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

Some one who is familiar with New Haven needs to address this. Union station to east haven is ~4.4 miles on Amtrak. As the crow flies it is only ~ 2 miles. If a 2 MT bridge could be built along the I-95 bridge work how much time could that save ?

There's a harbor at New Haven that has an oil terminal supplying much of New England's heating oil. That bridge, aside from expense, has to go up quite a bit in a short distance not to block the harbor. When it reaches the far shore it's going to intercept the oil terminal and a big power plant.

If you go north and tear up Fair Haven, you might save a mile but a lot of people would be really unhappy about that.

There's a natural curve that even I-95 makes east of New Haven proper, so even if you "could" follow I-95 somehow, it wouldn't be a straight shot. The curve would also be pretty tight leaving New Haven yard/station to get to the highway right of way. Not to mention tons of development. Go to Google Maps, New Haven CT, and click "Satellite". You'll see what I mean. And once you get across the harbor, there's no where for such a rail line to go. I-95 is "depressed" until it gets to the Frontage Roads, and then that whole area is built up with commercial development. If money was no object, perhaps you could keep the rail line elevated above I-95 in this area and encase the interstate in a "tunnel", creating development on the deck. But like previously stated, it would cost way too much for too little gain. Save that $$$ for other improvements.

east point wrote:Some one who is familiar with New Haven needs to address this. Union station to east haven is ~4.4 miles on Amtrak. As the crow flies it is only ~ 2 miles. If a 2 MT bridge could be built along the I-95 bridge work how much time could that save ?

The answer is- not much. Reason being, you're going to be slowing for the New Haven station and yards, anyway-- you're not going to be barreling through East Haven at 155mph, like at Kingston. Shaving 2.4 miles off is going to save you 4-5mins at 30mph.

You'd get more bang for your buck by bringing up the average speed between New Haven & New Rochelle. And the easiest way to do that is congestion relief-- i.e. adding a fifth or sixth track wherever possible.

Not to mention the original Shore Line Railway did run through Fair Haven (and more of East Haven, too); the reason they blasted the East Haven tunnels and curved up was to eliminate the need for a movable bridge, and it was a part of a grade crossing elimination through Fair Haven. Wasn't a big deal for time then, and wouldn't be now, either. (Though in that case, it eliminated a sharper curve; when the original alignment was built they had to compromise much more with the topography of East Haven, which is hardly smooth.)

There's just no easy way to get through New Haven speedily regardless if your mode of transport is rail or car. Unless (for rail) they built that cross-sound tunnel for the Long Island spine, and tunneled under New Haven with the actual portal being north and dumping out onto the Springfield Line.

Ridgefielder wrote:You'd get more bang for your buck by bringing up the average speed between New Haven & New Rochelle. And the easiest way to do that is congestion relief-- i.e. adding a fifth or sixth track wherever possible.

Not to mention lots of high-speed crossovers, AREMA No. 32.7 (80 mph) or better in the future, and multiple distant block protection (funded by Amtrak or the FRA, because MNRR/CDOT doesn't otherwise need it.)

In New England it's easy to travel north-south, but east-west is always hell. All the ridges run north south, carved that way by the glaciers. If you want a fast easy west railway, be prepared to pay for a lot of tunnels and viaducts.

A true non-stop express BOS - NYP train running just before a multi-stop Acela or regional

I think this would have to be part of an all-day schedule pattern if the market is there and if capacity were there for extra trains (at present it's not). A nonstop trip once a day benefits those travelers who want to leave at that particular time. If the nonstop leaves at 7 a.m. and you want to leave at 8, departing an hour early doesn't give much benefit.

I think this is why the nonstop Metroliners never succeeded. Maybe someday there will be enough traffic between Washington and New York only or Boston and New York only to fill trains without passengers to and from Philadelphia, Providence, etc. A corridor market requires speed and frequency.

Every time we ride on the corridor the crew tells us "It's make-a-friend-day". The train has always been sold out and every seat is needed. Don't know what percentage of this is express end-to-end passengers but there must be many (we were). Note that all of the busy new bus services (e.g. Mega-Bus, Bolt) are all non-stop expresses.

There has be a market for this . . . at least an early morning and after-work version (Merchant's Limited). Not to mention the untapped frustrated airline passenger who may convert if the run is actually three hours as originally proposed. Who would go back to the airline hassle if the alternative was a pleasant more-comfortable more-reliable downtown-to-downtown three hour train ride?

Here's a tweet I just found after posting this:
twitter.com/Amtrak
I forgot how much nicer @Amtrak is, compared to air travel--free wi-fi, electrical outlets, spacious seats, leg room, free carry-ons. 14 retweets 53 likes. Reply.

Several items will have to occur in the future to really meet the pent up demand for the NEC.
1. Remove the artificial limit of 39 trains per day BOS - New Haven
2. The New Acela-2s will have a higher capacity so can that the present trains capacity limitations do not restrict passengers.
3. The NYP Gateway tunnel bores are in service with one of the resent north river tunnels refurbished.
4. With new Acela-2s the 1/2 hour frequencies NYP to WASH will be possible.
5. With #4 some Acelas can go NYP - PHL - BAL - WASH eliminating many stops and speeding up service.

I'm afraid we may need a revised list.

east point wrote:. . . to really meet the pent up demand for the NEC.
1. Remove the artificial limit of 39 trains per day BOS - New Haven

It's not exactly "artificial". It's maritime law with hundreds of years of precedent.

2. The New Acela-2s will have a higher capacity so can that the present trains capacity limitations do not restrict passengers.

This one we'll get. It will be Boardman's crowning achievement. Yeah, they always said he liked the NEC best. Yuk yuk.

3. The NYP Gateway tunnel bores are in service with one of the present north river tunnels refurbished.

Maybe I'll live to see this. It's moving faster than I'd expected. So maybe.

4. With new Acela-2s, the 1/2 hour frequencies NYP to WASH will be possible.

Nah. They're talking two more departures on the half hour in the a.m. and again in the p.m. Two more Acelas each way won't bump the numbers much.

5. With #4 some Acelas can go NYP - PHL - BAL - WASH eliminating many stops and speeding up service.

Nah. Skip Wilmington, DE, with 218,000 Acela riders? Eliminate Newark, NJ, with 205,000? That's more than Baltimore, MD, with almost 205,000, or Providence, RI, with almost 202,000.
Nah again. Put it another way. Until you amend the Constitution, RI, CN, NJ, DE, and MD all get two seats in the U.S. Senate. Therefore each one of those states gets at least one stop on the Acela's route.

Anyway, completely skipping Metropark or BWI Airport wouldn't be a biggie, because it looks like only 5 Acelas out of the daily dozen+ stop there even now.

new 6. With a Billion or two or three here and there -- new Portal Bridge in NJ, new Susquehanna Bridge, new Baltimore tunnel, double-tracking (or is it triple tracking? quad?) in MD, better catenary, more undercutting, etc. -- we could see a few minutes shaved off the run times and even capacity improved a bit. But it won't be quick or easy even when they get the funds.

bostontrainguy wrote:There has be a market for this . . . at least an early morning and after-work version (Merchant's Limited).

The Merchant's Limited wasn't non-stop, at least in its glory days. Stops in 1949 were New Haven, Providence, Back Bay (receive/discharge only).

Since the target market for such a service is going to be business travelers, it doesn't make sense to skip Providence or New Haven, given the corporate/academic presence in those cities. Stamford wouldn't be skipped either, for the same reason-- city has more Fortune 500 corporate headquarters than any other place of its size.

As noted on the streamliner schedules website the "Indian Summer" of passenger rail patronage of 1948-1949 was not to last. The Merchant's Limited of that time was the only all-parlor car configuration train to survive WWII. The schedule of this train clocked at four hours flat with stops at New Haven, Providence and Boston (Back Bay and South Station).

I kind of remember reading something about Amtrak receiving a waiver for increasing cant on the NEC but Amtrak decided not to take advantage of it. Does anyone remember this?

Maybe a freight track could be added in curvy sections and the two exclusive passenger tracks can be superelevated more? P&W freight bypass is a good example of this.

Some information I found:

Track unbalanced superelevation in the U.S. is restricted to 3 inches up to 6 inches permissible by waiver. There is no hard maximum set for European railways, some of which have curves with over 11 inches of unbalanced superelevation to permit high-speed transportation.

Is the existing NEC between NY & BOS at capacity where demand would fill a fifth or sixth track?