for CSX to keep the line north out of Hamlet?

ed

CSX does have enough business along the Hamlet-Raleigh-Norlina segment of the old SAL main (the "S" line) to keep that part open, although there are very few trains that use it. The line north of Norlina to Petersburg, VA was closed mid 1980's and the rails and ties were removed shortly afterwards. Not sure if all the business dried up on that stretch prior to the abandonment or if some active businesses were left stranded without rail service, but I do know that section of the "S" line is hilly, curvy, and has a few long wood trestles that probably resulted in maintenance costs much higher than those incurred south of Norlina. Jamie

[MP173]

I appreciate the discussion on the SAL vs ACL mains thru the Carolinas and the reasons for rationalizing the lines as CSX did.

I didnt communicate an earlier question well regarding the SAL.  Why did CSX sever the line at Norlina?  Is there industry or agriculture at that point which makes it an end point?  Also, is (was) there considerable on line business in or around Raleigh for CSX to keep the line north out of Hamlet?

ed

[WM7471]

I'd say CSX's main weakness is that they have too many mainlines, as opposed to a concentrated route system like NS enjoys. Would yet another mainline, between St. Louis and the east coast, really help them? I don't think it would add much in the way of online traffic.

Any discussion of Chessie's severing of the B&O St. Louis line always causes a ruckus.  I think Don Phillips called it one of the dumbest moves ever made by a railroad. 

Since then I have read what was supposedly an account of why Chessie's Managment cut the line.  Reportedly there was a belief that the C&O from Cinncinati to Tidewater Virginia was a better route to ship export coal to the Atlantic Ocean than the B&O line which had several long 2.2% grades in West Virginia.   They also beleived that through freight would continue to decline, and that the round about routeing through Deshler wouldn't make much difference since most interchange with the western roads was done at Chicago not St. Louis.   Of course the timing was impecably bad as intermodal was just starting to take off (despite the fact that the B&O had regular piggyback trains on the line).

If the line was still in place it could have been part of a much shorter route than now exists between LA/LB and the east coast.  But, who knows?  

After all the NYC and Pennsy will always have parrallel four track main lines into Chicago, the ICG should abandon the Meridian Speedway, the T&P in west Texas will never amount to anything and the Milwaukee will alway go to Seattle.  Do you think I should keep my Rock Island stock?    

 

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Are you sure CP's Hastings to Portage line is congested? One CTC mainline seems to be better than a double track ABS line.

I just go by what some of the dispatchers I know upstairs say and what I see across the River on the BNSF.  Yeah, we do OKAY but when you think about what it was like in Milwaukee Road days when the Chicago-St. Paul mainline was double-tracked speedway you just wonder sometimes.  I just hate to see it because if the need ever arises to put that second track back in it's awfully expensive to do so.

[nanaimo73]

Are you sure CP's Hastings to Portage line is congested? One CTC mainline seems to be better than a double track ABS line.

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

I think two very good examples of what proved to be short-sighted thinking when it comes to pulling up second tracks on mainline would be the CNW's "Overland Route" mainline between Denison and Missouri Valley (now double-tracked again, of course) and the CP mainline between St. Paul and Chicago (save for the C&M Sub and a few short portions in Wisconny).  Just plain short-sighted thinking that comes back to bite you in the tush.  

[zardoz]

can you name a couple of long distance rule 251's out there?

Chicago to Kenosha on the UP Kenosha sub (same as Carl's Barrington-Harvard example).

St. Francis to Butler on the UP Milwaukee sub.

[MichaelSol]

Two questions. Going back 20 or 30 years, could anybody have been able to accurately forecast just what track could or should remain in place to address a possible future capacity problem? And even if such forecasts had been possible, would it make economic sense to keep under productive assets in place for a future need 10 to 20 years down the road? I think the answer to both is no.

Referring only to mainlines, "underproductive assets" by what formula? But, notwithstanding that the assumption may not be true, as a matter of fact the President of the Burlington Northern answered "yes".

[jeaton]

Two questions. Going back 20 or 30 years, could anybody have been able to accurately forecast just what track could or should remain in place to address a possible future capacity problem? And even if such forecasts had been possible, would it make economic sense to keep under productive assets in place for a future need 10 to 20 years down the road? I think the answer to both is no.

As I stated previously, railroads are not the only businesses to ever have had to make a decision to cut back on plant and machinery. Check out the latest news from GM.

[SALfan]

Did the ex Seaboard (SAL) have worse gradiants than the ACL line?   Is that the reason for the severing of the line?  When was this done?  Why was the SAL run as far north as it was? 

The ex-SAL from Norlina to Petersburg is crooked and hilly, and that part of the world is an absolute traffic desert.  Some of it is as desolate as the surface of the moon (except it has pine trees).  I don't "know" why the SAL went to Richmond, but suspect it was to have an outlet to the north other than ACL or its predecessors, with which it competed.  Believe ACL predecessors got the good route along the Coastal Plain because it built first, and SAL had to take what was left.  SAL also went thru a traffic desert (marshy coastal area) between Savannah and Jacksonville, while the ACL had the area inland where there were farms and more population.

[WM7471]

Did the ex Seaboard (SAL) have worse gradiants than the ACL line?   Is that the reason for the severing of the line?  When was this done?  Why was the SAL run as far north as it was? 

SAL and ACL were historically competing parallel lines; the northern terminus for both was Richmond.  The differences along the main line to Florida were that the ACL was built east of the "Fall Line" (The Fall Line is the point along the coast where rivers have their first water falls and signal the end of the flat coastal plain.) SCL was built west of the "Fall Line" in the hills.  

The ACL was so flat that in steam days that they regularly used 4-6-2's in freight service, and did not order dynamic brakes on diesels. 

The ACL was also mostly double track, SAL was mostly single track.  IIRC the SAL was dark until the Second World War, when they suffered a number of serious wrecks due to lots of traffic and no signals.  The Federal Government then forced SAL to install signals.

After the merger into Seaboard Coast Line, they were looking to consolidate as much traffic as possible, since traffic levels were low at that time.  So, the choice was a flat double track line or a hilly single track line.  

The SAL was well known for its named Florida passenger trains; The Silver Star and The Meteor among others.  However, the ACL had more of the freight business.  After the formation of Amtrak in 1976 the passenger trains started to be moved from the old SAL line to the ex-ACL line. IIRC the rational for lifting the SAL between Richmond and Norlina was that at that time the line had little traffic other than the passenger trains, and they were going to be moved to the ex-ACL.

More problems occurred when CSX lifted the second track on the ACL line, but again traffic was low at that time and hindsight is 20/20.

 

 

  

[MichaelSol]

Rail life is directly related to millions of gross tons (MGT) and axle loadings.  

In the broad scheme of things, this is a minor detail, but the "straight mileage pro-rate" method of determining rail life has been abandoned by the industry.

 

[nanaimo73]

Ed, you certainly ask a lot of interesting questions.

Did the ex Seaboard (SAL) have worse gradiants than the ACL line?   Is that the reason for the severing of the line?  When was this done? 

Amtrak used the Raleigh - Petersburg line until October 1986.

CSX did the same with the old B&O line thru Ohio (St Louis line).  I dont know how feasible it would have been to have run trains on that line, but once a line is gone, it is difficult to bring it back.

I'd say CSX's main weakness is that they have too many mainlines, as opposed to a concentrated route system like NS enjoys. Would yet another mainline, between St. Louis and the east coast, really help them? I don't think it would add much in the way of online traffic.

Some of the recent Map of the Months pertain to this subject. Multiple track lines 1950 (June 2006), Multiple track lines 2005 (Jan 2006) and Mainline Tonnage 1980 / 2005 (Feb 2007).

[MP173]

Did the ex Seaboard (SAL) have worse gradiants than the ACL line?   Is that the reason for the severing of the line?  When was this done?  Why was the SAL run as far north as it was? 

What kind of train volume is there thru Hamlet?  Is it balanced between intermodal and loose car freight?

CSX did the same with the old B&O line thru Ohio (St Louis line).  I dont know how feasible it would have been to have run trains on that line, but once a line is gone, it is difficult to bring it back.

It is easy to look back at the old maps and say "they should have done_____".  At the time most of this was done in the 80's was the time of massive consolidation in the industry with duplicate routes and very weak finances and balance sheets.  Consider CSX's struggles now with the Childrens Fund (hedge fund) and pressures they have.  There is always pressure to maximize return to investors and that drives nearly all decisions made on the system wide level.

ed

[CSXDixieLine]

RWM, Just to let you know in your response above you answered numerous questions I have had regarding controlled vs. signalled sidings. Thanks!

As for a previous poster inquiring about CSX regretting the severing of the old Seaboard main between Norlina, NC and Richmond, VA, I know that they are suffering serious congestion getting trains in and out of the Hamlet, NC terminal because of this. Now all northbound traffic has to use the Wilmington line eastbound to get to the old ACL main where they can turn north. From what I understand, the congestion on this short stretch of the Wilmington line really mucks up the operations at Hamlet. Of course there is a nice main going north out of there, but only as far as Raleigh. I have seen a few proposals to rebuild the old SAL main north of Norlina with improvements to allow for high-speed passenger service as well. Will be interesting to see how this situation evolves. Would be a whole lot of $$$ involved.

Jamie

[MP173]

RWM:

Thank you for the explanation.  I was wrong about the siding restrictions (sort of).  If you go back to the post which listed the siding lengths, I have edited to include the turnout and siding speeds.  North of Champaign, nearly all are 40/40.  Between Champaign and Centralia most are 25/25.

Your explanation of the signal aspects and braking distances are very much appreciated.  Looking at the ETT and Rules it starts to make a little sense.  The hard yellow, flashing yellow really makes sense now, as CN lists the "diverging advance approach" indication as "...prepared to stop at 2nd signal" while "diverging approach" is "...prepared to stop at 2nd signal".

BTW...this makes sense on a call out I heard last night on the NS NKP line of "advance approach out of the siding".  I had never heard that and after wondering about it, figured I had mistaken the call out.

So, getting back to the IC/CN...they have established a turnout speed and a siding speed for each siding.  Does this mean that in most instances there are no intermediate signals? or is there simply not enough information available to process? 

In the case of the Effingham siding, the main track has speeds of 40 mph with the siding speed of 25mph (freight only, passenger at 60 mph on main).  So, does this mean there is no need for an intermediate signal here as all speeds are at 25mph?  The 15mph differential means that the 3.5 mile siding will consume an roughly an extra 5 minutes at the posted speed. 

Does that extra 5 minutes, assuming the train doesnt stop at the end signal, make that much of a difference?  It doesnt seem like it to me, when chance are this will not be a running meet.

So, the next question is...why the 40mph north of Champaign and the 25 mph south of Champaign for siding speeds?  What could be logical reasons for the differences? Would the fact that getting into and out of Chicago is usually very time consuming and the need for speed in order to avoid HOS regulations?  Just wondering as the distance from Markham to Champaign is only about 100 miles.

I can see how the signal/track system would be very interesting to work on based on the types of trains (speed variances), tonnage, MOW requirements, number of trains, and scheduling.

Hope these comments and questions make sense...sort of like partially understanding algebra, it is a bit fuzzy at times and a bit clear - sorta dangerous in the field, but safe at home.

ed

[chuck842]

it goes to show hindsight is 20/20...i grew up near the conrail main in palmer and in the mid 1980's they single tracked the line between boston and albany to save money on maintenance. irnonically they did this as they started to generate more traffic. i think it really bit them in the *** flow-wise. and now you have lovely cracker -s-x ,who after ten yrs. of controlling this part of conrail ,have finally put a bit o money into maintenance........penny wise-----pound foolish...you have to spend money to make it.

[Engine39LIRR]

So it came to be that the railroads had a choice to make... rip out all the lines and underused freight lines. Why? we were told, that to keep them, we will have to pay taxes on them. So we said !. Lets take out the ones we really dont need. And so they did. This happened all over the country. Now with railroads scrambiling to build more, extend more, reopen unused lines, if they can. It's a wonder that railroads continue to move anything. It is a shame that most abandonments will never see another track laid on it. They could be so useful now. Many businesses want a frieght siding but when told of the expense, most choose not too. Almost a miilion dollars for a switch to be installed here on Long Island. Then we have the NIMBY's....they whine the loudest about not wanting rails near the houses they live on or less traffic on the existing ones. BUT....around here when they cant drive the car more than a mile in rush hour traffic in under 20 minuets, they whine even louder. Last but not least let us not forget good old american politics.....We here on Long Island have sidings that could be used...and then told by The Towns or Countys they cant use them. Or they wont let them build one. I cant wait to see what happens when the LIRR finally gets the funding to build the triple track they sorley need. It should be a costly and very time consuming show