by zoqaeski
Hello everyone
I've been looking up some of the history on NYC's Water Level Route, after reading about the rivalry between them and the PRR, and was wondering how much Central's famed route has changed since it's heyday? As far as I know, there weren't many four-track sections in the US, so the existence of two four-track main lines from New York to Chicago implies that pre-WWII it must have been pretty busy. I know that parts of the line were reduced to two and three tracks during the 50's and 60's, but following the line on the satellite view from Google Maps shows some singled sections just north-west of Albany, heading towards Schenectady. Am I following the right line, or did they really reduce a four-track main line to single track, presumably to cut costs?
I'm not from America, so my geographical knowledge is pretty limited to maps on the web. I've always wondered about the logic in reducing track capacity too: I mean, with upgraded signalling, you can simplify layouts here and there, but surely there'd be a point where the lack of operational flexibility trumps economic interests? There was a controversial case a few years back here in Australia where the government reduced a busy main line with hourly passenger trains to single track because of clearance concerns about heritage bridges and structures, and now the line has frequent delays.
I've been looking up some of the history on NYC's Water Level Route, after reading about the rivalry between them and the PRR, and was wondering how much Central's famed route has changed since it's heyday? As far as I know, there weren't many four-track sections in the US, so the existence of two four-track main lines from New York to Chicago implies that pre-WWII it must have been pretty busy. I know that parts of the line were reduced to two and three tracks during the 50's and 60's, but following the line on the satellite view from Google Maps shows some singled sections just north-west of Albany, heading towards Schenectady. Am I following the right line, or did they really reduce a four-track main line to single track, presumably to cut costs?
I'm not from America, so my geographical knowledge is pretty limited to maps on the web. I've always wondered about the logic in reducing track capacity too: I mean, with upgraded signalling, you can simplify layouts here and there, but surely there'd be a point where the lack of operational flexibility trumps economic interests? There was a controversial case a few years back here in Australia where the government reduced a busy main line with hourly passenger trains to single track because of clearance concerns about heritage bridges and structures, and now the line has frequent delays.