Water Level Route changes

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.

Neither PRR nor NYC was ever 4-track all the way to Chicago. (Unless you count all the tracks on different routes-- e.g. PRR Pittsburgh to Chicago via Fort Wayne and via Columbus, etc)

If you see a single-track main line near Albany, that could be the passenger main-- freights would have their own line to Selkirk (or somewhere) that separated from the passenger line west? of Schenectady. Don't think any 4-track section has been reduced to single track.

In the 1950s when NY Central was pulling up 3rd and 4th mains, the timetable had allowed maybe 45 mph on those tracks-- which I guess means they weren't in great shape.

Before the track reductions that took place in the mid to late 50's, I don't think there were any single track stretches anywhere on the New York Central. By the time the reduction from four to two tracks took place over most of the main line the passenger trains were far reduced from the 30's and 40's and they wanted to increase the speeds of the freight trains. When these track reductions took place there were some sections of main line that ended up being single track but for the most part these particular sections had either all or mostly all passenger traffic or all or mostly all freight traffic. The Albany, New York area in particular was an area where they ended up with single track operation in both directions out of Albany, in fact three directions east to Boston and New York and west to Buffalo until they reached junctions where the freight lines from Selkirk joined the passenger lines (Post Road on the B & A, Stuyvesant on the Hudson and CP-169 on the Mohawk). With mostly state money the second track was restored between Rensselaer and Stuyvesant (CP-126) but the others are still single track. The freight mains were mostly in the 45 MPH range and by rationalizing the physical plant they actually increased the overall freight train speeds which even in the 50's were the backbone of the railroad. This whole change made a lot of sense. When the job was done the New York Central was probably able to handle just about as much with two tracks, CTC and controlled sidings as the Pennsylvania was able to handle with ABS and three and four tracks. It was far more efficient and a cheaper railroad to operate as well.
Noel Weaver