• 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 BR&P
 
Matt Langworthy wrote: 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.
Again, where are you getting anything about ending LA&L's connection? That was never suggested nor even implied. Why would anybody even consider that?
  by Matt Langworthy
 
BR&P wrote:
Matt Langworthy wrote: 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.
Again, where are you getting anything about ending LA&L's connection? That was never suggested nor even implied. Why would anybody even consider that?
You are completely missing the point. It is not about anyone suggesting/implying an end to the LA&L connection. Rather, the LA&L connection could be jeopardized as an unintended consequence of your concept.
  by BR&P
 
Matt Langworthy wrote:You are completely missing the point. It is not about anyone suggesting/implying an end to the LA&L connection. Rather, the LA&L connection could be jeopardized as an unintended consequence of your concept.
Yes, Matt, YOU implied an end to the LA&L connection. Go back one page and read you own post, which was the first mention of it.
the LA&L would move heaven and earth to keep their sole connection to the national rail network open.
And how would there be an unintended consequence of eliminating their connection? Do you really think CSX is so incompetent they would "forget" the connection and bulldoze it away? They may have problems but I have WAY more faith in them than that!
  by Matt Langworthy
 
BR&P wrote:
Matt Langworthy wrote:You are completely missing the point. It is not about anyone suggesting/implying an end to the LA&L connection. Rather, the LA&L connection could be jeopardized as an unintended consequence of your concept.
Yes, Matt, YOU implied an end to the LA&L connection. Go back one page and read you own post, which was the first mention of it.
the LA&L would move heaven and earth to keep their sole connection to the national rail network open.
And how would there be an unintended consequence of eliminating their connection? Do you really think CSX is so incompetent they would "forget" the connection and bulldoze it away? They may have problems but I have WAY more faith in them than that!
By anyone, I ram referring anyone else i.e. other posters. My comment was to assure those who have posted in this thread that they have not said anything about that LA&L connect.

Furthermore, I have been steadfast throughout this discussion (and the previous one on the same subject) as being opposed to removing the Rochester Sub in favor of upgrade the West Shore Sub. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension should be able to understand that I'm posting the possible issue with the bridge as one of many reasons why I feel your concept isn't feasible. Obviously, CSX won't take the bridge out of service- because it will jeopardize the connection.
  by BR&P
 
Matt Langworthy wrote: My comment was to assure those who have posted in this thread that they have not said anything about that LA&L connect.
I doubt anybody needs reassuring, most folks on here are reasonably good about remembering what they posted! But it's nice of you to tell them anyway.
Image
the bridge (is) one of many reasons why I feel your concept isn't feasible. Obviously, CSX won't take the bridge out of service- because it will jeopardize the connection.
If there are structural issues with the bridge, they need to be dealt with. The bridge does not know how many trains are going through Rochester, or whose train is crossing it. It stands or falls apart based on the load on it at any given instant. And if somehow my hypothetical scenario were to be put in place, I have no doubt repair or replacement of the structure would be accomplished BEFORE the other route was cut.
  by Matt Langworthy
 
BR&P wrote:If there are structural issues with the bridge, they need to be dealt with. The bridge does not know how many trains are going through Rochester, or whose train is crossing it.
Physics does come into play here. More trains equates to more tonnage, which in theory creates repeated stress on critical joints. Nothing lasts forever, and the repeated weight of a passing train should create wear and tear.

Indeed, this is part of the reason why NS is replacing the Letchworth viaduct. In addition to operating heavier cars and increasing the speed limit on their new bridge, it will allow NS to run more trains across it. (Whether more trains will actually happen down there is best discussed elsewhere.)
BR&P wrote:And if somehow my hypothetical scenario were to be put in place, I have no doubt repair or replacement of the structure would be accomplished BEFORE the other route was cut.
With that being said, repair could potentially take the bridge OOS, which will create problems for the LA&L if it takes more than a few days. As stated previously, building a replacement bridge next to the existing span has the challenge of obtaining land from the Genesee Valley Greenway and we all know how cooperative the trails lobby is with the RRing industry.
  by MP366
 
The speed restriction through the city is not Goodman Street Yard. It's(as stated) on the curve over I490.
  by BR&P
 
Matt Langworthy wrote:With that being said, repair could potentially take the bridge OOS, which will create problems for the LA&L if it takes more than a few days. As stated previously, building a replacement bridge next to the existing span has the challenge of obtaining land from the Genesee Valley Greenway and we all know how cooperative the trails lobby is with the RRing industry.
Depending on what repair the bridge needs, yes, they may have to take it out of service to accomplish that. But again, that is a separate issue. Even if they never even consider making the WS the main line, if some structural items need attention that will still have to be done.

Also, while I don't see the need for a second bridge if that's what you are suggesting, it's not apparent where that has any impact on the Genesee Valley Greenway trail. According to their map, the train goes east along the north side of Ballantyne Road, then north up Scottsvile Rd. If they decide to build the Langworthy Memorial Bridge, it appears it would only intersect the trail at 90 degrees right where the present WS/trail crossing is already.
  by Matt Langworthy
 
MP366 wrote:The speed restriction through the city is not Goodman Street Yard. It's(as stated) on the curve over I490.
Understood. The speed for the Rochester Sub is lower between MP 359 and MP 382 than the rest of the line. That curve at I-490 might still require a speed restriction, but wouldn't it be possible to raise the speed over the remainder of that section if the Goodman Street yard was removed or reduced? Or are there other obstacles to be addressed?
  by Matt Langworthy
 
BR&P wrote:Also, while I don't see the need for a second bridge if that's what you are suggesting, it's not apparent where that has any impact on the Genesee Valley Greenway trail. According to their map, the train goes east along the north side of Ballantyne Road, then north up Scottsvile Rd. If they decide to build the Langworthy Memorial Bridge, it appears it would only intersect the trail at 90 degrees right where the present WS/trail crossing is already.
The trail takes a 90 degree turn at Genesee Junction and then goes over to Route 383/Scottsville Road. Black Creek is sandwiched between CSX and the trail, so space is at a premium there. Here's a map for reference:

http://www.fogvg.org/trail_user/maps/ma ... 2-6-09.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by BR&P
 
Matt Langworthy wrote:
The trail takes a 90 degree turn at Genesee Junction and then goes over to Route 383/Scottsville Road. Black Creek is sandwiched between CSX and the trail, so space is at a premium there. Here's a map for reference:

http://www.fogvg.org/trail_user/maps/ma ... 2-6-09.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No, Matt! LOOK at what you posted. The trail shows making the right turn AT BALLANTYNE ROAD, not at Genesee Junction. If you look at the ledger, that orange line is a detour, and north of Ballantyne the black dots mean the railroad trail is closed. And even if it were open, the black line continues north up the old PRR, not east along the NYC. That trail - according to their own map - would have no impact that I can see if your plan to build a second bridge were to be desired.

Debating valid points is one thing. Having to refute erroneous statements is a different matter.
  by Matt Langworthy
 
First, please read this: http://www.fogvg.org/trail_user/finding.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From their website:
If you want to see a good example of an historic canal culvert, at Ballantyne Road head north on the Greenway, .5 mile. Just before the trail crosses Black Creek, take the path to the east down to the banks of the creek. You will get a good view of this rare double arched culvert. The reason for the trail detour is that there is still active rail line between 84 Lumber on Scottsville Road and the east-west CSX tracks that cross Scottsville Road. Soon, a trail detour will be constructed along the west side of Scottsville Road that will establish a continuous off-road trail in this area. The trail was started a few years ago by Rochester Gas and Electric (RG&E) as part of an environmental benefits project, however, additional work needs to be done on the trail and on the rail crossing.
Since that was written, a trail connecting the Greenway to Scottsville Road has been opened at Genesee Junction. I have walked it myself, with zero interference from the LA&L, CSX or police officers who have seen me there. You can even see evidence of it from the attached Bing aerial map.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  by BR&P
 
So the trail group's web site is out of date and no longer accurate. Why am I not surprised?

Well, the process is getting simpler. Sounds like de-funding of Amtrak has started. By the time this West Shore project gets going, we won't have to worry about a place to stop the passenger trains on either route. Image
  by Matt Langworthy
 
Say what you will, but there's no denying that CSX can't use the land on the south side of Black Creek at Genesee Junction.

And if the defunding of Amtrak does happen, only the Lakeshore Limited will be effected. The other 6 Amtrak trains that stop in Rochester will continue to run.
Service in the heavily used Northeast Corridor, which links Virginia and Washington, D.C. with New York City and Boston, would remain intact under the Trump budget. So would Amtrak trains funded by state governments, including the three daily trains in each direction that pass through Rochester on their way across upstate New York and the frequent service between Albany and New York City.
Source: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/sto ... 100322062/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why I am not surprised that you weren't aware of this? :wink:
  by BR&P
 
I have said all along that high density lines like the NE Corridor should remain in operation.

As for Rochester, I'm well aware the proposed cut would only apply to the Lakeshore. For now.

Next year's budget....who knows?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7