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

SouthernRailway wrote:What I don't understand: why isn't Metro-North 100% for a HSR line between New Rochelle and New Haven? Wouldn't a straight track with new catenary, allowing faster speeds for Amtrak, also benefit Metro-North? With all of the high-powered people who have to endure slow commutes from Fairfield County, I am just surprised that the New Haven Line wasn't upgraded a while back.

Metro-North is a commuter railroad which makes frequent stops. A high speed line from New Haven to New Rochelle is not of much benefit to a commuter train which has to stop every few miles. A high speed line from New Haevn to New Rochelle would cut trip times by only so much, because the trains still have to work their way through NY to Grand Central. The people who brought homes in CT and in the NY state suburbs and commute to NYC did so with full knowledge of how long the train trips would take. They would appreciate a trip time reduction of a few minutes if it can be achieved once the constant tension catenary, bridge replacements, station, new equipment, and track improvements projects are complete.

But the cost of a mega-project for a new HSR line simply does not pass the cost benefit analysis for MTA/Metro-North and CT for commuter operations. The mega-projects (giga-projects?) for East Side Access, 2nd Avenue Subway, and 7 Line extension are consuming much of the MTA funding for this decade. The interest of Amtrak with intercity service are rather different from those of a commuter railroad.

Besides, I would not call the New haven line slow for a commuter line. It has a complex and dense schedule with different express trains with different stops with the basic split for trains from New Haven to Stamford and Stamford to Fordham NY with the trains running from New Haven to Stamford and then running straight through 125th Street. Check out the New Haven Line weekday schedule to see the complex dance of trains and stops. Besides if the train ride home on the New Haven line is dragging one down, they can get on a train with the bar car and get solidly sloshed on the trip home.

I noted our train's speed through all of the crossings back when I did my recent GPS trip mentioned earlier. To my surprise, our Amfleet train never exceeded 79 MPH over any crossing! I know the FRA allows 110 - 125 mph through at-grade crossings and we were nowhere near allowable speeds.

Try doing 125 mph through Stonington and your train will probably end up on its side in someone's back yard. Whatever the theoretical FRA grade crossing limit may be, the speed limit through most of the remaining Shore Line grade crossings will be affected by the fact that they occur on the most twisty part of the line.

As an aside, I would suggest that anyone who thinks a physical rerouting of the Shore Line involving new right-of-way is actually plausible in the next couple decades read up on the years of delay and added costs that Massachusetts NIMBYs imposed on MBTA commuter service restorations on the Greenbush line, and that was an existing right-of-way that still had [inactive] tracks in place. Then look at the fuss the environmental lobby is currently making over the MBTA's proposal to restore service between Stoughton and Taunton as part of the proposed South Coast commuter extension, because a section of that right-of-way passes through a swamp and the swamp critters might be upset. Or the fight being put up by some NIMBYs in Brunswick, Maine, over a proposed layup yard to accommodate the planned extention of Downeaster service up there. Eminent domain isn't the answer, since NIMBYs will still tie things up in court for years. I believe that as a practical matter, land-taking for rail use in populated areas is as unlikely as land-taking for new Interstate highways.

Why not bypass Westerly along the south side of Route 78? The right-of-way appears wide enough to fit the tracks. The project would require the acquisition of the Elmridge Golf Course to connect to I-95, but the unused land could be resold for development. It's unlikely that the golf course would sell part of their land for use as a railroad. They would be able to argue that they are unable to operate the business with fewer than 18 holes. So the deal would require acquisition of the whole property with the possibility of reselling the parts not needed for the railroad.

Can the Acelas go faster on the Shore Line due to their tilting?

Not south of New Haven anyways. No tilting allowed on Metro-North.

What about the NLC-WLY segment? That seems like a section where tilting could make a big difference. I know the curve through Westerly station at least is superelevated.

My understanding is the tilting is simply for passenger comfort, not actual speed increases.

Greg Moore wrote:My understanding is the tilting is simply for passenger comfort, not actual speed increases.

FRA regulations limiting maximum speed around curves are actually set based on passenger comfort (lateral acceleration) rather than the actual physical limitations of of the equipment. Therefore, FRA won't let trains move faster around corners if it means exceeding their definition of what is comfortable enough.

So therefore, tilting is for increased passenger comfort which in turn allows speed increases.

Now, I do recall that MNRR imposes lower speed limits than FRA otherwise would on parts of its route. So in those locations it really is just a matter of comfort.

orulz wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:My understanding is the tilting is simply for passenger comfort, not actual speed increases.

FRA regulations limiting maximum speed around curves are actually set based on passenger comfort (lateral acceleration) rather than the actual physical limitations of of the equipment. Therefore, FRA won't let trains move faster around corners if it means exceeding their definition of what is comfortable enough.

So therefore, tilting is for increased passenger comfort which in turn allows speed increases.

Now, I do recall that MNRR imposes lower speed limits than FRA otherwise would on parts of its route. So in those locations it really is just a matter of comfort.

Is there any accounting for what trip time savings could be achieved by mitigating SLE conflicts? CDOT's still running slow diesels to a bunch of station stops that have only 1 platform, with a couple of them not even high platforms. The M8's are coming to SLE at the tail end of that car order by 2014-15, which should improve the SLE running speeds. And CDOT is being required by Amtrak to get itself in gear with double-track high platforms to eliminate the single-track operation and get into full level boarding compliance. Plus the passing sidings planned in the Amtrak NEC cap improvements document for the couple SLE stations that have the actual expansion room around them (+ Westerly to provision it as a future RIDOT and SLE terminal). All of that's got to be worth a noticeable several minutes aggregate without a single modification to existing running track. More if CDOT stop dragging their feet on Miner Ln. crossing, the one most heavily used by commuter rail at-speed. I just don't know if there are any models as to how much exactly how much these commuter rail improvements would save for Amtrak as it'll vary from zero to significant from schedule slot to schedule slot over how much co-mingling Amtrak has to do with SLE runs.

How fast are the M8's rated for? Can they do 125 outside of the MNRR speed restrictions...or at least 110?

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:How fast are the M8's rated for? Can they do 125 outside of the MNRR speed restrictions...or at least 110?

100 mph

The bigger question is, can the M8s switch from Metro North to Amtrak electrification on the fly? It'd be awesome if they can, because then they'd be able to run on THREE types of electricity!

Wingnut wrote:The bigger question is, can the M8s switch from Metro North to Amtrak electrification on the fly? It'd be awesome if they can, because then they'd be able to run on THREE types of electricity!

Supposed to. They're built that way so any cars from the combined fleet can run on SLE, and SLE does pass through the phase break at New Haven and on extended runs west. Have not been tested at all under the Shoreline wires though, and don't figure to be until the MNRR fleet is stocked in much higher numbers. So still an unknown how well they'll perform under that power draw.

afiggatt wrote:A bypass from the CT River to Westerly would bypass 4 movable bridges, not just 3. Any such project would include a replacement higher level CT River bridge which would speed that part up. No doubt that such a bypass would save considerable time. I-95 in that part of CT is not that straight, so the Acelas would likely be limited in the top speeds, but it would be faster than the current twisty route. The bypass would be around 28 miles long by my measurements following I-95. Could cut BOS-NYP trip times by 15-20 minutes, maybe more?

Checking the Old Saybrooke to Westerly area route with Google Earth, the western end ROW lacks a real median strip, so the bypass would likely have to go on the south side of I-95 , ducking under or going over roads crossing I-95 and on-off ramps. Might have to be an elevated 2 tracks over much of the route. There are also places where the I-95 ROW looks severely pinched, especially at East Lyme, so running a 2 track rail line through there would be a considerable challenge which might require moving or rebuilding I-95 in some spots. The eastern end starting pass the I-395 split looks to have more space and a median strip that could better accommodate a bypass rail line.

A 28 mile long bypass would be pretty expensive, in the multiple billion dollar range. I could see the price tag hitting $3 to $5 billion easy by the time the engineering got done with modifying or rebuilding bridges, shifting I-95, lots of elevated track, eminent domain to get back to the NEC route prior to the Westerly station. There may be options for a shorter bypass or bypasses for parts of the segment from Old Saybrooke to Westerly. The critical part is from Miner Lane west of New London to east of Mystic CT. If that segment could somehow be bypassed, it would bypass all 11 grade crossings and 3 movable bridges.

Building a bypass would be, as afiggatt notes, extraordinarily expensive, and to my mind, if you're going to be so ambitious, there's no point in halfway measures. The new route should bypass the as much of the stretch of track where curves reduce the speed below 100 mph as possible -- basically from the curve on the western approach to the Conn. River bridge (MP106.3) to the point about four miles south/west of Kingston where 150 mph running begins (MP154.3). That's about a 48-mile bypass (to Westerly would be about 36 miles, not 28.) I-95 is practically as curvy as the Shore Line, so I'd stay away from that. Instead, the bypass could be constructed in two straight segments, one heading NE from Old Saybrook, parallel to I-95 and then I-395, curving gently somewhere around the Thames River to segment straight east to Shannock, where it rejoins the Shore Line at 150 mph. Now that could save 20 or 25 minutes.

Gentlemen, get your shovels...

travelrobb wrote:

afiggatt wrote: I-95 is practically as curvy as the Shore Line

I don't know if that's really the case. Checking out Google Earth it looks like a new line could enter the I-95 median just after crossing the Thames River east of New London very easily. There is no median to be used west of New London, so lets say the reroute starts here instead of at the Connecticut River. Eastward from New London it's clear sailing, fairly straight and pretty wide at most points. Being exclusive high-speed track, it would be super-elevated and not subject to grade limitations.

Then it would leave the median just north of Ashaway and head due east to rejoin the corridor near Wood River Junction. Interestingly, again the I-95 median disappears east of this point so this stretch is the only place where the tracks could use a publicly owned right-of-way through a very congested area. It's almost too easy!

This reroute would eliminate some of the most curvy track, several crossings, and two draw bridges. It's not a perfect fix, but more attainable and less expensive than other routes that would require entire new rights-of-way and the taking of much more private property. And this could be done in our lifetimes so we could use it!

Along with all of the other fixes planned, maybe this would help get Amtrak to that elusive 3 hour goal.

The comments about straighteneing the shoreline by moving it off the shoreline are getting very specific. I enjoy reading them all. Although many contributors are a bit skeptical of the chance it can happen, I believe it is a sounder strategey to improve the existing Corridor than to build an entirely new high- speed rail line. If you think any of the suggestions here are too expensive to build then you must believe that a wholly seperate line will NEVER be built. Even if ONE of the options suggested in this blog can get built, it could offer benefits to a whole range of stakeholders; Not just Amtrak.