Eastern Railroad Discussion > Rail upgrade along interstate 81 urged

Rail upgrade along interstate urged

Study forecasts cut in I-81 traffic

BY PETER BACQUE
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Feb 17, 2001


Virginia should consider making rail improvements on
the Interstate 81 corridor so it won't have to spend
as much money widening the truck-heavy highway,
according to a "very preliminary" study.

The idea is that a better rail line along that western
Virginia route would take significant amounts of truck
traffic off the intensely traveled commercial highway
and avoid future congestion.

"There are still many unanswered questions and issues
to resolve," according to the study, which grew
out of a resolution passed last year by the General
Assembly.

"But that should not deter further consideration" of
proposals such as one advanced by Norfolk Southern
railroad.

Upgrading Norfolk Southern's tracks in the I-81
corridor would cost roughly $1.2 billion, according to the
study, which noted it was a preliminary estimate.

Norfolk Southern says its rail line capacity can be
increased faster and more cheaply than the highway's,
delaying or eliminating the need for the state to spend
money for I-81 improvements.

Instead, the state should pay for the railroad work.

Trucks make up as much as 40 percent of the traffic
running on I-81 although it was designed to carry no
more than 15 percent.

"I'm for the rail, I really am," state transportation
board member Olivia A. Welsh said this week. "I'm for
anything that will move those trucks off the
interstate."

Railroad improvements - generally adding a parallel
track to the existing line - has the potential to take
about 10 percent of the divertible truck traffic off
the interstate, officials said.

I-81 runs for 325 miles in Virginia from the
Virginia-Tennessee state line near Bristol to the Virginia-West
Virginia state line.

Widening the interstate to six and eight lanes along
that entire distance could take more than 20 years
and could cost as much as $3.3 billion.

The state feasibility study became public this week.

Railroads can carry intermodal containers and truck
trailers loaded on flat cars.

With Norfolk Southern's suggested rail improvements,
"they could increase their speed and attract more
intermodal traffic," said George R. Conner, the
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation's rail
administrator.



Contact Peter Bacque at (804) 649-6813 or
pbacque@timesdispatch.com

Galen A. Wright
Lynchburg, Virginia
(804) 258-3044
Visit: http://www.brc-nrhs.org
Visit: http://www.mooreselectric.com/

If you take the example of what NS is doing in Pennsylvania and other places, as soon as the VA General Assembly is willing to endorse this project, NS will ask for government funding to build the additional capacity. NS is not going to expand the capacity of the Shenandoah line (or any other line) without guaranteed funding or traffic (and a study saying that truck traffic MIGHT move to rail is not a guarantee).

...I thought the report stated I-81 would have to be widened anyway?

What would be the NS operating plan? If its just a handful of intermodal trains each way, it sounds perhaps like NS is pulling a fast one(remember all that post-merger north/south traffic that was going to take 10% of the truck traffic? Net result so far: half the number of trains as pre-merger).

However, if you ran a quick-load intermodal terminal at each end(Front Royal and Bristol), and service at least hourly, thats another story. A couple of models, one would be trailers only, no cabs. Easiest, can use conventional equipment, requires coordination of drayage on each end, so limited to bigger truck companies. Loading/unloading time needs to be factored in, so could be as much as 5-6+ hours longer than direct road. Of course if the progressive NS management makes the same mistake they did at Rutherford(insisting on overhead crane loaders instead of mobile packers, when cranes are more than twice as slow, but hey, they know better than anyone else), then you can add to that time.

Better would be a European model. Modified TTX flats to allow circus train loading, both cab and trailer, plus a rider coach/lounge up front. Drive-up, drive off, hourly service means 1.5 hour delay to the driver at most(plus slower train transit time as compared to highway, about 1-2.5 hours more). Suitable to any trucking firm now, provided they can allot an extra 2.5-4 hours to their schedules. Could boost usage even more if drivers were allowed to sleep in their rigs while in transit, thus saving them from falsifying logs on at least one leg of their trip. Especially if service is extended farther up and down the corridor(Harrisburg, North Jersey, Knoxville, Atlanta). Could legally use one driver Northeast to FL. However in the current legal climate, doubt if drivers would be allowed to stay in their rigs.

If service extended, would be better to have terminal in Roanoke instead of Bristol, to access Carolinas(I-77) market and simplify blocking. Doubling is where trains lose lots of time, and with circus train loading, every new market pair requires a double. Could effectively run a Manville, NJ & Harrisburg to Knoxville train and a Front Royal to Atlanta train, block swapping, setting out, and picking up at a new Roanoke area yard. For hourly service, this yard would need switches remotely-controlled by the yardmaster, and 2 on duty crews each shift.

Of course, some minor changes in the rules would be required for the NS to maintain this level of service. For starters, walking the train every time a train kicks, even when the air comes back up on the rear, will prevent consistent truck competitive times. And marker trouble(especially with the blue-light special NS markers) has got to be dealt with first. Further, if a yard has remote-controlled switches with lamp indicators, why not raise the speed limit on thru yard tracks to 25or 30 mph? Can make a big difference in terminal time, and this would be a service where minutes count.

Here's hoping this idea works.

There are rules that allow the crew to call the spatch and get, "Track clear, run track speed" clearence through Yard Limits. As long as the main is clear, this is possible, and NS does it already in some places.

As for what they are going to do, remember they were testing 70mph intermodal down there in some areas of the line. Hhhhuuuummmmm....

Also, with the quick one they pulled in building this new 12-mile PA coal line, don't put anything past them.


Scott H

As a civil engineer who has done a lot of work for the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transport, and has a thorough knowledge of the NS lines in Virginia - especially in western Virginia - I have a few comments.

The mostly single track Shenandoah NS line could be improved to allow higher train speeds (at significant but doable costs) but not to the 65 mph speed that trucks currently can maintain on I-81...

The same is true for the Pulaski to Bristol section in southwestern Virginia, where $100 million could be used to greatly increase the NS track capacity and increase train speeds - and a few track sections there ARE flat and straight enough to allow for 70+ mph intermodal train movements.

The problem lies between Roanoke and Pulaski. Even with reduced speeds around Roanoke and Christiansburg mountain on I-81, most trucks can still average 45-50 mph through this area. But due to terminal configurations, geography (including the same Christiansburg mountain), and sharp curves (geography again!), freight trains, even intermodal trains, can only dream of averaging 30 mph through that portion. Solving the railroad geographical problems in that segment would cost BILLIONS...

A better idea (and cheaper to!!!) would be to hire 100 new truck inspectors and 40 Virginia State Police and assign half each to the truck weighing stations on I-81 at Winchester and Bristol. These inspectors would work in shifts such that the truck inspections would occur 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year. The additional State Police would be dispatched to control trucks trying to avoid or bypass the mandatory check points. The two weighing stations are in rural areas with vast amounts of adjacent (cheap) land for added truck storage and inspection lots. Adding a few hundred truck parking spaces at each would also be a minor expense when compared to the road widening project. Each truck entering the state would be weighed, visually inspected, and its time recorded at the station (and relayed to the other station). In the opposite direction, trucks leaving the state would have to pass through a "rolling checkpoint lane" (separated from other traffic) from which they would only be stopped and pulled out if the they reached that point before the specified time (330 miles / 60 mph = 5.5 hours) passed from the entry check (at the other end).

How would this reduce the number of trucks on I-81? The delays would make the trucks (or trucking companies) look to alternate routes including rail. The delays to inbound trucks at either end of the state (of perhaps a few hours) would give the drivers adequate time to rest too!!!

The KEY to getting trucks off of I-81 is for the Commonwealth of Virginia to make it clear that they do not want trucks using I-81...

- BCM

Sounds like improving the NS Shenandoah line is a good idea. However, the railroad freight business is supposed to be profitable. Would NS allow whichever government agency put up the money to share in the profits?

Passenger railroading is inherently unprofitable and so has to get subsidized. I didn't think that was true of freight railroading. Last I looked, NS made money. If the taxpayers upgrade a freight railroad they should be treated like business partners.

One way for the state to encourage the rail shuttle's use would be to set up truck only tollbooths on I-81. Legal issues involved(hindering interstate commerce on a federal highway), but since some of the expansion money comes from the state, there is an argument to be made. In the back of my mind I think the point may be mute, didn't Congress pass a bill a couple of years ago allowing the establishment of tolls on previously free interstates? I believe SC has plans to make a bridge on I-85 a toll one. Anyway, the tolls would provide incentives to use the rail shuttle, but allow truly premium time-sensitive service the all-truck option, but at a price(as it should be).

Another idea regarding service expansion and the circus-loading model. If they want to expand further and offer even more routing options and market pairs, go with a simplified sort yard in Roanoke. Since all southbound traffic from the Northeast in this lane would be for Roanoke and south, just pull in a track, drive everything off and to a ramp for each destination. Hubbing, like the airlines do. No remote-controlled switches needed, and each train only would need to make a double or two before leaving while still offering as many as a dozen destinations. Could add an extra 30 minutes to an hour, or maybe 2-3 for long-distance pairs. But cost savings compared to rail blocking in terminal size and allows more options.

Run hourly to Knoxville and Atlanta, to serve the premium traffic, and the core route where you have the volume to do so. For longer distances, run every 3 hours, so you have enough volume to justify such level of service. For example, first hour run trains to Knoxville/Huntsville(Birmingham)/Memphis and Atlanta/Jacksonville/Miami. 2nd hour to Knoxville/Atlanta and Meridian(Mobile, Gulfport, New Orleans, Jackson)/Shreveport(Houston)/Dallas. Third hour Knoxville/Atlanta. Only new terminals needed would be a pair of tracks with paving at each end to allow a loading ramp to be wheeled and locked into place. Could combine with existing intermodal, as long as rail shuttle was first to unload, and conventional intermodal was loaded and ready to go for the pickup when the train arrived. Meridian would be an excellent place for such a conventional/shuttle block swap.

The State of Virginia used to own a large block of RF&P stock. I belive they traded it for land at former Potomac Yards. State investment for some stock sounds like a good idea, I don't know the politics of it.
I-81 is a big problem, but we have TOO many RADAR COPS as it is. I do not think it is right to harrass truckers away. Put traffic on rails by making rail service avalible. I think a truck toll collected at scales would make trucks pay their share of costs.
ALSO a little better planning by shippers could mean they do not need everthing shiped "just in time".

Steve