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

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Have you driven I-95 between New London and Kenyon/Shannock? The substandard geometry of that 1950's-grandfathered turnpike is a self-explanatory nonstarter for HSR. The amount of property-taking and rock-blasting to widen it out and level the constant up/down/up/down grade through the trap rock seams proves just as untenable.

I gotta agree here. There is a reason the forefathers put the track where they did. It was not for the view even though the view is great it was the flattest area they could find in the area. Problem then and still a problem today.

To say nothing of...

...the mile-plus tunnel and/or viaduct required to deal with the 95/395/1/future 11 interchange

...the highly constrained ROW in New London

...the two active reservoirs that I-95 passes through

...the amount of wetlands that I-95 passes through

If you move your railroad to the middle of I95 between the Connecticut River and Westerly, you're going to have to cross the Thames River on the highway alignment. So you're talking a mile+ long, 150+ foot high brand new railroad bridge, since the change in elevation between the alignment of the highway through Waterford, the existing railroad bridge, and the highway alignment would require something like a 5% grade either side of the river.

I don't know what the market price of a new Gold Star Bridge is these days, but I'm guessing it's going to have three commas in it.

georgewerr wrote:Route 95 does not go near Kenyon but if you followed 95 north till between exit 91 and 92 and follow route 78 you could meet the main line in Westerly. route 78 was designed to be a 4 lane divided highway but never finished. the state owns the land already and done the blasting through the hills. There is a sand and gravel yard that already removed the biggest hill in town that would make a place to put a new station. you could have 4 tracks (2 stubs for commuter) and parking there.

The terrain actually looks reasonably favorable for a bypass to rejoin the main line nearer to Wood River Junction (and a bit of straightening is also possible between WRJ and Kenyon) with a fairly straight alignment to I-95, crossing the river/state line just north of 78. Westerly isn't ever going to be an Acela stop: only commuter trains and a few Regionals a day that serve Westerly, Mystic, and New London would need to use the Shore Line.

Ridgefielder wrote:If you move your railroad to the middle of I95 between the Connecticut River and Westerly, you're going to have to cross the Thames River on the highway alignment. So you're talking a mile+ long, 150+ foot high brand new railroad bridge, since the change in elevation between the alignment of the highway through Waterford, the existing railroad bridge, and the highway alignment would require something like a 5% grade either side of the river.

I don't know what the market price of a new Gold Star Bridge is these days, but I'm guessing it's going to have three commas in it.

No new bridge. Come off of the existing bridge and go directly east to the Route 95 median. This is the start of the bypass.

Then, just before the Conn/RI border this bypass leaves the median and goes directly east again and rejoins the existing NEC near Shannock.

It's actually the only section of Route 95 that has a wide enough median to allow this possibility. It should at least be studied as a option.

bostontrainguy wrote: No new bridge. Come off of the existing bridge and go directly east to the Route 95 median. This is the start of the bypass.

Then, just before the Conn/RI border this bypass leaves the median and goes directly east again and rejoins the existing NEC near Shannock.

It's actually the only section of Route 95 that has a wide enough median to allow this possibility. It should at least be studied as a option.

You didn't catch what I was saying. The existing railroad bridge is something like 40' above mean-high-water. The deck of the highway bridge is something like 160' above high water. The railroad goes off the bridge on the Groton side into a valley that leads southeast toward the shore at Groton Long Point. The highway goes off the Goldstar straight onto the ridge top and stays there. To get from one elevation to the other would require gaining >100' in <.5 miles.

I've lived in New London, have close friends in Mystic and relatives in South Kingstown, RI; I've driven this stretch of 95, and ridden this stretch of the Shoreline, dozens if not hundreds of times. I just don't see how trading curvy and flat for slightly-less-curvy, but hilly, is going to solve anything.

THIS. Trading lateral curves for an up/down bunny-hop is little better than treading water on performance. Especially when the grades are anything but constant. It's not the steepness of the grades...it's the fact that the grade is in neverending flux and requires a zillion little micro-adjustments in the propulsion. Two-dimensional maps do not tell the story of why this is a crappy alignment. Two-dimensional maps are all NEC FUTURE relied on for drawing this. It doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. Nor does it reflect the kinds of terrain first-world HSR countries would choose to build their lines through; constant grade plowed straight over/through a mountain with few-and-far-between changes in grade is going to hurt performance less than the neverending bunny-hop. These maps aren't the product of real engineering. Real engineers are going to rule this I-95 alignment infeasible...quickly.

It seems we never learn. Wasn't that how Arthur Stilwell built the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient? Looked pretty straightforward on the map.

Ridgefielder wrote:Building on I-84 would be a problem, I agree. But I-684 goes through a surprisingly empty area considering its location. Between I-287 and the Saw Mill Parkway at Katonah you see nothing but trees from the road, which also has a very wide median. And the ROW east of Hawleyville is actually surprisingly intact at least as far as the location of the old Housatonic bridge at Sandy Hook. I'd guess you could cobble something together using the NYNE alignment to the river, a higher bridge, I-84 then a tunnel under Towantic Summit and the NYNE into W'bury.

Bigger problem though is-- isn't the whole point of the "Midland Route" to get Boston-NY express trains off the extremely congested and capacity-constrained trackage between New Rochelle and New Haven? Doesn't seem like there would be much point in building east of Hartford if you're still stuck with 90mph territory on the Shore Line to get to NY.

Admin: To clarify, I merged some posts in from another thread which pertained to the HSR bypass Amtrak is looking at in it's Future plan. I'm also going to merge in the 2030/2040 infrastructure plan; the topics are just too intertwined.

One thing that occurred to me reading your post in the other thread (moved here) is that we have indeed talked about the Harlem line, but that we forget a parallel route (that would similarly have no chance) in the Putnam Division. While it's parkland now, and a beautiful trail (thus preventing it from ever entering the discussion) it has the benefit of being remote in many locations, through NYC watershed over much of the route (environmental waivers anyone?) and connects to the lower/Bronx portion of the Hudson division just below Spuyten Duyvil. It would be a complicated connection back to the SD bridge of course, but more doable than over the Mott Haven wye and an already constrained Harlem line two-track bottle neck above Crestwood. Although White Plains service would be nice.

Anyway, doubtful (highly) it could happen, but hypothetically it's fun to imagine.

Japan has built / is building HSR routes where large segments are more than 50 percent tunneled. Tunneling is much more common over there so it is cheaper and there are more people and companies with experience so it is just not that big of a deal. Often, they chose to tunnel even when flat straigh alternatives are available in order to avoid property impacts. If only we could get to that point here.

orulz wrote:Japan has built / is building HSR routes where large segments are more than 50 percent tunneled. Tunneling is much more common over there so it is cheaper and there are more people and companies with experience so it is just not that big of a deal. Often, they chose to tunnel even when flat straigh alternatives are available in order to avoid property impacts. If only we could get to that point here.

What works for Japan isn't necessarily going to work for Connecticut. Leave the cultural and legal issues to one side: the geology and geography of the two places are quite different. Same holds true when talking about the way the French, Germans, etc. built their HSR systems.

London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo-- they all sit in flat or slightly rolling landscapes, either inland or with access to the sea via an adjacent port or river. New York City is different. The city sprawls across an archipelago at the junction of the Hudson River, Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. Manhattan itself is surrounded on three sides by tidal straits deep enough to be navigable by seagoing vessels as large as aircraft carriers. A landscape of steep, rocky, parallel ridges and deep valleys starts within the northern reaches of the city itself (for example, my home, 5 miles north of the Bronx, is approx. 600' away from and 150' above the Bronx River, on the side of a ridge of solid Manhattan Schist.) That ridge-and-valley landscape stretches for 150 miles to the east. The only way to avoid it is to hug the shore-- or head east along the flatlands of central Long Island.

It's something you have to take into account when talking about these alternatives. It's apples-to-oranges to compare the challenges facing builders here to those facing the HSR designers of Brandenburg or the Ile de France.

Just returned from a trip up and down the corridor. I am always surprised at how fast an Amfleet train can handle the existing curves. For instance 110 mph across the Canton viaduct and 110 through the curve south of Attleboro. 125 through Mansfield and Kingston.

Makes you wonder if other things could be done to speed things up instead of a never-to-be-constructed-in-my-lifetime bypass. It's only about 220 miles between Boston and New York. That would require about a 75 mph average speed. The worst part of the journey is Metro North track where we slowed several times. Also the many stops of course killed the schedule.

How about a few options:

1) A true non-stop express BOS - NYP train running just before a multi-stop Acela or regional,
2) Amtrak taking control of the Metro North section and rebuilding it to include exclusive express tracks,
3) Raising speeds/straightening curves in several places (e.g., Hell Gate to New Rochelle)
4) Avoiding the curvy slow track through Pawtucket and running directly south from Attleboro through the old tunnel under College Hill - a new Providence station would be required for the bypass anyway,
4) Utilizing the maximum speeds that the infrastructure was built for (i.e., new software) so engineers aren't expected to run a perfect schedule.

Are there optional things available to make that elusive BOS-NYP three hour schedule besides a 220 mph billions-of-dollars bypass?

bostontrainguy wrote: 2) Amtrak taking control of the Metro North section and rebuilding it to include exclusive express tracks,
3) Raising speeds/straightening curves in several places (e.g., Hell Gate to New Rochelle)

It is very hard for me to imagine any scenario under which the State of Connecticut would surrender ownership of this line to Amtrak. The line is simply too vital to the functioning of the state's transportation system and economy in general. And as I've said either farther back in this thread or elsewhere on this forum, MN ridership between New Haven - New York outnumbers Amtrak ridership by something like 10x. You're honestly more likely to see an Inland Route bypass than this.

With regard to expansion-- going way back, the Harlem River Branch from New Rochelle to the Hell Gate was 6 tracks. Two were removed in the 30's, two more under Conrail, but the ROW is intact. From just beyond New Rochelle to Port Chester was also once 6-track territory- 4 New Haven, 2 New York, Westchester & Boston. There is still room for 6 tracks under the catenary structures, but the bridges have been removed, some overpasses have been filled in, and portions of the ROW have been taken for station platforms & parking.

From Port Chester to Devon Jct., the line was always 4 tracks, same as it is now, with maybe a couple exceptions for freight sidings in places. From Devon to West Haven, the fourth track was lifted in Conrail days.

So: you have 2 stretches where adding extra tracks is relatively simple-- the Hell Gate to New Rochelle and Devon to West Haven. You have 1 stretch where it is doable but will require relocating stations etc.- New Rochelle to Port Chester. For the rest, expansion is going to require extra land. And this isn't Indiana farmland, but expensive suburban real estate. Getting the ROW itself will be expensive and slow.

Ridgefielder wrote:So: you have 2 stretches where adding extra tracks is relatively simple-- the Hell Gate to New Rochelle and Devon to West Haven. You have 1 stretch where it is doable but will require relocating stations etc.- New Rochelle to Port Chester. For the rest, expansion is going to require extra land. And this isn't Indiana farmland, but expensive suburban real estate. Getting the ROW itself will be expensive and slow.

And not just expensive, but it would be non-trivial construction; we've talked extensively about the topography of the shoreline east of the CT River, but it isn't a walk in the park for the rest of CT's coast. There's a reason why the first BOS<->NYC routes were either further inland (like the B&A) or combination rail-water or rail-water-rail routes through Long Island and Long Island Sound. Plus, the NHL has its fair share of movable bridges, and adding additional track would necessitate additional bridges adjacent to the existing ones.

This is also why they're considering alternative spines west of New Haven/Hartford in the first place; it's stupidly expensive and would have intense political opposition.

With 5 in the 33 miles between Cos Cob and Milford, I'd say that's more than it's fair share.