Ideas on railroad re-building

[Anonymous]

Which of the following abandonded rail lines would you like to see re-built?

1. Former MILW Pacific Coast Extension
2. Former MILW from Sheldon, Iowa to Rapid City
3. Former MILW from Omaha to Savannah, Iowa or maybe it's Illinois
4. Former C&NW Cowboy Line
5. Former B&O Parkersburg line
6. Former SAL from Richmond to Jacksonville, Florida
7. Former NS/Nickel Plate from St. Louis to Toledo
8. The old Eire lines from Chicago and Cincinnatti to Cleveland
9. Former C&O from Chicago to Cincinnatti
10. Former Rock Island Choctaw route from Amarillo to Memphis
11. Former Rock Island from St. Louis to Chicago

In my opinion I think all of them should be re-built, because I heard some projections from the census bureau which say that by 2040 there will be over 400 million Americans and perhaps as many as 500 million! Personally I think re-building number 1 would be good to take pressure off the congested BNSF and UP in the Southwest moving so much trade from Asia. Routes 5-9 would be good for freight by-passing a lot of congestion. Especially for route 6 since there is so much growth along the former ACL/I-95 corridor which I'm pretty sure will mean more passenger trains over the next 20-30 years. Number 10 would be a great complement to BNSF which would allow a very straight route from L.A. to Memphis and hook-up with the former Frisco to Birmingham and Mobile, with perhaps trackage rights to Atlanta. Number 11 would be good for passenger trains in Missouri since the former Mo-Pac is getting crowded.
I know it sounds big and grand to many on this forum, but just look at how much the railroad industry has come back in the last 26 years! Not to mention how expensive fossil fuels are becoming as well as real estate for more freeways and airports. Not to sound too political, but looking at many trends I think much wiser folks will be elected later this year and in 2008 which will take us a lot closer to this vision. [:D]

[BaltACD]

If and when it makes economic sense for the Carriers to put these lines back in operation, the necessary investment will be secured to do it, however, puttting these lines back in through operation will have to be the lowest cost alternative when it is done. Don't hold your breath.

[mudchicken]

He also be a little geography challenged. 11,9,8,and 7 are flawed in some form or another.

[Anonymous]

The Rock Island never went from Chicago to St. Louis directly. It went way way way out of the way via Kansas City I believe. Chicago, Davenport, Kansas City and then back east to St. Louis. Number 11 is moot.

And there's no such thing as a wise politician.

[Philcal]

Luke, I assume I'm allowed to dream a little here. I'd love to see all the line you referenced be rebuilt. I've always felt that the Rock Island suffered an especially unfair fate. The old Milwaukee Rd extension was a wonderful application of electric power, with GE boxcabs built in the 19 teens serving right into the 1970s. Certainly deferred maintenence was the rule in the late 60s,early 70s, but that was one awesome piece of railroad.

[blhanel]

#3 will never happen, especially on the original ROW. There's already a four-lane divided highway running down it through the north side of Cedar Rapids, and they're in the process of erecting a commercial building on the ROW across from where I work.

[Anonymous]

I agree - all of them (more or less) - although in some cases it would probably be better to build new lines from scratch rather than resurrecting older ROW's from the late 1800's. My understanding is that those old RI ROW's weren't exactly "engineered" in a way that would make them useful today.

You also should have included some of the lesser known Western ex-railroads, like....

12. Tonopah & Tidewater - a good north south alignment that could have been added to down to LA/San Diego and up to the inland PNW. North south routes may be a better fit today than traditional east west routes.

13. Nevada Northern + UP's ex Twin Falls (ID) to Wells (NV) - same thing, a north south alignment that could be stretched farther to connect more logical terminals.

14. The Modoc line - once a somewhat viable alternative to UP's OSL routing for traffic between the PNW and UP's central corridor.

15. BNSF's Havre to Great Falls, Great Falls to Helena, and Helena to Butte segments - part of the erstwhile I-15 corridor between Alberta and LA. Too bad UP and BNSF can't cooperate more for such multi-carrier alignments.

There's probably more, but I want to point out that such rebuilds probably should not simply relay track on the entire old grade. Be better to do some realigments to avoid certain grades and such.

[Anonymous]

I've got a nostalgic interest in seeing the PCE restored, but otherwise I'd rather see what is left be profitable and vital. And the truly mainline routes of the country be free of grade crossings as the interstates are.

[ValleyX]

This will never happen. I know that 7, 8, and 9 have had much of their structure destroyed, houses built, buildings built, heck, in Huntington, IN, there's a large four or five story building straddling what was once the EL main.

[Kevin C. Smith]

I'd vote for #1. Leaving the entire northern tier of states to one RR (BNSF) was not such a good idea. Of course, given the regulated environment in the 1970's it was assumed there would always be a Milwaukee Road for competition-we'll just rearrange the market to make it work. If C&NW had bowed out of the picture as the one granger too many, maybe UP could've been induced to shift traffic to the MR (at worst a shotgun merger ala' NH + PC). Corrallary to that: When UP bought SP, the WP & D&RG would've gone to BNSF.

[Modelcar]

Sure...most railfans would like all railroad ROW's to be active again...Just a comment on # 9: Much of it is a beautiful paved walking and biking trail now....We have close to 35 plus miles continous available to us here and more being finished now, in Muncie, In. {Old C&O route}.

[oscaletrains]

THE B&O BRANCH!!!

[Anonymous]

Sorry about my mistake. For # 11 I meant the old Rock Island from St. Louis to Kansas City. I don't know how I got it mixed up with Chicago. For the others that some say need correction, I don't know the specifics of which parts of lines have been preserved and which have not. The input from others who know better about houses, malls and crap like that being placed over former ROW's is much appreciated.
I do like Futuremodal's ideas about resurrecting 12, 14 and 15. Especially since demographics are a lot different than they were 100 years ago. I guess probably the only lines that stand a good chance of ever coming back are the Cowboy line or the MILW road from Sheldon to Rapid City due to increasing coal traffic and the Rock from K.C. to St. Louis due to congestion on the former Mo-Pac. Last I checked this Rock ROW was still intact, but merely mothballed. Those ones and others in the South and West where there is a lot of population growth. Sadly I don't think the Midwest will ever be the industrial powerhouse it once was which means less need for rail.[:(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

Sure...most railfans would like all railroad ROW's to be active again...Just a comment on # 9: Much of it is a beautiful paved walking and biking trail now....We have close to 35 plus miles continous available to us here and more being finished now, in Muncie, In. {Old C&O route}.

is that old C&O path what you might call "scenic"? Sounds interesting. I look down ar that route often when I pass over it on I-69 and think about what it USED to be.

It would be fun to ride it.

What are the end points (towns) of the paved pathway?

[Modelcar]

AntiGates....It might be considered scenic. Lots of nice shaded areas that are nice in the summer time. Beginning point is about 10 miles northwest of Muncie, Gaston and southeast out of Muncie about 20 miles and I believe another 7 or so miles on that end are under construction and some of the route down at Richmond, In. is in service too. Farther northwest beyond Gason there are more parts of it finished and in service. We will have about 60 miles of continous Trail here when all the area pieces are connected together. There is a 7or 8 mile section just northwest of Gaston that farmers somehow purchased the ROW and would not allow the Trail to be built on it....so there will be a gap in that area. It is a very nice trail paved with black top and nice and smooth. Our Depot at Muncie is now a Trail Head. It is really nice. $800,000 was spent on it for the renovation. It was put into service in June of 04. Try and stop by to downtown Muncie sometime and pull into the Depot..{Trail Head}, nice parking area there and check it out.

[Modelcar]

...One more thing about our Trail Head at Muncie....The building is on the National Historical Sites, etc....and when the renovation was accomplished the extrerior was dublicated to how the station looked when it was built. New {real}, tile roof, dormers added back on the roof and it still really looks like a railroad depot...A small museum inside has railroad artifacts and the building has some staffing and rest rooms etc....Very nice.
One can still see trains at this depot as the north / south NS line passes parallel to the trail at this point. A steel fence is in place for Trail users safety.

[Anonymous]

ModelCar,

Thanks, sounds nice, may have to try that.

I'd like to "ride" it just because it is the former C&O...good enough reason for me.

BUT, my bike riding buddies are not railfans, so If I just say I want to go ride an "old railroad" path their eyes will glaze over and they will just say "no" because They know how I am.

So, i've gotta become a salesman, and 'sell' them on a roadtrip.....and If I can say "scenic"...I might have some luck

Just have to see, I guess.

[Modelcar]

A G.....Not knowing if you are familiar with Muncie...I'll guide you right to the "Depot". Get off I-69 at the Muncie exit that puts you on Rt. 332. Turn east and follow it into northern Muncie where it becomes McGalliard...Continue from I-69 east into Muncie for about 9 or 10 miles and you will finally pass our Muncie Mall....and cross a railroad. The NS. Turn right on Broadway and head south for almost 2 miles....you will cross that railroad again and the Trail....Now you have the depot on your right...Turn in and check it all out.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

A G.....Not knowing if you are familiar with Muncie...I'll guide you right to the "Depot". Get off I-69 at the Muncie exit that puts you on Rt. 332. Turn east and follow it into northern Muncie where it becomes McGalliard...Continue from I-69 east into Muncie for about 9 or 10 miles and you will finally pass our Muncie Mall....and cross a railroad. The NS. Turn right on Broadway and head south for almost 2 miles....you will cross that railroad again and the Trail....Now you have the depot on your right...Turn in and check it all out.

Cool, thanks.


Just from curiousity, that old PennCentral line out of Muncie, south west. The one that goes through Daleville.

Is that still an active line?

[blhanel]

QUOTE: Originally posted by blhanel

#3 will never happen, especially on the original ROW. There's already a four-lane divided highway running down it through the north side of Cedar Rapids, and they're in the process of erecting a commercial building on the ROW across from where I work.

Being it was such a nice day today, I got out and did some railfanning and also (remembering this thread) took the opportunity to get some shots of what's left of the MILW through here.

Illustrating my point above, here's the end of the rails on what is now a CNIC industrial spur.


The same spot looking west.



Here's another shot showing how the MILW line has been realigned to curve south and join the CNIC. The old alignment used to go straight, crossing what is now the CNIC on a bridge and continuing to the horizon where Highway 100 can now be seen.



Just thought I'd share...

[CShaveRR]

Back to the original question:

I'm not sure that resurrecting any of these lines, for the purpose of re-establishing lost railroad capacity that will probably need to be restored, is practical. In most cases, there is a railroad currently running from Point A to Point B. Are we suggesting that a competitor come in and build a new line over the old right-of-way (which, as been pointed out, is often no longer available for use in many areas)?

An example: Who would want to run the old MILW route from Savanna (which is in Illinois, by the way) to Omaha? At Omaha, you have two railroads that go west out of town: UP and BNSF. UP has its own line from western Illinois to Omaha; so does BNSF. What company would want to build essentially a new line to go from the Mississippi River to Omaha? You've got four railroads in the Chicago-to-Omaha corridor already. Would a fifth one be necessary to take traffic from somewhere in Illinois to be handed over to UP or BNSF? Nope--the four railroads that do it today are down from six (seven, if you count Wabash!) for a reason. And neither UP nor BNSF needs a new choice for giving away some of their business from the west--they already have lines into Chicago that wouldn't involve handing the business to yet another railroad at the river. Would ICE rebuild the line? Probably not--it was a predecessor of theirs that couldn't keep it going.

So, we'd have to have either BNSF or UP build this line to alleviate some of the capacity constraints of existing lines across Iowa. Yes, those traffic problems exist. But what good would an entire new right-of-way be for either of those railroads? More taxes to pay, no business along the line that can't already be handled by existing lines, and a new batch of NIMBYs who would fight the move at every turn. The capacity issue would probably better be addressed by adding a track to an existing right-of-way (or those of both railroads, if necessary) than by building something completely separate. In fact, UP is buying the steel from MILW's old Des Moines River bridge for an eventual replacement of its own Kate Shelley Bridge (which would be retained and provide a third track across the river, last I heard).

I'm not familiar with all of the suggestions made here. One--the old C&O of Indiana--might have some justification if traffic between Chicago and Cincinnati took a big swing upward. There is no real direct route any more between those two points. But here, the C&O right-of-way wasn't very direct, either. If a railroad desperately needed to be built between Chicago and Cincinnati, wouldn't it make more sense to strike out on a completely new, more direct route (perhaps cobbling portions of existing lines together to make said route)? Keep in mind that building a new track would not be a cheap propostion, and you couldn't get away with building an unsignaled single track for low-speed operation. A "vision" is no longer enough--you'd need hard facts to get the money, and the least expensive railroad-building technology (from a labor standpoint) would build you a railroad that would have to be supported by plenty of traffic, requiring at least a single-track CTC operation with plenty of second track along the way, and track that could handle gross rail loads well beyond what the abandoned track was designed for (the 286K issue). Again, no "third" company would do that--it'd have to be one or the other of CSX and NS.

So, yes, additional capacity may be needed sometime down the road, whether it's in a few years or next month. But the railroads that already have these routes would be better off spending their money expanding existing rights-of-way. And even if some delusional lottery-winner wanted to break into the game with a startup line of any importance, he'd still have to get the approval--or at least the grudging acceptance--of his future competitors and everybody else that would be affected.

[Modelcar]

A G: Yes, the NYC, Penn Central, Conrail and now CSX line you ask about is an active line....Double track. Can't tell you the most active times of day but it for sure is an active main though here east and west. Downtown the big old depot is gone but this line goes right through downtown Muncie too....

[Modelcar]

...One important fact relating to the mention of the Chicago to Cinn. route is that the ROW is probably more preserved than many that have been abandoned. The Trail I speak of above has the ROW just about remaining in place as it was when in use. Including bridges. It's been abandoned since about '94 when the rails were pulled up.....Have pictures of that operation. Of course it was a single track line. Amtrak used it with the Cardinal for quite a few years before it's abandonment. Years ago I witnessed the Chessie Steam Special {believe that's what it was called}, come through on that line....Does 759 engine sound right....Thinking that was the power on it....{Or was it 769}...???

[Modelcar]

A G: In Muncie at the Trail Head..{depot}, on the trail just 1/4 mi. north the Trail crosses White River along with 2 other railroad bridges....All within a couple hundred feet of each other. One, the abandoned 2 section through bridge that remains of the old line that went north to Matthews...Pennsylvania RR, and the present route of north / south NS line the Triple Crown travels through here on...All right together. Believe the Pennsylvania had trackage rights from Anderson to get here in Muncie to it. Years ago, that Pennsylvania line came right down the middle of busy Madison St until sometime in the mid to late '50's.

[CShaveRR]

Quentin, it was the ex-RDG 2101 that headed the Steam Special.

I rode that line when the Amtrak trains went through there, on more than one occasion. I don't know how they did it with "Pooches" for power, because that line was always the poor stepchild of the C&O, and I'm pretty sure that siz-axle units were banned from it after one particular derailment involving a trestle or something. Even if they were to take away the bike path (don't do it before I git my chance at it!), relaying the track and signal systems--and strengthening the bridges for today's equipment--would be an expensive proposition.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

Back to the original question:

I'm not sure that resurrecting any of these lines, for the purpose of re-establishing lost railroad capacity that will probably need to be restored, is practical. In most cases, there is a railroad currently running from Point A to Point B. Are we suggesting that a competitor come in and build a new line over the old right-of-way (which, as been pointed out, is often no longer available for use in many areas)?

An example: Who would want to run the old MILW route from Savanna (which is in Illinois, by the way) to Omaha? At Omaha, you have two railroads that go west out of town: UP and BNSF. UP has its own line from western Illinois to Omaha; so does BNSF. What company would want to build essentially a new line to go from the Mississippi River to Omaha? You've got four railroads in the Chicago-to-Omaha corridor already. Would a fifth one be necessary to take traffic from somewhere in Illinois to be handed over to UP or BNSF? Nope--the four railroads that do it today are down from six (seven, if you count Wabash!) for a reason. And neither UP nor BNSF needs a new choice for giving away some of their business from the west--


I'm not familiar with all of the suggestions made here. One--the old C&O of Indiana--might have some justification if traffic between Chicago and Cincinnati took a big swing upward. There is no real direct route any more between those two points. But here, the C&O right-of-way wasn't very direct, either. If a railroad desperately needed to be built between Chicago and Cincinnati, wouldn't it make more sense to strike out on a completely new, more direct route (perhaps cobbling portions of existing lines together to make said route)? Keep in mind that building a new track would not be a cheap propostion, and you couldn't get away with building an unsignaled single track for low-speed operation. A "vision" is no longer enough--you'd need hard facts to get the money, and the least expensive railroad-building technology (from a labor standpoint) would build you a railroad that would have to be supported by plenty of traffic, requiring at least a single-track CTC operation with plenty of second track along the way, and track that could handle gross rail loads well beyond what the abandoned track was designed for (the 286K issue). Again, no "third" company would do that--it'd have to be one or the other of CSX and NS.

I think you have it ENTIRELY correct.

After first reading this thread I concluded that there are 2 ways of looking at the subject.

One, from the aspect of driving by abandoned grades and thinking "Wouldn't it be nice to see trains come through here again?" More of a romantic, railfan perspective.

And the other, a more analytical, "business sense" perspective as you outline, which is the one I suspect the RR's employed when deciding to abandon what they did.

In this latter vein, I don't know all the routes mentioned either, but of the ones I do, my first response was geared more towards looking at whether the surviving entity needs more capacity than they currently have between the listed points A and B.

Of those I know:

7. Does NS REALLY need more capacity between Toledo and Saint Louis? One can drive through all those little towns once served by the Cloverleaf, and see that for the most part the line side industry that once was, is no longer along this route. And NS seems to be getting along nicely with the old Wabash, a superior route. If NS needed additional capacity between the two endpoint cities , their best value would be towards doubling up some of the old Wabash's single track segments


8. What can one say about the old Erie that is not properly described with the one memory that among the major routes from New York to Chicago, the Erie was miles longer than all the rest? Do either of the Conrail surviving entities need more capacity between the two? Well, NS has the former Waterlevel route AND the former Nickle Plate, the latter of which is greatly underutilized, and CSX decided that it had so much need in that segment that it leased out the former PRR main to Chicago Ft Wayne & Eastern...so it's not like CSX is strapped for capacity through Ohio.



9.An interesting one, for sure. Seemingly one of the more direct routes, between the 2 cities, crossing a mostly level state of indiana. And, the competition (NS) has grown business like gang busters between these cities utilizing portions of a former PRR routing and part of the old Nickle Plate New Castle District (cobbling together old routes, just as you mention) Having grown up next to that line in the 60's, and then living back in the same spot these last 3 years, I can say the difference is like night and day. 10 times the volume, easy. So, why doesn't CSX reinstate the old C&O and compete for that business ? Good question. I've heard that the old "cheviot hill" routing out of Cincinnati was a deadful slope to have to climb, which was probably why the route was abandoned in favor of superior former B&O routes... Instead of spending a fortune re installing this whole line, I'd think CSX would be better off enhancing their Indianapolis to Chicago route, and sending it all over that way


Though I'd like to see 7 and 9 reinstalled, that is just the old romantic in me. All the old romantic railroads went out of business.

[Modelcar]

2101....Hmmm....I can still remember how surprised I was at the sound of the whistle...it was kinda shrill and squeaky like....Also I saw that engine over in Lock Haven, Pa. when the Freedom Train of 76 was in action....{Again relying on memory, but believe that's correct}. The Cardinal passenger train that traversed through here on C&O was an interest to me...Met it at the depot many, many times. That line was built on the general terrain of Indiana across the countryside....with gentle slopes and dips....Kinda followed the contour of the land but it wasn't that bad as it is generally flat across the area. Some down grades on the way to Richmond from Muncie. At least we had a passenger train stopping in Muncie for several years in the 70's, etc..... And over on the big 4 line...{now CSX}, we had 3 or 4 passenger trains east and west.....and all that ended when Amtrak started in 1971.

[Anonymous]

Being the realist I do not think any of these will ever be reinstated. The costs plus propery taxes plus NIMBY plus etc etc would not get it done. It would be better to double track existing lines between the end points mentioned if more capacity is needed.

Look at the recent Newswire wherein the govenor of Montana is mad at BNSF for their exorbinate freight rates. Perhaps if the governor is mad enough the old Milw coulb be reserrected, however there are many miles in the states to the west through some rough terrain to build on if the desire was to get to Pacific ports.

Being a dreamer I would like to see the Clarksburg-Parkersbure portion of the former B&O St Louis line relaid. I am from West Virginia and have a soft spot in my heart of the state. It was shut down because all the traffic dried up (as senior VP of CSX told me this once).

Lets dream on. My wife is from Wheeling. I would like to see the PRR line from Wellsburg to Wheeling rebuilt and how about the B&O from Wheeling to Washington PA. While we are at it how about the B&O from Grafton to Wheeling, which was the original line to the Ohio River. Would serve as a good historical interpretative place. Dream on and replace the gap in the north-south B&O line between Charleston and Gauley Bridge. Then you could go from Charleston to Pittsburg in a very direct route, however, with many curves.

Dreaming really is fun.

[Modelcar]

W R....At least to satisfy a bit of your dreams....Drive west from Washington, Pa. on I-70 and at least at some places you can see some of your routes.....where they used to go.

[ValleyX]

The C&O of Indiana was lost due to grades and clearances, rather than improve it, CSX abandoned it. End of story.

The Erie was miles longer but what would have made the Erie appealing in today's world is their gracious clearances and rural territory. It went through few large cities, I believe the largest city was Akron, and I still think it would have made one heck of a intermodal route. Sadly, it didn't hang on long enough to see that happen.

It was also way behind the times, it was neat to see semaphores and towers everywhere but where other railroads were getting rid of them, the EL didn't have the funds to reach out for the future and update.

The bike trail in the Richmond area over the old C&O goes from north of the old C&O depot, essentially near old U. S. 40, under today's NS, across the Whitewater River gorge on the old C&O bridge, and on north about, I believe, seven miles.