Passenger Trains > CTC upgrades to Amtrak

On the western board is a thread about upgrades to the Coast Line between Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.  The track will be upgraded with some new rail.  Many sidings will become CTC with power switches.  Two bridges replaced, etc.   Hooray for California.  

But there are numerous places on Amtrak where such upgrades should happen on the existing system, so that real corridors could blossom.  I think about CHI - IND, especially between  Dyer and Indianapolis.  North of Dyer in Chicago, the CREATE plan needs to complete the Grand Crossing connector, so that a speedier and a shorter route can happen.  But south of Dyer the track is still ABS, with numerous manual switches and slow operations.  With an improved operation through the freight yard in North Lafayette, and then CTC, 79 mph operation, power switches to good sidings, the entire route will be much more reliable and speedier.  I do not expect the state of Indiana to do anything, but hopefully Federal grants could begin this process.

Where else on Amtrak should similar route upgrades happen?   North Carolina over the years has done significant upgrades to the Carolinian route.  I see them as a good model.  New York has done some upgrades, but nothing west of Hoffmans.  Illinois did the upgrades, but stumbled badly on the finished product of higher speeds.  Michigan has worked slowly but steadily on Kalamazoo - Detroit.  

 

I know that a couple of sidings on the UP's Sedalia Sub (that normally host 2 round trips a day) have been upgraded and lengthened.  And I think the siding located in Knob Noster (MO) is also in the planning stages to be lenghtend and have CTC installed (currently a manual siding with eletric locks on east and west ends).  New signals were installed both east and west of Knob Noster as part of PTC and the signal masts were built to have another signal head installed to support a CTC siding.  Funding is reporting from the State of Missouri but hard to tell given the current state of the pandemic as to when siding work will starte anytime soon.

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO

Several years ago CSX downgraded the former Monon from FRA Track Class 4 (79 MPH passenger/60 freight) to Class 3 (60 MPH passenger/40 freight).  Apparently this was done due to low volume of freight.  A way that the Dyer-Crawfordsvile (junction between the fomer Monon and branch to Indianapolis) could be restored to Class 4 would be to persuade CSX that it is in the railroad's interest to develop the Chicago-Indianapolis corridor for intermodal and freight.  CSX has the shortest surviving route between CHI and Indy and still has a hump yard near Indy (Big Four in Avon).  Indiana Railroad has an intermodal terminal in Indy.  IF a group of stakeholders could convice CSX that it would be in the company's interst to run intermodal trains from western connections to the INRY terminal and classifiy manifest freight from western connections at Big Four, we might see the Monon (and the non-signaled Crawfordsville Branch) improved.
CSX runs most of its north south freight from CHI over the C&EI, which is single track CTC Class 4. The C&EI does not have any efficient yards, so traffic from western connections either needs to be switched in Chicago (CSX does not have any good yards there that easily access the C&EI) or gets switched as yards further south such as Louisville (hump removed by EHH) or Nashville/Radnor (still has a hump). If it could be demonstrated that manifest freight from western connections would reach its destination sooner if classed at Big 4 than by remaining on its present route, we might see a Monon/Crawfordsville Branch upgrade.
Probably one of the reason why Ed Ellis' Hoosier State did not bring in the level of business to keep the train running is that 60 MPH max speed did not allow the train to maintain automobile-competitive schedules.
Andy

One of the most infuriating Amtrak segments (although only 9 miles) was the ex-C&O from Gordonsville, Va. to Orange, 30 mph until the track was finally upgraded. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe improvements were also made to another infuriatingly slow segment, the 4 miles between AY in Richmond and Main St Station. 

Almost all of the ex-SAL from Cary, NC to Columbia was allowed to fall to Class 3, but there is no proposal to improve it.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/20 13:46 by ctillnc.

twropr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The C&EI does not have any efficient yards, so
> traffic from western connections either needs to
> be switched in Chicago (CSX does not have any good
> yards there that easily access the C&EI) 

Barr Yard, which is the main CSX yard in Chicago has fantastic access to the C&EI.   It is possible to get on at Dolton, which is about a mile east of Barr, or depart Barr out the west end, run down the Chicago Heights sub to the Elsdon sub, and get on the C&EI at Thornton.  

Of course, BRC's Clearing yard also has great access via 80th Street.  It is heavily used by CSX, including departing trains that run via the C&EI.

I live in Indiana and I don't believe they know that trains exist except to block traffic.  Sad but true.  AMTRAK?

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the western board is a thread about upgrades to
> the Coast Line between Santa Barbara and San Luis
> Obispo.  The track will be upgraded with some new
> rail.  Many sidings will become CTC with power
> switches.  Two bridges replaced, etc.   Hooray
> for California.  
>
> But there are numerous places on Amtrak where such
> upgrades should happen on the existing system, so
> that real corridors could blossom.  I think about
> CHI - IND, especially between  Dyer and
> Indianapolis.  North of Dyer in Chicago, the
> CREATE plan needs to complete the Grand Crossing
> connector, so that a speedier and a shorter route
> can happen.  But south of Dyer the track is still
> ABS, with numerous manual switches and slow
> operations.  With an improved operation through
> the freight yard in North Lafayette, and then CTC,
> 79 mph operation, power switches to good sidings,
> the entire route will be much more reliable and
> speedier.  I do not expect the state of Indiana
> to do anything, but hopefully Federal grants could
> begin this process.
>
> Where else on Amtrak should similar route upgrades
> happen?   North Carolina over the years has done
> significant upgrades to the Carolinian route.  I
> see them as a good model.  New York has done some
> upgrades, but nothing west of Hoffmans.  Illinois
> did the upgrades, but stumbled badly on the
> finished product of higher speeds.  Michigan has
> worked slowly but steadily on Kalamazoo -
> Detroit.  
>
>  

I guess we are considering all these as if money was no object.

EHH (there's that name again) took out the double track on the Illinois Central. I don't think the double track needs to be put back in completely but putting some longer stretches of double track in, say around Champaign, Effingham, Carbondale, would really help out the Illinois trains along with CN.

Another place that could use improvement, although it would be for the Crescent is to improve track layout and add double track around Meridian Mississippi.  

Jim

tq-07fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> EHH (there's that name again) took out the double
> track on the Illinois Central. 

I am pretty sure Ed Moyers was running the show at the IC when they took it out.

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tq-07fan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > EHH (there's that name again) took out the
> double
> > track on the Illinois Central. 
>
> I am pretty sure Ed Moyers was running the show at
> the IC when they took it out.

Yup.

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typhoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > tq-07fan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > EHH (there's that name again) took out the
> > double
> > > track on the Illinois Central. 
> >
> > I am pretty sure Ed Moyers was running the show
> at
> > the IC when they took it out.
>
> Yup.
>
> TAW

According to Howard Green's book Railroader about Hunter Harrison, it was BOTH Moyers and Harrison who agreed to take out a lot of the double track.  Page 49.  It doesn't sound like Moyers would have done so unless recommended by Harrison, who was working for Moyers.

Jim

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Typhoon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > tq-07fan Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > EHH (there's that name again) took out the
> > > double
> > > > track on the Illinois Central. 
> > >
> > > I am pretty sure Ed Moyers was running the
> show
> > at
> > > the IC when they took it out.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > TAW
>
> According to Howard Green's book Railroader about
> Hunter Harrison, it was BOTH Moyers and Harrison
> who agreed to take out a lot of the double track.
>  Page 49.  It doesn't sound like Moyers would
> have done so unless recommended by Harrison, who
> was working for Moyers.
>
> Jim

They went from double track ABS to single track CTC right?

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> They went from double track ABS to single track
> CTC right?

At least part of it, I don't remember how much, was CTC. It I remember correctly, there was a wreck during the cutover due to some really lax cutover procedures (normal-reverse circuits were backward and a train went through a crossover at track speed) and a huge smokin' track speed head on collision in CTC due to the IC's usual for the era get over the road or we'll find someone who will procedures.

However, if the point is capacity, CTC does not automatically increase capacity and does not allow track to be removed and still maintain the same capacity. that is a sales pitch.

TAW

PHall Wrote:

> They went from double track ABS to single track
> CTC right?

Multiple track CTC Chicago to Gilman, double track directional ABS Gilman to Champaign, double track ATS (Automatic Train Stop) Champaign to Branch Junction (just north of Centralia, il), double track directional ABS Branch Junction to Cairo. Pretty sure there was some CTC patches I'm overlooking in the above mentioned territory. But that's just a quick condensed snapshot of the Chicago to Cairo segment.

> that is a sales pitch.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how much of the second track is left in place for meets and what the speed limits are for remaning second track and the turnouts.  

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how much of the
> second track is left in place for meets and what
> the speed limits are for remaning second track and
> the turnouts.  

It does but in the real world, single tracking doesn't go there. Elementary example: A track used in one direction can run trains at (generously) a 10 minute headway. To handle that traffic on single track, the sidings must be five minutes apart. The turnouts must be fast enough and the sidings long enough for nonstop track speed meets. There is no resiliency. Every meet must occur at the prescribed place at track speed. The delay of one train delays all of them until traffic is reduced to less than capacity. Other than that, CTC does not maintain capacity after taking out track.

Those sales pitches were carefully crafted around certain examples...then embellished to fit the narrative of CTC increases capacity and allows trac\k to be removed.

TAW

Yeah, but life wasn't all peaches-and-cream on two-track directional ABS, either. Many of those lines carried a mixture of passenger and freight, and when freights had to be overtaken, there were delays associated with that too. I'm thinking particularly of the ACL's main line when it had 90 mph running for passenger trains (and briefly 100 mph). Overtaking freights was a fact of life. Freights had to clear by entering a siding that was almost always restricted speed from one end to the other, and if there were extra sections of the passenger train (or a following train), the freight crew could count on a long wait. Plus, there were the inevitable hassles when a train had to run on the wrong main... orders had to be written, transmitted, handed out, etc.   

A CTC pattern of 5 miles double track (signaled in both directions), sometimes with an intermediate crossover, followed by 10 miles single track works pretty well as long as the remaining second track has the same speed limit as the first and the turnouts are 40-45 mph. Southern did that basic pattern between Alexandria and Atlanta around 1960 with good success. 

On the the Southern between Atlanta and Alexandria a lot of the double track sections are more like ten miles long.  By the 1960s those 2-8-2 powered 40 car freights and a lot of the passenger trains that existed in the steam era were gone.  Southern installed equilateral turnouts at each end of double track (except north of Orange) which meant all trains had to slow to 40 to 45 MPH every few miles even if they were capable of 60 mph. At least some of those switches are being replaced with standard turnouts.  Double track was re-installed between Charlotte and Greensboro, North Carolina, paid for by the state to add passenger trains, but train count is nothing like it was in the 1940s and early 1950s.

Edited to add that I will agree that 251 double track is not all peaches and cream.  Being able to move equally well in both directions on two tracks is good.

Jim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/20 12:52 by Jimbo.

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It does but in the real world, single tracking doesn't go there. Elementary example: A track used in one direction can run trains at (generously) a 10 minute headway. To handle that traffic on single track, the sidings must be five minutes apart. The turnouts must be fast enough and the sidings long enough for nonstop track speed meets.  There is no resiliency. Every meet must occur at the prescribed place at track speed. The delay of one train delays all of them until traffic is reduced to less than capacity. Other than that, CTC does not maintain capacity after taking out track.
>
> Those sales pitches were carefully crafted around certain examples...then embellished to fit the narrative of CTC increases capacity and allows trac\k to be removed.
>
> TAW

I remember the "claim" that single track CTC with sidings had 80 % of the capacity of a two track single direction signaled railroad.

Then cut the MOW budget too.  Good luck with those siding switches, let alone in bad weather.

Brian

 

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, but life wasn't all peaches-and-cream on
> two-track directional ABS, either.

Never said or imlied that it was.


> Many of those
> lines carried a mixture of passenger and freight,
> and when freights had to be overtaken, there were
> delays associated with that too. I'm thinking
> particularly of the ACL's main line when it had
> 90 mph running for passenger trains (and briefly
> 100 mph). Overtaking freights was a fact of life.
> Freights had to clear by entering a siding that
> was almost always restricted speed from one end
> to the other, and if there were extra sections of
> the passenger train (or a following train),
> the freight crew could count on a long wait.

Siding speed is not relevant as there can be slow speeds in CTC sidings and there can be fast speeds for turnouts in an interlocking. The traffic reversal part is useful to avoid the waiting to be overtaken only if there isn't a train coming the other way. That's where the capacity comes in.


> Plus, there were the inevitable hassles when a
> train had to run on the wrong main... orders had
> to be written, transmitted, handed out, etc.   


Yup. I';ve done a lot of that. In the days of reasonable workload, it wasn't all that hard to do.

I have also handled double track CTC with sidings. For heavy traffic, that is a winner.The B&O Chicago East Subdivision was double track 251 with towers and sidings back when I worked in Chicago. It ran well.

>
> A CTC pattern of 5 miles double track (signaled in
> both directions), sometimes with an intermediate
> crossover, followed by 10 miles single track
> works pretty well as long as the remaining second
> track has the same speed limit as the first and
> the turnouts are 40-45 mph.

It didn't on the B&O Chicago West subdivision. It really depends on the traffic. A configuration can't be pulled out of the air and plugged in because it works elsewhere.


TAW

tq-07fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess we are considering all these as if money
> was no object.
>
> EHH (there's that name again) took out the double
> track on the Illinois Central. I don't think the
> double track needs to be put back in completely
> but putting some longer stretches of double track
> in, say around Champaign, Effingham, Carbondale,
> would really help out the Illinois trains along
> with CN.
>
> Another place that could use improvement, although
> it would be for the Crescent is to improve track
> layout and add double track around Meridian
> Mississippi.  
>
> Jim

Just curious, Why would Meridian need double tracking? From a technical standpoint, it already is double tracked from 49th avenue to Breyer. I've lived here for 27 years and there's no need for it.