Was getting rid of "multiple trackage" really justified?

[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

[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.   

[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.

[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.  

[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.  

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