Why not express?

Hello all,

I have long wondered why metro never included or planned to include express service?

I ride in on the Metro frequently from NCR into the city and it chews up a ton of time, stopping and starting at middle stations. If the train could at least express to the Orange Blue interchange from NCR that would shave a good amount of time off of the route.

When I get on at NCR more than half the trainload gets on there. Would it not be feasible to build an express track paralell to the other two that goes around stations? Trains could hook back in before the flyover between Minn. Ave. and the stadium. Also, they could probably work out scheduling so an express can slide in between two locals going into the tunneled part of the line, thus not creating a bottleneck. Trains would run express from NCR to Sta/Arm and then local the rest of the way.

Why would this not be feasible on any other long above ground section?

Also, why was metro built in a way that could not easily accommodate express service?

Davis

"strench707"
Hello all,

I have long wondered why metro never included or planned to include express service?

Metrorail is not your typical heavy rail rapid transit system. The primary reason why there are no provisions for future express tracks is because it was believed the higher average speeds would eliminate the need for them. In the 1960s the advertised average speed was in excess of 35 MPH with a top speed of 75 MPH. Today to reduces operation costs (electric) and equipment wear and tear average speeds have been reduced to under 30 MPH with top speed under 60 MPH.

I ride in on the Metro frequently from NCR into the city and it chews up a ton of time, stopping and starting at middle stations. If the train could at least express to the Orange Blue interchange from NCR that would shave a good amount of time off of the route.

When I get on at NCR more than half the trainload gets on there. Would it not be feasible to build an express track paralell to the other two that goes around stations? Trains could hook back in before the flyover between Minn. Ave. and the stadium. Also, they could probably work out scheduling so an express can slide in between two locals going into the tunneled part of the line, thus not creating a bottleneck. Trains would run express from NCR to Sta/Arm and then local the rest of the way.

Why would this not be feasible on any other long above ground section?

Capitol budget are pretty tight right now. The cost of building an express track between New Carrollton and D&G junction would be at least a third of the cost of building that segment of the line from scratch.

Also, why was metro built in a way that could not easily accommodate express service?

See opening response above.

The third and or forth track found on the many of the trunk segments of NYCT are there not to provide express service but to increase capacity.

WMATA has run skip stop service on the Orange line in Virginia on Nationals Game Day a couple times. The way it worked is the train would leave the terminal late and run express and catch up to the train ahead of it.

WMATA has, to my mind, always had two-track tunnel vision. Even in the current Silver Line extension design, a line where express would pay off handsomely, there's nary a sign of thinking about it. {Much less planning for such in the future...}

While a third track (or 4th, as in NYC) would allow express service, to my mind you could make major improvements with merely a passing track around stations. This would allow expresses to pass locals stopped in the station.

Further, it would mitigate the major delays we now get. If a train is broken down in a station, be it doors, brakes or whatever; subsequent trains could pass it and continue on.

Yes would it at least be feasible to have runaround tracks at stations as farecard has mentioned.

That wouldn't cost near as much....


Davis

farecard wrote:While a third track (or 4th, as in NYC) would allow express service, to my mind you could make major improvements with merely a passing track around stations. This would allow expresses to pass locals stopped in the station.

Stations would be the hardest place to put passing tracks ... although pocket tracks and passing sidings beyond the platforms would be handy for broken trains (if they could get the broken train to the siding). Crossovers would likely serve the need of getting around a broken train (although an out of the way place to put that broken train would be better). High cost and marginal improvement ... not a good way to spend money.

Properly run skip stop service would be workable without a great expense as long as the traffic pattern is right (outlying areas to central city).

Stations would be the hardest place to put passing tracks

Island platforms have two tracks between the two platforms. A passing track would put a third track in there. Picture a pocket track into/through the station, with switches at each end. Or better, a National Airport/WFC with bracketed island platforms. [Until they castrated National, at least....]

(if they could get the broken train to the siding)

But that delay is exactly what turns a minor incident [bad doors, bad brakes, etc.] into a major fustercluck; the time needed to clear the mainline, while every trailing train backs up behind it.

farecard wrote:

Stations would be the hardest place to put passing tracks

Island platforms have two tracks between the two platforms. A passing track would put a third track in there. Picture a pocket track into/through the station, with switches at each end. Or better, a National Airport/WFC with bracketed island platforms. [Until they castrated National, at least....]

Is there room for the third track between the two? If so, what is there now and where would whatever is there now be moved to?
How about stations with a central island platform? Is there room on the outside of the ROW for a bypass track on each side?

Between stations you don't have to worry about platforms being in the way of rail. Near stations the rail spacing opens up to allow for center platforms and the ROW is likely vacant and could be used for a pocket track. The ROW may be narrower between stations prohibiting a third track (express in the needed direction) but on lines that restricted I'd bet the ROW at stations is even more restricted.

Each location would have to be looked at independently but I'd bet you would find most additions non-trivial. With a station design based on two tracks you'll likely find something hard to move in the way of what you want to do.

(if they could get the broken train to the siding)

But that delay is exactly what turns a minor incident [bad doors, bad brakes, etc.] into a major fustercluck; the time needed to clear the mainline, while every trailing train backs up behind it.

A broken train between stations still needs to move. Somewhere to put that train would be nice.

Is there room for the third track between the two? If so, what is there now and where would whatever is there now be moved to?

I'm not talking about retrofitting; instead I'm referring to *planning* such at page one of your plans for a line...

A broken train between stations still needs to move. Somewhere to put that train would be nice.

Yep, but it's far less of an issue blocking a single platform than it is blocking the whole line. As for what to do with it; as soon as you can get it unloaded, recover it; tow it either to the passing track, or to a yard. But the whole line does not come apart at the seams in the meantime.

20 20 hindsight always works better than reality. Go back to the planning stages and decide if the extra track is worth the cost. As Sand Box John stated, the original plan was for faster trains --- everything express between stations. Trying to save money and wear and tear they run a little slower. They have saved a lot of money over the years not needing to maintain a third track and the turnouts and signaling needed to support it.

Would a slightly faster service be worth the money spent to achieve it? Probably not. It looks like the planners got it right.

No one expects commuter transportation to be profitable, but the money needs to be spent as wisely as possible.

20 20 hindsight always works better than reality. Go back to the planning stages and decide if the extra track is worth the cost.

My point was not that passing tracks are not there; but that no one seems to have even given any thought to such at the beginning, when leaving space would have been quite possible if not easy....

And not just the Red Line beginnings, but the later lines as well.

I'll defer to Sand Box John's response for why in the past.

An airport express makes sense ... so I can agree with you to a certain extent on the Silver Line - even though it won't go to the airport for a few years. But again one would have to look at the cost vs benefit of having the express/passing tracks. With stations in the middle of the highway access to a central platform is cheaper than building platforms on both sides of the tracks and needing to double the access paths. On the elevated sections and underground sections a third track (even at a station) is a challenge.

So after all the extra expense can the cost be justified? Is WMATA going to charge extra for the expresses? How much faster will the trains run? Will that extra few minutes make a difference between people choosing WMATA over other methods of travel?

My wife and I went from Union Station to the Pentagon station with luggage (and then a bus to a hotel) so I know it is possible to use WMATA. Some of the people I traveled with were older and took a cab to the hotel. I would have taken WMATA with or without express service so I was served just as well without the cost of express sidings. Yes, I'm only one traveler, but do you expect an express track to make a difference?

Chicago has rail to both of their major airports and within walking distance of their Union Station. There have been discussions about adding express service from O'Hare to downtown including building a downtown "pre-check in" center where baggage cars would be added to the express trains. Tunnels were built downtown to support the service but the private part of the partnership fell through. Perhaps it will be revived again when the economy improves.

I don't know how much thought WMATA has put in to NOT planning for express service, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to spend the money on it.

I've wondered whether it might perhaps be possible to run a limited express service WITHOUT adding any more tracks. It seems like most (I admit, not all) of the stations have crossover points at both ends. If you invested in making sure that all stations on a line were so equipped, and installed a suitably modern bidirectional signalling system which Metro needs anyway to reduce headways, then in theory it should be possible to have expresses.

The way it works is, you schedule the trains such that a following express comes up behind a local on the same track, when the local is stopping in a station. It's relatively rare for there to be a train on both tracks in a station at the same time. So as long as that's the case (and the signalling system would know), the express could use the pre-station crossover points, go through the station without stopping on the opposite track, and use the post-station crossover points to get back to the track it belongs on. Voila, now it's in front of the local which is just finishing its stop at the station, and can continue on without stopping until it catches up to the next local in front and do the same thing again!

Once the express reaches the central core, it becomes an ordinary local and is slotted in like anything else.

By the standards of metro system investments, this would be trivial - no new tunnels or major construction needed. Just a few more sets of switching points, upgraded software, and possibly new signal displays in the stations themselves to support wrong-direction travel.

Obviously there's a hard limit to the number of trains you can handle this way. I imagine you'd only run expresses at rush hour, and only in the rush direction. But even that would be helpful.

They would have to be pretty good crossovers. Trains typically slow down for crossovers unless they are specially designed for high speed use.

justalurker66 wrote:They would have to be pretty good crossovers. Trains typically slow down for crossovers unless they are specially designed for high speed use.

And you would need far more of them then you now have. You'd have 8 interlockings per station.

Good point, I hadn't considered that - they would indeed need to be high-speed crossovers or it would be pointless. Still, vastly cheaper than digging new tunnels or laying a third track, which would need loads of crossovers anyway. Has any system ever tried something like this?