RailForum.com
TrainWeb.com

RAILforum Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

» RAILforum » Passenger Trains » Amtrak » WHY SINGLE TRACKING? » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Robert L
Member # 3144
 - posted
My first question: Could someone explain to me the reason for all the single tracking on railroad systems? Years ago it seemed natural to have at least two tracks on routes. Double tracks allow for more speedy travel than waiting for a single track to open up. It would allow passing, staging or time storage while there was uninterrupted through Amtrak and freight traffic.
I was told at one point that it had something to do with railroads paying less taxes, does that mean they do not now own the unoccupied property of that abandon track, next to the one track?
Another story is that it had something to do with grade crossings. That less tracks across streets got railroads some benefits, but what benefits? I live in Detroit and know at some grade crossings there is one track where two, three or more had crossed. There still are two or more on each side where they split off. Other grade crossing have two or more crossing the street, but only one connected for through rail service.

My second question concerns the role Federal Government. Is there a roll in having the Government promote and fund a second (or maybe, given conditions, a third) track? Allowing Amtrak priority service and freight to use it at other times. It just seems that the same reasons for the interstates and airports are the reasons for Federal funds in this area. If Amtrak is the "miner's canary" to the freight railroading meltdown here, it is time the Government moved on this.

Now I know other threads have beat the political issues, politicians only responding to the (Lobbyist's) light at the end of the tunnel, and the Kerry-Bush thing into the ground, so I do not need those answers here. The politics will have to wait until after November. Are there any systemic technological or eonomic reasons why this would, or might not, work?
 

rresor
Member # 128
 - posted
Well, there was a time when I, growing up next to the NYC Harlem Division in New York, thought all railroads of any consequence were at least double track, and the *really* important ones were electrified.

In fact, most of the North American network has always been single track, because it costs lots of money to build and maintain a second track -- say, a million dollars a mile to build it (on a graded ROW, not counting the land price) and maybe $65,000 per year to maintain it.

When railroads were deregulated, they were free to shed underperforming assets, and they did. One easy way to raise return on assets is to earn the same amount of revenue with fewer assets, which is why so much second track was removed after 1981.

As to whether government could build more track, that's a really complicated issue. For a number of reasons, it's beginning to seem like a reasonable idea that government might invest directly in rail infrastructure (just as it does in highways). However, the complexities of protecting the public interest when handing public money to private, non-profit corporations need to be worked out. I think it will happen -- on a small scale, it is happening -- but it's going to take a while.
 

yukon11
Member # 2997
 - posted
I agree with you, Robert. It would seem adding another track would solve a lot of problems.
Rresor, I don't disagree with your figures of a million dollars, a mile, for addtional, parallel track. The reason for the high cost figures, to me, seem inexplicable.
I saw an interesting program, on either PBS or the History Channel, on the American Orient Express. The have a run from Salt Lake City up to Yellowstone. A passenger train hasn't used this run for at least 50(+) years and the AOE had to put in new track for essentially the entire distance. They used a newer track, with longer, welded (not sure what they mean by welded) segments which apparently greatly reduces the jostling and swaying of conventional track. I wonder how they could afford it? The average fare for the American Orient Express runs, roughly, from $3000 to $6000 for any excursion. A lot of money to help with repairs and new track, but you arne't looking at tens of thousands of riders, each year, either.
Anyway, if a parallel track could be financially feasible, I think it would solve a lot of problems. The parallel track, I think, should be exclusively for passenger rail traffic.

[This message has been edited by yukon11 (edited 08-06-2004).]
 

MPALMER
Member # 125
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by yukon11:
up to Yellowstone. A passenger train hasn't used this run for at least 50(+) years and the AOE had to put in new track welded (not sure what they mean by welded)

[This message has been edited by yukon11 (edited 08-06-2004).]


Many main lines, and even branch lines, now use welded rail. Each rail is over 1000' in length, made of several shorter rails welded end-to-end I believe. In years past, rail came in standard 49' lengths (you can see this on detailed old photos, and on some lightly-used track today).

As for how they paid for it...maybe it will become a regular AOE route, and they'll recover the cost over time.
 

rresor
Member # 128
 - posted
Since there is already a track between Salt Lake City and Butte that passes close to Yellowstone, I'm sure the AOE used this (which belongs to UP). I've ridden the line myself on a UP excursion.

As for "hasn't been used by a passenger train for over 50 years", that's not only an incorrect statement, but it tells you nothing about the condition of the track. Union Pacific's main line across Nebraska hasn't been used by a passenger train since 1971, but it's the busiest piece of railroad in the world, with 400 million gross tons of traffic annually on three main tracks.

In round terms, Amtrak operates over 20,000 route miles. The railroad network in the US consists of about 150,000 route miles, about two-thirds owned by Class I (large) railroads and one-third by "short lines". Almost all of these companies run only freight trains. Some short lines also operate passenger excursion trains.

As for welded rail, it has been in general use since the 1970s, and all new rail is laid as welded rail. In fact, when rail is replaced, the "released" rail, if in decent condition, is often cropped, welded, and re-laid on a less busy branch line.

The last passenger train to operate from Salt Lake City to Butte (prior to the AOE) was the UP's "Butte Special", which ran, IIRC, until Amtrak was created on May 1, 1971, 33 years ago.
 

yukon11
Member # 2997
 - posted
The presentaton, on the American Orient Express, did say that the route from Salt Lake City up to Yellowstone had not been used by passenger trains since, at least, the early 1950's. They also stated that the AOE did not refurbish the existing track, but had to lay the newer, longer-segmented track exclusively for the AOE. The narrative could well have been misleading or downright wrong, however.
Mr. RResor: I am curious about your excursion on the UP line from Salt Lake City up to Butte, Mont. Did the route essentially follow Highway 15 all the way up? Did it have, by chance, any branch lines over to Wyoming?
The reason I ask has to do with living near the west-central town of Lander, Wyoming, at one time. I remember going over to the Union Pacific depot, there in Lander, to pick up a parcel which was sent to me out of Salt Lake City. I am wondering if there is still a freight line over to western Wyoming up from Salt Lake City. If not, was there one at one time? I lived near Lander over 30 years ago..so my memory is a little hazy.
 
Mr. Toy
Member # 311
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by rresor:
In fact, most of the North American network has always been single track, because it costs lots of money to build and maintain a second track -- say, a million dollars a mile to build it (on a graded ROW, not counting the land price) and maybe $65,000 per year to maintain it.

A million dollars per mile is really a bargain when you consider that a single lane of a freeway costs about five times that.
 

rresor
Member # 128
 - posted
Lander, WY is the west end of a line that formerly belonged to Chicago & Northwestern Railway. It ran west from Fremont, NE across northern Nebraska and into Wyoming. The west end of this line is now part of a connection built by Union Pacific to reach the newly constructed (1977) Burlington Northern line into the Powder River basin. Traffic carried is almost entirely coal.

Union Pacific's main line lies further south, running west from Cheyenne, WY via Green River to Ogden, UT. This is the main line between Chicago and Oakland, CA.
 

Gilbert B Norman
Member # 1541
 - posted
Allow me to take this thread a bit off topic and address a matter that is beyond the scope of passenger railroading.

As most of us over the age of 40 know, the largest "wholesale' abandonment of a main line railroad was that of the Milwaukee's Lines West. the abandonment occurred during 1979; the last passenger train ran during 1961.

The disclaimer I must rightfully lay on the table is that I was employed by the MILW during that period - in fact, I was "on the ground" in Lines West territory when the shutdown actually occurred. While this was far more painful for the affected employees (I was a Chicago based Internal Auditor), one could "feel" the lifeblood of an operating transportation entity "shutting down". On this note, if one wants to feel the pain of a transportation system shutting down, the best piece of literature I know is a book entitled "Splash of Colors' by John J. Nance.

While others may disagree, I believe that had a concept of "railbanking", whereby the operator of a rail line could declare a line to be abandoned and in turn not only have that line removed from the taxing jurisdictions' "rolls", but also be absolutely "held harmless" from any civil liability claims, it is my conviction that the MILW Lines West would be providing railroad transportation today, albeit not likely passenger transportation.

The best proposal I once learned of (it was reported by the Chicago Tribune) was during 1980, Japanese maritime interests were preparing a proposal to acquire Lines West from the Estate (MILW went bankrupt Dec 1977 - oh, were office X-Mas parties "Fun' that year). This never went anywhere; there was much sentiment back then that the Japanese were going to buy the entire USA. But, had this "sailed', the MILW would be active today (obviously operated by someone else such as the UP) and providing needed transportation for the maritime industry.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 08-08-2004).]
 

rresor
Member # 128
 - posted
I really shouldn't post three times in one thread, Gilbert, but your mention of the MILW Pacific Extension deserves comment.

In fact, some time after 1980 Burlington Northern acquired the MILW main line from Auburn,WA (near Seattle) over Snoqualmie Pass to a point near Yakima where it was adjacent to the former NP. Plan was to use the MILW's superior alignment in place of the Stampede Tunnel route (IIRC, MILW's ruling grade westbound was 1.4% vs. 2.2% on Stampede). Also, since MILW had electrified, clearance in Snoqualmie Tunnel was much better than Stampede, which could barely handle piggyback trailers.

BN held the line inactive for a decade or more, then formally abandoned it in the early 1990s without ever reactivating it.

Of course, as we all know, they reopened Stampede a few years later.

Preservation of these rights of way by railbanking is close to essential if we are ever to have a prayer of restoring the lost capacity on the American railroad network.
 

George Harris
Member # 2077
 - posted
Back to the original question:

First, depending upon the state you were in, there could be large savings in the assesed valuation of the property if a track was removed. Think of the difference in property taxes on a lot worth say $10,000 and the same lot with house being worth $200,000. Usually the right of way itself would be values very low for tax purposes, with most of the value being placed on the "improvements", that is the track.

Second, in times past most double track lines had each track signaled for operation in one direction only. Usually this was ABS, so you still had to have operators and train orders. Usually when they were singled CTC was applied so that you also got rid of the need for operators and train orders. There was the theory prevailing for a while that a single track CTC'd line could carry as many trains as a double track line with single direction ABS.

Third, the single tracking gave a sudden one time supply of reasonably good used rail and ties. This could reduce the need to purchase new materials, or allow upgrading of secondary lines, or both.

Fourth, it could enable clearance improvements that would otherwise be extremely costly. For example, in tunnels, if you remove one track, shift the other over toward the center by 3 to 5 feet, you can improve both your lateral clearance for long cars on curves and raise your overhead limit by 2 to 3 feet.

Fifth, while rail life is almost 100% traffic dependent regarless of time, where the usual traffic density per track is on the order of 15 MGT per year or less, which was at one time true for most of these double track lines, ties rot out before they wear out in most parts of the country, so you reduced your material needs permanently.

Sixth, sometimes load limits could be increased simply because bridges built for two track would then be carrying only one. I say sometimes, because there is a lot more to determining the load capacity of a large bridge that just the capacity of the main truss memebers.

Seventh: At the time this was going on the though that there would be traffic increases resulting in significant increases in number of trains over the line was considered an impossibility.
 

PullmanCo
Member # 1138
 - posted
Lest we forget,

Railroads make their own choices on how to manage traffic. Santa Fe, as one example, was once single track across AZ and NM, but had passing sidings every few miles or so.

John
 

Mr. Toy
Member # 311
 - posted
George, your item #7 is most interesting. I am always amazed at how Amnerican businesses look at short-term trends and automatically extrapolate that into the long-term. The railroads are paying for that now.
 
polarbearucla
Member # 2723
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
A million dollars per mile is really a bargain when you consider that a single lane of a freeway costs about five times that.

Not really - Roads easily have 5x as much traffic as a railway and thus end up costing less per passenger.


 

RRCHINA
Member # 1514
 - posted
Where do I begin?

Many comments above touch upon the meat of this topic, Mr. Harris being the most thorough in his analysis.

Things change and railroads adjust. We must remember that the single track railroad was all that was necessary to accomodate the existing business from the mid 1880's until the early 1900's, with a few exceptions.

I will discuss the RR of which I am most familiar, the BNSF, and particularly the TRANSCON. For those not familiar with that name it is the former Santa Fe line from LA to CHI that crosses northern AZ and goes on through Gallup, Belen and Clovis, NM; Amarillo, TX; Wellington and Emporia, KS into
Kansas City and thence northeasterly to FT Madison, Iowa and on into CHI. This is a RR that was constructed in many segements which were eventually connected as business warrented. Later as demand increased double track was added, eminating from CHI and KC for short distances and eventually completed
between these two cities and extending west from KC until other connecting lines relieved the congestion.

In the period following WWI it became apparent that California traffic had increased so that a 2nd track was needed in locations where operations were effected by grades or other topographic features. By 1940
the Santa Fe had double main track with ABS
from LA to Belen, NM but was not installed except in a few locations between Belen to west of KC.

Things continued to change as they always do,
for better or worse. If worse there is abandonment or bankruptcy, but not this line.
It prospered and Santa Fe invested in improvments as they are yet today. There is now CTC over most of the line and BNSF is installing 2nd main track in most locations between Belen and west of KC.

I am not informed of all that has been constructed in the past few years but am aware that the name TRANSCON has been applied to this line, not by BNSF, but by the shipping public because it is the most expeditious and dependable train route from LA to KC and CHI. The next issue of TRAINS will have a feature about the TRANSCON that
may shed more information than this brief summary about the need for 2nd main tracks
and the ancillary components which today's operating conditions dictate.

As with most business decisions there are many factors which come into play, and they change. Some because our nations ecomomy changes, some because of competion and some because the initial judgement was in error.
Each situation must be examined with its own specific criteria and so there is no easy answer to the question that began this discussion.



 

George Harris
Member # 2077
 - posted
polarbearucla said in response to Mr. Toy's
"A million dollars per mile is really a bargain . . ."

"Not really - Roads easily have 5x as much traffic as a railway and thus end up costing less per passenger."

Polarbearucla: I do not really know where to either begin or end on this subject. If you compare a high volume road with a low volume railroad, you can find examples to fit your statement, but it you are talking about capacity, you are just simply wrong.

I say this as a civil engineer who has done both railroad and highway work and been involved in traffic studies for both. Where to begin?

Most highway traffic manuals have discussions on level of service, which is at its finest defined by peak hour design volume, because virtually no road has an even 24 hour per day traffic flow. No roads that I know of anywhere carry 30 million tons of traffic per lane, even 5 MGT would be high, but many railroad lines carry much more than 30 MGT per track. Consider that about 40% of the freight ton miles moves by rail, if that ceases how much road building would we have to do? If rail is not effective carrying people, why do the major cities congeal with a rail transit shut down? Hong Kong exceeds 40MGT per track carrying people! If you want to move people in large quantites it has to be by rail. There is not practical alternative. As service availability increases and people adjust, in a few more years, even Los Angeles area would seem unimaginable without rail.
 

windowseatplease
Member # 3413
 - posted
I've been stationed in Europe for a while and if you haven't been there you don't know anything about single track. Growing up on double track hot spots in the US, when I went to Europe I thought impossible. But you never hear anything happening. Particularly in Spain between Sevilla and Cadiz where commuter trains run every 15 minutes all day everday in addition to Talgo trains. Being an American I keep asking 'how can they run single track that busy', but they do it and on time. That's a major savings in finances and maintenance time.

------------------
thewindowseat
 

rresor
Member # 128
 - posted
Further to Mr. Harris' comment -- I used to work for the New York City transit system. Here are some comparative capacity numbers.

Maximum (peak) highway capacity, 1,200 vehicles per lane per hour. This is the highest observed volume anywhere. Let's assume a 12-lane freeway with peak hour volume in each direction. That's 14,400 vehicles per hour, each way. At an occupancy of 1.25 people per vehicle, that's 18,000 people per hour, each way.

Now consider a two-track rail line like the #7 Flushing line. Peak headway is 90 seconds, or 40 trains per hour. Trains are 11 cars. At 150 people per car, that's 1650 per train. Times 40 equals 66,000 per hour each way, or 3.6 times the highway capacity -- and that's with just one track in each direction.

Get the picture? Or do I need to give you the max volume on a four-track railroad?
 

rresor
Member # 128
 - posted
Whoops, math error. My 18,000 people per hour correspond to a 24-LANE freeway (12 lanes each direction). If only six lanes, max capacity is 9,000 per hour, or about one-seventh the capacity of a single rail track.
 



Contact Us | Home Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2




Copyright © 2007-2016 TrainWeb, Inc. Top of Page|TrainWeb|About Us|Advertise With Us|Contact Us