Amtrak Speeds in New York

Is New York or Amtrak moving toward increased speeds West of Schenectady? Its encouraging to see 110mph on either side of Albany but running at that speed all the way to Buffalo would make the service much more attractive.

There looks to be room in the right of way for 3 tracks. If one was dedicated for passengers at 110 (or 125), Amtrak could use the freight track only to pass its own and switch back when clear. They'd mostly be out of CSX way.

Mr. Patch Hog, at one time the NYC had four tracks Albany-Chicago.

Essentially, two of the tracks were solely passenger and the other two were for freight (barring emergencies).

However, when Al Perlman came on the property long about '54, he saw no need for this redundancy as it was his intent to eliminate all passenger trains. While he was.never able to whack all passenger trains, he did whack two of the tracks.

We have Amtrak Passenger Engineers at this site; one holds his seniority up that way. I defer to him to share stories how the existing situation "makes for great passenger train operations".

There has been discussion over the years for higher speeds west of Albany and the one most likely to happen is essentially what you describe, simply a 3rd track dedicated to passengers. (CSX won't allow both tracks to be replaced as they're afraid that clearances between trains moving at high speeds on curves might mean trains could sideswipe each other).
The problem is... money.
(and honestly, I'd rather see a goal higher than 110 mph, and ideally all electrified from NYC.)

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 11:02 am There has been discussion over the years for higher speeds west of Albany and the one most likely to happen is essentially what you describe, simply a 3rd track dedicated to passengers. (CSX won't allow both tracks to be replaced as they're afraid that clearances between trains moving at high speeds on curves might mean trains could sideswipe each other).
The problem is... money.
(and honestly, I'd rather see a goal higher than 110 mph, and ideally all electrified from NYC.)

To go faster than 110 mph on any stretch of track, it must be grade separated from other means of transportation. Fullly grade separation of the 262 rail miles between Albany and Buffalo will cost somebody lots of cash. Assuming a minimum of $10 million per grade separation and a minimum of one crossing every miles, we're talking a minimum of $2.62 Billion. Doubling the costs of each double the price tag to $5.24 Billion, doubling the number of crossings the price tag doubles again to $10.48 Billion. I have no idea how many crossings there are or what the price tag will be for grade separations in New York are. Just throwing some huge numbers out there to consider.
Assuming the average speed increases the same 15 mph of the max allowed speed of 125 mph, over 262 rail miles you would save 262/125 = 2.278 hours ; 262 /115 = 2.096 hours; 2.278 - 2.096 = 0.182 hours, or less than one fifth of an hour, about 12 minutes.
Is spending Billions of dollars worth a time savings of 12 minutes?
I suggest not.
But you will gain some safety and lives saved by eliminating many of the grade crossings. Never the less, you will still lose lives from those trespassing on the RR corridor. You can never achieve a perfect safety record.
Then there is the possibility of spending even more and build an entirely new HSR corridor nearby to achieve even faster maximum speeds. Higher speeds means lower elapse times and larger time savings. Without details on where and what route should be built and where the stations will be located, I will not even guess how much it would cost. Would it even be built linking Albany to Buffalo, or more likely a more direct route of Buffalo to New York City?"

Not one hundred percent positive on the number had to know it for the test but that was long ago and far away. But I think just between Hoffmans CP169 where the Amtrak main meets CSX and SYR there are 14 protected crossings. I couldn't tell you how many farm crossings all I know is with the way CSX wants the I-ETMS set up the horn blows for all of them. So it seems like every two seconds its sounding two longs a short and a long. Rather nerve racking. Welcome to modern railroading where the lawyers write the book.

As for seeing higher speeds past CP169 you have a better chance of winning the lottery and being struck by lightning on the same day. Back when Conrail was doing signal upgrades and installed cab signals on the B&A they also started to implement the system on the Mohawk. They never went any further than upgrading signal boxes, it would have allowed for 90mph on passenger. This information was given to me by an engineer I worked with. As he put it I wore out three pairs of boots walking the B&A getting that system up and running and knew of the other upgrades. Well most of that stuff is gone as CSX has done a major signal replacement over the years and I'm pretty sure there was no thought of speeds greater than 79mph. Actually with I-ETMS CSX has slowed the railroad down I can not use the brake points I was taught 20years ago the computer will not let me get that close to the restrictions.

Which brings me to my last point, while they have been better of late in the dispatching of Empire service trains we all have stories of riding approach signals and restricted proceeds for a 100 miles. AKA getting F'd to a hard wood finish as a fellow racoon would say.

Patch Hog wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 3:55 pm Is New York or Amtrak moving toward increased speeds West of Schenectady? Its encouraging to see 110mph on either side of Albany but running at that speed all the way to Buffalo would make the service much more attractive.

There looks to be room in the right of way for 3 tracks. If one was dedicated for passengers at 110 (or 125), Amtrak could use the freight track only to pass its own and switch back when clear. They'd mostly be out of CSX way.

The idea of a third track is grand except. All of the stations except Amsterdam are on the south side or track two side. So in order to have a dedicated track at 110mph on either has to A) build track two up to those standards and move what would become tracks one and three north. Or B) build a dedicated high speed track three we will call it and either have to cross over CSX freight main lines to make your station stops or build platforms and bridges to get passengers to and from the stations.
On to the movement of trains as they travel both east and west they will need to find away around each other unless one would like the lead story on all the major news outlets. Again that involves either a fourth track strategically placed for meets, the educated types never seem to figure this one out. Or your back at the mercy of CSX as to when or if they can move you at that moment. Ohh before I forget Dewitt yard sits on the north side CSX considers it a inland port most if not all container traffic goes through Dewitt. There is no way and I mean no way they are giving up a millimeter of space for Amtrak and a high speed train. This is just between Hoffmans and Syracuse it has been too long since I've made it past there. The one thing I do remember is the Seneca River Bridge...

Railjunkie, thanks for weighing in. I thought that was the case (about tracks being on the "wrong side" from the stations but wasn't 100% sure.

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:52 pm Railjunkie, thanks for weighing in. I thought that was the case (about tracks being on the "wrong side" from the stations but wasn't 100% sure.

The platform for Rome is an island and I think the old NYC tunnels are still there, use them to access the current platform. The rest of them may have been filled with slurry though by Conrail back in the day. Rochester and Depew are both on the south side but there were yards in both Rochester and Depew. With time though I think CSX has managed to kill the traffic to both. In the case of Rochester Kodak being gone just furthered the cause. Again its been twenty years since I have gone past Syracuse by rail and I'm sure a lot has changed. The old rolodex is spinning ever so slowly even with a couple cups of coffee

What MAS (generally over the course of the line) are they running now from Albany to Buffalo? I rode the Maple Leaf from Croton-Harmon to Buffalo (by the ballpark, I can't remember if that's Exchange or Depew) and I don't remember any sections being especially slow. I wasn't paying particular attention to speeds.

My guess would be 80 (Class 5). Would an upgrade to 90 (Class 6) be worth it? Or do they really need to go to 110 (a la the Hartford Line, which is owned by Amtrak) to make a difference?

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:23 am

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:52 pm Railjunkie, thanks for weighing in. I thought that was the case (about tracks being on the "wrong side" from the stations but wasn't 100% sure.

The platform for Rome is an island and I think the old NYC tunnels are still there, use them to access the current platform. The rest of them may have been filled with slurry though by Conrail back in the day. Rochester and Depew are both on the south side but there were yards in both Rochester and Depew. With time though I think CSX has managed to kill the traffic to both. In the case of Rochester Kodak being gone just furthered the cause. Again its been twenty years since I have gone past Syracuse by rail and I'm sure a lot has changed. The old rolodex is spinning ever so slowly even with a couple cups of coffee

The places with the platform problems are Syracuse and Depew. Utica has both an island platform (accessed by a bridge) and a side platform , although Amtrak access to the track on the north side of the island platform looks like it would require a new connection east of the station.

The new station at Rochester has an island platform, with tunnel access. The old side platform next to the station is still there, but heavily decayed. More importantly, there’s no longer a track at that platform.

Syracuse and Depew only have side platforms, with access to only a single track. IIRC, when Syracuse was built, they planned for commuter service of some sort on the NYS&W. There was to be a separate platform on the north side of the tracks for that. Don’t know how they planned to access it.

That was NYSW's OnTrack RDC shuttle.

Thanks for the reminder of the name. After googling and looking at some pictures, it looks like the plan was to make the platform an island, with OnTrack on the south side of the platform, not north of the current tracks as I suggested above, but NYS&W never laid track into the station.

Sgt. Smith, FRA Class 4; Passenger 80mph; Class 5 90

Station Aficionado wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:59 pm Thanks for the reminder of the name. After googling and looking at some pictures, it looks like the plan was to make the platform an island, with OnTrack on the south side of the platform, not north of the current tracks as I suggested above, but NYS&W never laid track into the station.

The station is built on a swamp and as such is the bridge on the west side and the platform are in a constant state of movement AKA they are sinking. CSX didn't want OnTrack to build the connection out to the Carousel Mall for fear it could have an effect on the bridge.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 9:08 am What MAS (generally over the course of the line) are they running now from Albany to Buffalo? I rode the Maple Leaf from Croton-Harmon to Buffalo (by the ballpark, I can't remember if that's Exchange or Depew) and I don't remember any sections being especially slow. I wasn't paying particular attention to speeds.

My guess would be 80 (Class 5). Would an upgrade to 90 (Class 6) be worth it? Or do they really need to go to 110 (a la the Hartford Line, which is owned by Amtrak) to make a difference?

The stop by the ballpark is Exchange St. most of the line between Hoffmans and Syracuse is MAS 70 to 75 and Syracuse to Buffalo Depew is a lot of 79. Upgrading to 90mph is a waste and 110mph is not going to save you much time . CSX is not going to pay for the signal upgrades and NYS certainly does not have $$$$. On a two track freight mainline IF those upgrades ever happened the chances of ever hitting those types of speeds would be slim to none.