If a railroad has the right-of way and wanted to double track it (e.g. The Sunset route). What wouldthe cost be per mile of track?
Too many variables.
-Topography? (tunnels/fills/bridges/cuts)
-Proximity to NIMBYs?
-Soil type?
-Space on ROW? (or is the line in protected areas such as a park?)
-Permiting and engineering costs?
-Grade crossings?
-…
Even in the case of the Sunset Route where UP already has the right-of-way, double tracking the line involves many things such as bridges, culverts, cuts, fills, signals, etc. that make it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 million per mile on level ground such as in the desert. In a densely populated area where roadway overpasses or underpasses are required, that cost goes up significantly.
When CSX re-double tracked the former B&O Chicago Division in the late 90’s in preparation for the ConRail acquisition the price was quoted as being North of $2M a mile for track and signaling. There was minimal need for new bridges and culverts as the ones from the original double tracked territory still existed, and being in the flatlands of Ohio and Indiana no tunneling was required.
I believe the current price for track material (in place) alone is about $2 mil per mile.
and considerably less monkeywrenching by local officials (BANANAs) in the great granola bowl.
Too bad they didnt add a few extra sidings on the B&O. They could sure use them now. Trains are parked everywhere.
Ed
Timely article …
Ah, yes. At first I thought that an entirely new line, perhaps bypassing the city, was planned. Then, as I read, I realized that the writer did not know the difference between a second track and another line.
Sounds to me as if the author of this article, and the local politicians are as Johnny (Deggesty) said: : Confused as to an added parallel line on an existing ROW, and the totally new construction of a ‘NEW Line’ through Lacrosse…
Been a long time since I was through that area, but I think the " New Line" would require another bridge over the Mississippi River(?) I do not think that the existing railroad bridge is capable of carrying another track(?). I think it may date from the MILWRR era?
One consideration is if there were not any environmental, building permits, FRA restrictions using an old ROW could be constructed 24/7 . There would be no work windows needed except for RR grade crossings / or joining other tracks. Some old Milwaukee road ROW might fit in for this ?
Well at least in Texas, I noticed while looking at old maps of Southern Pacific here in Texas, 175-200 foot wide right of way is the norm. I suspect most of them were planning for rapid growth in traffic, way back then without the corresponding growth in signaling technology. There are places in that wide ROW where Mother Nature or pre-existing buildings encroach.
This may or may not be germane, but the UP and the State of Illinois are together spending $90 million to add a third track to portions of UP’s Geneva Sub, according to today’s Newswire.
Involved here is 1.8 miles of track between Vale (River Forest) and 25th Avenue (Melrose Park), as well as 6.1 miles between Kress (West Chicago) and Peck (Geneva). That’s eight miles, or over $10 million per mile.
This is in spite of the fact that most signal structures that would cover the expansion are already in place, at least on the Vale-25th segment.
What makes this more expensive will be the need for adding a track to the bridge over the Des Plaines River (not sure whether existing piers can be used) and the high bridge over the Fox River in Geneva (where the existing piers just might be able to be used).
Metra stations at Maywood and Melrose Park will have to be modified, as will platforms at Geneva. It appears that the new track will go in to the south of the existing tracks at both places.
An industrial spur in Melrose Park (which include a tail track) will have to be modified; there doesn’t seem to be enough room for everything as it’s currently laid out.
Grade crossings in Maywood and Melrose Park have been mentioned extensively in CREATE projects (I believe there are three desired grade separations in this stretch), and those–as well as the elimination of a couple of other grade crossings–are probably included in the cost.
In many cases the former double track line has been centered and now has to be moved over
[quote user=“CShaveRR”]
This may or may not be germane, but the UP and the State of Illinois are together spending $90 million to add a third track to portions of UP’s Geneva Sub, according to today’s Newswire.
Involved here is 1.8 miles of track between Vale (River Forest) and 25th Avenue (Melrose Park), as well as 6.1 miles between Kress (West Chicago) and Peck (Geneva). That’s eight miles, or over $10 million per mile.
This is in spite of the fact that most signal structures that would cover the expansion are already in place, at least on the Vale-25th segment.
What makes this more expensive will be the need for adding a track to the bridge over the Des Plaines River (not sure whether existing piers can be used) and the high bridge over the Fox River in Geneva (where the existing piers just might be able to be used).
Metra stations at Maywood and Melrose Park will have to be modified, as will platforms at Geneva. It appears that the new track will go in to the south of the existing tracks at both places.
An industrial spur in Melrose Park (which include a tail track) will have to be modified; there doesn’t seem to be enough room for everything as it’s currently laid out.
Grade crossings in Maywood and Melrose Park have been mentioned extensively in CREATE projects (I believe there are three desired grade separations in this stretch), and those–as well as the elimination of a couple of other grade crossings–ar
What reason would a railroad have to center a track?
Improve clearances.
clearances
structural (315K vs 286K vs 263k)
Utilities (especially those not there legally or improperly placed - cable outfits rank high in the unreliable dept.)
curve alignment (degree of curve, speed and rail wear)
profile and subgrade advantages
signal, esp line-of-sight
parallel drainage/ erosion control (esp where govt. agency planners dump water on railroads in the name of development)
Regarding the double track thru La Crosse, Wis. It is on BNSF. As I recall the original line thru the city followed the river. As the city grew around the station, a bypass was added east of the downtown. Eventually the Mississippi River line was double tracked, except thru La Crosse, which retained the two single tracked routes. Eventually the original downtown line was severed, creating the remaining single track bottleneck. Apparently they are trying to double track the gap.
Want to bet that the bridges will not be built wide enough for 4 tracks ? That would cover any sudden traffic increase for the for seeable future ?