NEC Future: HSR "High Line", FRA, Amtrak Infrastructure Plan

I would love to see some more grade crossings on the NEC get eliminated. Not all can though. For example, in New London, I don't think the Winthrop Blvd one can be as Rt. 32 runs right alongside the right of way. Plus that's a very important street crossing as that provides easy access to the ferry terminals. The grade crossing at the station can't be eliminated as you have another street that runs right alongside the right of way. The Bank Street connector could probably be eliminated as that is mainly a pedestrian crossing-maybe replace that with a footbridge. Minors Line grade crossing should be eliminated and perhaps replaced. There aren't any streets that run right alongside the right of way there. Latimer Point Rd in Mystic can probably be replaced-no other streets that run right along the tracks. In Stonington, Elihu Island Rd and the crossing west of it could be eliminated-this stretch here, the tracks are straight and that would help the trains probably go a little faster.

That $50M could have been a typo for $50B. Could someone please check?

lpetrich wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 5:49 pm That $50M could have been a typo for $50B. Could someone please check?

Even my elementary school kids can add, or should I suggest subtract?
Remember, the total for the program for railroads is just $66 Billion.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:42 pm

RRspatch wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:09 am The tunnels in Baltimore are on either side of the station. Just to the north of the station on the other side of "Paul" interlocking is the Union Tunnels. Just to the south of the station on the other side of "Charles" interlocking is the B&P tunnel. While the new B&P replacement tunnel will allow for faster speeds I'm not sure the existing speeds in the Union tunnels can be raised by very much.

The Union Tunnels are fairly straight... but the curves after it "northbound" are an issue.

It would be safe to assume any HSR plans on existing track would include a stop in Baltimore. Anything else would require moving the station and routing track between Franklin and Mulberry streets to underground tunnels (which to be honest, would be better than that *)!@#( Highway to Nowhere).

I think we both recall one of the initial proposals was just that, using the highway to nowhere to tunnel under the howard street tunnel, with an underground station (possibly with connection to the subway), and then following RT40 underground out of town.
If this was the EU, or Asia, that's the route that would have been used.

Appearing in The Journal today.

Fair Use:

The B&P Tunnel, Amtrak’s oldest, snakes under homes and businesses in West Baltimore and links Baltimore’s Penn Station with Washington’s Union Station. It causes delays for more than 10% of weekday trains on the line, and modernizing it isn’t viable, railroad officials say. Persistent water leaks require regular track repairs, including $71 million in fixes last year. During winter, workers use poles to knock icicles off the tunnel ceiling so they don’t freeze up the electric lines that power trains.

Trains could hit 100 mph in the new tunnel, up from 30 mph in the existing tunnel. A new tunnel would speed up MARC commuter trains between Baltimore and Washington to under 30 minutes, more than 15 minutes faster than current express service. Shorter rides would expand commuting options, state officials say.

Likely "doesn't break ground" with our members such as Mr. Wolf, but to me there were some interesting bits and pieces of which I was unaware.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:33 am Appearing in The Journal today.

Fair Use:

The B&P Tunnel, Amtrak’s oldest, snakes under homes and businesses in West Baltimore and links Baltimore’s Penn Station with Washington’s Union Station. It causes delays for more than 10% of weekday trains on the line, and modernizing it isn’t viable, railroad officials say. Persistent water leaks require regular track repairs, including $71 million in fixes last year. During winter, workers use poles to knock icicles off the tunnel ceiling so they don’t freeze up the electric lines that power trains.

Trains could hit 100 mph in the new tunnel, up from 30 mph in the existing tunnel. A new tunnel would speed up MARC commuter trains between Baltimore and Washington to under 30 minutes, more than 15 minutes faster than current express service. Shorter rides would expand commuting options, state officials say.

Likely "doesn't break ground" with our members such as Mr. Wolf, but to me there were some interesting bits and pieces of which I was unaware.

71 million in one year?
what kinda work are they doing?

Takes a lot of $1 bills to plug the holes.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:02 pm 71 million in one year?
what kinda work are they doing?

Grout injection in the leaks. Drain clearing. Pump maintenance. Baltimore is hilly as ****, so I bet some of the tunnel is below the water table in sections. Also, CHARLES interlocking is prone to flooding from heavy rain and/or water main breaks on Charles Street.

Fact sheet on NEC HSR: https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/upl ... -02-14.pdf

this part -
Increase Track Capacity In Maryland, at Baltimore Penn Station, the Next Generation High Speed Rail (HSR) infrastructure improvements include the rehabilitation of an existing platform, construction of a new platform and renewal of the overhead electrical system. These projects will increase track capacity for expanded Acela service, provide routing flexibility and improve the on-time performance of high-speed train operations by providing additional opportunities to allow high-speed trains to travel unimpeded.

implies more trains non-stopping Baltimore - is that the plan?

Not really, but take it as a whole with the B&P Replacement. You got tracks that go from 30 to 100 between West Baltimore and Baltimore Penn Station in that project. Add the following:

• Tweaking track alignment to bump speeds to 125 mph.
• Adding a side platform to let MARC trains service the station on track 1 and Regional/Acela trains go through on track 2.
• Adding more tracks and platforms for trains at BAL. Right, track 1 is Light Rail, 2/3 are storage, 4/5 are basically local MARC, and 6/7 are pass-through MARC/Amtrak, and F track for freight bypass. The station rebuild going on now will have 2/3 rebuilt and opened up for MARC, F rebuilt as 8, and 8/9 for Amtrak use.

That way you have MARC trains waiting for passengers be out of the way, you can have Acelas and LD's pass Regionals, and you don't have to creep through the tunnels anymore. What's not to love?

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:59 am Not really, but take it as a whole with the B&P Replacement. You got tracks that go from 30 to 100 between West Baltimore and Baltimore Penn Station in that project. Add the following:

• Tweaking track alignment to bump speeds to 125 mph.
• Adding a side platform to let MARC trains service the station on track 1 and Regional/Acela trains go through on track 2.
• Adding more tracks and platforms for trains at BAL. Right, track 1 is Light Rail, 2/3 are storage, 4/5 are basically local MARC, and 6/7 are pass-through MARC/Amtrak, and F track for freight bypass. The station rebuild going on now will have 2/3 rebuilt and opened up for MARC, F rebuilt as 8, and 8/9 for Amtrak use.

If I’ve understood your statements correctly, this would produce the following dispatching layout, from south to north:

Light Rail bay platform
Platform 1 - MARC terminators?
Platform 2 - Northbound/eastbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 3 - Northbound/eastbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 4 - MARC terminators?
Platform 5 - MARC terminators?
Platform 6 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 7 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 8 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak only?
Platform 9 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak only?

Would the platform on Track 1 be opposite the Light Rail platform, or adjacent to it? The latter could be preferable since it would offer same-platform interchange with the Penn-Camden shuttle services, since there’s no easy way to provide a spur to the ex-Northern Central alignment to allow for through services from Penn Station to Hunt Valley. Making the interchange as easy as possible would probably encourage more use of that shuttle service and it could reduce car use at the station.

I will be interested to see which signal aspects the platforms whose tracks offer the straightest routing through CHARLES and UNION interlockings will be using once the rebuild is in place. I consulted this online copy of a version of the NORAC signal rules, and it looks like the straightest routes through each interlocking could be given a Rule 283 Medium Clear or a Rule 283a Medium Apprach Medium (does Amtrak use that aspect anywhere in Maryland?).

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:59 am That way you have MARC trains waiting for passengers be out of the way, you can have Acelas and LD's pass Regionals, and you don't have to creep through the tunnels anymore. What's not to love?

The only thing left to do at that point is to widen the Union Tunnel east of the station to provide space for a fourth track. Then a future project could rearrange the interlockings between the east portal of Union Tunnel and the Gunpowder River and build a southbound side platform at Martin State Airport, and allow through Amtrak services to be dispatched on Tracks 1 and 2, clear of the MARC services.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 5:51 pm If I’ve understood your statements correctly, this would produce the following dispatching layout, from south to north:

Light Rail bay platform
Platform 1 - MARC terminators?
Platform 2 - Northbound/eastbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 3 - Northbound/eastbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 4 - MARC terminators?
Platform 5 - MARC terminators?
Platform 6 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 7 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak/MARC
Platform 8 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak only?
Platform 9 - Westbound/southbound Amtrak only?

Would the platform on Track 1 be opposite the Light Rail platform, or adjacent to it? The latter could be preferable since it would offer same-platform interchange with the Penn-Camden shuttle services, since there’s no easy way to provide a spur to the ex-Northern Central alignment to allow for through services from Penn Station to Hunt Valley. Making the interchange as easy as possible would probably encourage more use of that shuttle service and it could reduce car use at the station.

Let me correct myself with the track layout, south to north:

1. Light Rail off/on loading (low level platform closest to "old" station)
2. MARC Termination sharing platform with...
3. MARC Termination
4. MARC Termination/MARC Martinsburg sharing platform with...
5. MARC Termination/MARC Martinsburg
6. Amtrak/MARC Through-routing Northbound shared with
7. Amtrak Through-routing Northbound
8. Amtrak Through routing Southbound
9. Amtrak/MARC Through-routing Southbound

Platforms will flow up to gates, which will be labeled Light Rail (Track 1 by restaurant), A/B (Track 2/3), C/D (Track 4/5), E/F (6/7), G/H (8/9).

I will be interested to see which signal aspects the platforms whose tracks offer the straightest routing through CHARLES and UNION interlockings will be using once the rebuild is in place. I consulted this online copy of a version of the NORAC signal rules, and it looks like the straightest routes through each interlocking could be given a Rule 283 Medium Clear or a Rule 283a Medium Apprach Medium (does Amtrak use that aspect anywhere in Maryland?).

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:59 am That way you have MARC trains waiting for passengers be out of the way, you can have Acelas and LD's pass Regionals, and you don't have to creep through the tunnels anymore. What's not to love?

The only thing left to do at that point is to widen the Union Tunnel east of the station to provide space for a fourth track. Then a future project could rearrange the interlockings between the east portal of Union Tunnel and the Gunpowder River and build a southbound side platform at Martin State Airport, and allow through Amtrak services to be dispatched on Tracks 1 and 2, clear of the MARC services.

I would agree with a fourth track, but I think getting a second platform at MSA would be better. Unfortunately, this is a low-level platform, so I really see a station reconstruction to go high-block.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:11 pm Let me correct myself with the track layout, south to north:

1. Light Rail off/on loading (low level platform closest to "old" station)
2. MARC Termination sharing platform with...
3. MARC Termination
4. MARC Termination/MARC Martinsburg sharing platform with...
5. MARC Termination/MARC Martinsburg
6. Amtrak/MARC Through-routing Northbound shared with
7. Amtrak Through-routing Northbound
8. Amtrak Through routing Southbound
9. Amtrak/MARC Through-routing Southbound

Platforms will flow up to gates, which will be labeled Light Rail (Track 1 by restaurant), A/B (Track 2/3), C/D (Track 4/5), E/F (6/7), G/H (8/9).

Thanks for the clarification. But I'm curious about why the MARC terminators would be on the western side of the station, closest to the station building, instead of in the middle of the station. Terminating trains from Union Station would have to cross through Amtrak and MARC services in CHARLES interlocking to reach Track 3, while terminating trains from Perryville (are there any such outside of early morning and late evening?) would have to cross through Amtrak and MARC services in UNION interlocking to reach platforms A, B, C or D. Placing the terminating services (most of which would be from Union Station) in the center tracks adjacent to platforms C, D, E and F would reduce the conflicting moves in CHARLES interlocking.

Is there Amtrak-specific infrastructure adjacent to Tracks 6-9 that can't/won't be replaced/rebuilt during the rest of the station rebuild? Do you know of the reasons for the choice of location for the MARC terminators?

One of the tunnel bores will be ducking under, so that the BAL terminating moves heading southbound will not conflict with through movements on the higher number tracks at the station.

See pages 22 & 24 of this PDF linked in the Frederick Douglas Tunnel Thready