CSX opposes NYS high speed plans

The problem for CSX is that Empire Corridor trains can get in the way of its trains. But moving those trains onto separate tracks will eliminate that difficulty, while still allowing CSX to collect trackage fees for the use of its right of way. So I doubt that CSX will be very obstructionist about separate tracks.

Google is playing with the car that can drive itself. And the railroads have technical problems from 1996.
Something is not right there, it is not that hard.

lpetrich wrote:The problem for CSX is that Empire Corridor trains can get in the way of its trains. But moving those trains onto separate tracks will eliminate that difficulty, while still allowing CSX to collect trackage fees for the use of its right of way. So I doubt that CSX will be very obstructionist about separate tracks.

Please explain how a 70mph train can get in the way of a 50mph oil train. I work out there and have seen dispatchers actually do there job and dispatch. Dispatching is like playing chess you need to be 3 or 4 moves ahead at all times. Gotta be able to use your for something other than a hat rack.

Once again the separate track thing comes up, look back at Noel's post or further back in some of mine youll see the same answer. High speed requires wire most of the space out there is on the north side no prob right. False all of the yards are on the north side. Stations are on the south side, unless you are going to build 2 new freight tracks and upgrade the existing I don't see how its going to work. Lived in NYS most of my life and have heard about high speed trains for as long as I can remember. It hasn't happened yet and unless the state finds a money tree it aint gonna happen.

FWIW...here's the old 1943 NY Central division maps: http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/maps.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Also includes a bunch of property maps, though only a few of those are in the affected divisions.

1. Electric Div.: http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/imag ... ectric.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2. Hudson Div. (i.e. diesel territory, Croton-Harmon to Albany): http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/imag ... hudson.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
3. Mohawk Div.: http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/imag ... mohawk.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
4. Syracuse Div: http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/imag ... racuse.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
5. Buffalo Div.: http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/imag ... uffalo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Electric Div. pretty much what it is now, except for >4 tracks from SD to some indeterminate point north of Yonkers.

Hudson diesel territory, as mentioned previously, was a 4-track RR from Croton-Harmon to Rhinecliff everywhere except for the 2-track-only rock cuts between Peekskill and Garrison currently occupied only by the one-round-trip daily Manitou flag stop. Then double-track north of the present-day MNRR district limits at the Dutchess County line up to Albany.

Entire Mohawk Div. from Albany-Rensselaer to the division post at Kirkville was quad-track.

Syracuse Div. had some tri-track in immediate downtown because of the way the branchlines peeled off and merged. Otherwise full quad end-to-end past the division post at Depew. That downtown triple pinch, however, looks like it was quadded sometime after 1943 when the West Shore Line midsection was truncated through downtown. It's presently quad everywhere except for the 1750 ft. where it passes under I-81, over NY 370, and through the wye with the St. Lawrence Div. I assume because I-81 construction rebuilt the section that underpasses the highway viaduct with a smaller bridge over NY 370. It's all wide open space underneath that viaduct, so can't imagine there'd be any physical constraints on widening under highway no-man's land.

Buffalo Div. was full quad from Depew to downtown where the Niagra Branch and Main Line to Erie diverged.



So, yeah...like Noel suggested, this was a full 4-track railroad the entire length of the WLR to Buffalo. And unless there was post-1943 encroachment along the way or more land grabs for adjacent NYDOT highway construction there's no reason it can't be refitted to full quad once again. 2 passenger x 2 freight, freight on the northside where the yards are, passenger on the southside where the stations are, track-sharing only where CSX needs to reach its random assortment of south-facing customers on its locals, no intermingling needed on anything thru-and-thru. All it takes is money, and NYS not attempting to cut corners by regressing to backdoor cuts of more track sharing...which CSX is wholly justified at being vigilant/skeptical about. If they want this done, they're going to have to do it right and pretty much replicate the old NY Central track capacity verbatim the whole route Spuytien to Buffalo. No going cheap in Metro North territory if they want a peaceful coexistence; they need Track 5 and a staggered merge from SD to Yonkers, they need at minimum Track 3 and pre-provision for dropping in Track 4 with later growth everywhere in diesel commuter rail territory except the constrained (and station-less) rock cuts. And they need a full quad-track railroad on the WLR for peaceful coexistence with the freights.


It can be done, because it WAS done and the ROW property lines on at least 95% of this route haven't changed in the last 70 years. This is all a matter of follow-through on NYS's part and not making assumptions that they can introduce stealth cutbacks to the buildout and squeeze their landlords MNRR and CSX with ever-shrinking capacity as the plan advances to design. Which you know WILL happen and put the various roads at loggerheads again if the political climate in Albany doesn't get a whole lot less cynical about this.

Compared to CAHSR, NYS has it easy building a 110+ MPH cross-state high speed line pushable to 125+ with later electrification layered on top on the 2 WLR passenger tracks. They don't have to carve any new ROW, and hardly have to widen any existing ROW except at the stops that need bigger/wider station facilities straddling the existing track real estate. They just have to pony up the resources and stop cutting their own legs out from under them and their RR partners by pushing a slow and cynical whittle-down of the plans. That's it. Do what has to be done, and push the regime in Albany to walk the talk for a change.

David Benton wrote:Google is playing with the car that can drive itself. And the railroads have technical problems from 1996.
Something is not right there, it is not that hard.

The point is that they have solved the technical problems of 1996 when it comes to trains. Trains operate in an environment that is much more controlled than the ones automobiles operate in and the technical problems they were facing in 1993 and '94 and '95 and '96 and '97 and '98 etc. have been solved. Partly because along the way of solving the technical problems they came up with a common standard which because they'll be needing thousands of the doohickeys to make it all work they aren't being handcrafted by highly paid professionals. They are being assembled by well paid professionals quickly.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Compared to CAHSR, NYS has it easy building a 110+ MPH cross-state high speed line pushable to 125+ with later electrification layered on top on the 2 WLR passenger tracks.

Going from 124 MPH to 126MPH is really really expensive and going from 126 to 186 or 226 isn't that much more expensive. Spend an extra billion or so and get Buffalo to Albany down to two hours and Buffalo to New York beats flying or driving so well that the extra passengers cover the expense of the extra billion or so.

Cant lay my fingers on my electric div ETT circa 48 but if memory serves tracks six and eight were not equipped with third rail. Why would MNRR NYS spend all that $$$$$$ on relocating station platforms and dropping third rail to add a little more capacity. If capacity was that important they would have replaced the sections of third rail on track one between DV and CR.

Not all of the Hudson was 4 track above POU there were long sections of two and three track areas. You might get a third track back in some spots but for the most part the tree huggers aren't going to allow it. Years ago MNRR was rumored to be coming as far north as Rhinecliffe never happened par of the problem was how to fuel the diesels. The tree huggers wanted nothing to do with tanks or trucks case closed.

If and when the second track goes in between ALB and SDY that will take away one bottle neck, but you still have to worry about LAB bridge the 130 plus year old relic that is on its last legs or should I say footings. The only other way into Albany from the west is over the Selkirk sub through the yard and over the Castleton bridge to the Post road. Last I checked there are no qualified crews in Albany for that move. Lets not bother with the highly cantankerous bridge at DV that's another issue all by itself. One day there going to open and never close. Funny no one seems to want to address this 1000lb gorilla in the corner. Lets fix these problems first then worry about 3 hour trips between ALB and BUF.

In closing its a wonderful dream but I really think its a non starter.

I tend to agree that New York State will not be able to come up with enough funds to accomplish what they would like to have. Some things could be done somewhat, a high level bridge at both DV and at LAB would help, DV might not be too much of a problem but LAB might be because it is so close to the station at Rensselaer, I really don't know for sure both both would cure the problem of movable bridges for all time. One place between Hoffmans and Buffalo where the ROW is not the same and that is in the Oneida area where the line was relocated some years back. I don't know how many tracks the existing ROW would accomodate in that particular area. I think the best way to handle this would be for New York State to cooperate with CSX with upgrading the existing physical plant for an increased number of passenger trains and freight trains too. If they can manage an agreement with CSX cab signals and train control could increase speeds for passenger trains to maybe 90 MPH but I doubt very much if CSX will go for anything faster than 90 MPH. Yes New York State would get a break in regard to the ROW but it is still much more money than I think they will be able to come up with at least anytime soon and probably not at all.
Noel Weaver

After Amtrak bought the W30th st Branch from CR,the movable part of the Bridge at DV was lifted to a barge
and was floated away for repairs,there was some work done on the pivot as well.
However,the brackish water may have done some damage over time.
What hurts is the fact it's remoted,not watched by a bridge tender/operator.
Cameras can only cover so much,miss some minor detail that can create problems if
not tended to right away.....

Backshophoss wrote:After Amtrak bought the W30th st Branch from CR,the movable part of the Bridge at DV was lifted to a barge
and was floated away for repairs,there was some work done on the pivot as well.
However,the brackish water may have done some damage over time.
What hurts is the fact it's remoted,not watched by a bridge tender/operator.
Cameras can only cover so much,miss some minor detail that can create problems if
not tended to right away.....

That would be a false statement. There are maintainers for quick fix issues and a tender there to swing the bridge. 7 days a week. They have done even more work on the bridge but she still likes to act up once in a while, and when she does well...

If NYS and Amtrak complete the current projects of the second track and the realignment of the CPs in the Albany yard you might see the operator at LAB disappear. But that's still along way off. As for replacing LAB all together I think the old freezer warehouse would have to come down first as there really isn't much room to the south side for proper approaches.

Railjunkie wrote:

Backshophoss wrote:After Amtrak bought the W30th st Branch from CR,the movable part of the Bridge at DV was lifted to a barge
and was floated away for repairs,there was some work done on the pivot as well.
However,the brackish water may have done some damage over time.
What hurts is the fact it's remoted,not watched by a bridge tender/operator.
Cameras can only cover so much,miss some minor detail that can create problems if
not tended to right away.....

That would be a false statement. There are maintainers for quick fix issues and a tender there to swing the bridge. 7 days a week. They have done even more work on the bridge but she still likes to act up once in a while, and when she does well...

If NYS and Amtrak complete the current projects of the second track and the realignment of the CPs in the Albany yard you might see the operator at LAB disappear. But that's still along way off. As for replacing LAB all together I think the old freezer warehouse would have to come down first as there really isn't much room to the south side for proper approaches.

The current Mayor of Albany would love to see the freezer building has come down. She's suggested a blockbuster movie use it in a demolition scene. Not as stupid as it sounds when you consider how thick the walls are and how heavily built it is, it won't be cheap to remove.

As for raising the LAB, highly unlikely given constraints on both sides.

The biggest question is, when (not if, since it has to happen eventually) they rebuild it, will they add walking/bike paths. While the railroad would prefer not, my guess is, for a multitude of reasons it will happen and the railroad will accept it, if only because of the public money that will be made available to make it happen.

(and honestly, biking across the river at that point right now is a pain. Adding a bike path there would be a huge win.)

The problem even with a controlled demo you have the tracks and 787 right there, those guys are good but as the expression goes sh.. happens. The walls of that place are 2 to 3 feet thick concrete plus who knows what else. IF and that's a big IF the bridge ever gets rebuilt they might put the walk way back in. They are still on the bridge plus the stair frames on the Rennselear side. Biggest problem I see is its a different time and place then when the bridge was originally built with insurance ect ect.. It was actually a pretty cool set up back in the day with the subways and all.

I would guess that LAB will be rebuilt, and remain a swing bridge but with a walkway, as part of the upgrades in the area for the casino. I think it's a safe bet to say the casino will be built at the Rensselaer site, and the whole traffic pattern in the area will have to be changed. You can be sure that easy foot access from downtown Albany will be a part of the plan, and a LAB walkway would be much better than the current route over the high level Dunn Memorial bridge.

As a side note, it looks like they are preparing for major construction in the station area. There are several trailers set up where the post road splits off.

Noel Weaver wrote:a high level bridge at both DV and at LAB would help, DV might not be too much of a problem but LAB might be because it is so close to the station at Rensselaer,

It's 12 kinds of squiggly west of the bridge and goes right on the edge of much beloved Tivoli Park. If we want two hour service between Albany and Buffalo one place they can squeeze 90 seconds off the trip would be to connect the nice straight parts to a tunnel that avoids all the curves. Not cheap but if we are going to spend a lot of money to replace a bridge that connects to curves on either side of it, it's time to go get estimates on how much it would cost to save the 90 seconds.

... 90 seconds here, 90 seconds there, three minutes over yonder and suddenly it's not much better than what we already have. And car owners in Rochester who want to Utica or Albany or vice versa drive because it's easy to park at the destinations and door to door trip times aren't that much different.

Backshophoss wrote:After Amtrak bought the W30th st Branch from CR,the movable part of the Bridge at DV was lifted to a barge
and was floated away for repairs,there was some work done on the pivot as well.
However,the brackish water may have done some damage over time.
What hurts is the fact it's remoted,not watched by a bridge tender/operator.
Cameras can only cover so much,miss some minor detail that can create problems if
not tended to right away.....

The signal maintainer at Spuyten Duyvil is technically the bride operator. We also have an electronic technician who is qualified to operate the bridge as well when the maintainer is unable to come in. There is somebody there until 11:30 at night, or later if a train is significantly late. After that point the bridge is left open until morning.