Pony up for the NEC infrastructure

Tests, of course Mr. HSR

The MP-85 Metroliner MU's (?????; somehow I'm having brainwaves telling me that was their P-Road nomenclature) did so as well. It's just the every 15 minutes day in day out that would render a rather short lifespan for the existing constant tension caternary.

Unfortunately, tunnelling under the Connecticut river would be akin to building the Ted Williams tunnel again (the Ted Williams Tunnel is that part of the “Big Dig” from the end of I-90 that goes under the throat of South Station and under Boston harbor to Logan Airport). Can you say: “Billions and Billions” (of dollars) like the late astronomer Carl Sagan referred to over and over?

By the way, I don’t know if it’s made the national news yet, but the Big Dig leaks like a sieve, according to local reports!

Unfortunately, Government is like big business…do nothing until it’s an emergency. In other words, wait until it fails until you fix it. Put differently…”not in MY budget! Let the next guy pay for it”. So, until a bridge fails to open or close and it can’t be fixed in a couple of hours or days, THEN and ONLY THEN will Uncle Sam and the state of Connecticut “pony up” the money to get it fixed.

Also, in reference to Mr. Hsr_fans’ question, the 135 speed limit is determined by some kind of formula based on the ‘bow wave’ that precedes a moving pantagraph on the wire (think of a boat). By having a ‘loose’ wire, the ‘bow wave’ is bigger than that of constant-tension wire. On hot days, the wire probably hangs so loose that potential damage could occur due to the larger ‘size’ of the wave at higher speeds, hence the lower speed limit.

Which brings me to wonder…back in 1970, I had a cab ride in a Metroliner from WAS to PHL (being in military uniform didn’t hurt!). The engineer complained that they had just slowed it down to 135 from 140 (or was it 125 from 130…it’s a bit ‘fuzzy’ at this point), because the bolts on the joint bars were being sheared off (probably due to the impact force of the wheel ‘hitting’ the next section of rail, I’m guessing). Welded rail would certainly have cured most of that problem. But I wonder if they considered ‘wire wave’ issues back then as well?

I wish I had seen the original Metroliners MU's in person! Despite their flaws, I think they were very cool trains!

It always bugs me when I hear the Acela Express referred to as "America's first high speed train". That's simply not the case.

I have a good idea for a good goal for Acela. If they could get travel time down to three hours from N.Y.C. to Route 128, then that is a step in the right direction. Why? Because the Route 128 station is in the heart of a high tech corridor. Believe me, that could be done, especially with the replacements of the bridges, which I think should get done before anything else.

I've only seen the Metroliners in their 2nd life

Despite being a major technical failure, they were really cool looking trains for the late 60's, though they do look dated. The LIRR M-1s of nearly the same era still look pretty modern (stylingwise!) today. But the Metroliners still look really cool.

MP-85 was the Silverliner I and II cars, the first ones (a/k/a Pioneer III) were Westinghouse equipped with what amounted to a castrated New Haven Washboard propulsion system (once again, the New Haven was first Or at least I'm pretty sure that's what it was. The Silverliner II cars had GE's very unique but very sucessful propulsion system with its 2 constant voltage and 1 variable voltage power supplies, sillicon diode bridges, and ignitrons.

The GE/Budd book I have refers to them simply as high speed multiple units cars for the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project, and owned by the PRR and SEPTA (who actually owned a number of these cars).

I don't have the Westinghouse book, though, or the Budd carbody book. Yet.

I'd STILL love to see a pic of the famous digital speedometer. Actually, I'd love to see a schematic of the thing to see how the heck they did it. That was pretty advanced for the 60's - remember, IC technology was still in its infancy, and digital devices like that weren't common anywhere. Remember, this was an era where a color TV had maybe 25 tubes and maybe a transistor or three in it, and if it was really new and advanced, a geniune monolythic IC for the sound...
***************************
Tunneling? That's so 1900. These days, they dig a trench, drop prefabricated tunnel sections in, cover over, drain the sections out, and seal the edges up.

Why they want to replace drawbridges with more drawbridges is beyond me - it's like Bridgeport - the stupidest thing that they did there was not straighten out the trackage and/or tunnel, when the city was one big urban decay of nothing and the Peck needed to get replaced.

Get rid of all the stupid 30 and 40mph restrictions, make the trackage 80 or 100mph, and you'll save time. Remember, going from 30mph to 60mph cuts the travel time in 1/2, and it's generally cheaper and does more than going 80mph to 120 (or even 150) mph. What's killing Acela isn't lack of 150mph track, or 75mph running in MN territory, it's all these stupid 30 and 40mph speed restrictions everywhere.

So you trench and tunnel through a bay to get rid of a lot of curvy track and a brawbridge. Really, replacement of a bridge isn't going to be cheap either, maintenance isn't going to be cheap, and getting rid of the draw scores brownie points with the local boaters (like, for instance, those people at the US Navy sub base, who like to go out on trips in their nuclear subs), and speeds service. That's what money should be spent on, <b>real</b> improvements that speed service, and make things better for everyone. Just replacing a bridge won't speed things, won't make friends with the locals, and will mean a maintenance headache.

IIRC, rerouting the Northeast Corridor away from New London, with possible service to the Indian casinos, was contemplated prior to the New-Haven - Boston electrification, but it was dismissed as too costly.

Tunneling under New London (west of Niantic River to east of Thames) could work, but how much would have to be spent for each minute saved? I seriously doubt the money could be found, and the project would raise all kinds of environmental and preservation issues.

I would like to see efforts to improve speeds along southern CT ROW; I don't think Acela currently does more than 100 mph. Also, works need to be done to reduce bottlenecks at New Rochelle, Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport/Devon, New Haven and Old Saybrook.

One big reason that the railroad between New Haven and Boston was
electrified was the big difference in acceleration from curves and other
slow downs.
As for tunnels, there might be a problem running freight trains through
them. Maybe the bridge between New London and Groton would have to
stay anyway to access the Providence and Worcester at the east end of
the bridge.
I am not sure a tunnel would work too well at Niatic either, probably the
state would have concerns.
A tunnel might work better at the Connecticut River location although you
still have freight trains to deal with. A fairly long tunnel would be necessary here. A high level fixed span bridge might be a better way to
go at Old Saybrook.
I think it is fair to expect a problem either from the state or from the
people along the Connecticut Shore no matter what the proposal is for
correction of the problems.
I do agree that the bridge at Bridgeport was the wrong way to go.
Nothing much more than waste land around the area anyway, again either
a tunnel or a high fixed span bridge could have done the job with the
station in a different location. The 30 MPH curve and two 45 MPH curves
just kills the schedules through there. Track one and track three can't be
in use at the same time which hurts even more.
Bridgeport is the worst spot between New Haven and New York and it
always has been that way.
It would have been megabucks to re-locate the line in Bridgeport to get
rid of the nasty curves, it might have been worth it, I don't know.
Noel Weaver

LI Loco wrote:I would like to see efforts to improve speeds along southern CT ROW; I don't think Acela currently does more than 100 mph.

There's at least one stretch in eastern Connecticut where the Acela gets up to 125 mph.

I think Coast Guard regulations require fixed bridges over navigable waterways require 130-150 feet of clearance, a tough climb for trains coming out of Old Saybrook. Hence, I don't think that solution would work for the Connecticut River, which handles freighters as far north as Hartford.

As for Bridgeport, a new ROW along - or above - State Street and Fairfield Ave. would work for the NEC. What would have to be torn down to make that happen is another matter. Could Bridgeport - a city that epitimizes northeastern urban blight endure another "Chinese Wall" within its boundaries. A tunnel would be a better solution.

Electric powered passenger trains could easily negotiate the grade from
Old Saybrook station to a high level fixed bridge over the Connecticut
River. The channel in the Connecticut River is kind of shallow and I am
not sure how big of a boat could make it to Hartford. Got to keep it open
though for the "high rollers" to get up in there with their sail boats or all
hell will break loose.
As for Bridgeport, on second thought, leave the bridge and the station as
is and on the viaduct between old Burr Road and Jenkins Curve, dig down
and build a tunnel straight out, two tracks for any train that does not need
to stop at Bridgeport. Acela Express and some regional trains could use
it as well as maybe a very few Metro-North trains. Two tracks to by-pass
Bridgeport station in a tunnel and two tracks to serve Bridgeport Station
via the present route. Costly, of course but cheaper than building a whole
new station in a different location and downtown Bridgeport could still be
served as it is now. A tunnel would likely have a few curves but would not
have to have the nasty restrictions that exist today for high speed and
through trains.
I do not think Bridgeport is an important stop with Amtrak and good
facilities exist at both New Haven and Stamford to transfer from Metro-
North to Amtrak trains.
Another thing, if the sub base at Groton were to be closed, I wonder how
high of a bridge would be required for the remaining boat traffic at that
location.
The biggest question at this point to me is, what is going to happen first?
Will the problems be corrected before the bridges in question reach a point
where they can no longer be used?
There is no really practical alternative route at this point either if any of
these bridges become disabled. Providence and New London - no service.
Boston, well the B. & A. through Springfield is single track and not really
a practical alternative. CSX is having enough problems handling the
existing freight traffic.
Realistically, we are in a very sorry situation so far as the entire northeast
corridor is concerned.
Noel Weaver

<i>Electric powered passenger trains could easily negotiate the grade from
Old Saybrook station to a high level fixed bridge over the Connecticut
River.</i>

Realistically? A 2% or better grade, especially if the train's at speed. If modern HSTs were used, make that 4%.

<i>The channel in the Connecticut River is kind of shallow and I am
not sure how big of a boat could make it to Hartford. Got to keep it open
though for the "high rollers" to get up in there with their sail boats or all
hell will break loose. </i>

There's also oil barge and other traffic on the river. I still think tunneling under a few of these would be better long term. If it's shallow there, then a trench and drop operation could be done. For freight? Well, you'd just either have limits, or make the tunnel bigger.

<i>As for Bridgeport, on second thought, leave the bridge and the station as is and on the viaduct between old Burr Road and Jenkins Curve, dig down and build a tunnel straight out, two tracks for any train that does not need to stop at Bridgeport.</i>

A bypass tunnel here could save big time if it could run trains through at existing track speeds. It could also be done without much in the way of traffic disruption. I bet it could be done cheaper than it sounds, since there'd be a somewhat more relaxed work schedule. Most of the tunneling would be 'on land', where cut/cover can be done (cheaper). Probbably wouldn't be too much extra to make it ready for 4 tracks, so when Bridgeport's urban decay catches up with them again, the station can be relocated...

<i>Another thing, if the sub base at Groton were to be closed, I wonder how high of a bridge would be required for the remaining boat traffic at that location. </i>

I'm wondering why they need a drawbridge for submarines

<i>The biggest question at this point to me is, what is going to happen first? Will the problems be corrected before the bridges in question reach a point where they can no longer be used?</i>

The latter. These bridges are probbably at or beyond the end of their useful lives. There's likely just nothing more that CAN be done.

<i>There is no really practical alternative route at this point either if any of
these bridges become disabled. Providence and New London - no service.
Boston, well the B. & A. through Springfield is single track and not really
a practical alternative. CSX is having enough problems handling the
existing freight traffic. </i>

For all intents and purposes, Amtrak service between NYC and Boston simply won't exist. Even with regular engine changes at New Haven, the ridership fall off will be so severe that Amtrak will be in <i>serious</i> trouble. Given what the jump in ridership was after electrification (on the order of 30%), and the rise of the $10 'Chinatown' bus, plus increased airline competition...

<i>Realistically, we are in a very sorry situation so far as the entire northeast corridor is concerned.</i>

And nobody's even bothering to discuss the Baltimore tunnels, the traction power into Penn, the growing catenary and signal troubles, the age of the Amfleet, the backlog of motor failures, the bridges in Maryland, the ever flakey Portal draw...

The CT bridges aren't the only problem, they're just the one getting the attention.

If the NEC comes apart, Amtrak is dead, pure and simple. Besides losing their biggest market, congress really won't want to hear excuses as to why the US's most important rail corridor (by far) isn't functioning.

I absolutely agree with everything noted by Mr, Nasadowski immediately above. I was only outlining the
problems between New York and Boston but of course there are some
serious problems between New York and Washington too.
No time for worrying about 150 MPH on the former PRR or a new station in
New York, the railroad is "worn out". Let's fix or replace what is "worn out" and worry about the rest of this stuff in another lifetime.
Two other things that a tunnel under the Connecticut River could
accomplish are the elimination of the curves just east and west of the
bridge and little or no disruption during the construction. Less scenery but
a much better railroad.
Noel Weaver

High clearance would DEFINITELY be needed on the Thames in New London because the Coast Guard Academy's tall sailing ship, the Eagle, docks about a mile north of the bridge.

Wasn't part of the deal when Amtrak inherited the NEC that they got the ROW for new Baltimore tunnels that were a much better alignment? ISTR reading this somewhere.

<i>Two other things that a tunnel under the Connecticut River could
accomplish are the elimination of the curves just east and west of the
bridge and little or no disruption during the construction. Less scenery but
a much better railroad. </i>

And faster, too. Let's face it, scenery is nice, but people aren't paying big bucks to take Acela for the scenery. They won't go crazy if there's an occasional tunnel or two, especially if it means chopping a few more minutes off the schedule.

And greater reliability - because a tunnel never has to open for a boat, it doesn't get stuck open, boats can't ram it and displace it.

My point is this: If the bridge needs to be replaced, a tunnel should be considered if it'll mean an increase in speeds, or more favorable operating conditions. It's a lot better to go 80mph through an area, than slow to 40mph, go a mile or so, than accelerate back to 80. At 40mph, a mile takes 1 minute 30 seconds. At 80, it takes only 45 seconds. That's 45 seconds saved. Do that three times, you've saved more than all the 150mph running has. It gets even more pronounced when you're talking about going from 30mph to 80mph, or 30mph to 100mph.

I'll go one step further. Right now, Amtrak shouldn't just shelve plans for 150mph running below NY, they should dump the 150mph running they have now. It's an expensive propsition to save very little time. If it were one continuous stretch for 40 or so miles, it might have some merrit (though even still, not much over 125mph - barely 4 minutes, ideally). Aim for a sustained 125mph. Short 150mph dashes are absolutely useless if they're between 40mph crawls. And they're costing a lot in maintenance, both on the Acelas and on the track.

Nasadowsk wrote:Short 150mph dashes are absolutely useless if they're between 40mph crawls.

They're not. Both 150 mph sections are between 135 mph stretches of track.