• Single track Chicago Line?

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New York State.
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New York State.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

  • 105 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
  by tree68
 
Leo_Ames wrote:Single track instead of double track has been part of the standard Hunter Harrison game plan since his Illinois Central days.

All the usual things are starting to happen. Eliminate infrastructure such as single tracking busy mainlines, eliminate helper districts regardless if they're making you money, kill off hump yards and up your dwell time in yards, make your employees buy all their own safety equipment, etc. At this point the man is so predictable, one wonders why they have to pay his salary just to implement his policies.

Some of the next things you'll see are shop closures and the elimination of locomotive rebuilding programs. If they're not gone yet, I wouldn't expect to see the Dash 3 program survive nor expect to see the C44-8W rebuild program that was being tested on the eve of his takeover be taken up past the initial prototypes that were delivered a few months back.

And while CSX has a motive power surplus and a lot of fat to trim as a result of new purchases far outstripping retirements in recent years while traffic has declined, I predict he'll take locomotive retirements too far. The company will soon be holding trains for lack or power or paying for expensive short-term leasors while modern SD70's sit idle, rusting away.
As long as I'm making money on my CSX stock, who cares? When I stop making money on CSX, I'll just go gamble on some other stock... [/sarcasm]
  by lvrr325
 
I can't see Amtrak standing for it when they're double-tracking a line near Albany now as it is. Maybe that project is even done already. If it was the Boston Line with only one Amtrak a day that's one thing but there's at least three daily pairs of trains between Albany and Buffalo.

I don't understand why railroads hire this clown, okay that's great he raises the stock value, but at what cost down the road, does no one look and see the mess he leaves behind him?
  by tree68
 
lvrr325 wrote:I don't understand why railroads hire this clown, okay that's great he raises the stock value, but at what cost down the road, does no one look and see the mess he leaves behind him?
As long as I'm making money on my CSX stock, who cares? When I stop making money on CSX, I'll just go gamble on some other stock... [/sarcasm]

It's my understanding that EHH isn't exactly fond of Amtrak, either...
  by BR&P
 
lvrr325 wrote:I can't see Amtrak standing for it when they're double-tracking a line near Albany now as it is.
If it's CSX's railroad, what can Amtrak do? Other than work through the politicians and courts. Come to think of it, I suppose they could seek an injunction prohibiting the track removal, then by the time it drags through the courts EHH would hopefully be gone.
  by sd80mac
 
lvrr325 wrote:I can't see Amtrak standing for it when they're double-tracking a line near Albany now as it is. Maybe that project is even done already. If it was the Boston Line with only one Amtrak a day that's one thing but there's at least three daily pairs of trains between Albany and Buffalo.

I don't understand why railroads hire this clown, okay that's great he raises the stock value, but at what cost down the road, does no one look and see the mess he leaves behind him?

Just like what Snow did...
  by newpylong
 
He's insane. I foretold of how this guy would gut that railroad and it is coming true. The only hope is his view of being a "short timer" is shorter than usual.
  by KevinD
 
It seems shocking for this to happen to the crown jewel of the 42% stake that previous CSX management overpaid in a bidding war to acquire 20 years ago.
  by BobLI
 
How much money did CSX spend to upgrade all the signals across NY State? What a waste of money to tear it all out to go to single track...
  by TomNelligan
 
How Wall Street works these days: take over a company, gut its infrastructure, lay off employees, and cut maintenance to boost short-term profits, then take your money and run when things inevitably begin to fall apart due to lack of sufficient resources.
  by rhallock
 
I just read the Railway Age article. I expected that things would go badly under EHH but I didn't think it would be that bad. It is sickening, almost a rerun of the black days of Penn Central. I better unload my CSX stock while I still can.
  by CP4743
 
johnpbarlow wrote:Now that Hunter-driven train consolidation is underway, how many unit, intermodal, auto, and manifest trains operate on the Chicago line? The volume of oil/coal/ethanol trains that run this route must be significantly reduced versus a few years ago.
http://railroadfan.com/wiki/index.php/CSX_Train_Symbols

Coal is virtually nonexistent on the Water Level and has been for some time now. The last coal moving this way is to Lafarge in Ravena, NY. Not sure if that still runs. Oil is pretty much gone from running at a level of 1 to 3 trains a day at peak. However, ethanol seems to be running at or above historical levels. The latest consolidation effort is combining empty ethanols at Selkirk and running them west as one train instead of two. This actually seems to make sense to do.

They are still working on capacity expansion on the River Sub.
  by sd80mac
 
CP4743 wrote:Oil is pretty much gone from running at a level of 1 to 3 trains a day at peak.
Until oil barrel price shoot up, then they will be back to peak before you know it. They reduced the output due to low price of oil barrels.
  by MACTRAXX
 
Noel Weaver wrote:The State of New York is interested in expanding and speeding up the passenger service to Buffalo, this might be their golden opportunity if the leadership has brains enough to pursue it. I hope this never happens, the line needs the two tracks for freight no matter what and no matter what EHH says or does.
Noel Weaver
NW (and Everyone:)

I agree with you concerning the Empire Corridor - NYS DOT may well be willing to do whatever it takes to keep both
tracks intact between Hoffmanns and Buffalo. I just can not see a busy route like this one reduced to a single track
with the traffic that this route has. This could be as mentioned a negotiating tactic by CSX to get tax or other type
concessions from NYS.

What does ESPA and NARP think about these possibilities of reducing tracks on the Empire Corridor route?
This would impact Amtrak services across NYS and likely not allow any possibility of more service west of Hoffmanns.

I also agree that the route west of Buffalo towards Chicago could be a different circumstance since there may be no
subsidies or tax concessions from PA,OH and IN to help save the second track on the Lake Shore Limited route.

As one who has traveled on Amtrak Empire Service and the Lake Shore Limited trains in the past I would like to see
that the line be kept as is and not reduced to a single track route with passing sidings remembering that it once had
four tracks in the NYC days as mentioned reduced to two in the Pearlman years of the 1960s. Back then it was excess
capacity and high property taxes that were behind the reduction. This looks like a case today of being penny wise
and dollar foolish to me and would lead to more CSX service problems than it is worth...

MACTRAXX
  by Noel Weaver
 
Two things here; what was the former Conrail/New York Central mainline west of Cleveland is owned by NS not CSX so that will remain and when the New York Central reduced it from four tracks to two tracks there were many less trains, they saved a lot in maintenance, labor and taxes and service was improved as a result. That will not happen this time around.
Noel Weaver
  by sd80mac
 
Noel Weaver wrote:Two things here; what was the former Conrail/New York Central mainline west of Cleveland is owned by NS not CSX so that will remain and when the New York Central reduced it from four tracks to two tracks there were many less trains, they saved a lot in maintenance, labor and taxes and service was improved as a result. That will not happen this time around.
Noel Weaver

In the past during heydays, these many trains were short, correct? So when you said "many less trains", a lof of these shorter trains were combined into longer trains. Of course a lot of freights were lost to truck businesses. That's one reason for less trains. But I believe that combination of trains into longer ones was another reason.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7