Whats the likeyhood of a rasied row?

Ashley_SD45T-2 Oct 14, 2012

  1. Ashley_SD45T-2

    Ashley_SD45T-2 TrainBoard Member

    22
    0
    6
    Hey,if this is the wrong section im sorry. Please dont delete.

    I am working on my layout. I had a discussion with a friend.

    I am in a downtown part of town,The original ROW was street running,In the last decade or so the older buildings have gave way for newer or redevelopment. This has brought more nightlife to this area,and this means drunk kids leaving the clubs and cars/taxis blocking the row.

    The Traffic on the line has also picked up. Intermodals coming in from mexico,and going out Have increased. the 20 MPH Limit threw town just doesn't do it anymore.

    Whats the likeyhood of ATSF building a Raised row?

    The street running section,would be closed in the PM to allow residents who bought new Condos to sleep,and also because the remaining customers on the street running line are closed during the night.

    How many trains a day would needed for them to build this?
     
  2. karnydoc

    karnydoc TrainBoard Member

    136
    0
    11
    It depends on the traffic volume for a particular line. Something with a high traffic density would likely have been raised decades ago, such as one serving a passenger terminal. By contrast, something with a much lower traffic density would not have justified the expense.

    Look at the ex-New York Central High Line on the west side of Manhattan. Originally, it was street level, but increasing congestion meant the railroad had to raise that, and buildings on that line had to be reconfigured to accept cars at a higher level. Furthermore, because the doors were on 40-foot centers, such cars continued to remain in service for a long time, because of the expense of modifying the buildings.

    Dieter Zakas
     
  3. jogden

    jogden TrainBoard Member

    23
    0
    15
    First of all, since it is your model railroad, the number of trains it would take before the railroad would consider such a project is entirely up to you!

    Realistically, it depends on a lot of factors. If possible, the railroad would probably prefer to move the main line out of town, if there was space and property available at a reasonable price. They might build a bypass around town, maintaining the same track level, but eliminating a lot of the hazards of a railroad that goes through town, even on its own right of way, like grade crossings. A line just outside of town would probably have fewer grade crossings, pedestrian crossings, trespasser incidents, etc., than a line running through town. The in town line could be turned into an industrial branch, if there were enough customers to justify that, or it could be shut down completely and paved over if there were no customers on that stretch of track.

    If property outside of town was not available at a reasonable price, or if it would require a very large line change, the railroad would probably opt for a grade separated line through town. Grade separated lines have been done as raised rights of way, on an embankment or a steel structure, and they have also been done as a trench all the way across town. Both are expensive though, and the decision would depend on money and local geography. If the town sits on the top of a hill, the railroad is more likely to opt for a trench, because it would cut the elevation change for them and drainage would not be a significant problem. If the town is at the bottom of a valley, the railroad may not want a trench, because it would be more liable to flood, so then they would more likely elevate the line.

    It is hard to say exactly how many trains per day would require such a line change, because there are places in this country that have street running, even on busy routes. Jack London Square, in Oakland, is a good example of this. There is another area in Colorado (the name of the town escapes me at the moment), on the BNSF, where there is a bit of street running. It also depends where the money for the project is coming from. If the railroad is going to have to foot the bill on their own, it is unlikely anything will change. They may put up more safety and warning devices, to try to keep people off the tracks when a train is coming through, but they would wait on the line change until it absolutely could not be avoided. However, if local, state, or federal government agencies offer incentives or offer to pay for certain parts of the project, the railroad is more likely to take on a project like that.
     
  4. Doug A.

    Doug A. TrainBoard Supporter

    3,509
    161
    59
    I think the very last sentence in jogden's post says it best.

    It is almost COMPLETELY unlikely that ATSF would pay to do so solely out of their own pocket. They were there first, so to speak. Now, public outcry leads to grants and voila, something gets done. Likely as was mentioned it would probably just be a reroute around the city. But we have a very local example here in North Texas where the new commuter line had some high profile grade crossing incidents, including a fatality on day 1 of their Phase II opening. Now there's "raised ROW"... an almost 2 mile long double-track bridge replacing 3 grade crossings and 3 other crossing were "quiet zoned". (which seems contrary to the goals of the bridge, but anyway) Nevertheless, I can assure you that while I am sure the commuter line was very willing to be a good corporate citizen to protect the public, they certainly didn't shell out the cash to build the bridge on their own. Obviously in this case there was incentive to raise the ROW and keep the commuter rail versus rerouting.

    At the end of the day, railroads and the public (young, stupid, drunk, careless, or otherwise) have coexisted for 150 years now, so prudent cities find a way to make it work without spending millions of dollars.
     

Share This Page