Railroad Forums 

  • North Carolina NCDOT-Amtrak Piedmont Service

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1523750  by mtuandrew
 
It’s hard to tell from overhead views of High Point, and the Google Maps image is particularly bad (shadows obscure the tracks), but might there be room for a freight gauntlet on the station side? (The southern-most track)

Greensboro has a clearer overhead view, and it looks like there’s room for gauntlets north of the northernmost platform track (if you carve a couple feet from the Greyhound driveway - sorry guys), between the platforms, and if you trim the platform a car length, south of the southernmost platform track. I think the shorter platform would be more than worth the trade-off for level boarding, considering how much faster the process would be.

All of that said, I don’t know if NS is open to gauntlet tracks. They’re frankly a pain in the butt to maintain (much more special trackwork with switches, frogs, and jointly-signaled blocks), and they have more limited utility than a bypass because they don’t clear a main track. Still better than having no high/wide clearance of course.
 #1523759  by tvcigar
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:32 am Looks like this subject of national news coverage regarding "brain dead" truck drivers will soon be history:

https://abc11.com/traffic/construction- ... -/5636682/

Fair Use:
.DURHAM, N.C. (WTVD) -- The 11-foot-8-inch bridge in Durham, also known as the "can opener," will be raised this week in hopes of limiting accidents.

The North Carolina Railroad Overpass at Gregson Street in Durham will be closed to traffic from Oct. 23 to Nov. 5 while it is raised.

We still have our can-openers in Greensboro. Most by the tracks near UNC Greensboro. I had to make a 2 mile detour to get my television live truck around there just yesterday.
 #1523781  by electricron
 
mtuandrew wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:57 am It’s hard to tell from overhead views of High Point, and the Google Maps image is particularly bad (shadows obscure the tracks), but might there be room for a freight gauntlet on the station side? (The southern-most track)

Greensboro has a clearer overhead view, and it looks like there’s room for gauntlets north of the northernmost platform track (if you carve a couple feet from the Greyhound driveway - sorry guys), between the platforms, and if you trim the platform a car length, south of the southernmost platform track. I think the shorter platform would be more than worth the trade-off for level boarding, considering how much faster the process would be.

All of that said, I don’t know if NS is open to gauntlet tracks. They’re frankly a pain in the butt to maintain (much more special trackwork with switches, frogs, and jointly-signaled blocks), and they have more limited utility than a bypass because they don’t clear a main track. Still better than having no high/wide clearance of course.
I’m not going to suggest what should be done, but I do wish to remind everyone that over 99% of the tracks the Piedmont trains run over are owned by NCRR, which is owned by NCDOT, which is owned by North Carolina. While Norfolk Southern RR maintains the railroad corridor under contract with the state; whatever the state wants and is willing to fund will certainly happen!
 #1524323  by orulz
 
The High Point trench clearly has space for a third track, which could be used as a bypass for wide freight trains, but somehow I don't think that would make Norfolk Southern happy. A single track bypass is all they have in Raleigh, and would probably be enough for any H-line platform between Greensboro and Raleigh, but between Greensboro and Charlotte they would probably want a bypass track for *both* mains, essentially putting both platform faces on a siding. This is what they have demanded and received in Charlotte. It is feasible to do this at Kannapolis and Salisbury for probably a reasonable-ish sum, but at High Point it would involve widening the trench. Best case (wherein the bridges are already long enough and would not have to be rebuilt) this would be expensive; if any or all of the bridges over the trench would have to be replaced, this is likely a prohibitively expensive project.
Image
Image linked from https://subwaynut.com/north_carolina/am ... /index.php

And, of course, there's still the problem of how to raise the platforms, when the elevators, stairs, and (in the case of Greensboro) escalators all terminate at 8 inches above rail, whereas a high platform would be at least 40 inches higher. $$$$$
 #1524791  by SouthernRailway
 
Why isn’t there a second Charlotte station at the Charlotte airport? The tracks used by the Carolinian/Piedmont line to Charlotte continue to the airport and there is even a large Norfolk Southern yard right at the airport. Wouldn’t even a platform at the airport help connectivity and ridership?
 #1524799  by gokeefe
 
Not enough funds to date and until recently probably not enough demand/ridership. If it's that obvious NCDOT probably has looked at it and has plans for the future.
 #1524811  by Bob Roberts
 
SouthernRailway wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:24 pm Why isn’t there a second Charlotte station at the Charlotte airport? The tracks used by the Carolinian/Piedmont line to Charlotte continue to the airport and there is even a large Norfolk Southern yard right at the airport. Wouldn’t even a platform at the airport help connectivity and ridership?
Its on just about every to do list for extending NCDOT service beyond its current routing. In addition, the airport is in the process of designing a people mover system to connect the terminal to remote decks and the future Silver Line light rail station (on Wilkinson Blvd). Such a system would pass over the NS line as well so an airport heavy rail stop could be well connected to the terminal.

Unfortunately an airport station will not be easy because:
* The tracks west of Gateway Station are owned by NS, not the NCRR
* The new NS intermodal yard at the airport generates a good bit of traffic and NS is loath to allow for any additional passenger traffic to interfere with the yard entrance or the nearby junction with the Columbia District tracks
* NCDOT decided to build the Charlotte coach yard just west of downtown. This means that any trains terminating at the airport would need to deadhead back towards town for service (which will further tick off NS in the absence of dedicated passenger tracks). Its a shame since there is plenty of land at the airport for service and storage and the airport would have been a willing partner. Unfortunately there were political problems in Raleigh with such a strategy (and the Summit ave facility is now complete, but not yet in use).
* The Silver Line (which is far in the future but very likely to happen) will connect the airport people mover to Gateway station with high frequency. So, unless there is better service to Atlanta in the near future, an airport heavy rail station is (kinda) duplicate service for destinations to the east.

TLDR: A CLT station will happen, but it will be neither cheap or easy.
 #1525839  by rallyrabbit
 
orulz wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:05 pm The High Point trench clearly has space for a third track, which could be used as a bypass for wide freight trains, but somehow I don't think that would make Norfolk Southern happy. A single track bypass is all they have in Raleigh, and would probably be enough for any H-line platform between Greensboro and Raleigh, but between Greensboro and Charlotte they would probably want a bypass track for *both* mains, essentially putting both platform faces on a siding. This is what they have demanded and received in Charlotte. It is feasible to do this at Kannapolis and Salisbury for probably a reasonable-ish sum, but at High Point it would involve widening the trench. Best case (wherein the bridges are already long enough and would not have to be rebuilt) this would be expensive; if any or all of the bridges over the trench would have to be replaced, this is likely a prohibitively expensive project.
Image
Image linked from https://subwaynut.com/north_carolina/am ... /index.php

And, of course, there's still the problem of how to raise the platforms, when the elevators, stairs, and (in the case of Greensboro) escalators all terminate at 8 inches above rail, whereas a high platform would be at least 40 inches higher. $$$$$
The old High Point, Asheboro, Randallman and Southern spur (NS M Line) used to start at Hoskins and run all the way to HP Yard going through HP Yard. The old platform on the south side of this track was removed to install the parking lot next to the station.

So, High Point has room for a siding, yes. But to use that siding as a passenger platform would mean the existing tracks would need to be reconfigured removing the existing station platform in the middle of the mainline tracks and then shifting the siding over to install a platform on the south side. Or shift the two mainlines tracks around and use the passenger siding on the north side only.

I think the moral of the story is that the trench is big enough for 3 tracks, it would cause a lot of reconfiguration to use it in that way.

Picture of older photo where track was still sort of there
http://www.pwrr.org/nstation/sjpgs/high_point-2.jpg
 #1527119  by orulz
 
rallyrabbit wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:40 am The old High Point, Asheboro, Randallman and Southern spur (NS M Line) used to start at Hoskins and run all the way to HP Yard going through HP Yard. The old platform on the south side of this track was removed to install the parking lot next to the station.

So, High Point has room for a siding, yes. But to use that siding as a passenger platform would mean the existing tracks would need to be reconfigured removing the existing station platform in the middle of the mainline tracks and then shifting the siding over to install a platform on the south side. Or shift the two mainlines tracks around and use the passenger siding on the north side only.

I think the moral of the story is that the trench is big enough for 3 tracks, it would cause a lot of reconfiguration to use it in that way.

Picture of older photo where track was still sort of there
http://www.pwrr.org/nstation/sjpgs/high_point-2.jpg
Thanks for the picture.

In the event of converting High Point for high platforms, I don't think that the third track would have a platform added - it would likely be used as a bypass only. For today's traffic levels, it would just be freight trains bypassing the high platform, since all Amtrak trains stop there. At some point in the future it's conceivable that some express passenger trains might bypass High Point, and at that point, those trains might use the bypass tracks instead of the platform tracks, but it certainly wouldn't be necessary.

My main question is whether NS would be satisfied enough with a *single* bypass track (for a total of three tracks in the trench), or whether they would demand a second bypass track on the other side of the platform (for a total of four tracks in the trench.)

The four bridges in the immediate vicinity of the station (Elm, the station's foot bridge, Main, and Wrenn) all seem like there is enough space under them to add a fourth track on the north side (opposite the train station; on the side of the tracks where the bus depot is.) It would probably require pushing the retaining wall back about 20 feet, but the bridge abutments are already in the proper location. The next two bridges east of there (Hamilton and Centennial) are clearly only wide enough for three tracks, but that's far enough away from the station to give enough space for a turnout to the fourth (second bypass) track. Cheap, easy? Not really, but not crazy difficult either. A bigger project than the $1.8 million ARRA parking/retaining wall project on the station side of the tracks, to be sure, but not *that* much bigger. So, $5, maybe $10 million at most, to widen the trench. Track work and raising the platform itself would obviously be components of the project as well. Phasing would be extremely complicated if trains were to continue stopping at High Point, but by extending the bus that currently runs between Winston-Salem and High Point, to Greensboro as well, might allow the station to be closed for the duration of the project, which would simplify things tremendously.

Therefore: I bet a complete project for a high platform and double bypass tracks could weigh in at under $50 million. Cheap? Again, no. But in the annals of transportation projects, kind of a "meh", and probably worth it for the time and reliability savings that would result from going to all high platforms in NC.

With the recent completion of I-85 in Cabarrus County, and with the possible exception of I-85 and I-40 between the split in Hillsborough to where the roads widen up in Durham, would like to see NCDOT draw a line in the sand on new highway lanes in the I-40/I-85 corridor from Charlotte to Raleigh, and to focus on rail improvements as the way to effectively move more people within the state.

Bearing in mind that:
-Freight traffic is farily heavy from Charlotte to Greensboro
-There are well-known plans for higher frequency and higher speed intercity service
-Local/commuter service would also be a home run, given the nearly contiguous string of growing cities, suburbs, and towns

I would conclude that, in the long run, a fully three/four track NCRR would make sense. With a full contingent of local service, I could see four tracks making sense all the way From Charlotte to Lexington, where the WSSB branches off. Three tracks would be needed from Lexington to Greensboro due to freight traffic, and two tracks (with occasional segments of 3rd track) from Greensboro to Raleigh.

Make it so. :)
 #1527145  by mtuandrew
 
Is there enough overhead clearance at High Point for domestic double-stack containers? If not, NS would have a reason to ask for a third, lowered bypass. (That said, it’s up to NCRR to decide if that is a reasonable business investment.)
 #1528094  by orulz
 
mtuandrew wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:42 pm Is there enough overhead clearance at High Point for domestic double-stack containers? If not, NS would have a reason to ask for a third, lowered bypass. (That said, it’s up to NCRR to decide if that is a reasonable business investment.)
I am reasonably certain that they already run double stacks through High Point daily.
Greensboro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VPsMAFkE5c
Salisbury: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cx8syXfGU8

If these double stack intermodals run through Greensboro and Salisbury, then they must be running through High Point as well.
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 40