AmeriStar Rail / Amtrak

before I get to far into this. Do I think Ameristar should take over Amtrak, I don't know. Will they, I doubt it. Will all of these routes come to be? not likely. But looking over AmeriStar Rail 's page their maps show some interesting routes.
My questions are about the physical aspects of the routing. For example, can a train go from NY Penn Station to Worchester to Boston North station? Or Albany to NY Penn Station to Long I thought Metro north and LIRR had different third rail systems) I know that the NEC and the Harrisburg line are for the most part free of crossing but what about Richmond to DC, Albany to Penn Station, New Haven to North station in Boston. Can a train go from DC to Hoboken? Once again, I know that these routes are pie in the sky and would cost more than people are willing toto spend(congress) I am just wondering about physical routing " you can't get there from here because...." not the this will never happen because congress, Amtrak won't give up their. , money unions and so forth,
any just a few questions thanks in advance.
Sorry about the typing I am limited to one hand for now due to an injury.

Can a train go from NY Penn Station to Worchester to Boston North station? It could go Penn to Worchester to Boston SOUTH station with the addition of an engine in Albany. The seats would have to be a 50/50 split in each direction. It would be easier to take a ACELA or a regional NYP Boston Back Bay then the T to Worcester. In the case of Boston North station get off at South station and take the Red line.

Or Albany to NY Penn Station to Long Island? Push pull equipment and change ends you could, otherwise you would have to either loop the train set or add an engine at Penn. See above about seats.

Albany to Penn Station, New Haven to North station in Boston. ALB/NYP/NHV sure could. Why one would want to run a train ALB BOS via NHV when you can transfer at Penn is beyond me. Boston North Station see above.

The maps that are on the page show a lot of existing service what I gather is they want to improve train speeds

Operating to North Station from NYP would likely mean inland route and Grand Junction branch through MIT.

Upstate to Long Island is possible using the through tracks (not stub tracks 1-4). In 1998 Amtrak did an one-time
through run special to Willets Point for a Mets game.

A train can run to points south on the NEC from HOB, via the Waterfront Connection. The connection is
single track and southbounds would need some wrong railing.

All the track necessary exists for NYP - New Haven - Springfield - Worcester - Ayer - North Station (or NYP - New London - Worcester-Portland and NYP - Providence - Worcester-Portland as the East Wind and State of Maine used to go). Until recently, passengers couldn't have used Worcester - Ayer because of Guilford's terrible maintenance. But CSX is fixing that.

I've heard nothing about restoring signals, but with low traffic density the signals would be a fraction of the cost of 136 lb. rail and getting all the mud out of the roadbed. Maybe 5-6 signal blocks for 28 miles. CSX may also be planning a 2-mile siding somewhere in that segment - there are a few places where it's a long way between grade crossings.

Privatizing passenger rail is one of those things that sounds really cool to technocrats who've never looked at the history of railways but absolutely fails every time it is tried.

roavabees wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 9:35 pm https://ameristarrail.com/routes-maps

I see so many obstacles here.

• Boston area: MIT. I've already raised many of the objections here on this site.
• DC area: CSX. Seriously, after Long Bridge, you need to add more capacity still to the entire route for CSX to budge and give slots.
• NY area: Seriously? Routing through Hoboken? Hoboken's always full and there's no room for more tracks there. NJ Transit's going to object. Plus, you want to take tracks out of service in a station that's perpetually over-capacity?

AmeriStar Rail has to show it's homework, or it will never be taken seriously.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 9:05 am

roavabees wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 9:35 pm https://ameristarrail.com/routes-maps

I see so many obstacles here.

• Boston area: MIT. I've already raised many of the objections here on this site.
• DC area: CSX. Seriously, after Long Bridge, you need to add more capacity still to the entire route for CSX to budge and give slots.
• NY area: Seriously? Routing through Hoboken? Hoboken's always full and there's no room for more tracks there. NJ Transit's going to object. Plus, you want to take tracks out of service in a station that's perpetually over-capacity?

AmeriStar Rail has to show it's homework, or it will never be taken seriously.

Are they going to chip in to add capacity in NOVA? With the frequency they'd want, an additional track would be needed south of ALX.
And while an inland route with at least 79mph speeds would be a good idea, for when the NEC gets flooded over at the coastline, I don't see MIT being thrilled with regular trains through it's campus.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 10:56 am Are they going to chip in to add capacity in NOVA? With the frequency they'd want, an additional track would be needed south of ALX.
And while an inland route with at least 79mph speeds would be a good idea, for when the NEC gets flooded over at the coastline, I don't see MIT being thrilled with regular trains through it's campus.

MIT getting annoyed with regular trains through it's campus is what turns regular scientists into *mad scientists.*

What is the law on a railroad or a lease of track time rail transportation service performing intercity timetable based rail service?

From what I understand, the existing authorities in the Northeast all have lineage to pre A Day.

jbvb wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 2:27 pm All the track necessary exists for NYP - New Haven - Springfield - Worcester - Ayer - North Station....

You wouldn't have to go through Ayer. Any train routed through Worcester can use the Boston and Albany main to Boston, then branch on the Grand Junction directly to North Station. It is a direct shot, with only a minimal slow section, whereas an Ayer routing is terribly out of the way, and packed with speed restrictions.

The issue with using the Grand Junction, alluded to by STrRedWolf, is abutting NIMBYism. MIT doesn't like train traffic, but neither does the Cambridge City Council. There are a few busy grade crossings, so the car lobby is also not in to the idea. But if it could be sold politically, it's a very decent way of getting some Worcester sourced trains to North Station.

What is the point? They're not proposing to serve any place that doesn't already have Amtrak service. Why don't they go to Manchester and Concord, NH? If they want to run trains from Hoboken, why don't they go to Scranton and Binghamton, or, for that matter, all the way to Buffalo?

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 2:11 pm

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 10:56 am Are they going to chip in to add capacity in NOVA? With the frequency they'd want, an additional track would be needed south of ALX.
And while an inland route with at least 79mph speeds would be a good idea, for when the NEC gets flooded over at the coastline, I don't see MIT being thrilled with regular trains through it's campus.

MIT getting annoyed with regular trains through it's campus is what turns regular scientists into *mad scientists.*

Yeah, they may want to figure out a new way of tunneling ...

I don't think I would recommend privatizing amtrak. Or turning over the NEC to Ameristar Rail. You could create a layered model where Amtrak, Acela II and Ameristar trains all ply similar routes. Drawing a map can be intellectual property, but they can't sue Amtrak if they pick up the routes and run them themselves.

As for Washington-Maine or Harrisburg-Maine, you could pilot that service today. Ameristars map clearly shows an "Inland Regional" routing. Questions would be, do you change to diesel at New Haven or run more complex "dual mode" locomotives? To use the Grand Junction for bi-hourly service (or more when you add MBTA Commuter Rail service) would require grade-separation of two or three crossings and construction of a flyover or under track near Boston Engine Terminal. That would still leave a reverse of direction at Boston North Station.