• 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 charlie6017
 
BR&P wrote: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?
That's kind of what worries me.......this year it's the Lakeshore, but does that become the first drip of a major leak, so
to speak? :(

Charlie
  by BR&P
 
Who knows? It's possible, but not certain. Even the Lakeshore cut is not cast in stone at this point.

But we have taxpayer funded highways, used by both private autos and by buses. And we have taxpayer funded airports. That's 3 options right there. How many different modes do we need to offer?

One of the objections to the hypothetical plan I mentioned was they need capacity to avoid congestion at Rochester. I don't think a 5-minute Amtrak stop causes THAT much congestion but apparently some folks do. Eliminating Amtrak altogether would certainly make the Dispatcher's job easier, and would provide even more capacity for freight. Maybe we can get more of those trucks off the highways. The environmental types should be in favor of that, too!
  by sd80mac
 
over 3 pages since wed... and I'm behind!!


Alternate 45 and 60 mph for few miles on the line... Why would CSX bother to raise to 60 mph which I think engineers never bother to "hit the pedal" to get to 60 mph. I know CR had 40 or 45 mph all the way through westshore. I was not even aware that bridge have 30 mph restriction.

Do engineers actually stay on same speed all the way through westshore?


Other thing. If we are going to have yard at Genesee JCT, we would need to raise trackbed 5 ft higher, maybe 10 ft higher. You forget about flooding along black creek.

In 1992 when we had almost DAILY rain for 2-3 months (april to end of June), the Genesee river was only few feet below RT 252 bridge and RR bridge.
  by Matt Langworthy
 
The other Amtrak trains are state funded, so I'm not worried about them. As such, they're largely immune to party politics in NY. Pataki never proposed any cuts to them when he was governor, even while the Bush Administration was cutting Amtrak. We're going to need the train station, even if that corner of downtown Rochester is a lousy neighborhood.

As for the existing tracks at Chili Junction, they're already elevated. Please refer to the left edge of this photo I took there on 7/27/2012:

http://s105.photobucket.com/user/Amtrak ... 1.jpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by ctclark1
 
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.
To be fair, I mentioned the LA&L very early on but I'm sure everyone ignored the post because I was a dissenter to the apparently very popular idea of moving everything CSX related south a few miles. Remember that right now LA&L doesn't need any special permissions to get to Genny Jct. The general consensus I'm seeing is that everyone wants to put a double track back in and somehow raise the speeds back up to the 50s and 60s through the area. As was discussed I'm sure the river bridge between E River and Rt 383 would be a bottleneck anyway, but now you're also adding the complication (which has NOT been hashed out in anyway, just glazed over by all) that LA&L needs to acquire trackage rights to the main in order to access Genny. Add costs to the LA&L to pay whatever ridiculous amount I'm sure CSX wants. Plus, you want to talk about bottlenecks, well there's a good one. I'm sure LA&L equipment isn't accustomed to mainline speeds at all. I'm not sure what they do on the stretch to Genny right now, but I'm sure they don't get much above 30, in fact I seem to recall watching some back when I was a student at RIT and they were much slower than that, even on the straight stretch that used to be the West Shore's second track. So by the time they wait at the new CP that would be placed between the Jefferson and BHT Xings (Hopefully not blocking Jefferson in the process) they have to now navigate the CP and try to get up to a mainline speed to not take too long that they hold up CSX traffic on the mains in the process. The speed is also an issue for the return trip.

So no, no one is specifically implying that the LA&L is to be cut off in this process, but a lot of people are ignoring the obstacles that could sever them, either physically or financially, because they've got tunnel vision on this pipe dream of rerouting the main.


(tic) OMGEEE GUYZ. I just had THE BESTEST idea EVAR! Why not reconstruct the West Shore overpass in Churchville and reconstruct the old Main/WS connection downtown? Surely that would help speeds on this "new main" to avoid the S curve by Attridge, right???????????????? (/tic)
  by BR&P
 
Well, that's a lot of "I'm sure"'s, but I'll have to poke a few holes in them. I don't think there really is a lot of support for the idea as a whole, but it's interesting hashing the various factors out.

Now - as far as LA&L getting to Genesee Jct, I don't see that as a huge deal. My memory is not clear but didn't it start out that way, with LAL operating over the Class I (Conrail or CSX?) before the present configuration was made? If that's not so, I will gladly accept correction.

But getting rights to make the short run should not be a major issue. Keep in mind that's what R&S does to get to Goodman St. now. CSX is not going to hose them nor block them - and the STB would not allow that if they tried.

Now you're "sure" that LA&L's locos are not accustomed to mainline speeds at all. I guess you're not from around these parts, as the movie dialog goes. LA&L has welded rail, and parts of their line are rated at 40 MPH I believe. In fact, I dare say an LA&L train would reach higher speeds going from Lakeville to Mortimer than it would reach on the....mile?...mile and a half?...from Mortimer to Genesee Junction even if that track was CSX's main line.

The line through Rochester at present has a pretty slow speed restriction around ho-house curve, so a similar restriction across the river would not be materially different.

As for your last suggestion, I had not thought of it but you actually make a good point. Not going as far as Churchville, but making a more gradual curve from the water level to the Shore. I believe the ROW has been sold off between Union Street and Savage Road, otherwise that would make a pretty attractive route. Image But for sure they would want to ease that transition at SS33/CP37/CP382 to allow a higher speed to be maintained.
  by ctclark1
 
BR&P wrote:Now - as far as LA&L getting to Genesee Jct, I don't see that as a huge deal. My memory is not clear but didn't it start out that way, with LAL operating over the Class I (Conrail or CSX?) before the present configuration was made? If that's not so, I will gladly accept correction.
I won't say "I'm sure" but based on previous research and confirming tonight in numerous track charts and ETTs, as well as reviewing the history of the LA&L, LA&L interchanged with CR in Avon until around '95. By the time they purchased the Mortimer Secondary and Rochester IT from CR the switch at Mortimer had already been lifted and they basically acquired the setup they have now - owning the tracks all the way to the Genesee Jct. There was a trackage rights issue as far as operating "through" the Genesee Jct Yard and therefore being able to interchange with R&S, which they were unable to do under Conrail and early CSX, this may be what you're thinking of?
But getting rights to make the short run should not be a major issue. Keep in mind that's what R&S does to get to Goodman St. now. CSX is not going to hose them nor block them - and the STB would not allow that if they tried.
CSX actually put up one hell of a fight with the STB about allowing them interchange access with R&S directly, so honestly nothing would surprise me about CSX hosing them on trackage fees to get to the junction, if they were to take over the rails from Mortimer to the junction as a Track 2.
Now you're "sure" that LA&L's locos are not accustomed to mainline speeds at all. I guess you're not from around these parts, as the movie dialog goes. LA&L has welded rail, and parts of their line are rated at 40 MPH I believe. In fact, I dare say an LA&L train would reach higher speeds going from Lakeville to Mortimer than it would reach on the....mile?...mile and a half?...from Mortimer to Genesee Junction even if that track was CSX's main line.
"These parts" being Livingston and Monroe counties? No. I'll stand corrected if that is the case, however. My observation had more to do with the concept of sitting at what would be a reactivated Mortimer Jct area CP between Jefferson and BHTL waiting for clearance, then having to accelerate through to the main line in a timely manner (CSX may have patience for their own trains doing so coming off sidings, but CSX's history doesn't seem kind to foreign roads. Maybe I'm wrong about that too, or maybe they've improved, but again, my thoughts...)
The line through Rochester at present has a pretty slow speed restriction around ho-house curve, so a similar restriction across the river would not be materially different.
I presume you're referring to my "bottleneck at the bridge" comment, and I also presume you're referring to the pseudo "S" curve between State and Brown streets? I'll grant you, I can see how 45/35/35 (based on 2004 ETT) is a bit of a bottleneck. But consider the Genesee River Bridge on the West Shore shows 30/30/30 (again, based on 2004 ETT), and that's only with one track of "heavy" use. I'd hate to see that turn into another Portage Bridge, where it eventually ends up being 20, or even 10, as a restriction, but that's what is likely to happen with increased traffic unless it is rebuilt before this idea could happen, and then we get back to the (albeit temporary) cutting-off of LA&L, unless a temporary yard is built at Mortimer. (I'm basing that off the idea that they might have to replace the bridge outright, thereby cutting the West Shore into 2 pieces while it's completed - my thought, not others')
As for your last suggestion, I had not thought of it but you actually make a good point. Not going as far as Churchville, but making a more gradual curve from the water level to the Shore. I believe the ROW has been sold off between Union Street and Savage Road, otherwise that would make a pretty attractive route. Image But for sure they would want to ease that transition at SS33/CP37/CP382 to allow a higher speed to be maintained.
My original comment here was obviously meant as sarcasm, but I'll bite -- Even if the original portion of the West Shore here wasn't sold off, they'd still have to either acquire some more land at Savage to make it a straighter connection, or (and this part definitely looks sold off, based on at least 3 properties built in the ROW) rebuild the flyover and go back into Churchville to the original connection between Sanford and Howard, but this would be a fairly tight S curve as well.


Someone asked for an actual calculation of time spend in each subdivision based on MAS... Based on the 2004 ETT, using the Intermodal freight speeds, and not taking into account any accel/decel time, it takes 22.4 minutes to take the current main through Rochester, and it takes 20.9 minutes to take the West Shore, so marginally faster but not enough to say so. However, when you factor in the number of speed changes and consider that each one will negatively impact time (doesn't matter which direction, as both will negatively impact the higher limit, whether entering it or leaving it), the current main only has 4 (TT West they are 60 to 45 to 35 to 60) while the West Shore has 9 (45 to 60 to 45 to 60 to 45 to 60 to 30 to 60 to 45), not counting the change from the Main to the West Shore (so actually 11 changes), especially with longer trains this will more negatively impact the time needed to travel from Fairport to Churchville on the West Shore versus the Main.
  by scottychaos
 
BR&P wrote: In fact, I dare say an LA&L train would reach higher speeds going from Lakeville to Mortimer than it would reach on the....mile?...mile and a half?...from Mortimer to Genesee Junction even if that track was CSX's main line.
1.9 miles..might as well call it 2.

Scot
  by sd80mac
 
Matt Langworthy wrote:The other Amtrak trains are state funded, so I'm not worried about them. As such, they're largely immune to party politics in NY. Pataki never proposed any cuts to them when he was governor, even while the Bush Administration was cutting Amtrak. We're going to need the train station, even if that corner of downtown Rochester is a lousy neighborhood.

As for the existing tracks at Chili Junction, they're already elevated. Please refer to the left edge of this photo I took there on 7/27/2012:

http://s105.photobucket.com/user/Amtrak ... 1.jpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
yes, that's how much water had raised in 92... there's not enough space for boat to go underneath the bridge at all..
  by sd80mac
 
Yes, LAL had trackage right from moriter to Genesee Jct. Conrail was still serving to one customer on that line. I think LAL had to call in to get permission to go on that line. Yeah Conrail forbid LAL to exchange with RS

CSX fight with STB on LAL? I don't think so. CSX had agreed with LAL and RS after LAL and RS was against takeover. So part of agreement was to open up the exchange btwn RS and LAL, in exchange for their support on CSX's takeover. RS did got something else which I couldn't remember. I wasn't pay attention to RS as much as I was pay attention to LAL (both LAL and RS had separate agreement with CSX)

That what I had remembered and I hope that I remembered right

But as of right now, I don't know who serve to that lumber customer on that section of track. CSX or LAL?
  by BR&P
 
While it is fun to kick around hypothetical ideas, even off-the-wall ones, we do need to keep facts straight overall. I have made a guess or two, and some others have as well, which turn out to be inaccurate. A very reliable source has offered the following corrections:

I said I thought LA&L may have run over Conrail to access Genesee Junction at first. That was incorrect, the track changes had been made and LA&L took over their own track right off the bat, in April 1996. Also, the one customer in that segment was an LA&L customer upon their takeover.

The idea that CSX put up a tough fight regarding LA&L access to R&S is overstated. Conrail had not allowed this, but with the CR split it became effective, having been worked out in advance and having been blessed by the STB. CSX did put up a degree of objection but it was promptly overcome.

Lastly, LA&L has never HAD to call the CR or CSX dispatcher for permission to operate along that track. Mindful of the relatively close track centers and the possibility of an oversize load in a mainline train, the calls to the dispatcher were voluntary and done as a courtesy and a matter of safety.

I hope this sets the record straight. Image
  by sd80mac
 
BR&P wrote:While it is fun to kick around hypothetical ideas, even off-the-wall ones, we do need to keep facts straight overall. I have made a guess or two, and some others have as well, which turn out to be inaccurate. A very reliable source has offered the following corrections:

I said I thought LA&L may have run over Conrail to access Genesee Junction at first. That was incorrect, the track changes had been made and LA&L took over their own track right off the bat, in April 1996. Also, the one customer in that segment was an LA&L customer upon their takeover.

The idea that CSX put up a tough fight regarding LA&L access to R&S is overstated. Conrail had not allowed this, but with the CR split it became effective, having been worked out in advance and having been blessed by the STB. CSX did put up a degree of objection but it was promptly overcome.

Lastly, LA&L has never HAD to call the CR or CSX dispatcher for permission to operate along that track. Mindful of the relatively close track centers and the possibility of an oversize load in a mainline train, the calls to the dispatcher were voluntary and done as a courtesy and a matter of safety.

I hope this sets the record straight. Image

Thanks for setting record straight... It's been long long time ago when I read the railpace and what people were saying to me. The one who I could rely on for facts... But, im getting old at same time, so I might forget small details... LOL But one thing was that I never heard or knew about LAL owning that section of track from Moniter to Genesee JCT. That's new to me. That's why I thought CSX still own that now.

Now that make me wondering who is responsible for bridge inspection and repair for that bridge over Genesee river and any other culverts??? I am pretty sure CSX B&B does that but how much do LA&L have to pay CSX for that? And any repairs if needed...
  by Matt Langworthy
 
BR&P wrote:The idea that CSX put up a tough fight regarding LA&L access to R&S is overstated. Conrail had not allowed this, but with the CR split it became effective, having been worked out in advance and having been blessed by the STB. CSX did put up a degree of objection but it was promptly overcome.
As it so happens, I was working down the street from Sargent Wise, who was a co-founder and attorney for the LA&L, during the CR split. We had some interesting lunchtime conversations at a deli we frequented. The LA&L initially kept quiet during the NS vs CSX battle for Conrail, because it initially appeared that only one Class 1 would purchase CR. Once it became apparent that Conrail would be split, the LA&L proceeded to make a case for interchanging with the R&S. CSX caved in fairly quickly because they realized that owning 42% of the loaf was better than getting nothing at all. They were rather nervous about the STB scuttling the split altogether.
BR&P wrote:Lastly, LA&L has never HAD to call the CR or CSX dispatcher for permission to operate along that track. Mindful of the relatively close track centers and the possibility of an oversize load in a mainline train, the calls to the dispatcher were voluntary and done as a courtesy and a matter of safety.
I began photographing the LA&L in the summer of 1996 (just months after they acquired the Mortimer-Avon segment) and subsequently worked very close to the Jefferson Road crossing for just under 6 months from 2003 to 2004. I never saw any LA&L train pause there before heading to Genesee Junction.
  by MP366
 
fwiw, I believe that LA&L had to call the Rochester Yardmaster to enter Genesee Jct. I'm not sure if this is still the case with the switch to Frontier running Rochester yard now.
  by Matt Langworthy
 
ctclark1 wrote:I'd hate to see that turn into another Portage Bridge, where it eventually ends up being 20, or even 10, as a restriction, but that's what is likely to happen with increased traffic unless it is rebuilt before this idea could happen, and then we get back to the (albeit temporary) cutting-off of LA&L, unless a temporary yard is built at Mortimer. (I'm basing that off the idea that they might have to replace the bridge outright, thereby cutting the West Shore into 2 pieces while it's completed - my thought, not others')
Unless CSX could figure out a way to build a new bridge next to the existing span, I agree the West Shore would have to be cut while the new bridge is built. The LA&L could be serviced by a temporary yard at Mortimer but they'd have a justifiable complaint about the temporary loss of the R&S interchange.

Since CSX would be unlikely to acquire land on the south side of the West Shore ROW to build a new bridge (due to the trail), they might investigate building it on the north side instead. This would require the cooperation of the adjacent businesses... who might or might nor want to relocate.

This assumes the bridge would have to be replaced to accommodate the increased traffic. The speed restriction might exist for other reasons. It would be easier for CSX to increase the speed limit on the mainline after they move the R&S interchange from Goodman Street to Genesee Junction (if they feel it's necessary).
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7