My second question concerns the role Federal Government. Is there a roll in having the Government promote and fund a second (or maybe, given conditions, a third) track? Allowing Amtrak priority service and freight to use it at other times. It just seems that the same reasons for the interstates and airports are the reasons for Federal funds in this area. If Amtrak is the "miner's canary" to the freight railroading meltdown here, it is time the Government moved on this.

In fact, most of the North American network has always been single track, because it costs lots of money to build and maintain a second track -- say, a million dollars a mile to build it (on a graded ROW, not counting the land price) and maybe $65,000 per year to maintain it.

When railroads were deregulated, they were free to shed underperforming assets, and they did. One easy way to raise return on assets is to earn the same amount of revenue with fewer assets, which is why so much second track was removed after 1981.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yukon11:
up to Yellowstone. A passenger train hasn't used this run for at least 50(+) years and the AOE had to put in new track welded (not sure what they mean by welded)

[This message has been edited by yukon11 (edited 08-06-2004).]

---

Many main lines, and even branch lines, now use welded rail. Each rail is over 1000' in length, made of several shorter rails welded end-to-end I believe. In years past, rail came in standard 49' lengths (you can see this on detailed old photos, and on some lightly-used track today).

As for "hasn't been used by a passenger train for over 50 years", that's not only an incorrect statement, but it tells you nothing about the condition of the track. Union Pacific's main line across Nebraska hasn't been used by a passenger train since 1971, but it's the busiest piece of railroad in the world, with 400 million gross tons of traffic annually on three main tracks.

In round terms, Amtrak operates over 20,000 route miles. The railroad network in the US consists of about 150,000 route miles, about two-thirds owned by Class I (large) railroads and one-third by "short lines". Almost all of these companies run only freight trains. Some short lines also operate passenger excursion trains.

As for welded rail, it has been in general use since the 1970s, and all new rail is laid as welded rail. In fact, when rail is replaced, the "released" rail, if in decent condition, is often cropped, welded, and re-laid on a less busy branch line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rresor:
In fact, most of the North American network has always been single track, because it costs lots of money to build and maintain a second track -- say, a million dollars a mile to build it (on a graded ROW, not counting the land price) and maybe $65,000 per year to maintain it.

---

As most of us over the age of 40 know, the largest "wholesale' abandonment of a main line railroad was that of the Milwaukee's Lines West. the abandonment occurred during 1979; the last passenger train ran during 1961.

The disclaimer I must rightfully lay on the table is that I was employed by the MILW during that period - in fact, I was "on the ground" in Lines West territory when the shutdown actually occurred. While this was far more painful for the affected employees (I was a Chicago based Internal Auditor), one could "feel" the lifeblood of an operating transportation entity "shutting down". On this note, if one wants to feel the pain of a transportation system shutting down, the best piece of literature I know is a book entitled "Splash of Colors' by John J. Nance.

While others may disagree, I believe that had a concept of "railbanking", whereby the operator of a rail line could declare a line to be abandoned and in turn not only have that line removed from the taxing jurisdictions' "rolls", but also be absolutely "held harmless" from any civil liability claims, it is my conviction that the MILW Lines West would be providing railroad transportation today, albeit not likely passenger transportation.

The best proposal I once learned of (it was reported by the Chicago Tribune) was during 1980, Japanese maritime interests were preparing a proposal to acquire Lines West from the Estate (MILW went bankrupt Dec 1977 - oh, were office X-Mas parties "Fun' that year). This never went anywhere; there was much sentiment back then that the Japanese were going to buy the entire USA. But, had this "sailed', the MILW would be active today (obviously operated by someone else such as the UP) and providing needed transportation for the maritime industry.

In fact, some time after 1980 Burlington Northern acquired the MILW main line from Auburn,WA (near Seattle) over Snoqualmie Pass to a point near Yakima where it was adjacent to the former NP. Plan was to use the MILW's superior alignment in place of the Stampede Tunnel route (IIRC, MILW's ruling grade westbound was 1.4% vs. 2.2% on Stampede). Also, since MILW had electrified, clearance in Snoqualmie Tunnel was much better than Stampede, which could barely handle piggyback trailers.

BN held the line inactive for a decade or more, then formally abandoned it in the early 1990s without ever reactivating it.

Of course, as we all know, they reopened Stampede a few years later.

First, depending upon the state you were in, there could be large savings in the assesed valuation of the property if a track was removed. Think of the difference in property taxes on a lot worth say $10,000 and the same lot with house being worth $200,000. Usually the right of way itself would be values very low for tax purposes, with most of the value being placed on the "improvements", that is the track.

Second, in times past most double track lines had each track signaled for operation in one direction only. Usually this was ABS, so you still had to have operators and train orders. Usually when they were singled CTC was applied so that you also got rid of the need for operators and train orders. There was the theory prevailing for a while that a single track CTC'd line could carry as many trains as a double track line with single direction ABS.

Third, the single tracking gave a sudden one time supply of reasonably good used rail and ties. This could reduce the need to purchase new materials, or allow upgrading of secondary lines, or both.

Fourth, it could enable clearance improvements that would otherwise be extremely costly. For example, in tunnels, if you remove one track, shift the other over toward the center by 3 to 5 feet, you can improve both your lateral clearance for long cars on curves and raise your overhead limit by 2 to 3 feet.

Fifth, while rail life is almost 100% traffic dependent regarless of time, where the usual traffic density per track is on the order of 15 MGT per year or less, which was at one time true for most of these double track lines, ties rot out before they wear out in most parts of the country, so you reduced your material needs permanently.

Sixth, sometimes load limits could be increased simply because bridges built for two track would then be carrying only one. I say sometimes, because there is a lot more to determining the load capacity of a large bridge that just the capacity of the main truss memebers.

Railroads make their own choices on how to manage traffic. Santa Fe, as one example, was once single track across AZ and NM, but had passing sidings every few miles or so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
A million dollars per mile is really a bargain when you consider that a single lane of a freeway costs about five times that.

---

Not really - Roads easily have 5x as much traffic as a railway and thus end up costing less per passenger.

Many comments above touch upon the meat of this topic, Mr. Harris being the most thorough in his analysis.

Things change and railroads adjust. We must remember that the single track railroad was all that was necessary to accomodate the existing business from the mid 1880's until the early 1900's, with a few exceptions.

I will discuss the RR of which I am most familiar, the BNSF, and particularly the TRANSCON. For those not familiar with that name it is the former Santa Fe line from LA to CHI that crosses northern AZ and goes on through Gallup, Belen and Clovis, NM; Amarillo, TX; Wellington and Emporia, KS into
Kansas City and thence northeasterly to FT Madison, Iowa and on into CHI. This is a RR that was constructed in many segements which were eventually connected as business warrented. Later as demand increased double track was added, eminating from CHI and KC for short distances and eventually completed
between these two cities and extending west from KC until other connecting lines relieved the congestion.

In the period following WWI it became apparent that California traffic had increased so that a 2nd track was needed in locations where operations were effected by grades or other topographic features. By 1940
the Santa Fe had double main track with ABS
from LA to Belen, NM but was not installed except in a few locations between Belen to west of KC.

Things continued to change as they always do,
for better or worse. If worse there is abandonment or bankruptcy, but not this line.
It prospered and Santa Fe invested in improvments as they are yet today. There is now CTC over most of the line and BNSF is installing 2nd main track in most locations between Belen and west of KC.

I am not informed of all that has been constructed in the past few years but am aware that the name TRANSCON has been applied to this line, not by BNSF, but by the shipping public because it is the most expeditious and dependable train route from LA to KC and CHI. The next issue of TRAINS will have a feature about the TRANSCON that
may shed more information than this brief summary about the need for 2nd main tracks
and the ancillary components which today's operating conditions dictate.

As with most business decisions there are many factors which come into play, and they change. Some because our nations ecomomy changes, some because of competion and some because the initial judgement was in error.
Each situation must be examined with its own specific criteria and so there is no easy answer to the question that began this discussion.

"Not really - Roads easily have 5x as much traffic as a railway and thus end up costing less per passenger."

Polarbearucla: I do not really know where to either begin or end on this subject. If you compare a high volume road with a low volume railroad, you can find examples to fit your statement, but it you are talking about capacity, you are just simply wrong.

I say this as a civil engineer who has done both railroad and highway work and been involved in traffic studies for both. Where to begin?

Maximum (peak) highway capacity, 1,200 vehicles per lane per hour. This is the highest observed volume anywhere. Let's assume a 12-lane freeway with peak hour volume in each direction. That's 14,400 vehicles per hour, each way. At an occupancy of 1.25 people per vehicle, that's 18,000 people per hour, each way.

Now consider a two-track rail line like the #7 Flushing line. Peak headway is 90 seconds, or 40 trains per hour. Trains are 11 cars. At 150 people per car, that's 1650 per train. Times 40 equals 66,000 per hour each way, or 3.6 times the highway capacity -- and that's with just one track in each direction.