Are freight and passenger rail incompatible?

I know this seems to be a peripheral issue in many different threads but I'll give the question its own space here. The alternate question I suppose would be To what extent can we expect to effectively operate passenger trains over freight rail lines?

Here are some observations:

1) Other countries have almost uniformly gone the approach of operating true HSR on dedicated lines.

2) Europe has a lower overall volume of rail freight traffic than the USA.

3) Most countries operate passenger trains on government-owned rail lines.

4) Excepting the East and West Coasts, population densities are much lower in the USA compared to Europe and the Asian Pacific Rim.


Frankly, I don't know how to answer the original question or even know if there's a single answer. What I sense, though, is that what we have today is not a blueprint for how to provide real solutions to real transportation needs over the next 25 to 50 years. If the consensus is that we need a greater system of dedicated or semi-dedicated rail (such as the NEC) then how do we go about getting it? Is it by buying out existing rail lines and upgrading them or are we talking about all new construction? What routes would justify spending the billions needed to do that?

Lastly, does anyone know how much the TGV and ICE systems cost (fully new ROW sections) to build on a per-kilometer basis?

[Since this is not specifically an Amtrak question, I moved it to the operations forum. -otto-]

Simply by nature, freight and pax operations are incompatible. Passengers need to be moved quickly and timely to their destination. The allowances for lateness of most types of cargo are several times more permissive. Freight consists, of course, are long, slow trains, in contrast to passenger service, which must be faster and more frequent. With a network of multi-track main lines, as exists in Europe, this would not be a problem. However, there is a dearth of high-capacity rail lines or separate freight and passenger mains, especially outside of the East. This is a huge problem with our network that will prevent rail from being as attractive as it could be, both for cargo and passenger movement.

Simply by nature, freight and pax operations are incompatible. Passengers need to be moved quickly and timely to their destination. The allowances for lateness of most types of cargo are several times more permissive. Freight consists, of course, are long, slow trains, in contrast to passenger service, which must be faster and more frequent. With a network of multi-track main lines, as exists in Europe, this would not be a problem. However, there is a dearth of high-capacity rail lines or separate freight and passenger mains, especially outside of the East. This is a huge problem with our network that will prevent rail from being as attractive as it could be, both for cargo and passenger movement.

Simply by nature, freight and pax operations are incompatible. Passengers need to be moved quickly and timely to their destination. The allowances for lateness of most types of cargo are several times more permissive. Freight consists, of course, are long, slow trains, in contrast to passenger service, which must be faster and more frequent. With a network of multi-track main lines, as exists in Europe, this would not be a problem. However, there is a dearth of high-capacity rail lines or separate freight and passenger mains, especially outside of the East. This is a huge problem with our network that will prevent rail from being as attractive as it could be, both for cargo and passenger movement.

Otto, I respectfully believe that this belongs in the Amtrak forum. The question centers on where to host passenger rail in the USA. I think most envision that Amtrak is the outfit that's going to operate that service. No other thread on this forum has much of anything to do with moving passengers.

Are they truly incompatible? Coal trains and the TGV wouldn't get along well, I agree, but what about fast intermodals and Amtrak? I think the solution here is to have parallel mains, or 2-3 track mains. For instance (since I know the area best) take Chicago to St. Paul. There's two lines that take the majority of the heavy freight (the BNSF ex-CB&Q, and the UP ex-Omaha), and one that seems to run mostly fast intermodals and passenger trains (the CP ex-CMStP).

Perhaps a pooling agreement would be in order: CP shuts down its main for a few months, and its traffic gets pooled onto the UP and BNSF mains - there's enough excess capacity to allow this to happen. Meanwhile, the CP main gets upgraded to dual-track, FRA Class 6 from Milwaukee to Hastings, MN, with the proper signaling for 110 mph. These improvements are paid for by the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin (20% each), the Federal government (25%), CP Rail (15%), and BNSF and UP (10% each). CP Rail would get unlimited rail access, and UP and BNSF get up to 10 trains a day over the line. The only stipulation is that all freights must travel a minimum of 70 mph, preferably at 90 mph or above, except at specific times that will not interfere with Amtrak. All of CP's slow freights would be sent down the BNSF or UP lines, except for those which serve local industry.

This type of agreement would be doable elsewhere too, with the old B&A and B&M between Albany and Boston, the CSX and NS mains between Cleveland and Chicago, and so on. It's just that it makes more sense where there's three rail lines between the same places.

I would think it would depend on the type of frieght that coexisted. A train loaded with eight cargo cars and a reasonable load could operate a lot faster and safer than a heavy one with over a hundred. I don't know how economical such a run would be, but if all trains were short, light and operated with an average speed above 50 MPH, they could possibly coexist in a comfortable fashion.
If there were no toxic goods involved, I don't even see why commercial and passenger cars couldn't be mixed onto the same train other than the wasteful expense of bringing the goods to a stop at every station. This would require a good use of regenerative braking. Mail sorting was a good example of this.

At the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, a similar problem was recognized. The fastest passenger moves of that era operated around 60 MPH, freights averaged about 15 MPH. Thus, even on double track, overtaken freights (which were much fewer, lighter and shorter than today) had to be moved out of the way.

The eastern lines eventually solved this problem by the use of four-track mains. In some areas where grades caused a problem (such as DL&W over the Poconos), three tracks were sufficent. By the 1930's demand for more and faster freight service had led to some improvement in freight speeds, not only in absolute terms, but in comparison to the relatively-smaller improvement in passenger speeds.

Thus, by 1950, PRR was mixing commuters, long-distance, manifests and coal drags on its New York and Philadelphia Divisions with little apparent difficulty, but it should be remembered that this particular property, with electrification, consolidated interlockings (one tower replacing three or four) and flying junctions (crossing intervening tracks via an overpass or duck-under rather than at grade) have long made it the most sophisticated application of rail traffic control in America.

Relatively little progress has been made since that time. Beginning in the late 1950's the major Eastern lines were slimmed down to one or two tracks to reduce Maintenance of Way costs. Plans were made to retain addtional crossovers and sidings to facilitiate meets and passes, but the technology was pretty much forgtten when most high-value freight left the rails in the 1950's-60's. The coffin was nailed shut when the Chase (Md.) and Homewood (Ill.) wrecks demonstrated the dangers of mixing equipment of widely disparate speeds and weights.

It now appears that a substantial portion of the freight lost in the post-WW II era may find its way back to the rails. It also seems likely that some of the trackage involved, most notably on the approaches to the major metropolitan areas, will have to be shared with passenger and commuter operations, as I'm given understand is the case in some European countries. The remaining trackage in the open areas could probably be either upgraded from exisiting lines (such as the former Alton Chicago-St Louis) or the grades of abandoned lines.

Regardless of what approach is chosen, the price tag is going to be hefty, the NIMBY mentality is going to have to be mollified, and possible breakthroughs in the development of alternative power sources for the individual vehicle (which will remain the preferred option in all but the most congested areas) may again render much of the investment redundant.

1) Other countries have almost uniformly gone the approach of operating true HSR on dedicated lines.

In many places, one can see abandoned bridges where ROW's used to be multi-tracked, this is especially prominent on the CSX Berkshire Division and parts of the NEC. This might be a logical first step, as it should be exorbitantly cheaper to do this than to acquire new land. Wasn't this supposed to happen with the Empire Service trains?

The technological and logistical issues are nothing compared to changing people's minds and opinions.