Eastern Railroad Discussion > Downtown Pittsburgh clearances

Just heard Norfolk Southern supposedly will be raising the clearances through the station in Pittsburgh and other places along the mainline through town. This will allow double stacks and auto racks to bypass the Mon Line and the single track Port Perry line.

If this is the case, long and heavy double stack trains through central Pittsburgh may need helpers or continue through the Port Perry, the Mon Line and across the Ohio Connecting bridge.

Allegedly from a Facebook page. I don't do Facebook, so I can't confirm nor deny. Can anyone shed some light on this?

SantaFeRuss

Posted from Android

Article from the Post Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2017/04/25/Norfolk-Southern-double-stack-cars-20-million-pa-railroad-grant/stories/201704250052?pgpageversion=pgevoke

This will allow stacks on the Amtrak route thru the city. Don't care for the corporate welfare from the taxpayers to a private company.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/17 21:19 by 41bridge.

41bridge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Article from the Post Gazette:
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2017/04/25/
> Norfolk-Southern-double-stack-cars-20-million-pa-r
> ailroad-grant/stories/201704250052?pgpageversion=p
> gevoke
>
> This will allow stacks on the Amtrak route thru
> the city. Don't care for the corporate welfare
> from the taxpayers to a private company.


I hear you on corporate welfare. Admittedly it will be interesting to see double stacks and auto racks through central Pittsburgh. That line will get even busier.

SantaFeRuss

Posted from Android

The route via the Pittsburgh Line, although steeper, is shorter in terms of distance and running time. It is also double tracked the entire length, while the current route requires the use of the single tracked Port Perry branch, which can create quite a bottle neck when there are multiple stack trains trying to go through town each direction. This project will significantly improve NS's operational flexibility in the area.

Posted from iPhone

How much modification will be neeeded to Fort Wayne Bridge?

As Mike notes, the route via PENN Station is steeper. I don't know if that will require helpers but back in the Conrail days they had helpers stationed in a pocket track at PENN.

DaleR

Three big questions remain.

1. How are they going to lower the tracks in the trench on the north side Currently the tracks are on a solid slab of concrete and in a very narrow trench. Can't raise the highway intersection that is over the tracks.

2. What are they going to do about the clearances in Penn station . Clear out #2 track and still have a shelter for AMTRAK trains. This would mean a single track section of about a mile in length from Penn to solomon interlockings.

3. Reestablish the helper district as the ruling grade is 1.52% and very twisty, (more than the west slope.

If this is going to be used only as an emergency bypass for the slide prone Mon line --- fine but I think they would be better to use the Conemaugh line and put a couple of more passing sidings in for the same price.

If this is really meant to be used regularlly, then OK but pgh will object as they want this line abanonded for future development.

r

41bridge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Article from the Post Gazette:
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2017/04/25/
> Norfolk-Southern-double-stack-cars-20-million-pa-r
> ailroad-grant/stories/201704250052?pgpageversion=p
> gevoke
>
> This will allow stacks on the Amtrak route thru
> the city. Don't care for the corporate welfare
> from the taxpayers to a private company.

Did anyone notice TO's own J. Alex Lang was even quoted in the article?

Russ

rhotond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Three big questions remain.
>
> 1. How are they going to lower the tracks in the
> trench on the north side Currently the tracks are
> on a solid slab of concrete and in a very narrow
> trench. Can't raise the highway intersection that
> is over the tracks.
>
> 2. What are they going to do about the clearances
> in Penn station . Clear out #2 track and still
> have a shelter for AMTRAK trains. This would mean
> a single track section of about a mile in length
> from Penn to solomon interlockings.
>
> 3. Reestablish the helper district as the ruling
> grade is 1.52% and very twisty, (more than the
> west slope.
>
> If this is going to be used only as an emergency
> bypass for the slide prone Mon line --- fine but I
> think they would be better to use the Conemaugh
> line and put a couple of more passing sidings in
> for the same price.
>
> If this is really meant to be used regularlly,
> then OK but pgh will object as they want this line
> abanonded for future development.
>
> r

I have no inside info, but...

1. Don't be stunned if these bridges end up being raised. They are old and likely need replacement anyways. The PG article references this.
2. As it is today, all the freights use #2 anyways. Its possible they may just clear this track and leave #1 as is...but then again they may just be able to lower the track here.
3. I wouldn't be surprised if they do some directional running. The westbound stacks that need help can just keep their helpers on to Bloom as the heavier freights do. Eastbound stacks that are heavy can simply continue to use the Mon-Pt Perry route, if no helpers are available. Even if they don't do that, they can always stash a helper set off of a westbound at Pittsbugh to get an eastbound train if need be...many of the helpers off westbound trains freight cutting off at BLOOM flip back to pick up eastbound stacks at WING.
4. The Conemaugh Line is longer, slower, and has its own clearance issues. Better off to put the $$ in the fastest route.
5. The city of Pittsburgh wants a lot of things, but they have no jurisdiction over interstate commerce. NS doesn't have to give them the time of day if they don't want to do so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/17 15:15 by PittsburghMike.

Odd choice of photographs for the story.

The spokesman says it's an alternate route. Not sure if that ends up being primary or just balancing the two routes or what.

“Now, we’re going to be able to create an alternate route for that flow of goods to continue when something like that happens.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Odd choice of photographs for the story.
>
> The spokesman says it's an alternate route. Not
> sure if that ends up being primary or just
> balancing the two routes or what.
>
> “Now, we’re going to be able to create an
> alternate route for that flow of goods to continue
> when something like that happens.

Considering it is shorter, I would expect it becomes the primary route. A lot of the stack trains are light enough and sufficiently powered tomake the hill without a helper, and the ones that do would be picking up a helper anyways to go over the mountains to the east.

Posted from iPhone

The bridge was already "notched" several years ago to accommodate double stacks.

From what I understand, the trainshed at the station may be removed altogether, since the tracks through the station cannot be lowered. I would imagine canopies would be installed over the tracks Amtrak utilizes, similar to what was done when I 579/Veterans Bridge was built.

Again, I can't say definitely, but several years ago, the plan was to deepen the trench through West Park, since the North Ave./Brighton Rd. bridge cannot be raised due to the surrounding street grid.

There is still capacity to stage helpers at the station on either the siding or tracks 3 and 4...even though all helpers are based in Altoona, they commonly push westbounds to either Pitcairn or CP Home, so it's not a stretch to send them to the station to shove eastbounds...the advertised limits of the helpers currently run to West Pitt.

Posted from iPhone

NSTopHat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 41bridge Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Article from the Post Gazette:
> >
> >
> http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2017/04/25/
>
> >
> Norfolk-Southern-double-stack-cars-20-million-pa-r
>
> >
> ailroad-grant/stories/201704250052?pgpageversion=p
>
> > gevoke
> >
> > This will allow stacks on the Amtrak route thru
> > the city. Don't care for the corporate welfare
> > from the taxpayers to a private company.
>
> Did anyone notice TO's own J. Alex Lang was even
> quoted in the article?
>
> Russ

Yes I did notice the quote from J. Alex Lang. A friend of mine mentioned the Brilliant Branch being reactivated. Allegheny Valley Railroad does not use the Brilliant Branch anymore. AVR access to the line to New Kensington is via the trestle off the old Baltimore & Ohio line through the Strip District. Norfolk Southern wants more options thru Pittsburgh account mud slides along the Mon Line. NS would have deal with clearance issues with the AVR along Route 28.

SantaFeRuss

Posted from Android

This is interesting stuff. Pennsylvania has an active program to invest in railroad improvements, with the money spread around the state. Helps the railroads compete with the (also state sponsored) highways.

I wonder if CSX has a shopping list on file in the capitol? They undoubtedly have some needs that could be satisfied, especially in the Philly area.

The old , original large Conrail established the south side stack route thru Pittsburgh in the early 1990's because it was the most convertible route and there were only a few stack trains to be operated via on the 'Penn' Route after clearances were improved across the state. That was about 25 years ago. Times change. A lot of trailer traffic has converted to containers. The Conrail takeover also made the route more of a competitive necessity for NS and they went after the traffic. Now there are more stack trains than trailers, and one of the most stalwart trailer supporters, UPS, is converting to domestic containers.

I predict that directional routes are in NS's mind, but I tend to think that heavy eastbound stacks would use the original Mon route to avoid one helper grade east of Pittsburgh. The East is now a consumption area, and I would think a lot of the boxes moving west are empty. Westbounds, and shorter lighter Eastbounds will use the new route via the station. But the locals there like Pittsburgh Mike may differ. The improved station route would have more trains than the Mon eventually.

As for '41 bridges' objection about using taxpayer money for a private corporation's needs I'll agree if you can do this thru the politics you support. Get truckers to pay their full share for highway maintenance, especially on non-toll Interstates like I-80. Get that done, and then the railroads can compete in shorter haul inter-modal markets profitably. If you get that accomplished, which is highly unlikely after the last election, then NS would fill both double stack routes thru Pittsburgh, CSX would be busier too, and you could drive some major Interstates like I-80 and I-81 as a public taxpayer without interference from the 'convoys'.

NS does run a respectable amount of container traffic west from Newark and Elizabeth port facilities, and from Morrisville. But, I'd agree the majority is eastbound loads. It would be useful to have good stats on that.