As a little background, I’m a newly retired business analyst and lifelong train nut. When I was a kid in the '50s, I spent vacations in Anna Illinois (50 miles north of Cairo) at my Grandmom’s house located right next to the IC “racetrack”. At that time, there were two mains, one passing siding, and one freight siding - giving me 4 tracks to watch for trains. Life was good!
Today, only a single main line track remains, and this trend has been duplicated all over the country justified by cost, CTC, etc.
As someone who looked at the profitability (or not) of many kinds of business operations over the years, I have tried to determine the justification for this.
Obviously, fewer track miles equals less maintenance and a lower headcount. But on the other hand, trains are significantly restricted in their movements (time is money!), and those fancy signals are expensive and need higher priced help to work with them. Dual trackage allows work gangs to maintain long stretches of track without dealing with traffic (trains are rerouted to the other line). And lastly, it has to be difficult highballing a freight or Amtrack on trackage where other trains are headed in the opposite direction!
Of course, there are areas (ATSF main - Chicago to Los Angeles) where multiple trackage is being put back in place, obviously for the very heavy traffic - but why did they get rid of it in the first place?
OK, I’m not a railroad analyst - and I suspect there really is justification for single trackage to win out over multiple trackage, but I just can’t figure it out. What am I missing???
At the time most of this this happened (60’s - 70’s), rail business was in decline: trucks were taking a lot of the freight traffic and airlines were doing the same to the passenger traffic. Railroads consolidated and shed what at the time was excess capacity (in the form of trackage) to reduce costs. For a while their strategy seemed to be sound, although as of late more and more railroads are now bringing back this lost capacity, although at a much slower pace than it was removed.
In more recent times, some of the abandonments were considered questionable with regards to long-term strategy, although it provided an immediate boost to the bottom line. Now the railroads are probably regretting many of these moves as their business has increased and capacity is strained. As fuel costs continue to rise, one can only imagine that some of these abandonend lines may once again be broght back to life.
EDIT: I did not really answer your question… From my armchair position, it seems to me that in the long run, the cost savings over the years have surely justified the one time hits of removing / adding the trackage as needed. I am sure others on here can provide an industry perspective into this issue.
A lot of trackage was removed up through the 70’s. Traffic was down,and it was justified. Track maintenace is labor expensive(most of it was jointed rail too). Those ‘fancy’ signals are a lot cheaper that open train order offices and train order operators 24x7.
In the late 80’s, traffic improved and some railroads have added trackage. In the case of the ex-AT&SF transcon line - They have be adding track to single track areas that never have had multiple tracks.
In the case of the IC mainline you mentioned, when double track is removed, are there still enough controlled sidings to keep the traffic flowing?
Two Main Tracks(as opposed to Double Track) with cross-overs can provide flexible operation in maintenace windows, but most of the time the track crews will need to ‘unmount’ from their equipment while a passing tran moves by them at restricted speed. UP & BNSF have bee using 20+ foot track centers so that work crews can work while a train passes. There is enough traffic in the PRB so that they are building 2 complete 2 main track lines side by side in areas to allow maintenace and operational flexibility.
Just to set the record straight the Santa Fe never enjoyed a double track mainline across their entire route. They are putting it in place as I write. I believe the last segment to be double tracked is going to be Abo Canyon in New Mexico. The railroad since becoming part of the BNSF system now finds it necessary to triple track Cajon Pass that has become more and more of a bottleneck for freight. On one of the other threads KP has been keeping us informed on the progress of this huge undertaking with almost weekly photos.
The Union Pacific has installed triple track in parts of Nebraska to increase train numbers and are double tracking the Sunsest route between Los Angeles and El Paso. The old SP route through Tucumcari is being upgraded as fast as the UP can do it as well with longer sidings and more of them. This is the former joint Rock Island / Southern Pacific route between LA and Chicago.
The BNSF is installing longer sidings and more of them on the former GN transcontinental route always a single track main before. They are reopening Stampede Pass and installing again longer sidings and CTC to speed trains to Pasco. I would imagine they are still kicking themselves for donating the former SP&S route between Pasco and Spokane to the State of Washington becoming a hiking trail. I haven’t heard yet but the old NP main between Pasco and Spokane will certainly require longer and more frequent sidings for this line. I understand there is very little possibility of adding additional sidings along the former SP&S route along the North Bank of the Columbia River between Pasco and Vancouver.
First, I think I will speak to the premise that there was a vast decline in physical plant. There was much less second, third, or fourth main track pulled out than I think you realize. The Santa Fe, wh
Removing an underused second track on a double-track main would translate directly into a reduction in valuation for tax purposes. Since railroads were frequently taxed at ‘special’ rates higher than anyone else’s, this could result in a considerable reduction in an unavoidable annual (quarterly?) expense.
Just the saving in real estate taxes during the years when the second track was not present would have been a potent argument for removal in an era of declining need and escalating costs.
You’d have to look at each state’s tax law. Some states taxed by assessment of value of property, some by counting the track and the property, and some by a fixed piece of the system revenue. Most states today tax on the basis of revenue and do not bother to try to measure the track or the land of the railroad company.
I would say Illinois Central made the right choice in single tracking the line from Edgewood to New Orleans. CN has been trying to add more traffic to that line (BNSF’s and their own) so I can’t see that the single line now in place is at capacity.
Perhaps the line which should have been left as double track would be the former ACL between Richmond and Savannah.
Southern’s route from Washington to Atlanta was double track, and Don O. might be able to tell us if it needs a second track now.
Well stated by others on a macro industrial basis, I will offer a little information on the IC mainline specifically.
First of all, regarding Anna, check out the current issues (July 14-21 double issue) of the Sports Illustrated’s “Where are they now?” In the 1998 section Anna is address, specifically Anna Kournikova. She has aged well.
Now, back to Anna, Illinois…my October 1958 Official Guide lists 14 daily passenger trains thru Anna. Throw in the coal movements, banana specials, hot manifests, and local freights and it was a pretty busy stretch of railroad.
Today one sees only 2 passenger trains daily and not so many freight trains. If you take a close look, essentially the IC main is double tracked. Roughly 30 miles east is the Bluford cutoff which runs from Edgewood south. This cutoff allowed the IC to utilize one less crew than via Anna and was built later and was CTC equipped.
The second main on the IC was lifted in the late 1980’s as the train count didnt justify the investment. Sections of the 2nd main were left for sidings and the excess track was either used within the system or sold as scrap or usable rail, basically paying for the CTC installation on the Mainline. Towers and train order facilities were shut down.
Today’s tonnage on the CN mainline is not burdening the single line, as far as I know. Remember, they have the flexibility of the Bluford and utilize it quite a bit.
From what I understand Centralia is no longer classifying or building blocks or trains. Perhaps that has changed.
Mobilman, you should pickup a Moody’s Transportation Manual from the 1970’s. It is chocked full of finanicals for all railroads. Interesting reading and research.
I have been doing quite a bit of research on this line recently, mostly because it is the nearest NS line to my home and I do quite a bit of railfanning along there. Specifically, I noticed there were a number of single track bridges that were obviously either built to handle double track or actually were double tracked at one time. My research revealed that Southern double tracked this line during WWII to cope with the massive volume of troops and supplies that were moving between the south and the northeast in support of the war effort. After the war, much of the second track was removed as traffic returned to pre-war levels. In fact, while the NS Atlanta-Washington mainline may appear to be mostly a single track mainline with passing sidings, technically all of the sidings are second main tracks; signalled and notated as such in company timetables.
Currently, while this line is a vital link in the NS network, I do not believe it is anywhere near capacity and serves about 25 trains a day in most areas. In fact, NS is actually focusing on improving track capacity on other lines that feed into/off of the northern end of the ATL-WASH mainline, such as the B-line between Manassas and Font Royal, VA, and the former N&W Shenandoah line north of Front Royal. The goal of these efforts is to bring the capacity of these latter lines up to that of the ATL-WASH line to handle the ever growing intermodal traffic between the south and the northeast.
A true Sothern afficianado may have more info on this topic.
Your answers are consistent with what I have read over the years, that being that the maintenance of track (mostly sectional) was just not justified - especially since traffic (and profits) were down.
However, given the significant rise in energy costs, some of those long removed double tracks might be put back in place - assuming the “powers that be” begin to utilize the full potential of rail transportation.
Ha, I suspect my question was clouded by sentiment, as I sure do miss the multiple tracks and all those trains that I saw as a kid.
I can believe the property tax issue. Here in South Dakota there is no income tax and there is heavy reliance on the property tax. 1/6 of a mile of the end of the Watertown to Huron ex GN line was removed when the business at the end closed. The property was never been developed, so it was just for the tax savings.
Multiple tracks tend to be expensive to maintain. One of the things that happened to multiple track railroads was the change from ABS to CTC systems. A lot of multiple track was ABS IE all that was there was a signal system to try to keep trains from smacking into each other.
Also much of that (ABS) was only signaled in the direction of travel. ie the on a 2 track railroad the north track was west bound the south track was east bound. Kind of like a 2 lane road. Having a signal installation also increases costs.
If you had a railroad that had enough business to have multiple tracks you also unually had a railroad that needed a signal system. When CTC came out it was cheaper to install CTC and change to a single track the railroad.
I would suspect that CTC installation came with single tracking a lot of double track railroad as I think the ICC would have had to approve all of this.
One of the biggest advantages to railroads that were single tracked with CTC is it is now easier to put the 2nd track back in as the at least the grading is already done.
That’s correct; the ICC (now the FRA) had authority to regulate material changes in a signaling system. Formerly application had to be made for any change. Today in practice it’s any change that will diminish the quality or extent of signaling, e.g., discontinuance of an ABS system and converting a line to yard limits or TWC. The ICC then and STB now do not have statutory authority over changes in the track capacity such as single-track to double-track, or vice versa; only signaling because it is a safety appliance.
By definition ABS on double-track is current-of-traffic (one way) signaling. There were some instances of bi-directional ABS on double-track such as D&RGW from Helper to Kyune, Utah, but they
Not always. Much of the second track that the UP replaced in Western Iowa that the CNW removed is not on the original road bed. When they started replacement, the FRA wanted the wider track centers and the Iowa Dept of Transportation wanted more distance between US 30 and the nearest railroad track. In some areas the road bed is used for an access road for MOW/Signal employees. The large bridges were reused, but there are a few smaller ones that were not.
Over the years there is talk of replacing the second track from Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs. I’ve heard both that since it was once double track, the road bed could be “grandfathered” in and that a new road bed with wider track centers plus an access road would be required. They are respacing signals on this line, so I don’t think there will be any new track added anytime soon.
The track spacing requirement I heard was one of the things that held up the second track being added to the Cedar River bridge at Cedar Rapids/Beverly.
I’m sure Mudchicken or Railway Man could speak a lot more authoritatively on this subject than I can.
Jeff, I’m not aware of any FRA minimum requirement for distance between two main tracks, though some state PUCs (or the equivalent) have them. Generally the tracks can be as little as 14’ apart and still clear most equipment but most railroads now use 15’ as the standard minimum separation.
Tracks at 25’ centers on the other hand are advantageous (see 49 CFR 217, wherein the FRA defines “adjacent tracks” as less than 25’ center-to-center). With tracks at 25’ or greater, a Form B issued on one main track is not required to be issued on both main tracks at that location.
On the other hand, the cost of spreading two main tracks to 25’ is substantial. The obvious cost is in the drainage structures, but often it’s right-of-way acquisition, too. A 100’ right-of-way will usually fit both main tracks and an access road without the toe of the embankment or the wings of the culverts crowding the fence line, but if there are house tracks, bad-order setouts, or runners involved, on one side of the right-of-way the toe of the embankment is onto the neighboring property. If it’s federal property or wetlands, this gets very expensive to acquire, and retaining walls are expensive too. I’m somewhat familiar with your territory and I suspect a great deal of the land the single-track portion crosses is jurisdictional wetland.
At grade crossings in urban areas, space is at a premium, and pushing the track centers out to 25’ often is pushing the roadway approach into adjacent roadway intersections, and if the track is on any kind of embankment relative to the roadway surface, then this entails a lot of revision of the roadway surface to raise it up to the track level, feathering way back out. Pretty soon the railroad is looking at buying not only a lot of asphalt and curb, but a new traffic signal system too.
I think the UP from Barrington through Crystal Lake to Harvard may qualify. With the loss of GM at Janesville, it seem unlikely that this line would ever be converted to CTC, yet Metra service practically dictates its future as a double-track line.
I know from Homewood Ill to the Edgewood Cutoff, there are sidings that are every 10 miles, with signal blocks 2.5 miles (approx) apart. The sidings are about 2 miles long. Just long enough to fit a 143 car autorack train plus 2 SD75s in it…with about 2 feet to spare, and thats with authority to go past the red signal and back the train to push the slack in. Happened at Tolono, first siding south of Champaign ill
There are times where you can sit on the CNIC line from anywhere 2-12 hours without seeing anything. Then again, you can see 20 trains during the daylight hours in October/November