To be honest I find it hilarious!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I-85 widening in Concord wasn't fully complete until about 2020 and it took forever to build because of the new railroad bridge.
Now the East end connector in Durham has been delayed numerous times because of the railroad bridge.
The same goes to the US-70 James City upgrade when I think NCDOT requested to remove the tracks so they can turn the existing road into a freeway.
I wonder if highways still get built like this - https://goo.gl/maps/88DMyS79QxwExFtX8
I only see highway projects get delayed if they are planning to make an overpass for the railroad or requesting track removal.
When NC 43 gets widened here, a bridge will be built going over the railroad tracks. I wonder it will affect this projects timeline as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/zktpxr2LZ38ZbZSEA
Then you probably find the California HSR to be analogous to gold standard of movie comedy that is Airplane!
But then again I'm not talking about NC or supplied a Google Map image...
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/0Wf6L6
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/hZ87y4
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/21a852
Not sure why this is "hilarious."
But, here in NY, the railroads are notoriously hard to coordinate with. For a while just a few years ago, the couple of major railroads here even jettisoned their liaisons that were supposed to work with NYSDOT on projects that affected a track. Have to say that for a while, one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
Hell, railroads often refuse requests to allow their bridges over public roads to be inspected.
^^ They are exempt from required 2-year bridge inspections.
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
Not sure why this is "hilarious."
But, here in NY, the railroads are notoriously hard to coordinate with. For a while just a few years ago, the couple of major railroads here even jettisoned their liaisons that were supposed to work with NYSDOT on projects that affected a track. Have to say that for a while, one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Railroads are notoriously hard to deal with here, too, especially CSX. They flaunt their favored status in federal law, frequently hold up projects by not signing off on required permits or paperwork, charge outlandish fees for flaggers -- why do you need a flagger on the the railroad when there are signals along the tracks and the crews are in radio communication with the office -- and otherwise cause all sorts of issues. They're notorious for not notifying the state when they are going to close a road to do crossing repair, leaving the public unaware of the closures and the need to take detour routes.
The phrase "railroads are more powerful than God" has been uttered in many a KYTC office.
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
^This
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
And isn't that the proper way to respond - or, rather, be prepared for an accident? At least my strong feeling that OSHA would prefer deaths to the letter of the law to being safe against the law
I believe it would be less of a problem if the highway either went over the railroad or tunneled under it. Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2022, 01:48:16 PM
Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
Yes, which is relevant to this thread.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:50:23 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2022, 01:48:16 PM
Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
Yes, which is relevant to this thread.
But did you find it hilarious?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2022, 01:56:26 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:50:23 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2022, 01:48:16 PM
Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
Yes, which is relevant to this thread.
But did you find it hilarious?
Because they delay a road project numerous amount of tines?
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2022, 01:56:26 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:50:23 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2022, 01:48:16 PM
Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
Yes, which is relevant to this thread.
But did you find it hilarious?
Because they delay a road project numerous amount of tines?
So, it is hilarious then? I was concerned some sort of non-hilarious rail versus road talk would get into this thread.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2022, 01:59:51 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2022, 01:56:26 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:50:23 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2022, 01:48:16 PM
Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
Yes, which is relevant to this thread.
But did you find it hilarious?
Because they delay a road project numerous amount of tines?
So, it is hilarious then? I was concerned some sort of non-hilarious rail versus road talk would get into this thread.
Not really. it's more annoying. And I put it here because it was not directly related to rail projects.
Maybe I should change the title from "hilarious" to "annoying"?
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 10, 2022, 07:58:34 PM
I wonder if highways still get built like this - https://goo.gl/maps/88DMyS79QxwExFtX8
What does this have to do with railroad overpasses?
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 10, 2022, 07:58:34 PM
When NC 43 gets widened here, a bridge will be built going over the railroad tracks. I wonder it will affect this projects timeline as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/zktpxr2LZ38ZbZSEA
Is this projected to be widened with a railroad bridge installed (or a road bridge over the tracks)?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2022, 02:11:00 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 10, 2022, 07:58:34 PM
I wonder if highways still get built like this - https://goo.gl/maps/88DMyS79QxwExFtX8
What does this have to do with railroad overpasses?
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 10, 2022, 07:58:34 PM
When NC 43 gets widened here, a bridge will be built going over the railroad tracks. I wonder it will affect this projects timeline as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/zktpxr2LZ38ZbZSEA
Is this projected to be widened with a railroad bridge installed (or a road bridge over the tracks)?
First question: When a highway project comes in, they have to ask the company first if they can build an overpass for the bridge that goes over the highway? I'm sure it's based on development that leads to them doing that.
Second question: Road bridge over the tracks.
At least the second link as a railroad crossing, several clicks into the distance.
Where's the railroad in the first link?
Quote from: GaryV on February 11, 2022, 02:21:31 PM
Where's the railroad in the first link?
https://goo.gl/maps/9rPE6CLjbRSenvyUA
It's probably more ironic than hilarious.
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department. Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department. Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.
What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.
I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2022, 01:48:16 PM
I believe it would be less of a problem if the highway either went over the railroad or tunneled under it. Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
It's difficult but not impossible to replace an existing railroad bridge over a highway (such as when additional highway lanes are needed) but it can be done, and I have worked on a few. In general the railroads are sometimes difficult, but generally agreeable to, a highway over the railroad because there are minimal chances for disruption of rail traffic because the tracks can stay in place and the main risks are from setting beams, stuff falling from above during construction, or cutting signal/communication lines, all of which can be readily mitigated.
A new underpass under the railroad, where none existed before, especially in constrained conditions...good luck. Especially if you don't have enough room to work or build a "shoo-fly" run-around track to keep the trains moving and give yourself more freedom during construction. It's an order of magnitude more difficult than any other type of grade separation, and will involve getting track outages approved (often with time limits of how long the contractor can work before vacating the tracks), getting a crew from the railroad to remove and re-install the track multiple times, avoid hitting anything sensitive under the tracks like signal/communication lines, dealing with groundwater conditions and potential cave-ins during excavation, building things according to rigid railroad specs that may limit innovative construction methods if design variances aren't allowed.
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2022, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department. Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.
What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.
I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.
OK gotcha. Isn't a lot of this due to railroads having exceptions built into a lot of labor law?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2022, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department. Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.
What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.
I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.
OK gotcha. Isn't a lot of this due to railroads having exceptions built into a lot of labor law?
Possibly that, and because they are often privately owned and operated they have more private property rights.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 11, 2022, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2022, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department. Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.
What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.
I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.
OK gotcha. Isn't a lot of this due to railroads having exceptions built into a lot of labor law?
Possibly that, and because they are often privately owned and operated they have more private property rights.
It isn't just a matter of private ownership, but nearly 150 years of legal protections in various areas.
Not that it's impossible to sue a railroad by any means (rate disputes are common), but there are a ton of exceptions railroads have been granted.
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2022, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 11, 2022, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2022, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department. Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.
What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.
I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.
OK gotcha. Isn't a lot of this due to railroads having exceptions built into a lot of labor law?
Possibly that, and because they are often privately owned and operated they have more private property rights.
It isn't just a matter of private ownership, but nearly 150 years of legal protections in various areas.
Not that it's impossible to sue a railroad by any means (rate disputes are common), but there are a ton of exceptions railroads have been granted.
Just curious, do you have any striking examples that come to mind?
Quote from: kalvado on February 11, 2022, 08:57:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2022, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 11, 2022, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2022, 03:11:38 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 11, 2022, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 10, 2022, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2022, 08:26:30 PM
one or two railroads in particular had the approach to safety (i.e., flaggers and the like) that safety was what their legal department was for, if you can follow that one.
So...no, not hilarious.
Isn't that the golden standard anyway? Being legal means avoiding liability, so nothing bad can actually happen
no - the implication is there's no concern about safety issues, because if there IS an injury/fatality they'll just throw lawyers at the problem to sweep it under the rug.
"Safety" usually falls under a greater umbrella of "risk," which almost always reports up through a corporate legal department. Its more about compliance than it is sweeping problems under the rug.
What I was talking about were railroads foregoing safety measures and shrugging the consequences off, deeming lawsuits as something their lawyers could get them out of or the tremendous legal framework that protects them.
I once worked for a law firm that was literally laughed off a call by BNSF when we tried bringing them into a lawsuit where one of their employees had asbestos exposure on-site.
OK gotcha. Isn't a lot of this due to railroads having exceptions built into a lot of labor law?
Possibly that, and because they are often privately owned and operated they have more private property rights.
It isn't just a matter of private ownership, but nearly 150 years of legal protections in various areas.
Not that it's impossible to sue a railroad by any means (rate disputes are common), but there are a ton of exceptions railroads have been granted.
Just curious, do you have any striking examples that come to mind?
Well, I thought that proven asbestos exposure that resulted in fatal mesothelioma was pretty striking, given that other cases typically result in multi-million dollar judgments. So, exceptions to tort litigation are just one area.
The MTA in NY is really terrible about this. In Hopewell Junction, Metro-North refused to allow any improvements that would alter any railroad crossings in any way, including a realignment of the 82-Palen Rd-Fishkill Rd intersection, and the conversion of the deficient 82 railroad bridge to a grade crossing. This is on the Beacon line which hadn't seen regular passenger or freight service in decades and is was all but abandoned.
Recently they constructed a rail trail between Hopewell Jct and Brewster, parallel to the existing tracks rather than removing them. Then immediately after finishing this project and taking great lengths to preserve the track infrastructure, they filed to officially abandon the rail line. :confused: :banghead:
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2022, 04:09:49 PM
OK gotcha. Isn't a lot of this due to railroads having exceptions built into a lot of labor law?
Like working the live long day? :colorful:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/208854501454555434/
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 02:23:03 PM
Quote from: GaryV on February 11, 2022, 02:21:31 PM
Where's the railroad in the first link?
https://goo.gl/maps/9rPE6CLjbRSenvyUA
I finally see it, now that I can see the overhead aerial view.
But to answer the first question posed: Yes, they would still build highways like that.
The Waukesha west bypass got delayed for that very reason. They debated whether the railroad crossing be grade separated or at grade. They eventually settled on the latter.
When reading through this, they are playing a game i see.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/pennsylvania-regulators-turn-down-csx-request-to-demolish-bridge/
I have always wondered why railroad overpasses above freeways are rare. There is one over I-30 in Prescott, Ark. that's been there probably from the beginning and I've always marveled at how thick the beams were. And it's probably just a spur. They knocked down another abandoned one in Sherman recently for the US 75 / Future I-45 widening project.
And as for the East End Connector in Durham, NC, NCDOT had to fight with TWO railroad companies that use the railroad bridge. So that's why it's taking SOO long. But the temporary bridge is coming down finally, just some advice. The project is 3 years behind original schedule thanks to this.
But is it hilarious yet?
Quote from: Road Hog on February 15, 2022, 06:21:57 PM
I have always wondered why railroad overpasses above freeways are rare. There is one over I-30 in Prescott, Ark. that's been there probably from the beginning and I've always marveled at how thick the beams were. And it's probably just a spur. They knocked down another abandoned one in Sherman recently for the US 75 / Future I-45 widening project.
Most railroads were there first, and it would be a very expensive endeavor to raise or lower tracks which require a lot more distance to rise and drop than a road. It's much easier for a road to go over an existing rail line than to take an existing rail line and raise it over a road.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2022, 05:30:41 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on February 15, 2022, 06:21:57 PM
I have always wondered why railroad overpasses above freeways are rare. There is one over I-30 in Prescott, Ark. that's been there probably from the beginning and I've always marveled at how thick the beams were. And it's probably just a spur. They knocked down another abandoned one in Sherman recently for the US 75 / Future I-45 widening project.
Most railroads were there first, and it would be a very expensive endeavor to raise or lower tracks which require a lot more distance to rise and drop than a road. It's much easier for a road to go over an existing rail line than to take an existing rail line and raise it over a road.
To expand on this, railroads do not handle steeper grades as well as vehicles. It's rare to see rail lines with a grade >1.5%. The Madison Incline (https://www.953wiki.com/news/local-news/the-madison-incline-steepest-railroad-grade-in-north-america/) is the steepest standard gauge grade in North America at 5.89%; it's no longer in operation. A typical climb is the Tehachapi Loop (https://www.american-rails.com/tehachapi.html) which rises at a steady 2%; it takes a lot of locomotive power to climb grades that long even at only 2%. Compare that to highways where it's not unusual to see 5% grades and greater in the mountains even on the interstate. You might be annoyed but most cars handle them fine even with only four cylinders.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 15, 2022, 06:21:57 PM
I have always wondered why railroad overpasses above freeways are rare. There is one over I-30 in Prescott, Ark. that's been there probably from the beginning and I've always marveled at how thick the beams were. And it's probably just a spur. They knocked down another abandoned one in Sherman recently for the US 75 / Future I-45 widening project.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2022, 05:30:41 PM
Most railroads were there first, and it would be a very expensive endeavor to raise or lower tracks which require a lot more distance to rise and drop than a road. It's much easier for a road to go over an existing rail line than to take an existing rail line and raise it over a road.
Quote from: skluth on February 23, 2022, 06:22:26 PM
To expand on this, railroads do not handle steeper grades as well as vehicles. It's rare to see rail lines with a grade >1.5%. The Madison Incline (https://www.953wiki.com/news/local-news/the-madison-incline-steepest-railroad-grade-in-north-america/) is the steepest standard gauge grade in North America at 5.89%; it's no longer in operation. A typical climb is the Tehachapi Loop (https://www.american-rails.com/tehachapi.html) which rises at a steady 2%; it takes a lot of locomotive power to climb grades that long even at only 2%. Compare that to highways where it's not unusual to see 5% grades and greater in the mountains even on the interstate. You might be annoyed but most cars handle them fine even with only four cylinders.
Agreed. The railroads on the East Coast tend to require a 1% maximum grade for any non-railroad related realignments. But they are willing to raise/lower tracks if the project is managed well and coordinated carefully with other railroad projects along the same trackage route. Oftentimes, the local authorities do not properly inform the railroad about highway projects that interfere with railroad operations until those projects are fully funded (and sometimes until they are well along in the design phase). Most of the railroad's capital projects departments are booked out many years in advance. It is a mess to hire employees for one or two projects, because they get a massive severance when they are laid off permanently.
I-85 widening around Gastonia, NC would be a pain in the ass to do and would take forever. There are many rail bridges going over the highway and if construction starts in 2024, I say it won't be complete until 2031 or something.
Sen Marshall Arthur Rauch Hwy
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VDmkegdR49iNawb96
Sen Marshall Arthur Rauch Hwy
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YuwepBpiGi2nJE7H7
I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NgnedoaM3Kf3GExa6
I-85
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FANfs9zV1zwnYo2b6
Is it hilarious yet?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2022, 01:37:46 PM
Is it hilarious yet?
YYYYEEEESSSS!!!! There's is so many bridges~!!! :-D :-D :-D :-D
Quote from: Dirt Roads link=topic=3quote author=Dirt Roads link=topic=31005.msg2710672#msg2710672 date=1645662194]
Agreed. The railroads on the East Coast tend to require a 1% maximum grade for any non-railroad related realignments. But they are willing to raise/lower tracks if the project is managed well and coordinated carefully with other railroad projects along the same trackage route. Oftentimes, the local authorities do not properly inform the railroad about highway projects that interfere with railroad operations until those projects are fully funded (and sometimes until they are well along in the design phase). Most of the railroad's capital projects departments are booked out many years in advance. It is a mess to hire employees for one or two projects, because they get a massive severance when they are laid off permanently.
The railroads increasingly want "more stuff" as time goes on to make them whole with a project. Years ago, railroads would be happy if the state built a plain new replacement railroad bridge and paid for it. One of my former co-workers was complaining about a rail overpass in IL that was originally built and maintained by the railroad over a 2 lane highway. The state is planning on adding 2 lanes to the highway, and is willing to pay $10M for a replacement bridge and associated temporary and permanent track work that will have room for a third track if the railroad ever needs one. Not good enough for the railroad, they want to put the state at permanent liability to maintain the bridge for the next 100 years and replace it at state cost if it ever wears out. The railroad is apparently taking the position "you guys want the extra lanes, we don't care about them" and is trying to squeeze every last nickel out of the state.
Quote from: Dirt Roads link=topic=3quote author=Dirt Roads link=topic=31005.msg2710672#msg2710672 date=1645662194]
Agreed. The railroads on the East Coast tend to require a 1% maximum grade for any non-railroad related realignments. But they are willing to raise/lower tracks if the project is managed well and coordinated carefully with other railroad projects along the same trackage route. Oftentimes, the local authorities do not properly inform the railroad about highway projects that interfere with railroad operations until those projects are fully funded (and sometimes until they are well along in the design phase). Most of the railroad's capital projects departments are booked out many years in advance. It is a mess to hire employees for one or two projects, because they get a massive severance when they are laid off permanently.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 05, 2022, 12:06:35 AM
The railroads increasingly want "more stuff" as time goes on to make them whole with a project. Years ago, railroads would be happy if the state built a plain new replacement railroad bridge and paid for it. One of my former co-workers was complaining about a rail overpass in IL that was originally built and maintained by the railroad over a 2 lane highway. The state is planning on adding 2 lanes to the highway, and is willing to pay $10M for a replacement bridge and associated temporary and permanent track work that will have room for a third track if the railroad ever needs one. Not good enough for the railroad, they want to put the state at permanent liability to maintain the bridge for the next 100 years and replace it at state cost if it ever wears out. The railroad is apparently taking the position "you guys want the extra lanes, we don't care about them" and is trying to squeeze every last nickel out of the state.
Indeed, railroads get quite defensive over the "who was there first" legal precedence. They also get aggravated when a DOT expects the railroad to design and construct an 85-foot long structure over a new four-lane road in 12 months at a cost that is less than a third of what the DOT would design and construct a similar-sized structure to much less intense AASHTO standards. Quite frankly, $10M doesn't pay for that bridge structure itself, much less the trackwork associated with the project. Plus, you should expect at least $5M to $10M extra if any of the railroad signalling needs to be relocated. But I certainly understand why the local folks are upset about the "you guys want the extra lanes, we don't care about them" mentality.
It is for this reason that North Carolina is literally dotted with hundreds of two-lane underpasses beneath the railroads, with four-lane at-grade bypasses fully equipped with CFL&G (cantilevered flashing light signals and gates). The additional cost of widening the underpass was simply not cost effective.
Here in North Carolina, the NCDOT Rail Division is responsible for coordinating all rail crossing work (which includes existing underpasses and overpasses). They often serve as an advocate for the railroads, which I believe is unique. So the DOT or municipality here gets a well-planned, properly-budgeted project set up by the NCDOT Rail Division before the railroad ever gets involved in the political part. This is oftentimes too expensive. Furthermore, when the North Carolina Rail Road became a real estate investment trust, they started protecting their right-of-way by disallowing any new pavement and forcing NCDOT to grade separate rather than widened at grade. This is almost always too expensive, but the Class I railroads here (Norfolk Southern and CSX) do pitch in additional funds for each crossing that is closed due to the grade separation.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 05, 2022, 11:38:21 AM
Indeed, railroads get quite defensive over the "who was there first" legal precedence. They also get aggravated when a DOT expects the railroad to design and construct an 85-foot long structure over a new four-lane road in 12 months at a cost that is less than a third of what the DOT would design and construct a similar-sized structure to much less intense AASHTO standards. Quite frankly, $10M doesn't pay for that bridge structure itself, much less the trackwork associated with the project. Plus, you should expect at least $5M to $10M extra if any of the railroad signalling needs to be relocated. But I certainly understand why the local folks are upset about the "you guys want the extra lanes, we don't care about them" mentality.
In this case, the cost of structure work, the temporary trackwork, and the relocation of signal/communication lines, as well as the bridge design, are being absorbed by the state, and I'm sure that the state is paying the RR's consultant for design and construction overview. My former co-worker's beef was that the state would be handing the RR a new bridge to replace one that they currently own and maintain, but then asking the state to take over maintenance responsibilities forever, which would amount to a betterment instead of a draw as compared to current responsibilities.
It is interesting that NC has a rail division that takes some of the legwork off the state DOT's hands. In IL, we have a unique "Illinois Commerce Commission" that essentially acts as a miniature Surface Transportation Board, with every grade separation or grade crossing improvement being a sort of legal case where an administrative law judge has the power to apportion costs, schedule and other responsibilities among the involved parties. But the interjection of the ICC into a case doesn't always streamline things, especially when the RR and the DOT are far apart in their stances.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 05, 2022, 11:38:21 AM
Indeed, railroads get quite defensive over the "who was there first" legal precedence. They also get aggravated when a DOT expects the railroad to design and construct an 85-foot long structure over a new four-lane road in 12 months at a cost that is less than a third of what the DOT would design and construct a similar-sized structure to much less intense AASHTO standards. Quite frankly, $10M doesn't pay for that bridge structure itself, much less the trackwork associated with the project. Plus, you should expect at least $5M to $10M extra if any of the railroad signalling needs to be relocated. But I certainly understand why the local folks are upset about the "you guys want the extra lanes, we don't care about them" mentality.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 09, 2022, 01:04:50 AM
In this case, the cost of structure work, the temporary trackwork, and the relocation of signal/communication lines, as well as the bridge design, are being absorbed by the state, and I'm sure that the state is paying the RR's consultant for design and construction overview. My former co-worker's beef was that the state would be handing the RR a new bridge to replace one that they currently own and maintain, but then asking the state to take over maintenance responsibilities forever, which would amount to a betterment instead of a draw as compared to current responsibilities.
Railroads here along the East Coast also have a number of bridges that they constructed and maintain, and many of them are roadway bridges over the railroads. Additionally, there is a precedence that the local highway maintenance agencies (mainly DOTs) are legally required to be financially responsible for any highway crossing improvements. In both of these cases, the railroad views any new bridges related to highway improvements as DOT responsibility, including maintenance of the bridge (and the big Class I railroads generally require that they perform that maintenance in order to meet FRA requirements). The situation that your friend describes has a nuance that falls slightly outside of that category, but I suspect that the railroad is trying to force this into the same category. I'm sure it's not the first instance of roadway widening under a railroad-owned bridge in Illinois, but it may still be rare. However, I highly suspect that budget and schedule are the primary issues for the railroad.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 09, 2022, 01:04:50 AM
It is interesting that NC has a rail division that takes some of the legwork off the state DOT's hands. In IL, we have a unique "Illinois Commerce Commission" that essentially acts as a miniature Surface Transportation Board, with every grade separation or grade crossing improvement being a sort of legal case where an administrative law judge has the power to apportion costs, schedule and other responsibilities among the involved parties. But the interjection of the ICC into a case doesn't always streamline things, especially when the RR and the DOT are far apart in their stances.
Not only does the NCDOT Rail Division perform much of the state DOT work, they also work to advocate on behalf of the railroads themselves. As you can imagine, cars/trucks and trains don't always mix well and our Rail Division tries to broker agreements to close redundant grade crossings and grade separate, as well as perform preliminary engineering and cost estimates. Your ILCC is similar to many of the the state agencies that I worked with/alongside in other states. Some do have a project wing that manages many or all of these types of projects. Virginia has a newer agency (Department of Rail and Public Transportation) that is trying to morph into something similar to ours here in North Carolina. Unlike North Carolina, VDRPT also ushers along other modes of public transportation such as bus rapid transit and more obscure things like Commuter Transit Demand Management (TDM).
There are at least a couple of instances of rails climbing or descending on an artificial grade to go over a road, probably because the road was there first.
Rail line to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5333712,-122.685638,81a,35y,251.42h,79.21t/data=!3m1!1e3) Admittedly, the rail line has to be elevated on the other side of the road anyway.
Rail line to newish container terminal (https://goo.gl/maps/A3vn4HT1JYfBt2P69) over BC 99.
Quote from: Rick Powell on February 11, 2022, 03:34:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2022, 01:48:16 PM
I believe it would be less of a problem if the highway either went over the railroad or tunneled under it. Railroad bridges can be such a huge pain in the ass.
It's difficult but not impossible to replace an existing railroad bridge over a highway (such as when additional highway lanes are needed) but it can be done, and I have worked on a few. In general the railroads are sometimes difficult, but generally agreeable to, a highway over the railroad because there are minimal chances for disruption of rail traffic because the tracks can stay in place and the main risks are from setting beams, stuff falling from above during construction, or cutting signal/communication lines, all of which can be readily mitigated.
A new underpass under the railroad, where none existed before, especially in constrained conditions...good luck. Especially if you don't have enough room to work or build a "shoo-fly" run-around track to keep the trains moving and give yourself more freedom during construction. It's an order of magnitude more difficult than any other type of grade separation, and will involve getting track outages approved (often with time limits of how long the contractor can work before vacating the tracks), getting a crew from the railroad to remove and re-install the track multiple times, avoid hitting anything sensitive under the tracks like signal/communication lines, dealing with groundwater conditions and potential cave-ins during excavation, building things according to rigid railroad specs that may limit innovative construction methods if design variances aren't allowed.
I remember around 2002-03 when a new underpass was built on West Reynolds Road in Lexington, KY - cutting under a very busy NS mainline. Essentially, the narrow two-lane underpass was replaced with something much wider. As there could be no major disruptions to the line because there were no good alternatives for the trains to be routed over, the state and city/county government had to carefully coordinate when cut-overs could be installed to a temporary bridge that was built so the old span could be removed.
Quote from: seicer on March 29, 2022, 09:58:08 AM
I remember around 2002-03 when a new underpass was built on West Reynolds Road in Lexington, KY - cutting under a very busy NS mainline. Essentially, the narrow two-lane underpass was replaced with something much wider. As there could be no major disruptions to the line because there were no good alternatives for the trains to be routed over, the state and city/county government had to carefully coordinate when cut-overs could be installed to a temporary bridge that was built so the old span could be removed.
Was it that recent? For some reason, I thought that was widened earlier than that.
Of course, I don't go out Nicholasville Road very often these days and try to avoid the Fayette Mall area at all costs.
I think it's more hilarious that one US Route got rerouted over a butterfly habitat. :biggrin: