Tightening up MNRR New Haven Line

I'm putting this topic here, because it has a direct effect on Amtrak. Perhaps the answer to the question has been stated already, but is there a way
to get shorter headways on the New Haven Line? I'm no expert in signaling, so don't flame me.

I ask, because Amtrak could probably used a few more slots as the plan for Inland Route trains comes to fruition.

no not unless you shorten signal blocks (more trains but less speed)
or make them longer, (higher speeds but less trains)

DutchRailnut wrote:no not unless you shorten signal blocks (more trains but less speed)
or make them longer, (higher speeds but less trains)

What about multi-block advance signals with shorter blocks? It'd be worth it to Amtrak, even if M-N doesn't need them.

your still basically lengthening block , but with more indications, and it will cut down on amount of trains that can be handled.

The best you can do for the New Haven Line is getting it up to full state-of-repair. Fix the bridges, knock out a couple deferred maint speed restrictions, increase the reliability of the signaling and electrical, etc. Because the signal density is what it is and Metro North mixes so many expresses with locals that there's never clear passing tracks to rev up AMTK speed except on the far off-peak, state-of-repair is the best you can do. But it matters...a lot. Raw speed isn't nearly as much a quality/quantity of service limiter as on-time performance. The more reliable an OTP they can achieve, the more trains they get to run and the less they have to over-pad the schedules for when they clear New Haven, which will bleed minutes off the schedules.

The actual-factual speed increases come from elsewhere. Built-up downtowns with dense commuter rail stop spacing are always going to be slower, curvier, and more congested than the swamps of New Jersey. You can't avoid that because that's where all the people are. NEC FUTURE needs to be beaten with a shovel to get that in their thick skulls that bypasses of population centers defeat the purpose of the service they hope to achieve. Increasing speeds to shorten schedules isn't something to hyper-focus on with the New Haven Line. Schedule improvement gets achieved by running up the score through the Jersey and Delaware swamps by opening up more 165 MPH territory, finding a solve for Metuchen curve, and so on. And by putting money where it's needed into zapping the Wallingford and Meriden grade crossing clusters + associated speed restrictions on the Springfield Line, and by speeding up MBTA territory where a couple decently large-mileage stretches of the Worcester Line can sustain 90 MPH while leapfrogging commuter rail locals.

The New Haven Line is what it is: an unbroken megalopolis where all the people are. Your goal is to get it in tip-top reliability. Do that and it gives plenty of service enhancement in the form of vastly better OTP. The raw performance improvements come from building up the head of steam in less populated/more easily straightened areas to build up that time savings cushion for the slower New Haven Line trip. They work hand-in-hand...you rack up savings in the Jersey swamps, but you sustain them by having full state of repair and dead-on accurate OTP in Connecticut. It's more nuanced than just a one-dimensional focus on "We have to have 125 MPH or better everywhere or we've failed at building first-world HSR." That kind of simplistic over-focus is what gets garbage like NEC FUTURE proposing to bypass the shoreline cities where all the people are to blow $100B TBM'ing dozens of miles of tunnels through the rural boondocks. places few people live. Running up the score where the score can be run up, then plugging leaks in the max-density jungle of the Route 1 megalopolis so there's as little attrition as possible when coasting through where all the people are is how the 'Dream NEC' gets done right and how the very divergent traffic profiles of these differing NEC pieces end up fitting together fluidly and functionally.

You readers of this thread need to listen to F-line carefully.
IMO what is more important is to get rid of all slow orders / sections. That is especially important for the Conn draw bridges eliminated eventually.
When trains do not need to slow or accelerate except for the local tracks then more trains can be scheduled.

It isn't going to happen overnight, either; ConnDOT's pdf/slideshow on the NH Line Catenary and Bridge Replacement Program says (in the very last slide) that the project is forecasted to cause 20 more years of continuous track outages.

I also remember from my trips there are sections where there could be a 3rd or 4th track.

there is only few miles where it is 3 track from just east of milford to devon bridge., and not really a busy spot at that.

gprimr1 wrote:I also remember from my trips there are sections where there could be a 3rd or 4th track.

More importantly is all of the track work where there are only 2 tracks. I can't remember the last time all 4 tracks through Bridgeport were open... seems there's also frequently bridge plates between STM and NRO which is the most congested segment.

It has been many, many years since I lived next to the 4 track main of the NYNH&H in Riverside, CT., so it is hard for me to imagine that the plant was allowed to deteriorate to such a condition as it apparently is now. As far as I can remember, the 4 track main went to NH and I certainly remember the wire train working at night to keep the lines running during the day. Is all work now done during the day? "Deferred maintenance" seems to always be the downfall of so much of our transportation infrastructure, from the common sense but ignored washing off the accumulated winter salt from concrete bridges to failing to put forth honest capital budgets. "F-line," you seem to be very on top of this and I appreciate your comments. Hopefully, the surface transportation bill which just today was passed will help with sound capital planning.

A lot of maintenance work formerly done at night is now done during the day on Amtrak. I was told by management that this is due to safety - 10% more accidents were reported on work performed during hours of darkness.

Amtrak does not maintain New Haven line .

MNRR runs the NHL as a 2 track railroad for 22 hours a day. For around 1 hour in the morning, and 1 hour in the evening, there is overtaking, but otherwise there is NO overtaking. Even though you see 4 tracks, in MNRR's eyes, they see only 2 tracks. IMO they should've added a 5th track wherever they do bridge replacements. MNRR originates/terminates trains at stations without storage facilities, so all the Greenwich/Harrison originating/terminating trains must deadhead from Stamford, or turn the express tracks into a yard. The SLE trains also sit on the express tracks west of stamford waiting for their platform slot as if it is a yard.

There is PLENTY of unused capacity on NHL, NHL was built as a 4 track railroad, with its own private Harlem River Terminal. Going to GCT was an afterthought. But remember, GCT/Park Ave is a 4 track railroad, that 6-12 tracks have to merge into and there are only 3 tracks at Woodlawn junction. MNRR could give alot more slots to Amtrak, but that would mean that MNRR have to give up their 2 track timetable, which they wont since it is so convenient operationally (screw the riders).

put in for the job, MN loves it when railbuffs think they know it all.