Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1588571  by photobug56
 
David Benton wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:15 am
photobug56 wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:10 am Do European railroads single track and reduce capacity as is so popular in the US?
In some instances , if the traffic level warrants it . Generally branch lines I would say . they would leave enough properly spaced sidings to suit the traffic level . And i doubt they would run freight trains that don't fit in the sidings.
The Swiss single lines , with double lines levels of traffic , are generally in terrain which is either impossible or expensive to build a double track .
Let me rephrase; in the US, numerous railroads have massively reduced capacity over the last several decades, sometimes in ways that make it very expensive to restore if the need arises. We're talking tracks between points, yards, etc. Now, I think to some degree we are paying for this. Railroads today saying they don't have capacity for a small amount of passenger service on some lines once ran many passenger trains on those same lines. The difference is that 2 tracks are now 1, 4 are now 1 or 2 or 3, etc. Has this happened in Europe as well?
 #1588573  by electricron
 
photobug56 wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:59 am Let me rephrase; in the US, numerous railroads have massively reduced capacity over the last several decades, sometimes in ways that make it very expensive to restore if the need arises. We're talking tracks between points, yards, etc. Now, I think to some degree we are paying for this. Railroads today saying they don't have capacity for a small amount of passenger service on some lines once ran many passenger trains on those same lines. The difference is that 2 tracks are now 1, 4 are now 1 or 2 or 3, etc. Has this happened in Europe as well?
Just because there are fewer tracks in the railroad corridor does not necessarily mean there is a reduction in capacity. American railroads are mostly owned by freight railroads, where the average freight train length is 3500 yards vs the average freight train length in Europe being 750 yards. Note, it is okay to switch meters for yards if you so wish.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/railr ... ent-tracks
Therefore, one American freight train could have the capacity of 5 European freight trains, just on length alone. The axle loading of US freight trains is also much higher than European trains, allowing double stack container trains vs just single stack. Now its 10 European freight trains for one American freight train when it comes to the weight of goods being moved over the track. Is that really a reduction, or rather is it an increase in capacity instead?

But passenger trains do not weigh that much different around the world. You need time slots in the timetable for them, vs just much heavier rails. Railroads designed, built, and maintained for different purposes will be different.
 #1588579  by eolesen
 
Yup. It's not the number of tracks in service, it's how many carloads and containers are moving and with what velocity. Given the traffic over the last couple years, it's hard to argue that there's "massive reduced capacity" in the US rail system.

Short story.... intermodal has almost tripled since Staggers was implemented in the 1980's. Carload commodities have dropped about 15% from 2000 to the present, but when you shut down over 500 coal power plants who relied largely on unit trains, that's bound to happen... Meanwhile, dwell time is down, meaning freight is getting between source and destination faster.

But hey, let's focus on yard tracks being ripped up and locomotives being mothballed because, you know, PSR...
 #1588582  by STrRedWolf
 
I think "capacity" here doesn't just mean "velocity" but also "flexiblity". Remember, you may have sidings, but if a freight is longer than the siding, the shorter of the trains is going to get the siding and going to wait while the freight clears out of the way. Overall, that cuts into "velocity"... and thus "capacity".

1 track from yard to yard is fine, but if you have priority trains (freight or passenger) it's better to have 2 and a lot of switches. The yards themselves are a different story.
Last edited by nomis on Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: removed immediate quote
 #1588593  by Ridgefielder
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:34 am I think "capacity" here doesn't just mean "velocity" but also "flexiblity". Remember, you may have sidings, but if a freight is longer than the siding, the shorter of the trains is going to get the siding and going to wait while the freight clears out of the way. Overall, that cuts into "velocity"... and thus "capacity".

1 track from yard to yard is fine, but if you have priority trains (freight or passenger) it's better to have 2 and a lot of switches. The yards themselves are a different story.
I think "flexibility" is really the better way to think of this. Excess capacity = greater flexibility if (when) something goes wrong. One lead unit malfunctions on a single-track line, it ties up the whole railroad for miles.

This is something we're seeing on a macro level with the whole "global supply-chain crisis" that's been going on for months now. Systems can be over-optimized. "Precision" is fine for machine tools and watches, maybe not so much for something as big and complex as a railroad...
 #1588594  by rcthompson04
 
Ridgefielder wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:27 am I think "flexibility" is really the better way to think of this. Excess capacity = greater flexibility if (when) something goes wrong. One lead unit malfunctions on a single-track line, it ties up the whole railroad for miles.

This is something we're seeing on a macro level with the whole "global supply-chain crisis" that's been going on for months now. Systems can be over-optimized. "Precision" is fine for machine tools and watches, maybe not so much for something as big and complex as a railroad...
This is a really good point. Have locomotives and rolling stock become reliable enough to eliminate a lot of excess flexibility (double tracking, extra locomotives from trains, on demand ROW maintenance crews, etc...), but not reliable enough to completely eliminate those things in all situations?
 #1588605  by eolesen
 
It's a matter of balance.

Do you build / maintain the railroad for how it actually operates 300+ days a year, or the way that it might operate 30 to 60 days a year?

We pull a 10000 lb 32 ft trailer several times a year.

I'd love to buy the one ton F-350 that this trailer really deserves, but instead I drive a F-150 that's capable of safely pulling it because it's a better truck 48 weeks out of the year.

It sure would be nice to have that $80,000 truck, but sometimes you got to stick with the $28,000 option...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

 #1588628  by STrRedWolf
 
I would agree with you... but said balance must also involve the time we're in.

Back before Amtrak, rail roads would have been built with that balance as it was at the time. Over time, that balance tipped to less infrastructure, so the rail roads reacted by tearing it up. Now, it's tipping back the other way.

One rail road actually is laying down new track next to old, restoring it (and doing it since 2008): BNSF, according to Trains Magazine's Feb 2022 issue, is double-tracking it's LA to Chicago line, the Southern Transcon. Currently, it has nine remaining segments to double-track and then two bridges.
Last edited by nomis on Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Removed immediate quote
 #1588641  by eolesen
 
UPRR has done the same double tracking from El Paso to Los Angeles save for a few single track sections between Yuma and Maricopa. The single track bridge across the Colorado River is the chokepoint because it's on difficult terrain...

And yet UPRR still manages to run trains on 15-30 minute headways 24/7 between Tucson and Los Angeles. Single track isn't a curse, its a challenge they manage to work through each and every day.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

 #1588665  by David Benton
 
eolesen wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:30 pm UPRR has done the same double tracking from El Paso to Los Angeles save for a few single track sections between Yuma and Maricopa. The single track bridge across the Colorado River is the chokepoint because it's on difficult terrain...

And yet UPRR still manages to run trains on 15-30 minute headways 24/7 between Tucson and Los Angeles. Single track isn't a curse, its a challenge they manage to work through each and every day.
Yes , a single choke point can be worked around with good dispatching.
Much of the delay in the USA seems to be around getting into/ out of yards etc , and multiple at grade crossing points. much of the European network has bypasses around yards , ( been passenger dominated ) an split level crossings. additionally most European freight tends to be point to point , pretty much block train operation . Of course distances are shorter , and single manning means it is economic to run a block as a short train , rather than as a block of a longer train marshalled at multiple yards. once again horses for courses , advantages ./disadvantages of both systems.
 #1588872  by lpetrich
 
Watch the evolution of Amtrak from 1971 to 2011 – Greater Greater Washington
Amtrak system map - also shows Amtrak bus (Ambus) service

I looked at Amtrak-2021-Corridor-Vision-May27_2021.pdf looking for patterns.

Expansion of existing service: Capitols, San Joaquins, Cascades, Heartland Flyer (DFW - OK City), Hiawatha, Lincoln, Illini/Saluki, Wolverine, Pere Marquette, Blue Water, River Runner, Vermonter, Downeaster, Empire Corridor, Adirondack, Keystone, Pennsylvanian, Richmond - Roanoke Norfolk Newport-News, Carolinian, Piedmont

Added to existing long-distance service (some with Ambuses): Central Coast, LA - Indio, LA - Tucson, DFW - San Antonio, Houston - San Antonio, Milwaukee/Madison - Minneapolis, Chi - Indianapolis, Boston - Albany, Cleveland - Buffalo, Atlanta - Birmingham, Jacksonville - Orlando - Tampa, Orlando - Miami, Tampa - Miami

Former service (some with Ambuses): LA - Las Vegas, Phoenix - Tucson, Houston - DFW, Front Range (Denver - Cheyenne part), Minneapolis - Duluth, Cleveland - Detroit, Indianapolis - Louisville, New Orleans - Mobile, Atlanta - Charlotte

Ambus service: Milwaukee - Madison (Ambuses are Chi - Mad), Milwaukee - Green Bay, Chi - Quad Cities (from Galesburg), Chi - Rockford, 3C+D (Ohio), Boston - Concord, New Orleans - Baton Rouge

Across the border (VIA Rail): Detroit - Toronto

Existing commuter-rail service (LIRR): NYC - Ronkonkoma

None: Rutland - Burlington, NYC - Reading Scranton Allentown, Western NC, Southeast NC, Atlanta - Nashville, Birmingham - Montgomery
 #1588913  by eolesen
 
It's part of the trend matching he was trying to do....

Should Amtrak add NYPenn-Ronkonkoma as a nonstop service, it's a "new" route that overlays existing commuter service similar to Chicago to South Bend or Los Angeles to Oceanside, CA. Both of those have commuter service and an option to take Amtrak as a nonstop or limited stop option.
  • 1
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 43