NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/railroad/10974

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!ulowell!news.bbn.com!olivea!tymix!niagara!romeo
From: [e-mail] (Michael Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: NEC
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:01:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)
Lines: 82
Nntp-Posting-Host: niagara

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph Brennan) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael
>Stimac) writes:

>>Zoo Junction *is* part of the corridor!
. . .
>>So, for operations, they cannot be "operated separately".

>Schedules for Main Line--30th St Upper trains can be made out with no
>reference to schedules of Northeast Corridor--30th St Lower trains.
>Likewise, late running on one of the two routings would not cause any
>conflicting use of one track or block the other routing.  This seems
>significant to me, that's all.  It's not as if the Main and NEC merged
>at Zoo and then diverged again into the two 30th St approaches; rather
>the two 30th St approaches are distinct already as a train moves south
>out of the Zoo triangle.

>Of course the routings are not totally independent in at least two
>respects-- firstly, Zoo is a single interlocking, and secondly, many
>other trains run a routing Northeast Corridor--30th St Upper.
>Compare, though, a case where any two rail lines cross and there are
>some trains running from one line into the other-- there too you would
>have a single interlocking and some interdependence of scheduling.
>Zoo is of course a LOT more complex than that.

>There is good reason to say all of Zoo is part of the corridor; there
>is also reason to distinguish the parts of Zoo between those tracks
>used by corridor train services and others.  I see it both ways.

Joe, this is really more of a philosophical question, as we both
seem to realize by now. I fully agree that, given a 'standard'
routing the trains can be scheduled independently, and I agree that
this is an important consideration. (why else would Zoo be the
extraordinary plant that it is). My only objection is to thinking
that some of the tracks at Zoo are not part of the corridor.

Could we compromise by saying that the 30th upper trains going
west go *through* the NEC?

>How do you consider the freight High Line past 30th St?  he asks
>fiendishly.

Who owns it? I'd say that if Amtrak owns it, then it is part of
the NEC. And, in the past, revenue passengers were carried over
that track on occasion. (a challenge for Pennsy buffs: what was
the occasion?)

>>Next you'll tell me that 0 track and 5 track, et al, are not
>>part of the corridor either! Get real!
>
>This refers to the 5th and 6th track, right?  I don't know of any
>places where there is any reason to say so.

Right. Using your rather strict definition of "NEC", then tracks
5 and 6 would not be part of the corridor, as freight trains
doing local work can operate (almost) fully independently of the
north-south passenger trains.

What about a SEPTA operated branch line, say the Chestnut Hill line,
would you say that is part of NEC?

If anyone besides Joe and myself is still reading this, they
might like to know that Zoo is not named for the maze of
approach tracks and the jungle of turnouts, but rather for its
proximity to the Philadelphia Zoological Gardens. In spite of
this, though, I expect that more than once a frustrated lever
man has thought to himself, "it's a zoo out there!".

Zoo controls the junction of 5 northward tracks, the merge of
5 westward tracks to 3 tracks, 19 southward tracks, 15 tracks
associated with a yard immediately adjacent, and 2 northwestward
tracks. The switch and signal lever numbers go well over 200.

If this weren't enough, there used to be a freight yard (Mantua
Yard) inside the triangle formed by the junction!

Michael Stimac
--
Michael Stimac
[phone]
[e-mail]
These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.