AMTRAK MEDIA ALERT: Amtrak Awarded Federal Funds for 12 Projects of National Significance (NEC)

As to Perryville, I don't see the Port Road connection ever being better than 15 mph, so those NS freight movements probably will have to be limited to midnight hours as at present. (If a flyover is ever provided for MARC crossover movements it will probably be cheaper if it doesn't have to accommodate freight trains--just cross them over on the level during the quiet times.)

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:31 pm Wait, where is the virginia flyover going to go?

From one side of the tracks to the other. It's to speed up switch-overs w/o fowling up an interlock.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 6:54 am

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:31 pm Wait, where is the virginia flyover going to go?

From one side of the tracks to the other. It's to speed up switch-overs w/o fowling up an interlock.

I know what a flyover is, I meant, what geographical location?

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:11 am I know what a flyover is, I meant, what geographical location?

Just south of Franconia-Springfield. It's called a "bypass" here:
https://vapassengerrailauthority.org/tr ... ld-bypass/

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:54 am

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:11 am I know what a flyover is, I meant, what geographical location?

Just south of Franconia-Springfield. It's called a "bypass" here:
https://vapassengerrailauthority.org/tr ... ld-bypass/

Oh, Duh, I blanked on that. I'm assuming that it's designed for 2 tracks eventually?
It looks more over built that the Flyovers PRR built in the 30s.

All 12 projects on this list are associated with just the Northeast Corridor. Sorry, no matter how much you repeat it, the NEC is not significant nationally. Only one region of over a dozen super regions is affected.

But the people who regularly travel on the NEC are engaged in activities that affect the entire country to an extent not found in other corridors, WFH notwithstanding.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 9:47 pm But the people who regularly travel on the NEC are engaged in activities that affect the entire country to an extent not found in other corridors, WFH notwithstanding.

Do you really believe that?
The people designing, building, and selling most products in the USA live elsewhere.
The people, drilling, refining and selling your fuel live elsewhere.
The people planting, farming, packaging, and selling your food live elsewhere.
The people actually buying the stocks live elsewhere, only the brokers live in NYC.
I'm sorry to strongly disagree with you on that point.

Never-the-less, I read elsewhere more railroad projects outside the NEC will get funding soon.
I just hope the projects are completed before 2035, which seems to be the earliest the NEC projects will be completed.

shows the "mega regions" of the USA.

The NEC neatly serves as a transportation spine in the Northeast region, which is approximately 17% of the US population. It seems to me that the Northeast and west coast regions are the only ones that don't have strong anti-public transportation or anti-urban political forces at the local and state levels (i.e., entities in the NEC are more likely to have "shovel ready" rail projects
(of the regions shown the Great Lakes region is the only larger region but is significantly less dense).

So, yes, the majority of Americans (~83% live elsewhere, but a project in the NEC is likely to directly affect more people than any project in any of the other regions or connecting any of the other regions.

That said, in terms of personal productivity, 7 of the 10 top states are on the NEC (the others are California, Washington, and Alaska). This does suggest that someone on the NEC is statistically more likely to contribute more to the US economy than someone in, say, Kansas.

Mr. Randall W, I think your reasoning that the Corridor is the only region at which there is overseas level of need and demand for intercity rail passenger service is sound. I wish that these advocacy groups would simply "get over it" with their contentions that there is like need in, say, Shelby MT for same as "there simply ain't".

However, certain Local jurisdictions, whether there be demand for such or not, have decided they wish to fund rail passenger service for whatever their reason may be. Amtrak is the only organization today that has the "institutional expertise" to operate an intercity passenger train. Therefore, I believe that Amtrak should remain a public agency national in scope.

However, that does not mean that there should be some "connect the dots National Network". Such was intended (according to the washroom walls in the CUS offices) to be an "ease the pain" exercise to last about five years after A-Day. Take it from one "who was there"; nobody ever envisioned that there would be any kind of "National Network" fifty years later - and, in view of that there are consultants feeding at the trough, such would be re-equipped for the second time with the idea that it will go on forever.

True, there is a segment of the population of "can't drives, won't flys" that choose to reside in rural areas (personally, I'm just about there myself, but I do not reside in a rural area), and contrary to what the advocacy community holds, the obligation to provide commercial transportation to these areas simply does not exist. Therefore, if there is an ostensible "need" for commercial transportation to accommodate this segment of the population, an intercity bus would provide same. Of course, no amenities such as Sleeping and Dining cars, but still the ride is there. On that point, let it be noted that there is no existing Amtrak station that is not accessible by public highway, so there is no argument such as can be made in Canada of "only available transportation" (having once ridden probably some 5000 miles around Mexico by train, the same argument applied down there. But that didn't stop the discontinuance of all trains, save a "tourist train here and there").

I think some may have taken my earlier post wrong. I am not arguing the Northeast Corridor is not worthy of some funding for rebuilding old structures. What I am arguing is that the Northeast Corridor projects should not be considered National projects. As the map posted by someone else of super regions, the Northeast is just one of many.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 4:06 pm I think the big thing here between BAL and Newark SEPTA is consistency. Right now the real contention points are PERRY (because only one side platform for Perryville and it's a 2 track-to-4-track interlock, but it's a terminus for MARC) and GUNPOW (4 track to 2 track, but MARC has to move ether from A to 2 or from 3 to 1 to access Martin State). If you remove those contention points, you get faster speeds because you're not waiting for a MARC to get out of the way.

That said, if we want to move everything over so that tracks A and 1 are MARC/freight, and 2/3 are Amtrak, you're still rebuilding stations but they're likely going to be more expensive as you can't reuse infrastructure and you'll need to build crossover bridges no matter what... and you still will have freight on track 3 because of the Clorox manufacturing plant and Gordon Food Service in Eastgate, MD.

Oh, and NS has a track connection/wye at Perryville on the northwest side. And Amtrak has a MOW yard on a Southeast side just up from there.

Um... maybe have a flyover between Martins State Airport and Edgewood so that the MARC trains can get from one side to the other, like they're going to do in Virginia?

That's the easiest solution IMO. The straight track north of the Gunpowder River and southwest of Edgewood MARC station looks to be approximately 13,000 feet long between the end of the curve beyond the bridge and the edge of the interlocking. That should be more than enough horizontal distance to build a bridge with good gradients on either side to allow MARC services to switch from one side of the formation to the other, and might be enough horizontal distance to build a bridge that NS freights could also use without losing too much speed.

The one project that the NEC neglects is speeding up the second Long Bridge.

west point wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 8:03 pm The one project that the NEC neglects is speeding up the second Long Bridge.

What speed ups are currently possible? The project schedule says that final design and engineering is scheduled to be completed next year and construction is also scheduled to begin next year and take up to six years. From my perspective, any opportunities for speed ups would occur after construction has started, to minimize delays and allow construction to accelerate where feasible.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:51 am and contrary to what the advocacy community holds, the obligation to provide commercial transportation to these areas simply does not exist. Therefore, if there is an ostensible "need" for commercial transportation to accommodate this segment of the population, an intercity bus would provide same.

Mr. Norman I must respectfully disagree. At the moment that obligation is there, and would require changes to the law to remove that obligation from Amtrak. As for busses as an alternative in my opinion that's just a waste of time and money. Take it from a "can't fly/won't drive" I have no desire to take a bus nor would I use it if it was given as the replacement option for the rail service I use - in many markets Amtrak operates in intercity bus service is already present and there's a reason it's nose dived ridership wise - people don't want to ride intercity busses. If the decision is made that serving passengers like me is not worthy of the costs, then just get rid of it altogether and forget about the busses. Most of us that "can but won't drive" will just drive at that point and have no interest in being stuffed on a Greyhound bus. Amtrak's budget is a rounding error in the federal budget at this point. I can think a lot of useless pork we can cut before we need to start going after services like Amtrak used by citizens.