Passenger Trains > Mixing passenger and freight traffic

I was thinking about the places where heavy American style freight traffic is mixed with a significant number of passenger trains. In other words, in daylight hours you'd be as likely to see a long freight as you would an Amtrak. Three come to mind: the Capitol Corridor out of Sacremento, the CP between Milwaukee and Chicago, and CSX between Richmond and DC. I ride the last about once a month and it seems to work well from a passenger perspective, albeit with a lot state investment.

Is it really practical to mix the two given, say, three mains?

BNSF's Stockton and Bakersfield Subs in California's Central Valley have the Amtrak San Joaquins and freight trains (numerous Z trains per day) sharing a mostly single track railroad with lots of sidings and small sections of double track.

While the San Joaquins are not as frequent as the Capitol Corridor, 6 trains each way per day isn't too shabby.

NJ Transit between Hunter Tower in Newark and Roselle Park station on the Raritan Valley line / Conrail Lehigh Line gets pretty busy. It's the principal western conduit for CSX and NS traffic.

How about the NS between Chicago and Porter IN. BNSF triple track from Chicago to Aurora. Dan

Railroads have been doing this since the beginning....

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BNSF's Stockton and Bakersfield Subs in
> California's Central Valley have the Amtrak San
> Joaquins and freight trains (numerous Z trains per
> day) sharing a mostly single track railroad with
> lots of sidings and small sections of double
> track.
>
> While the San Joaquins are not as frequent as the
> Capitol Corridor, 6 trains each way per day isn't
> too shabby.


It is now 7 trains on the San Joaquins each way. BNSF does a reasonable job, but of course there are going to be reliability issues. The UP also does well on the Capitol Corridor with 15 trains each way, but the number of freight trains likely is less.

A passenger-only line is always likely to be better, but it comes at a cost. CA HSR is the vision for greater intensity and precision--and a modern railroad.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/17 20:50 by reindeerflame.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A passenger-only line is always likely to be
> better, but it comes at a cost. CA HSR is the
> vision for greater intensity and precision--and a
> modern railroad.

Well, yeah, duh.

CA HSR is a music band that plays cover. They sing the songs of Japan, France, Germany, and they even cover the cover (China). Unfortunately, CA HSR is tone deaf, so they can't sing well no matter how much they try. I think they need to change the band members.

That "vision" has hope when the organization is run by people who are transparent and competent. No Silicon Valley type "visionaries" are required, because this isn't a new idea.

MojaveBill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Railroads have been doing this since the
> beginning....


But some, like the New York Central System, built (at great cost) a four track main most of the way from New York to Buffalo (and beyond if one considers the two tracks on each side of Lake Erie). This allowed for two passenger tracks and two freight tracks, access to stations on the passenger side, access to yards on the freight side, and in a number locations total separation of the two functions (around Albany NY for example with freight going through Selkirk Yard separate from the passenger main at either Castelton or Hoffman's depending on direction.)

When CTC made the need for four tracks less, the original design was to use some of the freight trackage as regularly spaced, long controlled sidings maintained to top freight speeds. The Penn Central era put an end to either the maintenance or the availability as cars were stored on the sidings.

UP between ELA and Riverside has 6 Metrolink in each direction weekdays.

THere are a number of suburban lines west of Chicago that qualify...the BNSF former CB&Q racetrack to Aurora and points west is a fantastic study of all manner of freight, intercity passengers, and hordes of commuter trains.

Too many to list.

PittsburghMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THere are a number of suburban lines west of
> Chicago that qualify...the BNSF former CB&Q
> racetrack to Aurora and points west is a fantastic
> study of all manner of freight, intercity
> passengers, and hordes of commuter trains.

Agree, the Naperville Station is a great place to video, photo and watch the action on the 3 tracks.. I think it's all dispatched from Fort Worth

Lot's of BNSF freights.

About 30 Metra Commuter into Chicago and another 30 out to Aurora

Amtrak
#381 Carl Sandburg 8:10
#380 Illinois Zephyr 9:47
#6 California Zephyr 1:53
#5 California Zephyr 2:34
#4 Southwest Chief 2:42
#3 Southwest Chief 3:35
#383 Illinois Zephyr 6:30
#382 Carl Sandburg 9:04

Best time to be in Naperville is between 1:53 and 3:35. In that hour and 42 minutes 4 Long Distance Superliners stop in Naperville!

Ret. Navy Chief Bob Jensen
Manteno, IL

yooperfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was thinking about the places where heavy
> American style freight traffic is mixed with a
> significant number of passenger trains. In other
> words, in daylight hours you'd be as likely to see
> a long freight as you would an Amtrak. Three come
> to mind: the Capitol Corridor out of Sacremento,
> the CP between Milwaukee and Chicago, and CSX
> between Richmond and DC. I ride the last about
> once a month and it seems to work well from a
> passenger perspective, albeit with a lot state
> investment.
>
> Is it really practical to mix the two given, say,
> three mains?

I hired out on a railroad. It wasn't a freight railroad. They didn't exist. There were passenger trains and freight trains on the railroad, even with only two tracks, and no radio, no CTC, no computers, and no control centers. There were other such railroads that not ony didn't have those things, they had no block signals, yet they still had passenger trains as well as freight trains.

Now, there are a plethora of experts who tell us that it can't be done, at least not if folks have outlandish and unreasonable expectations, such as run the passenger trains on time.

Is the difference the capabilities of railroad technology? Did radio, computers, CTC, and controlo centers reduce the capability of rail transportation, or is it the people managing rail transportation?

TAW

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A passenger-only line is always likely to be
> better, but it comes at a cost. CA HSR is the
> vision for greater intensity and precision--and a
> modern railroad.

...adding yet another empty railroad to the land of the empty railroad: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3600526,3600913#3600913 Date: 12/11/14 14:26 Re: Interesting Article About Amtrak & Freight Railroad

The idea sure is good for the bullet train salesmen.

TAW
 

TAW I always enjoy reading your posts and replies to various different threads. The knowledge, insight and wisdom from (what I suspect) your generation is fast disappearing from not only railroading...but all levels of industry and all forms of leadership.

In fact, "leadership" today is scared by people who have real knowledge and understanding of operations. Always look forward to your insight.

Posted from Android

Funny someone should mention the NYC in this context.  West of Hoffman's (Amsterdam, NY basically) the former 4-track NYC is now a two track, CTC railroad with occasional controlled sidings where you can stash a train for a few minutes or a few days.  I'm not sure of the train count, but it handles pretty heavy CSX traffic and 4 Amtrak round trips per day.

But CSX effectively manages the RR as two one-way, fixed speed railroad tracks.  It has been years since I saw an Amtrak train overtake a slower freight, except in a yard or in an emergency.  And the freights on this line run LONG, and surprisingly slow.

The restoration of double track on the "almost passenger-only" section between Hoffman's and Albany is well under way.  When it's completed, the lack of a fluid, mixed-speed RR west of Hoffman's will be the most important remaining infrastructure limitation on the Empire Corridor.

I'm not sure whether this is a situation where the dispatching has to get sharper, or whether there simply aren't enough crossovers to allow for better performance.  It certainly isn't a matter of local switching getting in the way.  There's hardly any lineside industry along this route anymore.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/17 18:44 by darkcloud.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/17 18:44 by darkcloud.

The freight railroads also now are more and more taking the approach that the incremental passenger will only be allowed in certain corridors, and only if their very high capex demands are met.  For HSR, their approach has been OODB (over our dead body) to any suggestion of any form of shared ROW.

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The quote you snark at is actually correct.

Sure it is. Buying a house with cash  costs less is also a correct statement.

>  Passenger only lines are going to have less
> reliability/lateness issues than lines that have
> many 2-mile long US style freights on them.

Like NEC?

Long ago I was with my WSDOT client watching an FRA capacity event at TRB. Representatives of a Class 1 and a tenant commuter agency were doing a presentation about the work that they had done to improve commuter train reliability. They spoke admiringly about how reliability improved after the number of conflicts in the commuter schedules (schedules that can't be executed if all of the trains are on time because there is not enough track) was reduced to around eight per day. That means that on the day there were no freight trains, making it a passenger railroad, not all of the trains could be on time. He told me that it is poor form to laugh...let's go.


>  Lines that are controlled and dispatched by the
> passenger entity instead of freight RR's reduce
> the delays to passenger trains.

I see that as a flimsy excuse. Maybe it has something to do with Instant Expert dispatchers working for Instant Expert managers.


> Maintenance costs
> are lower when heavy freights don't pound the
> track.

Less than the cost of a greenfield railroad over how long?

> There is more capacity when quicker
> accelerating/braking and higher speed passenger
> trains are not mixed with plodding freights.

That depends upon the configuration of the infrastructure and the quality of the folks managing it.

> So
> in theory, for a passenger operator having tracks
> separated from freights is ideal.  Do you dispute
> any of that, given the realities of today's
> freight operations in the US?  

Of course not. Isolated in that manner, the facts are indisputable. Of course, without the passenger trains, freight railroads still are in a frequent state of meltdown. They don't need passenger trains to screw up their railroad.


>
> (Yes, if we had 60's level of staffing,

Not really relevant except for work on line and in yards and occasional equipment failures in trains.

> shorter
> trains,

How about configuring the infrastructure for the trains instead of trying to run huge trains on infrastructure configured for 5000 foot trains?

> different operating rules and culture,

Part of the crippling part of the operating rules is the desire to make operation simple enough for virtually anyone to come off the street and past a test in a few weeks.


> willingness to look the other way to keep trains
> moving,

I never did that and still kept the railroad running.


> a less NIMBY public without cell phones
> that was more concerned about jobs and economic
> growth, etc, things might be a bit different.


That is the subject of a very long socioeconomic discussion for another place and time.

>  For better or worse we don't appear to be going
> back to that or anything remotely close.)


Pilot: For better or for worse, we're losing altitude.
Passenger: Have you tried putting your hands on the yoke and pulling back some?


>
> But of course it all comes down to cost, and as
> you both note in most instances separating
> passenger and freight is very expensive.  For
> many places topography, development, NIMBY's, etc
> may make that cost too high to be politically
> feasible, such as in the NEC, or as you note, the
> Pacific Northwest.  But there are other places
> where it can and has worked.  Utah is a great
> example of a nearly passenger only line mostly
> built in the ROW next to freight tracks. Places
> like Texas and Florida that are flat or mostly
> lightly rolling prairie may be suitable to such an
> approach, or building in highway or utility ROW.
>  That's the strategy for Brightline once leaving
> the FEC line and the Dallas-Houston proposal.


Sure. It's easy where it is easy. That doesn't necessarily make it a sound idea, at least in all cases. A joint passenger-freight project can improve the freight service if the folks designing, implementing, and running it know what they are doing.


>
> For California it will be very expensive, but
> there also seems to be the political will to pay
> the price (even after discounting some of the
> corrupt and foolish political aspects involved.)
>  They aren't building an entirely separate HSR
> line, but rather a reasonable blended approach in
> the most congested urban areas, utilizing existing
> lines from SF to Gilroy and San Fernando to
> Anaheim.  Blended is basically the approach you
> argue for, HSR mixed with existing Amtrak and
> commuter rail.  Only the freights will be
> separated onto parallel tracks (or perhaps time
> segregated to overnight slots SF-SJ) but that's
> also an improvement for safety reasons (not
> perfect, but improved.)  Given the high volume of
> passenger trains in both corridors it makes sense
> and is comparable to improvements in Europe.

Right. The best course comes from doing the homework. I have been involved in such projects, but they were not a result of the passenger trains must be on a separate railroad chant.



>
> For passenger rail, under 3 hours between major
> terminals is the sweet spot, ridership
> increasingly drops off above that, especially
> beyond 4 hours.

Right. That is why service in Europe revolves around closely interconnected relatively short-distanced services. Minimum connection time in Germany is 3 minutes. In the US it's....?

> SF-LA (8 million and 18 million
> metros, the majority of the state's population) is
> too far apart for incremental non-electrified
> trains to serve in or near 3 hours, even 4 hours
> was doubtful, and that would still have require
> about the same amount of new greenfield ROW
> constructed.

I'm not so sure about the same amount, but yes, it would take quite a bit...eventually. A popular argument against CA HSR is that it will have limited or no function until it is finished. The incremental approach involves getting to use it...incrementally. Ribbon cutting photo ops are a powerful ally.


>
> As for another theoretical strawman, CAHSR is also
> not ignoring the intermediate markets, rather than
> the staight route down I-5 they meander a bit to
> reach Madera (and thus Modesto), Fresno,
> Bakersfield, and Palmdale.  The much higher
> speeds and reliabilty/precision of a separate true
> HSR trunk is what allows that while still serving
> the core SF/SJ-LA/OC markets with air competitive
> trip times.  One can quibble with some minor
> aspects like Pacheco Pass vs Altamont or Palmdale
> vs the Grapevine, but overall CAHSR makes sense.


Among my arguments is building those stations in the boondocks - land airports. When folks go to an event at an airport hotel, they're in the boonies, at the pleasure of airport vendors. If one is lucky, there is not-terribly-expensive transport to a real city, but often not. Business in, e.g., Fresno? Take the train, rent a car, drive to Fresno, stash the car somewhere, drive back to the boondock railroad station, check in the rental car, take the train. That's the future that low expectations brings us. Sound Transit wanted drive up parking structure (nothing else) stations in the farm fields between the cities between Seattle and Tacoma. BN (I was part of BN at the time) resisted that. I don't think anyone is sorry that they did.


>
> Given such large market pairs and overlapping
> intercity and commuter corridors CAHSR phase I is
> a more logical solution.  The Texas Triangle is
> probably another, and the recent state studies of
> it confirm that (while also recommending lower
> speed incremental improvements for other existing
> and future corridors like Dallas-Oklahoma City and
> San Antonio-Laredo/Corpus Christie/Rio Grande
> Valley.  Obviously one size does not fit all.  

Obviously. Also, one size of homework does not fit all.


>
> I agree and get similarly frustrated to see a lot
> of unrealistic and wasteful HSR or overdone
> proposals where incremental solutions seem more
> appropriate and may be the only politically
> feasible option.  But in the US the more
> affordable incrementalism comes at the price of
> significantly reduced reliabity

not necessarily

> and more schedule
> padding (not just Amtrak, commuter rail also.)


not necessarily

(but that depends upon whether the folks designing, implementing, and running the program know what they are doing)

>  One can look at Iook at Chicago-St. Louis at all
> the money tossed to UP, yet little time or
> reliability improvement as UP has filled some of
> the added capacity with more intermodals to
> Joliet.

Amateurs! In my experience, there is generally little thought to real rail expertise in rail agencies.


> Some places like the Capitol Corridor it
> has worked better, yet even there and the San
> Joaquins see significant delays every week.

Folks on tip of things can determine what is next on the list of incremental improvement. What are the delays, where, why, etc. I have seen a big source of unreliable passenger service fixed by relocating a detector. If collisions at a crossing or a group of them is a recurring problem, grade separate them. I did a reliability study on Amtrak service, undertaken at the behest of Congress, for three separate clients. I did the work for each from scratch, as I always do, using data provided by each. The answer was the same in all cases: train dispatchers and management. Dispatchers couldn't figure time, dispatchers had no idea of where the slow track was (I rode on one that was crossed over through a 50 mph crossover on 79 mph track onto the track that had the 25 mph slow, then back through the 50 mph crossover to the 79 mph track that didn't have the slow, at the next plant. I listened on the radio to trains, passenger and freight, showing up at work under traffic (Form B in the TWC world) by surprise. After the train showed up, the foreman would begin to clear the line. I watched trains show at yards up by surprise over and over. I watched management schedule a main line local at a time that put it on a two track line at the time opposite direction passenger trains were due. 30 minutes would have made a difference, but who's looking.


>  Seems fair to question whether this strategy has
> been cost effective, even if the answer for most
> corridors probably will come back as 'Yes, given
> the poltical realities.'
>
Political realities are generally anti-rail, so yeah. Railroad realities are typically anti-passenger, so yeah. Long ago, a German colleague and I were watching a TRB session on shared right of way. There were presentations for and presentations against. The best presentation against came from NS, where they used aerial pictures of the blast zone from some debacle to demonstrate why they don't want light rail within 2500 feet of their track. My German colleague and I had a hard time keeping a straight face. We simultaneously said to each other - have they listened to their own message?

TAW