• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Biden Infrastructure Program and Amtrak

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
Getting the ball rolling with low hanging fruit, upgrading NEC with Gateway and Infrastructure renewals to help with higher speeds.
I just wonder how many times the NEC is going to be "upgraded" again. It's considered to the the No 1 Inter-City route in the US, if they can't get this one right ... Every time it gets some notably substantial investment it only seems to turn out being for a fraction. Rolling stock replaced but then the signalling needs doing. Some years later that gets funded, ta-ra, only to find now it's the track, or an infrastructure bottleneck, or the power supply. And then the rolling stock turns out to be worn out again.

I've written about the Acela before, but the New York to Washington times or frequency are little different to what the Metroliners did 50 years ago, or even their predecessors. The current schedule time for Acela from New York to Washington is 3 hours. In a 1957 timetable I have the Afternoon Congressional, with a 1930s GG1 loco, is 3 hours 35 minutes. For all the regular substantial public funds investment, they should surely have been able to do better than that. When you actually take it, there's a notable amount of slow trundling and lack of operational snappiness. And the on-board "service" staff, which the old Pennsylvania Railroad used to pride themselves on, are now appalling.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Gostav

Member
Joined
14 May 2016
Messages
413
It was really surprising to me to find out how badly informed some Americans are - just look at how many believe the 2020 election was fraudulent when only a tiny handful of cases are supported by evidence. Obviously it's not true of all but it tends to be more true in the sort of states that also aren't really good places for transit. I'm not suggesting this is causation, simply correlation.
Also, a lot of Americans are convinced that only "untouchables" use public transport, for example, "The buses are full of newly released prisoners", "Many homeless and people who have just gotten out of jail use Greyhound* as it's all they can afford". Due to the opposition between social classes is so tense, people who live in the wealthiest parts or even just middle-class parts continuously vote against the expansion of transport systems.

* A coach operator in the USA
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Also, a lot of Americans are convinced that only "untouchables" use public transport, for example, "The buses are full of newly released prisoners", "Many homeless and people who have just gotten out of jail use Greyhound* as it's all they can afford". Due to the opposition between social classes is so tense, people who live in the wealthiest parts or even just middle-class parts continuously vote against the expansion of transport systems.

* A coach operator in the USA
This definitely applies to long-distance buses and to some urban buses, but having used both I'd say much less so to trains. On Amtrak there is the reassurance of having multiple crew members and I've never felt under significant threat, but on Greyhound you can be out in the middle of nowhere with just the driver. I didn't do many legs by bus in my past travels across the USA, but on one of those the driver actually was the threat...
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
A further US issue is that most established public transport systems converge on the city centre, or Downtown. This is, unlike in Europe, an area of the city that few of the overall population go to. There are a couple of exceptions, like New York City or San Francisco (hence why these are key tourist points), but elsewhere it's a few expensive high-rise offices for specific employment groups (lawyers, city bureaucrats etc), thus deserted after 5pm weekdays, surrounded by inner-city low income areas and dilapidated industries. The onetime railway station, and the city bus focus point, is commonly in among all this. The population in the nice suburbs hardly go there. The deserted out-of-hours offices are why so many US suburban rail systems only run in peak hours, there's no demand otherwise.

For those in the leafy suburbs, it's a nice all-American lifestyle. Those headed downtown going on the city bus after being dishwashers at their elegant suburban restaurants are from a parallel universe (in fact even the latter commonly have cars).
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
A further US issue is that most established public transport systems converge on the city centre, or Downtown. This is, unlike in Europe, an area of the city that few of the overall population go to. There are a couple of exceptions, like New York City or San Francisco (hence why these are key tourist points), but elsewhere it's a few expensive high-rise offices for specific employment groups (lawyers, city bureaucrats etc), thus deserted after 5pm weekdays, surrounded by inner-city low income areas and dilapidated industries. The onetime railway station, and the city bus focus point, is commonly in among all this. The population in the nice suburbs hardly go there. The deserted out-of-hours offices are why so many US suburban rail systems only run in peak hours, there's no demand otherwise.

Can't recommend this comment highly enough. It is the main reason not to bother imagining European public transportation models in the context of the US. Outside of particularly densely populated areas (ie like much of Europe) it just doesn't work.

To illustrate the point, this was Denver's Union Station at the height of rush hour one evening in Feb 2020 (so just pre-pandemic). Adding to the point, Denver is actually blessed with a metro rail system.

IMG_0860.jpg
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Can't recommend this comment highly enough. It is the main reason not to bother imagining European public transportation models in the context of the US. Outside of particularly densely populated areas (ie like much of Europe) it just doesn't work.

To illustrate the point, this was Denver's Union Station at the height of rush hour one evening in Feb 2020 (so just pre-pandemic). Adding to the point, Denver is actually blessed with a metro rail system.

View attachment 94205
That's a little unfair, considering that the visible platforms have no trains it's unlikely they'll have many passengers. By the presence of a central servicing platform I'd guess these tracks are for Amtrak not commuter rail. The visible part of the train looks empty but it's not possible to see whether anyone is waiting to boarding it.

Just reading up on Wikipedia this station has changed radically since I passed through in 1990. It's now the hub of a bus and rail transit network as mentioned, including a rail airport shuttle which is a rare thing in the States, and also the centre of a transit-orientated development with a hotel in the old terminal building. That's exactly the sort of thing American cities need to be doing, and should be complemented by Amtrak's proposed connections to Cheyenne and Pueblo. Anyone have any evidence of whether it's been successful?
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
Can't recommend this comment highly enough. It is the main reason not to bother imagining European public transportation models in the context of the US. Outside of particularly densely populated areas (ie like much of Europe) it just doesn't work.

To illustrate the point, this was Denver's Union Station at the height of rush hour one evening in Feb 2020 (so just pre-pandemic). Adding to the point, Denver is actually blessed with a metro rail system.

View attachment 94205
Its point well made and one which many posters are failing to grasp, and of course post pandemic those office city centre's like parts of London may never fully recover with increased working from home.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
I just wonder how many times the NEC is going to be "upgraded" again. It's considered to the the No 1 Inter-City route in the US, if they can't get this one right ... Every time it gets some notably substantial investment it only seems to turn out being for a fraction. Rolling stock replaced but then the signalling needs doing. Some years later that gets funded, ta-ra, only to find now it's the track, or an infrastructure bottleneck, or the power supply. And then the rolling stock turns out to be worn out again.

I've written about the Acela before, but the New York to Washington times or frequency are little different to what the Metroliners did 50 years ago, or even their predecessors. The current schedule time for Acela from New York to Washington is 3 hours. In a 1957 timetable I have the Afternoon Congressional, with a 1930s GG1 loco, is 3 hours 35 minutes. For all the regular substantial public funds investment, they should surely have been able to do better than that. When you actually take it, there's a notable amount of slow trundling and lack of operational snappiness. And the on-board "service" staff, which the old Pennsylvania Railroad used to pride themselves on, are now appalling.
I think the NEC has probably still seen less attention than our legacy infrastructure in the UK.

Mantaining and improving infrastructure requires some level of constant investment, so if that backlog is 80 or so years long, that doesn't leave you in the greatest position.

What the NEC needs is a Byford-style "fast-forward" plan of consistent funding over a period of a few years, to address low hanging fruit and major challenges alike. From what I can tell, the major barriers are currently OLE and signalling, with OLE being too old to support higher speeds.

Equally, I think the UK is quite a good model for working with legacy infrastructure. Instead of focusing on peak "top" speeds, we work on maintaining a higher average speed. Reducing the sharpest corners, conflicts at junctions, remodelling stations, etc.

We achieve pretty impressive journey times, being limited to *just* 125mph. Corridors like Leeds-Manchester are even more limited, but with some upgrades and just a really high quality of service (at least now 185's are gone), they drive some really high ridership.
Also, a lot of Americans are convinced that only "untouchables" use public transport, for example, "The buses are full of newly released prisoners", "Many homeless and people who have just gotten out of jail use Greyhound* as it's all they can afford". Due to the opposition between social classes is so tense, people who live in the wealthiest parts or even just middle-class parts continuously vote against the expansion of transport systems.

* A coach operator in the USA
Well, I think if you can break the cycle of it being a last resort and bring on more people overall, then this situation will improve.

Ultimately, while safety is important, this argument feels more like an excuse because it is a less convenient option.
Can't recommend this comment highly enough. It is the main reason not to bother imagining European public transportation models in the context of the US. Outside of particularly densely populated areas (ie like much of Europe) it just doesn't work.

To illustrate the point, this was Denver's Union Station at the height of rush hour one evening in Feb 2020 (so just pre-pandemic). Adding to the point, Denver is actually blessed with a metro rail system.

View attachment 94205
I agree that systems entirely converging on downtown don't work for the North American context. But equally, there are many reasons these transit systems have poor ridership.

Poor Service,
Poor connectivity with other modes,
Poor Frequency.

Buses are probably the most important mode in terms of driving higher ridership. North American streets have plenty of room for bus lanes, so they're a relatively cheap addition. With some dedicated infrastructure, buses can cover large distances and large areas in relatively short amounts of time.

Unfortunately, buses have some negative connotations. But if they start offering a proper service that offers a competitive alternative to driving, then I think people will start to use them.

Systems should aim to focus on mobilising those who are currently immobile with the current car-based system. That's older people, people with disabilities, young people, people who can't drive, etc.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
That's a little unfair, considering that the visible platforms have no trains it's unlikely they'll have many passengers. By the presence of a central servicing platform I'd guess these tracks are for Amtrak not commuter rail. The visible part of the train looks empty but it's not possible to see whether anyone is waiting to boarding it.
I wandered around the station for the best part of an hour and can confirm the outgoing trains were half empty at best. As for the airport shuttle, on the weekday I used it to head downtown it was very lightly loaded. While not exactly mathematically representative of all US metro rail it aligns with my experiences in other large US cities outside of SF, NYC or Philly.

The Zephyr calls once a day in each direction which says it all about long distance rail, even with routes through major population centres. It is great to see a massive financial commitment to transit infrastructure, but it should never be assumed that 'if you build it they will come'. People like their cars far too much in most of the country. It's part of America's dna and to make public transport attractive enough to tempt people out of their trucks and SUVs where the real battle is.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
A further US issue is that most established public transport systems converge on the city centre, or Downtown. This is, unlike in Europe, an area of the city that few of the overall population go to. There are a couple of exceptions, like New York City or San Francisco (hence why these are key tourist points), but elsewhere it's a few expensive high-rise offices for specific employment groups (lawyers, city bureaucrats etc), thus deserted after 5pm weekdays, surrounded by inner-city low income areas and dilapidated industries. The onetime railway station, and the city bus focus point, is commonly in among all this. The population in the nice suburbs hardly go there. The deserted out-of-hours offices are why so many US suburban rail systems only run in peak hours, there's no demand otherwise.

For those in the leafy suburbs, it's a nice all-American lifestyle. Those headed downtown going on the city bus after being dishwashers at their elegant suburban restaurants are from a parallel universe (in fact even the latter commonly have cars).
I agree to a large extent.

Many smaller US cities and towns are just as 'hollowed out' with the migration of shops and restaurants to out-of-town malls over the years, to the extent that coming across a town with still-vibrant downtown is a pleasant surprise. Even those are sometimes 'touristy' downtown areas that local residents might not visit very much.

Places like LA are trying to provide better public transport - the Metrolink commuter-rail (most of which does run off-peak and at weekends, albeit with reduced frequencies) and the modern 'Metro Rail' light rail and subway systems didn't even exist 30 years ago (although some light rail routes follow the routes of the old Pacific Electric interurban system, which had completely closed by 1963). But the problem is that greater LA is such a huge, amorphous, multi-centred area that providing really attractive and usable public transport within it would be nearly impossible (and would require huge subsidies and infrastructure investment costs that the voters would probably never go for - even if they did it would probably be so 'other people can use it'). This is a part of the US with the toughest emissions rules and probably a higher level of environmental awareness that most places, but just look at the level of opposition and indifference to the HSR plans (albeit not helped by the way that project has been managed and promoted at times).
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I wandered around the station for the best part of an hour and can confirm the outgoing trains were half empty at best. As for the airport shuttle, on the weekday I used it to head downtown it was very lightly loaded. While not exactly mathematically representative of all US metro rail it aligns with my experiences in other large US cities outside of SF, NYC or Philly.

The Zephyr calls once a day in each direction which says it all about long distance rail, even with routes through major population centres. It is great to see a massive financial commitment to transit infrastructure, but it should never be assumed that 'if you build it they will come'. People like their cars far too much in most of the country. It's part of America's dna and to make public transport attractive enough to tempt people out of their trucks and SUVs where the real battle is.
That's a shame - we will just have to hope it builds over time.

The Zephyr may serve major population centres but they are too far apart for rail to be competitive. Both Chicago and San Francisco involve an overnight and even Salt Lake takes all day. By contrast Cheyenne and Pueblo are around the 100 mile mark where conventional rail has a chance - as proposed by Amtrak.
 

Gag Halfrunt

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2019
Messages
560
What the NEC needs is a Byford-style "fast-forward" plan of consistent funding over a period of a few years, to address low hanging fruit and major challenges alike. From what I can tell, the major barriers are currently OLE and signalling, with OLE being too old to support higher speeds.

Alon Levy has spent the past ten years or so writing about how Amtrak's plans for upgrading the NEC always miss the low hanging fruit and end up with more expensive, less effective projects.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Great link, thank you. Plenty of good and insightful content there I can get stuck into.
I've already posted links to his US high speed maps upthread. Best explanation I've seen of how the demographics makes high speed unlikely over a large part of the land area.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Alon Levy has spent the past ten years or so writing about how Amtrak's plans for upgrading the NEC always miss the low hanging fruit and end up with more expensive, less effective projects.
Really interesting thread!

Again, this is the importance of planning what service you want to see, the ideal timetables, routes, speeds, etc. Then you look at how you want to implement it.

Doing so puts you in a position of strength, because you can analyse each project based on its usefulness of bringing you to that point, rather than just building random stuff, some cheap, some expensive, with the hope of improving service.

The UK really struggles with this, HS2 is a step in the right direction, but little planning has been made in regards to possible improvements to regional service once the railway is operational. Whilst the new services will be able to mostly use existing track, branch lines or stations may need to be upgraded to facilitate this improved regional service. This is especially important in "classic-compatible" land, where tracks may need to be electrified, speeds increased or stations remodelled to facilitate the changing service.

Therefore, the US should start by determining how they want their system to look, then can focus on delivering the lowest-hanging fruit first (e.g. NEC upgrades, connecting city groups approx 100 miles apart) and determining the cheapest and easiest ways of achieving the desired level of service.

Initially freight corridors can be upgraded, with double tracks, passing loops, signalling and possibly electrification. These can begin operating services up to 100-110mph, covering intermediate towns and cities, along with limited-stop trains. A minimum standard of speed and frequency should be set for these routes, then if no suitable trackage can be found for this, then look at High Speed Rail.

I think the US would also benefit considerably from looking at DMUs or fixed formations (like Brightline) for their operations on these shorter/medium-distance routes. The endless shunting and splitting/reforming of coaching stock and different locomotives cannot be a efficient use of staff, stations or passengers time. At most, two fixed-formation sets should be linked/split (e.g. Liverpool/Norwich), as this can be done relatively quickly with a platform attendant and driver. Running shorter DMUs, more frequently, seems like a sensible way of providing a high quality service at a given cost. DMUs can still achieve speeds of 125mph, so would be a fantastic starting point for many of these routes.

Once the route in question attracts more riders, then look at improving speeds on existing freight corridors (tri/quad track to separate passenger trains from freight trains to allow for increased speeds) and electrifying. If increasing speeds and capacity on freight corridors is beginning to provide diminishing returns (as improving existing alignments has in the UK), then look at building high speed rail routes.

Whilst the focus is probably best to not be on long distance right now, in terms of creating a more useful network, improvements to key corridors of cities 1-200 miles apart will inevitably help with speeding those trips up.

For example, improving the Keystone Corridor and improving Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Chicago on their own merits of regional connectivity, will massively improve journey times on the Capitol Limited train, perhaps to the extent that more people may consider using it. Reducing journey times from 17 hours to say 10, could allow Amtrak to run a sleeper service that is mostly overnight, along with a few through day services, serving the intermediate cities.

(Update)
Also want to add you should totally consider rolling stock and infrastructure as one. Completely agree with this part of the blog about the new Avelia trains:
The whole notion of buying quicker trains for the NEC is ridiculous– the existing Acela Express trains have plenty of oomph (16 kW/tonne) to do anything they need to do. “Lighter” and “faster” isn’t the key to anything on the NEC, and dropping in a higher-performance train will not lead to material trip time improvements. They need to speed up the slow bits first, which isn’t something you do by blowing money on trains.
 
Last edited:

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,009
Improving the slow parts is definitely the one. As I mentioned before, NYC to Stamford would benefit so many folks. NYC and Hoboken to Secuacus and Newark too.

Or the Baltimore tunnel. And Philly approaches from the north. Upping those speeds gives way more than adding 10-20mph on the speedway sections in NJ.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
In California the rail system would need to be made earthquake proof/resistant of course which must add to the cost.
Yes - in 1952 a major earthquake damaged two tunnels on the Tehachapi Pass line so badly that Tunnel #4 had to be abandoned and bypassed, and Tunnel #5 had to be rebuilt (as it couldn't be daylighted or bypassed). All of which Southern Pacific completed in 25 days! (I think with some assistance from ATSF, the other user of the line at the time - it's UP and BNSF today). That was the same year a passenger train was trapped for 3 days in a snowdrift on Donner Pass - SP had a bad year for natural disasters.

The Tehachapi Pass area is of course on the planned route to get the new HSR line up onto the desert plateau between Tehachapi and Palmdale (and thence down into the LA basin, roughly following the route of the existing rail line to Burbank).
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,645
Regarding rolling stock, don’t the Americans have rather different crash-worthiness standards for their rolling stock? I wonder if this leads them towards locomotives or power cars in the ends as they’re heavier for whatever they end up hitting?
 

Gag Halfrunt

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2019
Messages
560
Yes, but things have changed somewhat and trains built to European standards will be accepted with a few changes.

The new rules are similar to the relevant Euronorm. There are still small changes to the seats, glazing, and emergency lighting, but not to the structure of the equipment. This means that unmodified European products will remain illegal on American tracks, unlike the situation in Canada, where the O-Train runs unmodified German trains using strict time separation from freight. However, trains manufactured for the needs of the American market using the same construction techniques already employed at the factories in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden should not be a problem.
...
But cost concerns aside, the changes in the buff strength rules are an unmitigated good. The old rules require trainsets to resist 360-945 metric tons of force without deformation (360 for trains going up to 200 km/h, 945 beyond 200 km/h), which raises their mass by several tons per cars – and lightweight frames require even more extra mass. The new ones are based on crumple zones using a system called crash energy management (CEM), in which the train is allowed to deform as long as the deformation does not compromise the driver’s cab or the passenger-occupied interior, and this should not require extra train mass.

 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
Yes, but things have changed somewhat and trains built to European standards will be accepted with a few changes.
Sort of/mostly (depending on what maximum speeds are required) - these are the FRA 'Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for Alternative Compliance and High-Speed Trainsets'

My take on it is that suppliers can offer trains that use modern 'Crash Energy Management' design & construction techniques (as is the norm in Europe and other countries) i.e. crumple zones/'plastic' deformation energy absorption/dissipation methods, but they have to demonstrate that the design offers an equivalent level of safety to the traditional US 'high buff strength' standards. The FRA haven't adopted foreign standards as such, basically just said European design standards are acceptable as the basis for a safe passenger train in the US context.

From what I've read of the FRA document, the only situation where you could use essentially unmodified European trains is if you have a completely segregated system i.e. no level crossings or interaction with other lines running normal US rolling stock (so the risk of collisions with heavy freight, traditional heavy passenger trains and road vehicles is removed).

But no question that this is a big step forward.

Initially freight corridors can be upgraded, with double tracks, passing loops, signalling and possibly electrification. These can begin operating services up to 100-110mph, covering intermediate towns and cities, along with limited-stop trains. A minimum standard of speed and frequency should be set for these routes, then if no suitable trackage can be found for this, then look at High Speed Rail.
Just look at how long it's taken to upgrade a couple of routes in the Midwest to 110 mph operation (in parts) - it's been painfully slow.

Honestly I think trying to mix 110 mph passenger trains with today's typical US freight trains is never going to work efficiently or reliably - even maintaining the track to a sufficient standard for 110 mph with decent ride quality when it's being hammered by thousands of 32+ tonne loaded axles every day must be difficult, let alone all the level-crossing protection issues.

For example, improving the Keystone Corridor and improving Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Chicago on their own merits of regional connectivity, will massively improve journey times on the Capitol Limited train, perhaps to the extent that more people may consider using it. Reducing journey times from 17 hours to say 10, could allow Amtrak to run a sleeper service that is mostly overnight, along with a few through day services, serving the intermediate cities.
To cover the 780 miles from DC to Chicago in 10 hours implies a start-stop average of 78 mph - that would probably mean a lot of 125 mph running over the route, which I think would need a lot of dedicated infrastructure.

I think having a serious look at providing a faster and more frequent service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh should be high up the list - given that the current NS (ex-Pennsy) route is a mixture of double and triple track (and a reasonable amount was four-track back in steam days), and is pretty well engineered, I'm sure something sensible could be done if the will and the money was there.
 
Last edited:

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
I think having a serious look at providing a faster and more frequent service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh should be high up the list - given that the current NS (ex-Pennsy) route is a mixture of double and triple track (and a reasonable amount was four-track back in steam days), and is pretty well engineered, I'm sure something sensible could be done if the will and the money was there.

Would really hope so. Current journey time Phila - Harrisburg is under two hours. Current journey time Harrisburg - Pittsburgh, 7h 17m - this is two thirds of the route but even then a proper dawdle.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
It was about 5h30m Harrisburg - Pittsburgh (249 miles) and 7h20m Philly - Pittsburgh (353 miles) back in 2016, but even that was only 45 mph average speed Harrisburg - Pittsburgh - see the 2016 schedule here - https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/timetables_Pennsylvanian_20160111.pdf

Absolutely right, sorry I screwed up and was reading coach schedules not train schedules :oops:

There's been a stonking ten minute improvement in Harrisburg to Pittsburgh schedules since 2016. Not exactly hair-raising but it could be so much better.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,009
West of Harrisburg needs a new alignment, frankly.

The Hartford line is a similar corridor which has been upgraded nicely, but not fully. And is ripe for further investment. It needs wires and double tracking (plus Hartford station itself!) - plus the Northeast is relatively well exposed/disposed to trains, and I could see it being a huge success.

Not just as a CT network (but yes, it should interwork/merge with SLE - which might even evolve into a regional New England network, if SLE head further east - but also as a viable Regional route. Yes, an alt route to Boston, but also opening up north of Springfield to better service, and more trains to Vermont and Canada. Springfield to Worcester really needs some love too.
 

67thave

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
100
Location
Long Island
West of Harrisburg needs a new alignment, frankly.

The Hartford line is a similar corridor which has been upgraded nicely, but not fully. And is ripe for further investment. It needs wires and double tracking (plus Hartford station itself!) - plus the Northeast is relatively well exposed/disposed to trains, and I could see it being a huge success.

Not just as a CT network (but yes, it should interwork/merge with SLE - which might even evolve into a regional New England network, if SLE head further east - but also as a viable Regional route. Yes, an alt route to Boston, but also opening up north of Springfield to better service, and more trains to Vermont and Canada. Springfield to Worcester really needs some love too.
There was an alternative rail route west of Harrisburg which was built in the 1880s and was never completed. It later became the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

As for the Hartford Line, that actually used to be an alternate route to Boston up until the mid-2000s. The death knell for through service between NYC and Boston on that route was the electrification of the NEC from New Haven northwards. As for improved service to Vermont/Canada, Vermont is working on extending the Ethan Allen Express (which runs via Albany) from Rutland to Burlington, and reviving the Montrealer (which was the old name of the Vermonter before it was cut back to St. Albans). The latter is dependent on the introduction of preclearance facilities at Gare Central in Montreal, though.

As for why the Springfield to Worcester corridor not receiving more than one train a day during normal times, it has to do with the fact that it's the main route for freight traffic westwards... and single-track to boot. MassDOT has been trying to do something about it for a while by now, but no dice.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Sort of/mostly (depending on what maximum speeds are required) - these are the FRA 'Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for Alternative Compliance and High-Speed Trainsets'

My take on it is that suppliers can offer trains that use modern 'Crash Energy Management' design & construction techniques (as is the norm in Europe and other countries) i.e. crumple zones/'plastic' deformation energy absorption/dissipation methods, but they have to demonstrate that the design offers an equivalent level of safety to the traditional US 'high buff strength' standards. The FRA haven't adopted foreign standards as such, basically just said European design standards are acceptable as the basis for a safe passenger train in the US context.

From what I've read of the FRA document, the only situation where you could use essentially unmodified European trains is if you have a completely segregated system i.e. no level crossings or interaction with other lines running normal US rolling stock (so the risk of collisions with heavy freight, traditional heavy passenger trains and road vehicles is removed).

But no question that this is a big step forward.


Just look at how long it's taken to upgrade a couple of routes in the Midwest to 110 mph operation (in parts) - it's been painfully slow.

Honestly I think trying to mix 110 mph passenger trains with today's typical US freight trains is never going to work efficiently or reliably - even maintaining the track to a sufficient standard for 110 mph with decent ride quality when it's being hammered by thousands of 32+ tonne loaded axles every day must be difficult, let alone all the level-crossing protection issues.


To cover the 780 miles from DC to Chicago in 10 hours implies a start-stop average of 78 mph - that would probably mean a lot of 125 mph running over the route, which I think would need a lot of dedicated infrastructure.

I think having a serious look at providing a faster and more frequent service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh should be high up the list - given that the current NS (ex-Pennsy) route is a mixture of double and triple track (and a reasonable amount was four-track back in steam days), and is pretty well engineered, I'm sure something sensible could be done if the will and the money was there.
You probably have a point on freights sharing tracks with express services.

I do think that freight corridors could be useful, especially if they still have room for four tracks in them, or three (two for passenger, one for freight with loops, or visa-versa)

That said, alignments, infrastructure, rolling stock, speeds, stations are all irrelevant without a plan of what service they want to provide. Once these have been figured out, they can cost/benefit upgrading existing corridors, or building new alignments, as there are so many factors that could influence the best course of action.

Your service should determine your infrastructure, your infrastructure should not determine your service. Infrastructure provision is a means to an end to provide the indended service to passengers.

Gareth Dennis has a really good episode of RailNatter where he uses population data to map proposals for rail corridors in Wales. I can imagine a system like that being successful in the United States.

There needs to be a minimum service provision and speed for these intercity rail services, then choose whatever infrastructure provides that. Hourly frequencies and journey times that are at minimum slightly faster than by road seems like a sensible start.

Also being stuck waiting for freight trains for any more than a few minutes is completely unacceptable. Not moving at all is infinitely worse than making slow progress. I'm sure we get stuck every so often in the UK, but from the impression I get of the lines Amtrak doesn't own, they can find themselves stuck behind freight trains for 15,20,30... minutes.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Your service should determine your infrastructure, your infrastructure should not determine your service. Infrastructure provision is a means to an end to provide the indended service to passengers.
That's probably true in the long term, assuming the funding to keep the service going is guaranteed, as it moreorless is in the UK but not necessarily in the US where Amtrak relies on the whim of the federal government at the time and a patchwork of states. In that sort of short term environment there may be no alternative to trying to do the best possible with whatever infrastructure improvements can be afforded and delivered quickly.
Gareth Dennis has a really good episode of RailNatter where he uses population data to map proposals for rail corridors in Wales. I can imagine a system like that being successful in the United States.
Alon Levy (linked above) has done some demand modelling based on population and distance, to identify the cities in the USA that might be worth linking by high speed rail.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
Alon Levy (linked above) has done some demand modelling based on population and distance, to identify the cities in the USA that might be worth linking by high speed rail.
Oh ... there's a lot more to it than that. Having worked way back in university days with demand modelling, there are all sorts of variables you can use to get the result you (or whoever is paying you) want. What will be the modal split between air, rail and car? One I recall just assigned 33% to each. The professor asked where those figures came from. No answer. We all laughed.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Oh ... there's a lot more to it than that. Having worked way back in university days with demand modelling, there are all sorts of variables you can use to get the result you (or whoever is paying you) want. What will be the modal split between air, rail and car? One I recall just assigned 33% to each. The professor asked where those figures came from. No answer. We all laughed.
I don't think he's claiming a high level of accuracy but the gravity modelling technique he uses is recognised one for demand forecasting at the early stages of a project if there's no multi-modal model available. He claims the coefficients are set by European experience, although applicability might be questionable considering the culture of using planes and cars. Nevertheless the results are interesting, particularly for sorting out the regions where HSR might work from those where it clearly won't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top