Multi-tracking

If this is covered somewhere else, I could not find it and my apologies.

Perhaps some of the funding being spent on pre-planning new routes (Reading, Allentown, etc) would be better spent on multi-tracking on routes where Amtrac is at the mercy of commercial rail. It seems that every other week we hear about delays on Amtrac due to the rails not available for one or another reason. The 30-hour delay in the dead of winter this past season is a case in point. Absolutely lousy publicity.

If the service were more reliable, maybe more people would be encouraged to use it. And the other carriers might be encouraged to chip in a little if Amtrac's use of their routes is as bad as they claim and they are also allowed usage, with Amtrac having absolute priority on the additional rail. Was not most of that ROW dual-tracked in the past?

You're right. But I also I think Amtrak is quite aware of the need for more rail capacity. And it's not as inexpensive as you think - moving planning money over wouldn't get you far.

I'd love to see the thread you've started attract posters to identify priority stretches where Amtrak might invest in longer sidings, or connecting sidings into a complete main.

And I'd love to hear someone explain the economics of maintenance of way. How much did a Class 1 save by eliminating trackage? How much traffic do you need before it becomes worthwhile to build and maintain double track?

Amtrak might pay for adding more double or longer passing tracks, but it will be the freight railroad companies that will do it or contract a vendor to do it because they own the corridor. The latest example shows that the freight railroads will wish to overcharge for adding more passenger trains on their tracks. They would be very happy if Amtrak just faded away.
Great ideas and wish lists by railfans have to be realistic with an actual plan to do it. No realistic plan, nothing will happen. Threatening them with punitive lawsuits has not worked in the past, nor will it work in the future. What is needed is a positive incentive reward that has not existed for over 50 years and probably will never exist in the present climate.

Maybe the climate will change. If coal traffic drops off, some railroads will have excess capacity on the tracks they have now. I picture them putting more emphasis on fast intermodal traffic to make up some of the difference, and maybe by then states and feds (a bigger chunk of the voters, and their reps) will be willing to pony up and buy more slots at prices the railroads would appreciate.

Wouldn't passenger trains be easier to fit into a railroad dominated by fast intermodal trains than into one dominated by slow coal trains?

You are on the right track. Example: It is 208 track miles between BHM and Laurel Ms. The Crescents are scheduled for ~~~~ 5 hours both ways. That is an average speed ~~ 40 MPH including stops MEI & TCL. Most track speeds are 79 MPH If avg speed of 60 MPH then should make it in 3- 1/2 hours. Tonight #19/02 is going to take 7:00. That puts #19 into NOL ~ ~~ 0230. That means # 20 probably will not leave NOL until 1100 instead of 0915. For HOS rest unless Amtrak has spare crew in MEI that they vaned early to NOL..

Now if 3 more 15,000ft sidings were on that section the 3-1/2 hours could be done. At $2M per mile would take ~~ $18M. another 2 sidings BHM <>ATL would fix the route all way to ATL. Those five sidings would certainly help when adding the proposed DAL/FTW <> ATL <> WASH trin is implemented.

We will see if #20 is that late if it is allowed to make up the time today the 4th.

>if 3 more 15,000ft sidings were on that section

How many sidings are on that section now and what length?

west point wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 12:39 am Now if 3 more 15,000ft sidings were on that section the 3-1/2 hours could be done. At $2M per mile would take ~~ $18M. another 2 sidings BHM <>ATL would fix the route all way to ATL. Those five sidings would certainly help when adding the proposed DAL/FTW <> ATL <> WASH trin is implemented.

3 more 15,000 ft sidings (at most 175 cars)...

Might as well just double track the routes.

As far as adding track is concerned, I feel the states are better positioned to do this. Two perfect examples are VA and NC. VA is doing so by purchasing half of the RF&P sub and NC by way of the NCRR.

Hiawatha expansion was delayed for want of a single 11,000 foot siding. And this report says the average freight length is about 1.4 miles.

I’d think a 3-mile siding would be pretty useful.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-443.pdf

There's a lot that is affected by long trains outside of Amtrak, and this is a reminder of that. Longer sidings won't help if someone dies when they need to get to a hospital ASAP and has to wait for a train stuck on the tracks.

Good idea if Amtrak or the states own the extra then no additional property taxes. Then only the maintenance of the switches, points, frogs, signals will be additional costs if track maintenance is also covered by Amtrak & etc.

Yeah, simply not going to happen in 99% of the cases. For one: in many cases, there's simpy no room for additional tracks. And where there are, between NIMBYism and interference with the other tracks, you're be in courts for years trying to make it happen. NYS has been discussing this for ALB-BUF for years, in part because this was mostly 4 track decades ago. CSX has been pushing back hard (and basically saying there's only room for one additional track). The other problem, in many cases, the stations would be on the "wrong" side of the existing freight tracks. So this means either conflicting movements to get to the stations, or a lot of work to use the existing ones. NYS has been discussing this for decades with little movement.

Nice idea, but probably cheaper and easier to "buy" better access from host railroads by paying them more in return for more guaranteed access.

The Maryland Department of Transportation and CSX have also been going back and forth for a long time about the expansion of passenger services on the Baltimore Division’s Capital Subdivision and Meteopolitan Subdivision. CSX insists that the existing service pattern will not be allowed to expand unless each double-track route is triple tracked, and wants MDOT to pay for it.

The Met Sub would be impossible to triple track without a LOT of very expensive ROW acquisition south and east of Clarksburg, MD. The Capital Sub would be slightly less impossible, and a small part of it in the vicinity of the Jessup Auto Terminal is already triple track. But the entire route wouldn’t be triple track anyway because of the presence of the Thomas Viaduct and the highly constrained ROW north of Dorsey, MD. Redoubling the Old Main Line Subdivision between Relay, MD and Adamstown, MD isn’t a good solution either because it serves a much different set of freight routings than the Capital and Met Subs.

With the availability of the Northeast Corridor for intercity weekend services and the existing project on the books to widen the Corridor between Halethorpe, MD and Severn, MD, I suspect that it will be a very long time before the Capital Sub is widened to any great extent.

Great topic! I’d throw in the formerly New York Central former 4-track main west of Albany.

The historic CB&Q between North Kansas City and Lincoln NE is now a busy piece of railroad. BNSF has been adding sidings, but bluntly, double tracking is the right approach.