One of the smartest things CN and CP have done over the last 20 years is implement directional running, and one line where directional running is used to maximum benefit would have to be CN/CP’s lines between Ashcroft and Mission, BC. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the territory…both lines run through some pretty unforgiving and rugged mountain geography along the Thompson and Fraser Rviers. Prior to directional running both roads had to contend with running heavy trains in both directions. This meant frequent meets…and slow progress as trains moving in either direction often had to wait 30 minutes or more for a meet.
And then someone at CN or CP (or maybe it was an outsider…I don’t know) had an idea: Well…I would call it a stroke of genius and a thing of beauty. Clearly, whoever came up with the idea of directional running was thinking out of the box. Now, eastbound trains use CP’s line and westbound trains use CN’s line west of Ashcroft. The operational complexity of meets on a heavily travelled mostly single track line was pretty much eliminated through directional running. The risk of a missed signal and a head on collision was also greatly reduced or eliminated. And by simply cooperating with the competition (no additional technology required) both railroads effectively twinned their trackage from Ashcroft to Mission…which no doubt improved velocity (due to fewer or no meets)…allowed for denser running… and reduced the danger of head on collisions. Operational cost were probably also further reduced because sidings for meets were nolonger as important… improved fuel consumption due to fewer meets and state of the art signal systems for both directions were no longer needed. And to think that for over 100 years prior both roads struggled with the operational challenges of single track through rugged geography, with heavy trains and traffic in both directions.
Directional running isn’t that new, it’s just easier to accomplish since you no longer need regulatory permission when two different railroads are involved. The SP/WP paired tracks across Nevada have involved directional running for decades.
Yes, there is a small downside. This happened to me just yesterday. I had just began loading a 33000 gal. tank car with Propane and I had about 6500 in it and the railroad showed up to switch us. They normally come on Tuesdays but they had to pick up some covered hoppers in Granger about 8 miles past where I was at Verne Junction. I asked if they could pick the 2 loaded cars up on their way back and they told me no because that part if the Evanston sub was directional and they can only switch my cars out when they are headed eastbound. So in the end I had to shut off my pumps, blow down the car I was loading and unhook for a while. The good side to it is that I didn’t have to get the trackmobile out to respot my cars that I was loading the next day because they did it for me.
Does this mean that there will be more than twice the traffic for both coombined RRs before any track upgrades needed? Then wouldn’t it be more important than ever to have bi-directional signal systems available for the blockages that will occurr from time to time on one route or the other??
Also does VIA normally use just one of the tracks? I don’t know.
Just a little history about this. It was about 5 years ago when CP/CN went into negotiations regarding operational efficienties. I don’t know who started negotiations but I suspect it was CN.
Anyhow, 3 plans came from these negotiations (that I know of). First, was directional running as stated above. Second, is another section of directional running between a station just north of Toronto and Sudbury, Ont. Third, a CP yard job interchanges traffic right in CN’s Clover Bar Yard (this involves running rights on about 3 miles of CN track). There might be other interchange agreements similar to the one above, but I don’t know about them.
Late 90s anyway. I rode VIA from Vancouver to Edmonton in Spring 2001 and directional running in the canyon had been in place for at least a year or two then.
VIA goes up one side and down the other just like all the other trains. If you look at The Canadian’s western schedule, you’ll notice that trains 1 and 2 have a different list of stations between Chilliwack and Ashcroft.
I’m not familiar with the lines in question, but it would seem that if they were used bi-directionally by the owning lines before the directional running started, that they are probably already signalled as such.
The other solution would be one that’s been used for years - set up a couple of train order offices. Either that or “fleeting” series of trains across, as I believe has been done for years at Abo Canyon in NM.
I remember Central Vermont and Boston and Maine used to directional run from East Northfield, MA to Bennington, Vt with northbound traffic on the B&M and southbound on the CV. However, I think this was a general rule whle both roads remained bi directional operations. I believe there were and are quite a few other similar operations around.
The downside is trust and control. You have to trust the other guy for half the traffic you used to control directly. Is he going to keep your “slots” for your scheduled traffic (JIT autoparts, for example) if his network gets out of whack and his UPS train is running late? Of course, you have leverage to reciprocate should you feel you are being slighted. The other downside issue is the lack of signal OS data for the other guy’s line that lets you know exactly (+/- a few miles) where your train is - useful for shipment tracking and giving customers good, updated shipment ETAs. This is fixable by sharing data or by implementing GPS on your locomotives.
In 1998 we were in CO and stayed at a campground just south of Castle Rock on I-25, the campground was on the west side of I-25 and right next to the BNSF. Across the highway was UP. North bound traffic was on UP and south bound on BNSF. I don’t know how far they went with that, but I do know that they went as far as Colorado Springs. We would see the coal train helpers returning on the UP tracks back to Denver or Castle Rock.
That’s the long-standing former AT&SF - D&RGW ‘Joint Line’, which I was going to mention anyway just for ‘completeness’ - but there are many people here who can provide a lot more information on it than me.
I quite agree with Ulrich’s Original Post - it’s what engineers often call an “elegant solution” to the problem.
With a little thought, I came up with the following list of possible ‘downsides’. But in my view, they’d have to be pretty darn bad or heavy-handed by the other railroad to negate the great advantages:
Operational - Compatibility and/ or possible duplication and interference/ confusion of signal systems*, signal aspects and indications, cab signals*, radios, operating rules, etc. of each railroad over the other’s tracks.
The ‘Joint Line’ has a history back into the 19th century which is too lengthy for discussion here.
However, the two RR’s, D&RGW and Santa Fe, have operated as compatible partners between Pueblo and South Denver since the 1920’s with an Agreement which served them, and now their successors, well.
Santa Fe has dispatched traffic on both tracks since inception of the Agreement for reasons which themselves would be a lengthy narritive. Also, the Colorado and Southern prior to its assimalation into the current BNSF operated over the ‘Joint Line’ by contract as Santa Fe’s tenant.
In the 1970’s the "Joint Line’ was single tracked from Palmer Lake to south of Colorado Springs at the request of, and with monetary participation by, the City of Colorado Springs. The City wanted Santa Fe removed from that part of the City which had developed subsequent to the Santa Fe construction in 1886-87.
Perhaps this is the classic paired track operation since it has worked so well for a long time, although it is not analogous with most other paired track operations such as exist east from Vancouver, BC for example. It seemes that each situation has its own reasons for being and we would be forever trying to make comparisons which conditions themselves deny comparison.
The WP/SP operation began during WWI when the Federal Government was running the railroads. It worked so well then that it was continued after the war.
The Ontario operation went into effect between 2003 and 2007.
The UP operation in Wyoming is double track, and not paired track, with the tracks widely separated in places, just as the BNSF operation across Arizona is also double track, with few connections between the two tracks.
There are other instances of a second track having been laid so that each direction would have the better grade for its direction, but I do not think that this is the same as “paired track.”
CN/CP/VIA and GCRC (Great Canadian Railtour Co. - “Rocky Mountaineer”) all use the directional running to some point east of Lytton, BC. Lines west are signaled in both directions, in case of trouble. I don’t know where they diverge. Maybe Basque. Cool country!
BN called a two-track main line “Double Track” (DT) if each track was signalled in one direction. It was “Two Main Track” (2MT) if each track was signalled in both directions, according to an old ETT. I don’t know if BNSF continues with these designations and the designations used for more than two main tracks.
Crew van expense and overtime paid for taxiing crews between separated terminals can be high
Locomotive utilization can be less efficient because now the trains all have to be same-speed to avoid losing the capacity that is gained, so the drag freights need more units than they would have otherwise. Also, locomotive assignment flexibility tends to decline
Track maintenance can be more expensive because the rail tends to creep in the direction of train travel, among other effects
Any train that has to run wrong-way to serve passengers or local customers or reach branch lines that only connect to one of the lines can kill any capacity gain that might have otherwise been possible
Train maintenance of way can be inefficient because the machines can’t move wrong-way very far without disrupting traffic.
Can create some very messy congestion in terminals unless there is a way to sort out the trains before they reach the terminals. Building new connections is very expensive.
Can be inefficient if one of the lines is either significantly longer, curvier, or hillier than the other.
Upsides:
Trains can be longer because sidings are no longer a limiting factor (but adjoining districts and terminal capacities usually don’t allow this)
Less train delay for meet-pass events
If the lines were not already equipped with CTC, they may not have to be now (but if they already have it, unlikely it will be possible to gain regulatory approval to remove it)
Can avoid a lot of expenditure to extend sidings on both of the lines to add capacity, and avoid new signaling.
It’s not surprising that the locations where directional running has been highly successful are typically locations with very few local customers, very few passenger station stop events, and alre
I think you’re getting tangled up on definitions. “Directional running” refers to taking two, separate, single-track railroads, which may belong to different railroads, that operated with trains moving in both directions on both lines, and changing them so that most (but not all) of the trains run one-way only on one line, as if they were double track of the same railroad. Typically these single-track railroads that are converted to directional running were never built with directional running in mind, and are not side-by-side and may even be separated by tens of miles.
“Double Track” is an operating rules definition for two main tracks of the same railroad that are side-by-side that are operated “current-of-traffic”, i.e., trains run normally one-way only on a given track. “Two Main Tracks,” also called “Multiple Main Tracks,” is an operating rules definition for two main tracks on which trains normally operate bi-directionally on both tracks, i.e., a train can normally run in either direction on either track.
Railroads that are operated using Directional Running can either use current-of-traffic rules as their Method of Operation (like the Joint Line in Colorado or the Paired Track in Nevada), or can use single-track rules as their Method of Operation, like the CP and CN in the Fraser and Thompson River Canyons. The CP and CN are still for operating purposes single-track railroads with sidings for meets and passes, even though most of the trains happen to go east on one and west on the other. This has some important distinctions in the operating rules. It means that on the Joint