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

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 9:52 am 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?

Currently, they're building the new station, so the MARC terminals would be closer to the older station. Also, as mentioned earlier, should (and they better) Amtrak/Maryland opt to build the second two tubes of the F-D tunnel, those tunnels would arrange themselves to have MARC locals be aligned with tracks 4/5, leaving 6/7 open for through traffic.

Of course, they'll have to rebuild BRIDGE interlocking to allow for it... and without expanding BWI's Amtrak station to 4 tracks, they'll have to turn WINANS into a 4-to-3 all-track interlock. Expanding BWI would be preferable though, because it'll allow Amtrak trains to stop and not have to mix with MARC traffic past GROVE.

Its going to take some work so MAR will be on the 2 outside tracks south of BAL and Amtrak on the 2 inner tracks.

nomis wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:41 am 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

That's the part I was missing - I had (wrongly) assumed that the current station rebuilding works, and not the construction of the Frederick Douglass tunnels, were the impetus for this planned reworking of the station dispatch layout.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:52 pm

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 9:52 am 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?

Currently, they're building the new station, so the MARC terminals would be closer to the older station. Also, as mentioned earlier, should (and they better) Amtrak/Maryland opt to build the second two tubes of the F-D tunnel, those tunnels would arrange themselves to have MARC locals be aligned with tracks 4/5, leaving 6/7 open for through traffic.

Thank you for clarifying! I had assumed that the current station works were the only reason why the services were being rearranged, and that the commencement of construction of the Frederick Douglass tunnel was too far in the future to justify the rearrangement of the station dispatch layout.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:52 pm Of course, they'll have to rebuild BRIDGE interlocking to allow for it... and without expanding BWI's Amtrak station to 4 tracks, they'll have to turn WINANS into a 4-to-3 all-track interlock. Expanding BWI would be preferable though, because it'll allow Amtrak trains to stop and not have to mix with MARC traffic past GROVE.

I could see WINANS either being removed entirely, or expanded to allow for the following moves (facing towards Baltimore):
- Medium speed from Track 1 to Track A
- Medium speed from Track 2 to Track 3
- Limited speed from Track 1 to Track 2
- Limited speed from Track 2 to Track 1

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:19 am

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:52 pm Of course, they'll have to rebuild BRIDGE interlocking to allow for it... and without expanding BWI's Amtrak station to 4 tracks, they'll have to turn WINANS into a 4-to-3 all-track interlock. Expanding BWI would be preferable though, because it'll allow Amtrak trains to stop and not have to mix with MARC traffic past GROVE.

I could see WINANS either being removed entirely, or expanded to allow for the following moves (facing towards Baltimore):
- Medium speed from Track 1 to Track A
- Medium speed from Track 2 to Track 3
- Limited speed from Track 1 to Track 2
- Limited speed from Track 2 to Track 1

Currently WINANS starts Track A south of Halethorpe MARC station. Expanding it would be my preference for more flexibility in all cases. And frankly put, expanding BWI to 4 tracks is preferable (though they did the rebuild recently of the station).

I am in complete agreement; WINANS should be retained and expanded once the four-tracking of BWI Marshall station is complete. It's in almost the perfect spot for improving the resiliency of service dispatch for the NEC.

How should interlock change if MTA actually builds the Penn Camden connector?

connector from Camden to Penn going toward WASH would need to fly over or duck under NEC to connect to western track

I agree with this. Rebuilding the original connector would also require a fly over/duck under track to connect up to CSX and then to the "Riverside" repair facility there.

CT Senator Chris Murphy has an opinion: https://ctexaminer.com/2023/04/13/new-t ... -luncheon/

New Track, ‘Dislocation’ Necessary for High Speed Rail, Murphy Tells Chamber Luncheon

MONTVILLE — Boosting the speed of train travel along the Northeast corridor is a top priority, according to Sen. Chris Murphy, that will require new track and “dislocation” for communities along the rail corridor. Murphy made the comments at a luncheon sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut on Wednesday.
...
Murphy said that of the $66 billion in the infrastructure bill designated for rail, he and his colleagues were able to “earmark $30 to $35 billion of that – half of that money – just for the stretch of rail from Boston to Washington, D.C.”
...
Responding to an audience question about building spurs along the rail lines to more cities and towns, Murphy said the focus needs to be on the main line first.

“I believe you’ve got to get the main line right first and that we have to improve the experience and reduce the time that it takes to get from New York to Boston, and that the bulk of our dollars should be going into that project first,” he said. “Because once you get that more reliable and faster, then you’re going to attract a lot more consumers to any branches that you build.”

Murphy said the only way to significantly speed travel along the existing line is to build new track “in places where there isn’t track today.”
...

Gee, didn't they try to do that before and Connecticut went ballistic.

bostontrainguy wrote:Gee, didn't they try to do that before and Connecticut went ballistic.

In fairness, too much of “official Washington” is expected to exhibit memory loss and stupidity

A less drastic option would be to “bridge” straighter sections of the main line with new ROWs instead of building an entire new bypass, but even then how much time would that truly save for that much money?

If it was spent on a new alignment *strictly* through New London and Groton that would allow for higher speeds AND more frequencies over the Thames River then that would be worth the time and $$$ but through the trap rock ridges in Old Lyme, etc.? Not a chance.

I don't know how serious proposals are, though I suspect the reactions were often loud.

That said, I think it's good for politicians to understand the requirements and to clearly voice them. It's better to be honest and clear and upfront about some of the impacts.

To have effective high speed rail, we will need to reroute in places. Let's be honest and upfront about it.

NH2060 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:01 pm

bostontrainguy wrote:Gee, didn't they try to do that before and Connecticut went ballistic.

In fairness, too much of “official Washington” is expected to exhibit memory loss and stupidity
If it was spent on a new alignment *strictly* through New London and Groton that would allow for higher speeds AND more frequencies over the Thames River then that would be worth the time and $$$ but through the trap rock ridges in Old Lyme, etc.? Not a chance.

If you want to build a 60 story 250 apartment building in Boston you submit plans for a 120 story 500 apartment building. Then after all the NIMBYS and officials scream at your terrible plans you come back with a 60 story 250 apartment building plan to appease them. They win and are happy and you get your project approved.

I actually thought that the bypass plan was an obvious similar tactic. You present a huge plan with the east end mostly built in the I-95 median and through some farmland and the western end slicing right through the center of beautiful historic Old Lyme. After all the shouting you come back with a compromise plan cutting the thing in half and showing how sensitive you are to the wants of the citizens. They win a huge victory but so do you. You build half of the plan from New London eastward. I guess I thought they were smarter than they were. They just gave up and walked away.

BTW - The eastern half of the bypass from New London to the Rhode Island border is the only place that I-95 has a reasonably wide median making it a perfect solution. See below. The tracks would swing in somewhere near Wood River Junction and enter the NEC just south of the Kingston speedway. This eastern half of the bypass eliminates a great deal of the worst curves, grade crossings and one major drawbridge over the Mystic River.

Why start at Wood River? Go a little farther east to Kenyons, which is at the very end of the 150 mph territory, and eliminate the big curve at Carolina.

Also, your idea would shorten the route, which is a time saver in and of itself.