RailRoadFan.com

Being cut over this afternoon and evening.

Not being terribly famillar with that area, is it currently double track - current of traffic, going to bidirectional signaling? or is it something different?

had no idea this was going on. The trackage between West Flint (Mundy) and East Durand is a 15 mile stretch of single track and is often a choke point or bottleneck between East Durand which is double track through to Vernon
a distance of 10 miles and double track runs from West Flint to Irish Road (on the west side of Davison) near Kearsley

The trackage between West Flint (Mundy) and East Durand is a 15 mile stretch of single track and is often a choke point or bottleneck between East Durand which is double track through to Vernon
a distance of 10 miles and double track runs from West Flint to Irish Road (on the west side of Davison) near Kearsley

Seems to me that Hunter Harrison said several years back that they could run as much traffic on single track as double track. He had CN remove lots of double track. Could it be that he was dead wrong?

This section already was CTC controlled; CN has been changing out the intermediate signals between the control points with a newer style, sometimes putting up new signals in more readily accessible locations, and sometimes eliminating some of the old signals which make for some longer blocks between them. CN did this a couple of years ago east of Lapeer to Emmett.

The double track run from E. Durand to Bancroft; Vernon is a control point with a cross-over located there about 2 miles east of Bancroft.

I recall these signal masts being there back around June of 08, and they could have been there before that. At east Durand I recall seeing the new masts for the new signals, didn't know when they were cut in. One question I have, are they the newer searchlights or the hooded-style?

What will happen to the signal at Duffield Road east of Durand 251.7, and the intermediate signal at Swartz Creek you can see from Durand at night?

Norm wrote:Seems to me that Hunter Harrison said several years back that they could run as much traffic on single track as double track. He had CN remove lots of double track. Could it be that he was dead wrong?

There is no way that this is true. Its just simple math. 2 tracks can always handle more traffic than one. Mr. Harrison is not very popular in my book, and I believe that he is taking CN in the wrong direction.

The new signal indications are really cool. flashing yellow in one direction and yellow in the other. Nothing was changed as far as the actual signal at East Durand. That is another project that will happen later.

bnsfMAN93 wrote:

Norm wrote:Seems to me that Hunter Harrison said several years back that they could run as much traffic on single track as double track. He had CN remove lots of double track. Could it be that he was dead wrong?

There is no way that this is true. Its just simple math. 2 tracks can always handle more traffic than one. Mr. Harrison is not very popular in my book, and I believe that he is taking CN in the wrong direction.

Double track can handle more traffic than a single track railroad, but that's not what Hunter said. He said they could run AS MUCH traffic on single traffic as they could on the double, hence the track rationalization they did on the GTW and IC. They could run as much traffic as they had (at the time) on a well designed signal track, as they could on the double, and eliminate the need for all the attional track for the marginal gain.

Not every route needs to be double tracked, and there are a lot of high density mainlines out there that aren't double tracked. In fact, BNSF's Transcon route wasn't double tracked for its entire length up until a few years ago. Traffic finally was high enough that double track made economical sense.

In the case of the IC, the single tracking made sense. Realtively low priority junk freight and thats how they run their trains. In the case of the GTW, the single tracking ended up hurting (or at least the way it was designed) becuase they ran more automotive traffic that was considerably more time sensitive and the single track often resulted in bottlenecks.

Practice Safe CSX

If it's double track with "current of traffic" rules (signaled in one direction) single track TCS will be operationaly more flexible and should be on a capacity basis at least equal to the double track with current of traffic rules

CSX_CO wrote: In the case of the IC, the single tracking made sense. Realtively low priority junk freight and thats how they run their trains. In the case of the GTW, the single tracking ended up hurting (or at least the way it was designed) becuase they ran more automotive traffic that was considerably more time sensitive and the single track often resulted in bottlenecks.

This is true with the IC, and most of CN in Canada. Almost all of CN's traffic is low-priority manifest freight. That is why they are able to run those monster, killer, horror-sized trains that take 3 hours for a single meet. They haul very little intermodal and passenger, so this concept works to a limit.

The IC main south out of Chicago sees 6 Amtrak trains a day (which I believe is the same number as the Michigan service) and 20-25 freights so apparently the single tracking & TCS installation works.

MSchwiebert wrote:The IC main south out of Chicago sees 6 Amtrak trains a day (which I believe is the same number as the Michigan service) and 20-25 freights so apparently the single tracking & TCS installation works.

A CN engineer may help explain how this works: http://www.mail-archive.com/illiana@rai ... 01901.html

bnsfMAN93 wrote:

MSchwiebert wrote:The IC main south out of Chicago sees 6 Amtrak trains a day (which I believe is the same number as the Michigan service) and 20-25 freights so apparently the single tracking & TCS installation works.

A CN engineer may help explain how this works: http://www.mail-archive.com/illiana@rai ... 01901.html

Amtrak would get just as stuck behind a dead train on double track as single track. The IC was a 251 railroad with few crossovers, so having passing sidings to kill dead trains is a much better situation.

CSX_CO wrote:In the case of the GTW, the single tracking ended up hurting (or at least the way it was designed) becuase they ran more automotive traffic that was considerably more time sensitive and the single track often resulted in bottlenecks.

The one thing that kills you with single track is track maintenance windows. the Flint to Chicago corridor has always been time sensative with auto traffic,... (albeit in better times). Need to work on a section of track, just shut it down for the work, yes it takes some juggling, but for the most part, freight is moving, not sitting. A friend of mine who was a signalman for GTW said maintenance crews were under the thumb to "do it as quick as possible" to get the freight moving again (after single tracking), which COULD result in things being overlooked. Single track may be cost effective for some RR's, or RR subdivisions, but not as a "blanket" idea to be used system wide. The customer's that still use the RR have to be happy with HH leaving.

Justin wrote: One question I have, are they the newer searchlights or the hooded-style?

They are hooded.

redside20 wrote:What will happen to the signal at Duffield Road east of Durand 251.7

IIRC from my last trip out that way, the new Duffield Rd. & Swartz Creek signals were moved closer to the nearest grade crossings. Probably for easier access.

odave wrote:

redside20 wrote:What will happen to the signal at Duffield Road east of Durand 251.7

IIRC from my last trip out that way, the new Duffield Rd. & Swartz Creek signals were moved closer to the nearest grade crossings. Probably for easier access.

One block was eliminated leaving 3 instead of 4