Railway Man wrote: Very few double-track lines or sidings were built on less than 14' track centers, which provides plenty of clearance for almost every standard car built (few cars are wider than 10'8"). The wider track centers are desirable for maintenance reasons, not clearance reasons. 15' track centers are standard today between tracks. RWM
Very few double-track lines or sidings were built on less than 14' track centers, which provides plenty of clearance for almost every standard car built (few cars are wider than 10'8"). The wider track centers are desirable for maintenance reasons, not clearance reasons. 15' track centers are standard today between tracks. RWM
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
MP173 wrote: 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.ed
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.
ed
The lack of intermediate signals on sidings has no effect on maximum authorized speed on the siding except in two cases -- one, where there is inability to display a sufficient number of aspects in advance of the leaving signal, and the other where there are side tracks off the siding that are not equipped with leaving signals or electric locks, where a train may leave the main track (e.g., a local disappearing up a spur to switch an industry, or a work train tieing up for the night). In the latter case the maximum authorized speed on the siding is 30 mph (with no intermediate signals) and 20 mph (with intermediate signals).
The next problem is the speed over the turnouts on each end. If it's a #15, it's only good for 30 mph, so there's not much point in trying to get faster speeds onto the siding unless the siding is on the order of 25,000 feet long or more. With #20 long-point turnouts, the maximum speed jumps to 45, and now it's valuable to try and get better speeds on the siding.
The next problem then becomes whether the signal system is arranged to give aspects that enable this kind of speed over the turnouts. Suppose in a simple 4-aspect route-signaled system with constant-lit signals and no intermediate signals between the siding switches, two trains are approaching the switchpoint ends of one of these long sidings. At that moment the leaving signals of the sidings are both red, and one has a red over yellow to enter the siding and the other a yellow over red to hold the main. The 45-mph turnout speed of the #20 has provided almost no value over a #15 turnout. However if there are intermediate signals, then the entering signals are both flashing yellows and now the 45-mph turnout is doing some good. This assumes of course that the siding is long enough to get sufficient braking distance between the signals -- if the siding is on a grade, in the downhilll direction the intermediate signal may have to be moved so far toward the uphill end for there to be enough braking distance from it to the red signal beyond that the entering signal to the siding can also display nothing more favorable than hard yellow.
Looking at the length of the sidings in the table you very nicely provided (thanks!) I can run some quick braking calculations. For illustration let's say that the maximum speed allowable when a train reaches a yellow signal is 30 mph, and 55 mph for a flashing yellow. (Important note! These speeds vary between railroads -- I am not using any one railroad's specific speeds.) On 0.0% grade, the minimum safe distance from 30 mph to 0 mph is approximately 2,800 feet, and from 55 mph to 30 it is 7,800 feet. Thus on a perfectly flat railroad we need to have a siding 10,600 feet long to justify an intermediate signal. On a 0.3% descending grade, which is what you might reasonably expect to find on a "flat" railroad, the distances jump to 4,600 and 9,100 feet respectively, or the siding would need to be 13,700 feet long to justify an intermediate signal.
From this you can see there are very few opportunities to place intermediate signals between siding switches even on a relatively pancake-flat railroad until the sidings get up toward 15,000 feet or longer. And then you have to put in the expensive #20 turnouts (lots of extra maintenance money) and maintain the track in the siding at FRA Class IV or better instead of FRA Class III or better, which is a lot of extra money for ties and surfacing. The cost of the intermediate signals is only about $200K.
RWM
Deggesty wrote: Back to the IC/CN--the Mississippi Central line through Grenada never had heavy freight traffic, but did have the passenger traffic until a few years ago, and it had ABS control. The line through the Delta (primarily Yazoo and Mississippi Valley) had the through freights, and was operated under train order and timetable rules until comparatively recently when CTC was installed.
Back to the IC/CN--the Mississippi Central line through Grenada never had heavy freight traffic, but did have the passenger traffic until a few years ago, and it had ABS control. The line through the Delta (primarily Yazoo and Mississippi Valley) had the through freights, and was operated under train order and timetable rules until comparatively recently when CTC was installed.
Actually both lines were timetable and train-order -- ABS is not a control system, it's an overlay on timetable and train-order (then) and TWC or DTC (now). The ABS only advises of track conditions ahead; it does not grant authority to trains as CTC does. The authority comes from the timetable or trainorder, the track warrant, or the DTC authority.
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.
Rail life is directly related to millions of gross tons (MGT) and axle loadings. A fairly small number of carloads with significantly higher than average axle loadings can have outsize effects compared to the general effects of the MGT. Railroads that tried 315K cars back in the 1970s ran into serious rail MGT-lifespan reduction compared to the expected MGT-lifespan with the 263K cars that were then standard. Rail metallurgy has improved since then and 315K is now feasible so long as the rail manufacturing, inspection, and maintenance program to allow for this is put into force.
There's very little of the life of the rail not related to MGT. Wood ties, surface and line, and ballast deteriorate as both a factor of MGT as well as drainage and climate. Bridges that are single-tracked may gain substantially longer life before repairs are required as the maximum weight on them at one time (two trains at once) is halved. Or, if there are two parallel single-track bridges, one of the bridges can be retired. In sum, the cost savings on single track vs. double primarily is due to the halving the amount of financial exposure to the effects of climate and drainage.
Property tax reduction would only apply if the taxing body is measuring track miles as opposed to route miles or land acreage, neither of which are reduced by removing a second or third main track. The factor that is assessed varies with the taxing entity and there is no uniformity between U.S. states.
Back to the Southern Washington-Atlanta main--About half of the second track was taken up in the sixties, well after WWII. Also, in the late sixties, the Cincinnati-Harriman Junction line received the same treatment. These were the two extensive lines that had double track.
I noticed, in another comment, mention of the Atlantic Coast Line reduction. Now, CSX is considering triple track in many areas. I wonder if this road will regret having severed the Seaboard Airline between Raleigh and Petersburg. Perhaps there should be a reincarnation of Champion Davis to run the road.
Back to the IC/CN--the Mississippi Central line through Grenada never had heavy freight traffic, but did have the passenger traffic until a few years ago, and it had ABS control. The line through the Delta (primarily Yazoo and Mississippi Valley) had the through freights, and was operated under train order and timetable rules until comparatively recently when CTC was installed. Thus, the IC had two single-track main lines from Memphis to North Jackson. I have no idea as to how much freight traffic there is now; the Delta line has, of course the Chicago-New Orleans passenger train.
Johnny
Many older double track lines were narrow between the outside rails, not good with todays wider loads. Sometimes l think maybe it's better to remove the second track and then build a "state of the art" second track when traffic permits. lt may be a tuff call.
Very few double-track lines or sidings were built on less than 14' track centers, which provides plenty of clearance for almost every standard car built (few cars are wider than 10'8"). The wider track centers are desirable for maintenance reasons, not clearance reasons. 15' track centers are standard today between tracks. 20' centers is the minimum to place mast-type signals between the track (it used to be 18'). 25' is the minimum to not have to place a Form B on both tracks at once.
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.
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
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
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.
"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
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.
edit: Note that I have placed the turnout speeds and siding speeds as indicated in ETT#3 dated June 2, 2002.
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.
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.
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.
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/)
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.
Jeff
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
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
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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
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,
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
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.
Jamie
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
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.