NYS rail plan announced

Alcochaser wrote:That may be true, but the railroad does have some areas where they voluntarily limit speeds due to municipal areas, this is what I mean. The tracks around some of the station platforms come to mind.

That's more of a safety matter and again has nothing to do with the municipality telling them to do so.

nessman wrote:

Alcochaser wrote:That may be true, but the railroad does have some areas where they voluntarily limit speeds due to municipal areas, this is what I mean. The tracks around some of the station platforms come to mind.

That's more of a safety matter and again has nothing to do with the municipality telling them to do so.

I never said it was, I was simply saying by "municipal speed limits" that there are places that a 110mph speed limit would be inappropriate and unsafe. And that INCULDES, some municipalities with platforms, grade crossings, or anything else that would make 110mph unsafe. Do you really want the LSL, which does not stop at Amsterdam NY, blowing past the platform at 110mph? Or Guy Park, with it's grade crossing and park close to the ROW? No it's best that they slow down slightly while near the "Municipality".

Look at a CSX,CP, or NS NY timetable, you will find MANY slow orders for towns in NYS. VOLUNTARILY put on by the railroad.

Now admittedly the Water Level is pretty separated from a lot of the surroundings, but there are still some sections.

Your way barking up the wrong tree here......

lvrr325 wrote:As for the Thruway, if you think of the toll as a tax, it becomes obvious that if you were to cut taxes you'd see more people use the road and possibly even greater revenues as a result - they'd certainly hold steady. If the redundant Thruway Authority was combined into the state DOT, which there have been some rumblings about recently, you'd definately see more overall revenue.

Also have to account that the Thruway athority also runs the State Canal system which at one time was two diffrent state run systems both were merged into one and the Barge Canal is still screwed up they want more Barge traffic on the canal but yet they keep hikeing the lock tolls. What makes NYS think they could run a railroad? they might as well form an interstate airline while there at it.

Alcochaser wrote:I never said it was, I was simply saying by "municipal speed limits" that there are places that a 110mph speed limit would be inappropriate and unsafe. And that INCULDES, some municipalities with platforms, grade crossings, or anything else that would make 110mph unsafe. Do you really want the LSL, which does not stop at Amsterdam NY, blowing past the platform at 110mph? Or Guy Park, with it's grade crossing and park close to the ROW? No it's best that they slow down slightly while near the "Municipality".

Look at a CSX,CP, or NS NY timetable, you will find MANY slow orders for towns in NYS. VOLUNTARILY put on by the railroad.

Now admittedly the Water Level is pretty separated from a lot of the surroundings, but there are still some sections.

Your way barking up the wrong tree here......

Well, you're making it sound like the Village of East Geezus passed a law, put up 30 MPH speed limit signs along the ROW and with their local constable sitting trackside munching donuts with a radar gun ready to write speeding tickets to the locomotive engineer. Which brings me back to my point - the reason why a RR will have lower speeds through certain areas is for safety, track conditions, etc... - not because some village mayor or NIMBY association made them do it. The railroad makes the call - not the municipality. The only government agency the railroads answer to is the FRA.

Do you want a train barreling past a raised passenger platform at 110 MPH? No, of course not - that's not a "municipal" thing... that's a "keep the locomotive from slamming into a concrete barrier at 110 MPH" thing.

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's only a few feet of space between trains passing each other on the CSX main - so you have 2 Amtraks running at full speed - that's a combined speed of 158 MPH... two hot freights - combined speed of 120 MPH. A passenger platform is usually less than a foot from the train itself - less margin for error and greater chance of something bad happening. Has nothing to do with the municipality.

Plus Amsterdam in the immediate area of the passenger station is limited 70 MPH (just passenger trains - no limits on freights) which could also be due to the fact that area is on a curve and have nothing to do with the passenger station. Track improvements such as super elevation and perhaps a dedicated passenger track will help alleviate the slow order - not eliminate it.

But believe me - no local government can step in and force the choo-choo to slow down - even if the mayor's house is 10 feet from the track.

So choose your words carefully. One thing I HATE about this hobby is the mis-information, errors, rumors, and people who simply don't know what the hell they're talking about making the industry and the hobby look bad.

Between Selkirk and Buffalo I do not know of a single speed restriction due to Passenger platforms, or grade crossings. CSX Speed restrictions are solely based upon track condition, IE: curve radius, S-Curves and the like. At Depew between MP 431 and 430 there is a 45 mph restriction but for Eastbounds only. Westbounds are still permitted 50 freight/60 Intermodel. I believe this restriction is actually because of the "short block" between auto signal 431 and CP 429. Rochester MP 372.5 to MP 371.4, 35 mph due to sharp S curves. MP 371.5 to MP 369 45 mph due to track curvature and reversing curves. Syracuse, no restrictions. Rome, No restrictions. Utica, 50 mph due to bridge proximity and track curvature. Amsterdam, No restrictions.

Wanna expierence the thrill of a passing train? Go the the Amtrak station in Rome and go up to the platform which is placed between track 1 and 2, accessed by a tunnel and stairway. Intermodels 60mph, freights @ 50mph and Amtrak #48 and #49 blow by @ 79 mph.

Seems to me that Conrail restricted trains to 50 mph between CP-291 and CP-285 or 283, CSX isn't continuing this? It was in the timetable, I don't think I ever tried to find out the reason.

Since we have walked completely away from the topic of conversation, this topic is locked until I get back to New York.

-otto-

Well... the topic isn't locked... but I'll nudge the conversation back in the right direction.

Here's the Gov's plan:
https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy ... -rail-plan

Read and come back to discuss!

Well... the topic isn't locked... but I'll nudge the conversation back in the right direction.

Here's the Gov's plan:
https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy ... -rail-plan

Read and come back to discuss!

OK - some interesting highlights here... Now, bear in mind - this is a wish-list and these numbers are spread out over 20 years.

FRR - acquire and restore 17 miles of abandoned track between Brockport and Rochester (NYSDOT proposal) - $22M
NS - dedicated bridge at CP-DRAW for NS traffic - $35M
NS - rebuild Portage Bridge over Genesee River - $30M
LIRR - intermodal terminal at Pilgrim State Hospital site - $40M
NYSW - various projects, restore Utica Branch to service, system-wide track rehab, etc... - $53.9M
OMID - upgrade track to Class 2 / 286k standards, intermodal service with Xerox plant, etc... - $105.2M
RSR - replace 10.2 miles of jointed rail with CWR on the Genesee & Wyoming trackage, upgrade Class 1 to Class 3 - $3M
WNYP - upgrades / replacements - $92M

Long-range projects for high speed rail include:
Replace/rehab Amshacks at Buffalo-Depew, Rochester, Amsterdam and Schenectady - $40M
Grade crossing enhancements (i.e., center medians at crossings, full gates, etc...) - $12M

A couple interesting points there - restoration of the 17 miles of the Falls Road, and intermodal service at Xerox.

Since FRRR already interchanges with CSX at the west end, one would think there is very limited if any benefit from another at the east end. How much of their traffic likely comes/goes eastward, and would the savings in a direct connection east be worth the cubic dollars needed to make one? And didn't I read that CSX still owns the ROW? If so, is the government going to FORCE them to allow tracks to be put back down?

As for Xerox, CSX (or CR before them) closed the Rochester intermodal terminal. OMID could load intermodal cars at Xerox but how would they FORCE CSX to stop an intermodal train to pick them up? And just how many cars a day would Xerox generate? This concept is nothing new, it's been discussed since the start of the OMID. The stumbling block has always been that Conrail refused to stop their through trains for an intermodal pickup at Newark. That issue aside, paving a small area at Xerox and buying a straddle crane would be fairly easy. I obviously have a soft spot in my heart for OMID but $105.2 million?

IBTL!

I clarified the FRR project - NYSDOT would spend $5M to acquire the abandoned ROW and another $17M to relay track. No justification or reasoning behind it.

But the state's study goes on to say that traffic in general (system wide across the country - not just the FRR) is going up and looking 20+ yrs down the road. Maybe congestion relief? Maybe possible passenger service? Doesn't specify - but it is interesting that the they are eyeballing the possibility of service restoration.

They also mentioned that most abandoned ROW's have since been sold off and reacquiring these ROW's would be difficult and very expensive, and that while abandonment did make sense in the 70's and 80's at that time, the reduction in capacity and routes is now a barrier to expanding capacity and service. With that - Brockport to Rochester is still intact. I'd be interested in knowing the back story of the abandonment - not salvaging structures, keeping ballast and reasoning for not selling off the ROW.

As for Xerox - that company is getting smaller and smaller... I can't see it happening. But the complete upgrade of the OMID - have to wonder if they're projecting serious traffic increases on that line? Very ambitious plan - but I'm a doubter too.

Some general ideas that may mean nothing:

If there is an interest in somehow grabbing the West Shore for HSR (or part of the regular main...somehow grabbing something in Rochester, so to speak) would the FRRR money make sense by providing capacity for CSX to make up for what they lost? Could an Amtrak train or two go that way? There's got to be some wild speculation we all can think of to help. Detour for derailments? Amtrak Detour for derailments?

Methinks CSX will be less than please to see NS get their own bridge in Buffalo at CP Draw. There's an awful lot of "hittin' and hopin' " when it comes to CSX. For me, though...swing away, Merrill. Swing Away.

EDIT: what is BHRC in Steuben County? Bath and Hammondsport? Two low emissions locomotives? Lots of ALCOs going away here? We subsidizing Super Steel again?

Dave Becker