Ed, I have never heard anyone mention double-stack dynamics and stick rail being a poor combination, moreso than covered hoppers or a bulk train. The issue more to the point is low joints and soft subgrade, and a well-maintained line doesn't have low joints and soft subgrade. There are many lines out there that have had a tremendous tonnage of double-stacks on some very old stick rail -- the TP comes to mind between 1997 and 2002 -- and there was no big issue about it.
RWM
jeaton Carl has hit on some good needs. While my trip on Amtrak between Chicago and DC last week was on the advertised, that was due in a large part to the obvious reduction of traffic on the west end of NS's Chicago line. My two trips earlier in the year had us snaking around trains coming and going in that area and I have seen it identified as one of the most congested pieces of mainline in the country.
Carl has hit on some good needs. While my trip on Amtrak between Chicago and DC last week was on the advertised, that was due in a large part to the obvious reduction of traffic on the west end of NS's Chicago line. My two trips earlier in the year had us snaking around trains coming and going in that area and I have seen it identified as one of the most congested pieces of mainline in the country.
I think a lot of people blow a 10% drop in traffic out of proportion. This doesn't even necessarily mean fewer trains! And this segment might not even be affected that much. Does anyone know for sure? Some people say that they see 1/3 less trains on their local lines, but traffic is only down around 10%.... If this NS segment runs 100 trains per day, that would only mean 90 trains now, theoretically. Thats not that obvious. I don't even think they've lost that many trains through here. I doubt coal traffic has ever been higher. I'm just saying that even though it may have seemed like you saw fewer trains, it doesnt necessarily mean traffic is down that much. Couldn't there be other factors at play?
Kevin C. Smith Call me a curmudgeon but, IIRC, didn't the Pennsy build the tunnels with a capacity of 72 trains per hour? As Trains "Professional Iconoclast" once said in reply to doubts about that number, "They may have had them stacked up halfway to Montauk, but I saw it".
Hey Kevin, I have to concede that you were right on this:
"The combination of reverse signalling on both tracks and the speed and acceleration of the DD1's permitted the Pennsylvania to handle as many as 144 train movements an hour on the double-track line under the Hudson to Manhattan Transfer." [emphasis added - PDN]
From "WHEN THE STEAM RAILROADS ELECTRIFIED" by William D. Middleton, Kalmbach Publishing Co., copyright 1974, 2nd printing 1976, pg. 130, col. 1 (top left, 1st para.).
Note that this was for 850 to 1,000 ton trains, with 3rd rail power. I haven't seen anything else for the GG1's or catenary power. I also looked in Middleton's more recent Landmarks of the Iron Road - but nothing on this point there.
I still wouldn't trust it, though, on a sustained basis, for safe operation with modern trains on the 1.93 % tunnel grades. It's kind of like how many people can you cram into a Volkswagen "beetle" - sure, you can do it, but is it practical ? I wonder if anyone else on the forum with practical experience will comment on this aspect, too ?
The Kneiling quote - didn't he also say something like "They were lined up like streetcars at Times Square ?"
Good discussion - thanks for bringing this up and challenging me on it. Plus, not many others appreciate the wisdom of JGK !
- Paul North.
t.winx jeaton Carl has hit on some good needs. While my trip on Amtrak between Chicago and DC last week was on the advertised, that was due in a large part to the obvious reduction of traffic on the west end of NS's Chicago line. My two trips earlier in the year had us snaking around trains coming and going in that area and I have seen it identified as one of the most congested pieces of mainline in the country. I think a lot of people blow a 10% drop in traffic out of proportion. This doesn't even necessarily mean fewer trains! And this segment might not even be affected that much. Does anyone know for sure? Some people say that they see 1/3 less trains on their local lines, but traffic is only down around 10%.... If this NS segment runs 100 trains per day, that would only mean 90 trains now, theoretically. Thats not that obvious. I don't even think they've lost that many trains through here. I doubt coal traffic has ever been higher. I'm just saying that even though it may have seemed like you saw fewer trains, it doesnt necessarily mean traffic is down that much. Couldn't there be other factors at play?
While my quoted post was based on anecdotal observations, I did a further check of Amtrak On-Time Performance reports. Amtrak trains operating over the NS Chicago Line West End reported significantly improvements in November, 2008 as compared to the last 12 months. My other ride was on the California Zephyr and November, 2008 OTP was 66.7% compared to 26.9 for the last 12 months. Heavy summertime MOW work may have contributed to the 12 month OTP record, but I still am of the opinion that reduced traffic levels are a factor.
The 10% decline in car loadings (a little less for intermodal) is the nationwide record, but the record for any line segment is going to be dependent on the traffic mix. It should be no surprise that the automobile and related transportation equipment loads are down by 20%. Where that business and other commodity groups make up a larger than average proportion of the traffic mix on a given line, train starts or at least train lengths are probably going to be down by more than 10%.
I suspect that there may also be situations on a line with heavy traffic or a very busy yard where the difference of just a few trains more or less will make the difference between a fluid operation and a condition where things get very bogged down.
"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
Paul_D_North_JrI still wouldn't trust it, though, on a sustained basis, for safe operation with modern trains on the 1.93 % tunnel grades. It's kind of like how many people can you cram into a Volkswagen "beetle" - sure, you can do it, but is it practical ? I wonder if anyone else on the forum with practical experience will comment on this aspect, too ? - Paul North.
The "up to" caveat is the giveaway. It's like me saying, "I can drink up a 1/2 bottle of Patron Silver tequila and 12 bottles of Negro Modelo in 90 minutes." (I really did do that ... once.) But someday you actually have to also maintain the railroad, and every so often something breaks down mechanically, and there goes your 144-trains-per-hour record. It's the absolute upper end of the theoretical limit not the practical limit. That's assuming the number is even believable and I am having trouble wrapping my head around it. (And that Patron Silver "incident" is not the cause, either!) I think I will drop Bill an e-mail and ask him about it.
Paul_D_North_Jr "The combination of reverse signalling on both tracks and the speed and acceleration of the DD1's permitted the Pennsylvania to handle as many as 144 train movements an hour on the double-track line under the Hudson to Manhattan Transfer." [emphasis added - PDN] From "WHEN THE STEAM RAILROADS ELECTRIFIED" by William D. Middleton, Kalmbach Publishing Co., copyright 1974, 2nd printing 1976, pg. 130, col. 1 (top left, 1st para.). Note that this was for 850 to 1,000 ton trains, with 3rd rail power. I haven't seen anything else for the GG1's or catenary power. I also looked in Middleton's more recent Landmarks of the Iron Road - but nothing on this point there. I still wouldn't trust it, though, on a sustained basis, for safe operation with modern trains on the 1.93 % tunnel grades. It's kind of like how many people can you cram into a Volkswagen "beetle" - sure, you can do it, but is it practical ? I wonder if anyone else on the forum with practical experience will comment on this aspect, too ?
Railway Man The "up to" caveat is the giveaway. It's like me saying, "I can drink up a 1/2 bottle of Patron Silver tequila and 12 bottles of Negro Modelo in 90 minutes." (I really did do that ... once.) But someday you actually have to also maintain the railroad, and every so often something breaks down mechanically, and there goes your 144-trains-per-hour record. It's the absolute upper end of the theoretical limit not the practical limit. That's assuming the number is even believable and I am having trouble wrapping my head around it. (And that Patron Silver "incident" is not the cause, either!) I think I will drop Bill an e-mail and ask him about it. RWM
Aww, I read the previous posts, went to my pile of books, rummaged around for some information-only to find out you two already beat me to it! Well, not to let a dead horse go unflogged...I paged through "Penn Station, It's Tunnels and Side Rodders", the first part of which is a reprint of PRR's commemorative book describing the construction of the Pennsy's New York Extension. Surely the 72 trains/direction/hour figure would be in there? Nope, haven't found it. But, a curious number did bob up. The maximum daily capacity of the station, based on hourly capacity, is listed as 1,160 trains/day. Divide that out and you either get a station only open 8 hours per day or a capacity of 48 1/3 trains (total both ways)/hour. Maybe the 144 was, indeed, someone's "slide rule" calculation, not the Operating Department's. Ah, quibbling about minutae-that's what this hobby is all about!
As long as the book is open, to confirm your memory: Platform lengths- 4 @ 900, 4 @ 1,050 and 2 @ 1,000.
Oh, and RWM...any more details on that Patron Silver story?
Hey, if sports fans get to quibble about statistics, why can't we ? I'm sure this business has just as many - probably more !
Anyway, thanks for that, and also to RWM for providing his insight. You guys have a great (pre-holiday) weekend.
I would suggest this as an interesting possibility for KCS in their push for capacity to get to Mexico. Starting in the Ft Worth Texas area..
Aquire rights over, or purchase, the FWWRR (Ft Worth and Western RR).
Then acquire rights over or purchase the South Orient Railroad CompaNY,Ltd.
That gets one to Ft Stockton Tx.on the KSC to Laredo,Tx, and into Mexico on KCS home rails.
Or the harder route is the recreation of the Kansas City, Mexico and Orient Railroad.
Without question it has to be these two corridors where capacity expansion is needed in the form of Public/Private Partnerships:
(1) UP's (ex-CNW) "Overland Route" mainline between Proviso and Denison (Denison to Mo Valley could use CN's mainline as a paired track arrangement) and from Fremont to Gibbon PROVIDED that UP abandons its anti-Amtrak stance and agrees to host Amtrak between Chicaago and Omaha where it freaking BELONGS.
(2) The BNSF/UP "Joint Line" mainline between Denver and Pueblo. This one is a no-brainer for a variety of reasons.
Here are a few that are sorely needed.
1) BNSF Transcon--UP Sunset Route crossing near West Colton, CA. This crossing is a perpetual bottleneck and sorely needs to be grade separated.
2) Tower 55, Ft. Worth, TX. Another candidate for grade separation. Someone needs to grade-separate the east-west lines from the north-south lines.
3) Houston terminal district, Texas. Grade separate three or four lines that cross at grade, on the model of Chicago's CREATE, which would speed up traffic through that sometimes inpenetrable maze.
4) Chicago's CREATE. Expedite it!
5) NEC, Newark, NJ--New York Penn Station. Add at least one more track, preferably two.
Finally, a hokey idea...
6) Create a second Midwest regional passenger hub aound Columbus, OH. Network fingers could stretch to (in no particular order) Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Louisville, Dayton, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. Location more centralized than Chicago's, more population centers close by.than Chicago. Mostly flat, few hills, ideal for high speed network.
My two bits...
The NS wish list would include things like (in roughly this order - some mentioned before - not including Heartland corridor, which is almost done):
1. CREATE
2, A way thru or around Cincinnati
3. A way thru or around Atlanta
4. Some more track between Atlanta and Chattanooga.
5. Some more track between Atlanta and Meridian
6. A decent way to get from River Jct (Front Royal) to the Southern mainline.
7. Amtrak to provide their own track from Porter west to CP518.
8. Some more track on the Newcastle District (Cincy to Ft. Wayne)
9. Some more track on the west end of the old Wabash
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There's not been that drastic a reduction in train volume on the Chicago Line. What's improved the Amtrak performance out there is that mgt got REALLY, REALLY serious about trying to get the Amtrak trains over the line starting in the early fall. The Capitol and LSL have done really well the past couple of months as a result. The Wolverines are still trouble. Not much slack and there is stil too much congestion west of Porter.
oltmannd There's not been that drastic a reduction in train volume on the Chicago Line. What's improved the Amtrak performance out there is that mgt got REALLY, REALLY serious about trying to get the Amtrak trains over the line starting in the early fall. The Capitol and LSL have done really well the past couple of months as a result. The Wolverines are still trouble. Not much slack and there is stil too much congestion west of Porter.
I wasn't suggesting that the place was devoid of those nasty old freight trains, but even a few less trains, and perhaps some that are shorter, help make the Amtrak OTP goals somewhat more doable.
No doubt a third track over the entire segment would be nice, but I suspect that the prospect for such is pretty slim. One assumes that somewhere in the organization there is a wish list for a piece here, a crossover there, all of which could make justifiable improvements in the flow-not just for Amtrak OTP.
I agree that the biggest need is greater throughput at terminals, and also at crew change locations.
The time gained by runnming 70 mph is often lost with painfully slow crew changes and/or yarding of trains, or in the queue to get into said places.
Other bottlenecks:
Chicago. Someone said no through traffic goes there. I beg to differ. At least half, and probably more, of the traffic dragging through Chicago is through traffic. CREATE will make a difference, if it ever gets off the ground.
The St. Louis gateway needs a flyover at Grand Avenue, where UP and BNSF spend eternities waiting on each other. Also better, faster river crossing(s). The same could be said for Memphis.
Tower 55 in Ft. Worth is a HUGE bottleneck. It's a grade level multi-track, multi-railroad junction that devours trains.
Same for the Colton, CA crossing of UP and BNSF.
The Joint Line (Denver-Pueblo0 badly needs upgrading. Very little of it is CTC; it's full of stiff grades and sharp curves.
Find ways around cities.
Don:Is the Newcastle between Cincy and Ft Wayne getting congested? Or is it the terminal situations in both locations? I can imagine Cincy would be a big problem. Quite a bit of the Ft Wayne traffic swings west to Chicago. Is that a problem or is it the Detroit and Bellevue traffic which slows down?
Don, do you know anything about NS trackage rights on the CF&E between Hobart and Ft Wayne? Right now NS is running the 25A on the line frequently but I cant seem to see or hear anything else. The word is trackage rights exists for up to 4 trains daily. It sure is good to see trains on the line during the day.
ed
ED NS was running trackage rights train before FRA inspect. know the steel turn plus a unit grain was on line. The Trackage rights agreement go back to when CSX sold line to Rail America(CF&E). was a very important part of sell.
Allen
Railway Man Ed, I have never heard anyone mention double-stack dynamics and stick rail being a poor combination, moreso than covered hoppers or a bulk train. The issue more to the point is low joints and soft subgrade, and a well-maintained line doesn't have low joints and soft subgrade. There are many lines out there that have had a tremendous tonnage of double-stacks on some very old stick rail -- the TP comes to mind between 1997 and 2002 -- and there was no big issue about it. RWM
The issue with jointed rail with stack trains and jointed rail in curves was solved long ago (Early 90's poor lubrication on truck center plates and kingpins causing articulated cars to "stick"/ not articulate.)
The joints failed because the excessive L/V forces with the stuck trucks/ poor lubrication broke the joint bars first or rolled-over the rail second. The weakest failed first (usually the angle bars)...
The Joint Line is OK - They either need to upgrade the dispatchers or quit overloading them with huge territories. They have proven that they can run more trains than they do now. The Crews-Palmer Lake bottleneck in the middle is not going away anytime soon and the Colorado Springs/ El Paso County politicians that welched on the original 1975-78 doubletracking of the DRGW deal are long gone.
May not be in the league of CREATE or NS's problems in Indiana, but I'm guessing CSX would sure like to have today the double track between Richmond and Jacksonville that ACL once had. From what I understand, both Amtrak and CSX's freights experienced major delays on that stretch, at least before traffic declined recently.
A route that may be considered is the I-81 route only extended much further. Harrisburg - Roanoke - Bristol - Morristown, Tn., Knoxville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Dallas - Ft. Worth. February's Trains magazine talked about Lincoln and how the North built a lot of east - west routes and the south relied on the waterways more and did not engineer their routes as well. This route would give a very important alternate to the Midwest routes that were so severly flooded last 2008 spring and summer.
Now for the nuts and bolts. The old Harrisburg PRR and N&W route has been well documented as to what is needed to upgrade this part of the route. Less has been said about the Bristol - Morristown route that is slow, curvy, street running in Johnson City and right through Jonesboro, Tn on a hill and Greenville Tn. Once past Bulls gap old 2 track mainly straight ROW to Knoxville. This route was 128 RR miles now 105 miles on I-81, I-40. Scheduled SOU RR passenger time Bristol - Knoxville was 4:10 with 5 or 6 stops. This gives some idea of the agonizing ROW. Once going into Knoxville fairly straight forward except for bridges and around the mountains in Chatanooga all the way to Memphis. The Knoxville - Nashville - Memphis route could be considered but Knoxville - Nashville never has had a good route (old Tennessee Central (TC)] because of mountains (Cumberland river in that area looks like a snake) and would probably take many tunnels and bridges to make a high speed route, Cross the Mississippi and the old CRI&P ROW into Dallas.
Expensive? Very. Jobs, lots of construction jobs?. You bet. A great alternate route for a shutdown of midwest? Yes. Take trucks off highway ? Yes I-81; I-40 always loaded with trucks even now (Jan 2009). Ancillary benefits? Yes will give NS a better route and it can use parts of the route for outher routings. Also give a new route from Memphis to DFW for boh BNSF and UP.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.