MARC Brunswick Line - Third Track Recommended

OutnumberedbyU wrote:My logical thought would be not to spend the publics tax money on adding capacity to a private entity's operation. Why not take the money they would spend on adding a third set of tracks and use that money toward extending metro to Frederick and beyond. In the big picture metro would be the better choice, it would run 7 days with longer hours and more trains. And if put underground it would allow for future grow. Then once built, Marc would not be needed to the west. CSX could have its right away back.

I'm thinking you've lived in Kensington all your life and have never actually regularly ridden a commuter train. Metro is not the best choice when you've been on the train for almost an hour, you have 30 minutes to go, and you need a toilet.

Besides the cost to actually build metro that far would vastly exceed, by several orders of magnitude, the current cost to operate the Brunswick line. Furthermore commuter trains serve a commuter train market: sorry to inform you, people in Frederick largely stay in Frederick during the weekend. That's why they moved to Frederick. And people in DC or the inner suburbs of DC certainly DON'T experience a pressing need get to Frederick, en masse, for any particular reason, as they might decide to go to Silver Spring, National Airport, Old Town Alexandria, etc - other places served by metro. It's just not part of the urban core where heavy rail transit corridors make sense. Dulles Airport is 1/2 as far away from DC as Frederick, and the Silver Line, in my humble opinion, will just barely end up justifying its existence - with help from Tyson's Corner & Reston of course. We've basically recreated London's Piccadilly Line after the UK's own experience with it is that a long, slow, crowded metro line is not the best way to get to an airport. (and arguably what NYC learned with the JFK Express) Anyhow, there's no equivalent draw for the outer 270 corridor. Not by a long shot.

BTW, it's right-of-way.

Ok, I'm glad to know you're someone who can carry on a reasonable conversation on this; with all due respect it seems like you outsourced your first post to your 15 year old son.

"Which leads me to wanting a system much like japan has"

Yeah that would be nice, unfortunately this country will absolutely never, ever do the two things that would be required for that: taxing the rich and corporations much more aggressively, and drastically cutting defense spending. (Even then, Japan is just so culturally different from the US, it borders on the mind-boggling. I've seen videos on youtube of drivers there; it looks like they've been slowed down by 25% using frame rate adjustment. That's how slowly people drive.) Frankly I think considering Maryland is a a historically southern state - albeit by far the least southern border state now, culturally speaking - we are lucky to have the MARC system we do. I have had coworkers in the past who rode from Frederick and they were happy with the service the system provided. I really don't think they'd be willing to pay more taxes for more trains or weekend service; from their point of view, they'd rather drive into the city on the weekend if they need to go there. It's just about helping them avoid the rush hour traffic. Even the parts of this country that do have what I'd call European-style commuter rail are under threat; look at the SEPTA forum for the latest on the agency's plan for self-immolation. Even MARC, comparatively flush with legislative support, seems to be idiotically giving up on hauling most of its Penn line trains with "motors" as the trainmen call them. The writing is on the wall in the new schedules versus those of 2010-2011, there's 5 to 10 minutes more padding in the travel times of trains north of Baltimore. They are trying to get us used to it being the new norm.

Of course anybody with a brain - which right there excludes many rural politicians - can see that peak oil is going to be reality, be it in 5 or 10 or 20 years from now. Not to mention that India and China becoming first world countries will radically drive up prices too. Of course we should be staying invested in mass transit to avoid a lot of pain in the future, but it's easy for people to forget that. I remember a single woman I worked with around 2007-2009 saying something like "gas has gotten cheap again so I decided to buy the SUV"...in response to one of those downward fluctuation from one of the erstwhile upward spike in prices. Multiply that attitude by tens of millions and you see the problem we face.

gprimr1 wrote:They need a full 3rd track from Brunswick all the way to DC. I don't see what putting 12 miles of track randomly in the middle will do.

I'm with this guy. Cost vs Benefit. This would be like adding one lane to 270 between Rockville and Germantown and expecting it to alleviate rush hour traffic between the beltway and Frederick.

I'm with CSX on this one. If the government wants to build a third track on CSX's system, why should CSX be stuck with the bill for it? Why should CSX have lose money on their own operations to accommodate building this third track? Why should CSX have to suffer for something they do not need or want? I can see if CSX needed the third track as well, then they should share the expense and problems with the government. But CSX does not need or care about a third track. They shouldn't have to suffer because of it.

They honestly have enough capacity as it stands, its just used terribly.

They have more signals and interlockings per mile on the Met with double track than BNSF's Transcon (also double track). Somehow in mountainous terrain BNSF is able to run exponentially more trains with less capacity. They run slow heavy drags right along with passenger priority Z trains and an Amtrak service.


Adding a third track when they don't even know how to dispatch the two they have won't help.

Prime example, Q416 must hold at Point of Rocks for Amtrak 30 going by Hancock. Or, D765 can't come out of Derwood because P8xx is coming into Barnesville.

Call that p*ssy dispatching.


Davis

strench707 wrote:They honestly have enough capacity as it stands, its just used terribly.

They have more signals and interlockings per mile on the Met with double track than BNSF's Transcon (also double track). Somehow in mountainous terrain BNSF is able to run exponentially more trains with less capacity. They run slow heavy drags right along with passenger priority Z trains and an Amtrak service.


Adding a third track when they don't even know how to dispatch the two they have won't help.

Prime example, Q416 must hold at Point of Rocks for Amtrak 30 going by Hancock. Or, D765 can't come out of Derwood because P8xx is coming into Barnesville.

Call that p*ssy dispatching.


Davis

Spoken like a true engineer!