Will freight trains obstruct Amtrak more as Amtrak speeds up?

[Ziv]

Are most freight trains still limited to 79 mph? Will they form rolling backups even more effectively as more and more sections of Amtrak see speed limits rise to 95 mph or, maybe, even 110 mph? Would double tracking more areas be enough to minimize the interference or would it work better for the Feds to allow for higher speed limits for freight trains if the track condition allows. Is this even feasible? Would the freight lines want to pay more for track maintenance in order to get their speed limits higher or does 79 mph work for freight as it is?

Sorry for all the questions, but I am looking forward to seeing Amtrak getting higher speed limits and wondering if the higher speeds will be limited by the increased difference in speed between Amtrak and freight trains.

 

[GaSteve]

Most freight is now limited to 59 mph.

Most of the new high speed Amtrak lines would either run on dedicated trackage or have sufficient improvements to allow unimpeded operation.

 

[montana mike]

freight track has a significant impact on LD Amtrak trains, since many of the routes have a lot of single track configurations along the route, and with the longer freight trains these days, some of the sidings are not sufficient to handle these trains, which means the Amtrak trains are the ones that need to pull over and wait for the freight to go by. I don't see any big improvements in speed on routes that share tracks with major amounts of freight traffic. If the economy ever gets going at "normal" speed again the situation could get worse, not better. Perhaps because some Amtrak trains will be able to go faster they will be able to make up enroute delays somewhat better, but I think that is the best we can hope for now.

 

[xyzzy]

Many factors limit the speed of freight trains, one of which is the desire of railroads to avoid spending too much money on diesel fuel. Railroads often limit many of their freight trains to 50 or 60 mph for this reason alone. Only a portion of freight traffic is time-sensitive. Even for freight trains that do carry time-sensitive goods, there's usually more to be gained by keeping those trains rolling at a steady speed like 60 mph than by raising the top speed in a go-stop-go-stop-go-stop cycle. Keeping the time-sensitive freights on the move is mainly a question of track capacity, e.g. double track.

Most railroads get nervous with the idea of passenger trains over 90 mph and freight trains sharing the same trackage. There are exceptions but mainly on lines where freight service is sparse or operates primarily in the middle of the night.

 

[Texan Eagle]

One way to let higher speed passenger trains run unhindered through maze of freight trains is to have double tracks with both tracks allowing bidirectional traffic and having a smart computerized dispatch that manages traffic in real time. I am not sure what BNSF uses for its traffic management but whatever they are using on their Transcon line where the Southwest Chief runs is pretty neat. When i traveled from LAX to ABQ last fall, the Chief was not made to stop even once for freight passing or crossing. The whole Transcon, or a large part of it through AZ and NM is double tracked bidirectional which means trains can travel in both directions on both tracks and they made full use of this feature, switching the Chief from left to right track, then back from right to left track then again left to right track close to a dozen times, passing and crossing freight trains on the fly without having to stop. I stopped counting after a while but I believe I saw close to 50 freight trains during that journey.

 

[Trogdor]

Most freight is now limited to 59 mph.

Not true. I don't think any freight trains have a speed limit of 59 mph.

Class 4 track is good for freight train speeds up to 60 mph, and class 5 track is theoretically good for 80 mph freights, but to my knowledge there aren't any freight trains in the country that operate above 70 mph. Class 3 is good for 40 mph.

The only 59 mph speed limits are for passenger trains operating on unsignalled territory.

Most of the new high speed Amtrak lines would either run on dedicated trackage or have sufficient improvements to allow unimpeded operation.

Well, right now, only one high(er)-speed line is actually getting built, and that's Chicago-St. Louis, which for now is still a single-track railroad with passing sidings and mixed freight/passenger operation.

If the California High-Speed Rail project actually gets underway, that will have dedicated high-speed passenger lines. No other currently funded passenger rail expansion projects would have Amtrak operating on their own dedicated line.

 

[amtkstn]

The only freight trains allowed 70 are the stack and trailer trains will full loaded cars. If there is any empty cars on the train it will be a 55 MPH trains. Most boxcar or other car trains almost allways has hazard material cars which are limited to 55 MPH. The freight locomotives gear ratio is limited to 70 and the prime mover will cut out at 72. To do 70 MPH you will need double track and CTC.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

I have a solution to all of this, but it will never happen in the near future. Have high speed freight trains. Union Pacific did this in 1960s-the 1980s with the DDA40Xs, which were geared for 90mph speeds. New high speed rolling stock would need to be developed along with new diesel locomotives and potentially moving from diesel to electric locomotives. Speed the freight trains up you speed the passenger trains up. Even though it sounds like a good idea it's like I said in my first post it won't happen. I would love nothing more to see 110mph coal trains running side by side with 110 mph passenger trains on 25,000 or 50,000 volt overhead wires in the heartland or the gulf coast on an eight track system, but that's a dream.

 

[afigg]

Well, right now, only one high(er)-speed line is actually getting built, and that's Chicago-St. Louis, which for now is still a single-track railroad with passing sidings and mixed freight/passenger operation.

Not quite correct if by high(er) speed you mean 110 mph.

-The Chicago to Detroit corridor will be getting 235 miles of the route upgraded to 110 mph (not counting slow sections and curves).

-The New Haven to Springfield corridor will be upgraded to 110 mph speeds and fully double tracked, although CT is seeking additional federal funding to complete the upgrades of all 62 miles of the corridor.

-Should see speed increases on the Poughkeepsie to Schenectady segment of the Empire corridor, although I don't know how much will be 100 to 110 mph that is already not at those speeds.

Many of the selected HSIPR projects are double tracking, additional cross-overs, track improvements, bridge replacements, flyovers, grade crossing separations, realignments intended to address bottlenecks and increase capacity. These will allow the passenger trains to reduce trip times, increase reliability, spend more of their routes running at 60 to 79 mph than at 30 mph on a slow order segment. From a PR viewpoint, not as sexy. Not many people will shout, woo!, now we can go 60 mph for the next 3 miles rather than 30 mph!

 

[Ziv]

Well, I guess the short answer to my post is, not only are freight trains slower than I thought, but there is less Amtrak trackage expecting to get 95 mph speed limits than I thought as well. 110 is great, but getting Amtrak from 79 mph to 95 mph is a huge step. I thought that with PTC there were a lot of miles that would be faster within 3 years, hence my question about freight trains getting in the way. But I thought that freight trains were speed limited on the Hi Line to 79 mph in 1975, the last time I rode on one with my Dad. I must be wrong, but I would have bet serious coin we were going nearly 80 mph several times en route to Minot. This was back in the day when fathers actually took their boys to work with them as a treat, despite the Great Northern/Burlington Northern rules against it.

 

[TML]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

 

[RampWidget]

h

The only freight trains allowed 70 are the stack and trailer trains will full loaded cars. If there is any empty cars on the train it will be a 55 MPH trains. Most boxcar or other car trains almost allways has hazard material cars which are limited to 55 MPH. The freight locomotives gear ratio is limited to 70 and the prime mover will cut out at 72. To do 70 MPH you will need double track and CTC.

Correct, with a couple of points to add.

Some RRs, on the appropriate FRA track class, permit solid intermodal trains, loaded or empty, to operate up to 70 MPH. Same with solid autorack trains, loaded or empty, again, depending on the individual RR and track class being operated over.

In mixed freight trains, the empty freight car restriction of 55 MPH (or on some RRs, 50 MPH) restriction is intended to reduce truck hunting, the side to side motion of the wheelset from one side to another which can result in a wheel overclimbing the gauge side of the rail and causing a derailment.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

Well, I'm no expert on Chinese trains, but I have some points to add:

1. Chinese locomotive-hauled trains go at 145 kph (150 max?) on certain routes, but most run between 100 and 140 kph, not significantly different from 79 mph (127kph).

2. Certain Chinese lines have dedicated freight and passenger tracks. I don't know if these are classified as two seperate, parallel lines or as one line. I think pax trains on these lines go 145 or maybe 150 kph.

3. The Chinese trains that go faster than 145 or maybe 150 kph all run on special HSR lines that don't see any freight traffic.

 

[Trogdor]

Well, right now, only one high(er)-speed line is actually getting built, and that's Chicago-St. Louis, which for now is still a single-track railroad with passing sidings and mixed freight/passenger operation.

Not quite correct if by high(er) speed you mean 110 mph.

-The Chicago to Detroit corridor will be getting 235 miles of the route upgraded to 110 mph (not counting slow sections and curves).

-The New Haven to Springfield corridor will be upgraded to 110 mph speeds and fully double tracked, although CT is seeking additional federal funding to complete the upgrades of all 62 miles of the corridor.

-Should see speed increases on the Poughkeepsie to Schenectady segment of the Empire corridor, although I don't know how much will be 100 to 110 mph that is already not at those speeds.

Thanks for the correction.

Duh, completely blanked on those. I'm so used to thinking of the Northeast as fairly high speed already that I'd forgotten about those upgrades (and the Acela upgrade to 160).

Also forgot about the Kalamazoo-Dearborn upgrades.

But Chicago-St. Louis is the only route where trains are entirely conventional speed now, being upgraded to faster-than-79 (noting that many of the New Haven-Springfield trains travel through to WAS on faster track). And they're only in the EIS phase of looking at double-tracking, so still some years away from that being done.

Many of the selected HSIPR projects are double tracking, additional cross-overs, track improvements, bridge replacements, flyovers, grade crossing separations, realignments intended to address bottlenecks and increase capacity. These will allow the passenger trains to reduce trip times, increase reliability, spend more of their routes running at 60 to 79 mph than at 30 mph on a slow order segment. From a PR viewpoint, not as sexy. Not many people will shout, woo!, now we can go 60 mph for the next 3 miles rather than 30 mph!

This is the key right here. Getting trains to not have to slow down (except at stations) saves more time than speeding up just a little. 30 mph to 60 mph is a 100% increase in speed (so, assuming no station stop in the middle, and ignoring the little bit of acceleration penalties, you're looking at halving the travel time through that segment). 30 mph to 79 mph is a 160% increase in speed. On the other hand, 79 mph to 110 mph is a 39% increase in speed.

 

[George Harris]

Since when most railroad alignments were built in the mid to late 1800's with some being built in the early 1900's with some of the earlier built sections getting major upgrades in the same early 1900's time frame, speeds in the range we are currently discussing were not considered practical on a regular basis. And, with the equipment in use at that time they were not. Also remember that earthmoving in those days was primarily by mule powered scrapers and men with shovels in the pre 1900 era with the addition of steam powered shovels and draglines in the early 1900's era. In additiion there was the need to get the line built within the strict limits of the money they could get their hands on to do the job.

As a consequence, building for a particular "not less than" speed was an seldom achieved idea. Most of the time in their firt incarnation, the objective was to get a line through that would be neither too crooked or to steep for the trains of the day to manage. In general, in fairly level country you would have long stretches of straight tracks and large curves, but otherwise, you can make the maximum speed whatever you want but the real maximum speed set by the alignment will be little higher than it is now.

One reason for picking such lines as Chicago to Detroit and Chicago to St. Louis is that the country is fairly level and the railroads fairly straight so they can take advantage of higher maximum speeds. At the opposite end of the scale would be such lines as the CSX line east of Pittsburg and the NS line between Atlanta and Birmingham. I don't much about the CSX line, but for the NS line, I can say that the passenger speed limit is given as 79 mph, but after you get thorugh with the speed restrictions due to curves none of it is much faster than 60 mph and a lot of it is less. That is why the Crescent has a 40 mph average speed on a line segment that has a maximum speed of 79 mph. Raising the maximum speed limit on this line segment to 110 mph or even 90 mph would achieve nothing.

By the way, the speed steps for passenger trains in the FRA track standards based on track conditions are 15, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 110. There are steps above 110, but these require quite a few addition requirements beyond simple track condition. The equivlent steps for freights are 10, 25, 40, 60, 80, and 110. As discussed, there are equipment constraints as well.

There are speed limit based on presence of signals and addition control systems. These are stated in the terms of, to run freights at speeds of 50 mph or faster or passenger trains at speeds of 60 mph or faster, it is required that there be at the least some form of automatic block signal system. That is the reason that regardless of how good the track is you will lines with speed limits of 59P/49F. An example would be the route of the Vermonter north of White River Junction. The line must have some for of automatic train control or automatic train stop for trains to be operated at speeds of 80 mph or faster. In this case there is no difference in the regulation for freight or passenger trains. This is the basis of the very common 79 mph speed limit. As others have said, freights are normally limited to 55 to 60 mph due to equipment based restrictions. A lot of main lines do have maximum speeds of freight trains of 70 mph, but to run this speed, there will be limits on equipment types in the train. For the BNSF it appears that most freights do operate at with a 70 mph maximum.

By the way, don't look for any 110 mph coal trains or even any 70 mph coal trains. The power requirements to make this happen are huge. Coal and other heavy mineral trains are not powered for speed, but with enough to climb the maximum grade on the line segment and very little beyond that. When you get into double stacks, auto trains, piggybacks or others where delivery time is important, they more power than the "just barely" will be put on the train.

 

[Anderson]

Really, the only way that I think you're going to see "high speed" freight show up on a regular basis is if air freight more or less collapses (at least in terms of price points) as a viable shipping alternative for packages heavier than first class mail. We've been getting there slowly (check the cost on an overnighted package...for a hypothetical 5 lb package from Newport News, Virginia to Orlando, Florida, you're looking at nearly $70 for 3 PM delivery (or $108 and change for 8 AM delivery) on a baseline test booking. At 10 lbs, that goes to $94.77 and $135.08. Note that I pick this pairing because, to make a point, I could probably get a rather heavy package to Orlando just as fast with a coach ticket on 66/67 and the Silver Meteor. If the package is heavy enough (say, in the 50 lb range...$263.29 and $303.22, respectively), then an "Amtrak option" becomes far, far cheaper.

At some point, and I don't know where this point is going to be, it will end up making sense to transfer all but extremely long-distance shipments to rail for overnighting (to say nothing of 2-3 day shipping). I know there was mention of the USPS shifting to rail from air at one point. But I would not be surprised to see some sort of "fast freight" shipping service become a reality, wherein a truck hauls a package to a freight depot, it gets loaded onto a train, and then sent wherever. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if this option is a bit more limited to begin with, but there are certainly city pairs where doing something like this makes a good deal of sense. It's really more likely a function of fuel prices.

...and yes, I just realized that I more or less described the old REA operation. That's probably where things are going in the long run...you just need a critical mass of markets for it to make financial sense for one or more of the big shipping companies.

 

[George Harris]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

Yes, it is insane. Your reason is not valid. They have made it policy applicible to the densely populated parts of the country only. Most of the passenger service there is still not high speed.

 

[stonesfan]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

Yes, it is insane. Your reason is not valid. They have made it policy applicible to the densely populated parts of the country only. Most of the passenger service there is still not high speed.

Or at least have one private body in charge of maintaining and operating the whole permanent way.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

Yes, it is insane. Your reason is not valid. They have made it policy applicible to the densely populated parts of the country only. Most of the passenger service there is still not high speed.

I agree with George Harris. Most Chinese trains are faster than, for example, in 1970, but they are still not very fast at all. Each "speed-up" did not actually increase speed much especially when you mix in a bunch of political red tape that is prevelent in China.

For example, the fastest trains in China in 1970 when 100 km/h at the most under steam power. Now they (locomotive-hauled) go 145 km/h, or about 90 mph. Sure, that's an improvement, but it's still slow when you consider that it's being pulled by an electric locomotive on a double-tracked line with priority dispatching. Chinese diesels are still slow, and they are very common, as well.

IMO, it's not the fastest train that matters, it's the average speed of all trains. That is not high in China.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

Yes, it is insane. Your reason is not valid. They have made it policy applicible to the densely populated parts of the country only. Most of the passenger service there is still not high speed.

I agree with George Harris. Most Chinese trains are faster than, for example, in 1970, but they are still not very fast at all. Each "speed-up" did not actually increase speed much especially when you mix in a bunch of political red tape that is prevelent in China.

For example, the fastest trains in China in 1970 when 100 km/h at the most under steam power. Now they (locomotive-hauled) go 145 km/h, or about 90 mph. Sure, that's an improvement, but it's still slow when you consider that it's being pulled by an electric locomotive on a double-tracked line with priority dispatching. Chinese diesels are still slow, and they are very common, as well.

IMO, it's not the fastest train that matters, it's the average speed of all trains. That is not high in China.

You really think the fastest trains in China only now go 90 mph? That is ridiculous go check your facts. This has nothing to do with averages but the fastest trains are so much faster.

 

[Phil S]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

Yes, it is insane. Your reason is not valid. They have made it policy applicible to the densely populated parts of the country only. Most of the passenger service there is still not high speed.

George - And just why is nationalizing the rr's insane? I agree that using China as any sort of argument for what we should do here is just silly. But Germany, France, and even Gret Britain all have nationalized rr's (though GB's is now owned by a publically controlled, non-dividend paying corporation). Seems to me it's ultimately the only way we're going to have functional LD passenger rail in this country. And the benefits even to industry could be huge - think what a single signalling system alone would save annually. Let's not forget that the reason we have LD rr's in this country is because the gov't paid for their creation by giving away land. What the gov't can give, it can also take away. I wouldn't ever argue for nationalizing the rr frieight operations. But, for example, privately owned companies could bid for exclusive rights to run freight on specific routes for some number of years. Multiple companies could conceivably compete on the same trackage, but I doubt that would be cost-effective. In any case, the gov't owns most of the highways (though the anti-gov't crowd continually tries to privatize the profitable portions of highway) and at least retains control over all the airports. So why not the rr trackage? This is a topic that has been too-long neglected here -- one that i think warrants some serious discussion.

Johnny -- Swadian's comment about Chinese rr not being especially high-speed applied only to the road shared by passenger and freight - he said clearly that the high-speed passenger rail in China is all on passenger-only road.

Phil S

 

[johnny.menhennet]

I know this may sound insane, but I believe the only way to drastically improve track conditions on most freight railroads is to nationalize all of our railroad tracks, just like China. It is precisely because of this fact that Chinese passenger trains have been able to "speed up" at least six times during the last 20 years.

Yes, it is insane. Your reason is not valid. They have made it policy applicible to the densely populated parts of the country only. Most of the passenger service there is still not high speed.

Johnny -- Swadian's comment about Chinese rr not being especially high-speed applied only to the road shared by passenger and freight - he said clearly that the high-speed passenger rail in China is all on passenger-only road.

Phil S

OK that's fair I was in a hurry and did not fully disect it. While there may be a few exceptions, most of that statement is probably true. Sorry Swadian. I understand what you're saying now.

 

[xyzzy]

The U.S. government is not going to nationalize NS, CSX, BNSF, and UP. Despite the experience of World War I, or perhaps because of it, the government did not nationalize railroads during World War II. If they didn't do it then, they're not going to do it now. The uncomfortable truth: freight rail service is far more important to the U.S. economy than passenger rail service is or ever could be. It's not that way in most of Europe and certainly not in the UK.

 

[jis]

I agree with George Harris. Most Chinese trains are faster than, for example, in 1970, but they are still not very fast at all. Each "speed-up" did not actually increase speed much especially when you mix in a bunch of political red tape that is prevelent in China.

For example, the fastest trains in China in 1970 when 100 km/h at the most under steam power. Now they (locomotive-hauled) go 145 km/h, or about 90 mph. Sure, that's an improvement, but it's still slow when you consider that it's being pulled by an electric locomotive on a double-tracked line with priority dispatching. Chinese diesels are still slow, and they are very common, as well.

IMO, it's not the fastest train that matters, it's the average speed of all trains. That is not high in China.

You really think the fastest trains in China only now go 90 mph? That is ridiculous go check your facts. This has nothing to do with averages but the fastest trains are so much faster.

Swadian is correct about loco hauled trains. The articulated high speed trains are a different matter. Most trains in China are not articulated high speed trains even though some in the US in their self inflicted inferiority complex might think so.

 

[Ziv]

If you ever have the desire to do some train travel in China, it is an eye opening experience. There are very few places in China where western travelers can really interact with regular Chinese people, and overnight trains are one of the best. I have crossed China twice by rail and it is a great, great time! Planning is a bit of a problem, as is buying your own tickets, but if you do want to do it, Seat61 is the place to get info before you travel. It is a really useful site, with absolutely exhaustive coverage of the subject. If you do travel by Chinese overnight train, the most important item to bring... A tea infuser mug! ;-) Not only to brew your tea at the hot water tap on each train, but to give you a conversational intro of sorts, to just about every Chinese traveler on the train. Talk to 10 Chinese people about tea and you will get 11 different recommendations about the best tea to drink.

On edit: My travel was on T and K trains, I am not sure how much interaction there is on more expensive types of trains.

http://www.seat61.com/China.htm