• MARC Growth and Transformation Plan 2024, and Brunswick line run-through

  • Discussion related to DC area passenger rail services from Northern Virginia to Baltimore, MD. Includes Light Rail and Baltimore Subway.
Discussion related to DC area passenger rail services from Northern Virginia to Baltimore, MD. Includes Light Rail and Baltimore Subway.

Moderators: mtuandrew, therock, Robert Paniagua

  by STrRedWolf
 
So MTA Maryland's updating it's MARC Growth and Transformation Plan.

Again.

They're going through the process of getting information and crunching down numbers, but... there's some preliminary info at https://www.mta.maryland.gov/marc-growth-plan that's concerning. For instance:
Virginia Run-Through Takeaways
  • The Brunswick Line has by far the largest market for run-through trips
  • The majority of the run-through market is only to L’Enfant, Crystal City, and Alexandria
That... blows my mind. There's enough demand for it. But how are you going to get a reasonable amount of through traffic across K Tower interlock w/o halting NEC traffic?!?
  by scratchyX1
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:47 am So MTA Maryland's updating it's MARC Growth and Transformation Plan.

Again.

They're going through the process of getting information and crunching down numbers, but... there's some preliminary info at https://www.mta.maryland.gov/marc-growth-plan that's concerning. For instance:
Virginia Run-Through Takeaways
  • The Brunswick Line has by far the largest market for run-through trips
  • The majority of the run-through market is only to L’Enfant, Crystal City, and Alexandria
That... blows my mind. There's enough demand for it. But how are you going to get a reasonable amount of through traffic across K Tower interlock w/o halting NEC traffic?!?
They will need to build a flyover or two, for the service.
If they go in with VRE for dedicated DMU/BMU stock, The flyover grades could be greater than %2.
Image
Image
  by STrRedWolf
 
I think you can do it in one, by avoiding the existing QN-to-K connector. Instead, try the QN-to-F connector, which will give a good curve to swing the track next to Track 2 off the NEC (line in green).
Image

The only issue is the SuperLiners and tall MARC trains that run through.

I got to admit, after all the time poo-poo-ing the idea... I never thought of crossing it this way.
  by scratchyX1
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 7:27 pm I think you can do it in one, by avoiding the existing QN-to-K connector. Instead, try the QN-to-F connector, which will give a good curve to swing the track next to Track 2 off the NEC (line in green).
Image

The only issue is the SuperLiners and tall MARC trains that run through.

I got to admit, after all the time poo-poo-ing the idea... I never thought of crossing it this way.
It would be a steep climb, but I could see it happening.

It looks like baltimore infill would get more riders than extending to Delaware.
  by Sand Box John
 
STrRedWolf
But how are you going to get a reasonable amount of through traffic across K Tower interlock w/o halting NEC traffic?!?


Make the crossover move using C interlocking at the north end of the terminal throat. The only modification that would need to done in C Interlocking is the adding of 2 turnouts. The turnouts would be at the south end of the interlocking crossing over between the 2 tracks on the east side of the terminal throat.
  by scratchyX1
 
Sand Box John wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 10:44 am STrRedWolf
But how are you going to get a reasonable amount of through traffic across K Tower interlock w/o halting NEC traffic?!?


Make the crossover move using C interlocking at the north end of the terminal throat. The only modification that would need to done in C Interlocking is the adding of 2 turnouts. The turnouts would be at the south end of the interlocking crossing over between the 2 tracks on the east side of the terminal throat.
Where is that located? Could someone throw in a crude screencap, for those of us who can't picture it?
  by Sand Box John
 
scratchyX1
Where is that located? Could someone throw in a crude screencap, for those of us who can't picture it?


C Interlocking is on the north end of the terminal throat at New York and Florida Avenues. It is the point were the Amtrak NEC, MARC Brunswick, MARC Camden lines and Ivy City Yard lead connect to the Washington Terminal throat.

Blue line to the left of the Metrorail station is where the 2 new turnouts would be.

Image
  by STrRedWolf
 
Sand Box John wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 10:44 am STrRedWolf
But how are you going to get a reasonable amount of through traffic across K Tower interlock w/o halting NEC traffic?!?


Make the crossover move using C interlocking at the north end of the terminal throat. The only modification that would need to done in C Interlocking is the adding of 2 turnouts. The turnouts would be at the south end of the interlocking crossing over between the 2 tracks on the east side of the terminal throat.
This is still the same issue: You have to go from one side of the interlock to another, and you're blocking the entire interlock to do so. These are 8 to 10 car consists, maybe 12 with the Cap Limited. Blocking the complete interlock is very very bad and should be avoided at all costs. It's faster, yes, because you're only going four tracks, but two of those are NEC tracks. Not good!

No matter what, you need a fly-over, and you need room for said fly-over, so that run-through (and Cap Limited) will work w/o slowing everything down.

This is why I like to pull it north of C interlock and build the fly-over across the whole mess around F-Tower. The only issue there is that you'll need to rip out a 3-star hotel to make room for it. There's room for the rest.
  by scratchyX1
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:08 am
Sand Box John wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 10:44 am STrRedWolf
But how are you going to get a reasonable amount of through traffic across K Tower interlock w/o halting NEC traffic?!?


Make the crossover move using C interlocking at the north end of the terminal throat. The only modification that would need to done in C Interlocking is the adding of 2 turnouts. The turnouts would be at the south end of the interlocking crossing over between the 2 tracks on the east side of the terminal throat.
This is still the same issue: You have to go from one side of the interlock to another, and you're blocking the entire interlock to do so. These are 8 to 10 car consists, maybe 12 with the Cap Limited. Blocking the complete interlock is very very bad and should be avoided at all costs. It's faster, yes, because you're only going four tracks, but two of those are NEC tracks. Not good!

No matter what, you need a fly-over, and you need room for said fly-over, so that run-through (and Cap Limited) will work w/o slowing everything down.

This is why I like to pull it north of C interlock and build the fly-over across the whole mess around F-Tower. The only issue there is that you'll need to rip out a 3-star hotel to make room for it. There's room for the rest.
Having the run throughs being shorter MU consists would not block the NEC as much as the Cap, but a flyover would be best solution.

I was about the ask, your flyover went next the the hotel.
It's a shame that a flyunder, tunneling under all that, wouldn't be an option.
  by Sand Box John
 
STrRedWolf
This is still the same issue: You have to go from one side of the interlock to another, and you're blocking the entire interlock to do so. These are 8 to 10 car consists, maybe 12 with the Cap Limited. Blocking the complete interlock is very very bad and should be avoided at all costs. It's faster, yes, because you're only going four tracks, but two of those are NEC tracks. Not good!

No matter what, you need a fly-over, and you need room for said fly-over, so that run-through (and Cap Limited) will work w/o slowing everything down.

This is why I like to pull it north of C interlock and build the fly-over across the whole mess around F-Tower. The only issue there is that you'll need to rip out a 3-star hotel to make room for it. There's room for the rest.


Spending multiple billions of dollars for the movement of at most a dozen trains a day makes no sense.

The number of trains passing through the terminal throat per hour is a small fraction of what Metrorail runs under the river between DC and Virginia.

Washington Terminal is not Santa Fe Junction.
  by The EGE
 
The Penn Line has twice the number of riders of the Camden and Brunswick lines combined. (~24k versus ~4k and ~7k). I cannot imagine that the Brunswick Line has a bigger run-through market. Maybe a higher percentage of riders would use them, but certainly not a higher total number.
  by scratchyX1
 
The EGE wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 8:45 pm The Penn Line has twice the number of riders of the Camden and Brunswick lines combined. (~24k versus ~4k and ~7k). I cannot imagine that the Brunswick Line has a bigger run-through market. Maybe a higher percentage of riders would use them, but certainly not a higher total number.
I wonder how they came to that conclusion.
Anyone know if VRE has done their own study of running through?
Their current gear would work best on penn/Camden line.
  by STrRedWolf
 
scratchyX1 wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:11 pm I wonder how they came to that conclusion.
Anyone know if VRE has done their own study of running through?
Their current gear would work best on penn/Camden line.
Yes, MARC equipment running through would operationally be best off of the Penn line, while the Camden would be a good second choice. VRE equipment would require send it to the Brunswick line... and the issue we have.

Still... that's what surprised me, is that there's a lot of people on the Brunswick line that want to run through, and it's more than Camden or Penn. Which makes me seriously consider how to future-proof it...

...that, and I rode the Cap Limited last year and we were stuck waiting for traffic to clear before we could get into Union Station. Could of been in and have lunch at Union Station itself.
  by scratchyX1
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2024 12:15 pm
scratchyX1 wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:11 pm I wonder how they came to that conclusion.
Anyone know if VRE has done their own study of running through?
Their current gear would work best on penn/Camden line.
Yes, MARC equipment running through would operationally be best off of the Penn line, while the Camden would be a good second choice. VRE equipment would require send it to the Brunswick line... and the issue we have.

Still... that's what surprised me, is that there's a lot of people on the Brunswick line that want to run through, and it's more than Camden or Penn. Which makes me seriously consider how to future-proof it...

...that, and I rode the Cap Limited last year and we were stuck waiting for traffic to clear before we could get into Union Station. Could of been in and have lunch at Union Station itself.
To operate at frequencies required would mean that train crews shouldn't be needed for every door . VRE is all low platform gear, as right now the track owners require plate F. Marc's gear can do both.
I seem to recall somewhere in the EU has platform extenders, to clear large loads.
Could that be an option for run-through stations?
  by west point
 
What is needed for the Penn line is 4 full main tracks from BAL to WASH.. That way no restrictions of MARC traffic would be present with MARC locals on outside tracks and Amtrak on the inner tracks for the most part. Maybe a MARC express could run on the inner tracks.

That addition does require very big dollars.