Cuomo proposed High Speed System in NY

https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news ... cuomo.html

Kind of late with this one but how do you think this would work? I say seeing the constant funding problems for California's high speed rail I say this plan should be ran by a private corporation, such as Brightline or Texas Central Railway.

Despite the article, all Cuomo did was order a review of past studies about HSR, and preparation of another study based on those prior studies.

So nothing will happen.

In any event, we already know how to implement HSR in NY State:

1. Track improvements
2. New equipment
3. Perhaps electrification of NY-Albany

Even Bill de Blasio could figure this one out.

It would be better to have a private company handle this, but I don't see any in the works.

Not having to do with the Empire corridor but having to do with private companies, there is still that proposed overnight service using sleepers from Montreal to Albany and then transfer them to Amtrak. Any word on how they're doing? Last I heard they only need approval from CP Rail for running their trains on CP tracks.

You mean Francois Rebello's proposal? I don't think that's going anywhere. I enjoyed the Adirondack, but as a way to travel between NYC and Montreal (as opposed to sightseeing) a night train would be a much better option. It's a shame I missed out on the Montrealer.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

You know what would be really amazing? A carrier, any carrier - Amtrak, Metro North, keolis, Virgin Trains, etc... - buys a few sets of Siemens HrST similar to Brightline. They market them as something like "Empire Acela". Make them look shiny, make them look fast, make them look exclusive. Nothing over the current speed limits, a few less stops maybe, and food and service similar to Acela. Great fast wifi is a must. Also perhaps a decent amount of tables.

I bet they sell the heck out of it between Albany and NYP.

People don't know how fast their train goes, they care if it's clean, modern looking, on time, and reasonably time competitive. That's why Acela does well even if it's technologically a dog and hampered by frequent commuter operations on the same route.

Let's not get crazy and reinvent the wheel and do million dollar studies when the secret sauce is right in front of us.

Of course knowing Diblowsio and Fredo, those dip***s will turn around and do the exact opposite. New York-built thermonuclear fission turbine power cars with a 200mph top speed that can't be used on the trackage they have and will never run right, but hey, it was "made in New York" of a zillion parts from who knows where and can go 200mph...

In the NYS Empire Corridor thread I proposed NYS have Brightline take over the Empire Service, let Amtrak keep the LD's (Adirondack, Ethan Allan, Lake Shore).The issue is trackage rights, especially west of Albany, and CSX. Do a Virginia type deal, and it could be done.

From the NYS web-site: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/govern ... build-high

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the 13th proposal of his 2020 State of the State agenda - convening outside experts to reexamine and rethink strategies to bring high-speed rail to New York. The Governor will task a panel of engineers to reexamine past high-speed rail plans, question and rethink every assumption and method, and recommend a new plan for how to build faster, greener, more reliable high-speed rail in New York.

"High speed rail is transforming economies around the world. We've been told that bringing this technology to our state is too expensive, too difficult and would take too long - that's not an acceptable attitude for New York," Governor Cuomo said. "When we developed our plan to repair the L Train Tunnel, the team of experts we assembled questioned every assumption and brought new creativity to a seemingly intractable problem. We not only found a way to repair the tunnel without shutting down service, we are doing it ahead of schedule. This kind of outside-the-box thinking will help us determine how we could deliver high speed rail for New York."

Most of the State's population lives a short distance from the Empire Corridor, which connects the State through New York City, Albany, and Buffalo. However, these lines average 51 miles per hour, meaning it is often the slowest method available for New Yorkers.

Recommendations to implement high speed rail across the State, which have not changed much over the last two decades, have consistently estimated that projects would take decades and be unaffordable. This team of experts will review these past studies, and strategies that countries all over the world have used to build thousands of miles of high-speed rail, to ask every question and find the best way to build high-speed rail in New York.
...

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article ... 932573.php

...
The current "Empire Corridor" rail line connecting New York City, Albany and Buffalo has been criticized as sorely in need of infrastructure upgrades. The Executive Chamber's release notes that those lines average 51 miles per hour, "meaning it is often the slowest method available for New Yorkers."

An effort to bring high-speed rail to the corridor, launched in 2009, has faced delays. A final version of the environmental impact statement, which was to have been completed last April, now isn't expected until next May.

Numerous high-speed rail proposals have run aground due primarily to cost and the presumptive years they would take to construct. CSX, which owns the tracks west of Schenectady and operates dozens of freight trains daily, has balked at mixing passenger trains traveling more than 70 mph with freight trains that move at much lower speeds.

Amtrak has leased the tracks between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady from CSX, which uses other tracks on the west side of the Hudson River for its freight service. That allows Amtrak trains to travel as fast as 110 mph on some sections of the leased tracks.
...

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:54 pm https://www.timesunion.com/news/article ... 932573.php

...
The current "Empire Corridor" rail line connecting New York City, Albany and Buffalo has been criticized as sorely in need of infrastructure upgrades. The Executive Chamber's release notes that those lines average 51 miles per hour, "meaning it is often the slowest method available for New Yorkers."

An effort to bring high-speed rail to the corridor, launched in 2009, has faced delays. A final version of the environmental impact statement, which was to have been completed last April, now isn't expected until next May.

Numerous high-speed rail proposals have run aground due primarily to cost and the presumptive years they would take to construct. CSX, which owns the tracks west of Schenectady and operates dozens of freight trains daily, has balked at mixing passenger trains traveling more than 70 mph with freight trains that move at much lower speeds.

Amtrak has leased the tracks between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady from CSX, which uses other tracks on the west side of the Hudson River for its freight service. That allows Amtrak trains to travel as fast as 110 mph on some sections of the leased tracks.
...

So what would be CSX's incentive to sale the Water Level Route? I could see the incentive in Virginia of getting someone else to pay for infrastructure upgrades that you need. Is there such a need on the Water Level Route?

In response to your question of why CSX would want to sell the Water Level Route:

Money.

I don’t think Jacksonville would want to sell the entire route. I do think they want to monetize as much land as they could, and that they want to reduce their high tax burden, and that they are under pressure from their Board to create as much extra profit as possible (even in a one-time windfall.)

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:31 pm
So what would be CSX's incentive to sale the Water Level Route? I could see the incentive in Virginia of getting someone else to pay for infrastructure upgrades that you need. Is there such a need on the Water Level Route?

They won't sell the Water Level Route, they might sell surplus RoW next to the route. It's a completely different situation traffic-wise. The line in Virginia sees a maximum of around 15 freights per day (one local, 2 UPS trains, 2 double stack trains, 8 general merchandise trains, coal and rock trains showing up as needed). During peak periods an extra pair of UPS or merchandise trains are added. There isn't that much freight.

The Water Level Route is their main line. The N-S links aren't as busy as the major E-W links. A 2017 estimate was around 30 scheduled freights per day plus a larger number of ethanol and crude oil trains that show up much more frequently than RF&P coal trains.

Tadman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:33 am Of course knowing Diblowsio and Fredo, those dip***s will turn around and do the exact opposite. New York-built thermonuclear fission turbine power cars with a 200mph top speed that can't be used on the trackage they have and will never run right, but hey, it was "made in New York" of a zillion parts from who knows where and can go 200mph...

DeBlasio is my least favorite politician currently in office but would he even have anything to do with this? Hopefully not.

I've said elsewhere and will repeat here, that I think this will go no where, because again, it's too grand of a plan.

In the past there was talk of building the Albany/NYC route along the NY Thruway. This of course was a non-starter for multiple reasons, and I hope they're not proposing it again.

What NYS needs to do is to take a slow but steady approach and start with the following:

• Get NYP-ALB trains running on a 2:00 running time (I've been on trains that ran it in 2:10 with a 10 minute hold at Poughkeepsie, so it can be done, it's a matter of signally, upgraded track, and working with Metro-North).

• Add two trains a day to extend beyond Albany to Buffalo. No additional speed needed at this time.

• Add bus feeder routes into the "backbone" of the Water-Level route. Make sure they're timely and scheduled well. Get cities that are close to the Water-Level route to start thinking of the train as an option.

Once this is done, then start on the longer term, more expensive items:

• electrification as far as Albany. This will become an issue as the state and others try to cut emissions. It also ultimately permits running through NYP.

• Buy additional land along Hudson to straighten ROW for higher speeds and work to increase speeds to 135 mph, especially north of Poughkeepsie

• Adding a 3rd track west of Albany and make this one higher speed (110mph)

• Replace some of the more popular bus feeder routes with actual trains. This includes service to Pittsfield (and possibly towards Boston) and eventually Binghamton

Look, high speed is great. I love high speed. I'd love to get to NYC in 90 minutes. But, let's get higher speed and more frequencies first.

And too any of Cuomo's men reading this looking for board members, I'm up for it.

Tadman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:33 am You know what would be really amazing? A carrier, any carrier - Amtrak, Metro North, keolis, Virgin Trains, etc... - buys a few sets of Siemens HrST similar to Brightline. They market them as something like "Empire Acela". Make them look shiny, make them look fast, make them look exclusive. Nothing over the current speed limits, a few less stops maybe, and food and service similar to Acela. Great fast wifi is a must. Also perhaps a decent amount of tables.

I bet they sell the heck out of it between Albany and NYP.

People don't know how fast their train goes, they care if it's clean, modern looking, on time, and reasonably time competitive. That's why Acela does well even if it's technologically a dog and hampered by frequent commuter operations on the same route.

That's precisely what I hoped the Turboliners would deliver, before the RTL-III program blew up. I agree that the Brightline sets would be ideal. The only thing they lack (as with the Turbos) is active tilt, but I don't know how much would be gained from it. I think more important is to run consistent, reliable schedules at the existing speeds (which are already respectable from New York to Albany and Schenectady) and maybe bump the 79 mph stretches upstate to 90 mph where feasible.

Matt Johnson wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:37 pm I think more important is to run consistent, reliable schedules at the existing speeds (which are already respectable from New York to Albany and Schenectady) and maybe bump the 79 mph stretches upstate to 90 mph where feasible.

I agree. Best way to do that is to add a third track back to the Water Level Route. Especially between Syracuse and Rochester as I find this is where the majority of the delays tend to come from. But good luck trying to increase the speeds on CSX or Metro North. Neither has an incentive to do so unless the state pays a kings ransom.

Another thing that should be done is rebuild the Syracuse station. The current station is falling apart and sinking in certain spots (hence the bridge plates) and can only handle one train at a time. Trains 281 and 64 are due in close to the same time and one train is always waiting outside the station for at least 15 minutes for the other train to pass.