CSX rails, rough riding?

[optom2020]

I was just wondering why when riding Amtrak on the CSX rails south of Washington, D.C. seem to be a rougher ride?

 

[AAARGH!]

I was just wondering why when riding Amtrak on the CSX rails south of Washington, D.C. seem to be a rougher ride?

Because it is CSX! They don't maintain their tracks as well as the others.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I was just wondering why when riding Amtrak on the CSX rails south of Washington, D.C. seem to be a rougher ride?

Because it is CSX! They don't maintain their tracks as well as the others.

It also has to do with terrain. CSX doesn't do as good a job as say BNSF or NS but both of those companies have large stretches of flat land. South of DC , depending on your route, it could be the foothills of the mountains, the banks of rivers, or flatter land near the coast.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

CSX' motto is we don't care about saftey if a train or 2 derails oh well that's just the part of doing business CN has the same motto.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I doubt the FRA is very be pleased with that motto.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

Its not to to to bad. The Atlantic Coastline tracks aren't to bad at least as far as CLT.

 

[TVRM610]

Terrain has nothing to do with it... the NS Crescent line has crazy terrain and is way more smooth then the flat stretches of CSX track on the Silver Trains. CSX has terrible track maintenance... but it makes for a fun ride! Especially on the LSL... there are times where you feel like your flying if they hit those switches right!

 

[wayman]

Terrain has nothing to do with it... the NS Crescent line has crazy terrain and is way more smooth then the flat stretches of CSX track on the Silver Trains. CSX has terrible track maintenance... but it makes for a fun ride! Especially on the LSL... there are times where you feel like your flying if they hit those switches right!

I've heard that CSX's corporate policy is "the longer we defer maintenance, the better our short-term profit (who cares about long-term, that's the next guy's problem, we'll have vested and cashed out by then)".

Whereas what I've read of NS's corporate policy suggests it's more like "the stronger we make our infrastructure, the more revenue we can generate".

Which one of these is better? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[rail_rider]

I've always thought the BNSF track through Iowa was rough. A few nights I've been nearly tossed out of my bunk going through there. Denver to Iowa is good but then it goes downhill fast. I've often attributed it to faster speed as a lot of time is made up through there going into Chicago.

 

[henryj]

Terrain has nothing to do with it... the NS Crescent line has crazy terrain and is way more smooth then the flat stretches of CSX track on the Silver Trains. CSX has terrible track maintenance... but it makes for a fun ride! Especially on the LSL... there are times where you feel like your flying if they hit those switches right!

the time I rode it I thought we were flying. At least I was as I don't think I was touching the bunk. lol.

 

[TrackWalker]

I've always thought the BNSF track through Iowa was rough. A few nights I've been nearly tossed out of my bunk going through there. Denver to Iowa is good but then it goes downhill fast. I've often attributed it to faster speed as a lot of time is made up through there going into Chicago.

Last May, whilst on the CZ in Iowa the Conductor got on the PA system and announced that the next 28 miles of track was jointed rail and to hold on for the rough ride.

 

[user 683]

Yes - mainly south of Raleigh, NC

 

[user 1215]

I wonder how much of it is the track and how much is equipment. I know that the Bombardier Bi-Level cars seem to have a whole lot more cushion in them than anything on the Amtrak fleet (except, perhaps, Acela & Talgo) - including the Superliners and Viewliners. I've been 79 MPH on jointed track on the New Mexico Railrunner and it was as smooth as silk.

Then there was the ride on the Silvers... But frankly, I think I had a better ride in a sleeper on the Star than I did on the tiptop bunk of a Superliner on the SWC. Talk about being glad that there were straps on the bunk...

 

[leemell]

I wonder how much of it is the track and how much is equipment. I know that the Bombardier Bi-Level cars seem to have a whole lot more cushion in them than anything on the Amtrak fleet (except, perhaps, Acela & Talgo) - including the Superliners and Viewliners. I've been 79 MPH on jointed track on the New Mexico Railrunner and it was as smooth as silk.
Then there was the ride on the Silvers... But frankly, I think I had a better ride in a sleeper on the Star than I did on the tiptop bunk of a Superliner on the SWC. Talk about being glad that there were straps on the bunk...

We went through Montana/North Dakota on the eastbound EB at night and portions were so bad I really had some fear of derailment.

 

[bretton88]

I've always thought the BNSF track through Iowa was rough. A few nights I've been nearly tossed out of my bunk going through there. Denver to Iowa is good but then it goes downhill fast. I've often attributed it to faster speed as a lot of time is made up through there going into Chicago.

Last May, whilst on the CZ in Iowa the Conductor got on the PA system and announced that the next 28 miles of track was jointed rail and to hold on for the rough ride.

That is funny :lol: ! But, as I work for the Iowa Department of Transportation, can tell you why it is that way. In short, the BNSF line through Iowa is on marshy terrain that should never have been built on. BNSF tries its hardest to keep it up to 50mph class, but can not, without major investment, get it up any further because of the unsteady ground the rail is built on. This line can not have CWR, in sections, because it needs the joints to maintain the needed flexibility. This is sufficient for the many coal trains BNSF runs on the route, but not for amtrak. Now, this is where the state of Iowa (and thus my job) comes in. Iowa is proposing to invest 40 million dollars in improving the line, rebuilding the bad parts (stabilizing it so it can have CWR, and requires much less maintenance), adding CTC signal points, so amtrak can pass coal trains without stopping, eliminating slow zones and reducing the future need for slow zones, and holding BNSF to a 75% OTP on the line through Iowa, We are asking for some federal funding, so, if we get it, it will be fixed in 2 years! We will all sadly miss the conductor's sense of humor about this stretch though.

 

[GG-1]

I've always thought the BNSF track through Iowa was rough. A few nights I've been nearly tossed out of my bunk going through there. Denver to Iowa is good but then it goes downhill fast. I've often attributed it to faster speed as a lot of time is made up through there going into Chicago.

Last May, whilst on the CZ in Iowa the Conductor got on the PA system and announced that the next 28 miles of track was jointed rail and to hold on for the rough ride.

That is funny :lol: ! But, as I work for the Iowa Department of Transportation, can tell you why it is that

snip

75% OTP on the line through Iowa, We are asking for some federal funding, so, if we get it, it will be fixed in 2 years! We will all sadly miss the conductor's sense of humor about this stretch though.

Aloha

I have no Idea if the roughest I was on is the same you described but as the conductor came through I said to him "arn't the horses susposed to be up front, and not that we were actually riding a horse" He lauphed and blamed the track.

 

[rail_rider]

I've always thought the BNSF track through Iowa was rough. A few nights I've been nearly tossed out of my bunk going through there. Denver to Iowa is good but then it goes downhill fast. I've often attributed it to faster speed as a lot of time is made up through there going into Chicago.

Last May, whilst on the CZ in Iowa the Conductor got on the PA system and announced that the next 28 miles of track was jointed rail and to hold on for the rough ride.

That is funny :lol: ! But, as I work for the Iowa Department of Transportation, can tell you why it is that way. In short, the BNSF line through Iowa is on marshy terrain that should never have been built on. BNSF tries its hardest to keep it up to 50mph class, but can not, without major investment, get it up any further because of the unsteady ground the rail is built on. This line can not have CWR, in sections, because it needs the joints to maintain the needed flexibility. This is sufficient for the many coal trains BNSF runs on the route, but not for amtrak. Now, this is where the state of Iowa (and thus my job) comes in. Iowa is proposing to invest 40 million dollars in improving the line, rebuilding the bad parts (stabilizing it so it can have CWR, and requires much less maintenance), adding CTC signal points, so amtrak can pass coal trains without stopping, eliminating slow zones and reducing the future need for slow zones, and holding BNSF to a 75% OTP on the line through Iowa, We are asking for some federal funding, so, if we get it, it will be fixed in 2 years! We will all sadly miss the conductor's sense of humor about this stretch though.

Thanks for the great explanation! The jointed track over the unsteady ground makes you feel like your on a bronco. The time table must have a lot of built in time through Iowa as we always seem to make up for delays between Denver and Omaha. I hope the money comes through for the upgrade and CWR, I fear if it does I might not wake in time for breakfast.

 

[railiner]

I was reading through these posts with some surprise at the comments. I haven't ridden Amtrak for many years, but I can remember when some of the components of CSX mentioned had particularly good rides. Especially the old B&O between Pittsburgh and WAS, even though it is almost all mountainous territory. Perhaps it was because of the relatively slow speed of operation?