What Will MARC Do (WWMD) for Electrics on the Penn Line? - Frederick Douglass Tunnel

I do know from earlier documentation on the ALC-42s that Siemens would be training Amtrak mechanical staff on their equipment after a set number of years. I don't know if they're also doing it on the ACS-64's or not, but then Amtrak is pulling apart their HHP-8's because the parts are interchangable with the Acelas. The impression I get is that's Amtrak staff, who know the HHP-8's.

My guess is that MARC will swap the HHP-8's for ACS-64's and pay for maintenance at Amtrak's yards. They'll likely buy some more SC-44's but also spring for dual-mode conversion to replace their MP36PH-3C's. To help fund it, the old MARC AEM-7's get sold for scrap (or maybe used in the swap and Amtrak disposes of them).

Electrics are needed on the Penn line. However, MARC needs buckets of money to operate on the Penn line as it is needed. It has been reported that there are more riders between WASH & BAL than happened in WW=2/ Also the number of passengers on the Penn line would be more if MARC could operate more & longer trains.
1. MARC trains are limited with diesels due to their slow capacity
2. MARC first has to have electrics to operate its 125 MPH needed speeds to stays away from Amtrak. The fastest commuter trains in the USA. That is especially important for multi stop MARC trains WASH <> BAL.
3. The track from WASH to BAL needs to be 4 main tracks. That way local MARC trains can make their way slower and not interfere with Amtrak. But even then, electrics will be needed in the new tunnel bores.

So, all MARC needs is 4 main tracks, more passenger coaches, & electric motors to pull them. Of course, it could also get a 125 MPH EMUs which could accelerate faster than long conventional trains.

west point wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:13 pm Electrics are needed on the Penn line. However, MARC needs buckets of money to operate on the Penn line as it is needed. It has been reported that there are more riders between WASH & BAL than happened in WW=2/ Also the number of passengers on the Penn line would be more if MARC could operate more & longer trains.
1. MARC trains are limited with diesels due to their slow capacity
2. MARC first has to have electrics to operate its 125 MPH needed speeds to stays away from Amtrak. The fastest commuter trains in the USA. That is especially important for multi stop MARC trains WASH <> BAL.
3. The track from WASH to BAL needs to be 4 main tracks. That way local MARC trains can make their way slower and not interfere with Amtrak. But even then, electrics will be needed in the new tunnel bores.

So, all MARC needs is 4 main tracks, more passenger coaches, & electric motors to pull them. Of course, it could also get a 125 MPH EMUs which could accelerate faster than long conventional trains.

I would add onto that turning three stations into all-track stations (BWI Airport, Odenton, New Carrolton), turn the inside track into Amtrak and MARC Express only, and find somewhere to store all those trains overnight and midday.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 1:35 pm

west point wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:13 pm Electrics are needed on the Penn line. However, MARC needs buckets of money to operate on the Penn line as it is needed. It has been reported that there are more riders between WASH & BAL than happened in WW=2/ Also the number of passengers on the Penn line would be more if MARC could operate more & longer trains.
1. MARC trains are limited with diesels due to their slow capacity
2. MARC first has to have electrics to operate its 125 MPH needed speeds to stays away from Amtrak. The fastest commuter trains in the USA. That is especially important for multi stop MARC trains WASH <> BAL.
3. The track from WASH to BAL needs to be 4 main tracks. That way local MARC trains can make their way slower and not interfere with Amtrak. But even then, electrics will be needed in the new tunnel bores.

So, all MARC needs is 4 main tracks, more passenger coaches, & electric motors to pull them. Of course, it could also get a 125 MPH EMUs which could accelerate faster than long conventional trains.

I would add onto that turning three stations into all-track stations (BWI Airport, Odenton, New Carrolton), turn the inside track into Amtrak and MARC Express only, and find somewhere to store all those trains overnight and midday.

It's a shame there aren't any stock 125 mph EMU that are FRA approved. The camden penn connector seems to have moved up in Mdot priority, so at least they are thinking of it.
https://www.mta.maryland.gov/PennCamdenConnector

It looks like the two bridges over roads will be replaced, they may be too lightweight to support modern equipment.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 3:21 pm
It's a shame there aren't any stock 125 mph EMU that are FRA approved. The camden penn connector seems to have moved up in Mdot priority, so at least they are thinking of it.
https://www.mta.maryland.gov/PennCamdenConnector

It looks like the two bridges over roads will be replaced, they may be too lightweight to support modern equipment.

That is a good investment because the only way they can get coaches and engines from Baltimore Penn Station down to Riverside is by going down to DC and coming back up off the Camden Line. This will shorten the maintenance trip times tremendously.

The only thing that would be needed for Penn-to-Camden passenger service is a double-ended high-speed interlock around the wye(say... CLAIRE, STRICKLAND, FRED(ERICK), or LOUDON) and electrification of two tracks to Camden Yards. Not only would it allow MARC to provide the service w//o two-way one-track action, but can help offload trains from the B&P or FD if there was an emergency. (In the emergency case, MARC trains would redirect to Camden and provide bridge support for Amtrak. Passengers would take the Light Rail between the two stations)

You'll still would need the diesels to move them around, but hey, you got capacity now!

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:35 am

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 3:21 pm
It's a shame there aren't any stock 125 mph EMU that are FRA approved. The camden penn connector seems to have moved up in Mdot priority, so at least they are thinking of it.
https://www.mta.maryland.gov/PennCamdenConnector

It looks like the two bridges over roads will be replaced, they may be too lightweight to support modern equipment.

That is a good investment because the only way they can get coaches and engines from Baltimore Penn Station down to Riverside is by going down to DC and coming back up off the Camden Line. This will shorten the maintenance trip times tremendously.

The only thing that would be needed for Penn-to-Camden passenger service is a double-ended high-speed interlock around the wye(say... CLAIRE, STRICKLAND, FRED(ERICK), or LOUDON) and electrification of two tracks to Camden Yards. Not only would it allow MARC to provide the service w//o two-way one-track action, but can help offload trains from the B&P or FD if there was an emergency. (In the emergency case, MARC trains would redirect to Camden and provide bridge support for Amtrak. Passengers would take the Light Rail between the two stations)

You'll still would need the diesels to move them around, but hey, you got capacity now!

I'm kinda surprised wires weren't part of this.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 3:21 pm It's a shame there aren't any stock 125 mph EMU that are FRA approved. The camden penn connector seems to have moved up in Mdot priority, so at least they are thinking of it.

Good point. The EMUs would even be faster than using electric motors pulling stock passenger cars.

I'm not super familiar with that section of the NEC, so forgive me, but I'm not understanding the 125 MPH for MARC. My reasoning is, given the distance between stops & MARC being a commuter railroad, it seems unlikely that the majority of trains ever need to, or will reach 125 MPH. It seems like it would be reserved for a handful of their express trains.

Of MARC's delays on the Penn Line how many are attributed to the use of diesel locomotives vs Amtrak? Of course diesels are generally slower than electrics, but the track layout between Baltimore (CHARLES) & at least BWI (GROVE)(especially heading to DC) seems like an elongated bottleneck, and a bigger issue. Empirically (take this with a grain of salt as I'm not there often), DC bound trains use Track 3. Track 2 is for NY (& Beyond) bound Amtrak trains, with some Baltimore / Perryville express MARC trains. Track 1 is 99% MARC local trains bound for Baltimore & Perryville.

I've seen Amtrak make southbound MARCs hold for their (I know Amtrak operates MARC trains, but you know what I mean) to proceed first. I presume that's done so Amtrak aren't tailgating slower MARC trains, and because it might be more difficult to sustainably jump southbound Amtrak trains around MARC trains between GROVE and BOWIE, or even CARROLL.

In a roundabout way, it makes me think of Acelas being able to do 150 MPH. It's only possible in a few sections, and it's unclear if it's worth the cost of upgrading the whole NEC for 150 MPH +. I think the bigger fish to fry (flounder preferably ) is the 4th track between WINANS & BOWIE? Maybe then it might make more sense for 125 MPH MARC trains. If I'm missing anything let me know.

MARC not electrifying the Penn-Camden connector is objectively odd from the outside looking in. Yet, I'm not surprised. The only reason MARC ever operated any electric locomotives was because of the Penn Line being on the electrified NEC. So electrics were always the minority.

I don't know how the money situation is set up there, but evidenced by the lack of electrification at the Martin Airport Yard, something tells me MARC isn't too interested in electrifying any of their own trackage. Heck, they barely want to use electrics on the Penn Line as is. The latter may be due to the cost of operating an electric being more than diesel train.

Would it be more efficient? Of course. But who's paying for it? Where's the money coming from? Is it justifiable / sustainable? Are the people in charge interested in pursuing it?

The grant application for the PCC anticipates OCS over western portion of the rebuilt Claremont Branch to allow dual mode trainsets or locomotives to transition from diesel to electric power prior to entering the NEC.

NortheastTrainMan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:08 am MARC not electrifying the Penn-Camden connector is objectively odd from the outside looking in. Yet, I'm not surprised. The only reason MARC ever operated any electric locomotives was because of the Penn Line being on the electrified NEC. So electrics were always the minority.

I don't know how the money situation is set up there, but evidenced by the lack of electrification at the Martin Airport Yard, something tells me MARC isn't too interested in electrifying any of their own trackage. Heck, they barely want to use electrics on the Penn Line as is. The latter may be due to the cost of operating an electric being more than diesel train.

Would it be more efficient? Of course. But who's paying for it? Where's the money coming from? Is it justifiable / sustainable? Are the people in charge interested in pursuing it?

My understanding is that in order to get the community who live above the FDT to sign on, they were promised that the trains would not be spewing dirty diesel fumes on the regular basis from the ventilation/emergency egress shaft. (amtrak/MDOT should have let the folks know that freight trains passthrough only i think 2 times a week) So it looks like MARC is going to shift back to using electrics. Does anyone know if amtrak renegotiated the electric rates in exchange for MDOT playing nice on the project?
Do we know if CSX is balking on wiring up the camden line due to double stack clearances? Or MDOT haven't even gotten that far yet. I'd think that being able to run penn line ballpark specials would be something MARC would pursue, as they'd be quite packed.
I thought Martins wouldn't wired up because the RT43 bridge is too low for wires to go under.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:13 pm I'm kinda surprised wires weren't part of this.

It's a bit of a phased approach. You first get the single line Claremount Branch (per OpenStreetMap) rebuilt plus two wye's. You get quicker servicing plus emergency diesel-powered service. Then you drop in a full-span interlock and double-track the branch. That emergency diesel-powered service becomes regular service and the sportsball trains become a possibility. Then you add caternary, and you made servicing those electric engines easier at Riverside (they'd have to be pulled by diesel before this point).

NortheastTrainMan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:58 am Of MARC's delays on the Penn Line how many are attributed to the use of diesel locomotives vs Amtrak? Of course diesels are generally slower than electrics, but the track layout between Baltimore (CHARLES) & at least BWI (GROVE)(especially heading to DC) seems like an elongated bottleneck, and a bigger issue. Empirically (take this with a grain of salt as I'm not there often), DC bound trains use Track 3. Track 2 is for NY (& Beyond) bound Amtrak trains, with some Baltimore / Perryville express MARC trains. Track 1 is 99% MARC local trains bound for Baltimore & Perryville.

...not really. To access BWI Airport, Amtrak has to switch from 2 to 1 at GROVE, which sticks them on 1 all the way up to BRIDGE. You also have FULTON between BRIDGE and GROVE. The platform-side track at Halethorpe and West Baltimore is track A, which begins at WINNANS and goes up to BRIDGE.

So to update between CARROLL (north of New Carrollton/NCR) and WINNANS (just north of Odenton), track 1 and A are shared northbound (timetable east), track 2 is shared bidirectional express (see MARC Penn 408), and track 3 is shared southbound. Between WINNANS and BRIDGE, A is MARC local, 1 is Amtrak and MARC Express, 2 is bidirectional express, and 3 is southbound shared.

Makes a bit more sense?

Now bring in the BWI expansion project MTA Maryland was working on with Amtrak to four-track GROVE to WINNANS and put in an island platform, requiring an extensive rebuild of the station including a new bridge over the tracks. No word on if that would be going forward but it would make more sense because it would allow Amtrak to use tracks 1/2 as Amtrak/MARC express while tracks A and 3 become local at BWI and eliminates the need for trains to swing from 2 to 1 to service that station.

BTW, have an EIS: https://www.mta.maryland.gov/bwi-amtrak ... mprovement

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:29 pm

NortheastTrainMan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:58 am Of MARC's delays on the Penn Line how many are attributed to the use of diesel locomotives vs Amtrak? Of course diesels are generally slower than electrics, but the track layout between Baltimore (CHARLES) & at least BWI (GROVE)(especially heading to DC) seems like an elongated bottleneck, and a bigger issue. Empirically (take this with a grain of salt as I'm not there often), DC bound trains use Track 3. Track 2 is for NY (& Beyond) bound Amtrak trains, with some Baltimore / Perryville express MARC trains. Track 1 is 99% MARC local trains bound for Baltimore & Perryville.

...not really. To access BWI Airport, Amtrak has to switch from 2 to 1 at GROVE, which sticks them on 1 all the way up to BRIDGE. You also have FULTON between BRIDGE and GROVE. The platform-side track at Halethorpe and West Baltimore is track A, which begins at WINNANS and goes up to BRIDGE.

So to update between CARROLL (north of New Carrollton/NCR) and WINNANS (just north of Odenton), track 1 and A are shared northbound (timetable east), track 2 is shared bidirectional express (see MARC Penn 408), and track 3 is shared southbound. Between WINNANS and BRIDGE, A is MARC local, 1 is Amtrak and MARC Express, 2 is bidirectional express, and 3 is southbound shared.

Makes a bit more sense?

Now bring in the BWI expansion project MTA Maryland was working on with Amtrak to four-track GROVE to WINNANS and put in an island platform, requiring an extensive rebuild of the station including a new bridge over the tracks. No word on if that would be going forward but it would make more sense because it would allow Amtrak to use tracks 1/2 as Amtrak/MARC express while tracks A and 3 become local at BWI and eliminates the need for trains to swing from 2 to 1 to service that station.

BTW, have an EIS: https://www.mta.maryland.gov/bwi-amtrak ... mprovement

For sure. In regards to 2, I meant generally speaking. I know Amtrak uses 1 between GROVE (sometimes BOWIE) to BRIDGE for northbound trains that stop at BWI, they HAVE to use 1. Is FULTON really used often for diverging moves? FULTON is between BRIDGE & CHARLES if I'm not mistaken, it's in the B&P tunnel.

I've seen 2 used in both directions, but it seems to be more common for northbound trains.

The 4th track from GROVE to WINANS sounds good. It would make a decent 4 track corridor from GROVE to BRIDGE, since A from WINANS to BRIDGE is already there.

NortheastTrainMan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:05 pm For sure. In regards to 2, I meant generally speaking. I know Amtrak uses 1 between GROVE (sometimes BOWIE) to BRIDGE for northbound trains that stop at BWI, they HAVE to use 1. Is FULTON really used often for diverging moves? FULTON is between BRIDGE & CHARLES if I'm not mistaken, it's in the B&P tunnel.

I've seen 2 used in both directions, but it seems to be more common for northbound trains.

The 4th track from GROVE to WINANS sounds good. It would make a decent 4 track corridor from GROVE to BRIDGE, since A from WINANS to BRIDGE is already there.

FULTON's mainly used if they have single-track operations, and is on the western-end of the B&P tunnel.

4 track GROVE to WINANS is a good worthy first step. The goal should be 4-tracking as much as possible from WAS K-Tower to Baltimore, as well as adding an island platform to Odenton... but baby steps first.