Overhauling Amtrak

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by subterranean

None of the HSR segments cover anything but regional routes of the U.S. and Canada. No one is proposing cross country HSR routs because they don’t make sense.

A NEC HSR Corridor makes sense ... a connecting HSR from the NEC to Chicago makes sense ... and an HSR Line between Chicago and say Denver makes sense ... etc.

You string together enough point to point, compatible HSR lines and you can create a workable nationwide HSR system.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

A NEC HSR Corridor makes sense ... a connecting HSR from the NEC to Chicago makes sense ... and an HSR Line between Chicago and say Denver makes sense ... etc.

You string together enough point to point, compatible HSR lines and you can create a workable nationwide HSR system.

right -- the longest shinkansen line in japan is now 419mi., but thats regional rail in the vast usa.

i would guess 500mi. is about top end for reasonably operating a feasible sinkansen type high speed rail line like that, not that they cant be much longer. it would need a strong purpose to be long and a lot of steady customers, like nyc to dc.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

A NEC HSR Corridor makes sense ... a connecting HSR from the NEC to Chicago makes sense ... and an HSR Line between Chicago and say Denver makes sense ... etc.

You string together enough point to point, compatible HSR lines and you can create a workable nationwide HSR system.

The Lakeshore alliance put out a study that if the upgraded the entire Lakeshore limited route to 110mph you'd be able to run 6x daily service end to end many other city pairs so some cities would get 12-18x daily service... NY State had 125mph 15 billion plan that it threw out for a 90mph , 25 yr plan earlier this year.. Mass seems to be going a similar route... Very frustrating..

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

The Lakeshore alliance put out a study that if the upgraded the entire Lakeshore limited route to 110mph you'd be able to run 6x daily service end to end many other city pairs so some cities would get 12-18x daily service... NY State had 125mph 15 billion plan that it threw out for a 90mph , 25 yr plan earlier this year.. Mass seems to be going a similar route... Very frustrating..

The grade separation protection issues for having maximum train speeds going 125 mph over 110 or even 90 mph are just too expensive. Where it is cheap to do, in the most rural areas because there are far fewer grade crossings, it is not needed, and where it would be nice, in suburban and urban areas, it is just too expensive because there are far too many grade crossings.

Buffalo to New York City elapse time by train is 8.25-9.0 hours by train over a distance around 290 miles. The Maple Leaf being the quickest, which probably means the Lake Shore Limited is the slowest.
Some math, 290/8.25 = average 35.1 mph; 290/9 = average 32.2 mph
That assuming a train that has a maximum speed of 79 mph. They are not even averaging half their max allowed speeds as is. 90 mph max speeds is just 11 mph faster than 79 mph.
Some more math
290 miles x 90 / 290 x 79 = 26,100 / 22,910 =1.13924 faster
So 35.1 mph x 1.14 faster = 40 average mph, and 32.2 mph x 1.14 faster = 35.7 average mph.
The elapse times saved at most would be 60 minutes at max speeds of 90 mph.
More math
290 miles / 40 mph = 7.25 hours
290 miles / 35.7 mph = 8.12 hours
8.25 hours - 7.25 hours = 1 hour

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by electricron

The grade separation protection issues for having maximum train speeds going 125 mph over 110 or even 90 mph are just too expensive. Where it is cheap to do, in the most rural areas because there are far fewer grade crossings, it is not needed, and where it would be nice, in suburban and urban areas, it is just too expensive because there are far too many grade crossings.

Buffalo to New York City elapse time by train is 8.25-9.0 hours by train over a distance around 290 miles. The Maple Leaf being the quickest, which probably means the Lake Shore Limited is the slowest.
Some math, 290/8.25 = average 35.1 mph; 290/9 = average 32.2 mph
That assuming a train that has a maximum speed of 79 mph. They are not even averaging half their max allowed speeds as is. 90 mph max speeds is just 11 mph faster than 79 mph.
Some more math
290 miles x 90 / 290 x 79 = 26,100 / 22,910 =1.13924 faster
So 35.1 mph x 1.14 faster = 40 average mph, and 32.2 mph x 1.14 faster = 35.7 average mph.
The elapse times saved at most would be 60 minutes at max speeds of 90 mph.
More math
290 miles / 40 mph = 7.25 hours
290 miles / 35.7 mph = 8.12 hours
8.25 hours - 7.25 hours = 1 hour

The ROW from Chicago to Albany used to be quad tracked but has been reduced to double tracks to save on costs, along with a lot of main lines in this country. In most cases, the ROW can still support quad tracking. Some Midwest lines are already 110mph with crossings in small towns...110mph even 125mph is allowed by the FRA in rural areas...more built-up areas need to grade separated but most lines in the Midwest and Northeast are already grade separated. Buffalo to NY would be reduced to 5.5-6hrs with the 125mph proposal for the Empire line. A big untapped market would be buffalo to Albany... Buffalo - Cleveland , Cleveland - Chicago via Fort Wayne , Cleveland - Detriot..

[Nexis4Jersey]

Rethinking the Chicago area Amtrak Approach / Amtrak & Metra Expansion

My Full build out over the next 25yrs to evenly distribute services between the various terminals and expand the system. I would shift most of the services approaching from the East to LaSalle Street over a rebuilt Airline with connecting ramps. To reduce freight conflicts on the Eastern approach, I would shift over to the South Shore line, which Amtrak has proposed. The Lincoln and a few other services would shift over to the Rock Island District, which would then be upgraded from 80mph to 110mph.

Lasalle Street Station – Regional Rail – Intercity Corridor & Long Distance Services

• Rock Island District : Chicago – Blue Island – Oak Forest – Joliet
• Southwest Service : Chicago – Oak Lawn – Manhattan
• Southeast Service : Chicago – Dolton – Thorton – Chicago Heights – Balmoral Park
• Southern Tier Ltd: Chicago – Cleveland - Erie – Binghamton – Scranton – Hoboken -1x daily
• International Limited : Chicago – Ann Arbor – Detroit – London – Toronto – Montreal – 1x overnight
• International : Chicago – Ann Arbor – Detroit – London – Toronto – 1x daily
• City of New Orleans : Chicago – Memphis – Jackson – New Orleans – 1x daily
• Illini and Saluki : Chicago – Kankakee – Champaign – Carbondale – 4x daily
• Floridan : Chicago – Indianapolis – Nashville – Atlanta - Orlando – Miami – 1x daily
• South Wind : Chicago - Indianapolis - Nashville - Decatur - Birmingham - Montgomery - Jacksonville - Orlando - 1x daily
• Cardinal : Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati – Charlottesville – DC – New York – 1x daily
• Lake Shore Limited : Chicago – Cleveland – Buffalo – Albany – New York – 1x daily
• Capitol Limited : Chicago – Cleveland – Pittsburgh – Silver Spring - DC – 1x daily
• Mountaineer : Chicago – Cincinnati – Roanoke – Petersburg – Norfolk – 1x daily
• Lincoln : Chicago - Joliet – Bloomington – Springfield -> shared HSR to St. Louis - 8x daily
• Peoria Rocket : Springfield – Peoria – Ottawa – Joliet – Chicago – 5x daily

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

The ROW from Chicago to Albany used to be quad tracked but has been reduced to double tracks to save on costs, along with a lot of main lines in this country. In most cases, the ROW can still support quad tracking. Some Midwest lines are already 110mph with crossings in small towns...110mph even 125mph is allowed by the FRA in rural areas...more built-up areas need to grade separated but most lines in the Midwest and Northeast are already grade separated. Buffalo to NY would be reduced to 5.5-6hrs with the 125mph proposal for the Empire line. A big untapped market would be buffalo to Albany... Buffalo - Cleveland , Cleveland - Chicago via Fort Wayne , Cleveland - Detriot..

You are probably correct with the 125 mph figure. But the State of New York, which half funded the study and will half fund any improvements, concluded it would be far cheaper to limit speeds to 90 mph. So, as of today, the 110-125 mph max speeds dream is "dead on arrival".

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by electricron

You are probably correct with the 125 mph figure. But the State of New York, which half funded the study and will half fund any improvements, concluded it would be far cheaper to limit speeds to 90 mph. So, as of today, the 110-125 mph max speeds dream is "dead on arrival".

They sabotaged the study, which concluded that the ridership would increase to 5.5-6 million annually with 110-125mph option. The State had already begun upgrading parts of the line to 110mph... And putting in a few billion for yard improvements and new stations and the new bridge over the Hudson.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

Amtrak just doubling down on the losing strategy of slow speed routes in the middle of nowhere. So disappointing.

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

[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

[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

[electricron]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

A NEC HSR Corridor makes sense ... a connecting HSR from the NEC to Chicago makes sense ... and an HSR Line between Chicago and say Denver makes sense ... etc.

You string together enough point to point, compatible HSR lines and you can create a workable nationwide HSR system.

Whereas I agree that if you string enough HSR routes together you will end up with a national network, I believe few more riders will ride the train for more than 3 to 4 hours. The sweet spot for trains to compete with planes is 3 hours, 4 hours at most. Beyond that, train ridership falls dramatically to less than 1%.

The Eurostar between London and Paris averages 120 mph even though it has a top speed of 186 mph.
Some math follows:
120 x 3 = 360
120 x 4 = 480
The sweetest distance for HSR is 360 miles or less, at 480 miles a HSR train will attract about the same ridership of a 50 mph average train. So why spend 10 times more to attract the same number of train passengers at 500 miles or more?
New York City to Chicago distance is around 800 miles. For HSR to be effective, we would need another city midway around the 400 miles, and use two HSR trains with one transfer.
Chicago to Denveris worse still, with a distance around 1,000 miles. In this case we would need two intermediate cities and two transfers riding three HSR trains.
The distances in the USA are just too great for a national HSR network to work effectively. Plane travel over these long distances will still be overwhelming more popular than HSR trains. HSR trains can capture the shorter distance travel market less than 360 miles. There are plenty of US cities less than 360 miles apart. But how many of these city pairs can financially support twice hourly, twelve hours a day services (48 trains a day over the double track, electrified corridor).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

The distances in the USA are just too great for a national HSR network to work effectively. Plane travel over these long distances will still be overwhelming more popular than HSR trains. HSR trains can capture the shorter distance travel market less than 360 miles. There are plenty of US cities less than 360 miles apart. But how many of these city pairs can financially support twice hourly, twelve hours a day services (48 trains a day over the double track, electrified corridor).

The issue that HSR advocates don't recognize is that the high speed sections of intercity lines might be very short, meaning the trains will only travel at their top speed for an hour at most between city pairs like NYC and Boston.

Meanwhile, the real speed gains are to be had in the approaches to downtown stations. If the 10 miles approaching a terminal station can be made to increase from 30mph to 90mph, then the overall time improvement is massive.

HSR usually can't achieve anything approaching its fastest design speed in tunnels. So even if a tunnel is dug for 10+ miles from a terminal station out to the high speed mainline, the approach will still be far below 200mph, likely around 100-120mph. This is what is u/c in England.

The only way that fast approaches can be built in most U.S. cities without extensive tunneling would be to consolidate existing interstate highways on one side of their ROW, with the abandoned side given over to rail. We are far, far, far away from such a move being made anywhere.

[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...

[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.

[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.