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

For re-routing the NEC, what about the freight system? If there are any freight customers on the relocated section, the original alignment would have to be sold to a freight railroad (not really a bad thing, would allow more capacity for both freight and passenger trains), or all the customers relocated (very expensive), or no more freight on that section at all. If rebuilding New London-Westerly, the junction with the P&W in Groton would have to be rebuilt too.
C.J.V.

Just because there is room in Median of a Highway does not make it any cheaper, infact it makes for bigger cost.
Highways have many roads and rivers crossing them and each and everyone would need a viaduct.
Face it folks USA is broke and it won't change for a while , untill 50% of Americans get real jobs.

chrisnewhaven wrote:For re-routing the NEC, what about the freight system? If there are any freight customers on the relocated section, the original alignment would have to be sold to a freight railroad (not really a bad thing, would allow more capacity for both freight and passenger trains), or all the customers relocated (very expensive), or no more freight on that section at all. If rebuilding New London-Westerly, the junction with the P&W in Groton would have to be rebuilt too.
C.J.V.

In my scenario, there are a few freight customers including an incredibly circuitous track to Electric Boat in Groton. These would still be served. Seeing that Mystic and Westerly would both be bypassed, I would think that Amtrak would still send some Regionals along the original line to service these stations. If not, the States could provide some type of service. Also my suggested new route would diverge from the existing Corridor right at the P&W wye. So you are correct, it would have to be rebuilt.

DutchRailnut wrote:Just because there is room in Median of a Highway does not make it any cheaper, infact it makes for bigger cost.
Highways have many roads and rivers crossing them and each and everyone would need a viaduct.

There is no way using a "free" public highway median would be more expensive than a brand new right-of-way. Any routing is going to have to cross roads and rivers and use bridges. The expense and time it will take to build an entire new right of way through densely populated New England is going to be immense.

For re-routing the NEC, what about the freight system?

Current freight service between Davisville, RI, and Groton, CT, is minimal. I believe that the P&W still has one customer at Kingston, served from the north, but that's it. There hasn't been any regular freight service between Kingston and Groton in years.

bostontrainguy wrote:

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.

As someone who went to college in New London and has driven around this area several times, I'd say you're overlooking one important factor: I-95 might be straight horizontally, but vertically it's quite different. Like most of the state, the topography between the Thames and the Rhode Island border consists of long ridges running north-south, with the crests gradually sloping down on the south end until they become penninsulas running into Long Island Sound. If you look at a topo map you'll see that the elevation of 95 fluctuates between close to 150' above sea level at the east end of the Gold Star Bridge, to maybe 20' a mile or so east where it crosses the Groton Reservoir, to 200' on the ridge above Mystic, then back to maybe 6' where it crosses the head of Mystic Harbor. There is a reason, after all, that the builders of the New York, Providence & Boston Rail Road decided to locate the line where they did when they built it in the mid-19th Century.

Also, the Thames River bridge. How do you get the line from the level of the railroad bridge- which is maybe 20' above mean high water (low enough that it needs to be opened for a sailboat) up to the level of the Gold Star Highway, which crosses on a bridge that's high enough to clear the topmasts of USCG Eagle, the Coast Guard's three-masted sailing ship?

Ridgefielder wrote:

bostontrainguy wrote:

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.

As someone who went to college in New London and has driven around this area several times, I'd say you're overlooking one important factor: I-95 might be straight horizontally, but vertically it's quite different. Like most of the state, the topography between the Thames and the Rhode Island border consists of long ridges running north-south, with the crests gradually sloping down on the south end until they become penninsulas running into Long Island Sound. If you look at a topo map you'll see that the elevation of 95 fluctuates between close to 150' above sea level at the east end of the Gold Star Bridge, to maybe 20' a mile or so east where it crosses the Groton Reservoir, to 200' on the ridge above Mystic, then back to maybe 6' where it crosses the head of Mystic Harbor. There is a reason, after all, that the builders of the New York, Providence & Boston Rail Road decided to locate the line where they did when they built it in the mid-19th Century.

Also, the Thames River bridge. How do you get the line from the level of the railroad bridge- which is maybe 20' above mean high water (low enough that it needs to be opened for a sailboat) up to the level of the Gold Star Highway, which crosses on a bridge that's high enough to clear the topmasts of USCG Eagle, the Coast Guard's three-masted sailing ship?

You don't of course. The tracks would probably cross under the higher eastbound roadway and then run along the median eastward where the roadway comes back down to ground level. Although the highway might be a bit hilly as you say, There appears to be relatively long stretches of continuous median that might allow enough grade taming for today's high-speed rail standards. In some places the median gets fairly wide which would help if any substantial cuts or fills are necessary. I don't know the exact typography along the roadway, and I only looked at Google Earth to study the options, but it stood out to me as the best option and easiest fix to improve speeds on the Corridor. It's at least a starting point.

Is there anyone who can give a number as to what maximum grades are possible for HSR?

bostontrainguy wrote:You don't of course. The tracks would probably cross under the higher eastbound roadway and then run along the median eastward where the roadway comes back down to ground level. Although the highway might be a bit hilly as you say, There appears to be relatively long stretches of continuous median that might allow enough grade taming for today's high-speed rail standards. In some places the median gets fairly wide which would help if any substantial cuts or fills are necessary. I don't know the exact typography along the roadway, and I only looked at Google Earth to study the options, but it stood out to me as the best option and easiest fix to improve speeds on the Corridor. It's at least a starting point.

Not sure you understand. It's not the road that is elevated above ground level; it's the ground that is elevated above sea level. The shores on both sides of the Thames at New London/Groton are extemely steep, rising from sea level to over 200' in about a quarter mile (and if you don't think that's steep, try running wind sprints on it, which was a common practice drill for all Connecticut College athletics!) If you look at a topo map you'll see this is the case between the end of the existing Thames River railroad bridge and the alignment of 95. This is the reason the line takes a loop south from Niantic to come into New London on a north-south alignment, then loops back south on the Groton side to run through the center of Mystic instead of continuing straight ahead at the end of the bridge.

IMHO four-tracking Providence-Boston and three-tracking New Haven-Conn River would probably do a lot more for overall train speeds between NYP and BOS than taking out a few curves in eastern CT.

The EGE wrote:Is there anyone who can give a number as to what maximum grades are possible for HSR?

I think the max grade for HSR in use is close to 6%. But Amtrak is not going to build a bypass line in eastern CT with high grades because the ridge lines in eastern CT are hills, not mountain ranges. They would run Regionals and regular trains on the bypass, not just distributed power fixed consist trainsets. An open trench cut through the hill would be one solution. Another might be elevated tracks across the lower elevations. Large cuts through hills or elevated tracks would make the any bypass project proposal an even more difficult sell to the local communities.

As for the Thames River bridge, for the amount of time and money a bypass would take, to make it worthwhile both the Shaw's Cove and Thames River movable bridges would need to be bypassed somehow. Either elevated tracks starting west of New London or, as I suggested earlier, build a tunnel under New London and the Thames River emerging on the eastern edge in the I-95 median gap. And yes, the tunnel would be seriously expensive and probably a nearly impossible concept to get the planners to sign onto.

Any major bypass route in eastern CT is going to face considerable resistance because of cost, NIMBYs, engineering challenges. Still, it might be useful to Amtrak to look at and do some basic evaluation of possible bypass routes to have as a fall-back plan for the Next Gen NEC planning if finding an entirely new route through CT proves impossible.

The EGE wrote:Is there anyone who can give a number as to what maximum grades are possible for HSR?

Here's some info:
The considerable momentum at high speeds also helps to climb these slopes very fast without greatly increasing their energy consumption. The Paris-Sud-Est LGV has grades of up to 3.5%. On the German NBS high-speed line between Cologne and Frankfurt they reach 4%.

The EGE wrote:Is there anyone who can give a number as to what maximum grades are possible for HSR?

I found this in the US Interstate Standards:

"Maximum grade: Maximum grade is determined by a table, with up to 6% allowed in mountainous areas and hilly urban areas."

So let's assume that Route 95 has under 6% grades and high-speed rail can climb up to 4%. Close enough to work?

I-95 deffinately has grades of or less than 6%, when building the Interstate Highway System 6% was the maximum grade allowed. Guess that’s why everyone suggests highway medians, they’re pre graded.
C.J.V.

Adding capacity between Providence and Boston, and New Haven to Old Saybrook, are the cheapest ways to eliminate the pad time for all Amtrak trains and should be the first projects to be considered, but it does not help to reduce running time to less than three hours. I still believe building a high speed railroad to bypass the slowest section of the Shoreline is the best place to start on the Corridor. It would be on an established route which is already succesful. Its success could be used to promote improvements on other parts of the Corridor, which may be polltically more difficult build. It would be the demonstration project that couldn't be built in Florida.
P.S. Adding a fourth track between Forest Hills and Boston will probably never happen. The only way to add capacity all the way to Boston would be via the second district ( Midland Division), but that would bypass Back Bay, which has become a very popular stop on all Amtrak trains.

pbj123 wrote:P.S. Adding a fourth track between Forest Hills and Boston will probably never happen. The only way to add capacity all the way to Boston would be via the second district ( Midland Division), but that would bypass Back Bay, which has become a very popular stop on all Amtrak trains.

The Midland is also not electrified, so forget using that. Forest Hills to Boston is in a massive walled trench so that will stay three tracks. However, Forest Hills to Readville is ready for four tracks and Readville to Route 128 is ready for three tracks. Route 128 station was designed for three tracks when it was rebuilt, and there has been talk of extending the third track to Canton Junction where the new Southcoast Rail will eventually branch off.

PS: Route 128 is know as "Route 128/Dedham", "Westwood" and "University Park". And a new massive project being built there is named "Westwood Station". The locals will always call it "Route 128" even though the powers-to-be have officially tried to kill off the "Route 128" nomenclature and substitute "Route 95" for years (and most Amtrak conductors announce "Route 128 - Westwood" as you approach on the Corridor). The road the station is on is University Avenue although no university exists anywhere in the immediate area. I have no idea why Amtrak added "University Park" to the station name. No one calls it "University Park". It's a bit confusing and someone needs to settle on one final name, probably "Route 128/Westwood" is best.