Why only single track rails?

[Faraz]

I wonder why is most of Amtrak routes on single track? I always thought rail was a huge industry long ago, so wouldn't they have invested in having all major routes double track? It seems a mile of rail has got to be much cheaper than building a mile of 4-lane interstate, no?

 

[had8ley]

I wonder why is most of Amtrak routes on single track? I always thought rail was a huge industry long ago, so wouldn't they have invested in having all major routes double track? It seems a mile of rail has got to be much cheaper than building a mile of 4-lane interstate, no?

A very good question Faraz. Most of Amtrak's long distance train's tracks and some of it's commuter lines are owned by the freight railroads. Amtrak pays a nominal fee to run their trains over these tracks. The freight industry has literally boomed over the past 10 or so years. Part of the reason is the cost of fuel. It is much more economical to ship by rail even though there might be some untimely delays due to yard congestion and single main lines as you mentioned. Back in the days when Amtrak was formed the railroads were bleeding financially. In addition to shedding the passenger service to Amtrak the railroads starting pulling up branch lines and double main lines all over the country. Hard to believe but the Illinois Central pulled up a second main line from near New Orleans to the outskirts of Chicago. Having gone through some tough times, e.g. Conrail, the railroads were very hesitant to build, or re-build for that matter any new tracks. One very important point here is our Interstates are build with tax dollars; railroad tracks are built with private capital raised by the profits of the free enterprise system with little or no federal assistance.The Powder River basin (Wyoming coal) is one of the few major rail building projects that have taken place in the last 20 years or so. And so the powers to be have found it more economical to buy super powered comfort cab locomotives; tie 200 cars to them and let them sit in a siding on single main line waiting on a 5 or 6 car Amtrak train. The Union Pacific plays the game just the opposite; Amtrak sits in the hole (siding) while trains in both directions pass by.

 

[AlanB]

It seems a mile of rail has got to be much cheaper than building a mile of 4-lane interstate, no?

To answer your specific question, yes, 1 mile of rail is a heck of a lot cheaper than 1 mile of interstate.

 

[frj1983]

It seems a mile of rail has got to be much cheaper than building a mile of 4-lane interstate, no?

To answer your specific question, yes, 1 mile of rail is a heck of a lot cheaper than 1 mile of interstate.

Yes the interstate is more expensive, and then there are the ancillary costs:

1. State Patrol Vehicles and the salaries to staff them.

2. Firefighting, Ambulance Equipment and salaries to staff them.

3. Plowing equipment for winter storms and salaries to staff them.

4. Need to repave, reconstruct, or repair the aging interstates

I'm sure people could think of more...........................

 

[PRR 60]

It seems a mile of rail has got to be much cheaper than building a mile of 4-lane interstate, no?

To answer your specific question, yes, 1 mile of rail is a heck of a lot cheaper than 1 mile of interstate.

I am not sure a blanket statement can be made that one is more expensive than the other. It depends on a host of variables not the least of which is where. It also has to take into account the difference between a track and a railroad. One is just rail, ties and ballast. The other is the entire system that permits trains to run in a safe and timely manner. Track is cheap. Railroads are not.

 

[George Harris]

Back to the original question:

Most of amtrak runs are on single track railroads because most railroads in the US are single track. It is really that simple. Outside the northeast corridor and a few other short sections, most of the tracks that Amtrak runs on are owned by freight railroads. With the drop in train miles after WW2 and cost squeeze in many other ways, and availability of improved signaling many formrely double track lines were singled in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Only since the mid 1990's has traffic volume reached the point that conversion of double to single generally stopped and instead second tracks and additional sidings are being installed.

A few lines by route:

Lakeshore Limited: mostly or all double track. However, this was a four track main into the 50's.

East coast service:

Washington to Richmond: double track - has been for years.

Richmond to Jacksonville via Florence SC (A line) converted from double track to alternating single double or single with long passing sidings in the 70's and 80's.

Raleigh to Savannah via Columbia SC (S line) single and always has been.

South of Jacksonville: all have always been single. Some short segments of double on the A line. West Palm to Miami doulbling is new.

Crescent Route: Washington to Atlanta: used to be double, converted to alternating single and double in the 60's. South of Atlanta, always single.

City of New Orleans: All single. Was double until late 80's Chicago to Cairo, Fulton to Memphis, and Jackson MS to Hammond LA.

Sunset Route: Always single, except about 75 miles. UP now doubling all west of El Paso.

Southwest Chief Route: almost no change of passenger route over last 100 years. Double Chicago to west of Kansas City. passenger route through Topeka is single, passenger route across Kansas and Colorado to just beyond Albuquerque is single, from there west it is double the rest of the way.

Anyhow, I how you get the idea.

George