Eastern Railroad Discussion > Railroad Mile Markers Question

Just curious, do railroads ever change the mile markings? I was wondering after seeing someone's shot from a shortline railroad that was previously a Class 1, originally ACL, for what it's worth. The railroad is no longer a through line, but the mile markers are from before previous abandonements. I was just wondering if railroads have ever hanged how the miles were calculated.

BanJoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just curious, do railroads ever change the mile
> markings? I was wondering after seeing someone's
> shot from a shortline railroad that was previously
> a Class 1, originally ACL, for what it's worth.
> The railroad is no longer a through line, but the
> mile markers are from before previous
> abandonements. I was just wondering if railroads
> have ever hanged how the miles were calculated.

Such changes are rather rare but they do happen. The first example I can think of is that the Delaware & Hudson lines west and south of the Schenectady, N.Y. area and certain Boston & Maine lines were re-mileposted during the early 1980s by Guilford Transportation Industries to conform to their "Freight Main" mileage based at Mattawamkeag, Maine. (For all I know, there was a similar change made on the Maine Central.) The D&H changes included the ex-DL&W between Binghamton and the Scranton area and the ex-PRR line along the Susquehanna River's east branch down to Sunbury, Pa. Even after Canadian Pacific and then Norfolk Southern took over the D&H lines involved, the Guilford-established mileposts and associated control-point numberings continue to be used. There are discontinuities in the mileposts on the former B&M, meanwhile, because the portions that fell under MBTA ownership retain their original B&M mileposts.

It's rare for track to be re-mileposted because there are a lot of historical records that make reference to milepost locations, so some sort of cross-reference likely would need to be made if those records were not suitable to be updated. Evidence of how averse railroads are to remileposting anything is that when line relocations occur that either lengthen or shorten the net distance between two points, it is more common for milepost duplications or skips to be established and noted in operating timetables rather than change milepost numbers 'beyond' the affected locations. There is, for example, a 20-odd-mile "jump" on the Florida East Coast main line near Bunnell, Fla., at the point at which the Moultrie Cutoff rejoins the original mainline alignment that ran via East Palatka. When mileposts are duplicated, the normal convention is to add a suffix (typically "X") to the repeated mileposts.

With shortlines, they really would gain minimal if any benefit from going through the trouble to change mileposts, so they don't do it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/19 16:24 by toledopatch.

Yes, this definitely happens.  I'm sure more people will chime in with their favorite examples.

One of mine is from a class one railroad: coming west into Whiting, Indiana, Conrail decided to switch their active right-of-way from the former New York Central mainline onto the parallel former Pennsylvania Railroad mainline (thus allowing them to abandon the NYC west of Whiting, and the PRR east of Whiting, at least for a ways).

In doing so, they "re-mileposted" the former PRR from Whiting into Chicago for consistency with NYC mileposts.  So the Englewood crossing with the Rock Island was no longer MP 460.8 (distance from Pittsburg), but rather MP 515.8 (distance from Buffalo).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/19 15:59 by DivergingClear.

After U.P. bought the espee in 1996 they change the espee mile markers system wide starting in San Francisco all the way down to the chemical coast.

Posted from Android

The-late-EMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After U.P. bought the espee in 1996 they change
> the espee mile markers system wide starting in San
> Francisco all the way down to the chemical coast.

What reference points did they use? For example, does the entire Sunset Route now measure from New Orleans or Los Angeles, or are there Milepost 0 locations at key intermediate points like El Paso or San Antonio?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/19 16:25 by toledopatch.

There are also situations where the MPs were not changed but are no longer accurate. Two from CSX in Florida: for the Jacksonville Terminal, a note says "Only 700 feet between MP A 643.0 and MP A 644.0." For the Sanford Subdivision a note says "MP A 769.0 and MP A 770.0 are missing and there is only 749 feet between MP A 768.0 and MP A 771.0." Route improvements, deletion of former passenger station trackage, combinations of routes following a merger... many reasons. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/19 16:22 by ctillnc.

Conrail changed the milepost on the Buffalo Line. At one time the mileage was in three sections. One being Harrisburg to Sunbury using the mileage from Baltimore from the old Northern Central. Second section was mileage Erie to Sunbury and the Third from Buffalo to Emporium. Conrail renumbered from Emporium to CP Rockville to make all the mileage from Buffalo.

DivergingClear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, this definitely happens.  I'm sure more
> people will chime in with their favorite
> examples.
>
> One of mine is from a class one railroad: coming
> west into Whiting, Indiana, Conrail decided to
> switch their active right-of-way from the former
> New York Central mainline onto the parallel former
> Pennsylvania Railroad mainline (thus allowing them
> to abandon the NYC west of Whiting, and the PRR
> east of Whiting, at least for a ways).
>
> In doing so, they "re-mileposted" the former PRR
> from Whiting into Chicago for consistency with NYC
> mileposts.  So the Englewood crossing with the
> Rock Island was no longer MP 460.8 (distance from
> Pittsburg), but rather MP 515.8 (distance from
> Buffalo).

Thanks for posting this. I thought that there had been some sort of change in the milepost numbering under Conrail but I couldn't remember the details. Isn't there a plaque near the Hammond-Whiting Amtrak station that mentions this?

 

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are also situations where the MPs were not
> changed but are no longer accurate. Two from CSX
> in Florida: for the Jacksonville Terminal, a note
> says "Only 700 feet between MP A 643.0 and MP A
> 644.0." For the Sanford Subdivision a note says
> "MP A 769.0 and MP A 770.0 are missing and there
> is only 749 feet between MP A 768.0 and MP A
> 771.0." Route improvements, deletion of former
> passenger station trackage, combinations of routes
> following a merger... many reasons. 

That's why it is important to know the length of the miles. Between Portland and Vancouver BC, BNSF has miles that range between 3,000 and 10,000 feet long and is missing one mile between Bellingham Subdiv MP 94 and MP 96 because of line changes. Other lines have variations that are not as great. Between Skykomish and Berne (WA Scenic Subdiv) BNSF is missing 11 miles between MP 1709 and MP 21 between Scenic and Skykomish (WA) because of the new Cascde Tunnel line change.

When doing capacity or timetabling/scheduling work, the result may be questionable unless the railroad's track charts show the lengths of the miles or the stationing at each milepost (and the stationing of equations).

TAW

Did they change the marker or the mile number? Big difference.

also on CSX the Charleston sub has instructions about missing and short miles at Charleston, and the Nahunta has some short miles between Folkston and Bolounge.
 

fredstout Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did they change the marker or the mile number? Big
> difference.

For my BN example, the markers and the definition (station) of the MP remained the same.

However, The Point Defiance Bypass route between TR Jct (BNSF north of Tacoma) and Nisqually was assembled from two sections of new railroad, a chunk of MILW, and two separate NP lines. In conceptual design, I changed all the mileposts to be continuous from MP 0 near TR Jct. to Nisqually. Me engineering colleagues re-measured and moved the mileposts to make almost every mile 5280 feet.

TAW.

The Short line I worked for, the  Middletown & New Jersey Rwy., was and still is a hot mess when it came to mile posts. The line has had at least 5 sets of mile posts in different locations over the RR's existence. The mile posts changed every time ownership or the railroads leasing the line changed. The Erie RR. leased the line (1) upon it's completion in 1869. Then the New York Midland ( new different connection) leased it (2) in 1872 to connect with the New Jersey Midland, which became the N.Y.S.&W. The N.Y.S.&W. changed the mile markers (3) around 1900 to reflect the line being downgraded to the Middletown Branch. In 1913, The Middletown & Unionville became an independent short line (4). The line was surveyed and new mile posts(5) put up in 1947 when the bankrupt M&U became the MNJ. All the mile posts correctly measure 5280 ft, with the exception of the first, which is a little over 6000 ft from the current property line near E. Main St. in Middletown, N.Y. The Unionville end is no better, although the last mile post seems to have placed at the correct distance. Seems that the N.J.M. ran out of funds as they approached the N.Y. State line and the M.,U., &W.G. had to purchase the land to complete the link. A look at the M&U valuation maps of 1916 show 2 sets of mile posts. The then current ones (M&U) as well as showing the older second set of N.Y.S.&W. mile posts, those being unnumbered. Reversion clauses in the original land deeds made the MNJ the owners of track formerly owned by both the N.Y.S.&W. and the N.Y.O.&W. when those lines were abandoned, and that kind of explains why the first and last miles of the MNJ were longer. By 1957, the MNJ had fallen on real hard times and probably couldn't afford to have the line re-surveyed again to adjust the mile posts for the additional property they got when the S.& W. and the O.& W. abandoned. Interestingly, the N.Y. S. & W. mile post at Hanford Jct. is MP 73. It is still standing.It replaced an older mile post that is marked JC (Jersey City) 73 over H ( for Hanford, the property owner of the end of the M.U. & W.G. line in 1869) 1, which is an overlap of about a half mile. That marker lies in the ditch below the current JC 73 marker. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/19 22:32 by edhoran.

The-late-EMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After U.P. bought the espee in 1996 they change
> the espee mile markers system wide starting in San
> Francisco all the way down to the chemical coast.
>
I worked for the UP from the time they bought the SP until I retired in 2009, and your statement is just not correct!

The UP did change several miles on the West Coast line, and they did change the track numbers on the #1 & #2 tracks between Roseville and Sparks to make the North track the #1 consistent with the UP practice.

However, the mileposts between Oakland and Portland are still the same, as are the mileposts between Sacramento and Elko.
G

 

The Denver & Rio Grande put entirely new mile Post in for the entire narrow gauge from La Veta to Siverton because of changing over to the Standard Gauge La Veta Pass route instead of the Narrow Gauge Veta Pass route.  The SG was a second track of the original federal charter, and was changed by abandoning the original narrow gauge line.  The mile post were relocated 1.13 miles west because of the new line over the Pass was longer. This happened in 1900.

colehour Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't there a plaque near the Hammond-Whiting Amtrak station that mentions this?

I don't recall the plaque mentioning the renumbering. They do have an old tombstone "B" mile marker with a plaque that states that the marker was formerly located X number of feet from the current position and represents the mileage from Buffalo.

Miles not being 5280 ft is a common occurrence. usually they are not off by much, but I would not trust any mile to be 5280 unless it is a "measured mile".

The renumbering of the PRR would have been my main example. The NS Marion Branch was also renumbered, starting at CP 412 on the Chicago line instead of in Michigan. There are underground utility markers next to the line showing the old mile markers (noticed south of Warsaw). Apparently the utilities did not want to renumber their facilities.

The NS Kalamazoo Branch (now Grand Elk) has gone through many changes. The signals on the southern end of the line (Three Rivers south) are numbered based on the old mileage from Jackson. The CPs are numbered based on the mileage from NS CP 421 in Elkhart. As they are replacing signals, they are replacing the signs with north/south designations (78N/78S) instead of east/west designations (78E/78W).

The CSS&SB/NICTD line in South Bend was cut back to Bendix decades ago ... when the line was extended to the airport the mileage was continued from Grandview railroad east to the airport - a path that goes true east, north then back west to the zero milepost.

On SP, the mileposts used to be continuous
San Francisco to San Jose -- UP switched
to continuous mileposts Oakland to San Jose
via Mulford.

UP eliminated the equation at Lick, so mileposts
down the Coast are all 4 less than they were
on SP.

UP eliminated the equation at Martinez, so mileposts
there to Oakland are all 3 less than they were on
SP.

UP changed some mileposts on the Donner west
slope -- in SP days there was an equation at Blue
Canon that I think is gone now. And mileposts are
continuous via Tunnel 41 now, so everything east
of there is 1.3 less, or whatever it is. Don't know
how far east that change extends.

Have there been any changes on SP east of LA?
I'm guessing no need for them, but I haven't looked.

The portion of the Pennsylvania Railroad between Columbus and London Ohio on the then Conrail Cincinnati Line, now the NS Dayton District was renumbered to use NYC miles from Cleveland. 

The Western Branch and the Southern Branch of the TOC were also renumbered by Conrail so that the miles for the West Virginia Secondary would start at Bannon on the east side of Columbus and continue all the way to the end of the line east of Gaulley Bridge in West Virginia, previously the miles measured from Toledo then restarted from zero at Corning Ohio.

Part of the time the previous mile posts are included on track charts for reference, at least that is the case with several lines on the Conrail track charts.

Jim

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UP changed some mileposts on the Donner west
> slope -- in SP days there was an equation at Blue
> Canon that I think is gone now. And mileposts are
> continuous via Tunnel 41 now, so everything east
> of there is 1.3 less, or whatever it is. Don't
> know how far east that change extends.

The equation is at Vista. MP 247.19 Roseville Sub = MP 249.40 Nevada Sub.

> Have there been any changes on SP east of LA?
> I'm guessing no need for them, but I haven't
> looked.

I'm not aware of any. At least from LA to El Paso.

I heard the UP redid all the mileposts from Mill Grove Mo to Allerton Iowa. A line relocation shorted it about 1.5 miles, so they had a missing MP and a short mile.. At Trenton we had a liitle over 2 miles of over lapped MP. At Trenton we went from 413 414 415 B414 B415 416, I am sure UP changed this also. Probably for the PTC program. KCRW287