Cuomo proposed High Speed System in NY

MN is installing ACSES system wide,figure on the Amtrak leased track will get ACSES as well.
The P32DM's will get rigged for ACSES,as will the DM chargers.

johndmuller wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:38 pm

It should be possible to do 100+ in some parts of the Albany to Poughkeepsie section. Might need some grade crossings killed and/or track work / certification, but there would be nobody else to negotiate with in that sector except government officials. In the other sections, you'd probably need to beg, and then pick up nearly all the tab for necessary track improvements and then beg some more. MN has little to gain from higher speeds, so that little to nothing is what they'd be willing to pay; OTOH, they probably would be OK with it otherwise. CSX would presumably appreciate some free track work, but you'd probably need to build up the line enough to handle all your passenger stuff plus some extra so that CSX would see some improvement in their situation too. Maybe money in some form would be helpful too/instead.

There's a number of miles from Poughkeepsie to Albany that is 110 mph.
When the Turboliners were being tested, they considered (and tested) to 125mph.

I believe right now there's ONE grade crossing, that if closed would allow another chunk of 110mph running. (There are other grade crossings, but as I recall they do not impact speed due to other restrictions).

NYS and King Cuomo want to close the one crossing in question, but the local community is refusing because it would severely limit their access to the river. I think honestly, the state needs to bite the bullet on that one and put in a large enough bridge to make folks happy.

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:22 am There's a number of miles from Poughkeepsie to Albany that is 110 mph.
When the Turboliners were being tested, they considered (and tested) to 125mph.

I believe right now there's ONE grade crossing, that if closed would allow another chunk of 110mph running. (There are other grade crossings, but as I recall they do not impact speed due to other restrictions).

NYS and King Cuomo want to close the one crossing in question, but the local community is refusing because it would severely limit their access to the river. I think honestly, the state needs to bite the bullet on that one and put in a large enough bridge to make folks happy.

Just following the tracks on Google Maps between Poughkeepsie and Albany, I count over 10 grade crossings. It seems like only 2 or 3 are for actual residential access, and the others are for boat landing access (but are still guarded by crossbucks, lights, and gates). But maybe they are all in areas where the speed is restricted for other reasons so grade-crossing removal wouldn't increase speeds. If only replacing/removing one grade crossing would allow a sizeable chunk of higher speed rail, seems like a no brainer. (until we find out some Hedge Fund-guy will have to drive longer to his boat if a crossing is removed)

Perhaps a bridge is not the best idea, but a temporal separation similar to that which freights get on non-FRA trackage. The boat ramp is only open to vehicle traffic for one hour per day weekdays, four on weekends and holidays. At those times a crossing guard mans the gates.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:34 am Perhaps a bridge is not the best idea, but a temporal separation similar to that which freights get on non-FRA trackage. The boat ramp is only open to vehicle traffic for one hour per day weekdays, four on weekends and holidays. At those times a crossing guard mans the gates.

Stop thinking outside the box!!

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:28 pm MN is installing ACSES system wide,figure on the Amtrak leased track will get ACSES as well.
The P32DM's will get rigged for ACSES,as will the DM chargers.

We have been running with ACSES for at least 3 years dual modes have had the system for a little longer. It started on the Empire connection, the onto sections of MNRR followed by Amtrak all the way to Hoffmans. Last trip to NYP in the summer it was in service for the entire trip. MNRR will at times put sections into construction zone for testing. The system when its working as intended is great but, nothing better the going 90mph and having the brakes come on for a temp 30 on the other track. You can recover if it lets you otherwise your likely coming to a stop.

I work a yard job in Albany and every few weeks the system gets some bugs and needs to be reset. I told fiber optics will help but until its completed they arent going to switch over.

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:34 am Perhaps a bridge is not the best idea, but a temporal separation similar to that which freights get on non-FRA trackage. The boat ramp is only open to vehicle traffic for one hour per day weekdays, four on weekends and holidays. At those times a crossing guard mans the gates.

Sure, and folks who want to walk to the river can also wait to that one hour a day. This will go over like a lead balloon.
I'm sure the locals who take routine access to their riverfront will gladly give up access so that us rideres can shave 1-2 minutes off our schedule as we go through their town while ignoring it.

This New York proposal has merit. How it can be implemented is another strategy that will need close study to get the most bang for the buck.
The following is just a possible way that can be implemented incrementally for NYP - Albany segment and on to Hoffmans where Amtrak has control of trackage. Item # 1 should probably be near at top of list but all other can be done in full or part in any order with saving the most time per dollar spent.
1, NY state should work out a deal similar to what Va has done with CSX. It may be prudent to do it now because management changes at CSX in the future may cause chance to get lost. Get 1/2 of ROW to Buffalo and on to Erie if possible with concurrence with the state of Pa.
2. Make the Riverside park tunnel 2 main tracks as close to NYP as possible all the way thru Spuyten Duyvil CP to connect to MNRR.
3. Replace the Spuyten Duyvil swing bridge with a flyover over the Harlem river and have the 2 main tracks from NYP to connect to the 3 inside tracks of MNRR. See #4.
4. Build a 5th parallel track next to MNRR from Spuyten Duyvil to just past Croton. Make the middle track ( #3? ) a HrSR line for Amtrak with a higher MAS of eventually 125 MPH. Opposing Amtrak trains would enter either tracks 2 or 4 to pass.
5. From Croton to Poughkeepsie make 4 main tracks with 2 inner for Amtrak and any MNRR express trains that can maintain MAS.
6. Rebuild from POU to Albany (ALB) where possible to 125 MAS
7. Eliminate all grade crossings possible with either bridges or under grade access. Pedestrian underpasses would be fairly easy.
8. Raise any tracks from Spuyten to Albany that have or may have in the future any chance of flooding.
9. Ease all curves with cheapest first that give at least 10 miles or 10 more miles of 125 MPH operations.
10 Rebuild the ALB station tracks so access will be easy to change locos when needed. That is especially the north tracks to / from the shops but also the south tracks.
11. Rebuild or preferably make a flyover of the Hudson River bridge north of the Albany station.
12. It is my understanding that the rebuilding of the signals to ALB eliminating the pole lines has not been finished ? If so that is a high priority!
13. Purchase at least 1/2 of line's ROW Buffalo - Niagara Fa;;s

Many of the above will require more real estate that will take time. As some of the above are completed we can see NYP<> ALB slowly reduce to 2:00 and eventually 1:30. The main advantage will be there will be almost no other train interference with NYP-ALB trains. These improvements will allow more trips with the same amount of equipment.

Many of the above will require more real estate that will take time. As some of the above are completed we can see NYP<> ALB slowly reduce to 2:00 and eventually 1:30.

East point: add 13) purchase the line to Niagara Falls. Most (all?) cross-border freight goes via Buffalo anyway, not the Whirlpool Bridge.

(Edited because I don’t remember my NY landmarks)

The topography north of CRT is rather tough to add two additional tracks. In many spots, you have water either on one side and then I think state park land on the other. An example of an area of the Hudson Line where you have water on both sides is north of Peekskill where the right of way has the Hudson River on the west side while Roa Hook is on the east side. In the Cold Spring area, there are many constraits including just south of Cold Spring Station with the right of way crossing a causeway with Foundry Cove on one side and the Hudson River on the other side. Between Peekskill and Manitou, there are many rock cliffs right alongside the right of way on one side and then the Hudson River is on the other. That bridge between Rensellaer and Albany is called the Livingston Avenue Bridge and I don't think it's in the best shape. It will probably have to be replaced fairly soon. I do agree that the approach from the east side of the bridge to ALB Station is a bit slow.

Andrew : done
NJT: maybe only three tracks from CRT? Middle track for Amtrak pass on either tracks 1 or 3

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:22 am
There's a number of miles from Poughkeepsie to Albany that is 110 mph.
When the Turboliners were being tested, they considered (and tested) to 125mph.

North of Poughkeepsie, it's 95 mph max on some stretches south of Hudson. Between Hudson and Albany is the only 110 mph stretch on the NYC - Albany route. There is also a brief 110 mph stretch on the (now 2 track) Albany - Schenectady segment.

Believe it or not, the first RTL-III rebuild got all the way up to 144 mph on the stretch between Hudson and Albany during a test run back in 2001!

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:49 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:34 am Perhaps a bridge is not the best idea, but a temporal separation similar to that which freights get on non-FRA trackage. The boat ramp is only open to vehicle traffic for one hour per day weekdays, four on weekends and holidays. At those times a crossing guard mans the gates.

Sure, and folks who want to walk to the river can also wait to that one hour a day. This will go over like a lead balloon.
I'm sure the locals who take routine access to their riverfront will gladly give up access so that us rideres can shave 1-2 minutes off our schedule as we go through their town while ignoring it.

I think you're missing the point here. A roadworthy bridge costs millions and requires significant ramps and visual pollution. A pedestrian bridge can be a far less expensive endeavour, allowing boaters and recreationalists (is that a word?) to access the park all the time. The concern is with closing the crossing, because I think we can all agree that crossings and HSR won't mix under the current culture.

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020 ... peed-rail/

If Swiss planners were hired to design an intercity rail network for New York State, they might propose something that looks like this:
...
The trip times depicted on the map are a few minutes longer than intended, especially next to a terminus station like Niagara Falls, Watertown, and Ithaca. The depicted times are inclusive of turnaround time: the 45-minute Buffalo-Niagara Falls line is intended to take around 35 minutes in actual service, with 10-minute turnarounds.
...

That guy left most of the Adirondack and all of Long Island out of the New York State train system? And includes Utica-Rome, Albany-Mechanicsville, and Cortland-Ithaca? Not likely for a Swiss transit expert.

It strikes me as someone who really wants to justify service on the DL&W.