Rebuilding Northeast corridor infrastructure

As someone who actually worked on the original NECIP (about a half a lifetime ago), I find all this discussion by self-appointed experts amusing.

Two and a half hour nonstop timings NYP to WAS were achieved three decades ago with the original EMU Metroliners. If you want to go faster than that, and make stops, everybody knows where the bottlenecks are at this point:

1) NYP to Newark
2) The side-platform station at Metropark
3) Trackage from Zoo through 30th Street
4) The two-track segments between "Bacon" interlocking and "Bay" interlockings in Maryland
5) The Baltimore tunnels
6) BWI station and the three-track railroad between "Fulton Junction" and "Landover", which is congested with MARC local trains

Wilmington is a non-event. You're not going to skip it with many trains, if any. And the bottlenecks north and south of the station are being addressed by the state of Delaware right now (third track "Yard" to "Ragan"; proposed third track "Wine" to "Landlith"; proposed third track "Bell" to "Holly Oak").

Graham Claytor had the right idea, which Amtrak has pursued since the departure of George Warrington -- don't focus on more 150 MPH running; rather, speed up the slow spots. Over the last decade, Amtrak has installed a number of #32.7 turnouts at various interlockings. These raise crossover speeds from 45 MPH to 80 MPH, greatly increasing flexibility by reducing the time cost of moving from track to track.

A new route through Baltimore would save at least eight minutes of run time by itself. Do some work around Philly, and you could probably get another eight. Now we're down to 2:15 nonstop, and we can go from there.

Let me offer a lawyer and member's perspective - this is not a mod note.

In court, witness testimony is given weight. Convicted criminals are given little weight, citizens are given middle weight, and sworn officers of the law [police] are given high weight. If you think about it, it just makes sense to trust a cop more than a drug dealer - all references to "The Shield" aside.

In the case of railfan testimony on the internet, NellieBly is one of those people I've come to trust as a member since I joined in 2003. I've found NellieBly has a very accurate perspective and is quite informative - up there with Nasadowsk on electrical stuff and the T&E guys on train movement issues. In other words, I give NellieBly high weight as a poster and member. Further, NellieBly's citation of theory by Graham Claytor strengthens the above post. It's well known that the years under Claytor at Amtrak and Southern were good years, possibly the best years at Amtrak.

The theory posited is that we don't focus on 150mph running and instead work on slow-speed bottlenecks. It sounds like the next task is Philly and Baltimore and I take that as one of the most accurate viewpoints.

NellieBly wrote:As someone who actually worked on the original NECIP (about a half a lifetime ago), I find all this discussion by self-appointed experts amusing.

Two and a half hour nonstop timings NYP to WAS were achieved three decades ago with the original EMU Metroliners. If you want to go faster than that, and make stops, everybody knows where the bottlenecks are at this point:

1) NYP to Newark
2) The side-platform station at Metropark
3) Trackage from Zoo through 30th Street
4) The two-track segments between "Bacon" interlocking and "Bay" interlockings in Maryland
5) The Baltimore tunnels
6) BWI station and the three-track railroad between "Fulton Junction" and "Landover", which is congested with MARC local trains

Wilmington is a non-event. You're not going to skip it with many trains, if any. And the bottlenecks north and south of the station are being addressed by the state of Delaware right now (third track "Yard" to "Ragan"; proposed third track "Wine" to "Landlith"; proposed third track "Bell" to "Holly Oak").

Graham Claytor had the right idea, which Amtrak has pursued since the departure of George Warrington -- don't focus on more 150 MPH running; rather, speed up the slow spots. Over the last decade, Amtrak has installed a number of #32.7 turnouts at various interlockings. These raise crossover speeds from 45 MPH to 80 MPH, greatly increasing flexibility by reducing the time cost of moving from track to track.

A new route through Baltimore would save at least eight minutes of run time by itself. Do some work around Philly, and you could probably get another eight. Now we're down to 2:15 nonstop, and we can go from there.

A very good summary. I, and certainly others as well, would like to hear what you have to say about improvements to NYP - BOS. And yes, please include New Rochelle - New Haven for argument's sake.

NellieBly wrote:Do some work around Philly, and you could probably get another eight. Now we're down to 2:15 nonstop, and we can go from there.

Please tell us more about what the work around Philly should be (anybody). I'm interested in learning more. Is this just the tracks from 30th to the Zoo?

I think the recent discussion in this thread is indicative of many of my clashings on this forum. I think long term. The culture on the board tends toward the shorter term. The benefit of this culture is that lurkers and participants are educated about the facts on the ground and the feasible next steps; misunderstandings are corrected. The downside is that thinking about the next steps after those is shunned and creativity is squashed.

For instance, with respect to the discussion about Wilmington. I know that Baltimore is a much more important project. I fully believe there is more time to quicken the trip through Philly (though I want to learn more specifics). But, once we're down to 2:15 nonstop, were do we go from there? (to borrow NellieBly's words). One idea is to take ~5 minutes out and add capacity through by passing Wilmington. I'm not sure it is the best idea, but most of the posts ridiculing it aren't offing constructive alternatives. With respect to the number of Acela's that we "need," we certainly don't need 12 more tomorrow or next year, but from my point of view, there better be a time in the future when we do. I just checked Paris-Brussels, and there are 23 direct Thalys trips between 6 am and 10 pm. (There are also 16 1-change trains.)

Eventually, the capacity of the NEC will get to be a much bigger issue than it is already. One idea is to build a completely new high speed line from Washington to New York, costing unimaginable billions of dollars. I think it might be a better idea to load up the existing NEC with bypasses and flyovers that add capacity and increase speed. Either way, the discussion is about a future a few decades away.

Maybe I need to be more clear about when I'm thinking long-term as opposed to short term.

NellieBly wrote: And the bottlenecks north and south of the station are being addressed by the state of Delaware right now (third track "Yard" to "Ragan"; proposed third track "Wine" to "Landlith"; proposed third track "Bell" to "Holly Oak").

Only the "Yard" to "Ragan" segment really qualifies as being addressed "now" (meaning in construction this summer . . . hopefully). And that's taken years of negotiations between Delaware, Amtrak, Septa, Norfolk Southern, the Federal Transit Administration, and, yes, the FRA.

The other two are likely decades away, if they happen at all.

States as a driving force in corridor infrastructure investment sounds great on paper, and it certainly seems to work well in places like New Jersey . . . but it can also add a lot of "middlemen" to the process, and prolong things greatly.

Tadman wrote:The theory posited is that we don't focus on 150mph running and instead work on slow-speed bottlenecks. It sounds like the next task is Philly and Baltimore and I take that as one of the most accurate viewpoints.

Baltimore is already underway. $60 million was appropriated in the 2008 Railroad Safety Improvement Act for study and engineering of tunnels in Baltimore.

The primary target of this appropriation is Amtrak, which owns the B&P and Union tunnels, but the language does seem to leave the door open for for other carriers to get in on the action too (namely, CSX with its Howard Street tunnel.)

The bill assigns a deadline of September 30, 2013 for completion of an EIS and selection of an alternative.

orulz wrote: The primary target of this appropriation is Amtrak, which owns the B&P and Union tunnels, but the language does seem to leave the door open for for other carriers to get in on the action too (namely, CSX with its Howard Street tunnel.)

The bill assigns a deadline of September 30, 2013 for completion of an EIS and selection of an alternative.

If I were detraining in Baltimore, ideally it would be, say, lexington market (which is adjacent the howard street tunnel)where there's the LRT and the subway (as well as a minor tourist attraction that could use some extra foot traffic). Faidley's crab cakes before catching a train? It's also a short walk to the harbor.

orulz wrote:Baltimore is already underway. $60 million was appropriated in the 2008 Railroad Safety Improvement Act for study and engineering of tunnels in Baltimore.

I think that the money was authorized by RSIA, but I'm not sure that any funds have been appropriated yet.

Graham Claytor had the right idea, which Amtrak has pursued since the departure of George Warrington -- don't focus on more 150 MPH running; rather, speed up the slow spots

Why not both? This is the latter end of the first decade of the 2000s, after all. Speeding up the slow spots on traditional corridors was pretty much achieved by both SNCF and Deutsche Bundesbahn in the 1970s, so that got their own "toaster"-hauled intercity trains up to as fast as they were capable of (SNCF with the 21000-class, DB with their 103-class). Continuing the 1970s-era approach will of course benefit both Acela and Regional, but it won't make the Acela look very good by comparison with its 1970s-era siblings — only getting average speeds into the triple digits will make Acela look worth it.

NellieBly wrote:A new route through Baltimore would save at least eight minutes of run time by itself. Do some work around Philly, and you could probably get another eight.

Tell us more about those routes that save eight minutes apiece. Where will they split from the present route at each end? Will they pass thru (or beneath) the present stations? Will they be all tunnel?

hi55us wrote:

Tom V wrote:3.) Constant tension cantenary between New Haven and Washington DC

3.) You mean New Rochelle-Washington (amtrak does not own NRC-NHV)

And in fact Metro-North is in the midst of putting in constant tension catenary NRC-NHV, if they haven't finished already. Plus, to complement this, Amtrak is already putting in constant tension catenary on the Hell Gate line (really just to avoid later redundant work around Shell Interlocking, I suspect -- from what I could tell it sounded like the new catenary ends shortly after the bridge itself, before the interlockings connecting to the LIRR tracks and Penn Station).

Furthermore, I doubt it matters much for the Penn Station trackage, or the East River tunnels, or Sunnyside Yard or Harold Interlocking. So really you can just say "constant tension catenary New York to Washington".

amtrakowitz wrote:As for Metro-North and the Connecticut DOT's part of the Northeast Corridor, not only is the dispatching favorable to Metro-North, but the track classes and signaling are not conducive to operation faster than 70-90 mph, and Amtrak is forbidden to use the Acela's active-tilt on that part of the NEC. Metro-North has been upgrading the wires to constant tension though, IIRC.

The track alignment isn't conducive to faster operation either. I believe the tilt is prohibited because the tracks are dangerously close together? Narrow right-of-way is a curse.

The right of way can't be too narrow, with four tracks and 10' 6" commuter cars running on it (the Acela is 10' 4" wide, narrower than Budd Cosmopolitans, Bombardier "Shoreliners" and Amfleets by two inches; AAR Plate B freight cars are 10' 8" wide). If the track centers are 12 feet or narrower (where would they be narrower except perhaps on subway/light rail?), then you're in danger of sideswiping at any speed, tilt or no tilt.

Let's try to save eight minutes thru Philadelphia--

A NY-Washington train on the new line splits away from the present line at the west bank of the Schuylkill River and curves left on a 0-deg 46.3-minute curve to end up running along Preston St http://tinyurl.com/dmx6ul ; it continues straight across Market St and a few hundred feet farther, then curves right on a 0-deg 51.3-minute curve to rejoin the present line at 49th St http://tinyurl.com/dajkp5 . (I didn't bother spiralling the curves, so the actual curves would be slightly sharper, but they're still good for 100 mph or more.)

Present line is 4.0 miles from the bank of the river to 49th St; running time for a nonstop is about 7 1/2 minutes. The new line is 1.2 miles shorter, so at 100 mph time is 1.68 minutes. Total saving will of course be slightly more than 6 minutes when we include the saving beyond the ends of the line change, but it won't add up to 8 minutes, so looks like we'll have to iron out Frankford curve too-- that might just do it.

What about the S turn at Elizabeth NJ, trains slow down big time for that curve.