Abandoned steep grade outside of Amsterdam NY

I have heard from reliable sources that the current CSX administration does not wish to operate the branch. Others here can post why, as I have heard several conflicting stories and can't give any first-hand knowledge.

Wonder why a shortline operator couldn't give it a go. One locomotive and some rights to get to wherever CSX xan interchange cars. Maybe a caboose for shove moves.

lvrr325 wrote:Wonder why a shortline operator couldn't give it a go. One locomotive and some rights to get to wherever CSX xan interchange cars. Maybe a caboose for shove moves.

Depends on traffic volume, revenue, and a whole bunch of other factors. Even if you have some municipal entity own the property (so the operator is not paying property tax) you're looking at a ballpark $10k annual minimum for insurance. Equipment, maintenance, car hire, wages, and a ton of other stuff. Not saying it could not be done but I was under the impression there was not a lot of traffic there. Anybody have an annual car count?

I came across the Amsterdam Industrial Development Agency website while looking for information on the branch. They own the branch it seems.
http://www.amsterdamny.gov/docs/AIDA/Mi ... ilroad.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 2013-2016 Strategic plan has a blurb about doing an inventory of the track and right of way, with the NYSW doing an inspection in 2014.

Biggest reason there is currently no service on the branch is that the last customer on the line, FGI, switched to trucks after there was a runaway and derailment several years ago. Apparently CSX was slow in cleanup forcing FGI to switch and they had been so dissatisfied with the service that they vowed not to return to rail. There are currently no other customers on the branch, although that could still be developed. It is true that Amsterdam IDA is bringing in professional railroad people (apparently from the NYS&W) to walk the line and make a professional evaluation. They would like to re-activate the branch and attract new customers. CSX put a lot of ties and ballast into the branch several years before the runaway took place and the line looks to be in good condition, at least from the crossings. If service does resume, look for it to be under a designated operator as CSX claims that their crews are "too afraid of the steep grade" to operate on the line. There may be some issues though as it has been reported that Amsterdam IDA owns the ROW (officially known as the Amsterdam Chuctanunda & Northern or AC&N) and CSX owns the track. This is apparently an arrangement that goes back to NYC days.

traingeek8223 wrote:Biggest reason there is currently no service on the branch is that the last customer on the line, FGI, switched to trucks after there was a runaway and derailment several years ago. Apparently CSX was slow in cleanup forcing FGI to switch and they had been so dissatisfied with the service that they vowed not to return to rail.

In other words, it's probable that CSX took it's sweet-time cleaning it up to force FGI to alternative service. I'm
guessing CSX didn't make much dough serving this customer, what with maintaining the branch, paying crews, etc.

The derailment was probably a "perfect solution" for CSX to get rid of the branch.

Charlie

Operating the grade safely is the key, it's going to be somewhat labor intensive as either two units or some kind of slug set will be needed, or the tracks kept up enough to use a six axle unit of some sort. You're not going to get away with one man crews running remote control on this one.

Google Streeview shows some hoppers present. Google don't show the date for their Streetview images, but the picture quality looks lower than many I have seen so it may be quite old (in Streetview terms)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@42.93149 ... 4jZajA!2e0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its interesting checking it out on satellite images how much track remains in the industries. You can even trace the lines by faint gaps in the trees

lvrr325 wrote:Operating the grade safely is the key, it's going to be somewhat labor intensive as either two units or some kind of slug set will be needed, or the tracks kept up enough to use a six axle unit of some sort. You're not going to get away with one man crews running remote control on this one.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would you need two units? Why would you need a slug? I seriously doubt anyone would take a 6-axle unit into industrial trackage but why would you want to?

I'm not a fan of remote operations except perhaps for loading or unloading a long string of cars at a quarry or grain mill. But how would a second man have any impact on the train going up or down a grade? (Dragging his feet like Fred Flintstone, maybe? )

Using anything longer than one geep would require bringing more of the line back into action at the switchback.

BR&P wrote:

lvrr325 wrote:Operating the grade safely is the key, it's going to be somewhat labor intensive as either two units or some kind of slug set will be needed, or the tracks kept up enough to use a six axle unit of some sort. You're not going to get away with one man crews running remote control on this one.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would you need two units? Why would you need a slug? I seriously doubt anyone would take a 6-axle unit into industrial trackage but why would you want to?

I'm not a fan of remote operations except perhaps for loading or unloading a long string of cars at a quarry or grain mill. But how would a second man have any impact on the train going up or down a grade? (Dragging his feet like Fred Flintstone, maybe? )

I see some folks can't grasp the concept that more axles = more braking power.

OK, I understand what you are saying now but I don't think that's an issue.

First, NYC/PC/CR operated the line for many, many years with small switchers - 600 hp SW1's were common. They evidently had enough power and enough braking to handle the traffic which likely was much higher the farther back in time you go.

More importantly, one of us is making an incorrect assumption about the "runaway" mentioned. Altho no details were mentioned, I assumed it was a rail car or cars which rolled while at a siding. You pictured a locomotive and train running away which has you thinking in terms of an operational need of more braking. I don't know what ran away nor which of us is right on that count.

I will say that even if the runaway did involve a train being operated, more units is not necessarily going to solve the issue. There are many possible causes of a runaway and it's impossible to say what the remedy is until we know what happened. Could have been human error, could have been mechanical failure, could have been natural causes like heavy ice and snow.

I'm not familiar with the line other than what I have read and seen driving by a couple times years ago. But given the long years of operation with a single unit I doubt there is a need for two at a time, either from a power or from a safety perspective.

Can anyone provide details of what ran away, and why?

A couple things of note:

Up until the late 1980's the only motive power used on the line was an SW1 with #6 brake (steam era was 0-8-0s). Also, in the hundred twenty some od years of operation on the line there was only the one incident (three years ago maybe? Four? I used to remember better).

Six axle power would likely do more damage then good. An engine slug set would only be beneficial if both were equipped with dynamic braking. Conrail and CSX did pretty well with a single GP40-2 shoving the cars up the hill and then leading them back down.

talltim is correct. Adding another locomotive or more cars would necessitate rehab and replacement of more track, as there is only enough room for one locomotive across Vrooman Ave at the switch back (which in its self is technically only a spur to reach the modern industrial park. The original alignment to the upper mills did not contain a switchback). That is part of the long term plans of the Amsterdam IDA though (track replacement), at least to the former Coleco buildings off of Church St. Business will need to develop before anything other than track inspection takes place.

More importantly, one of us is making an incorrect assumption about the "runaway" mentioned. Altho no details were mentioned, I assumed it was a rail car or cars which rolled while at a siding.

It was indeed the locomotive and three cars that ran away. I have been trying to find a report on the web about the incident for the last couple days and I've come up with nothing. The train made it all the way across the bridge over Rt 5 on the rails and only came off when it hit the sharp curve near the main line. The locomotive stayed upright, but the three hoppers went on their sides (at least one was a Winchester & Western car). I remember seeing the mess a few days after it happened. Reportedly (from railroad employees so take it with a grain of salt), the crew lost air (no explanation) and the train took off. The conductor jumped, but the engineer rode it down. It was supposedly doing over 60mph by the time it got to the bottom. The track work that had been completed the year before was credited for the incident not being worse, as the crews that had worked the line before the rehab claim that it would have derailed somewhere in the woods. I never would have made it over the Chapman Dr. crossing if it had not been rehabbed. It was an un-level mess prior to that and was even unpleasant to drive over. This is the crossing that the "Shoving Platform" caboose derailed on ending the use of it on the branch.

Thanks Traingeek. Fascinating, and I'd love to hear "the rest of the story" and how exactly they lost their air. Must have been a wild ride for the engineer and it's fortunate the engine stayed upright.