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

Could you give us an idea of what further places might get electrified?

New Haven to Springfield.

gokeefe wrote:This is a very significant development. If CT's request is granted I would watch for Amtrak to seriously revisit alternative existing routes with proposals for major track improvements and modifications. I think additional electrified territory would be an obvious choice in some places.

One of the major discussion points on here has been that there is no room for expansion on the current ROW through Southwestern CT. Been thinking a lot about this. While it's true that you couldn't add more tracks to the whole line without massive backlash from adjoining property holders, seems to me that there's a lot of room for expansion as it stands right now, as follows:

1. First, obviously, New Rochelle to Port Chester was once 6 track territory. The room for the most part remains under the bridges and cat structures; encroachment is in the form of bridges and station platforms. ~10 miles.
2. In Greenwich, from roughly .2 miles west of Ritch Ave. to Horseneck Lane and again from Steamboat Road to Indian Field Road, the railroad is immediately adjacent to I-95, separated by a strip of waste ground ~100 feet wide. From Indian Field Road to COB Bridge is another stretch of former 5-6 track territory because of yard trackage for the old Cos Cob power plant. ~2 miles, in two 1-mile segments separated by the Greenwich station.
3. East of COB, through Riverside Station, is another area where the ROW and structures widen out. I assume this is the remnant of a long-gone yard. ~0.5 mile.
4. From Rowayton Station to near Rockland Road in Norwalk, the railroad adjoins a CL&P power line ROW. ~1 mile.
5. From Compo Road in Westport, through Greens Farms station, to Westway Road in Southport, I-95 is immediately adjacent to the north, once again separated by a strip of waste ground averaging prob. 200 feet wide. ~4.5miles.
6. From Stratford station to DEVON bridge, the only abutters to the south are either vacant lots or the back of industrial/shopping center buildings. ~1 mile.

So, in the 42 miles between New Rochelle and DEVON, you could add 18 miles of additional main track without touching any residential or commercial property at all.

What do people think?

It seems to be implicit that the preferred alternative encompasses 1 and 2, possibly 5 and 6. It would obviously help a lot if the preferred alternative report were more specific, especially at this stage. Let me add that I think it is imperative to replace SAGA and DEVON with fixed bridges. Both of those crossings punctuate relatively straight stretches of track. There has to be some mechanism in the federal navigable waterway statutes to carve some exception so that neither replacement bridge is required to provide 65 ft of clearance, which in either case would be immensely wasteful. Can someone from the marine side and someone from the rail side hash out some compromise plan to build new berths for overheight craft downstream, maybe raising the clearance under either bridge to 30 ft or so? There must be a way.

gokeefe wrote:New Haven to Springfield.

if you electrify to Springfield would it not make sense to continue to Boston. I understand it would make 0 sense to go further North but to go East to me would make sense. But our discussion was with CT being open to help and this is Mass.

georgewerr wrote:if you electrify to Springfield would it not make sense to continue to Boston. I understand it would make 0 sense to go further North but to go East to me would make sense. But our discussion was with CT being open to help and this is Mass.

It'd make sense, but Amtrak doesn't own the railroad between Springfield and Boston Back Bay. MBTA owns BBY-WOR (and probably would be okay with overhead wire) and CSX owns WOR-SPG (and definitely would not be okay with overhead.)

Overhead also wouldn't go north of Springfield, since that is another railroad too - Pan Am/Guilford.

35dtmrs92 wrote:It seems to be implicit that the preferred alternative encompasses 1 and 2, possibly 5 and 6. It would obviously help a lot if the preferred alternative report were more specific, especially at this stage.

That's the problem with the existing federal regulations, specific details aren't arrived at until further along in the NEPA process. To get more details, the project must be further along with its design, which isn't allow until the preferred alternative and funding are approved.

That's the problem with the existing federal regulations, specific details aren't arrived at until further along in the NEPA process. To get more details, the project must be further along with its design, which isn't allow until the preferred alternative and funding are approved.

This is not quite right. Federal Agencies are given a fair degree of discretion as to how they Tier a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The FRA chose a standard of Tier 1 as "readily available" primary and secondary, delaying what they judged "site specific" issues until Tier 2.

This discretion is tempered by a requirement to provide sufficient detail to inform each stage in the decision-making process. This detail must be timely. And the process must not be used to "sweep stubborn problems ... under the rug." The chosen standard must also be applied in consistent fashion ... the FRA cannot be arbitrary or capricious.

In the case of NEC Future, we don't believe that in CT or RI there was enough detail to inform decision-making. Why? Because unlike other states, CT has a significant amount of new rail corridor; unlike other states RI/CT were presented with vastly different routes; meaning that unlike other states, for CT/RI the key decision-making phase is Tier 1.

The FRA is certainly allowed to provide as much detail as they care to... there is no maximum limit other than what is feasible.

I would say that the Connecticut and Thames River Crossings rise to a level that is nonsensical not to conduct engineering and feasibility studies prior to selecting the bypass. If either of these crossings is infeasible... that makes 50 miles of new rail corridor infeasible. In this sense, the Tiered structure works to sweep stubborn problems under the rug, and will fall afoul of the courts (if it ever gets there).

My point? The detail is "allowed," the FRA simply chose not to... and it's biting them in the ass.

35dtmrs92 wrote:It seems to be implicit that the preferred alternative encompasses 1 and 2, possibly 5 and 6. It would obviously help a lot if the preferred alternative report were more specific, especially at this stage. Let me add that I think it is imperative to replace SAGA and DEVON with fixed bridges. Both of those crossings punctuate relatively straight stretches of track. There has to be some mechanism in the federal navigable waterway statutes to carve some exception so that neither replacement bridge is required to provide 65 ft of clearance, which in either case would be immensely wasteful. Can someone from the marine side and someone from the rail side hash out some compromise plan to build new berths for overheight craft downstream, maybe raising the clearance under either bridge to 30 ft or so? There must be a way.

With those bridge already described by the NEC Commission as "partly funded," it's seeming pretty clear that fixed bridges are not in the cards... I will check on this, however.

Interestingly, in SE CT, the bridge closings are set to be renegotiated in 2018, and I have met with surprisingly little resistance to the idea of negotiating for more closings in multiple public gatherings (that will likely change).

mtuandrew wrote:
Overhead also wouldn't go north of Springfield, since that is another railroad too - Pan Am/Guilford.

Certainly not unless knowledge corridor really takes off with passengers.
BUT there will probably need to be at least one mile north of the CSX line electrified to wye a train when necessary.

Why would you need to wye the train? The electric motors are double-ended, unlike the diesels. Just run them around the train.

North of Springfield to within a few feet of the Vermont border is owned by the state of Massachusetts. Pan Am Southern dispatches and maintains under contract, and has freight rights.

mtuandrew wrote:

georgewerr wrote:if you electrify to Springfield would it not make sense to continue to Boston. I understand it would make 0 sense to go further North but to go East to me would make sense. But our discussion was with CT being open to help and this is Mass.

It'd make sense, but Amtrak doesn't own the railroad between Springfield and Boston Back Bay. MBTA owns BBY-WOR (and probably would be okay with overhead wire) and CSX owns WOR-SPG (and definitely would not be okay with overhead.)

Overhead also wouldn't go north of Springfield, since that is another railroad too - Pan Am/Guilford.

Chances are MassDOT is going to purchase SPG-WOR from CSX when the Inland Route happens, because CSX wants to sell all property they can get away with. But that's a moot point for routing any electric trains because of the double-stack clearances on the B&A requiring 23' clearances with wires. There are 35 overhead bridges between Springfield and Worcester, many of them just cleared to 20'6" in the last 5 years. The cost of modding that many structures for another 2.5 ft. is too extreme, so there'll always be a diesel gap between SPG and WOR. The MBTA Worcester Line itself is an easy electrification because remaining max-clearance territory Worcester-Westborough only passes under 6 overpasses...some already 23' tall, and all of them able to be easily trackbed-undercut with no structural mods. But you'll never be able to practically join the wires terminating west at Worcester Union to the wires terminating north at Springfield Union. Nor is that really a big deal when Palmer is going to be the one and only intermediate stop between the two on the Inlands and the sluggish geography of the Worcester Hills is a far thornier problem than type of power.

Not going to see wires on the MassDOT-owned Conn River north of SPG, either. That's a protected 19'6" (autorack or mixed-cube DS) freight clearance route Springfield-Deerfield and Northfield-WRJ, with its own heaping ton of overpasses in Greater Springfield inducing blowout cost to modify.

seacoast wrote:

35dtmrs92 wrote:It seems to be implicit that the preferred alternative encompasses 1 and 2, possibly 5 and 6. It would obviously help a lot if the preferred alternative report were more specific, especially at this stage. Let me add that I think it is imperative to replace SAGA and DEVON with fixed bridges. Both of those crossings punctuate relatively straight stretches of track. There has to be some mechanism in the federal navigable waterway statutes to carve some exception so that neither replacement bridge is required to provide 65 ft of clearance, which in either case would be immensely wasteful. Can someone from the marine side and someone from the rail side hash out some compromise plan to build new berths for overheight craft downstream, maybe raising the clearance under either bridge to 30 ft or so? There must be a way.

With those bridge already described by the NEC Commission as "partly funded," it's seeming pretty clear that fixed bridges are not in the cards... I will check on this, however.

Interestingly, in SE CT, the bridge closings are set to be renegotiated in 2018, and I have met with surprisingly little resistance to the idea of negotiating for more closings in multiple public gatherings (that will likely change).

The Infrastructure Improvements Master Plan didn't sketch out type of bridge replacements on the New Haven Line because there were way too many variables informing those decisions to guess at way back in 2010. For openings, Cos Cob alone accounts for 50% of the total openings New Rochelle-New Haven, Walk accounts for 25%, and the other three split the remaining 25% with Devon having slightly more than Saga and (1998-built) Peck having hardly any.

Mind these percentages, because some bridges matter way more than others. Cos Cob's always going to be the traffic limiter, and it has the fewest options of any for the commission to do any crayon-drawing bypasses because of the solid wall of density all around Greenwich. It's also the one that has to carry all of the MNRR Stamford and New Caanan locals on the far and away most congested stretch of New Haven Line. The best you can do for a replacement bridge is make it open much faster. An adjustable-height lift bridge would slash the time of openings way down. And a lift's deck can have a much wider shipping channel and thinner/more rigid deck than a bascule or swing for a good 3-5 ft.'s clearance improvement in the closed position vs. the thick girders on the current bascule. As well as lifts being much more reliable overall than bascules or swings with fewer moving parts and fully level-position locking/unlocking mechanism. Since the Mianus River is almost totally pleasure boats, nothing tall goes in the harbor requiring a full-extension raising of the lift and many more speedboats will be able to fit under in the closed position with thinner/stiffer lift deck materials. The improvements in opening time may indeed be significant enough to slip innocuously between train frequencies and allow for meaningful net gains in traffic density. We'll need to see some kickoff planning and traffic modeling, but even with this being an uneliminable moving span the replacement can probably be done good enough to live within the necessary (if slim) margins for NEC FUTURE traffic increases.

Walk's already getting a faster lift, so it'll see much improved performance. Nearly all of its traffic is daily sand barges to the cement mixing plant a mile upstream on Commercial St. next to the Danbury Branch tracks. Extremely little in the way of recreational boat traffic...just 3 small yacht club docks operating below-capacity. The new lift already makes the openings a near non-issue (Danbury Branch trains already turn out before crossing), but to slash the share of total openings down to truly negligible just involves cutting the cement plant a relocation deal to outright remove the commercial barge traffic. There's absolutely nothing else to reach on the river, which is only navigable on that first mile. Not much room for additional rec boat landings, either.


Devon and Saga...yes, you can do those as fixed. Devon a fairly straightforward one as there's 3/4 mile of runup space on the west side from the Longbrook Ave. overpass to do an 0.5-1% grade lifting the tracks to fixed-level clearance over the river. On the east side you'd need to close Naugatuck Ave. during construction and re-thread it underneath the tracks instead of dipping under I-95 then soaring over the tracks, and there'd probably need to be a slight change in grade of the westbound Waterbury Branch wye (poss. elimination or rebuild of the utility driveway overpass over the wye...but they have a Waturbury Branch grade crossing on the north end of the property to tide them over). But upon squaring that temp disruption there's another 3/4 mile runup east to the I-95 overpass for gently raising the track grade. Do this and all Shore Line East and future Hartford-Bridgeport commuter locals have full uninterrupted access to Bridgeport Yard. As well as Bridgeport station for terminating runs, since Peck bridge has as few annual openings as you can count on your own fingers.

Saga has 2/3 mile on the east side and 1.5 miles on the west side before nearest overpasses for changing grades. Little in the way of abutters on the east side (few houses south of the tracks) due to the Westport water treatment plant, and west side is entirely Westport Station and its parking lot. Westport Station would have to be raised from ground level and rebuilt as a Milford-style viaduct station, but that is the only above-and-beyond cost for doing a fixed bridge here. That leaves only seldom-used Peck as the only movable structure between New Haven and Walk Bridge (which of course you can cut down on openings by relocating the cement plant).


If the Feds really want the certainty of spending a little above-and-beyond for whacking 2 of 5 bridges, they can replace Devon and Saga with fixed structures. However, CDOT has been forced to bear the brunt of costs to-date on planning and executing these bridge replacements. As long as that continues their default assumption is probably going to be in-situ replacements of movables-for-movables (albeit with faster and more reliable lift spans like new Walk), simply because they have no other means of triaging such an enormous state-of-repair backlog without keeping the project areas as compact as possible. They have to get it done any way they can, and have to play the percentages on bridge openings. Cos Cob and Walk are 75% of the openings and physically impossible to replace with fixed spans...so they can't spend themselves into a hole for NEC FUTURE's sake doing perfectly fixed replacements for Saga and Devon. Most of the traffic improvements come from the replacement lifts on "75%" Cos Cob and Walk, so in-situ lift replacements for Saga and Devon (and newish Peck being left alone) meets or exceeds every performance metric the state would ever care about. Above-and-beyond is the feds' bag, and their responsibility to step up their investment share if 3 more bridge replacements are going to have their scope expanded with total fixed killshots over larger project area for Saga and Devon. Their choice, their initiative.

(Of course the FRA isn't saying anything about this because they're in their own little bubble trampling all over the states, but hopefully this is one nearer-term SGR issue Amtrak can advocate for in the next Infrastructure Master Plan revision.)

Can testify to F line 's statement about /bascule bridges. The Sun Rail owned single track Bascule bridge over the St. Johns' river is a disaster waiting to happen. It was rebuild before Sun Rail service started with a lengthy closing of the route to Amtrak. This poster observed this bridge in operation and it took 5 minutes to open and 10 - 12 minutes to close. Depending on number of tries to get it closed properly delays are longer. Sun Rail has long range plans to replace it with a 2 MT fixed bridge as real estate is already owned between present bridge and I-4's bridge 65 foot clearances.
This bridge is one of the main reasons for the many delays to Star, Meteor, and Auto train between Winter Park - Deland.