RF&P Meltdown 7/23

[Anderson]

That would give them their big separation too as long as they can keep their trains from falling over and damaging structures, which of course may be a hard to meet requirement for them.

This is the problem with CSX. They want room to undermaintain their tracks and routinely derail freight trains off of them. Which is not a reasonable request.

I think that this is exactly the problem...consider it learning the absolute wrong lesson from various issues over the years. However, the solution of offering a sturdy barrier ought to be sufficient and I'll actually toss that one around and see what the response might be. I think the other response (in the case of VA) is that at least on the RF&P there are already scads of passenger trains (8-10 AMTK and a bunch of VRE along the line to Fredericksburg and enough more coming in from the ex-Southern line that as far as I can tell, freight basically stops running at peak hours).

 

[afigg]

• Does anyone know how the third track project from Arkendale and north is progressing?

The design-build contract for the 3rd track from Arkendale to Powell's Creek was awarded by CSX last year. The contract is to be completed by mid-2017 according to the VVA DRPT website project list. I have seen reports that there have been crews doing utility relocation to clear the ROW for the 3rd track. The other 3rd track project on the RF&P, being paid for by Virginia, to build around 2.5 miles of 3rd track south of Fredericksburg for a new VRE station in Spotsylvania county just north of the existing VRE storage yard, is supposed to be completed by the end of 2015.

Digging into the VRE.org website, namely the VRE Board monthly meeting material, the minutes from the June 2015 meeting has interesting info on stations plans related to the Arkendale to Powell's creek 3rd track. $11 million has been allocated to upgrade the Quantico station with new platform(s) and a pedestrian overpass with elevators.

In the June minutes, there is this: "Mr. Hickey gave a presentation on the project outlining the plan for construction. VRE has added scoped elements that enhance safety and increase operational flexibility for CSXT, Amtrak and VRE has agreed with CSXT and DRPT to move forward on building island platforms throughout the entire corridor so any train on any track has access to a platform and there is no need for cross over moves, which makes train travel more efficient and faster throughout the corridor. He reviewed the changes to the design for the Quantico Station." Hmm.

 

[jis]

Most people have no idea how significant this business of building island platform is to enhancing schedule reliability and avoiding congestion. This is really great news. I wish NY State would get around to putting up platform on all tracks in Empire West. There are endless hours spent dicking around trying to get the train to the one track that has a platform on it.

 

[neroden]

Most people have no idea how significant this business of building island platform is to enhancing schedule reliability and avoiding congestion. This is really great news. I wish NY State would get around to putting up platform on all tracks in Empire West. There are endless hours spent dicking around trying to get the train to the one track that has a platform on it.

Well, NY hasn't been doin' much at all, you know.

* Schenectady dates from the NY Central's "rip our stations out" period, but is thankfully being rebuilt as we speak.

* Amsterdam dates from Conrail's "rip our stations out" period. If they ever bother to build a real station I'm sure they will build platforms on both tracks... proper platforms would be nice, too.

* Utica still has tracks at all platforms as it always has. Low-level, which plans have been trying to address.

* Rome actually has an island platform.

* Syracuse was built in the 1990s to replace one of the "not a station" stations from the "rip our stations out" period, and it's *supposed* to be an island platform of sorts, but that has its own whole story. (Sigh.) Anyway it should be straightforward to extend the tunnel under the tracks and put platforms on the far side, it just wasn't done.

* Rochester (from the "rip our stations out" period) is currently being replaced with new island platform on passenger tracks. Yay.

* Buffalo-Depew dates from the "rip our stations out" period of the NY Central, and hasn't really been touched since then.

* Buffalo-Exchange St. again dates from the "rip our stations out" period of the NY Central, even though it was fully closed; it was reopened with minimal expenditure.

* Niagara Falls, *again* from the "rip our stations out" period, is being replaced... with a one-platform station, but it's on a single-track line at this point, and at least it'll be on a section of track with no freight trains.

New York suffered greatly from the decision of the NY Central, and subsequently Conrail (with the collaboration of the Nelson Rockefeller administration) to destroy all of its stations, and specifically to destroy all the grade-separated overpasses which led to the far platforms. Utica was really the only survivor. Buffalo stands but the station was relocated entirely to the freight yard and the overpass was demolished; Syracuse stands but the station was relocated to the freight yard and the tracks were demolished.

Due to this destruction, for New York it really is a matter of building stations practically from scratch. And due to the fairly high demand, they have to be pretty solid stations, none of these Amsterdam-style whistlestops. And the state government mostly hasn't been willing to spend the money. :-(

But at least we're getting Schenectady, Rochester, and Niagara Falls. That leaves Buffalo-Depew, Buffalo-Exchange, Amsterdam, and upgrades to Syracuse and Utica. There seems to be solid political support for Buffalo-Exchange and Utica upgrades, and enough support for Syracuse upgrades; I don't know about Amsterdam or Depew, but I think there is a chance of getting this stuff done.

 

[jis]

After the current work in progress is completed I think the real remaining hindrances will be Buffalo Depew, Syracuse and Amsterdam. I think if NY State is serious about running a reliable Empire West service they should get on the ball and fix these stations with platforms on both tracks eliminating the need to cross over or run wrong rail tog et to the platform, thus disrupting the flow of traffic.

 

[neroden]

It's going to be hard to justify a full pedestrian bridge over Amsterdam for the low traffic it gets, but it does seem to be a genuine obstacle. I think this will only be resolved as part of a larger project, such as an exclusive pair of passenger tracks from Schenectady to Utica. (Incidentally, this is the more annoying part for restoring the quad-tracking. It gets easier as you head further west.)

Depew is probably less of a problem than it appears to be; the many active freight yards and branches in the area mean that there isn't going to be a reliable 'flow of traffic' in any case.

 

[jis]

The single platform in Depew causes Amtrak - Amtrak congestion, when one train has to wait while another train completes its platform work. Having another platform will alleviate that, and will also be come more necessary if NY State really intends to increase Empire West service some day, which of course it may not beyond doing endless study after study anyway.

 

[xyzzy]

Passed through the Arkendale area yesterday. Trees and brush are being cleared and pipe is being laid.

 

[afigg]

There were heat restrictions again on the RF&P on July 29 from 1 to 7 PM. VRE announcement. Checking a few trains on status map archives, Silver Star #91(7/29) went from dep ALX 40 minutes to 1:46 late at PTB, probably a combination of reduced speeds and congestion from slowed VRE & freight trains. #80 (7/29) departed RVR 24 minutes late and was 1:29 late at ALX. The southbound Meteor #97(7/29) must have come through late enough to avoid the worse of the heat restrictions as it departed WAS 11 minutes late at 7:41 PM, and was 27 minutes at RVR.

I saw a mention of the VRE heat restrictions in the local news, so I looked to see what the effect was on Amtrak. If Virginia could minimize the heat restrictions on the RF&P as part of the package of WAS to RVR/RVM upgrades, it sure would help the OTP and reliability of the Silvers, Palmetto, and Carolinian.

It is another hot day in the region, so heat restrictions are likely this afternoon.

 

[jis]

How's Amtrak doing with heat restrictions, if any? I will be traveling from MET to WAS and back tomorrow, and am wondering how much delay to expect due to heat restrictions.

 

[OBS]

There were none, yesterday 7/29...

 

[jis]

Thanks!

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Also, just anecdotal evidence--we passed the Palmetto coming into TRE this morning, and it was only 6 minutes late. My NJT train was chugging along a little slower than usual, but no surprise there. I did not see the 6:48 Acela number 2103, but it may have come and gone while I was getting coffee upstairs.

 

[RampWidget]

That would give them their big separation too as long as they can keep their trains from falling over and damaging structures, which of course may be a hard to meet requirement for them.

This is the problem with CSX. They want room to undermaintain their tracks and routinely derail freight trains off of them. Which is not a reasonable request.

Care to back up your opinion with anything resembling facts? Do you possess any knowledge of track maintenance or track safety standards?

 

[Thirdrail7]

That would give them their big separation too as long as they can keep their trains from falling over and damaging structures, which of course may be a hard to meet requirement for them.

This is the problem with CSX. They want room to undermaintain their tracks and routinely derail freight trains off of them. Which is not a reasonable request.

Care to back up your opinion with anything resembling facts? Do you possess any knowledge of track maintenance or track safety standards?

He may be alluding to the fact that while things appear to have made somewhat of a rebound since the dark John Snow era, CSX was known for under maintaining their tracks. At one point a judge called their lack of maintenance that resulted in a derailment "borderline criminal."

 

[Ryan]

dark John Snow era,

I'm sorry, I couldn't pass up the low hanging fruit:

 

[RampWidget]

dark John Snow era,

I'm sorry, I couldn't pass up the low hanging fruit:

1106924.jpg

I'd prefer to remain factual. Let's look at it this way, if you want to point a finger at John Snow. IIRC, he was CEO of CSX from 1989 to 2003, although he held other C-Suite positions prior to that.

Using 1995 as a sample (I chose that year at random), here are train accident rates per 1M train-miles by carrier, per FRA:

UP 1.314

NS 0.30

KCS 4.201

CSX 0.43

CP 3.785

CNNA 3.807

BNSF 1.316

And for the most current data (2014) for train accident rates per 1M train-miles, by carrier, per FRA:

UP 0.882

NS 0.636

KCS 1.047

CSX 0.613

CP 0.585

CNNA 0.474

BNSF 0.384

You are welcome to verify these statistics http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/rrchart.aspx

 

[Thirdrail7]

I will also look at it factually...and in print. Like I said, they have rebounded but the damage that was done during the Snow years peaked right after he left:

Please allow a brief fair use quote from the 2004 article Feds: CSX most dangerous of top freight railroads:

Feds: CSX most dangerous of top freight railroads

By GREGORY RICHARDS
The Times-Union,

CSX Transportation was the most dangerous of the nation's four biggest freight railroads for most of 2003, according to government statistics.The Jacksonville-based company led that pack with the highest rate of employee injuries per 200,000 hours worked for the first 11 months of 2003, according to the most recent data available from the Federal Railroad Administration, which oversees the nation's railroads. And CSXT also had the most train derailments, collisions and other calamities through November. The railroad was third in both those categories in 2002.

The elevated figures, which CSXT said have no specific cause, bring an end to two years of falling train accident and employee injury statistics, which are key measures of a railroad's performance. Those rates rose through the latter half of the 1990s.

Michael Ward, chairman and chief executive officer of CSX Corp., CSXT's parent company, expressed his displeasure during a conference call with stock analysts at the end of January.

"Our personal injury and derailment numbers were simply too high on a quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year basis," Ward said. "In addition, during the fourth quarter we had a higher than normal number of serious injuries, an issue we are aggressively committed to fixing at every level of the company."CSXT isn't sure exactly what caused the inflated accident and injury rates. One theory is that, after several years of improving safety statistics, the company became complacent.

"We weren't as focused on the improvement processes as much as we needed to be," spokesman Adam Hollingsworth said in an interview.

A better quote comes from a former employee:

The company has been a regular bronze and silver winner of the Harriman Memorial Safety Award, a prestigious industry award for railroads with the best employee safety records. CSXT won a certificate of commendation last year for having at least two years of improved employee safety in a business where operating multi-ton locomotives and lumbering rail cars in wide extremes of weather always has given accidents plenty of chances to occur.

Some of the safety improvements continue. Earlier this month, the employees at CSX's four First Coast rail terminals celebrated one year of working without incurring any injuries. Just two years ago, the terminals suffered more than 20 injuries during a year, the company said.

But CSXT also has lagged behind its peers on capital expenditures. From 1991 to 1998, with the exception of 1996, CSXT spent less per mile of track than any of the three other major railroads, according to regulatory filings. Track that isn't well maintained is more likely to cause accidents.

"We got pretty good at stretching a dollar," Tom Schmidt, CSXT's former vice president for engineering, told The Washington Post in an article published in December. "But the rubber band got stretched a little too thin in the late 1990s. By 2000, time caught up with us."

CSXT essentially was placed on probation from 2000 to 2001 after a Federal Railroad Administration audit sparked by an increasing number of train accidents in the late 1990s turned up numerous track deficiencies. An audit released in December by the Transportation Department found that CSXT was replacing track ballast at a level "significantly lower" than its peer railroads during the past two decades, a finding the company disputes. But there also was good news in the audit for CSXT: The report noted that nearly all the track problems found in 2002 were repaired and replaced within 30 days, indicating that track maintenance wasn't being deferred.

So while you may look at 1995 as the year, the frugal nature of their maintenance program eventually caught up with them. It was during this period that a judge called their lack of maintenance that resulted in a derailment 'borderline criminal."

 

[jis]

I guess Dubya gets the credit for rescuing CSX from John Snow

 

[neroden]

I think when New York's two US Senators started personally investigating the derailment sites, maybe Michael Ward figured out that CSX needed to change its ways a little. The situation around the end of the John Snow administration was really reprehensible.

As for NTSB reported accident rates, they are absolutely meaningless for evaluating CSX during that period. Why? If you looked on the anonymous employee forums in the early-2000s period you found lots of CSX employees, specifically (not so much the other railroads) complaining that they were being illegally pressured not to report accidents. Hopefully that has ended since the *federal investigations*.