Today's Buffalo News

upgrading the keystone dropped ten minutes off the schedule making it faster than driving and allowing it to actually meet the eschedule (it saved ten scheduled minutes but before the upgrade, it rarely met the schedule so it really saved 30 min). In the two years since, ridership has nearly doubled. speed and reliability are big, the article suggests the time savings to buffalo would be significant and from NYS perspective, it really needs o tinvest in the rest of the state.

Just for reference, here are some numbers that were given to us at the Schenectady ESPA/NARP meeting last Saturday by the NY DOT. These are for running time estimates in hour:mins, between Albany and Buffalo Depew (what they call Empire Corridor West) , using various speed and equipment in their study:

• Today Scheduled 4:55
• Today actual mean 5:44
• 110 mph current equipment current alignment 3:51
• 110mph Jet-train current alignment 3:42
• 125mph Jet-train current alignment 3:41
• 150mph Acela on current alignment 3:12

These numbers suggest that the maximum bang for the buck is obtained in going to 110mph. Beyond that the incremental time reduction becomes less and the incremental cost for achieving and also maintaining that becomes more.

Notice that the fact that the current alignment is proposed to be used probably makes it quite difficult to exploiting 125 or 150mph or even higher speeds to the fullest extent for reducing actual total running time since the current alignment is not suitable for continuous running at such high speeds over significant distances. So the sort of dramatic time improvements that one obtains using purpose built high speed lines like the LGV in France, the NBS in Germany or the Shinkansen in Japan is not really achievable using incrementalism of the sort that is being considered.

But all current proposals are about using the current alignment hence this study estimates make a lot of sense in that context.

Jishnu wrote:

• Today Scheduled 4:55
• Today actual mean 5:44
• 110 mph current equipment current alignment 3:51
• 110mph Jet-train current alignment 3:42
• 125mph Jet-train current alignment 3:41
• 150mph Acela on current alignment 3:12

These numbers suggest that the maximum bang for the buck is obtained in going to 110mph. Beyond that the incremental time reduction becomes less and the incremental cost for achieving and also maintaining that becomes more.

Actually, the best bang:buck would be achieved by meeting the printed timetable! Beyond that, I'm skeptical that 110mph would lead to the time savings posted, and even MORE skeptical that the Jettrain would be significantly better than a diesel (it's not much more powerful, and can be less, under high temperatures).

But, nonetheless nearly one hour could be 'saved' by just meeting the schedule!

Notice that the fact that the current alignment is proposed to be used probably makes it quite difficult to exploiting 125 or 150mph or even higher speeds to the fullest extent for reducing actual total running time since the current alignment is not suitable for continuous running at such high speeds over significant distances.

Why? Curvy? That's why tilt was invented (I mean real tilt, not Acela's amusement park ride). Hilly? That's what light weight's for. Freight? Double track and learn to schedule freights again. Grade crossings? That's a problem. Create a list and prioritize, and work on it as money becomes available.

So the sort of dramatic time improvements that one obtains using purpose built high speed lines like the LGV in France, the NBS in Germany or the Shinkansen in Japan is not really achievable using incrementalism of the sort that is being considered.

But all current proposals are about using the current alignment hence this study estimates make a lot of sense in that context.

[/quote]

Then the question becomes: Can a 3:45 timing attract enough passengers to be worth the money? I say no - there's not much up there. Look at the NYC -> Buff time (and really, NYC to Niagra falls). If *that* can be made attractive, you'll get a good tourist crowd.

Nasadowsk wrote: Then the question becomes: Can a 3:45 timing attract enough passengers to be worth the money? I say no - there's not much up there. Look at the NYC -> Buff time (and really, NYC to Niagra falls). If *that* can be made attractive, you'll get a good tourist crowd.

Yes, that is the bottom line question. According to their current plans Empire Corridor South (NYP - ALB) would be 2 hrs., Empire Corridor West (ALB - BUF) would be 3:50, and my gut feeling is BUF - NFL will never be less than 50 minutes given the cowpath that it goes over. At present it is 1:10 or so for the 30 or so miles including a stop at Exchange Street.

So NYP - BUF will be 5:50 for 431 miles, around 73 mph, not terribly shabby for American standards. NYP - NFL would be 6:40 for 460 miles, around 69mph.

Is that good enough? I have no clue. NY DOT seems to think it is.

As for the rest of the questions you asked in your message, keep in mind I am not a representative of NY DOT. I am just a messenger who took notes in a meeting at which the material was presented and reporting it here as faithfully as I can. If you want to have a productive discussion you will either need to come to these meetings and coral the guys there or get in touch with them some other way.

The few comments that I posted regarding comparison of net running times between purpose built high speed lines and upgraded existing lines with special equipment like tilting and what nots is generally documented at many places. There is at present no example of an upgraded existing line that produces as low a running time as a purpose built high speed line over the same distance. I was just stating that. And the NY DOT people also stated that.

These running times aren't truly useful unless you add in the average time until the next departure. That's how the real world looks at these things. If the next train to Buffalo doesn't leave for another five hours then how much does it matter if the scheduled running time is four hours or five? The average person realizes he can hop in his car and be in Buffalo before the next train leaves Rennselaer.

This is why overall market potential is such a huge factor in how successful a project like this can be. You have to have a large enough market to justify high frequencies without such you can't achieve the real life time savings desired no matter how fast the train can go. It's why the NEC is so successful for Amtrak and its patrons.

MudLake wrote:These running times aren't truly useful unless you add in the average time until the next departure. That's how the real world looks at these things. If the next train to Buffalo doesn't leave for another five hours then how much does it matter if the scheduled running time is four hours or five? The average person realizes he can hop in his car and be in Buffalo before the next train leaves Rennselaer.

This is why overall market potential is such a huge factor in how successful a project like this can be. You have to have a large enough market to justify high frequencies without such you can't achieve the real life time savings desired no matter how fast the train can go. It's why the NEC is so successful for Amtrak and its patrons.

Very good point indeed!

I got the impression that they were shooting for a train every two hours. Basic pattern would be a train every two hours that runs only upto Albany, or Schenectady or Saratoga, And a train every two hours in the other hour that runs through to NFL. They did not say this in so many words but that is the impression I carried out with me from the various conversation that were had.

Is there even a thing such as double stack caternary?

AgentSkelly wrote:Is there even a thing such as double stack caternary?

Yes. I'm pretty sure there are two standard heights in the US, around 20 feet and 23 feet. Putting the wire at 23 feet will clear the lower ones, no problem. And that's within the reach of any loco on the NEC.

Nasadowsk wrote:

AgentSkelly wrote:Is there even a thing such as double stack caternary?

Yes. I'm pretty sure there are two standard heights in the US, around 20 feet and 23 feet. Putting the wire at 23 feet will clear the lower ones, no problem. And that's within the reach of any loco on the NEC.

23' sounds about right. China and India are both standardizing on 7.5 to 8m for freight corridors, which works out to somewhere between 23' and 25'. In India normal catenary is something around 5.5 to 6m. They plan to have fully electrified freight corridors connecting freight hubs around the country.

Jishnu wrote:Just for reference, here are some numbers that were given to us at the Schenectady ESPA/NARP meeting last Saturday by the NY DOT. These are for running time estimates in hour:mins, between Albany and Buffalo Depew (what they call Empire Corridor West) , using various speed and equipment in their study:

• Today Scheduled 4:55
• Today actual mean 5:44
• 110 mph current equipment current alignment 3:51
• 110mph Jet-train current alignment 3:42
• 125mph Jet-train current alignment 3:41
• 150mph Acela on current alignment 3:12

The biggest problem with the current service, as the first two figures show, is its inability to meet schedule. What makes NYSDOT think that upgraded trains and tracks would do any better? Seems like the only way this plan could be viable would be to return the route to its original 4 tracks, designate 2 for passenger service and dispatch them separately from CSX. But I am guessing that is way beyond what the state has in mind...

Doesn't VIA average something like 80 mph between Montreal and Toronto on a largely double track freight line, with a modest 100 mph top speed? That should be the type of thing we'd want to implement here.

Jishnu wrote: Yes, that is the bottom line question. According to their current plans Empire Corridor South (NYP - ALB) would be 2 hrs., Empire Corridor West (ALB - BUF) would be 3:50, and my gut feeling is BUF - NFL will never be less than 50 minutes given the cowpath that it goes over. At present it is 1:10 or so for the 30 or so miles including a stop at Exchange Street.

So NYP - BUF will be 5:50 for 431 miles, around 73 mph, not terribly shabby for American standards. NYP - NFL would be 6:40 for 460 miles, around 69mph.

I think it's absolutely mind boggling that people are saying knocking two hours off isn't a big deal. As I said, the Keystone knocked off 30 min and ridership has doubled. it's worth noting that at 6:40, a few trainsets will be able to make round trips, improving equipment utilization and increasing service without dramatically increasing costs.

Suburban Station wrote: I think it's absolutely mind boggling that people are saying knocking two hours off isn't a big deal. As I said, the Keystone knocked off 30 min and ridership has doubled. it's worth noting that at 6:40, a few trainsets will be able to make round trips, improving equipment utilization and increasing service without dramatically increasing costs.

It's not that knocking two hours off isn't a big deal, it's there no real ridership in the first place. In part, because Albany to Buffalo is basically farmland dotted with a few abandoned cities. Cows don't take the train much and their owners tend not to be big into travel either...

Syracuse seemed like a fairly bustling city when I was there. Certainly the university provides some ridership.

Nasadowsk wrote:
It's not that knocking two hours off isn't a big deal, it's there no real ridership in the first place. In part, because Albany to Buffalo is basically farmland dotted with a few abandoned cities. Cows don't take the train much and their owners tend not to be big into travel either...

This posting probably doesn't merit a response but...Buffalo alone has over a million people...