• Wacky idea: Abandon CSX main through Rochester?

  • 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
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  by Matt Langworthy
 
scottychaos wrote:
Matt Langworthy wrote: Third, one item that we never firmly established in our last debate on this subject was the acreage currently being used at Goodman Street vs what is available at Genesee Junction. I'd love to know the actual sizes of both yards. It should be noted that the Genesee Valley Greenway occupies some of the former yard. We've seen the power of the trail advocates elsewhere. Does anyone think they won't fight tooth and nail if CSX wants to reacquire the Greenway to expand the yard at Genesee Junction?
Im curious about this too..so I did the math! ;)
I expected Goodman street yard to be WAY bigger than Genesee Junction yard..but surprisingly, it isnt!
They are essentially the same length..
Goodman street yard could be replicated at Genesee Junction fairly "easily", in terms of real estate needed.

Goodman street yard is One mile long, between the Main street overpass and Winton road.
It is 1/10 of a mile wide at its widest point, with a maximum of about 20 tracks across, including the two mainline tracks.

Genesee Junction, from the B&O/R&S overpass, to the Genesee River, is *more* than a mile! 1.12 miles.

Here is a photo of both yards, to (about) the same scale:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-66G ... 6GC46Z.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You wouldn't be able to built south of Genesee Junction yard, because of the creek, so it would all have to be on the North side..Paul road would probably need to be moved a bit further north, and the Airport might have something to say about that..but..from a strictly theoretical "could Goodman street yard capacity/real estate/acreage be replicated at Genesee Junction? Is there enough room?" ..the answer is, yes, enough land is technically there to do it.

Map #2:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-S9q ... 9qLgXz.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Length isnt a major problem..Width would need to be increased, but the space is there.

Scot

Thanks, Scot. That is useful information. I stand corrected.

Now that we've established there's enough acreage for the yard to be moved, would CSX want to remove the mainline through Rochester? I suspect not, for the reason Noel Weaver stated earlier: the mainline is the better route. The West Shore is 45 mph, while the mainline is 60-70 mph outside of the yard limits. Removing the Goodman Street Yard might allow CSX to create a 70 mph route across Monroe County. This would be handy in competing against the trucking industry, especially if driverless tractor trailers become reality.

I don't think an upgrade could happen with the West Shore because there would still be a lower speed limit at Genesee Junction, as well as the NIMBYs who would oppose both the higher speed limit and the increased volume of trains. The mainline is the better bet, if Goodman Street Yard is removed. This concept also seriously reduces the capital expenditures, because there would be no need to upgrade the West Shore or remove anything from the mainline.
  by ccutler
 
The throat of the Genessee jct yard is close to two busy local roads, which would be blocked from every freight move. Moreover, those freight switching moves would be delayed by having to slow for each crossing.
But you have a good point about speed restrictions at the Rochester yard. It could easily be reconfigured/downsized to separate the main tracks from a smaller yard, and lift the speed restriction. It looks like most of the tracks are used for excess car storage [which could be done elsewhere] and train crew shifts [which could be separated from the main tracks or perhaps moved to another location].
  by Matt Langworthy
 
You raise a good point about Route 383 and East River Road. With Goodman Street yard probably being a brownfield, CSX won't be in a hurry to unload it. They might keep it for car storage (with fewer tracks as you suggest), while moving the interchange with the R&S to Genesee Junction.
  by scottychaos
 
ccutler wrote:The throat of the Genessee jct yard is close to two busy local roads, which would be blocked from every freight move.
No problem! ;) Move the yard to the West of the R&S crossing, there is also plenty of room over there..then, since rail traffic is increasing after the mainline through Rochester is removed, convert Union st, Chili ave. and and Archer road to bridges or underpasses..grade separation. Then there is plenty of room on both sides of the yard, with no grade crossings to contend with.

That's actually a much better spot than the current Genesee Junction yard..open land north and south of the tracks, no development except farmland, and the creek is farther away.


Scot
  by ccutler
 
Even better...get rights to run on R&S to their Brook Ave yard and do local switching there; and skip all the junction infrastructure nonsense altogether :P
then they can probably just rip out Goodman St Yard, straighten out the main tracks, and raise the speed limit to 70.
Right now CSX has a yard basically used to interchange with the R&S yard. Not so efficient.

then they don't need to upgrade Genesee Jct or any of that stuff. In fact, they would need it less, since they could run through Rochester at 70.
  by BR&P
 
I'm not convinced the yard is the cause of any speed restrictions through Rochester except perhaps for the dogleg around the yard itself. (Until about 1960 give or take, the main line went straight through the middle of the yard complex). I believe Amtrak is OK for 79 in outlying areas between the two places the West Shore connects.

I don't quite understand the part about "...get rights to run on R&S to their Brook Ave yard and do local switching there ". One of the points of the initial proposal was that R&S would do the local switching in Rochester, so CSX would not need rights to Brooks Ave at all.

As for tracks at Genesee Jct, this is off the cuff and not carefully thought out BUT: You would need one track as a runner. A track for salt loads to CSX, a track for salt empties CSX to R&S. A track for miscellaneous to R&S, and one from R&S to CSX. CSX to LA&L, and LA&L to CSX. So there's 7. I'm not sure whether the concept would be 2 more tracks: LAL to R&S and R&S to LAL, or if they would continue to run up to Brooks Ave. And they would probably need at least one extra track, to set out a cripple, tie up power, and other scenarios.

Or here's another idea to kick around. Run CSX power on the salt, right through to P&L with only a crew change at Genesee Jct. rather than parking the cars there for later pickup.
  by MP366
 
fwiw...only Amtrak can do 70+ through the city

Speeds in order of appearance passenger/Intermodal/freight:

359 to 368.9 79/60/50
368.9 to 371.7 50/45/45
371.7 to 372.2 45/35/35
372.2 to 382.5 79/60/50


On the Shore:

382/368.8 to 361.5 60/60/850
361.5 to 361.4 30/30/30 (The Genesee River Bridge)
361.4 to 356.2 60/60/50
356.2 to 355.9 45/45/45
355.9 to 349.8 60/60/50
349.8 to 349.3 45/45/45
349.3 to 347.6 60/60/50
347.6 to 347.4/359 45/45/45

The main is 23.5 miles from 359 to 382, the West Shore is 21.4 miles

The Shore is shorter in distance but the 30 and the 45 in the middle probably acts as an equalizer in spite of the permanent restrictions for the main over the Genesee River and the curve over 490 west of there
  by SemperFidelis
 
The best hope for this to actually happen, I would imagine, would be for the city of Rochester to cut CSX a check to cover the costs. I would doubt the city has anything like the financial resources for that, though I don't know that to be true.

It all comes down to whether the return, which I would imagine wouldn't be huge in financial terms, would be worth the added debt to the city.
  by BR&P
 
Now we need some math geek to take the speed charts MP366 posted above, and translate them into running times between Fairport and Chili Jct.. Since every train would accelerate and brake at an unpredictable curve of speed, forget that variable and just figure the times as if each speed changed absolutely at each change point. And since train length would have an effect, for this comparison just figure a light engine no train.

First one to hand in a correct answer has no homework the rest of the week! Image
  by MP366
 
Better make it two light engines... not sure about CSX rules, but CR rules stipulated a single light engine could only run 30 mph... :-P
BR&P wrote:Now we need some math geek to take the speed charts MP366 posted above, and translate them into running times between Fairport and Chili Jct.. Since every train would accelerate and brake at an unpredictable curve of speed, forget that variable and just figure the times as if each speed changed absolutely at each change point. And since train length would have an effect, for this comparison just figure a light engine no train.

First one to hand in a correct answer has no homework the rest of the week! Image
  by Matt Langworthy
 
Wow... we finally have a use for that "if two trains leave" math problem from grade school!

All kidding aside, MP366's information indicates there is a speed restriction at Goodman Street Yard. The speed limit for the Rochester Sub could potentially be raised if the yard was removed. I'm not so sure CSX would want to raise the speed limit on the West Shore Sub if they removed the Rochester Sub between MP 361 and MP 382. They'd probably keep the speed down on the West Shore due to the yard and the bridge. The latter could be rather tricky if it needs to be replaced in order to have a higher speed limit. We can safely assume (with all apologies to donkeys and Uma Thurman) the LA&L would move heaven and earth to keep their sole connection to the national rail network open. It would also be a bear to build another bridge next to the current one because CSX would have to fight the trail crowd (see the CMRR and ADIX threads) to get the land needed for said new bridge. CSX could reorganize their operations more quickly and at lower cost by keeping the Rochester Sub open if they feel it's necessary to shift the base of local operations from Goodman Street to Genesee Junction.


P.S. Having CSX switch at Brooks Avenue is not a good solution IMO because it fails to account for a place to CSX to store cars from local operations until they can be moved.
  by Matt Langworthy
 
The LA&L needs the Genesee River bridge, which they share with CSX, to access Genesee Junction. As per MP366, it currently has a 30 mph speed restriction. Depending on what needs to be done to get that bridge to a higher speed limit, CSX might have to replace it- hence the comments in my previous post. If CSX does plan to address the Rochester area, it would make sense to address the bottlenecks and create a speedier operation.

P.S. I am not accusing anyone of advocating an end to the LA&L connection. Rather, I am raising it as a previously unaddressed ramification of altering Genesee Junction.
  by BR&P
 
As I see it, the bridge is a separate issue. If it needs repair or replacement, that has to be done regardless of whether the main line remains in Rochester or is the West Shore.
  by Matt Langworthy
 
I don't see the bridge as a separate issue, because CSX needs a double track mainline across Monroe County. I am unsure whether the speed restriction on the bridge is due to its age and condition but if it is, then the bridge would have to be addressed before CSX triples the number of trains crossing it on a daily basis.
Last edited by Matt Langworthy on Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7