Today's Buffalo News

David Benton wrote:correct , it doesnt matter where the time is saved , the journey will be shorter . Makes sense to do it on the most heavily travelled section . plus i would say the planning has already been done , wasnt an upgrade blamed when ( hate to mention them ) turbos were rebuilt ?

While improvements will certainly be made in the NYP-ALB section, there's only so much that can be done there before you're talking very large sums of money. And even then, I doubt you could ever get it below 1:30 running time. (We'll be lucky in my opinion if they hit 2:00 in the next 5 years!).

From ALB-BUF there's ultimately more room for improvement. I support improving both, but with the first focus on the NYP-ALB section.

I'd probably then work on double-tracking ALB-SCY and then work on stuff further west.

Greg Moore wrote: While improvements will certainly be made in the NYP-ALB section, there's only so much that can be done there before you're talking very large sums of money. And even then, I doubt you could ever get it below 1:30 running time. (We'll be lucky in my opinion if they hit 2:00 in the next 5 years!).

Roughly speaking, just by tinkering around between POU and ALB we will most likely get at most another 30 mins. To go beyond that will require cooperation of MNRR, which currently has a "no-more-than-80-mph" philosophy. So in the next 5 years I do not expect to see anything less than 2 hours on NYP-ALB.

From ALB-BUF there's ultimately more room for improvement. I support improving both, but with the first focus on the NYP-ALB section.

ALB - BUF, by NY DOT's own admission you get almost 1 hour reduction in effective running time, by simply being able to run the trains to the current schedule. You get another hour or so and maybe even a bit more by third track 110mph etc. I would assume that realistically given the current and expected freight traffic volume SDY - BUF would require a third track in substantial sections of the alignment with universal crossovers at regular intervals, even if the third track is 80mph only. So I guess there will be about equal incremental capital investment needed to get the first hour as to get the second hour improvement. Of course ongoing maintenance will be significantly higher for the second hour improvement.

I'd probably then work on double-tracking ALB-SCY and then work on stuff further west.

Double tracking SDY might actually get funded out of stimulus or 2010 appropriations, is what I am hearing. So whether the learned folks of the board like it or not, it will get done earlier than certain possible improvements between POU and ALB. And as for significant improvements in running time between NYP - POU. at least I am not holding my breath. There will be more spent on capacity improvement than running time improvement in that section. Any running time improvements will just be incidental as a result of improved signaling system.

Jishnu wrote: Roughly speaking, just by tinkering around between POU and ALB we will most likely get at most another 30 mins. To go beyond that will require cooperation of MNRR, which currently has a "no-more-than-80-mph" philosophy. So in the next 5 years I do not expect to see anything less than 2 hours on NYP-ALB.

MNRR maintains the line for 90 mph north of Croton Harmon. It used to be 95 mph between there and Poughkeepsie, but Metro North decided it wasn't worth maintaining track for FRA Class VI standards just to run 5 mph faster.

[moved to the High Speed Rail Forum - omv]

The $9 billion announcement by New York State last week mentions "high speed rail" but what it really means is a series of infrastructure improvements and capacity enhancements that will allow "high-er speed" rail. In other words, no Acelas, Turbos, Metros, or anything else for that matter. It's $9 billion to be spent over a span of years, most of it going to host railroads. Will Amtrak be a benefactor? Indirectly, yes, with increased track capacity and higher speeds, Amtrak wont be cooling its heels in a siding somewhere. However, if you're a politician, you can't package up a bill like this and say it will benefit the private freight railroads. No one rides CSX. Everyone rides Amtrak. Package it as something the public can wrap their head around. Label it "high speed rail" and you have a winner. Everybody's happy.

But don't look for the mainline beyond Croton to get electrified anytime soon. That's just fantasy stuff.

-otto-