Now, if you’re into track diagrams. Here’s a detailed rundown of the current conditions of the H-Line as of 2007. I’ve started the pages at MP H40 at Hillsborough and it goes to MP H110 at Selma. The CP’s or control points are in blue lettering between ‘Existing Alignment’ and ‘Proposed Layout.’
So, the speed limits of the current track conditions aren’t too bad.
Now, watch what happens from Fetner to Goldsboro, especially MP H84.2 in South Raleigh to MP H90 beyond Garner at I-40. Very curvy. But, I don’t imagine that the line is capable of being straightened too much south of downtown as it goes in and around the State Highway Patrol training academy as well as their driving track. The State Bureau of Investigation isn’t likely going to budge much, either.
Some of the speed restrictions might better be addressed with crossing closures and grade separations. A big intervention could be done between Jones Sausage Road and Interstate 40 to relax the curve there. The I-40 bridge is currently single-track with no provision for a second. So, either it’s replaced, or an additional bridge is going to have to be built.
Pretty astounding tidbit of information from the Engineering Department of the North Carolina Rail Road…
2.0 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following general guidelines shall govern the development of the designs of projects on, or impacting, the NCRR corridor. However, these are guidelines only and the detailed scope of any individual project needs to be developed with and confirmed by both NCRR and NSR.
The NCRR Piedmont Main Line between Greensboro and Charlotte is designated by NSR Strategic Planning as a Core Rail Line while the NCRR H-Line between Raleigh and Greensboro is designated as a Tactical Rail Line. These designations guide some of the requirements herein.
2.1 Designing for Future Capacity
The design and construction of bridges, retaining walls and other features on the NCRR right of way shall take into consideration the potential for construction of additional tracks and other railroad facilities to accommodate future capacity to support potential freight and passenger rail services. The designer shall verify any additional site specific considerations with the NCRR Vice President – Engineering. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following.
2.2 Future Track Requirements
The construction of additional tracks on the NCRR corridor to support both potential freight and passenger rail operations is anticipated. In general, projects shall be designed to accommodate the following:
On the NCRR Piedmont Main Line provide for four main tracks (two additional main tracks in addition to the two existing main tracks). Additional sidings and other auxiliary tracks may also be required at site specific locations.
On the NCRR H-Line between Greensboro (Milepost H-0) and Selma (Milepost H-109.3) provide for four main tracks (three additional main tracks in addition to the one existing main track). An exception is that projects designed for the portion of the corridor between Cary (Fetner) and Raleigh (Boylan) shall accommodate a total of four tracks (two additional tracks in addition to the two existing tracks). Additional sidings and other auxiliary tracks may also be required at site specific locations.
On the NCRR H-Line between Selma (Milepost H-109.3) and Goldsboro (Milepost H-130) provide for three main tracks (two additional main tracks in addition to the one existing main track). Additional sidings and other auxiliary tracks may also be required at site specific locations.
On the NCRR EC-Line provide for three main tracks (two additional main tracks in addition to the one existing main track). Additional sidings and other auxiliary tracks may also be required at site specific locations.
In January 2017, NCRR completed the NCRR Future Track Infrastructure Planning Study that shows the potential location of future additional main tracks on the NCRR corridor. The purpose of the study is to provide guidance to agencies, designers and planners for the evaluation and design of projects impacting the NCRR corridor. Plans and electronic files are available from NCRR upon request.
The DOLRT was going to ask the NCRR to give up/sell part of their right of way to GoTriangle. DOLRT was for light-rail. And, those carriages could not have run on a standard freight corridor.
This would have greatly constrained the NCRR’s ability to expand their main line as they laid out in their Engineering Guidelines.
GoTriangle Rail will meet the heavier weight standards; thus, allowing them tenancy on NCRR’s track.
Now, if DOLRT had decided to operate on Pettigrew Street, it might have happened (if Duke had not thrown in their objections).
That being said, a DOBRT could do just that with Duke not being able to object since GoDurham buses and campus buses move up/down Erwin Road all of the time.
But, there are still the issues with the grade crossings at Corcoran and Mangum.
I am not generally one to succumb to conspiracy theories. But in this case, I am inclined to make an exception.
Complicating the picture is that there are folks with strongly vested interests in maintaining the status quo of extremely high construction costs. This could includes engineering firms, construction contractors, even in some cases people on the inside of transit agencies (in some cases there is a revolving door between agency management and the engineering firms they contract with.) Those entities also have the benefit of being politically connected; their political connections may potentially be on the dole, whether or not they understand that these entities are essentially crooked and stealing money by making these projects excessively expensive. I just can’t escape the feeling that the main reason that this seems like such an intractable problem is that there is an enormous constituency that benefits from keeping it so.
By the time that the light rail project met its demise, Gotriangle had already agreed to locate it in the Pettigrew Street right-of-way, which was within the 200 foot wide NCRR corridor, but had already been ceded by NCRR for use by other types of Transportation than conventional rail.
A four track railroad doesn’t take up that much space. Each track takes up something like 15 to 20 ft. and when you consider that this Corridor is being used for High-Speed Rail, commuter rail, and freight trains, and that the Piedmont corridor links three of the fastest growing metros in the country, the need to reserve some space for some extra tracks (yes, four) seems self evident.
Raleigh is sitting pretty now with RUS/RGH in place. Cary and Durham are going to have to feel some pain to reengineer their downtowns.
Durham, in a hindsight kinda way, is going to have to undo the short-sidedness of having torn down their Union Station in 1968 when they gave priority to that car-centric Downtown Loop.
These changes are going to be just as significant as the trench dug through High Point in the 1930’s and the embankment built through Greensboro in the 1920’s.
The recent insistence on grade separating basically every crossing makes more sense now, since FRA regulations prohibit new grade crossings in quad-tracked territory.
Durham and Cary should both go for split grade separation solutions where roads are lowered a few feet and the rails are raised a few feet.
Raleigh has some pain waiting too, with the eventual closure of the crossings at Hargett and Jones Street coming at some point.
Yeah. I kinda of wondered about that. They’ve set up standards for what would look like a Class I Road with a high volume of freight coming through.
But, yet, in 20 years, they’ve not done much with their own budget to upgrade the line except maybe that new bridge they put in at NC54 in Durham, adding an extra track at Selma Yard, and the bridge replacement ongoing over Crabtree Creek in Morrisville.
The rest of the upgrades have been with state and federal money. So, are they hoping that they can continue ambitious improvements with that same funding steam? Hmmmm.
@dbearhugnc and @orulz, you guys are hard to fully follow with all the train speak, but I do have to say it’s fascinating and your insight and contributions to this community are very appreciated.
Is the Crabtree creek bridge project just to replace/update the existing infrastructure or is there any improvement (like speed/comfort related) in that project?
The new Crabtree Creek bridge replaces a century old structure. It is being built to accommodate a double track, and there will be room for a greenway underneath.
Weight accommodation, passenger/freight speeds, and geometry specs are included. But, there’s not much curve relaxation going on that I’ve seen unlike what was done over Morrisville Parkway.
I work right around the corner from this location. They are only working on the bridge. There is nothing happening at the interaction with Aviation/Morrisville-Carpenter Road. Wish they were at least moving forward with a second track through that area.
Morrisville-Carpenter/Aviation is going to be a big mess to engineer around. There is a STIP for the widening of Aviation Parkway and a current budget of $6.7M. But, nothing’s been done about the intersection and grade crossing.
McCrimmon Parkway and Airport Boulevard are at about the same place, but a little further along. Widen McCrimmon first at Davis Drive, then go for the grade separation. At least it has a STIP (U-5747B) and a $37.M budget with a development window between 2020 and 2024.
No second track at Crabtree creek yet, but the bridge deck is wide enough to accommodate one.
The old bridge at Crabtree Creek was the most rickety piece of junk I have seen, a steel bridge with tem-permanent timber cribbing under it to support it.
The project would have been done sooner, except they went back and modified the design to include space for a greenway crossing underneath. I am looking forward to that crossing, since it is on my bike-to-work route.
NCRR does not view themselves as a freight railroad. I think their 1840 charter explicitly mentions passenger operations. If their sole shareholder (the state of NC) tells them to accommodate passenger trains, short of breaching the lease agreement with Norfolk Southern, they will do so.
Their revenue stream is limited, for sure, but NCDOT and the feds have not hesitated to pour some money in and it is reasonable enough to expect that to continue to plan for it, IMO.
That said, I do wonder how much that is jacking the cost of the commuter rail line.
