Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)

They were talking about service to Roanoke when I was a student at Virginia Tech in the mid-90's. Maybe over 20 years later it'll happen, but I'm not holding my breath. 5 or 6 years to extend the existing Lynchburg train a few miles? In China they'd probably build several thousand miles of new 220 mph high speed rail in less time.

If I read Station Afficianado correctly, he's not saying extend today's LYH to GRO via ROA. Leave ROA for 2018, but *right now* extend the LYH train along the Crescent's pax-ready route to a place that isn't too small (as Danville would be) or too far (as Charlotte would be), so he hit upon Greensboro.

But critics seem right to me that somewhere an hour beyond LYH and Petersburg, there's an imaginary arc that is about as far as you want a "real" NEC train to go, so you will get as far as ROA and NFK from the NEC, but anything farther is going to need a WAS-originating train and a big non-Virginia anchor city (like Knoxville, not Bristol; Greensboro or Charlotte, not Danville)

Sadly for all such ideas, *everyone* wants a new train across the Potomac (and can't have one).

So it is a real bind: can't extend the NEC trains you have for fear of killing reliability, and can't do new WAS-originating trains due to DC-area bottlenecks.

Arlington wrote:If I read Station Afficianado correctly, he's not saying extend today's LYH to GRO via ROA. Leave ROA for 2018, but *right now* extend the LYH train along the Crescent's pax-ready route to a place that isn't too small (as Danville would be) or too far (as Charlotte would be), so he hit upon Greensboro.

But critics seem right to me that somewhere an hour beyond LYH and Petersburg, there's an imaginary arc that is about as far as you want a "real" NEC train to go, so you will get as far as ROA and NFK from the NEC, but anything farther is going to need a WAS-originating train and a big non-Virginia anchor city (like Knoxville, not Bristol; Greensboro or Charlotte, not Danville)

Sadly for all such ideas, *everyone* wants a new train across the Potomac (and can't have one).

So it is a real bind: can't extend the NEC trains you have for fear of killing reliability, and can't do new WAS-originating trains due to DC-area bottlenecks.

That is indeed my suggestion--direct from Lynchburg to Greensboro. You may be right that extending the train to Greensboro might be more trouble than it's worth, but I worry about the service possibly stagnating while we wait six years to get a train to Roanoke.

Here's my $0.02 for faster launch of ROA serivce:

1) Use the O Winston Link facility as ROA station because, c'mon, it was the N&W station, they're rail nuts, the building looks drop-dead *fabulous* and they do have at least one passenger arriving by train per year (Seriously, they *do* do excursion trains as it is).

2) Throw up a temporary double-wide station out back if you must, or heck, since it is probably a 5am departure and a 9pm arrival, treat it like renting the facility a for a function

3) No stop for Bedford VA at launch of service. They can drive the 30 mins to Lynchburg.

There, can I have my $750k now?

Station Aficionado wrote:

Arlington wrote:If I read Station Afficianado correctly, he's not saying extend today's LYH to GRO via ROA. Leave ROA for 2018, but *right now* extend the LYH train along the Crescent's pax-ready route to a place that isn't too small (as Danville would be) or too far (as Charlotte would be), so he hit upon Greensboro.

But critics seem right to me that somewhere an hour beyond LYH and Petersburg, there's an imaginary arc that is about as far as you want a "real" NEC train to go, so you will get as far as ROA and NFK from the NEC, but anything farther is going to need a WAS-originating train and a big non-Virginia anchor city (like Knoxville, not Bristol; Greensboro or Charlotte, not Danville)

Sadly for all such ideas, *everyone* wants a new train across the Potomac (and can't have one).

So it is a real bind: can't extend the NEC trains you have for fear of killing reliability, and can't do new WAS-originating trains due to DC-area bottlenecks.

That is indeed my suggestion--direct from Lynchburg to Greensboro. You may be right that extending the train to Greensboro might be more trouble than it's worth, but I worry about the service possibly stagnating while we wait six years to get a train to Roanoke.

I'm going to make the following generic statement my signature, since I have to repeat it so often:

And (insert city) has the facilities, staff and space to service, store, and turn a train and act as an initial and/or originating passenger terminal?

In this case, the city is GRO. Do they have the capabilities or space to perform the operation? If not, is there a place nearby that does? These are the type of things that REALLY causes holdups! Additionally, unless you're changing the times, I'm seeing a REAL problem with the train crews. Using the Crescent as a base, you're encroaching on the FRA HOS laws, unless you double up the crews. That adds to expenses.

As for Mr Arlington's "imaginary arc," most are uncomfortable outside of RVR. You put up with it, but there is discomfort.

ThirdRail7 wrote:I'm going to make the following generic statement my signature, since I have to repeat it so often:

And (insert city) has the facilities, staff and space to service, store, and turn a train and act as an initial and/or originating passenger terminal?

In this case, the city is GRO. Do they have the capabilities or space to perform the operation? If not, is there a place nearby that does? These are the type of things that REALLY causes holdups! Additionally, unless you're changing the times, I'm seeing a REAL problem with the train crews. Using the Crescent as a base, you're encroaching on the FRA HOS laws, unless you double up the crews. That adds to expenses.

As for Mr Arlington's "imaginary arc," most are uncomfortable outside of RVR. You put up with it, but there is discomfort.

Excellent questions, and I don't know the answers (except that GRO currently has a very large and underutilized station). But let me ask this--were such resources available at Lynchburg (or, say, Brunswick ME) when the decisions were made to extend service there? Or were they put in place once the decisions were made? And would it be easier to put such resources in place in GRO (already with Amtrak service and with at least some Amtrak personnel already on hand) or in ROA (no Amtrak, no usable station, no current personnel)? I have no illusions that it would be possible to simply say, ok, effective 1/1/13, we're extending the LYH train to GRO. But if it were financially feasible (including dealing with the crew issues you allude to), my admittedly unlearned suspicion is that one could put the other necessary resources in place more readily GRO than in ROA.

All that said, I'm happy to defer to anyone, such as Mr. ThirdRail, with a more practical understanding of passenger train operations. And this discussion is a reminder of something I once read about English railroading. What seem like easy and sensible improvements to operations are often neither.

Station Aficionado wrote:

ThirdRail7 wrote:I'm going to make the following generic statement my signature, since I have to repeat it so often:

And (insert city) has the facilities, staff and space to service, store, and turn a train and act as an initial and/or originating passenger terminal?

In this case, the city is GRO. Do they have the capabilities or space to perform the operation? If not, is there a place nearby that does? These are the type of things that REALLY causes holdups! Additionally, unless you're changing the times, I'm seeing a REAL problem with the train crews. Using the Crescent as a base, you're encroaching on the FRA HOS laws, unless you double up the crews. That adds to expenses.

As for Mr Arlington's "imaginary arc," most are uncomfortable outside of RVR. You put up with it, but there is discomfort.

Excellent questions, and I don't know the answers (except that GRO currently has a very large and underutilized station). But let me ask this--were such resources available at Lynchburg (or, say, Brunswick ME) when the decisions were made to extend service there? Or were they put in place once the decisions were made? And would it be easier to put such resources in place in GRO (already with Amtrak service and with at least some Amtrak personnel already on hand) or in ROA (no Amtrak, no usable station, no current personnel)? I have no illusions that it would be possible to simply say, ok, effective 1/1/13, we're extending the LYH train to GRO. But if it were financially feasible (including dealing with the crew issues you allude to), my admittedly unlearned suspicion is that one could put the other necessary resources in place more readily GRO than in ROA.

All that said, I'm happy to defer to anyone, such as Mr. ThirdRail, with a more practical understanding of passenger train operations. And this discussion is a reminder of something I once read about English railroading. What seem like easy and sensible improvements to operations are often neither.

If you recall, the initial plan for Lynchburg took quite some time to come to fruition. It didn't just appear. Track work was performed, services and an outlying point was established at place where facilities already existed. I also submit that you may not compare the Downeaster Service to the Lynchburg service in its present form and definitely if it is extended.

Before we take this to the next level, let's identify a term everyone loves to toss around on this board. It is a very simple word.

That word is "TRAIN."

Seems simple enough, right?

What kind of trains are plying the rails? Sure, there are passenger train with Amtrak on the side, but how are they classified? Allow me to help:

COMMUTER TRAIN: Passenger train providing
commuter service within an urban, suburban or
metropolitan area.

SHORT DISTANCE INTERCITY: Passenger train
that provides service exclusively on Amtrak’s NEC or
between cities that are not more than 125 miles apart

LONG DISTANCE INTERCITY: Passenger train
that provides service between large cities more than 125
miles apart and is not operated exclusively on Amtrak’s
NEC.

Look CAREFULLY at these words. They have a HUGE impact on what happens at initial terminals, originating passenger terminals, brake tests, defects, turn around locations, etc.

Now, let's apply the meanings.

Here's the thing about the Downeaster. The Brunswick extension is just that....an extension. There were a few operational considerations that needed to be adjusted, but they are easily overcome.

Why?

You can easily add on to the Downeaster since the area is served by:

A crew base.
Facilities, with a MAJOR facility in range.
Protect equipment.
A fleet.

So, extending the Downeaster another 35 miles is nothing because you are sending the equipment to a turnaround point. The entire trip stays within the guidelines for either a Commuter train or a Short Distance/Intercity train. As such, it can arrive in BRU with non running gear defects and turn right around. The crew runs out of time or there is a major problem with the equipment? Not an issue. There's a crew base close by. The train gets out to BRU and has an issue and can't make its return run? No problem, as long as the train never moved, you can send a crew, do a Class 1a and mosey along.

As it stands, the Lynchburg service can slide by as a Short Distance Intercity train (thanks to CVS), although with some limitations. There isn't a crew base in range and since the originating train came from Bos (or SPG) a proper calendar day inspection is required. However, LYH is an empowered turn around point and certain non running gear defects may be addressed at the next designated repair point or calendar day inspection location.

Now, let's extend the train. Roanoke is as far as you want to go (and it barely makes it). If you extend the train to GRO, the distance between CVS and GRO exceeds 125 miles. You have taken a Short Distance Intercity Train and turned it into a Long Distance Intercity train.

This is no longer turn around service and GRO is not turn around point. This equipment originated at Bos or SPG the previous day. You now have an initial terminal/originating passenger terminal situation and that changes the rules. You would need the support of a major facility to make sure this train is compliant with all of the FRA operational rules that govern Long Distance trains (which have far less latitude.) This is why I asked: Does GRO have the facilities to perform this type of operation or is there a place nearby? You'd need a lot more things at GRO than you would at LYH or ROA.

This is just the tip of the iceberg as the matters I referenced can get "involved." However, this is not the thread for such discussions. The bottom line is extending a train isn't just a matter of will and rails. There are a lot of considerations, which is why the process can take a long time. If the route of the new Norfolk service was 13 miles longer, I doubt you'd see it.

Very enlightening. I'll now retract my Greensboro suggestion.

One quick question (sorry if this gets too far OT): Let's say that Norfolk was 13 miles further away (and, thus, I assume just beyond the limits for a short distance train). Could the proper authority (the FRA?) grant a waiver to still permit the train to be treated as short distance?

I second the appreciation for Mr. ThirdRail's posts (both here and elsewhere); I've learned a lot from them.

To get back to the Roanoke extension, my recollection is that there are two major operational problems that explain most of the capacity improvements that NS is demanding for additional service. First, NS uses a modified form of directional running for coal trains on this route, with loads eastbound on the ex-Virginian and empties westbound on the ex-N&W, so Amtrak will be running against the dominant flow of traffic in one direction. As a result, I believe that they are asking for more double track than one might expect on a short segment. Second, the Roanoke terminal is relatively complicated and will require some changes to provide for a layover facility and easy access from the station location to the main line. This, combined with the points that Mr. Afiggatt mentioned earlier, accounts for the relatively high costs that have been advertised for this extension.

From my perspective, the Virginia rail program illustrates the strengths and weakness of a state-driven program. It has a dedicated funding source, excellent relations with both CSX and NS, and the ability to implement improvements quickly when state money is available (and no federal money is required). On the other hand, the dedicated funding source is limited, there doesn't seem to be any inclination to add additional resources, and it is difficult to coordinate with other jurisdictions. The most important improvements that Virginia could make for freight and passenger capacity are (almost) entirely within the District of Columbia. Things progress quickly once funds are available, but the queue is long.

Station Aficionado wrote:Very enlightening. I'll now retract my Greensboro suggestion.

One quick question (sorry if this gets too far OT): Let's say that Norfolk was 13 miles further away (and, thus, I assume just beyond the limits for a short distance train). Could the proper authority (the FRA?) grant a waiver to still permit the train to be treated as short distance?

Interesting question, Mr Aficionado. VERY interesting! I'm not going to say this is not possible. If NFK was indeed 130 rail miles from RVR, I can imagine someone saying "C'MONNNN! IT'S ONLY 5 MILES!!!!" I've seen plenty of things that make me wonder "well, how in the hell is this allowed to happen???"

An example is, years ago the Clockers were considered Commuter Service. Since they were primarily used for commuters, I can see that making sense. However, Commuter trains have wider latitude since it is assumed they are in turn around service, generally at outlying points. The Clockers were anchored by mechanical facilities (NYP and PHL!) My argument was turnaround service or not, the trains passed through mechanical facilities. However, the letter of the law for commuter service allowed the trains to operate under commuter service rules and proceed to the next scheduled calendar day inspection point (Phl) DESPITE the fact the equipment was laying over IN A DESIGNATED REPAIR FACILITY!!! It was mind numbing.

This is why a lot of thought goes into designations. This is why routes can take a long time to come on the beam. It's one of the main reasons I generally stay out of the operations of services I don't deal with. There are so many variables, waivers, regional interpretations.

If you asked me what I thought the Downeasters are, I honestly couldn't say with certainty. Upon until the BRU extension, I would've assumed they're Short Distance Intercity trains. Now, I'm thinking Commuter Train. Such a little thing as the designation makes all the difference in the world.

To tie this to ROA, aside from funding and upgrades for track, little things that escape the big picture but are important come into play. One of the things i think of when I say servicing a train is the waste removal process. How is this train going to get dumped? Never mind vacuumed! I mean, who is serving the toilets??? This is EXTREMELY important. Remember, this set will originate in BOS or SPG. That's a lot of waste! Can you imagine what happens if the person that bids the servicing job fails to show up?? I can since it has happened.

Who will water the train? Who will sand the engine if it necessary?

There is a lot of research to be done!

Excuse the hijack.

Station Aficionado wrote:But let me ask this--were such resources available at Lynchburg (or, say, Brunswick ME) when the decisions were made to extend service there? Or were they put in place once the decisions were made?

To be excruciatingly correct, in the case of BRK, the answer is actually "No" to both questions. There are no facilities in Brunswick at this time except for the passenger station and some conveniently-placed, largely unused stretches of track that a consist can sit on and idle away the day. All crew and maintenance facilities remain in Portland until someone gives NNEPRA enough money to build an indoor maintenance facility in Brunswick.

Station Aficionado wrote:It's fantastic that folks in Roanoke are really anxious to get rail service. But six years to extend a train 60 miles? And over tracks that are already up to snuff? To beat a dead horse, we (as a country) need to figure out how to speed things up.

I disagree with this as the presumption is that service changes such as these can come "just like that". This point of view overlooks the highly complex balance that our public-private railroad entities operate under and it also ignores the conscientious efforts of public planning officials to ensure that the services they provide to passengers are established in a sustainable manner.

Unlike the late 19th-early 20th century era of expansion for passenger rail, when it became nearly ubiquitous in both availability and wastefulness the system that is being incrementally built today is going to last. As currently implemented these services are thoughtfully planned, well supported, carefully operated and most importantly welcomed by their host railroads.

The balance that is achieved in these respects requires time and effort on the part of everyone involved, in particular to ensure the continuing free flow of commerce throughout the project duration.

Time is money not only to the private sector but also to the public sector as well. Extended time schedules for project implementation allow for careful and judicious planning of limited public funds.

This is the difference right now between us and places like and aspiring to be like China. We are able to carefully plan, conserve resources and build things properly the first time. In a few years as their labor market draws into parity with ours this is going to be the positive difference between us and them. We will have deliberate and serious planning while they will still in many respects be running under the guise of a massively corrupt system that is not only inefficient but incapable of conserving resources. That waste is going to be the margin that sets us apart in the long run.

gokeefe wrote:

Station Aficionado wrote:It's fantastic that folks in Roanoke are really anxious to get rail service. But six years to extend a train 60 miles? And over tracks that are already up to snuff? To beat a dead horse, we (as a country) need to figure out how to speed things up.

I disagree with this as the presumption is that service changes such as these can come "just like that". This point of view overlooks the highly complex balance that our public-private railroad entities operate under and it also ignores the conscientious efforts of public planning officials to ensure that the services they provide to passengers are established in a sustainable manner.

Yes, but no.

- There's likely no ROW acquisition,
- There's likely no rail to lay (well-maintained track, unlike PanAm)
- There's no mystery as to sufficient ridership (just take what the connecting bus carries and call it "proven ridership")
- It terminates in a district brimming with new and old rail infrastructure

Year 1: Clear up the "likely" issues above
Year 2: Engineering
Year 3: Build
Year 4: Done

What are year 5 (2017) and 6 (2018) for?

Arlington wrote:
Year 1: Clear up the "likely" issues above
Year 2: Engineering
Year 3: Build
Year 4: Done

What are year 5 (2017) and 6 (2018) for?

MONEY!!! So, your real lineup should look like this:

Year 1: Find money
Year 2: Find more money and settle lawsuits
Year 3: Clear up "likely" issues above
Year 4: Engineering
Year 5: Build and fight off lawsuits
Year 6: Done (except lawsuits)

Once upon a time, in less than a decade, we figured out to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely, but now we can’t figure out how to extend a train 60 miles in less than six years.

Look, I don’t think Mr. O’Keefe and I are really on different sides here. Having had the benefit of some of ThirdRail’s wisdom, I have a little better understanding of just how complicated these things are. And no one wants to compromise safety. I fully understand that extending the train to Roanoke is a matter of years, not months. Maybe with Roanoke, it is simply a lack of money that is pushing this project to six years in length.

But I simply do not believe that the planning and implementation process is so finely honed that there is no slack, no inefficiency to be wrung out of it. Things can always be improved. I’d point out that the Norfolk extension (over a 100 miles) was accomplished, IIRC, in only three or four years. And I don’t think they were cutting a lot of corners.

The further expansion of passenger rail, while highly desirable, is not inevitable. Compare the climate for trains in Wisconsin and Ohio after the 2008 election with that after the 2010 election. And while the current leadership in Washington and Richmond (of opposite parties it should be noted) is pro-rail, that may not always be the case (and our governor’s election is next year). Anything that can be done to speed up the process, if only by a little, would be a good thing.