Passenger vs. Freight Priority. Was: DOJ sues Norfolk Southern for making Crescent late

Howell CP just south of ATL station is now just an automatic crossing. NS and CSX intersect at Howell. Another problem is at BHM as the Crescent has to cross over CSX ( Nashville - BHM - Montgomery) and run on CSX tracks southbound to the Amtrak station. That is one reason that Crescent is often delayed BHM <> Anniston, It may even be that south of BHM station is CSX to NS. That may have changed? First come first served at these various CPs. Problem is that CSX often parks a freight over the CP Howell for crew changes. Not familiar with the BHM operations for any delays.

So, yes Crescent does operate intersect and on CSX tracks for short distances south of ALX.

Could a flyover be built jointly by Amtrak, CSX, and NS? I think we've discussed this before.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:19 am Could a flyover be built jointly by Amtrak, CSX, and NS? I think we've discussed this before.

No freight railroad company is going to build a flyover just for freight operations, and all would expect the FRA and local planning organizations to contribute all the funds to build it. Check out the two TexRail flyovers built in the Fort Worth, all funded by the FRA and Trinity Metro. The freight railroads only granted access to fly over their tracks, and UP additionally negotiated moving the Texas Eagle off their old T&P mainline onto the TRE rail line before granting that permission to even fly over their rail corridors.
Flyovers can be done, but not at the expense of the freight railroad companies.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:19 am Could a flyover be built jointly by Amtrak, CSX, and NS? I think we've discussed this before.

Flyovers would not be the best solution. Due to elevations if CSX (old Western and Atlantic RR) (NC&SL) ducks under NS the grade from downtown Atlanta to the old Tilford yard location would be less thereby saving CSX fuel money and occasionally an extra loco. NS would rightfully balk having to build flyovers over CSX. At least 4 separated track flyovers with very long approaches. With CSX ducking under NS, NS would just need 4 single track bridges over CSX, IMO flyovers construction costs would be at least 4 - 6 times instead of having CSX duck under NS. That is even if CSX ducks under at 4 main tracks width which will serve for commuter rail service. As well, any operation of any future commuter trains from BHM, CHA, Greenville, SC, Athens would also benefit from the duck under.

The History of Howell CP may need explaining. SOU RR was built after the civil war so it had to maintain the tower controlling traffic over all the various RRs. Double all these passenger numbers. After WW-2 there were 7 SOU from Greenville Now 3 from CHA, 4 or 5 from BHM did not cross NC&SL SAL - 4 from Athens, 3 from BHM. L&N 4 from north, NC&SL 3 from CHA, ACL 2 from Manchester. Now the SOU from CHA and CHA did not have to cross CSX. However, All others had to cross NS.

As far as freight SOU had to cross CSX all freights from Greenville / CLT. All other freights were just transfer trains from SOU Inman yard to the GARR, The C of GA/ A&WP yard south of down town off SOURR did not cross NC&SL Tilford yard to GARR Hulsley & C of G/ A&WP.

Before we go off track here, let us check in on the case...

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... ION,_et_al

Latest is September 23rd of this year, with a court order extending the time NS has to respond to the complaint. They have until Dec 27.

Come to think of it, who paid for the "sheep-jump" flyover in Kansas City? I think only freight railroads were involved?

I think you are correct, but that's been there for a while and it was funded by the freights because there was a clear return on investment to moving trains faster through the area.

Perhaps there is not enough ROI for the freights to build such a flyover in ATL.

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 7:54 am Perhaps there is not enough ROI for the freights to build such a flyover in ATL.

Correct unfortunately at present it is mostly NS that gets delayed. NS usually does not have any reason to stop a freight on Howell.
Once again a flyover does not make sense as NS would get all the elevation problems of navigating a flyover. NS would have 2 Main Tracks going toward Inman Yard and 2 MTs going toward the Gulch. If Commuter rail is installed on NS from the Greenville line then 2 more MTs will be needed sooner or later. 2 more flyovers is just nuts as way too expensive. But CSX would get benefits by ducking under NS as the elevation rise will be less. to / from old Tilford yard and the SAL line to Athens. NS then will need only regular bridges over CSX.

All benefits will be for new Amtrak service to / from Greenville - CLT and any future commuter rail. Best benefits of the duck under would come with an Amtrak station in the Gulch. As well, taking the 2 CSX Main Tracks and 2 - 3 parallel NS tracks and make them joint uses with full turnout provision from Howell to south of the Amtrak station. That would especially help CSX trains from Manchester and LaGrange navigate its convoluted routing from East Point thru the Gulch to Howell.