I was glad to hear Virginia was supportive of the project since almost all of the "S" line rebuild would be in VA. However, adding a third track north of Richmond seems to be VA's main priority.
The Shotgun KingI gotta say that I would like to see the old ex-SAL Mainline from Norlina-Petersburg open again. But I do think that there's hope for it, I've heard rumors about CSX and NCDOT reopening it to run passenger traffic and freight through; I hope that's the case.
This is moving closer to reality. Up until recently it had been planned as "high speed" (110 mph) with complete grade separation from Raleigh to Petersburg/Richmond. But with an estimated cost of $4 billion, NCDOT and VDOT is looking to just get the line restored first.
Southeast Corridor
Southeast High Speed Rail (Raleigh to Richmond) Tier II Study (NCDOT website)
Southeast Corridor rail milestone advances prospects for faster trains ([Raleigh] News & Observer article)
The PRR panhandle from Pittsburgh to Columbus and the PRR main from Columbus to Chicago. It would have let Buckeye be what Bellevue is trying to be. Bellevue just isn't "well connected". Buckeye was (is?)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
D.Carleton Steering back toward topic and having recently finished H. Roger Grant's Rails Through the Wiregrass (required reading for the southern railfan), how would an intact Georgia & Florida Railroad fit into today's NS network? Northeast to Florida traffic has to travel via Atlanta. The G&F could have provided a shortcut by turning south at Charlotte and running through Augusta to Valdosta. When the Southern acquired the G&F in 1963 it was in rough shape and viewed as a "big run-down shortline." Following the NS merger the G&F was largely abandoned. The G&F would have needed a complete rebuilding from the sub-base up to handle today's freight load. Yet had it been left, would it be a suitable relief valve for today's north-south traffic?
Steering back toward topic and having recently finished H. Roger Grant's Rails Through the Wiregrass (required reading for the southern railfan), how would an intact Georgia & Florida Railroad fit into today's NS network? Northeast to Florida traffic has to travel via Atlanta. The G&F could have provided a shortcut by turning south at Charlotte and running through Augusta to Valdosta. When the Southern acquired the G&F in 1963 it was in rough shape and viewed as a "big run-down shortline." Following the NS merger the G&F was largely abandoned. The G&F would have needed a complete rebuilding from the sub-base up to handle today's freight load. Yet had it been left, would it be a suitable relief valve for today's north-south traffic?
Interesting idea. IIRC, the book pretty much said Mr. Brosnan only bought the G&F to keep it out of ACL's hands, not because it filled a vital gap in Southern's system. That said, its usefulness would depend on how much Florida-bound traffic could avoid the extra miles to go southwest to Atlanta, south to Macon, and further south to Valdosta, and how crowded the Charlotte-Atlanta-Macon route is now. I can't imagine that the Macon-Valdosta route suffers from congestion. Personally, I'd like to see the G&F resurrected; mind you, I'm not saying that it would make economic sense, just that I'd like to see it.
Bruce Kelly Contrary to the comment a few posts above, bike trails and railroads DO coexist, at least in my neck of the woods. On the outskirts of Spokane, WA, the Fish Lake Trail runs next to, between, and beneath active BNSF and UP main lines. The north trail segment, using former UP/MILW right of way, runs from Scribner north to a new trailhead situated almost beneath the point where the Latah Creek Bridge splits into a Y shape. It passes under active BNSF track at three points, and is sandwiched tightly between active BNSF tracks through the town of Marshall, though on slightly different elevations. The south trail segment has a trailhead at Fish Lake where the parking lot and picnic tables are only about 10 feet from the ballast of UP's Ayer Sub. From there, the trail runs south on former BN (SP&S) right of way to South Cheney, passing under BNSF and UP track along the way, and situated only a few feet from UP much of the way. Most of this trail/rail intermingling takes place in remote, wooded canyon country. Connecting the two halves of the trail will require a new bike trail underpass/overpass about two miles north of Fish Lake, between UP Jct. and Lakeside Jct.
Contrary to the comment a few posts above, bike trails and railroads DO coexist, at least in my neck of the woods. On the outskirts of Spokane, WA, the Fish Lake Trail runs next to, between, and beneath active BNSF and UP main lines. The north trail segment, using former UP/MILW right of way, runs from Scribner north to a new trailhead situated almost beneath the point where the Latah Creek Bridge splits into a Y shape. It passes under active BNSF track at three points, and is sandwiched tightly between active BNSF tracks through the town of Marshall, though on slightly different elevations. The south trail segment has a trailhead at Fish Lake where the parking lot and picnic tables are only about 10 feet from the ballast of UP's Ayer Sub. From there, the trail runs south on former BN (SP&S) right of way to South Cheney, passing under BNSF and UP track along the way, and situated only a few feet from UP much of the way. Most of this trail/rail intermingling takes place in remote, wooded canyon country. Connecting the two halves of the trail will require a new bike trail underpass/overpass about two miles north of Fish Lake, between UP Jct. and Lakeside Jct.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Salfan -- You're right . . . ionsofar as 'heavy' rail is concerned, but I'm talking about light rail - as in establishing a commuter service to this heavily suburbanized corridor. Besides continuing straight into the DC area it could also branch off to the Dulles Airport area where there are many employment centers and, it could link with the METRO which is being built out to Dulles. A win-win in so many ways.
SALfanWhat is NS doing with West Tennessee RR and CN? Where is WTRR? Is CN the former IC? Thanks for the info.
NS is funding track upgrades on WTNN between Fulton, KY and Corinth, MS to handle new overhead traffic as part of the Mid America Corridor Initiative with CN (ex-IC).
http://0339.utu.org/UTU_Web/Default.aspx?PageID=1034
http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/CN_NS.pdf
Regarding the TP&W. Didn't the TP&W actually build what became the PRR from Logansport to Marion, OH?
When ATSF was exploring a takeover of EL, they also controlled TP&W. What might exist today from an ATSF/EL merger with the TP&W being used as a Chicago bypass route running from Marion to Galesburg?
ATSF/EL would control the intermodal market between NY and the Northeast and the West Coast, because no other interline combination could match their timetable that avoided the terminal delays of Chicago. I could see the only westbound traffic off the EL going to Chicago being for the possible third merger partner MILW as it headed to Pacific Northwest destinations.
PRR served Marion, Ohio on its Columbus-Sandusky line, not from Logansport. If AT&SF could have acquired EL, it would have made things interesting for sure. But there was no link between TP&W and EL, so AT&SF-EL traffic would have been routed via Chicago.
bn13814 I was thinking along the lines of what NS is doing with the West Tennessee Railroad and haulage rights on CN to create a short cut between Illinois and the deep south.
I was thinking along the lines of what NS is doing with the West Tennessee Railroad and haulage rights on CN to create a short cut between Illinois and the deep south.
What is NS doing with West Tennessee RR and CN? Where is WTRR? Is CN the former IC? Thanks for the info.
Did not know about the ATSF-CSX experiment of the early 1990's.
It was an experiment. I think TP&W handled a few five-unit double stack cars before parties decided not to continue. I can't remember the reason.
The distance between just Peoria and Logansport is about 170 miles. A rehab to Class 3 would come close to 9 digits. If the right "deal" could be reached, i.e. tax breaks, it could be possible. Because it crosses two states then not likely.
I was thinking along the lines of what NS is doing with the West Tennessee Railroad and haulage rights on CN to create a short cut between Illinois and the deep south. BNSF could obtain (pending STB approval) haulage rights on TP&W between East Peoria and Logansport and fund track upgades to Class 3 standards (40mph). This would allow BNSF to avoid "short-hauling" itself. Obviously, Return-On-Investment would be required. I don't see it happening in the near future though.
bn13814 This idea has come up a lot since TP&W regained its independence from AT&SF in 1989. I know of some attempts to revive the line as a bridge route for intermodal traffic - an experimental Los Angeles-Atlanta double stack service routed ATSF-(Ft. Madison)-TPW-(Watseka)-CSXT c. 1991 being one. Plans for an offline ATSF terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio prior to the BNSF merger was another (would've involved shortlines like CIND and CERA, and Conrail trackage rights). TP&W even handled a lot of the BNSF-NS Peoria interchange traffic between Galesburg and Peoria in the late 1990s. Although it acted as a haulage agent for BNSF, such could be considered "bridge traffic. Problem with the TP&W is that it doesn't make an efficient bypass - 25mph maximum speeds, some 10mph restrictions and numerous at-grade crossings. That could change if Class I's like BNSF and NS made a deal with future owner G&W to fund upgrades and divert daily merchandise trains, say between Galesburg and Bellevue, Ohio. Could it happen in the near future? Certainly. Do I believe it will? Not really.
This idea has come up a lot since TP&W regained its independence from AT&SF in 1989. I know of some attempts to revive the line as a bridge route for intermodal traffic - an experimental Los Angeles-Atlanta double stack service routed ATSF-(Ft. Madison)-TPW-(Watseka)-CSXT c. 1991 being one. Plans for an offline ATSF terminal at Cincinnati, Ohio prior to the BNSF merger was another (would've involved shortlines like CIND and CERA, and Conrail trackage rights). TP&W even handled a lot of the BNSF-NS Peoria interchange traffic between Galesburg and Peoria in the late 1990s. Although it acted as a haulage agent for BNSF, such could be considered "bridge traffic.
Problem with the TP&W is that it doesn't make an efficient bypass - 25mph maximum speeds, some 10mph restrictions and numerous at-grade crossings. That could change if Class I's like BNSF and NS made a deal with future owner G&W to fund upgrades and divert daily merchandise trains, say between Galesburg and Bellevue, Ohio. Could it happen in the near future? Certainly. Do I believe it will? Not really.
At risk of veering slightly off topic as the Toledo, Peoria & Western is not abandoned; once this road was jointly owned by ATSF and PRR. The east-west road once offered a bypass around Chicago conecting Logansport, Indiana and Fort Madison, Iowa. The PRR half went to PC and then CR which sold out to ATSF. However, CR had no desire to interchange at Logansport and today most of it is a component of RailAmerica/G&W. As traffic increases how long before this gets a second look as a bypass around Chicago.
At risk of veering slightly off topic as the Toledo, Peoria & Western is not abandoned; once this road was jointly owned by ATSF and PRR. The east-west road once offered a bypass around Chicago conecting Logansport, Indiana and Fort Madison, Iowa. The PRR half went to PC and then CR which sold out to ATSF. However, CR had no desire to interchange at Logansport and today most of it is a component of RailAmerica/G&W. As traffic increases how long before this gets a second look as a bypass around Chicago?
John Bredin mudchickenTrails and operating railroads do not co-exist. Period. Railroads cannot be protected against the irresponsible bi-ped public. Fences and walls cannot protect pedestrians against the possible laws of physics. (and for that matter the personal injury lawyers willing to represent those who refuse to be personally responsible for their own actions) After two years of looking at the issue, AREMA decided the best policy was to keep one away from the other with no shared corridor, ie-discourage the shared corridor idea. With all due respect, you're wrong. The North Shore Line mentioned in the earlier posts has had a trail on it for years, and in many places it's just across a short fence from the busy UP-North (nee C&NW) Metra commuter line. Here -- http://home.comcast.net/~phyilla1/sstrails/railswithtrails.html -- is a webpage listing several examples of trails alongside active rail lines, including at least one example without a fence between the trail and a catenary-powered rail line. No, the risk of a pedestrian blundering in front of a train cannot be eliminated. It also can't be eliminated on rail lines that don't have a trail next to them, especially ones that can't be "sealed" against people because they carry people as, umm, passengers. I read a heck of a lot more media accounts in metropolitan Chicago of incidents of (1) "bi-peds" and motorists fatally ignoring signaled rail crossings, or (2) "rightful" rail passengers falling or jumping off the platform onto the tracks, than I ever have of trail-using joggers, cyclists, or skaters having a run-in with a train.
mudchickenTrails and operating railroads do not co-exist. Period. Railroads cannot be protected against the irresponsible bi-ped public. Fences and walls cannot protect pedestrians against the possible laws of physics. (and for that matter the personal injury lawyers willing to represent those who refuse to be personally responsible for their own actions) After two years of looking at the issue, AREMA decided the best policy was to keep one away from the other with no shared corridor, ie-discourage the shared corridor idea.
With all due respect, you're wrong. The North Shore Line mentioned in the earlier posts has had a trail on it for years, and in many places it's just across a short fence from the busy UP-North (nee C&NW) Metra commuter line. Here -- http://home.comcast.net/~phyilla1/sstrails/railswithtrails.html -- is a webpage listing several examples of trails alongside active rail lines, including at least one example without a fence between the trail and a catenary-powered rail line.
No, the risk of a pedestrian blundering in front of a train cannot be eliminated. It also can't be eliminated on rail lines that don't have a trail next to them, especially ones that can't be "sealed" against people because they carry people as, umm, passengers. I read a heck of a lot more media accounts in metropolitan Chicago of incidents of (1) "bi-peds" and motorists fatally ignoring signaled rail crossings, or (2) "rightful" rail passengers falling or jumping off the platform onto the tracks, than I ever have of trail-using joggers, cyclists, or skaters having a run-in with a train.
The question on topic was of reclaiming a trail and rebuilding the former Seaboard Air Line between Atlanta and Birmingham. This would not be a transit line but rather a heavy haul railroad open to carrying hazmat along with all varieties of freight at mainline speeds. No, you can never "seal" off this type of corridor from the human race but this would not be a place to encourage public congregating.
mudchicken bob811 Dare I add to this list, The Washington & Old Dominion right-of-way (now known as the W&OD Trail, under the auspices of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority). This old ROW runs from Purcellville VA to Alexandria VA, through some of the most densely built suburban development AND the heaviest and intense traffic in the mid-Atlantic region. Oh that they could ever bring tracks back to that corridor! More's the pity. Talk about tortured grades and alignments....The photo in Hilton's narrow gage book comes to mind.
bob811 Dare I add to this list, The Washington & Old Dominion right-of-way (now known as the W&OD Trail, under the auspices of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority). This old ROW runs from Purcellville VA to Alexandria VA, through some of the most densely built suburban development AND the heaviest and intense traffic in the mid-Atlantic region. Oh that they could ever bring tracks back to that corridor! More's the pity.
Dare I add to this list, The Washington & Old Dominion right-of-way (now known as the W&OD Trail, under the auspices of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority). This old ROW runs from Purcellville VA to Alexandria VA, through some of the most densely built suburban development AND the heaviest and intense traffic in the mid-Atlantic region. Oh that they could ever bring tracks back to that corridor! More's the pity.
Mudchicken is right - the W&OD is steep and crooked, so probably would be better suited to light-rail type vehicles rather than heavy-rail commuter trains. Power requirements would be high, and speeds would not. I've walked the trail from end to end, and it would be no joke to run rail vehicles over restored track.
DavidBriel I would like to know if the CSX or a shortline could have both a DOUBLE TRACK railroad and THE SILVER COMET TRAIL on the same right of way with the tracks on one side and the rail trail on the other side. The current SILVER COMET TRAIL is where the former SAL tracks were located before the 1990 abandonment by CSX. I feel that there could eventually be rail service on this line (SAL BIRMINGHAM-ATLANTA) along with a SHIFTED Silver Comet Trail. The SCT is a popular RAILS to TRAILS park which I think should co-exist with a double track railroad. The former SAL Atlanta Birmingham line was single track with passing sidings along the way. Two double track segments were from HICKS ROAD to BROOKWOOD DRIVE and from CARTER ROAD to OLD LOST MOUNTAIN ROAD in COBB COUNTY, Georgia. David Briel A CSX fallen flags fan.
I would like to know if the CSX or a shortline could have both a DOUBLE TRACK railroad and THE SILVER COMET TRAIL on the same right of way with the tracks on one side and the rail trail on the other side. The current SILVER COMET TRAIL is where the former SAL tracks were located before the 1990 abandonment by CSX. I feel that there could eventually be rail service on this line (SAL BIRMINGHAM-ATLANTA) along with a SHIFTED Silver Comet Trail. The SCT is a popular RAILS to TRAILS park which I think should co-exist with a double track railroad. The former SAL Atlanta Birmingham line was single track with passing sidings along the way. Two double track segments were from HICKS ROAD to BROOKWOOD DRIVE and from CARTER ROAD to OLD LOST MOUNTAIN ROAD in COBB COUNTY, Georgia. David Briel A CSX fallen flags fan.
Glen: The Peotone/Will County line in question is ex-MILW-TH&SE. Champaign to Bloomington to Peoria is P&E-CCC&StL-NYC-PC-CR(barely)-N&W-NS with a little CSX on the Champaign end. None were Rocky Mountain Rocket west or south of Joliet.(see the Keep-Away comments on this thread)....allignment at all three cities mentioned is nowhere near high-spead compliant. With the stupid stunt that IDOT did earlier this year, trying solve the budget problem by killing off the folks (bugetary wise) in IL that could actually railroad on their staff, leaves the future of HSR in IL on very shaky ground. What's left is politicians and planners - neither has a clue. CHI-StL will be as far as it goes, probably for several generations.
The high speed planners need to decide if a HSR would work from CUS to Champaign instead of the GM&O Joliet route. It would be nice to have something to connect Champaign with Bloomington & on west to Peoria. This has been a dream since the demise of the Peoria Rocket. This also has been a dream for the planners wanting a 3rd airport in the Peotone area.
Modelcar .....As Murrary stated, I wonder about the Milwaukee's Pacific extension....I'm thinking that I've read in railroad media along the way....that route was one of the best engineered across that long stretch and mountain ranges. Perhaps another line runing that length and direction might have benefited by adapting to it....
.....As Murrary stated, I wonder about the Milwaukee's Pacific extension....I'm thinking that I've read in railroad media along the way....that route was one of the best engineered across that long stretch and mountain ranges. Perhaps another line runing that length and direction might have benefited by adapting to it....
Mark Meyer
If anyone had read Ian Wilson's Steam Through Palmerston they would get the picture here...imagine the entire branchline set up both CN and CP had north of Stratford. ON Owen Sound was an active port same as Goderich and Kincardine .... many places such as Listowel, Mitchell, Palmerston and et cetera connected by a web of rail....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
To the list, I would like to see the north end of ex-NYC Harlem Division re-instated to Chatham as a thru route. Not only would it expand the current passenger service, but it would have come in handy at the present time as an alternative to the storm damaged Hudson lines.
CA&E's connection to the Loop was broken in 1953 with expressway construction. It probably could not have been reinstated as there was no longer a direct connection to the Loop L since the Congress line fed into the Dearborn St. subway. The rather overrated Forest Park-Wheaton light-rail proposal was politically impossible since Dupage County would do anything to keep the CTA out.
The CNS&M Shore Line Route was abandoned in 1955, three years prior to initiation of abandonment proceedings for the rest of the system. This would imply that North Shore had given up hope on this line even earlier.
IF there were a such a great demand for additiional service to justify additional trackage (a big "if), it would make far more sense to add an additional track to an existing commuter route, rather than to revive a long abandoned interurban. You get a whole lot more bang for the buck adding by capacity to an existing corridor, and operating it together with the existing trackage by CTC as an integrated facility than you do paying a lot more to add a new, parallel stand alone line, particularly one operated by specialized equipment that could not be used on other commuter lines.
In addtion, the dependence of North Shore and CA&E on rapid transit lines to reach downtown Chicago would put them at a huge disadvantage to conventional commuter lines today, considering how badly Chicago rapid transit service has deteriorated Ride the Purple (Evanston) or the Red (Howard) lines as they lurch from slow zone to slow zone, and you'll see what I mean. I rode them today, and it took over an hour to get from the Loop (State & Lake) to Foster Avenue in Evanston. North Shore used to get all the way from the Loop to Waukegan via the Skokie Valley Route in that amount of time. Clearly, that would be impossible today. In contrast, the conventional commuter operations in the city are faster than they used to, primarily because of the elimination of many in-city stations during the 50's and 60's.
The more fundamental point is that there is a limited amount of moneyavailable to fund public transit projects. What makes more sense - fixing the crumbling Chicago rapid transit system, which is absolutely critical to Chicago and its economy, or creating new, subsidized commuter rail services that don't serve new territory but simply duplicate existing, subsidized commuter rail services?
Falcon48 In their heyday, North Shore, and CA&E probably gave service that was at least as good as their competitors (particularly when their competitors were steam powered and non-air conditioned). But in the modern era, when commuter railroads can't be operated profitably and require government subsidies, it makes little sense to retain (and subsidize) duplicate, competing rail commuter services.
In their heyday, North Shore, and CA&E probably gave service that was at least as good as their competitors (particularly when their competitors were steam powered and non-air conditioned). But in the modern era, when commuter railroads can't be operated profitably and require government subsidies, it makes little sense to retain (and subsidize) duplicate, competing rail commuter services.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.