NCDOT studies improving Amtrak service in NC

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

A good example of getting rid of slow sections is NC DOT improvements CLT <> Raleigh.Don't remember actual schedule reductions but they were substansial. Crescent often makes up almost 40 minutes CLT >< Greensborough. Now if it can improve the tracks and with PTC sections might go to 90 MPH.

As far as Ashville it might be NC can construct a much steeper and faster ttrack speeds grade around Old Fort might reduce the time between Salisbury and Ashville?

I would think the Loops at Old Fort would be an attraction more so than the need to decrease time to Asheville, especially in the autumn with fall leaves changing colors and the geyser doing it thing at the park at the Loops.


If you told me it would be billions to make the Old Fort area straighter to save time I would respond, "Sound about right." North Carolina is not spending that sort of money for a few miles of track.


I think Charlotte to Greensboro is 100% double track with a good many crossovers. Greensboro to Raleigh is more passing tracks, which is better than single track in that it does allow passing but it still means one is going very slow on the passing track. I do wish the entire Charlotte to Raleigh was double track. Here are future plans but all around the state.
https://www.ncrr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Capital-project-summary_updated-05242021.pdf

 

[rookzie]

....
....
Someone mentioned some upgrades NC has spent money on. The grade crossing at McLeansville Rd right near my house was converted from at-grade to a bridge that took some major grading to build a hill to cross over with enough clearance to run a quadruple stacked train. It was not cheap but it shaved off 40 seconds on the run from Raleigh to Charlotte or something like that. They also extended the passing track here. I think most of this funding came from the profit from the NCRR that is all owned by the state. (This is the area where CP McLeansville and CP Superior are located which I have mentioned before that I collect those signals for ATCSMon and TrainMon5 for those that do any of that stuff.) They have also spent money lessening curves near Haw River that can be seen from the train if you know what to look for. So NC is willing to spend money on passenger rail for even slight gains in time. I think I read that the Haw River work saved 10-15 seconds.

....
....

Yes, it might have shaved 40 sec off the run, but more important is the fact that one "major minor" [rural] level crossing was removed ─ at that point in particular.

I used to ride that run about four time annually on both 79,80 ("Carolinian") and 73-78 ("Piedmont"), from 1992 through 2006, although numbers 73-78 service commenced around 1995, and was progressively increased to 3 round-trips daily by 2018. While it's cost-prohibitive to eliminate crossings all but one at a time, McLeansville Rd. ─ even back then ─ was considered a thoroughfare "arterial" (as it were) as a country road. The collision between Nº80 with the dump truck in early spring 2006 probably had been that proverbial "straw" that made the pot boil over for that crossing. It would become even more of a nuisance with progressively increased service for the "Piedmont". On occasion, I myself used to beeline from Brown's Summit via that road, to the Burlington Hywy (US-70). Visits to that region are rare anymore, with nearly all relatives now having passed on.

Another thing is, as "vine'y-windy" as that RoW had been, any upgrade that improves the dynamics of travel even with conservatively modest speed improvements for a given stretch on an ad-hoc basis, also reduces equipment wear and tear. I also recall when that line was still all jointed rail, even long after the last passenger local was cancelled in March 1964, as I used to walk it at some points ─ between Ward, Buchanan Church; and from Wagoner Bend to the old underpass at the highway, decades before US-70 was realigned.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Yes, it might have shaved 40 sec off the run, but more important is the fact that one "major minor" [rural] level crossing was removed ─ at that point in particular.

I used to ride that run about four time annually on both 79,80 ("Carolinian") and 73-78 ("Piedmont"), from 1992 through 2006, although numbers 73-78 service commenced around 1995, and was progressively increased to 3 round-trips daily by 2018. While it's cost-prohibitive to eliminate crossings all but one at a time, McLeansville Rd. ─ even back then ─ was considered a thoroughfare "arterial" (as it were) as a country road. The collision between Nº80 with the dump truck in early spring 2006 probably had been that proverbial "straw" that made the pot boil over for that crossing. It would become even more of a nuisance with progressively increased service for the "Piedmont". On occasion, I myself used to beeline from Brown's Summit via that road, to the Burlington Hywy (US-70). Visits to that region are rare anymore, with nearly all relatives now having passed on.

Another thing is, as "vine'y-windy" as that RoW had been, any upgrade that improves the dynamics of travel even with conservatively modest speed improvements for a given stretch on an ad-hoc basis, also reduces equipment wear and tear. I also recall when that line was still all jointed rail, even long after the last passenger local was cancelled in March 1964, as I used to walk it at some points ─ between Ward, Buchanan Church; and from Wagoner Bend to the old underpass at the highway, decades before US-70 was realigned.

Since you know all of these roads I will mention road names. When did you move away from this area? If you are back in this area do drop me a note here and maybe we can meet for a meal.

We moved from the south side of Greensboro near the CF-line to McLeansville in 2009 and soon after NC DOT was having a meeting about all the changes around McLeansville.

The bridge for McLeansville Rd went off as planned. Carmen Rd (just east of the bridge) had a grade crossing closed and I think that was planned as part of this. The very end of Friedens Church Rd (just west of the bridge) was going to be closed but that left only one road for exit for a small community behind McLeansville Baptist Church so those homeowners had this crossing kept open but some vertical sticks in the middle of the road were added to prevent cars going around the gates arm. So that was changed from the plan. Just a bit farther west was a private grade crossing to a home and I remember the DOT people stating that was not going to be closed until they could figure out how to reroute the driveway. That was closed.

I think they need to put a bridge at Colony as there is a hill on one side and building up the road to cross a creek would not interfere with any driveway or private access to property as there is not any access there that I am aware of. Power Line Rd could be closed if Wagoner is kept open but given how close the track is to Carmon Rd and Wagoner I am not sure what could be done there except a crossing at grade (closing the crossing would be a hard sell I bet.) Joyner St in Gibsonville could be closed in my view, but I don't live there to hear the complaints. Springwood Ave likely would be hard to change but nothing is impossible if one wants to force the issue. After Springwood Ave one is in Alamance County so I'll leave it to others to figure that out, though there are a few places there that could have at-grade crossings closed around Elon.

40 seconds here and there does add up, so I don't want to come across talking bad about the improvements, but from what I have read the easy stuff (meaning cheap with big effects has now been done so what is left is either expensive or helps with the time for under 10 seconds each improvement.) from Greensboro to Raleigh. They do need to just close the one bridge in Durham. They have done some work to make that low bridge safer but anything that hits that bridge results in huge delays waiting on inspections. That is only helpful if a truck hits the underside of the bridge but that happens enough that I would call in an improvement.

 

[JRR]

That sounds wonderful! It would be great to have a mini gathering and see you both again!

I’ll put it on the bucket list for when the weather gets cooler.

Please do. It would be great to get together again!

 

[rookzie]

Since you know all of these roads I will mention road names. When did you move away from this area? If you are back in this area do drop me a note here and maybe we can meet for a meal.

We moved from the south side of Greensboro near the CF-line to McLeansville in 2009 and soon after NC DOT was having a meeting about all the changes around McLeansville.

....
....
....

Thanks, McLeansvilleAppFan, for the kind outreach and social offer.

Sadly, I have no reason to return to the region in the foreseeable future. The last of my relatives there passed on in October 2009 ─ that is, the last ones who "count", so to speak. A few 2nd and 3rd cousins and their families remain, in both Guilford and Alamance counties, but we're not close enough for me to care about returning (since 2015). I myself never lived there, nor anywhere else in NC, although I do have (or have had) "nth-removed" relatives in Buncombe, Edgecombe, Randolph, Davidson, and Durham counties since the late 19th century. My mother's side of the family were North Carolinians, and Guilford County was her birthplace. My parents met there, moved to Delaware, then settled in middle Tennessee, where I got "dumped out", so to speak.

From 1951-2009 inclusive, visits and even lengthy seasonal stays in NC were ritual for me, and the train was interlaced with most of that personal history, since the days of the Southern Ry "Peach Queen", "Piedmont Limited", "Crescent", and a few other mainline runs in the early postwar period. When I worked for the Norfolk Southern during the '80s (stationed in Ohio and Virginia), I even rode the trial "pilot" service (1984-'85) of the "Carolinian", when it used the then-still-fully-extant SBD (Seaboard System) S-Line through Norlina, Henderson, Kittrell, Wake Forest, and the SAL station in Raleigh, before switching to the H-Line.

That said however, I also foresee no opportune moments in even the distant future to partake in any proposed service upgrades to Va. and NC, as these states' ambitious rail plans continue to materialize. Thanks again for the offer.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Final version of passenger rail study hot off the presses. Dated December 2023. I found the early 2000 study if anyone wants to compare.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources...-_SLSQXEEdf023ilIButAE1-ZUyAQ7tHh-zOVYY_dTdtA

 

[Anderson]

I think the biggest question regarding the Salisbury service is why they wouldn't just extend it to Charlotte (or Raleigh)? IIRC Southern ran the Asheville Special to/from Charlotte, and I presume CLT or RGH would be the maintenance base. This is a broader question with NC's plans...I think they could either save some equipment or get extra use out of it and improve utility for pax if they were planning to extend "new" trains onto that core corridor.

[For 1x/day, which was the old plan IIRC, this was a bit much. For 3x/day, it's more reasonable.]

Edit: To be clear, I'm looking at the runtime assumptions and it looks like each set would be in use for about eight hours out of a 16-18 hour "travel day". It doesn't help that somewhere from 65-85% of traffic would be connecting, either.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I think the biggest question regarding the Salisbury service is why they wouldn't just extend it to Charlotte (or Raleigh)? IIRC Southern ran the Asheville Special to/from Charlotte, and I presume CLT or RGH would be the maintenance base. This is a broader question with NC's plans...I think they could either save some equipment or get extra use out of it and improve utility for pax if they were planning to extend "new" trains onto that core corridor.

[For 1x/day, which was the old plan IIRC, this was a bit much. For 3x/day, it's more reasonable.]

Edit: To be clear, I'm looking at the runtime assumptions and it looks like each set would be in use for about eight hours out of a 16-18 hour "travel day". It doesn't help that somewhere from 65-85% of traffic would be connecting, either.

I am not sure beyond there is only so much space for all the freight on the NS main line from Charlotte to Greensboro and from Greensboro to Raleigh there is even less room until that segment is double tracked. (Is that even being discussed now or just waiting on the SEHRS to be built.)

If they did start in Charlotte I would hope they would hold any trains so trains from Greensboro or Raleigh would have a guaranteed connection and if a train started in Raleigh the same would be true for anything coming from the south.

I think starting at Greensboro would be doable as their is a unused freight yard right at the Amtrak station (well it is used for MOW some in the summer.) and starting here would avoid the single tracked NC-Line, still be at a larger city to collect some passengers and in theory could at some point use the K line to Winston-Salem. But it seems the W-S connection to the Amtrak network is not going down the L to Barber Jct as that was one route that was not funded for future study yet. That route was the route for the old Carolina Special.

 

[Anderson]

I am not sure beyond there is only so much space for all the freight on the NS main line from Charlotte to Greensboro and from Greensboro to Raleigh there is even less room until that segment is double tracked. (Is that even being discussed now or just waiting on the SEHRS to be built.)

If they did start in Charlotte I would hope they would hold any trains so trains from Greensboro or Raleigh would have a guaranteed connection and if a train started in Raleigh the same would be true for anything coming from the south.

I think starting at Greensboro would be doable as their is a unused freight yard right at the Amtrak station (well it is used for MOW some in the summer.) and starting here would avoid the single tracked NC-Line, still be at a larger city to collect some passengers and in theory could at some point use the K line to Winston-Salem. But it seems the W-S connection to the Amtrak network is not going down the L to Barber Jct as that was one route that was not funded for future study yet. That route was the route for the old Carolina Special.

(1) Having 3x/day reduces the degree to which a missed connection becomes a "fatal error". In the meantime, an extension to Raleigh (in particular) opens up connections to/from the Silver Star rather than making that trip a two-connection mess (and with it, introducing the risk of "cascading failures").

(2) I know the plan is to go to 9-10x/day RGH-CLT (I want to say it's 5x/day Piedmonts, 3x/day SEHSR [one of those trains is expected to originate/terminate at Raleigh], and 1x/day Carolinian), so some additional double-tracking is almost assuredly in the cards. Part of the "problem", in general, is having to attribute X improvement to Y project. Also, I'm wondering if it wouldn't just make sense (and be feasible) to say "Screw it, just double-track all of RGH-CLT", especially given all the other projects that NC notionally wants to run (e.g. the Wilmington trains could be extended Piedmonts, as could anything else popping out from Raleigh, or the Wilmington trains could be sent off to Winston-Salem). Having said that, I agree that Greensboro makes sense as a temporary endpoint, and using the Asheville trains to go to Winston-Salem also kinda makes sense.

(3) It did just hit me - if NC just rolled out this study, then why in the name of Zeus did the DOT fund a "Step 1" study? Wouldn't NC be able to just hand in what they just produced for funding? (I guess they could simply apply the $500k to the already-produced study - IIRC VA got some sort of indication that they could use prior state funding as a "match" for future federal grants given the TRV program - but in this case the funding seems to be for an utterly redundant piece of paper.)

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

A couple of thoughts about Salisbury - Asheville:

The station at Salisbury is located RR west of the junction for the line to Asheville meaning through trains would have to reverse to access the branch. Not an issue if the service is run as a shuttle.

If we had modern DMU type equipment as is common in Europe it would be simple to have a through Raleigh to Charlotte train detach cars at Salisbury to run to Asheville. But unfortunately that concept doesn't seem to have gained much traction here - we seem to be stuck with locomotive hauled push pull consists

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

(1) Having 3x/day reduces the degree to which a missed connection becomes a "fatal error". In the meantime, an extension to Raleigh (in particular) opens up connections to/from the Silver Star rather than making that trip a two-connection mess (and with it, introducing the risk of "cascading failures").

(2) I know the plan is to go to 9-10x/day RGH-CLT (I want to say it's 5x/day Piedmonts, 3x/day SEHSR [one of those trains is expected to originate/terminate at Raleigh], and 1x/day Carolinian), so some additional double-tracking is almost assuredly in the cards. Part of the "problem", in general, is having to attribute X improvement to Y project. Also, I'm wondering if it wouldn't just make sense (and be feasible) to say "Screw it, just double-track all of RGH-CLT", especially given all the other projects that NC notionally wants to run (e.g. the Wilmington trains could be extended Piedmonts, as could anything else popping out from Raleigh, or the Wilmington trains could be sent off to Winston-Salem). Having said that, I agree that Greensboro makes sense as a temporary endpoint, and using the Asheville trains to go to Winston-Salem also kinda makes sense.

(3) It did just hit me - if NC just rolled out this study, then why in the name of Zeus did the DOT fund a "Step 1" study? Wouldn't NC be able to just hand in what they just produced for funding? (I guess they could simply apply the $500k to the already-produced study - IIRC VA got some sort of indication that they could use prior state funding as a "match" for future federal grants given the TRV program - but in this case the funding seems to be for an utterly redundant piece of paper.)

1. I heard we are getting a 5 Piedmont sooner than later. It came from someone that tends to know these things but it is rumor mill at present

2. It would be neat to have one train a day go from Asheville to Wilmington. I doubt that happens but an express that stops in Asheville, Hickory/Conover, Salisbury, Greensboro, Raleigh, Wilmington would be an interesting ride option. It will not happen but I can dream. Speaking of Hickory, those idiots are still not big on having a station and their old station is literally feet from their downtown shopping area. That stop may go to Conover, which would be more central for Catawba County, but farther from Lenior and and Caldwell County. Appalachian State University just opened a branch campus in Hickory as well. Stupid decision if this line of thought continues. Literally throwing money away from visitors spending money in Hickory.

3. The draft study came out in the spring but it is a valid point. Hopefully some of the $500K can go to getting this done sooner and that may be what happens since the study is done it would seem.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

A couple of thoughts about Salisbury - Asheville:

The station at Salisbury is located RR west of the junction for the line to Asheville meaning through trains would have to reverse to access the branch. Not an issue if the service is run as a shuttle.

If we had modern DMU type equipment as is common in Europe it would be simple to have a through Raleigh to Charlotte train detach cars at Salisbury to run to Asheville. But unfortunately that concept doesn't seem to have gained much traction here - we seem to be stuck with locomotive hauled push pull consists

The Piedmont trains have an engine or cab control unit on each side though there could be some safety issues with pushing up a mountain and the curves at The Loops but that prevents the needs of turning at Charlotte at present. That may change with the new Charlotte station.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

(3) It did just hit me - if NC just rolled out this study, then why in the name of Zeus did the DOT fund a "Step 1" study? Wouldn't NC be able to just hand in what they just produced for funding? (I guess they could simply apply the $500k to the already-produced study - IIRC VA got some sort of indication that they could use prior state funding as a "match" for future federal grants given the TRV program - but in this case the funding seems to be for an utterly redundant piece of paper.)

I just read this off of another social media site from someone high up in state government and generally knows what he is talking about.
--------
there has been (ed note: studies) on a few of the proposed service routes, most notably Asheville, Wilmington, and a commuter rail study for Charlotte to Kings Mountain. These dollars can be used for other purposes such as planning that would support the establishment of passenger rail service on these corridors.
--------
So the $500K might be used to push this further along and able to receive more funds sooner than other proposed routes that need a study first. In an other post the same person said that Asheville and Wilmington is as close to a guarantee to happen as he can state.

 

[jis]

The station at Salisbury is located RR west of the junction for the line to Asheville meaning through trains would have to reverse to access the branch. Not an issue if the service is run as a shuttle.

The track configuration allows through running in the same direction to Charlotte, and direction reversal at Salisbury for Greensboro and points beyond.

If we had modern DMU type equipment as is common in Europe it would be simple to have a through Raleigh to Charlotte train detach cars at Salisbury to run to Asheville. But unfortunately that concept doesn't seem to have gained much traction here - we seem to be stuck with locomotive hauled push pull consists

NC trains are actually locomotive at each end. I don't think it is practical to split trains that use standard couplers and have entanglements with HEP cables and what not. It would most likely require an additional staff at Salisbury. Yes, with two DMUs coupled together with Scharfenberg couplers sure. But we have ways to go to get there unfortunately.

The Piedmont trains have an engine of cab control unit on each side though their could be some safety issues with pushing up a mountain and the curves at The Loops but that prevents the needs of turning at Charlotte at present. That may change with the new Charlotte station.

Why would there be a safety issue? Isn't that exactly what bankers do and have done for over a century?

I doubt that this will change beyond probably using a cab car at one end instead of a loco, which will certainly happen with the advent of the Airos.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Why would there be a safety issue? Isn't that exactly what bankers do and have done for over a century?

I have always been under the impression that pushing is not as safe as pulling a train. Though we do that now on the Piedmont trains as they do not always have a loco on each end but a loco on one end and a control cab on the other end happens some. I used the phrase "there could be" (with the typo of their I just noticed.) so I am not sure but just speculating on what could be a concern.

 

[jis]

I have always been under the impression that pushing is not as safe as pulling a train. Though we do that now on the Piedmont trains as they do not always have a loco on each end but a loco on one end and a control cab on the other end happens some. I used the phrase "there could be" (with the typo of their I just noticed.) so I am not sure but just speculating on what could be a concern.

Banking pushers on uphill segments have existed since almost the dawn of railroads. High speed trains like the TGV are regularly powered at both ends at upto 200mph. Somehow I don't think powering a train at both ends is all that unsafe.

Yeah you would not want to push a freight train which has a bunch of empties in the rear and heavily loaded cars in the front without having some pull power. Similarly, you would not want to pull one that has a bunch of empties in the front and heavily loaded cars in the rear, lest you reproduce the recent Horseshoe Curve derailment.

But with evenly loaded short passenger trains it should be OK. As a matter of fact there is a 20 car Mumbai - Delhi Rajdhani Express in India that operates regularly with a 6;000HP loco at each end, so that it can seamlessly climb the Thal Ghat with 1:37 grade out of Mumbai at MPS (Maximum Permitted Speed) upto the Gondwana Plateau between Kalyan and Igatpuri. Traditionally all trains got a banker in the rear over this segment, but since Rajdhanis don;t stop at random little station the engine at the tail runs all the way to Delhi.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Banking pushers on uphill segments have existed since almost the dawn of railroads. High speed trains like the TGV are regularly powered at both ends at upto 200mph. Somehow I don't think powering a train at both ends is all that unsafe.

Yeah you would not want to push a freight train which has a bunch of empties in the rear and heavily loaded cars in the front without having some pull power. Similarly, you would not want to pull one that has a bunch of empties in the front and heavily loaded cars in the rear, lest you reproduce the recent Horseshoe Curve derailment.

But with evenly loaded short passenger trains it should be OK. As a matter of fact there is a 20 car Mumbai - Delhi Rajdhani Express in India that operates regularly with a 6;000HP loco at each end, so that it can seamlessly climb the Thal Ghat with 1:37 grade out of Mumbai at MPS (Maximum Permitted Speed) upto the Gondwana Plateau between Kalyan and Igatpuri. Traditionally all trains got a banker in the rear over this segment, but since Rajdhanis don;t stop at random little station the engine at the tail runs all the way to Delhi.

Correct me if I am wrong with the below, and I may be, as I am learning some things, so this is a good day.

But a banker pusher would still have a lead engine pulling from what I know and that would be different than just having a push from the rear with a coach in the front. Having a cab control in front would give better views for the engineer and provide some buffer for passengers if something was on the track. So better, but that still does not seem as safe as pulling as the push is still from the rear with or without a cab control up front. Pushing does save time and maybe a very small reduction is safety but worth it for the time savings. And the Piedmont run is not that hilly and not that curvy, at least compared to climbing up to Asheville.

Thanks for explaining your point more. We might be more in agreement on what we are both saying than first posted earlier in the thread.

 

[jis]

Correct me if I am wrong with the below, and I may be, as I am learning some things, so this is a good day.

But a banker pusher would still have a lead engine pulling from what I know and that would be different than just having a push from the rear with a coach in the front. Having a cab control in front would give better views for the engineer and provide some buffer for passengers if something was on the track. So better, but that still does not seem as safe as pulling as the push is still from the rear with or without a cab control up front. Pushing does save time and maybe a very small reduction is safety but worth it for the time savings. And the Piedmont run is not that hilly and not that curvy, at least compared to climbing up to Asheville.

Thanks for explaining your point more. We might be more in agreement on what we are both saying than first posted earlier in the thread.

Generally I think long trains always tend to have their primary power in the front.

OTOH, on hill railways, sometimes the preference is to have the engine at the rear of the train while climbing up and in the front while climbing down, in order to reduce the chance of runaways due to broken coupler or brake failure in the train brake. The idea is that the engine brakes will still be working as they are separate fro the train brake.

For long trains generally the primary power is in the front with helpers at the rear or in the middle of the train.

Short passenger trains can safely climb in the push mode. In this context a typical Piedmont would be a short train, not a long train.

 

[rookzie]

I have always been under the impression that pushing is not as safe as pulling a train. Though we do that now on the Piedmont trains as they do not always have a loco on each end but a loco on one end and a control cab on the other end happens some. I used the phrase "there could be" (with the typo of their I just noticed.) so I am not sure but just speculating on what could be a concern.

Banking pushers on uphill segments have existed since almost the dawn of railroads. High speed trains like the TGV are regularly powered at both ends at upto 200mph. Somehow I don't think powering a train at both ends is all that unsafe.

Yeah you would not want to push a freight train which has a bunch of empties in the rear and heavily loaded cars in the front without having some pull power. Similarly, you would not want to pull one that has a bunch of empties in the front and heavily loaded cars in the rear, lest you reproduce the recent Horseshoe Curve derailment.

But with evenly loaded short passenger trains it should be OK. As a matter of fact there is a 20 car Mumbai - Delhi Rajdhani Express in India that operates regularly with a 6;000HP loco at each end, so that it can seamlessly climb the Thal Ghat with 1:37 grade out of Mumbai at MPS (Maximum Permitted Speed) upto the Gondwana Plateau between Kalyan and Igatpuri. Traditionally all trains got a banker in the rear over this segment, but since Rajdhanis don;t stop at random little station the engine at the tail runs all the way to Delhi.

As jis stated...

With such a short consist compared to one in typical freight practice ─ which frequently employ DPUs (distributed power units) ─ pax runs with M.U. power at both ends actually would provide optimized train handling with reduction of draft and buff forces. This also tends to minimize instances of such impulses from slack action, a primary culprit in derailments resulting from those impulses of draft ("string-lining" on curves) and of buff (buckling along curves or even along tangents) with long freights.

I've seen that occur in slow reverse-move switching of auto-racks (even loaded) on level track, although in such cases EOC (end-of-car) cushioning devices come into play and can lead to tricky train-handling issues ─ particularly during the start of a reversing move. Power MUd at both ends of, say, a 4- or 6-(+) passenger run would provide nearly ideal operating conditions, somewhat less than that for EMU (electric multiple unit) commuter consists.

 

[Anderson]

I just read this off of another social media site from someone high up in state government and generally knows what he is talking about.
--------
there has been (ed note: studies) on a few of the proposed service routes, most notably Asheville, Wilmington, and a commuter rail study for Charlotte to Kings Mountain. These dollars can be used for other purposes such as planning that would support the establishment of passenger rail service on these corridors.
--------
So the $500K might be used to push this further along and able to receive more funds sooner than other proposed routes that need a study first. In an other post the same person said that Asheville and Wilmington is as close to a guarantee to happen as he can state.

That makes this seem a lot less silly than it would otherwise be. [Instead of the grant itself being goofy, it's just the way it's phrased in the relevant announcements/spreadsheets that's strange.]

 

[Anderson]

A couple of thoughts about Salisbury - Asheville:

The station at Salisbury is located RR west of the junction for the line to Asheville meaning through trains would have to reverse to access the branch. Not an issue if the service is run as a shuttle.

If we had modern DMU type equipment as is common in Europe it would be simple to have a through Raleigh to Charlotte train detach cars at Salisbury to run to Asheville. But unfortunately that concept doesn't seem to have gained much traction here - we seem to be stuck with locomotive hauled push pull consists

I mean, that sort-of explains not doing Raleigh-Asheville (though even if it took a whopping 10 minutes to bring the station in, walk to the other end, and bring it out, 10 minutes to do that beats 30+ for a transfer before you get to the question of losing pax on the transfer). It doesn't explain not doing Charlotte-Asheville.

(Though the station would need a rework to add a second track, for a $600m project it also doesn't explain not setting up a "walk across the platform" connection that's timetabled at 5 minutes for one train or another but where the train will hold for the connection like you have in New Haven. With three Asheville trains and 9 CLT-RGH trains, there's a good chance the Asheville station [among others] will need a second platform/track anyway...)

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I mean, that sort-of explains not doing Raleigh-Asheville (though even if it took a whopping 10 minutes to bring the station in, walk to the other end, and bring it out, 10 minutes to do that beats 30+ for a transfer before you get to the question of losing pax on the transfer). It doesn't explain not doing Charlotte-Asheville.

(Though the station would need a rework to add a second track, for a $600m project it also doesn't explain not setting up a "walk across the platform" connection that's timetabled at 5 minutes for one train or another but where the train will hold for the connection like you have in New Haven. With three Asheville trains and 9 CLT-RGH trains, there's a good chance the Asheville station [among others] will need a second platform/track anyway...)

And one thing I did not mention when I suggested Greensboro as an option is that Charlotte and Raleigh are both crew bases for conductors and maybe engineers. Charlotte I think is used to swap out employees for the Crescent (I am not sure if it is conductors, engineers or both) as is Raleigh for Silver Star, Piedmont and Carolinian. I assume if GRO become a starting point it would need a crew base as well. I am guessing that could be a payroll issue in having sufficient crew and extra board. I am thinking all trains start in Asheville and end in Asheville for the day and the crew base is there as is the maintenance facility, which has been mentioned as part of developing the Asheville station. Trains magazine had a map of this some issues ago. I am sure some have the issue and page memorized even.

 

[Anderson]

And one thing I did not mention when I suggested Greensboro as an option is that Charlotte and Raleigh are both crew bases for conductors and maybe engineers. Charlotte I think is used to swap out employees for the Crescent (I am not sure if it is conductors, engineers or both) as is Raleigh for Silver Star, Piedmont and Carolinian. I assume if GRO become a starting point it would need a crew base as well. I am guessing that could be a payroll issue in having sufficient crew and extra board. I am thinking all trains start in Asheville and end in Asheville for the day and the crew base is there as is the maintenance facility, which has been mentioned as part of developing the Asheville station. Trains magazine had a map of this some issues ago. I am sure some have the issue and page memorized even.

I was presuming that two trains would lay over at Asheville and one at Salisbury (or Charlotte) or vice-versa since doing that would allow you to have a WB train get in before mid-afternoon without having the first morning train leave at an obscene hour.

That being said, three sets for three round-trips on this route also feels a bit on the weak side in terms of equipment utilization - I'd expect that you could get four round-trips with three sets or do three r/t with two sets without too much trouble if you're ending at Salisbury. If you go to Charlotte, that's a bit trickier (and on the "spares" front, I presume that NC would ultimately have a larger equipment pool in play between this service, Wilmington, the Piedmont service, and anything else that proves to be interchangeable). Something like 0700/1200/1700 for departure times at each end would be doable (giving about 90 minutes for recovery/turning at each end).

BTW, a practical logistical issue with the isolated train would be commissary operations. I'm pretty sure you can restock at Charlotte, but Salisbury or Asheville would be a bit redundant, operationally, there.

 

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I mean, that sort-of explains not doing Raleigh-Asheville (though even if it took a whopping 10 minutes to bring the station in, walk to the other end, and bring it out, 10 minutes to do that beats 30+ for a transfer before you get to the question of losing pax on the transfer). It doesn't explain not doing Charlotte-Asheville.

(Though the station would need a rework to add a second track, for a $600m project it also doesn't explain not setting up a "walk across the platform" connection that's timetabled at 5 minutes for one train or another but where the train will hold for the connection like you have in New Haven. With three Asheville trains and 9 CLT-RGH trains, there's a good chance the Asheville station [among others] will need a second platform/track anyway...)

In Google Earth I measured the distance from the current platform used for the Crescent, Carolinian and Piedmont stops to the other side of the wye at Salisbury and we are looking at a tunnel that would need to be 1/3 of a mile long. I assume that would be a record for the longest tunnel to the platform. What would that cost?



A shame the station is not inside the wye as it is at Raleigh or Selma though things were different when all of this was constructed and that would be a safety issue with crossing the tracks at grade.

 

[Anderson]

What I'm seeing on Google Maps is this:

It certainly looks like the station is on the south (Charlotte) side of the wye, and it also looks like there's an additional track that did go to the station (based on the odd placement of the platform [away from the station like that] implying a second track, and possibly a third, between the station and the current platform)? Or am I missing something? (This is not Virginia, so I can't speak with the sort of authority I could regarding WBG or CVS.)