High Speed Rail Between Buffalo & Albany

atsf sp wrote:Would it be diesel high speed, or do they want something like the Acela/electric?

Electrification is definitely not justified. There just isn't the density of traffic to justify it, and judging by the declining populations in upstate NY, there never will be.

Matt Johnson wrote:Diesel, or perhaps gas turbine!

Forget about gas turbines. By all appearances, the Bombardier JetTrain is truly dead, and justifiable so. It didn't make sense for VIA rail to order 150 mph locomotives to pull elderly LRC coaches along an 80 mph corridor. It's also unsurprising that Florida voters put an end to the Bombardier/Fluor HSR proposal when you consider that taxpayers would have been stuck with higher sales taxes to pay for a train that most would never have used.

Overall, the JetTrain itself was sound enough on a technical level, but the reality is that it doesn't make sense to build a dedicated high speed rail corridor, even without the cost of electrification, and in the end, running a 150mph capable JetTrain over an existing, dual use 79 mph right of way doesn't make any economic sense at all.

Of course, upstate New Yorkers can look back at the long, lingering disaster of the Rohr Turbotrain. Looking back, even in it's prime the equipment was semi-functional and uncomfortable - not to mention uneconomic and uncompetitive with conventional locomotive hauled coaches. When the last Turboliner was removed from service, some of us breathed a sigh of relief.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: It didn't make sense for VIA rail to order 150 mph locomotives to pull elderly LRC coaches along an 80 mph corridor.

The LRC coaches have been rebuilt and are not what I'd call elderly to begin with. (They're young compared to VIA's stainless fleet!) Also, VIA's eastern corridors are 100 mph, not 80. The idea was to upgrade them for 125+. But even at the current 100 mph, routes like the Montreal - Toronto corridor are a good model for what New York is trying to achieve.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:When the last Turboliner was removed from service, some of us breathed a sigh of relief.

I liked the rebuilt Turboliner when I rode aboard it. I'd like to see New York find a way to utilize the rebuilt RTL III sets, though that appears unlikely.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: Electrification is definitely not justified. There just isn't the density of traffic to justify it, and judging by the declining populations in upstate NY, there never will be.

There's barely enough traffic to justify rail service, period, between Albany and Buffalo.

Anyway, between NYC and Albany, IMHO, a better equipment choice would be a tilting DMU, provided you can get the per car weight below 120,000 lbs (and really, you'd want under 100,000). That'd help in the curves, and you don't need dual mode if you just change ends at NY Penn (shut1/2 the motors in the station - DMU engines are about as forgiving as bus motors, they start and stop fast). If you desperatly need a servicing facility, use some spot on the west side - a siding or two and a pair or trailers in the semi underground portion of the line. Enter NYP, dump passengers, change ends, leave, bring in the 'fresh' set, recharge with passengers, leave back to Albany, while the first set gets cleaned and inspected. With no real need to go to Sunnyside, you don't need electric capability at all. Give it a 125mph top speed, and let the tilt fix the curves. Make it all high level, if it's confined to the NY Albany run.

Anyway, between NYC and Albany, IMHO, a better equipment choice would be a tilting DMU, provided you can get the per car weight below 120,000 lbs (and really, you'd want under 100,000).

There is huge potential for trains like that. I suspect hundreds should be ordered and built. Many lines could be opened up with that kind of train.

I rode aboard a Virgin Voyager DMU from Glasgow to Carlisle in September. (Got off there so I could take the slow, scenic route from there to Leeds via the old Settle & Carlisle!) I think it was one of the ones with active tilt, and while I don't know our top speed on the trip, I'm sure it was over 100 mph. That'd be a perfect train for the Empire Corridor. It kind of reminded me of the type of service the rebuilt Turboliners were supposed to provide.

Snip:

High-speed trains to NYC could be on the fast track
State appears ready to capitalize on stimulus funds for high-speed rail from Buffalo to Albany after years of studies and strong political support
By Mark Sommer
NEWS STAFF REPORTER

You can be excused for thinking high-speed rail is merely the region’s latest pipe dream.

Years-long delays and scrapped plans on projects from Bass Pro Shops and the Peace Bridge to Adelphia and the Statler Hotel have conditioned people to roll their eyes and lower expectations.

However, there are several reasons why high-speed rail across Western and upstate New York to Albany and New York City could become a reality.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/601721.html

Dave Becker

Frankly, I think New York should be the last state to receive any stimulus money for high speed rail. Do we really want to trust the same clowns who spent $70 million on Turboliners that currently rust away in a storage yard with billions of dollars this time?

I feel like Rip VanWinkle and I just woke up from a dream about the invention of the airplane.
Eight billion dollars will buy a lot of Boeing 777's or even more 737's. Since the government already subsidizes airlines (who owns all the airports), isn't there a conflict of interest. If private money can buy the means of transportation, ie. airplanes, buses, rental cars, and sometimes make money at it why does HSR cost so much to duplicate services already in place.

One of the biggest airline complaints are the congested airports and air corridors. You can add all the planes you want, but there is still only so much airspace, and even less ground space. The idea is to help reduce said congestion with rail service which, when you consider the 2 plus hr wait at security and 2 plus hours waiting in traffic driving from the airport to you destination(most is business traffic, headed to the city centers). Most Rail stations are near the city centers to begin with so the time saved flying is nearly negated even today. Not to mention fuel costs and trust me, it''ll start rising soon enough. We're not even addressing the container issues, bring overseas containers by train to inland ports away from the Port cities reducing Highway congestion which is crippling the current Port system. That's all part of this project.

roadster wrote:One of the biggest airline complaints are the congested airports and air corridors. You can add all the planes you want, but there is still only so much airspace, and even less ground space. The idea is to help reduce said congestion with rail service which, when you consider the 2 plus hr wait at security and 2 plus hours waiting in traffic driving from the airport to you destination(most is business traffic, headed to the city centers). Most Rail stations are near the city centers to begin with so the time saved flying is nearly negated even today. Not to mention fuel costs and trust me, it''ll start rising soon enough. We're not even addressing the container issues, bring overseas containers by train to inland ports away from the Port cities reducing Highway congestion which is crippling the current Port system. That's all part of this project.

I don't think air congestion is a problem between the above cities. We already have medium speed rail where it is a problem and I've used it myself. What helps the NEC is that all the cities involved are connected to commuter railroads that fan out from the major AMTRAK stations, covering a very wide area and in my case practically door to door. The extra speed of air travel in the NEC is negated by the planes having to get into the landing pattern right after take off. Even medium speed (and frequent) trains work well in that environment that's why they are also heavily patronized. Its simply good service. The problem is politicians see all that
money and they are determined to create a need for it no matter how far fetched. New york state has only a existing tunnel, station, rail yards and a bridge with some track, a very small piece of the pie.

They're not building a high-speed rail system, it's a series of infrastructure improvements to increase track capacity and average speeds. No bullet trains, no electrics, no turbines. Sorry to burst the bubble.

See also: http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.ph ... =a#p650939

I rode both turboliners and diesel hauled coaches between NYC and Syracuse back in the mid to late 70s when turboliners were first introduced. My SU friends and I thought the turboliners were more comfortable than the other coaches. I remember when the turbos first came out. We thought they were quite an improvement: smoother, quieter, and larger windows. It made quite an impression on me. I was not into trains at the time, but I remember studying the insides of the cars. I was looking at the sound proofing, trying to figure out how they could be so quiet.

I never rode aboard the Rohr Turbos in their original form, but I rode aboard the Super Steel RTL III rebuild twice. I also found it to be smooth and quiet in the intermediate coaches. In the "power car" when I took business class, it was still smooth but not so quiet! There was quite a bit of noise from the turbine when accelerating, but not so much once up to a steady speed.

The Turboliners were always problematic in operation, and from my own recollections and written sources, many systems were non-functional or intermittently functional both before and after the rebuilds. Basically, the locomotive hauled Amfleet coaches were more reliable, more flexible more comfortable, and more easily maintained.

In the end, the rebuilt Turboliners weren't apparently fit for any sort of service, and I suspect that these trainsets should have been discarded long before the abortive and ultimately failed final rebuild program. I ultimately don't blame Super Steel, which was a relatively small company, but the generations of New York State politicians who continually backed a failed foreign trainset technology at the expense of the taxpayer, ultimately to the detriment of passenger rail in New York State. New York State made a mistake in buying the Turboliners to begin with, and then continued to compound the mistake by keeping them in service long after they should have been withdrawn, and then finally engaging in a ill advised rebuilt program.

Amtrak did the right thing by refusing to operate them, although I always felt that Amtrak management should have been more candid about the concerns that motivated the decision.