Amtrak seeks aid for Boston-NYC spans

Amtrak is asking for money to fix three spans on the NEC

here is the story:

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=10806

Amtrak should have gotten the money twenty years ago, as well as the missing money to convert the former PRR to 25kV 60Hz. However, Washington likes to pretend that railroad bridges don't need maintenance, seems to me.

One thing I'm not clear on is this: do the bridges need to be extensively refurbished, or completely replaced? How would Amtrak go about building a new bridge without severing the NEC for the duration of the project?

I've seen cases with highways where they build a new bridge right next to an old one, and then re-route traffic onto the new bridge when it's complete and tear the old one down. But does Amtrak own enough property adjacent to these bridges to be able to do that?

Some of the bridges between New Haven and the New York State Line
are probably also ripe for major work.
Unfortunately, there are no really good alternative routes any more, the
only thing available is the Springfield Line then the B. & A. east to Boston.
There are capacity problems that way and they are at the mercy of CSX,
don't think it would work out very well.
It will be very costly to replace these bridges if indeed that is what has to
be done.
Stormy days ahead, in my opinion.
Noel Weaver

that the bridges span navigable waterway may make it easier to replace them . its probably possible to prefrabricate new spans , do all prep work , then remove and replace the spans in a weekend . the new spans could be barged in and postiioned by floating cranes .

"I've seen cases with highways where they build a new bridge right next to an old one, and then re-route traffic onto the new bridge when it's complete and tear the old one down. But does Amtrak own enough property adjacent to these bridges to be able to do that?"

That's exactly what Amtrak did when they replaced the NEC drawbridge at Mystic (Connecticut) in the 1980s -- they built the new one alongside the old one and rerouted the line when it was done. When the Metro-North drawbridge at Bridgeport was replaced in the 1990s, temporary bridgework carried traffic for a couple years. But the Thames River draw at New London is so large that it probably isn't practical to take either of those approaches.

I'm under the impression that the issue at New London is the movable drawspan, not the fixed portion of the bridge, so I'd be surprised if a complete replacement is required.

"If you're telling me that those bridges could fail tomorrow, why haven't they been up there [in Congress] pounding the tables?" the Somerville Democrat said. "Do they want these bridges to fail, somehow thinking that's going to get our attention? That's a hell of a way to do politics." --Rep. Michael E. Capuano.

Pounding the tables and not giving Amtrak adequate funding is one hell of a way to do politics. Where has this politician been hiding out? And he is on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee? It's been in Amtrak's capital improvement plan since Gunn announced his "state of good repair" program. And Amtrak has been pounding the tables. I've even heard Gunn address this topic on radio programs and at a DC conference - all withing the past year.

that is what they did with the Fort Port channel bridge, they built the temporary one and built one along side, it is completed now :D

Thank you, Mr. Nelligan, for answering my question, before I ever posed it, regarding the bridge built "from scratch" by Amtrak over Whiteford Brook at Mystic.

I must wonder where, on the "New Haven end" the Mianus River (Cos Cob) stands with regards to priorities to be rebuilt. Once upon a time (better known as "back in New Haven days") time table speed of 70mph was authorized Eastward, Westward, there was a restriction of 65mph through the curve just West of Riverside.

Today, I believe the speed is 45mph for all equipment over the bridge, but, I will gladly defer to "those in the know" such as Messrs "Dutch" and Weaver (are you ever around here, Mr. Abramson?).

This speed restriction is fine by me; it was all too evil an omen when a few motorists took "an involuntary, yet fatal, dip" during June 1983. When the Southbound span of I-95 over the Mianus decided it was a little tired.

Also fine with me: that Amtrak now has a hand at the throttle that recognizes infrastructure comes first; shiny new trains will just have to wait.

Note, however, that these bridge problems have existed for some time. What did it take to shine a spotlight on them? Why, shiny new trains, of course. Good thing Mr. Warrington got them rolled out so that Mr. Gunn to make use of them in making the case for, well, accelerated infrastructure repair.

Mr. Fels certainly is a loyal supporter of Mr. Warrington.

To be sure, the existance of Acela Express service between NYP and BOS does create an incentive for the government to maintain the ROW. But I'm not sure Mr. Warrington deserves what ever credit might be due. The Acela Express program was initiated long before Mr. Warrington came on to the scene. All I recall from the Warrington era is delayed introduction and the most poorly executed marketing and rebranding campaign in Amtrak's history.

Blame for the delay might lie in part with prior management teams, and with other entities, but I place blame for the marking and rebranding campaign squarely on Mr. Warrington.

Those bridges would still need to be fixed even if Amtrak was using I-5 4-6-4 steam locomotives hauling Osgood Bradley "American Flyer" coaches. The need for repairs - and the recognition thereof - has absolutely nothing to do with Acela or Mr. Warrington. The need stems from old age (just like hip replacement ), so I don't understand why Mr. Fels is trying to spin it that way. One could even argue that had Amtrak not gone with the Acela program that the funds for bridge repair would have been available years ago.

Rhinecliff wrote:But I'm not sure Mr. Warrington deserves what ever credit might be due. The Acela Express program was initiated long before Mr. Warrington came on to the scene.

That's correct. I remember W. Graham Claytor Jr. discussing the Swedish X-2000 demonstration, and the plans for upgrading the northern end of the NEC.

The need for repairs - and the recognition thereof - has absolutely nothing to do with Acela or Mr. Warrington.

"Absolutely nothing"? That's just wishful thinking that makes George Warrington easier to hate. If true, why wasn't anyone "pounding the table" before the Acelas came on line?

The need stems from old age

We're talking about the perception of need. A hip replacement might not seem like a high-priority item until one decides to take up tennis.

One could even argue that had Amtrak not gone with the Acela program that the funds for bridge repair

One could, but that would of course be foolish. You don't switch money around like that. As people who earn money and buy things know intuitively, if you promise people shiny new trains and suddenly decide to divert the money to bridge repair, that's a classic bait and switch. And George Warrington deserves some credit for forestalling the inevitable--negative "finding" by the Amtrak Reform Council--long enough to complete the Acela rollout. I don't expect anyone to get excited about that either. But it is the truth.

Besides, isn't it time to put someone else's photo in the middle of the dartboard?

Oh no. Here we go again dealing with Matt Fels' perverse logic. The record stands at 157 postings re: Hoosier State. We need 143 more on this thread to break it.

If I understand it correctly, the logic goes something like this. George Warrington bet the farm on Acela, monetizing Amtrak assets and neglecting basic maintenance needs in the process. Therefore he deserves credit for causing his successor to bring maintenance issues to the forefront.

That makes as much sense as giving Elian Gonzalez credit electing George W. Bush President since negative reaction in the Cuban community to Elian's repatriation may have tipped Florida into Bush's column.

Mr. Fels acknowledges that "these bridge problems have existed for some time." I take issue with the argument that it took "shiny new trains" to "shine the spotlight" on the problem. Amtrak has owned the Boston - New Haven line, bridges and all, since 1976. Thus it has a responsibility to maintain the bridges in a "state of good repair."

If Amtrak neglected to fix them earlier, then either they couldn't have been all that serious or Amtrak management, i.e. Warrington and his predecessors, willfully chose to ignore them. I will not use this space to speculate on which.

The fact that Amtrak is now looking for money to fix these bridges indicates that the problems can no longer be ignored. Did Acela somehow make the problem worse? Would the problem not exist if Amtrak were still using F-40s and Amfleet on the Boston route? Would Amtrak be willing to risk major disruption if the route only had nine RTs per days instead of 18? The most likely answer to these questions is "no."

To imply that David Gunn is looking to address a "perceived" need tied to image issues related to Acela, rather than a real one, strikes me as cynical. Amtrak has too many urgent capital needs to squander money on frivolous projects, and Gunn's integrity is unimpeachable.