Amtrak needs to build or encourage the freights to build 2nd track or longer/more sidings in typical freight congestion areas.

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

McLeansvilleAppFan

Train Attendant
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
88
Location
Greensboro (McLeansville0, NC
I guess I’m thinking of the double track... I remembered riding that segment and seeing the construction and thinking it was already double track Charlotte to Greensboro.

Either way, the point was that main tracks have been added in places like North Carolina.
Between Greensboro and High Point I think that may be double track but most of it was just adding sidings or lengthen sidings as was done near my home, at least that was my understanding.

Someone please correct me but I assume a siding would allow a train to take a siding and then stop while the other train passed whereas a double track would be a longer segment and maybe be built to a higher standard and would allow both trains to continue to move toward their destination.
 

crescent-zephyr

Engineer
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
3,784
Between Greensboro and High Point I think that may be double track but most of it was just adding sidings or lengthen sidings as was done near my home, at least that was my understanding.

Someone please correct me but I assume a siding would allow a train to take a siding and then stop while the other train passed whereas a double track would be a longer segment and maybe be built to a higher standard and would allow both trains to continue to move toward their destination.
It was both -

“Adding 27 miles of parallel, or second track, on the heavily traveled corridor between Greensboro and Charlotte, making the entire 92-mile segment double track.

Adding five miles of passing sidings between Raleigh and Greensboro to help freight and passenger trains move in a more reliable and timely manner.”

From - NCDOT: Piedmont Improvement Program
 

toddinde

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
273
Location
Sierra Vista, AZ
I agree completely. We need to fund our rail infrastructure to handle more freight and passenger traffic. We have the right to have the railroads we need, not just the railroads Wall Street wants. We wouldn’t tolerate that with aviation or highways, and we shouldn’t with the railways.
 

west point

Engineer
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
2,666
Monorails are just plain slow. They have proven to be dynamically unstable above 30 mostly and sometimes above 35. Would take very active controls to keep them stable above those speeds and if the computer fails ?? On Air force planes unstable it says get it under control or quickly eject.
 

frequentflyer

OBS Chief
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
888
Monorails are just plain slow. They have proven to be dynamically unstable above 30 mostly and sometimes above 35. Would take very active controls to keep them stable above those speeds and if the computer fails ?? On Air force planes unstable it says get it under control or quickly eject.
Interesting.
 

crescent-zephyr

Engineer
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
3,784
Monorails are just plain slow. They have proven to be dynamically unstable above 30 mostly and sometimes above 35. Would take very active controls to keep them stable above those speeds and if the computer fails ?? On Air force planes unstable it says get it under control or quickly eject.
The Las Vegas Monorail operates at 50.
WDW at 40.
 

Ziv

OBS Chief
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
822
Monorails seem to be useful for short, urban routes but not for Long Distance routes. They appear to be in use in quite a few locations with top speeds of 50 mph. Tokyo, Las Vegas, Sao Paolo and other cities all have monorail systems in place that operate at 50 mph and do so with no stability issues.
And over the past 10 years the Chongqing Rail Transit Line 3 has been operating at 62 mph and doing so carrying 600,000+ people per day using the relatively new version of the Hitachi Heavy Monorail system. Older Hitachi Large systems operated at lower speeds though. I think the Hitachi Small system is only in use on Sentosa Island on Singapore but it is a popular system, though it is limited to 35 mph.
Monorail looks like an interesting, safe option for shorter range routes, but I doubt it will be used for Long Distance rail routes any time in the near future.

Monorails are just plain slow. They have proven to be dynamically unstable above 30 mostly and sometimes above 35. Would take very active controls to keep them stable above those speeds and if the computer fails ?? On Air force planes unstable it says get it under control or quickly eject.
 

nferr

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
301
I agree completely. We need to fund our rail infrastructure to handle more freight and passenger traffic. We have the right to have the railroads we need, not just the railroads Wall Street wants. We wouldn’t tolerate that with aviation or highways, and we shouldn’t with the railways.
Agreed. But not to be political but it's apparent which political party blocks or votes against almost every proposal which suggests spending public money on expanding passenger rail.
 

MARC Rider

Engineer
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
3,365
Location
Baltimore. MD
Agreed. But not to be political but it's apparent which political party blocks or votes against almost every proposal which suggests spending public money on expanding passenger rail.
It's not that simple. First of all, the issue is spending money on improving and expanding any kind of rail. As has been pointed out here, it's not just Amtrak passengers who are being screwed by some of the Class1's, it's also freight shippers. But we have some sort of cultural consensus in the US that railroads should be financed primarily by private capital, and private capital doesn't see any financial advantage to spending lots of big bucks on freight rail infrastructure, let alone stuff that would help their passenger rail tenants. They can make all the money they need with our current third-world rail network, so why should they spend more?

I wasn't always that way. The Transcontinental Railroad was federally funded by means of loans and land grants. Of course, the Transcontinental Railroad was also the source of a major financial fraud (The Credit Mobilier scandal), but I believe that the Feds got all their money paid back; it was the Union Pacific that got screwed, and the perpetrators of the fraud walked away with ~$40 billion in 1870 dollars. But maybe this started the idea that public funding of railroads was a corrupt boondoggle. And, by the middle of the 20th century, the political consensus had no problem with public funding of waterways, highways, and aviation facilities. Unfortunately, I think by that time, the consensus was that railroads were obsolete 19th century technology and not worth supporting, and the railroads themselves even believed it.

But I guess it is true that there is a partisan divide on how much to spend on public works and what sort of public works we should be supporting.
 

Seaboard92

Engineer
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
4,263
Location
South Carolina
Someone has made a really good Train Dispatcher 3.5 territory for the CSX RF&P and North End Subs from ALX to RMT that although it misses several of the passenger trains (the easiest to get right) has all of the freights. You end up in the area of Staples Mill getting freights that stop for long crew changes or other local work to add or drop cars that occupy the main and block other trains into or out of the yard and station. So it really is a bottleneck.
 
Top