Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

Two words: fleet cost.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 5:53 am Two words: fleet cost.

I will see your fleet cost and raise you a NIMBY.

In case most of you haven't been following NY politics, the state has decreed any new construction must have electric appliances in '26 and later. Most restaurants cook on gas stoves electric does not heat as evenly. Ask me how I know. No internal combustion engines to be sold after '35. I travel the state a lot for work and still see no improvements on the infrastructure that the state will need for the added electric use. The thinking in the state no coal little to no natural gas just water and solar.

Four years till I'm released cant wait to leave.

The year 2023 summer electric generation capacity in New York State is 68% natural gas and/or oil fired, 9% nuclear, 12% hydro, 6% wind, 4% pumped storage, less than 1% solar, and 1% other. https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2 ... Public.pdf. The real-time fuel mix generating electric power and energy in New York can be viewed here: https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard An excellent brief summary of the future transition process to maintain electric system adequacy and reliability can be found here: https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2 ... 6132420407

[quote=SRich post_id=1626044 time=1689936040 user_id=277408]

If Penn - Albany is going to be electrified doesn't require that Amtrak or NY state DOT buy the already leased line from CSX.

Electrifying the empire connection with 12(.5?) kV 25 Hz is a no brainer. The new Amtrak ICT's can use the pan from the MNRR connection to Penn, and use the pan from [s]Poughkeepsie[/s]Croton–Harmon.

Even MNRR can use the wires for their own, and over time the 3 rail can be replaced with AC.
[/quote]

The electrification of the whole NY area is very complicated. Basically we have 3 agencies involved. Amtrak, MNRR and New Jersy Transit. Can they agree on anything Electrification? I think not. IMO only a super agency that can knock heads together will really get to the ideal solution. There are 2 electric operation problems.
1. 3rd rail under running or over running, Not solvable under present conditions.
2. The 800 pound gorilla is the 25 HZ CAT specifically all of New York City till past the mid town direct connection of NJ Transit.
a. Even NJ Transit does not know what their long range plans are. However, if it is able to never have to buy another dual 25 / 60 Hz transformer it probably would be very happy?
b. If NYP and SSY became 60 Hz then MNRR would never have to worry about dual Hz transformers.
c. Until all of Amtrak is 60 Hz it cannot even think of getting rid of it dual Hz transformer equipment.
3. Amtrak will not allow anything but 60 Hz on the west side line to Spuyten. That will benefit if MNRR ever plans to run M-8 type equipment the Hudson line.
4. MNRR should also restore and install extension of its 60 Hz CAT thru the Spuyten wye. That is provide some service from CT when the Hell Gate line sooner or later is jammed up. As well it would give MNRR and Amtrak an alternate to use when West side line is jammed up. Both routes will get jammed up sooner or later for how long unknown.
5. tarting to add CAT from Croton or POU toward Albany also has much merit. Or instead start at Albany maintenance and go south. That will work well with the ICTs. You are probably correct that the CSX line will have to be purchased. Wonder if CSX will be audacious enough to try to boost price for the improvements that Amtrak has implemented?
6. Converting as much as possible to 60 Hz CAT will reduce the parasitic line loss of 3rd rail.
7. As for converting LIRR without difficulty except for some overhead problems to 60 Hz never happen (95% certain) except extensions of non-electrified lines.

So, with the various conflicting desires only a superagency with separate funding can bring all these operating efficiencies to a successful conclusion. Financing separate from any of these agencies. Call it Metropolitan electrification agency. MEA or MNYEA.

Maybe I can finally get this topic back on track (pun intended): HumanTransit.org

Amtrak’s Endless Ridership-vs-Coverage Problem

Amtrak is about to see more Federal funding than it’s had in decades, and is finally in the position to talk about major growth. But their “Amtrak Connects US” vision document is worth reading to notice two things: They continue to face a conflict between ridership goals and coverage goals, and they don’t feel that it’s safe to talk about that openly.
...
Amtrak wouldn’t draw its own map in this style, so somebody else did a put it on the internet. (This, by the way, is how the idea of showing frequency on local transit maps caught on in the US in the 2000s and 2010s: With encouragement and advice from this blog, impatient advocates drew the maps when the transit authority wouldn’t and this helped give the transit authorities the courage to do it themselves. Today, at least in the US, most major agencies show some indication of frequency in their mapping.) Sure enough, Yonah Freemark has already drawn a frequency based map of the Amtrak plan!


...
But you won’t find this map in Amtrak’s report, and I can imagine the internal conversation over why. “It will make it look like we hate North Dakota!” Yes, indeed, in the US there are many states with lots of land, two senators, but very few people. Amtrak is planning for ridership, so it doesn’t propose to improve service there. Ignoring North Dakota is the very essence of how Amtrak will build ridership.
...

That's a good diagram. It shows how sparse Amtrak's service outside of a few areas. One could improve on it by painting on it markers that indicate how populous each place is. Does anyone want to do that? I'm thinking of doing so myself.

Doing so would show how sparse Amtrak service is, because there are some populous cites with very limited service.

FRA Version: fra-enhanced-long-distance-network-map-t175821.html

west point wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:24 pm 3. Amtrak will not allow anything but 60 Hz on the west side line to Spuyten. That will benefit if MNRR ever plans to run M-8 type equipment the Hudson line.
4. MNRR should also restore and install extension of its 60 Hz CAT thru the Spuyten wye. That is provide some service from CT when the Hell Gate line sooner or later is jammed up. As well it would give MNRR and Amtrak an alternate to use when West side line is jammed up. Both routes will get jammed up sooner or later for how long unknown.
5. tarting to add CAT from Croton or POU toward Albany also has much merit. Or instead start at Albany maintenance and go south. That will work well with the ICTs. You are probably correct that the CSX line will have to be purchased. Wonder if CSX will be audacious enough to try to boost price for the improvements that Amtrak has implemented?

There's two things that stood out here I wanted to quickly comment on.
The Spuyten Wye no longer exists, it hasn't for awhile. I understand that in theory why it could be put back, the resistance is that the turnouts would be in less than desirable locations. That said, I think operationally, it would add the options you mention.

The second is something I had not thought of (and honestly wasn't really an option until the current thinking on new locomotives) and that's starting "small" with catenary at Albany. Several years ago, I had exchanged some emails with Judith Enck who was a former EPA regional coordinator covering that area about at the very least installing hotel power in Albany to reduce the amount of idling the locomotives did there. At the time, with the P42DCs were the primary movers.

But with the move to new tri-power locomotives, the idea of starting with catenary in Albany, if only to reduce pollution and gradually "growing" it south and west may have some merit. I like this idea.

That said, I don't expect it to happen, sadly.

Tri power?

One drawback about reinstalling the wye at Spuyten D is almost certainly a speed restriction of 15 mph in approach and while the entire train is passing through it. I think Amtrak is allowed 45 mph en route to the Hudson Line; they'd need to be careful not to schedule an Empire Service too close behind a train headed for the wye.