CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

roberttosh wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:06 am West of Springfield isn't really part of this discussion as I'm assuming Springfield is as far west as the passenger trains will go. The ruling grade East of Springfield is obviously Charlton Hill at @ 1% and while I don't have specifics, I'm thinking that the water-level route in places between Albany and Utica isn't exactly flat either. Also, am not suggesting that a double tracked B&A would have the same capacity as the WLR, but I certainly think it's reasonable to assume that if the WLR can handle 45-50 a day, the B&A could easily handle 30. The B&A may not be the same high-speed railroad that the WLR is, but it's far from chopped liver.

WLR Hugs the Mohawk River from Utica, NY to Hoffmans CP 169 then goes thru the Albany Pine Bush gentle hills from there to Selkirk.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:07 am Mr. Norman, it's not us. It's the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that has made this all about passenger rail. They spend money like crazy on such things.....

Mr. Trainguy, I accept that it's the "Commonwealth of Tax..." with big ideas about expanded passenger trains and not the advocacy community.

The thought that they would take your $$$ to build up a rinky dink FRA Class 2 line with a long tunnel (longest East of the Rockies?) prone to cave inns, and with no industries West of the CT River worthy of service, just so they can have a "taking" of the Class 4 B&A from Chessie for passenger trains escapes me.

Don't they have to answer to someone on "that Tuesday in November" every couple of years?

I realize how pro passenger the Commonwealth is. I first became aware during Pat's no notice shutdown of the Old Colony during '56 that got the Kennedys up in arms so it was back in business a day later. I'm sort of astounded how, again surely, the Kennedys got the NH-Boston electrification done, rather than same becoming an "important feed" like NH-Spfld, or Philly-Hbg to the Corridor. And, somehow, I don't think it was "out of the goodness of their heart" that Amtrak restored 448-9. Lake Shore as a BOS-CHI through train with Sleepers - and I even wonder about the "Night Owl" Sleeper as well.

Unlike the Harrisburg and Springfield lines, I don't think that the New Haven to Boston route was ever looked upon as a feeder route, but more the Northern anchor on the corridor with Boston having the 6th largest US combined statistical area population of 8.3 million people.

roberttosh wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:50 am

taracer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:22 pm No, Q426 and Q436 are just as big as Q424. The grades are the limiting factor. It's easy to run 30+ trains when at least half of them are short and fast.

I don't think that 436 is regularly near the size of 424/425.

It depends on how your are defining size.

Q436 won't usually be the length of Q424 because Q424 carries a lot of empties. Actual tonnage is usually similar between the two trains, Q436 is usually short but heavy.

Q425 can be both long and heavy after Pittsfield so it depends on where you see it. Over the mountain Q425 is similar tonnage to the Q427.

In fact there is so much tonnage coming out of Framingham that other trains are bringing that traffic to West Springfield to be put on Q425 as I have said. So Q425 is actually moving some Framingham traffic.

If 436 is short and heavy I'm assuming it's mostly loads EB and if so, how is there so much tonnage coming out of Framingham, wouldn't it be mostly empties going the other way? Much like 424, the 436's that I've seen have plenty of C&D empties on them. Also, as far as I can tell, 436 oftentimes operates with 2 locos while 424/425 use 3.

I'm a bit confused here: doesn't Q436 bring lots of empty C&D gons east to Framingham? I would have guessed Q436 consists would be long with perhaps half the cars being empty gons?

I wouldn't say lots of empty C&D cars, and the old Q437 always had lots of loads out of Framingham, but now the C&D loads coming out put the train over tonnage as this traffic is added to the Q427/Q115 since Q437 has been abolished for over a year. Q424 does have lots of empties including the longer garbage cars, so that makes the train appear to be big.

Q424 used to be a bit heavier but all the regular freight trains are about equal now with the Pittsfield drop taken off of the Q424 and put on the Q426.

Q425 needs three engines most of the time because it handles the Palmer NECR traffic most of the time. Sometimes Q427 will pick up there. So you will see Q424 with three engines more often than Q436 even if Q424's tonnage for that train doesn't require it, but Q425 will.

So you see a long Q424 with three engines and assume it must be heavier than the other trains, but that most likely would not be true.

QB 52.32 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:11 pm 90-110 mph MAS would also present an issue with freight and passenger infrastructure separation requirements vs. the 1990's base case.

What is the separation requirement? In particular I was wondering how CSX and Virginia on a shared ROW is going to work.

There are no FRA track seperation requirements for heavy rail (freight/passenger) regardless of track class as long as some type of traffic control (and now PTC) is in use. However they do exist for Light Rail.

It certainly has the potential to make operations more difficult trying to accommodate passenger speeds that high though within freight operations.

bostontrainguy wrote: What is the separation requirement? In particular I was wondering how CSX and Virginia on a shared ROW is going to work.

CSX's engineering requirements for high-speed passenger rail are for a dedicated, secure corridor separated by at least 30 feet from the nearest freight track for the protection of CSX workers and hazardous materials. Additionally, their past studies have indicated 1@ 110-mph passenger train displaces 6@ 50 mph freight trains.

From the reports I’ve read about the csx-va deal, the plan is to add a 3D track in many places to largely separate freight and passenger operations between dc and Richmond

QB 52.32 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:06 pm CSX's engineering requirements for high-speed passenger rail are for a dedicated, secure corridor separated by at least 30 feet from the nearest freight track for the protection of CSX workers and hazardous materials. Additionally, their past studies have indicated 1@ 110-mph passenger train displaces 6@ 50 mph freight trains.

Thank you, I did not know this. I know BNSF has a similar design requirement.

The STB today accepted the application as complete with a consummation date of 3/1/22.

Don't see it posted on their docs online yet though.

The effective date will be 5/1/22 not 3/1. It will be posted tomorrow.

Oops, I see that now thank you for the correction.