VA Releases SEHSR Recommendations

[John Bobinyec]

So I guess my question is this: If Ashland is worried about more trains, unsightly row, and loosing passenger trains, why not build a double track bypass around Ashland for freight and keep passenger trains in town?

Nick

One problem is future passenger train speed. Those adjacent streets are very close to the right of way. Future trains which don't stop at Ashland will be going through there at "high speed". That's the whole point of this project in the first place. All trains go through there now at about 25 mph. With trains flying through there at Warp 9, all access to the right of way should be closed off. It won't be safe otherwise.

jb

 

[jis]

I doubt that anything will fly through downtown Ashland at high speeds, unless it becomes a sealed corridor, which of course it won;t through the middle of downtown. Hence the second reason to have a bypass even for passenger trains.

 

[John Bobinyec]

We had a similar situation in Mebane, NC, a couple of years ago. Before the track and signal upgrades, passenger trains used to trundle through town at about 25 mph. There is a road on both sides of the right of way, but not as close as they are in Ashland, Va. After the track and signal upgrades, the speeds were raised to 79 mph, I believe. I ride the trains through there frequently and am still a little awestruck at how fast that is. There was one major accident there a few years back when train 73 came through with a low-boy truck stuck on the crossing. No serious injuries occurred, but the engine (NC 1792) was destroyed in an inferno.

jb

 

[John Bobinyec]

I doubt that anything will fly through downtown Ashland at high speeds, unless it becomes a sealed corridor, which of course it won;t through the middle of downtown. Hence the second reason to have a bypass even for passenger trains.

How about letting the trains which stop in Ashland to continue on the present route, and let the high speed ones which don't stop go around on the bypass?

jb

 

[jis]

I doubt that anything will fly through downtown Ashland at high speeds, unless it becomes a sealed corridor, which of course it won;t through the middle of downtown. Hence the second reason to have a bypass even for passenger trains.

How about letting the trains which stop in Ashland to continue on the present route, and let the high speed ones which don't stop go around on the bypass?

jb

That would be the general idea, if people can settle on an alignment for a bypass. The latest controversy is about the routing of the bypass.

 

[Ryan]

 

[John Bredin]

Fast trains running through town centers with streets near the tracks is an exceedingly common situation in the suburbs of Chicago. Plenty of the old 19th Century suburbs have their downtowns surrounding the (now) Metra station with tracks at grade and no sealed corridors, and plenty have Amtrak trains and express Metra trains shooting through town at full speed (up to 79mph). While grade crossing incidents do occur, of course, people generally deal with it.

Are slow trains lumbering through town and frequently cutting the downtown in two -- which we also get in some of the Chicago suburbs -- somehow any better?

 

[neroden]

OTOH, there is also not enough space at Main Street Station to handle the overall projected passenger growth in the Richmond area,

I dispute this. There is certainly enough space. Done properly, you could handle enormous numbers of passengers at Richmond Main Street.

I suppose you will have to go and argue with the guys who put together the EIS, since I picked it up straight from the EIS.

If you're quoting them correctly, they're just lying. I wonder why? Does their boss live a block from Staples Mill or something?
There is *loads* of empty space around Richmond Main Street station, although it would require putting money in.

They state this explicitly as one of the reasons for keeping both Staples Mill and Main Street.

 

[jis]

As I said, don't argue with me. Go and argue with them. If in doubt what it says in the study read the study.

 

[Palmland]

Main St does have capacity for more. Don't know how many trains are planned but in the 50's, the Seaboard had 7 trains each way and the C&O 4 each way. All trains but 1 local were through. Train shed was used only for mail and baggage, office cars, the local (a motorcar), and a couple C&O set out sleepers. In the late 50's the Seaboard trains moved over to Broad St.

With the plans to route through trains to the south back through Main St., it's sort of back to the future.

But a suburban station is a good idea. Unfortunately, if a bypass to Main St. east of Acca yard happens, Staples Mill is on the wrong side of the main line unless a very expensive flyover is constructed.

 

[neroden]

As I said, don't argue with me. Go and argue with them. If in doubt what it says in the study read the study.

I'll go check out the study some time to see whether they're as dishonest as you say they are. If so, it'll be interesting to try to figure out who "they" actually were and guess why they were doing it.

 

[Thirdrail7]

I was looking for something regarding a CSX's Q401 trespasser incident when this article regarding Ashland popped up:

Council adopts resolution favoring western bypass.

Please allow a few, brief "fair use" quotes:

At a special recessed meeting on Friday, Oct. 20, council adopted a new resolution that endorsed an option that removes all threat to Ashland through a plan that routes the railroad tracks west of the municipality.

Earlier in the ongoing state-mandated process to decide the railway’s route through the project sector effecting the 23005 zip code, now of which is nearing its end, council members had rescinded a letter written by Town Manager Joshua Farrar that recommended the “western bypass” option in efforts to explore alternatives partnering with Hanover County/Town of Ashland.

Council’s Oct. 20 official endorsement of the western bypass came after the Hanover County Board of Supervisors’ passing of a resolution on Wednesday, Oct. 11, regarding its stance in the matter, which recommended supporting the “3-2-3” option.

Additionally, they delve into why they don't support the 3-2-3 option:

It is expected that the DRPT will make a recommendation in December and the Federal Railroad Administration will have a final record of decision in early 2019, serving as the end of the current draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) review process.

While the 3-2-3 option would have the least short-term impact on both communities, council’s resolution states that the 3-2-3 alternative would “In fact, leave a cloud of uncertainty over the Town of Ashland.”

The document cites the following reasons for council’s rejection of the 3-2-3 alternative:l Increases the average automobile delay for the Thompson Street/England Street crossing from its 2015 status of 12 hours per day to a year 2045 status of 41 hours per day.

l An operations simulation concluded that the infrastructure of having two main tracks in Fredericksburg and/or Ashland would result in a capacity insufficient for the number of trains projected to operate in the corridor in 2045.l The inevitability of a third track through Ashland due to increased development in the suburban service areas surrounding Ashland which will severely limit any opportunities for reasonable consideration of bypass alternatives in the future.

 

[me_little_me]

l Increases the average automobile delay for the Thompson Street/England Street crossing from its 2015 status of 12 hours per day to a year 2045 status of 41 hours per day.

Wait. Do I understand that correctly? The average automobile wait will be 41 hours per day? How does on accomplish that? And on one bridge too? Even now, if I had to wait 12 hours a day on average, I'd take a bus or find another route.

 

[Ryan]

Think man-years. 12 cars waiting for an hour is a delay of 12 hours.

 

[Palmland]

I was surprised to read that Ashland now supports the bypass option. While this would minimize disruption to the town, I still have trouble believing the 3-2-3 option wouldn’t work. It would be extremely difficult and expensive to construct a new bypass line west of Ashland as the number of of new homes is growing as the Richmond suburbs reach into Hanover county. In any proposal, VA DOT would construct a new Ashland station to better serve the growing number of commuters to the NEC. I believe it should be outside of Ashland where there would be better highways access and parking as well as, again, minimize disruption to the town.

The current and, I believe, proposed number of trains is far less than the BNSF operates on their double track Transcon line, especially a few years ago when the number approached 100/day on portions of it. Granted the mix of high speed passenger and freight makes it more difficult, although in the days of the ATSF the many passenger trains routinely exceeded the current 90 mph speed limit for passenger and the SWC still operates at that speed on segments. But the two track segment though Ashland would be short.

Early on in the process VA DOT considered having most passenger trains use the former C&O line from Doswell that enters Richmond near Main St. station while freights continued to use the existing line through Ashland. That was discarded because of the curving nature of the line and difficulty in maintaining high speeds. It would seem to me that line could be upgraded for freights and it would be far easier and faster than constructing an entirely new line. Now to do this would also require upgrading the former SAL line south of Richmond as CSX would not be able to easily access their Acca yard. That yard is primarily used now for local traffic and under its new management CSX is reducing the number of yards it uses and running longer and fewer freight trains. If freights used this line it would mean the eventual SEHSR would need to continue to use the currrent route to Petersburg. The two lines rejoin north of that town.

Disclaimer, I have some skin in th game as a frequent Ashland visitor and RMC alumni.

 

[jis]

My understanding is that Ashland and the local counties passed a resolution supporting 3-2-3. In a separate resolution they mentioned as a supplement a Western Bypass. Their main point is no third track through town. If you need more capacity we can live with a Western Bypass option. CSX OTOH won't budge unless they have third track somewhere through there on agreeing to the additional traffic. This provides a means for breaking that log jam.

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/ashland/drpt-recommends-----rail-option-through-ashland/article_f782ec7f-74ba-528f-9b35-f47d13bf499c.html

 

[neroden]

I don't see a good option in Ashland. Really from an operational perspective there should be two passenger tracks downtown, grade-separated, and two freight tracks on a bypass, grade-separated, but that would probably annoy *everyone* in the local communities!

 

[Anderson]

The "best" option in many respects would probably be freight trains on the S-line/ex-C&O and passenger trains via Ashland and the A-Line, with some sort of revival of a station closer into downtown (perhaps at the old Broad Street Station), but there are a slew of problems with such a station location (both practical and regulatory). Unfortunately, the likely LPO manages to tie up both lines, and I don't think there's any practical way to get freight trains over to the ex-C&O from the A-line.

Ashland is, overall, a total mess because of the NIMBY situation...but in this case I at least understand where the NIMBYs are coming from (even as I disagree with their priorities).

 

[Green Maned Lion]

NIMBYs are better than BANANAs (who wants a banana anyway? I only wanna hot dog sandwhich, hot dogs are better than bananas I always say, aint it?)

 

[xyzzy]

Very hard to imagine that CSX would give up Acca Yard or agree to run northbound freight out of Acca by going downtown then up the C&O to Doswell, no matter how much money SEHSR offered for improvements to the C&O.

 

[jis]

Very hard to imagine that CSX would give up Acca Yard or agree to run northbound freight out of Acca by going downtown then up the C&O to Doswell, no matter how much money SEHSR offered for improvements to the C&O.

That won;t happen. Hence the need for the Western Bypass to get CSX's permission to run more train through Ashland without adding a track through Ashland.