Overhauling Amtrak

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Greyhound is collapsing, meaning these Amtrak routes will be the only thing happening.

Quite a few bus companies have gone out of business in recent years leaving Amtrak as the only option and quite a few proposed Northeast & Midwestern routes would tap into a huge market..left by these companies.

[202_Cyclist]

Another Amtrak Train Station In Newark? Plan Keeps Chugging Along
It may soon be possible – for the first time in decades – to take a train from Pennsylvania through New Jersey on your way to New York City.

By Eric Kiefer
Dec. 18, 2023
Patch

"NEWARK, NJ — Could a new Amtrak train stop be in Newark's future?

It may soon be possible to take a train from northeast Pennsylvania through New Jersey on your way to New York City if a plan to revive rail service across the three states keeps chugging along on schedule.

A joint project being spearheaded by several state agencies and Amtrak would restore commuter service between Scranton, New Jersey and New York City – something that rail advocates have been trying to do since the 1970s..."

https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarkn...chugging-along

[Busy Bee]

Much to the dismay of the dedicated Midwest HSR Association (now called HSR Alliance). Much of the problem with a midwestern effort towards a Chicago hub true HSR rail system is that it doesn't have a multi-state government sanctioned entity planning for it. In reality a Chicago hub HSR network really only has one state that would seriously push for it and put money behind it and that is Illinois. Michigan has made great strides in upgrading Chicago-Detroit for higher speed Amtrak service but even Michigan is not consistently governed by those that commit to the long term studying and planning of let alone the long term and massively expensive build-out of a true multi state hub and spoke HSR system.

Essentially this is an issue of political will. Illinois cannot force the hand of flanking conservative states (or at least Republican controlled) to commit to such a vision which would be absolutely necessary to fully cooperate for and fund. That is why in the meantime we can expect the basic investment in existing Amtrak infrastructure to raise speeds to 110mph as well as looking at restoring service to previously served markets but no grand vision for a Chicago centered bullet train network. It might be presumptuous but the painful irony is that if it wasn't for the fact our nation is composed of individual states, transport policy and initiatives would be directed from a national level and it's likely the midwest would, if not already operating one, actively planning or building a modern high speed network. Counterproductive inter-state hostilities, political ideologies and unshared visions prevent great things from happening.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Much to the dismay of the dedicated Midwest HSR Association (now called HSR Alliance). Much of the problem with a midwestern effort towards a Chicago hub true HSR rail system is that it doesn't have a multi-state government sanctioned entity planning for it. In reality a Chicago hub HSR network really only has one state that would seriously push for it and put money behind it and that is Illinois. Michigan has made great strides in upgrading Chicago-Detroit for higher speed Amtrak service but even Michigan is not consistently governed by those that commit to the long term studying and planning of let alone the long term and massively expensive build-out of a true multi state hub and spoke HSR system.

Essentially this is an issue of political will. Illinois cannot force the hand of flanking conservative states (or at least Republican controlled) to commit to such a vision which would be absolutely necessary to fully cooperate for and fund. That is why in the meantime we can expect the basic investment in existing Amtrak infrastructure to raise speeds to 110mph as well as looking at restoring service to previously served markets but no grand vision for a Chicago centered bullet train network. It might be presumptuous but the painful irony is that if it wasn't for the fact our nation is composed of individual states, transport policy and initiatives would be directed from a national level and it's likely the midwest would, if not already operating one, actively planning or building a modern high speed network. Counterproductive inter-state hostilities, political ideologies and unshared visions prevent great things from happening.

For there to be a Midwest HSR network, Amtrak or some other public or private entity would need to own most, if not all, of the tracks. The NEC works because Amtrak assumed ownership of most of it from Conrail, which assumed ownership from Penn Central while in bankruptcy. The NEC was and still is too valuable to lay vacant and unuse, hence the US government purchase and takeover.
If the US government and other state and local transit agencies was as diligent taking ownership of other railroad abandoned lines, there could have been a national network of railroad corridors for passenger trains. But alas, the rest of the country is apparently not as important as the Northeast.
As an aside, other transit agencies and states have been buying abandoned railroad corridors. DART bought hundreds of miles of railroad corridors in total from Cotton Belt, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, Southern Pacific, and Rock Island RRs, and gets criticized for using them for local rail transit.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

For there to be a Midwest HSR network, Amtrak or some other public or private entity would need to own most, if not all, of the tracks. The NEC works because Amtrak assumed ownership of most of it from Conrail, which assumed ownership from Penn Central while in bankruptcy. The NEC was and still is too valuable to lay vacant and unuse, hence the US government purchase and takeover.
If the US government and other state and local transit agencies was as diligent taking ownership of other railroad abandoned lines, there could have been a national network of railroad corridors for passenger trains. But alas, the rest of the country is apparently not as important as the Northeast.
As an aside, other transit agencies and states have been buying abandoned railroad corridors. DART bought hundreds of miles of railroad corridors in total from Cotton Belt, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, Southern Pacific, and Rock Island RRs, and gets criticized for using them for local rail transit.

Yes obviously public ownership would make things much easier but I felt like the larger midwest HSR issue was just a lack of cohesive agreed upon vision and then the state partnership necessary to make it happen. A Midwest HSR system would likely have significant dedicated greenfield corridors anyway. For the record I'm for nationalization of rail infrastructure and the leased access model. IMO it's clearly superior and it's something the country should have done in the 1950s when the long term challenges of the railroads were becoming clear, especially because and in the wake of the publicly financed IHS and the unfair advantage the trucking industry clearly was receiving. If that makes me a pinko or whatever so be it

[TowerDude]

No funding for Livingston Ave. bridge in latest federal announcement
The state says the bridge won't be complete until 2028
By Rick Karlin, Steve Hughes
Dec 8, 2023

ALBANY — The Livingston Avenue bridge was not included in the latest round of federal funding for passenger rail projects, likely pushing back the eventual completion date of a key passenger rail bridge in the state.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration awarded $8.2 billion to 10 projects across the country. The Livingston Avenue span is considered a critical link for passenger rail service in Amtrak's Northeast. But money for that project was not included in the latest round of funding.

Last December, state DOT Commissioner Marie Therese Dominguez said the plan was to start construction on a new bridge by the end of 2023. The state's proposed replacement plan relies on state and federal funds to construct a new bridge just south of the current structure. The new bridge would be capable of supporting higher-speed passenger and freight rail and accommodating maritime transport as well as bicycle-pedestrian access.

Now it appears the bridge's design won't be finalized for several months and construction won't be completed until 2028, according to the state DOT website. There were earlier indications that federal funding for the projects would be announced on Friday.

State DOT spokesman Joseph Morrissey said they will re-apply for federal money. "We look forward to working with our federal partners on this and other priorities moving forward," Morrissey said in an email.

The Empire State Passenger Rail Association urged Gov. Kathy Hochul to award the final design contract using state money, rather than waiting for federal funds.

“The states that beat out New York today for federal grant funding under the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail program all have more robust state rail programs,” said Steve Strauss, the association's executive director.

“The competition is fierce and New York needs to put forward a more organized and public implementation plan for the Empire Corridor improvements,” Strauss added.

The price tag for the new bridge was not immediately clear. The last public estimate for the bridge's cost was $400 million.

Mayor Kathy Sheehan previously said the new bridge was a linchpin in the larger efforts to connect the city to its waterfront and to the larger region.

Her spokesman David Galin said she was disappointed the Livingston Avenue Bridge was not awarded funding on Friday.

"We will continue to work alongside our state and federal partners to ensure a new Livingston Avenue Bridge becomes a reality for our national rail system and as a way to enhance connections between the city of Albany’s waterfront and points east," he said in a statement.

The current bridge, owned by CSX and leased to Amtrak, was built in 1902. Its pilings date to 1866. It has a pedestrian walkway that has been closed for decades due to neglect. Neglect also limits trains crossing the bridge to just 15 mph. The new bridge would support speeds up to 40 mph, according to the state. As far back as 2010 the DOT said, "Recent inspections indicate that the bridge structure is approaching the end of its serviceable life," according to a Times Union report.

The new design will also change from a movable swing bridge to a lift-type bridge. The changes will bring the structure in line with modern standards.

The DOT is recommending the new structure be built just south of the existing bridge, carrying two railroad tracks. The shared-use path will connect with the Empire State Trail, the city's Skyway Park and a planned park on the Rensselaer side.

https://www.timesunion.com/business/...t-18542065.php

[Nexis4Jersey]

I don't think we really need true high speed rail here in the Northeast... 100-140mph is fast enough and would make a huge difference. NY to Buffalo would be 4hrs at 125mph... NY to Boston via Hartford/Springfield at 125mph would be about 2.50hrs , NY to DC with the curves straightened out would be a savings of 70mins... DC to Richmond can be reduced down to 90mins at 110mph.. Upgrading the Pennsylvanian with a new ROW via State College at 125-140mph would be 3hrs : Pittsburgh - Philly - NY... Those would be the main lines... Faster than driving and flying on some routes.. A Secondary network would connect various other corridors with 80-110mph speeds...

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

I don't think we really need true high speed rail here in the Northeast... 100-140mph is fast enough and would make a huge difference. NY to Buffalo would be 4hrs at 125mph... NY to Boston via Hartford/Springfield at 125mph would be about 2.50hrs , NY to DC with the curves straightened out would be a savings of 70mins... DC to Richmond can be reduced down to 90mins at 110mph.. Upgrading the Pennsylvanian with a new ROW via State College at 125-140mph would be 3hrs : Pittsburgh - Philly - NY... Those would be the main lines... Faster than driving and flying on some routes.. A Secondary network would connect various other corridors with 80-110mph speeds...

We need to include distances when discussing city pairs.
NYC to Boston via New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield still uses the relatively slow NYC to New Haven tracks with maximum speeds of 79 mph. It's distance between NYC and Boston per Bing via these cities is 215 miles. It's 80 miles between NYC and New Haven, therefore it is 135 miles between New Haven and Boston. To go 215 miles in 3 hours, the train has to average around 71 mph. Today, Acela averages 43.6 mph between NYC and NH using an average of 1 hour and 50 minutes to travel these 80 miles. So the train would have to average 115.7 mph to go the remaining 135 miles in 1 hour and 10 minutes. And that is with stops in Hartford, Springfield and Worchester. Maximum speeds would most likely have to be around 186 mph to average 115.7 mph. Likely not in the existing rail corridor, Amtrak would need a brand new corridor to achieve those speeds, and with CHSR history for around the same distance, $20+ Billion.
NYC to Washington DC is 229 miles. The average train journey from New York to DC takes 3 hours and 28 minutes, but some Amtrak Acela train trips are as short as 2 hours and 42 minutes. Acela can already do this trip in under 3 hours.
Washington DC to Richmond is 108 miles. At an average speed of 110 mph, the travel time would be 98 minutes. Again, that's an average speed of 110 mph, not the maximum speed of 110 mph. To average 110 mph, the maximum speed most likely would have to exceed 125 mph to achieve the distance in 90 minutes, in which case new HSR trainsets would have to be used, and an electrified catenary installed, in another brand new HSR corridor.
And the same probably holds true with Philadelphia to Pittsburgh with the required station stops the State would want.. It's 305 miles and the train would have to average 101.6 mph to have a travel time of 3 hours. Maybe, just maybe they can do so with maximum 125 mph speed trains, but I wouldn't count on it. It is 106 miles between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, therefore at least 199 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. So about a third of the route is already electrified, and the new ALC-42s Amtrak is buying is limited to 125 mph. To even achieve 125 mph speeds west of Harrisburg through the mountains tunnels would have to be bored. Off hand, just looking at the math, it looks doable. But when you add geography into the process, it looks far less likely.

Again, I repeat average speed and maximum speed are two entirely different concepts. When looking at train travel over large distances, you look at average speeds. There are many ways to increase average speeds, less time at slower than normal speeds, and more time at faster than normal speeds. Eliminating choke points can be just as effective as increasing maximum speeds.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by electricron

We need to include distances when discussing city pairs.
NYC to Boston via New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield still uses the relatively slow NYC to New Haven tracks with maximum speeds of 79 mph. It's distance between NYC and Boston per Bing via these cities is 215 miles. It's 80 miles between NYC and New Haven, therefore it is 135 miles between New Haven and Boston. To go 215 miles in 3 hours, the train has to average around 71 mph. Today, Acela averages 43.6 mph between NYC and NH using an average of 1 hour and 50 minutes to travel these 80 miles. So the train would have to average 115.7 mph to go the remaining 135 miles in 1 hour and 10 minutes. And that is with stops in Hartford, Springfield and Worchester. Maximum speeds would most likely have to be around 186 mph to average 115.7 mph. Likely not in the existing rail corridor, Amtrak would need a brand new corridor to achieve those speeds, and with CHSR history for around the same distance, $20+ Billion.
NYC to Washington DC is 229 miles. The average train journey from New York to DC takes 3 hours and 28 minutes, but some Amtrak Acela train trips are as short as 2 hours and 42 minutes. Acela can already do this trip in under 3 hours.
Washington DC to Richmond is 108 miles. At an average speed of 110 mph, the travel time would be 98 minutes. Again, that's an average speed of 110 mph, not the maximum speed of 110 mph. To average 110 mph, the maximum speed most likely would have to exceed 125 mph to achieve the distance in 90 minutes, in which case new HSR trainsets would have to be used, and an electrified catenary installed, in another brand new HSR corridor.
And the same probably holds true with Philadelphia to Pittsburgh with the required station stops the State would want.. It's 305 miles and the train would have to average 101.6 mph to have a travel time of 3 hours. Maybe, just maybe they can do so with maximum 125 mph speed trains, but I wouldn't count on it. It is 106 miles between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, therefore at least 199 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. So about a third of the route is already electrified, and the new ALC-42s Amtrak is buying is limited to 125 mph. To even achieve 125 mph speeds west of Harrisburg through the mountains tunnels would have to be bored. Off hand, just looking at the math, it looks doable. But when you add geography into the process, it looks far less likely.

Again, I repeat average speed and maximum speed are two entirely different concepts. When looking at train travel over large distances, you look at average speeds. There are many ways to increase average speeds, less time at slower than normal speeds, and more time at faster than normal speeds. Eliminating choke points can be just as effective as increasing maximum speeds.

You can make the tracks between NY & New Haven , 100-125mph with some light curve straightening and bridge replacement. The Connecticut River line is being upgraded to 110mph from Hartford to White River Junction with the Hartford to New Haven section largely operating at 110mph. The East-west line in Massachusetts has 2 options that would use the I-90 ROW to bypass curves between Springfield and Worcester with speeds up to 125mph shaving 30mins off...combine that with a straighten Springfield-New Haven-NY line and you can probably shave just under an hour off. Someone posted a detailed and doable HSL alignment from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh largely using the existing ROW with a few long tunnels to bypass the tight curves and service state college it had a top speed of 150mph...

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

You can make the tracks between NY & New Haven , 100-125mph with some light curve straightening and bridge replacement. The Connecticut River line is being upgraded to 110mph from Hartford to White River Junction with the Hartford to New Haven section largely operating at 110mph. The East-west line in Massachusetts has 2 options that would use the I-90 ROW to bypass curves between Springfield and Worcester with speeds up to 125mph shaving 30mins off...combine that with a straighten Springfield-New Haven-NY line and you can probably shave just under an hour off. Someone posted a detailed and doable HSL alignment from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh largely using the existing ROW with a few long tunnels to bypass the tight curves and service state college it had a top speed of 150mph...

NYC to NH remain 79 mph max speeds for a reason, that's how it was signaled and that is how MTA and CDOT maintains it. Upgrading the track speeds in NJ from 135 mph to 150 mph required new signals and crossover switches on a perfectly straight corridor alignment. The alignment is not so straight in Connecticut, either vertically or horizontally. Good luck with that. But if 110 mph maximum speeds can be attained in Massachusetts all the better, somehow I believe the existing line via Providence would still be faster. Is the existing line between NH and Boston so congested with trains that an alternate corridor is needed?

As for west of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania, new tunnels will be needed along the existing corridor. How many more tunnels will be needed with a routing via State College, as I was responding to initially? Additionally, Lucid Stew usually confuses maximum speeds with average speeds with his YouTube estimations. I prefer City Nerd's estimations better because he knows that difference and uses a gravity model factoring in distance with his ridership projections.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by electricron

NYC to NH remain 79 mph max speeds for a reason, that's how it was signaled and that is how MTA and CDOT maintains it. Upgrading the track speeds in NJ from 135 mph to 150 mph required new signals and crossover switches on a perfectly straight corridor alignment. The alignment is not so straight in Connecticut, either vertically or horizontally. Good luck with that. But if 110 mph maximum speeds can be attained in Massachusetts all the better, somehow I believe the existing line via Providence would still be faster. Is the existing line between NH and Boston so congested with trains that an alternate corridor is needed?

As for west of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania, new tunnels will be needed along the existing corridor. How many more tunnels will be needed with a routing via State College, as I was responding to initially? Additionally, Lucid Stew usually confuses maximum speeds with average speeds with his YouTube estimations. I prefer City Nerd's estimations better because he knows that difference and uses a gravity model factoring in distance with his ridership projections.

Speed was lowered to 80mph from 100mph several yrs ago due to the track condition. I doubt the existing shore line is faster then going Inland via Springfield. Most of that line except a few areas will be upgraded to 110mph+ , the Shore line from New Haven to Kingston is extremely curvy and then on approach to Providence & Pawtucket is curvy...so how is that faster? Some of those curves are 25mph.. The tightest curves on the Inland route are currently 50mph with proposal to upgrade then to 80mph..

[Busy Bee]

^ That would be a youtuber called Lucid Stew. All his videos are must view IMO.

Keystone Corridor HSR:

• Video Link

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ That would be a youtuber called Lucid Stew. All his videos are must view IMO.

Keystone Corridor HSR:

• Video Link

It wasn't lucid stew , it was some guy on reddit who posted a few weeks before stew..with a slightly different route.

[Busy Bee]

Yeah saw that a couple weeks back. Good news. Hopefully will see revenue runs shortly.

[TowerDude]

• Video Link

[Crawford]

Long past due. The Acela trains are often booked out weeks in advance.

I recently had to fly to DC for work bc no trains available.

[mrnyc]

^ yup, same for my spouse last week for boston. and the meetings were right downtown in boston, so a needless pita to hassle with the airports.

[Velvet_Highground]

“11 – Detroit to New Orleans, via Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, Montgomery, and Mobile”

Ah yes Detroit to New Orleans just as (the sun) god (Louis XIV) intended.

[dchan]

How much faster is Acela from NYC to DC compared with the regular Amtrak? I took the regular Amtrak in 2022 and thought it travelled at a pretty decent speed. It sure beat driving.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by dchan

How much faster is Acela from NYC to DC compared with the regular Amtrak? I took the regular Amtrak in 2022 and thought it travelled at a pretty decent speed. It sure beat driving.

Going to Moynihan station, Acela is about 30 minutes faster than the regional trains. Continuing on to Stamford and other destinations in Connecticut, Acela is nearly an hour faster than the regional trains because of less dwell time of passengers changing trains at Moynihan station.

I had a couple of free upgrades to first class on Acela recently, which was quite nice.