Possible Future Improvements - 110+ mph, Electrification...

What actually are the grades on the RF&P and SAL? I don’t think we need to worry about dual-modes encountering excessive grades on any Amtrak route; as far as I know they aren’t planning to operate over Saluda

Re: electrification, if a new Democratic Senate passes substantive climate legislation, then a modernized grid powered by renewables would almost certainly be part of the equation. At that point the question of electrification becomes much easier, especially if it can be integrated with the grid from the outset of the design phase.

I agree that electrification would likely come in large-ish batches to save money. In this case you could also partner with commuter operators to ensure everyone's dollars go as far as possible. NHV-SPG-BOS gets electrified when MBTA electrifies the Worcester/Framingham line. Wires go up over the Illinois corridors if/when Metra ever decides to electrify the Rock Island line or other routes, perhaps Michigan at the same time. Rinse, repeat for other corridors across the network.

TurningOfTheWheel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:40 pm

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:59 am Going faster, up to 110 mph, can be accomplished with Charger diesel locomotives.

Is it really as simple as a train with Chargers can run SOB-ERI at 110 while the P42s can't? The LSL already hits 110 south of SDY, so that explanation doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. You've got hundreds of miles of perfectly straight track in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania just begging to be used for HrSR. Is CSX holding up the infrastructure improvements necessary to reach 110, or will they just not give clearance to Amtrak to run trains that fast on that route?

Infrastructure, 1st you need cab signals to travel over 79mph the I-ETMS system would have to be up dated with new braking curves for the upgraded speeds. Not to count roadbed and signal upgrades and if there are cab signals then CSX would need same for their locomotives. This was once talked about in New York all NYS wanted was 90mph and CSX fought tooth and nail. We still have 79mph max west of CP169(Hoffmans) and I dont see it getting any faster in my last 7ish years behind the throttle.

CSX may have a good reason for not allowing greater than 90 MPH on their lines without track centers spaced further apart than normal. A few years ago two of their employees were killed by an Amtrak train near Washington Union Station. It seemed to be a case of mis-communication since they were standing on the track the train was on while their train was setting out a defective car.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:59 am I believe improvements will be contingent on the States to pony up for a third to a half.

And that's where ideas go to die.

For me a less sexy improvement that will speed things up is eliminating at-grade crossings on mainlines as much as possible. This is something that is a safety improvement necessary for higher speeds that is easy to get bipartisan and railroad support.

Other things I would do involve capacity and signal improvements.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:52 am For me a less sexy improvement that will speed things up is eliminating at-grade crossings on mainlines as much as possible. This is something that is a safety improvement necessary for higher speeds that is easy to get bipartisan and railroad support.

Other things I would do involve capacity and signal improvements.

Shorter blocks with more signal aspects
Quad-gate grade crossings
Superelevation where appropriate
The Feds paying for the next track class up (if a railroad only needs Class 3, the government kicks in enough money for Class 4 speeds)
Adjusted PTC timing

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:56 pm

TurningOfTheWheel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:40 pm

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:59 am Going faster, up to 110 mph, can be accomplished with Charger diesel locomotives.

Is it really as simple as a train with Chargers can run SOB-ERI at 110 while the P42s can't? The LSL already hits 110 south of SDY, so that explanation doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. You've got hundreds of miles of perfectly straight track in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania just begging to be used for HrSR. Is CSX holding up the infrastructure improvements necessary to reach 110, or will they just not give clearance to Amtrak to run trains that fast on that route?

Infrastructure, 1st you need cab signals to travel over 79mph the I-ETMS system would have to be up dated with new braking curves for the upgraded speeds. Not to count roadbed and signal upgrades and if there are cab signals then CSX would need same for their locomotives. This was once talked about in New York all NYS wanted was 90mph and CSX fought tooth and nail. We still have 79mph max west of CP169(Hoffmans) and I dont see it getting any faster in my last 7ish years behind the throttle.

Assuming the project is paid for by federal funding, including cab signals for CSX's own locomotives, does the conversation change at all? Again, a lot of these projects are contingent on a massive railway funding bill passing the new Congress.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:52 am For me a less sexy improvement that will speed things up is eliminating at-grade crossings on mainlines as much as possible. This is something that is a safety improvement necessary for higher speeds that is easy to get bipartisan and railroad support.

Other things I would do involve capacity and signal improvements.

Eliminating grade crossings on mainlines is favored by freight train companies, they rarely object to governmental agencies building new grade separated public crossings when public financing is appropriated for them. But that is an entirely different issue when it comes to closing private crossings, most of which do not even have anything more than cross buck signs.
A major political obstacle Texas Central has faced is from rural land owners desiring private access (crossings) across their new build HSR corridor. It is far easier to accommodate grade separated private crossings on a brand new alignment than on the grades of an existing alignment. Eliminating private crossings on an existing corridor is not as politically feasible as some might suggest.
The reason so many higher speed train proposals are limited to 110 mph is this issue with private crossings. The reason freight railroads desire limiting higher speed rail speeds to 90 mph or less is the issue with signaling, both train controls and public at-grade crossings.

electricron wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:06 am

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:52 am For me a less sexy improvement that will speed things up is eliminating at-grade crossings on mainlines as much as possible. This is something that is a safety improvement necessary for higher speeds that is easy to get bipartisan and railroad support.

Other things I would do involve capacity and signal improvements.

Eliminating grade crossings on mainlines is favored by freight train companies, they rarely object to governmental agencies building new grade separated public crossings when public financing is appropriated for them. But that is an entirely different issue when it comes to closing private crossings, most of which do not even have anything more than cross buck signs.
A major political obstacle Texas Central has faced is from rural land owners desiring private access (crossings) across their new build HSR corridor. It is far easier to accommodate grade separated private crossings on a brand new alignment than on the grades of an existing alignment. Eliminating private crossings on an existing corridor is not as politically feasible as some might suggest.
The reason so many higher speed train proposals are limited to 110 mph is this issue with private crossings. The reason freight railroads desire limiting higher speed rail speeds to 90 mph or less is the issue with signaling, both train controls and public at-grade crossings.

For me getting to 110mph is the goal. 90 mph would be a massive improvement on some lines.

The pain with private crossings can even be seen on the Keystone Line. A few remain and one of them was the scene of an accident recently.
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/ ... 2f2d1.html

RRspatch wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:53 am New York to Albany or perhaps Buffalo. The line west of Albany was originally four tracks wide. Let CSXT have the two north tracks and Amtrak the two south tracks. I believe the four track right of way went all the way to Cleveland in the NYC days.

This comes up again and again and again.
To begin with, the track centers were closer back when the Central ran this as four tracks. Even if there is enough room in the ROW to put four tracks back in at standard centers today, it wouldn't meet CSX's approval to run their freight lines concurrent with a HSR track - When CSX took over the Albany Service Lane from Conrail was about the same time Pataki was trying to push for a HS corridor to Buffalo - I don't have specifics now but I believe CSX responded with a track-center distance to any parallel HSR trackage that would put it outside of the existing ROW. Plus you would never be able to grade-separate the vast majority of the road crossings.

Ideas for this have been floated for a while around these forums, some even by myself, but ultimately it would be so cost prohibitive they'd never begin to recoup the money. The idea of a third track to the north of the existing 2-1 Main tracks would be impossible in numerous locations because of the original Central setup which put the freight yards on the north and the passenger stations on the south side. You'd never get CSX to add new 3-4 Mains to the north of the existing rails and give up their 2-1 Mains, especially now that they've invested so much money in the signal upgrades to meet PTC requirements. The existing passing and set-out sidings on the line are remnants of the Central's 3-4 Freight mains on the north side, so they'd lose all of those as well.

About the only realistic option I can think of would be to repurchase and reactivate portions of abandoned ROWs. The LV was straight as an arrow between Buffalo and Batavia. A lot of road crossings to grade separate and I'm sure a bunch of NIMBYs to deal with, but it's an option. Terminate it at the CSX Mains between Central Ave and Cemetery Rd, east of the Depew station. From there to Batavia gets you about 27 miles of separate high speed line. From the east side Batavia you could take take the Erie to Leroy, but then you'd have to convince G&W Corp to let you rebuild a parallel line on the old B&O up to Lincoln Park/CP 373. I'm sure most of this wouldn't be able to run at 110mph but it would continue to solve some of the CSX delay issues on the main line, and you build a connection on the south side of Batavia at CP 402 so Amtrak has the ability to bypass either section on CSX if they need to. West of Rochester, the only viable solution I could see would be to purchase the old West Shore east of the current West Shore subdivision, but as I recall that was primarily a coal drag route so I don't know if that would be straight enough to get high speed to Syracuse and beyond. It's also been abandoned long enough that I'm not even able to locate most of the path on Google Earth, so I don't know if it would even be plausible.

Edit: I found the ROW on OSM - In theory, you could use the West Shore from CP 359 in Macedon to CP 293 in Syracuse. Jump back off to the WS either near CP 278 east of Dewitt or in Canastota near CP 270. Unfortunately there's no way to get to Rome from the WS though, so it would only work for the LSL, not Empire Service. You could take the WS to Utica where you'd have to jump onto Schuyler St on the NYS&W to get to the Utica station. You could jump back to the WS east of Utica before the Mohawk River, but then you're stuck on the wrong side of the river for Amsterdam and would require a new station there, and stick with it until Schenectady where you'd have to build a new bridge to get over to the Hudson Sub. But there you go. There's your best option for a High Speed Passenger corridor from Albany to Buffalo. A Lehigh/West Shore combination, with some smaller railroads to utilize some ROW and/or trackage in other places. Only shares the main with CSX in the cities with stations.

Given the issues NJT has had getting the old Lackawanna Cut Off rebuilt, I don't see any of this happening in my lifetime.

I believe battery technology will improve significantly in the next few years so that cat or third rail will no longer be required over an entire route but could be spaced out to certain sections. In between these wired sections, engines would draw from batteries. This might change the economics of electrifying a route.

Once installed, this could be used for freight or passenger power and would be faster and cleaner. (Weird analogy but think of NYC Hudsons drawing water from track pans at speed).

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:52 am For me a less sexy improvement that will speed things up is eliminating at-grade crossings on mainlines as much as possible. This is something that is a safety improvement necessary for higher speeds that is easy to get bipartisan and railroad support.

That may not really help. They can now go 110 through a standard protection crossing and 125 through a barrier type crossing. If you ride the NEC today through Connecticut and Rhode Island, you won't get close to those speeds though the grade crossings.

StLouSteve wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:41 am I believe battery technology will improve significantly in the next few years so that cat or third rail will no longer be required over an entire route but could be spaced out to certain sections. In between these wired sections, engines would draw from batteries. This might change the economics of electrifying a route.

Once installed, this could be used for freight or passenger power and would be faster and cleaner. (Weird analogy but think of NYC Hudsons drawing water from track pans at speed).

I don’t think you’ll have takers on the freight side, unless it’s a short line (think port authority railroads or something like Belt Ry of Chicago) being given hefty grants. On the passenger side, sure - and especially if you wire up a mile on either side of each station, so the grid can supply most of the high-amperage power for acceleration. The technology is arguably here today, at least for lightweight units like the Stadler FLIRT.

Has anyone mentioned dual modes? That's already in the works for Amtrak in NYC; a joint procurement of power to replace the P-32's for Empire Service that would include both the LIRR and MNRR. Now, that would be third rail (both over- and under-running similar to the M8's) for running into NYP. And the Gennie primarily runs on Diesel, only using DC in the terminal zone.

I think here, though, we're talking about catenary.

AFAIK, the ALP-45DP has that capability (and they're adding a new order, the ALP-45-A? DPA? Whatevs. The issue with the 45 though is the range. It's the reverse of the P32 in that it's primarily catenary operation, with diesel for the shorter stretch.

Can Siemens come up with a hybrid Sprinter/Charger? Would that work in some of these corridors? That would obviate the need for electrification extensions such as Richmond, Springfield, etc. and also obviate the need for an engine change at New Haven and DC.

There's so much going on in Virginia and NC right now with ROW purchases that freight interference may not be an issue with electrification. That's not an issue for New Haven to Springfield, where Amtrak owns the line and while there's a decent amount of freight, it's mostly local and interchange at Cedar Hill. East of Springfield might be a problem, though.

I would love to see electrification south of DC, though. Think of the enhancement to corridor service in NC and VA, as well as potentially speeding Atlantic Coast Service with the Silvers and Palm, er, Palmetto.