Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX Atlanta Div. Lineville Sub.

With all the new CSX changes coming down the pike, looking at an Atlanta Division map, seems as though the Lineville Sub. from Birmingham (Pelham) to LaGrange, GA. would be a good candidate to become a shortline. Any thoughts with you CSX experts?

You serious Clark?

The Lineville sub is a major part of CSX "Iron Triangle" network. Lots of traffic still polishes the rails on this route as it's the major route between Jax and Waycross to Chicago.

Posted from iPhone

Snce the grades are less severe between Nashville and Waycross via Bham than they are via Atlanta (Cowen, TN is over 2% NB and almost as steep SB), look for more freight to go thru Bham.  CSX never completed a program to double track between Junta (junction with the line from Cincinnati that goes thru Knoxville and Etowah, TN) and Tilford, instead opting to double track the B&O between Greenwich, OH and Chicago in anticipation of the CR takeover.  That being said, strategic planners are probably looking at that they can divert away from the NCC&STL via Atlanta and send thru Bham.  Unless my theories are completely wrong, the Lineville between Bham and Manchester (junction with the line from Atlanta) would have a very bright future.
Andy

HardYellow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all the new CSX changes coming down the pike,
> looking at an Atlanta Division map, seems as
> though the Lineville Sub. from Birmingham (Pelham)
> to LaGrange, GA. would be a good candidate to
> become a shortline. Any thoughts with you CSX
> experts?

CSX Lineville Sub is a Major Route & is part of the CSX Triangle Plan & in fact Birmingham (Boyles Yard) is still operating its Hump Yard. The Longterm Question I would be asking is what  Will become of the W&A Sub & Chattanooga Sub?
As for the Lineville it will thrive under the loss of the ATL Hump in the Longterm i believe & I see CSX Selling the Chatt & W&A Sub's to a Shortline.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/17 14:56 by darkcloud.

I do not claim to be an expert on these lines, but I do know a bit. First, CSX and NS compete vigourosly in the Midwest to South/Southeast markets for all commodities since they became the only two major RR's there, and after the takeover of Conrail, that added even more traffic. NS's former Southern decided in the early 1960's to make their constrained CNOTP 'Rathole' Route from Cincinnati to Chattanooga into a high clearance double track route, building a lot of infrastructure, eliminating old tunnels, new bridges, etc. They were so smart and futureistic doing this, at a time when permits for construction were easier to get. It was not about local traffic, it was about making an excellent railroad connecting the North and the South. Southern's famous saying "Southern gives a Green Light to Innovation" has been no better expressed than by the improvement of the Rathole. Today, it is mostly double track, manageable grades, in typical NS excellent maintenance, and can handle 40 or more trains a day.

Now, CSX, after its mergers was at a disadvantage to NS. It had FOUR routes between the North and the South; ALL primarily single track.  From East to West they stacked up like this: the Clinchfield, mostly a coal route, many curves and tunnels but manageable grades, little on-line non-coal biz, can't clear double stacks. But for many years it had two merchandise trains each way. Next was was the L&N's EK, which I probably wrongly use for the entire route from Cincy to Atlanta. Again, this was primarily a coal route with little on line industry. Many tunnels and curves and grades worse than the clinchfield. Below Ravenna single track with sidings so short the multi-level trains were limited to 55 cars; and no double stacks. Third and fourth with the ex-CEI/LN/NCSL and ACL routes From Chicago/Louisville to the Gulf Coast crossing at Nashville. These routes had better siding length, three hump routes enroute, and eventually cleared for double stack with acceptable investment. These later two are on CSX's routes to keep. Both the CRR and EK have lot a lot of coal traffic and downgrading has started. And under the new 'dear leader' probably sale cluster candidates. 

For CSX to compete with the NS and their better route on the old Rathole I see no choice fro CSX to keep the existing routes Chgo & Cincy to Nashville, and from Nashville to SE Georgia by both Atlanta and Birmingham. Only current management can decide if one should be intermodal and the other 'other', both handle all types of traffic, OR institute directional running! I'll be watching.

  

apologize for accidentally sending previous before I spell checked it.

As for the possibility of Amtrak running Chicago-Atlanta-Florida someday, congestion in the vicinity of Atlanta on both NS and CSX has been one of prevailing barriers even if Amtrak had the money and the equipment. Congestion on CSX, at least between Nashville and Atlanta, should be reduced by the current changes.,, especially the aforementioned single track immediately north of Atlanta. Whether those segments remain 50-60 mph for freight (and capable of handling Amtrak at 60 mph) over the long run, we shall have to wait and see -- especially if parts of the line are turned over to a shortline.

Remember, CSX does not hold title to Chattanooga-Atlanta. Rather, the state of Georgia does. The W&A is leased to CSX, and the lease expires 12/31/2019.

HH has scrapped the iron triangle. he's keeping things as is.

CFI_85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You serious Clark?
>
> The Lineville sub is a major part of CSX "Iron
> Triangle" network. Lots of traffic still polishes
> the rails on this route as it's the major route
> between Jax and Waycross to Chicago.
>
> Posted from iPhone

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember, CSX does not hold title to
> Chattanooga-Atlanta. Rather, the state of Georgia
> does. The W&A is leased to CSX, and the lease
> expires 12/31/2019.

Last time around Southern Railway tried to get the lease. NS would probably be happy to pick it up if CSX did not want it. If CSX was to walk away, that would be a big shock to me.

rantoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there an operations opportunity for Amtrak
> (assume funding) to gain control of one of the
> CSX lines and create a functional Chicago -
> Florida route?

Atlanta-Chattanooga-Nashville is still the short route for much of CSX's competitive intermodal traffic. Maybe I am wrong, but I just cannot see CSX doing a big downgrade. Perhaps as coal is lost and other bulk and loose car traffic is rerouted, some capacity would become available for Amtrak, but south of Atlanta would still be a problem and probably north of Nashville, too.

South of Atlanta, I've never heard anyone suggest the ex-ACL. Instead people presume the ex-CofG to Macon and then one of several routes from there. 

Does the congestion extend north of Amqui?

It's all speculative because Amtrak has no financial capacity to start a new LD route... and there's a political fight brewing just to keep the LD system intact.

rantoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there an operations opportunity for Amtrak
> (assume funding) to gain control of one of the
> CSX lines and create a functional Chicago -
> Florida route?

The only recent proposal that I've heard of was possibly extending the City of New Orleans to Orlando.  This would go via Mobile, Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville.  I'm not sure if this proposal is still being talked about or not.  It wouldn't be the most direct Chicago - Florida routing, but it would be a start.   

Andrew

>
> The only recent proposal that I've heard of was
> possibly extending the City of New Orleans to
> Orlando.  This would go via Mobile, Pensacola,
> Tallahassee, and Jacksonville.  I'm not sure if
> this proposal is still being talked about or not.
>  It wouldn't be the most direct Chicago - Florida
> routing, but it would be a start.   
>
> Andrew

That would be a good move. As much as I love the Old Sunset Limited, they need to run El Paso over to Dallas/Ft. Worth. We need a DFW to Los Angeles train.  San Antoino to El Paso is a waste of money and time. 

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ctillnc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Remember, CSX does not hold title to
> > Chattanooga-Atlanta. Rather, the state of
> Georgia
> > does. The W&A is leased to CSX, and the lease
> > expires 12/31/2019.
>
> Last time around Southern Railway tried to get the
> lease. NS would probably be happy to pick it up if
> CSX did not want it. If CSX was to walk away, that
> would be a big shock to me.

In "Brosnan, The Mesiah of Railroading", this move by Southern Railway was explained. Southern put in the bid on the W&A to force the lease payment by the L&N to the State of Georgia higher as the rate L&N was paying was very low. Southern already had their own route from Chattanooga to Atlanta via Rome, so the intent was to make the competition fairer between these two routes. 

Jay

In terms of natural topography the W&A is probably better than Southern's route... but Southern has poured so much money into theirs that I don't think there is much difference now. Anyway, with the construction of the Whitaker intermodal facility at Austell, I can't imagine NS would have serious interest in the W&A in 2019... although it wouldn't surprise me if they re-do the Brosnan tactic. 

 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/17 14:56 by darkcloud.

If CSX does downgrade the ex-L&N Cincy to Atlanta to local status, cuts it, or sells it, I do not see how CSX could de-emphasize either the Nashville to SE Georgia routes via either Atlanta or Birmingham. I'd think they would need both to compete with NS's straighter and superior ex "Rathole".Like I said, directional running, at least partially, on both routes might be a possibility. With directional running you reduce the need for passing siding enhancement, especially if you choose to run non-clearing trains. The trains in the opposite direction to the favored direction have to be kept to siding length. And the two routes are very far apart if crews get qualified on both, or else wise a lot of jitney rides and deadheading has to be factored in. But I think both routes will be needed unless we have a big recession. Then the decision can be put off for a while.