Today's Buffalo News

Moderator Note: I understand that this is tangential to Amtrak, but if you read the article, Amtrak is both directly and indirectly referred to. This has been posted (by yours truly) on the New York State forum, but our concerns here suggest, to me, that posting here is appropriate as well.

Snip:

High-speed trains to NYC could be on the fast track
State appears ready to capitalize on stimulus funds for high-speed rail from Buffalo to Albany after years of studies and strong political support
By Mark Sommer
NEWS STAFF REPORTER

You can be excused for thinking high-speed rail is merely the region’s latest pipe dream.

Years-long delays and scrapped plans on projects from Bass Pro Shops and the Peace Bridge to Adelphia and the Statler Hotel have conditioned people to roll their eyes and lower expectations.

However, there are several reasons why high-speed rail across Western and upstate New York to Albany and New York City could become a reality.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/601721.html

Dave Becker

Hmm. Wonder how they would go about it?

The politicians quoted seemed to think even the Acela wasn't really that great, and that they wanted to at least equal its performance. That would dictate electrification, would it not? The bottom end of the line has third-rail into GCT, but there's a relatively low speed limit for that technology as I recall.

Is it possible that they would seriously consider catenary all the way to Buffalo? That would certainly be a serious change, to say the least, with major ramifications for Amtrak.

Otherwise, they're not really going to get anything particularly "high speed" no matter what they do, are they? Not that straightening out curves and adding sidings is a bad thing.

krtaylor wrote:Hmm. Wonder how they would go about it?

The politicians quoted seemed to think even the Acela wasn't really that great, and that they wanted to at least equal its performance. That would dictate electrification, would it not? The bottom end of the line has third-rail into GCT, but there's a relatively low speed limit for that technology as I recall.

Is it possible that they would seriously consider catenary all the way to Buffalo? That would certainly be a serious change, to say the least, with major ramifications for Amtrak.

Otherwise, they're not really going to get anything particularly "high speed" no matter what they do, are they? Not that straightening out curves and adding sidings is a bad thing.

I doubt it'll be a LONG time before you see catenary out to Buffalo. Just not enough traffic at this point to support it. To Albany, maybe. That one to me is more likely and useful. NYS really has to work on getting ALB-NYP to 1:30 running times (maybe 1:45). With hourly departures.

I don't know about that, the trains to buffalo are pretty full. and it's got more benefit to NYS. is this really happening or is it more smoke?

The Catenary to buffalo has many more obstacles than funding, part of the problems are that CSX owns the tracks from Poughkipsee(sp) al lthe way to buffalo, I would think that their would be a lot of opposition from CSX. In comparison, the electrification of the keystone line to Harrisburg was much easier because of the existing catenary and it was amtrak(or state of PA) owned track. NYS saw the turbos as the best of both worlds between electrification and keeping the existing network, I woulden't expect many NYS funded initiatives (such as electrification) after the turbo problems.

Looks like someone is at least trying to go beyond Albany, and considering speeds requiring electrification. Report in local Utica paper.

http://www.uticaod.com/archive/x1445720 ... l-to-Utica

"A high-speed rail line from Albany to Niagara Falls could wind its way through New York, and if it does, Utica will have a stop, state officials said Monday."

"Arcuri said the current plan calls for the laying of rail that can carry trains that travel up to 110 miles per hour. Trains on that line now generally go about 79 miles per hour, he said.

The existing lines can be modified for such speeds, and if more work were done, it could support speeds of up to 150 miles per hour, he said. Some high-speed rail systems can travel up to 200 miles per hour, but that would require more changes to the track system and might not be feasible with the state’s geography, he said."

Sounds to me like:

1. Immediate plan: best possible conventional speeds (110mph)
2. If/when funds available, upgrade to Acela-style speeds (electrification, 150mph) and at least plan for it someday
3. No serious play for anything more (wise, as that would be insanely expensive and not cost-effective considering the passenger density or lack thereof.

About as practical as we can reasonably expect from government, I'd say.

High speed trains do not require electrification - Britain's HST's (Intercity 125) ran at 125 mph and were diesel powered. 125 would be a reasonable goal for this route.

Jon

jonnhrr wrote:High speed trains do not require electrification - Britain's HST's (Intercity 125) ran at 125 mph and were diesel powered. 125 would be a reasonable goal for this route.

Jon

That's not what we would now consider "high speed". 125 is probably the limit for diesel power.

But it's not so much the speed that requires electrification but frequency. If a line has four trains an hour electrification is obviously the best solution (Glasgow-Edinburgh by the direct route is the obvious example, though it has taken 30 years for it to happen). It's unlikely that the upper state New York line will ever get three or four trains an hour.

Well, realistically, can you run high-speed diesel trains under FRA rules? The high-speed diesel equipment in Europe is lightweight, and wouldn't meet FRA standards AFAIK. Beef it up so that it would, and it wouldn't be high-speed anymore. The virtue of electrification is that it doesn't have to carry its own fuel.

I agree, electrification to Buffalo seems overkill, and it's hard to imagine that they'd ever get enough money to do it. My question is, setting aside the issue of cost, is it even possible to get high-speed service there without electrification, given FRA rules and existing technology? I'm guessing not. Which would make anything more than 110mph operation a pipe-dream - thus, no "HSR" coming to upstate NYC.

Let's focus on the specific Buffalo News article.

Getting trains up to 110 mph west of Schenectady, especially on a dedicated passenger track would be real sweet. I could definitely see times-saving there.

Greg Moore wrote:Let's focus on the specific Buffalo News article.

Getting trains up to 110 mph west of Schenectady, especially on a dedicated passenger track would be real sweet. I could definitely see times-saving there.

The speed is already 100 mph much of the way from Schenectady to Amsterdam, correct?

Matt Johnson wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:Let's focus on the specific Buffalo News article.

Getting trains up to 110 mph west of Schenectady, especially on a dedicated passenger track would be real sweet. I could definitely see times-saving there.

The speed is already 100 mph much of the way from Schenectady to Amsterdam, correct?

They are only 18 miles apart and I doubt there is even 10 miles (Schenectady to Hoffmans) with running over 79 mph.

MudLake wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:Let's focus on the specific Buffalo News article.

Getting trains up to 110 mph west of Schenectady, especially on a dedicated passenger track would be real sweet. I could definitely see times-saving there.

The speed is already 100 mph much of the way from Schenectady to Amsterdam, correct?

They are only 18 miles apart and I doubt there is even 10 miles (Schenectady to Hoffmans) with running over 79 mph.

In any case:

18 miles at 80mph = 13min 30 seconds
18 miles at 100mph = 10 min 48 seconds.

Theoretical savings? 2 1/2 minutes, or so. That assumes 100 mph the whole way through. Now, assuming that the train takes some time to get to 100, and some time to get back from 100, the time saved is less.

Better put: Cut the dwell time by a minute. Much cheaper for the same effect. And speed up the slow parts. It's going slow all the time and sitting in stations forever that's killing the average speed of most Amtrak trains. Once Amtrak figures out how to do a station stop in a minute, get out of the terminal on time, it'll be worth spending money on upping the line speed. But even on the NEC, Amtrak's slow/unreliable. to the point of frustration - and they don't have CSXUPBNSFNFCPCNSP to blame, there.

In any case, invest in rail in upstate NY? Byong Albany, there's just nobody out there to take it. Upstate's been slowly decaying into nothing for years, and there's nothing to support it, since nobody wants to pay NY state taxes for the convenience of lake effect snow 6 months out of the year...

I agree for anything running over 110 mph currently from NYC to buffalo is ridiculous. You will have to buy new locomotives capable of speeds over 110, huge costly realignments of tracks that are not even owned by Amtrak, trying to electrify lines owned by CSX... ya good luck!, if you want to go over 125 now you need new passenger equipment, as well and rolling stock and locomotives that meet tier II requirements. Id agree maybe overhead electrification to Albany is do able but any further that that right now is pushing it. Not to say it couldn't be done and without electrification but the cost associates with it are way over any current or 4+ year budget. In the Midwest were here trying to fight just to get funding to upgrade tracks and signals for speeds up to 110 For the Midwest corridor initiative.
If the trains are so full to/from buffalo then its time to think of adding a new train in the timetable ( Im assuming the full trains are weekend runs so a new train on a FRI-SUN schedule could work) cut down on dwell time, not trying to run faster than 110 mph. On the other hand Maybe up to 125 with current equipment Just upgrade some P42s and drop in some new experimental prime movers with 5000 hp capable of speeds up to 125. No electrification needed. That's as far as I think there budget will ever go.

Now if you really want to get creative and go over the 125 benchmark and NOT use electrification to help lower your over all cost you could revisit the Bombardier jet train , However with a stale mate between Amtrak and Bombardier over Acela that seems highly unlikely.

Any speed fast enough to be considerably faster than a car (with a sane driver) between the same cities is fast enough to matter. As some posts point out, the point is the average speed, including dwell time, not the top speed. Well, high top speeds probably help lure public support and look good in ads, but the bottom line is whether you can get from Albany to Utica or wherever in an attractive time. If that means shorter dwell times, go for it. (I'm in the Midwest. Do the trains in NYS make people show their tickets and IDs on the platform now? Is that a post 9-11 safety rule that they have to follow everywhere, or just a way of screening out people who are just looking to scam their way to the next stop for free? It's sure a lot slower than collecting tickets on board with the train already in motion.) If that means straightening out 40 mph curves, go for it. If it means adding sidings to reduce freight interference, go for it. And remember that any improvements will also speed up the LSL, which with its fewer stops could be a kind of premium express (but not NYS funded) within NYS and which would help keep the nat'l network viable (which is good for NYS service in the long run, right?).