AMTK "Rusty Rail" in B.C. vs. High Speed Rail.

[Todd Cline]

For quite some time now Eastbound Amtraks have been heading into #1 main west of Battle Creek, and holding there at CP Custer to clear a Westbound Amtrak Then backing out to regain #2 main. . This is the west end of "double track" all the way THROUGH B.C., and out to CP Levitt. It is probably in better shape that #2 main, since it hasn't gotten any real use in the past several years. So why do this stupid routine? This was set up in 1987 to PASS trains seamlessly, not DELAY them needlessly.. The answer I hear all the time is "RUSTY RAIL". O.K., I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think that one way to avoid "rusty rail" would be to actually run some trains on those rails that are "rusty". I understand all the issues of rusty rails and signals, etc. I know why they hesitate to use that rusty rail, but all I am saying is "IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RUSTY!!!!". Just use it as it was intended! Instead they needlessly delay another train just because one is off schedule.
I'm all for "High Speed Rail", and I think that it IS possible. BUT, we need some common sense in play here. You can run all your trains at 110 mph. between KZOO and Porter, but then let them sit for an hour on the west side of B.C., and we have all just spent a ton of money for absolutely NOTHING. Still a LATE train.
Something as simple as actually using a passing siding as it was designed, would be a step in the right direction I think. Anyone here agree??

Todd

[Ypsi]

the siding at CP ypsi also has a rusty rail. The DS has to give any train a heads up and or premssion to go over the rusty rail, and then after the trains go over it they say for example, "352 clear the rusty rail stopped at CP ypsi" is a ommon thing to here when 352 has to meet 355 at ypsi.

as for why not run over rusty rails, there may be an issue with the rail's structure or like you said the siginaling. It could be any number of things but if NS says no, there's nothing Amtrak can do.

I do agree, using the siding like you said would be way better

[ns8401]

the siding at CP ypsi also has a rusty rail. The DS has to give any train a heads up and or premssion to go over the rusty rail, and then after the trains go over it they say for example, "352 clear the rusty rail stopped at CP ypsi" is a ommon thing to here when 352 has to meet 355 at ypsi.

as for why not run over rusty rails, there may be an issue with the rail's structure or like you said the siginaling. It could be any number of things but if NS says no, there's nothing Amtrak can do.

I do agree, using the siding like you said would be way better

Rusty rail has to do with Southern Railway operating practices, not really the condition of the rail per se. In 2008 or 09 the rules were switched from the old CR operating structure to the Southern one. I'm sure someone on here can better tell us why this was done. Also with those changes was the end of "CP" in the names of locations. Technically CP Ypsi is just Ypsi.

[GTW6401]

I was riding 350 a year or two ago and they met 353 at Lake. I asked the conductor why they couldn't use the entire siding, and he said it was because of rusty rail, and they would have to stop and flag all the crossings in the siding.

[Ben Higdon]

Passenger trains don't have the wheel count or weight to combat rusty rail as well as freight trains do. Some time after road trains were removed from the Amtrak Line west of Kalamazoo, Penn Central moved a through train back to that route to prevent the rusty rail conditions from interfering with the passenger service. I'm guessing this was either before Amtrak or before the International started running, since current traffic level of 8 passenger trains a day must be enough to prevent this condition.

I recall seeing Conrail bulletins from the 90s referring to rusty rail conditions on the siding in Lawton. I think the issue there was the trains wouldn't activate the crossing protection.

[MSchwiebert]

I'm pretty sure that it'd take more than just a train or 2 to "knock the rust" off the rails, especially passenger trains due to their being lighter than a typical freight train. How long has it been since the track in question has seen regular use?

The rusty rail restrictions are pretty well universial - not just limited to NS. For example, when CSX decided to re-open the Toledo Sub north of Deshler to through traffic in 1997 (7 years after it's last usage as a through route) they ran loaded ballast trains from Deshler to Perry and back for a couple weeks to get the rust off the rails (these trains also were used to requalify crews and get the general public used to seeing trains again). Prior to the restoration of through service, when the local would serve customers north of Deshler, and the yard job would serve customers south of Perry, they were given verbal permission, had to hand throw all power switches and flag all crossings with protective devices due to the rusty rail conditions.

If the work was done to restore the trackage in question to regular use - how often would it see trains? Perhaps it's a question of even if it was available, the scheduling would result in it not seeing frequent/regular usage - and the rusty condition would return.

[CSX_CO]

Just get about 1000 model railroaders, and a box car of Walther's Bright Boy track cleaners. I figure they'll have the rust knocked off in no time.

Practice Safe CSX