Northeast Corridor Track Capacity (PHL-WAS)

Thanks Andrew; better than my rename.

StLouSteve wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:59 am Hmmm lots of capacity issues south of Baltimore into Washington per some of the prior replies ... could the B&O route be used from Baltimore instead of the NEC (Pennsy) to take some pressure off the NEC? How does the running time compare on these two competing MARC routes?

MAS on the CSX Washington Branch is 79MPH, with a considerable slow down for the thomas viaduct, and street crossings entering baltimore. It's an hour and ten minutes between DC and baltimore, vrs 1 hour on penn line.
That may not seem like much, but as redwolf will tell you, throw in waiting on a freight to clear howard street tunnel, and it can be up to and hour and a half. There was a proposal from MDOT to rebuild the claremont branch in baltimore to build a maintence facility, and electrify camden station.
according to this thread, it was abandoned.
viewtopic.php?t=21095
but the prepandemic 2045 plan had it back in the works.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:35 am MAS on the CSX Washington Branch is 79MPH, with a considerable slow down for the thomas viaduct, and street crossings entering baltimore. It's an hour and ten minutes between DC and baltimore, vrs 1 hour on penn line.
That may not seem like much, but as redwolf will tell you, throw in waiting on a freight to clear howard street tunnel, and it can be up to and hour and a half.

It's technically the CSX Metropolitan Subdivision from the K-Tower/F-Tower switch set all the way up to St. Dennis, which joins the Old Main Line to form the Baltimore Terminal Subdivision. It's diesel only, slow in Baltimore, shares two tracks with freight, and lo if anything happens to the Howard Street Tunnel.

Yes on the Penn/Camden connector, as there's a lot of savings to be had there... but I doubt you can electrify it all the way to Riverside. Maybe a track or two clear to CSX's yard, due to double-high cars.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:35 am

StLouSteve wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:59 am Hmmm lots of capacity issues south of Baltimore into Washington per some of the prior replies ... could the B&O route be used from Baltimore instead of the NEC (Pennsy) to take some pressure off the NEC? How does the running time compare on these two competing MARC routes?

MAS on the CSX Washington Branch is 79MPH, with a considerable slow down for the thomas viaduct, and street crossings entering baltimore. It's an hour and ten minutes between DC and baltimore, vrs 1 hour on penn line.
That may not seem like much, but as redwolf will tell you, throw in waiting on a freight to clear howard street tunnel, and it can be up to and hour and a half. There was a proposal from MDOT to rebuild the claremont branch in baltimore to build a maintence facility, and electrify camden station.
according to this thread, it was abandoned.
viewtopic.php?t=21095
but the prepandemic 2045 plan had it back in the works.

I don't understand "1 hour on Penn Line." It's been ~30 minutes for Acelas for years, and 40 min. in PRR days, with very few restrictive curves.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:37 pm I don't understand "1 hour on Penn Line." It's been ~30 minutes for Acelas for years, and 40 min. in PRR days, with very few restrictive curves.

1 hour on MARC via NEC vs 1h10m via CSX ("Camden Line") between BAL and WAS.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:57 pm

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:35 am MAS on the CSX Washington Branch is 79MPH, with a considerable slow down for the thomas viaduct, and street crossings entering baltimore. It's an hour and ten minutes between DC and baltimore, vrs 1 hour on penn line.
That may not seem like much, but as redwolf will tell you, throw in waiting on a freight to clear howard street tunnel, and it can be up to and hour and a half.

It's technically the CSX Metropolitan Subdivision from the K-Tower/F-Tower switch set all the way up to St. Dennis, which joins the Old Main Line to form the Baltimore Terminal Subdivision. It's diesel only, slow in Baltimore, shares two tracks with freight, and lo if anything happens to the Howard Street Tunnel.
Yes on the Penn/Camden connector, as there's a lot of savings to be had there... but I doubt you can electrify it all the way to Riverside. Maybe a track or two clear to CSX's yard, due to double-high cars.

How much does CSX use Riverside, these days? It looks like it's mainly MARC now.
The only section I'd see having to possibly lay down a second track would be along the route after the carrollton viaduct, past the Montgomery building, with catenary. And then, it will need to be tall enough to clear doublestacks going into howard street. With is doable, SEPTA already does so.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:58 pm How much does CSX use Riverside, these days? It looks like it's mainly MARC now.
The only section I'd see having to possibly lay down a second track would be along the route after the carrollton viaduct, past the Montgomery building, with catenary. And then, it will need to be tall enough to clear doublestacks going into howard street. With is doable, SEPTA already does so.

Bombardier took over from CSX for MARC at the Riverside yard, but that's only maybe 30% of the yard. Also, there's a CSX yard even further in than that, the Locus Point Industrial Area... and guess where the Domino Sugar Plant is at?

See page 23 for a full list
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8zB-Zk ... N2WEU/edit

Long term, sounds like MARC and VRE will get integrated with run through service at DC rather than tying up platforms and tracks which could help capacity issues for Amtrak.

Recent report here:

https://greaterwashingtonpartnership.co ... _Final.pdf

https://greaterwashingtonpartnership.co ... il-vision/

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:31 pm

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:58 pm How much does CSX use Riverside, these days? It looks like it's mainly MARC now.
The only section I'd see having to possibly lay down a second track would be along the route after the carrollton viaduct, past the Montgomery building, with catenary. And then, it will need to be tall enough to clear doublestacks going into howard street. With is doable, SEPTA already does so.

Bombardier took over from CSX for MARC at the Riverside yard, but that's only maybe 30% of the yard. Also, there's a CSX yard even further in than that, the Locus Point Industrial Area... and guess where the Domino Sugar Plant is at?

It looks to me like an operation CSX might hand off to some shortline, as (other than maybe Domino?), it doesn't look like much unit train customers there.The area has been gradually deindustrializing the last 40 years,.

RRspatch wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:00 am Actually I would suggest four tracking the line between "Hanson" and "Winans" first with "Carroll" and "Bridge" reconfigured for MARC on the outside tracks and Amtrak on the two inside tracks. With the exception of the Anacostia flood zone work the two track section isn't that big of a deal when you consider how many trains Amtrak and NJT run between "A" interlocking and "Hudson" which is a similar distance.

I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal. The existing plan to extend the four track segment south from WINANS to a new interlocking in Harmans is a great first step to realize this goal. Four-tracking all the way down to HANSON would also allow the outside northbound track (Track A?) to be built specifically to support the CSX freight traffic to the Pope’s Creek Sub.

The right-of-way is mostly clear, but Seabrook and Bowie State stations would need to be partially or fully rebuilt, with the pedestrian underpass at Bowie State extended or replaced outright. Odenton station would also need to be partially rebuilt. A brand new interlocking may also be needed south of the Sullivan Maintenance Facility to complement GROVE and to provide another place for trains to switch from the outer tracks to the inner tracks and vice versa. Lastly, the old kink in Track 1 north of the Patuxent River will probably need to be eliminated for good.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:54 pm I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal. The existing plan to extend the four track segment south from WINANS to a new interlocking in Harmans is a great first step to realize this goal. Four-tracking all the way down to HANSON would also allow the outside northbound track (Track A?) to be built specifically to support the CSX freight traffic to the Pope’s Creek Sub.

The right-of-way is mostly clear, but Seabrook and Bowie State stations would need to be partially or fully rebuilt, with the pedestrian underpass at Bowie State extended or replaced outright. Odenton station would also need to be partially rebuilt. A brand new interlocking may also be needed south of the Sullivan Maintenance Facility to complement GROVE and to provide another place for trains to switch from the outer tracks to the inner tracks and vice versa. Lastly, the old kink in Track 1 north of the Patuxent River will probably need to be eliminated for good.

In the environmental filings for the four-track WINANS-to-GROVE project (BWI major rebuild), the tracks would be renumbered 1 through 4, where Track A would be 1.

As mentioned in other threads, both Seabrook and Bowie State will need partial reconstruction to move the platform over one track.

Odenton (a very busy station pre-pandemic) itself was slated for four-track service with an express platform. With a fresh eye and fresh coffee in me... I can see raising the track to the old WB&A yard/company production plants, rebuilding the northbound platform to be truly side-by-side with the southbound and express middle, adding a new tunnel between the three, and adding more parking that has an exit at Winmeyer Avenue. Close half of the existing Northbound lot, convert it into a park, plop a few MARC ticket machines at the other end of the outer platforms, and done.

BWI we already have plans for. Halethorpe is done. West Baltimore needs modifications and I'd add handicapped access via two elevators and a high-platform, since this is a major transfer point now.

Historically, I thought the DC->Philly section was four tracks. Was this not the case? Were the MD bridges (Bush River, Susquehanna) always 2-track spans? My knowledge of the NEC is concentrated north of NYC, so most of what I know of the section to the south is limited to Pentrex's tapes from the early 90s, and one ride from NYP south to Perryville in '09.

No, it was never four tracks the whole way; it seems like the money ran out just before they got to BRILL, which required two successive 45-mph crossover moves for all northbound trains. -- and I think the interlocking was still Armstrong at that. From Marcus Hook to Wilmington there were two passenger tracks and two freight, with a flying junction at about Bellevue. Then from RAGAN, where the freight tracks from Edge Moor yard rejoined the passenger tracks (on the flat), there were 4 tracks to Iron Hill (MD state line), then 3 to North East, 2 to Principio, 4 to Perryville, 2 to Havre de Grace, 4 to Oakington, 3 to BUSH, 2 across the Bush River, then more of the same, with 2 across the Gunpowder River, then 4 to the approaches to Baltimore, 3 through the Union Tunnels, 2 through the B&P Tunnel (at 30 mph?), then mostly 3 to Landover and 2 to the Union Station approach. That was the picture when I worked in Baltimore in 1963, and it pretty much remained that way until it was conveyed to Amtrak.