Rochester traffic dwindles - do we still need the CSX main?

CSX might consider running one direction on the West Shore and the other direction
on the main through downtown. They could remove a lot of track.

Amtrak would run both ways via downtown.

s4ny wrote:CSX might consider running one direction on the West Shore and the other direction
on the main through downtown. They could remove a lot of track.

Amtrak would run both ways via downtown.

Just build another station along the West Shore for the eastbound Amtrak's. Hell, I may have found a good use
for Don's ex-LV boxcar. Plop it along side the track and stick some lawn chairs in there and we'll be good to go!

charlie6017 wrote: Just build another station along the West Shore for the eastbound Amtrak's. Hell, I may have found a good use
for Don's ex-LV boxcar. Plop it along side the track and stick some lawn chairs in there and we'll be good to go!

Shoot, I've also got that former Fruit Growers reefer, I'm getting rid of that too. More room in that, make half a waiting room and the other half for AMTK ticket sales!

Lets get a little more radical... I assume that most of CSX is double tracked along the main lines in NY. With CSX shrinking and therefore less usage, why not get NYS to "force" CSX to get rid of one of the main tracks and use that newly acquired track for high speed rail. No new ROW needed. Perhaps some upgrading. Cheaper than a whole new ROW. Too wild?

SST wrote:Lets get a little more radical... I assume that most of CSX is double tracked along the main lines in NY. With CSX shrinking and therefore less usage, why not get NYS to "force" CSX to get rid of one of the main tracks and use that newly acquired track for high speed rail. No new ROW needed. Perhaps some upgrading. Cheaper than a whole new ROW. Too wild?

April Fool's Day has long passed. And even on that day I'm not sure I could stomach the thought of the government forcing private enterprise to surrender its property. It goes against every concept that I live my life by.

Besides, Louise is dead. High speed rail in NY lost its biggest proponent.

SST wrote:Lets get a little more radical... I assume that most of CSX is double tracked along the main lines in NY. With CSX shrinking and therefore less usage, why not get NYS to "force" CSX to get rid of one of the main tracks and use that newly acquired track for high speed rail. No new ROW needed. Perhaps some upgrading. Cheaper than a whole new ROW. Too wild?

If HSR did miracle become in process of construction. We do NOT need NEW ROW. the property is already 4 or 5 tracks wide. there will be enough room for single track for HSR with passing sidings.

I've read that CSX has been insisting on a very wide separation in such cases -- no 15-feet-between-track-centers for CSX.

It's there in most places. NY Central built the Water Level Route to be 4 tracks from Albany all the way to Buffalo.

ExCon90 wrote:I've read that CSX has been insisting on a very wide separation in such cases -- no 15-feet-between-track-centers for CSX.

I looked through the last DEIS published on the High Speed Rail study to see what exactly "high speed" meant.

Basically the existing ROW can be used up to 90 MPH max authorized speed. At this speed 15 feet separation between tracks is OK. The 90B alternative (90 mph MAS) would cost around 5.6 billion, with extensive crossing upgrades/elimination, culvert replacement, signal system enhancements, track flyovers, etc.

Run time NYC-Niagara Falls would go from 9 hours 6 minutes to 7' 36''. Not sure if this is "high speed" or not.

The next step up in MAS would entail electrification and even more extensive ROW work with 30 foot track separation.

D Alex wrote:It's there in most places. NY Central built the Water Level Route to be 4 tracks from Albany all the way to Buffalo.

It is and it isn't. Most places where there is still a controlled siding, that is what would've been track 3 or 4, not usually a 5th track in the 4 track days, so almost everywhere there is a CS it would be tough to get 30ft centers between the freight and HSR track. I know that isn't always the case, some places it's plenty wide, others it isn't.

Fortunately for your argument's sake, there haven't been many realignments since the line was double-tracked, so there's that. But........

The other problem with just plopping down a track in the old #4 position on the ROW is that, when the 4 track was designed, passenger stations were exclusively on the south and freight was almost exclusively on the north (hence the 2134 numbering unique to the area, instead of the typical 3124 seen elsewhere), so almost all freight yards would have to cross the HSR track.

sd80mac wrote:

If HSR did miracle become in process of construction. We do NOT need NEW ROW. the property is already 4 or 5 tracks wide. there will be enough room for single track for HSR with passing sidings.

HSR is a boondoggle, a waste of taxpayers money, and total foolishness. We already have private autos and buses, both of which use public-funded highways, and airplanes, using public-funded airports and traffic control. There is no excuse whatever for spending incredible amounts of money to trim the running times. Even the loonies in Kalifornia are starting to see the light, after pouring large amounts down the drain already. "The property" may be 4 or 5 tracks wide, but it belongs to somebody else. HSR would not be a miracle, it would be a nightmare of epic proportions.

With not being able to see your facial expressions or hear your voice, it seems to me that based on your previous two replies, you need to take it down a notch or two.

We all know its not going to happen but there is no harm in discussing the possibilities.

Not sure why there is any need to "take it down a notch or two" but OK.

"Gee, I dunno if that's such a good idea." There, better?

Actually that's no worse than some of the responses the first time I tossed out the West Shore idea, altho they have gotten progressively tamer each time around.

Realistically, I don't see a dedicated passenger track being successful. What good would it do to spend cubic dollars for higher speeds, if you have passing sidings and have to wait in one if the opposing train happens to be late for some reason? So now you are looking at two tracks, one for each direction with provisions for a cross-over move at intervals. And at various places along the way, CSX would still have a branch or customers on the north side, thus requiring either complicated interlockings and signalling and scheduling to let freights cross over, or bridges. And let's not forget true high speed service would likely require the elimination of every single highway crossing on the route. That cost alone is staggering.

The taxpayer would be better served to give each and every rail passenger a free plane ticket and forget the whole idea - not saying we should but I bet it would cost less in the long run.

Instead of tossing money hand over fist into an unnecessary project like high speed rail, I would rather see the
state pour that money into fixing the roads. God knows anyone who drives a lot realizes the highways are an absolute
disaster. It seems there are more craters than there is on the moon.

Charlie