Home | Open Account | Help | 218 users online |
Member Login
Discussion
Media SharingHostingLibrarySite Info |
Eastern Railroad Discussion > B&O's West End questionDate: 06/12/18 17:37 B&O's West End question Author: Cumberland What was CSX's purpose of making its short section of right-of-way of the West End in downtown Cumberland single-track, and leaving the rest of it the way it has been for many years?
Was it the track's condition? Or was it to purely psychologically make the right-of-way look less important, ON PAPER, as a result of the decline of traffic? Or what? Matthew Date: 06/12/18 18:03 Re: B&O's West End question Author: DJ-12 The single track allowed a dramatic simplification of the interlocking at Viaduct Jct, which I'm sure is now much easier and less expensive to maintain. I don't recall precisely when this was done, but it was long before the present reduced traffic levels.
Posted from iPhone Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/18 18:24 by DJ-12. Date: 06/12/18 19:50 Re: B&O's West End question Author: wmbrakeman if your talking about mt sub part on viaduct , i believe it was do to condition of viaduct to slow the aging from weight , plus cost where it merges on to main , it all about $$$
Date: 06/12/18 21:24 Re: B&O's West End question Author: Cumberland wmbrakeman Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > if your talking about mt sub part on viaduct , i > believe it was do to condition of viaduct to slow > the aging from weight , plus cost where it merges > on to main , it all about $$$ Yes, that's what I was referring to. And, yes, that's what I suspected it was: the aging condition and the cost of repairing the track vs. just getting rid of it. Matthew Date: 06/13/18 03:57 Re: B&O's West End question Author: ClubCar Cumberland Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > wmbrakeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > if your talking about mt sub part on viaduct , > i > > believe it was do to condition of viaduct to > slow > > the aging from weight , plus cost where it > merges > > on to main , it all about $$$ > > Yes, that's what I was referring to. And, yes, > that's what I suspected it was: the aging > condition and the cost of repairing the track vs. > just getting rid of it. > > Matthew CSX did the same thing here in the Baltimore area where the main line goes up and into the Howard Street Tunnel and the branch goes down to Locust Point. They eliminated the crossovers and there is only a single track with one switch to the main going to the tunnel and a switch on the other end of the Y to allow west bound trains from the tunnel to go down to Locust Point. It's less track work and expense even though it was causing a bottle neck prior to just recently now that CSX has basically closed the Locust Point Yard, another big mistake for customers, but then they don't really care about many customers these days of "Precision Railroading." What a joke this outfit is today. It's just a matter of time before one of the western roads (Union Pacific or Burlington, Northern, Santa Fe) will take them over. Someday for sure or we will have a short line or a regional if CSX is broken up. Hey, it could happen, anything is possible in this day and age. John in White Marsh, Maryland |