Keep in mind, that this guy is also the re-occuring troll that keeps getting kicked out of here. His last screen name was buyCSXstock(?)…trainfinder…clevelandstation…kissemecaboose…Peterson1234…etc.[}:)]
[;)] Ah ha! Now the fog begins to clear, this guy Iron Nipple is the troll who used to be under those different “handles”? Well, now I know why his recent posts have been so annoying. Thanks for the clarification.
I understand your point but don’t you find it interesting that the Pennsylvania Railroad and New Haven had much higher freight and passenger traffic levels back in the 50s and 60s than today, yet somehow most passenger trains seemed to maintain their schedules?
You may have a point. I don’t have any of the RR Guides or timetables of the late PRR era so I am in no position to argue. However, if you add in the commuter traffic of today, is there still less traffic than the older times? I recall a Trains article about the job of making the schedules for the NEC and got the impression that it is pretty tight.
Other than that, there have been other changes. Making a comparison between then and now might be like trying to guess who would win a game between a sports team of a “classic” era and a present day team.
Am I to infer from this that you think the PRR and New Haven ran smarter operations? If so, how are you zeroing out profound differences between then and now such as an immense shrinkage in employees, the elimination of regulated rates, and longer and much heavier freight trains?
S. Hadid
Very interesting point, 1435.
I’m looking at this overall as a lifelong railfan/model railroader wanting to learn. You and Jeaton have brought to light some very important and interesting factors.
Smarter operations back then? No, because as pointed out railroad operations were very different from today. So much has changed indeed and I didn’t consider the smaller workforce, deregulation, and the massive commuter operations that exist today.
? [%-)]
I suspect your are buying into an urban legend. Traffic levels (number of trains) are higher now, not “much lower”. There are more passenger trains on the NEC from NY to Wash now than ever. The loss of a handful of LD trains plus a handful of thru-freights is small compared to the additional passenger traffic. And, the loss of frieght traffic isn’t as complete as it might seem. The number of freight trains operating down the Port Road for operation over Amtrak isn’t much lower than it was in the early 1960s under PRR - they just all move at night now.
Outside of the NEC, the traffic levels (number of trains) are lower, but the dedicated passenger tracks are long gone, too. The PRR and NYC each had a pair of “passenger” tracks between NY and Chicago that were ripped up 30 years or more ago. And, that’s why passenger trains have trouble keeping to schedule.
I agree that there are more passenger trains running on the NEC than during the PRR & NH days. And they are more “standardized” so to speak meaning that trains will hourly at specific times (i.e. every hour on the hour). The trains are also running faster than before which probably means you need to have more space between trains in order to maintain a safe stopping distance.
In terms of maintaining a schedule, Amtrak trains have trouble making up time partially because the engineers are not allowed to go above the speed limit. You read all the time in Trains’ Railroad Readings Section about how engineers would make up time by excessively speeding. Now a days with computers and GPS, not only can the locomotive shut itself down if he speeds, but some central office will be instantaniously be notified if he violates the speed limit. There are definitely places around the Amtrak system (not just in the NEC) in which i think it is possible to go a little bit faster than the posted speed limited, but the engineers don’t have that freedom anymore.
Can you expand a little on this please?
At least on the NEC, PRR’s 4-track mainline had designated uses. The two outside tracks were designated for passenger trains and the inner two were designated for freight. With their own track, faster passenger trains can always overtake the slower freight trains without having to slow down to switch tracks. Today the outer two are for local/commuter passenger trains and the inner two are for Amtrak/express commuter trains.
Sure. The NYC west of Albany and PRR west of Harrisburg were 4 tracks wide all the way to Chicago. Two tracks were for eastbound trains and two for westbound traffic (automatic block signalling with towers at the interlockings). On the PRR, the two inner tracks were generally for freight trains and the two outer ones for passenger trains. On the NYC, the passenger pair tracks were to one side (south, I think) and the freight on the other.
If you check out a former PRR pass sta, like Lewistown PA, you’ll see the platforms adjacent to the outside tracks. If you check out a former NY station, like Rome NY, you’ll see the platform between the two former passenger tracks. The vestiges of this operation can also be seen just west of Selkirk yard where the former “eastbound” and “westbound” tracks connection the Sekirk yard to the mainline at Hoffmans cross each other in a rather elaborate flyover in order to get in the right order to “merge” with the mainline.
In the 60s and 70s as passenger traffic dwindled, both mainlines were converted to CTC at the same time a pair of tracks was removed. CTC allowed running on each track in either direction, but having two fewer tracks made (and continues to make) overtaking moves by passenger trains much more difficult.
One thing we have to keep in mind people, back then the railroadas ran their own passenger trains and owned all these lines themselves. Therefore they were all their own trains and they were running them on any lines they needed, the NEC included. This was both passenger and freight. Today, the lines sold off to passenger operators are a totally different story. Amtrak, NJTransit, Metro-North etc. don’t want to deal with freights tying up their lines. It’s not so much as they can’t be scheduled around each other as there are places they do that. The passenger agencies apparently feel the freights are an inconvenience and probably take a toll on their infrastructure, and make strict regulations about how many and when they can run. Basically, most lines Conrail sold off were lines they no longer put a priority on as a freight thru route. There is talk about putting passenger service back on some significant lines here, such as the River Division main. This is CSX’s (and Conrail’s) main route into the North Jersey/New York metropolitan area. But with this the roles are reversed–why should the freight lines have to worry about passenger trains in the way, especially when many of these lines are single tracked? Another freight carrier, the Susquehenna, is supposed to be getting possible passenger service in the future as well. I think in this case though it’s more a matter of the condition of this railroad for high speed commuter trains.
Actually, the former PRR part of the NEC has the same block spacing and 4 aspect block signalling that was installed with the electrification in the 1930s. The Metroliners and Acelas have had to be able to slow and stop from their higher speeds within the old existing PRR block lengths.
As for speeding to make up time, you can probably get back a few minutes by ballast scorching, but 20-30 minutes Amtrak LD trains lose to mainline meets, etc. are another story! If you were 15 minutes late, and you travelled at 90 instead of 80, how many miles would you have to go to make up all the time? 180 miles!
If you want to see a good example of how frt and high density passenger traffic can peacefully coexist, look no further than the old CB&Q “racetrack”. Admittedly, the top speed is only 70 mph, but BNSF operates their freights and Metras trains with enough precision to allow freights to operate against the flow, in certain slots, in the height of rush hour.
I think the judgement that Amtrak and the commuter agencies in the east “can’t be bothered” is very close to right on. There’s no incentive for them to even try.
True, the old CB&Q line does do a good job at managing both passenger and freight traffic but the line still does not handle the volume of passenger trains the NEC in some segments support. A casual glance at the New Jersey Transit timetables indicate that between Newark NJ and Rahway, that anyway from 4 to 5 passenger trains per hour will pass through that segment in BOTH directions. NJT actually has a significant reverse direction commuting population which can support at least 2 trains per hour against the flow of traffic (to/from New York). Throw in a minimum of at least two Amtrak trains per hour per direction during peak times and there’s no slot for a freight train to fit into. It probably possible for freight to move during off-peak times, particularly at night.
I think it boils down to cost verses time savings, not necessarily scheduling. How much time would CSX save if it sent a freight train via the NEC between North Jersey and Washington instead of the ex-B&O/Reading line and if there are time savings, does the cost that Amtrak charge worth the money. I believe mileage-wise, both routes about the same length. I believe between North Jersey and Harrisburg, the ex-PRR route via Trenton is longer than the current ex-Reading/LV route via Allentown and Reading.
Wow! As I expected you guys have an impressive wealth of knowledge that is verifiable. It is amazing how much has changed over the past 4 decades, but the corridor remains busier than ever. I certainly wouldn’t envy an NEC dispatcher’s job.
Having worked for a transit agency I can understand the mindset of the management team. Though they might be able to earn revenue from allowing freight runs over their rails, they would prefer not to have it at all. Some of their concerns: Scheduling, increased track/roadbed maintenance, higher insurance rates, worries about derailments involving hazardous or unusual cargo, delays caused by equipment breakdowns, etc.
Rick,
Glad you are still on the forum. I hope you’re doing o.k.
Take care
I guess you mean the PRR had four tracks to Chicago, two via Fort Wayne and two on the Panhandle. But don’t you think it’s a stretch to add the Big Four to the LS&MS main?
(edit) Oops-- forgot the Michigan Central. Okay, total of four or more tracks for each system.
The other side of it is how much money could Amtrak make if they were interested? The real answer is “none”. Two things would happen. One, they would wind up with a lower subsidy. Two, they would gain an operating headache, exposure to more risk, and a greater workload. What sane person would volunteer for more work for the same pay?
They need to change the rules of this game…
You bring up a darn good point. This sort of reminds me of a press confrence (sp) a while back that was done by CSPAN with David Gunn as Amtrak’s CEO, he said the exact same thing you mentioned, however he also added that when Amtrak run’s it’s long distance trains over freight line’s track, it’s always the freights holding Amtrak up, he called it inconciderate (sp).