NEC Future: HSR "High Line", FRA, Amtrak Infrastructure Plan

twropr wrote:Are the TLM's doing anything on the NEC this summer?

Andy

I'll ask around and see how far East they are going to come up the Corridor, unless ThirdRail7 or someone else beats me to it

Ken W2KB wrote:Amtrak could do something similar if it received a windfall of funding.

Does Amtrak accept donations? When I make my first billion I'll send some of it Amtrak's way, but don't be surprised to see a Turboliner restoration clause included!

MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:

twropr wrote:Are the TLM's doing anything on the NEC this summer?

Andy

I'll ask around and see how far East they are going to come up the Corridor, unless ThirdRail7 or someone else beats me to it

I've heard Kingston and west for that particular unit (I'm not sure if it is Green or Blue). The other unit is here.

The work being done at Kingston also involves adding another track at Kingston station for future commuter rail service.

Would it not make send to try to incorporate CSX into this new tunnel plan so they can pull out of the capacity constrained Howard Street tunnel?

If government money is to be used for this project it would, to me anyway, seem to make sense to have the cost spread out between Amtrak, MARC, NS, and CSX... As well as the benefits. Judging by the maps and what I remember of the area it would take some work, but the benefits to the region would probably outweigh the additional costs.

Whose trackage is west of the B&P tunnel, please? It appears to be severed at the asphalt plant just west of N Monroe.
https://goo.gl/maps/AfQ1G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CSX coming in would add more $ to the pot but doesn't it also create more pressure on that tunnel and approach tracks thereto in the event of an outage?

SemperFidelis wrote:Would it not make send to try to incorporate CSX into this new tunnel plan so they can pull out of the capacity constrained Howard Street tunnel?

If government money is to be used for this project it would, to me anyway, seem to make sense to have the cost spread out between Amtrak, MARC, NS, and CSX... As well as the benefits. Judging by the maps and what I remember of the area it would take some work, but the benefits to the region would probably outweigh the additional costs.

The FRA report on the Baltimore Railroad Network from January 2011 discusses the options for a freight tunnel as well. I think it would have to be a separate parallel freight tunnel and route through Baltimore to not mix freight operations with future increased passenger train traffic volume from MARC and Amtrak. From what I have been able to follow, it appears that CSX is not interested in building a replacement for the Howard Street Tunnel unless MD or the feds pick up a majority of the hefty cost for a new freight tunnel. Getting the funding in place for the new passenger tunnel and rebuilding the B&P tunnel is going to be a challenge in of itself before bringing a freight tunnel into it.

dowlingm wrote:Whose trackage is west of the B&P tunnel, please? It appears to be severed at the asphalt plant just west of N Monroe.
https://goo.gl/maps/AfQ1G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Western Maryland RR, now owned by CSX

JimBoylan wrote:Western Maryland RR, now owned by CSX

thanks Jim.

dowlingm wrote:Whose trackage is west of the B&P tunnel, please? It appears to be severed at the asphalt plant just west of N Monroe.
https://goo.gl/maps/AfQ1G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CSX coming in would add more $ to the pot but doesn't it also create more pressure on that tunnel and approach tracks thereto in the event of an outage?

That's the old Western Maryland connection at Fulton. The WM had track-age rights over the PRR/PC/CR between "Fulton" and "River". I remember seeing WM trains running over the corridor back when I was working at B&P Jct., Union Jct. and Bay towers back in the late 70's early 80's. There was even a platform off of "B" track where WM passenger trains used to stop at Penn Station. The WM connecting switches at Fulton and River were removed in the early 80's when Chessie/CSX stopped using the track-age rights.

I don't know that this is on-topic, but when I take the R2 to Wilmington, Delaware, I've noticed that there are concrete slabs sitting on flatbed cars. You could see they're parked just south of the I-495 overpass. They have been sitting there for at least over 10 years. Did Amtrak had any plans with these slabs?

In addition to the now well publicized Portal bridge issue the Norwalk swing bridge in Connecticut has had some serious problems and is now funded for replacement. Although this bridge is not on Amtrak owned tracks it most certainly is part of the NEC and I think there should be an appropriate venue in this forum for discussion of this project, the Portal bridge replacement and the numerous other bridge replacement projects facing Amtrak on the NEC over the next few years. This thread is inclusive of the CSX Long Bridge replacement project into Washington DC as it relates to Amtrak operations, especially the Virginia Northeast Regional service.

From TRAINS (subscription required):

NORWALK, Conn. – State officials have arranged funding to replace Connecticut's beleaguered Norfolk Bridge, a key piece of infrastructure on the busy Northeast Corridor. The Connecticut Department of Transportation is expected to choose a contractor and complete design of the estimated $465 million bridge by 2016, allowing work to start by 2017.

This bridge had a pair of major failures 10 days apart in May and June, which hindered rail travel in the region. Metro-North, Amtrak, and Providence & Worcester trains all use the structure.

In a Friday press conference conducted by Connecticut Gov. Daniel P. Molloy and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, funding and a plan to replace the 118-year old bridge was announced. According to Sen. Blumenthal, getting the $465 million was not easy. Between 2016 and 2018, the state will earmark $146 million in transportation and $161 million in storm preparation funds from the Federal government and sell $68 million in bonds while footing the bill of the balance of the replacement. Connecticut is allocating one-third of the replacement cost.

All this comes on top of $3 million the state has already invested to keep the bridge fully operational. Dozens of Metro-North employees are assigned to keep traffic on the bridge moving.

They are also looking at replacing the Pelham Bay bridge. Apparently they want to build it with capacity in mind for the future Metro North service to Penn Station so I wonder if they might make it a 3 or 4 track bridge? It was four tracks through there years ago.

BM6569 wrote:They are also looking at replacing the Pelham Bay bridge. Apparently they want to build it with capacity in mind for the future Metro North service to Penn Station so I wonder if they might make it a 3 or 4 track bridge? It was four tracks through there years ago.

The Pelham Bay bridge is a 2 track movable bridge. The only specifics on the replacement discussed in the NEC plans is to replace it with a fixed span bridge, no mention of additional tracks. With MNRR and NY state seeking to run service to NYP with new stations in the Bronx, it would be reasonable to make the replacement bridge at least 3 tracks for additional capacity. There is room around the current bridge to do so, so why not? I think an engineering or feasibility/environmental study is either underway or starting soon on the Pelham bridge replacement. Checking the NEC Commission Five Year Capital Needs Assessment FY15-19 report, the ramp-up of capital spending on the Pelham Bridge is planned to start in FY19. Of course, that assumes there is sufficient funding to start on the bridge replacement then. OTOH, Amtrak could insist that if NY and the MTA want to run MNRR service to NYP, that they have to fund most of the cost for the Pelham bridge replacement first.

The immediate challenge for the major NEC bridge projects is getting the funding for the Portal Bridge (North) replacement. At least CT was able to line up the funding for the Walk bridge replacement, but CT only did so after two major Walk bridge failures that forced the state, MNRR, and the feds to address the issue.

BM6569 wrote:They are also looking at replacing the Pelham Bay bridge. Apparently they want to build it with capacity in mind for the future Metro North service to Penn Station so I wonder if they might make it a 3 or 4 track bridge? It was four tracks through there years ago.

Actually, way back when it was 6 tracks through there, from New Rochelle to the Hell Gate Bridge approach. The New Haven pulled two of them during the Depression, the other two I think were lifted under Penn Central ownership, but I'm not sure.