Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Jersey_Mike wrote: Also upgrading the line to 125 will only save a coupe of minutes of the trip won't increase ridership significantly.Says you?
Jersey_Mike wrote:That is why I doubt they will actually do the upgrade least it gets funded through some federal pork project.How would improving a rail line be a "pork project?" Please explain.
j653 wrote:I'm sorry, but maintaining/upgrading the Keystone line -- or any other rail line in America -- is not "pork." Reliable, safe, and efficient infrastructure is necessary for any market economy to flourish. America is no exception. Roads, rails, and airports all play important roles in our transportation infrastructure.agreed. I'd also add that a lot of the work necessary to achieve 125 is also necessary for reliable operation of the railroad...not unlike the upgrades to the catenary on the nec to 160 mph. much fo the work needs to be done whether it's 135 or 160. The catenary needs to be replaced at some point, as does Paoli substation. So far, ridership has responded well to the improvements that have already been made so I'm not sure why that wouldn't continue. the minutes saved may now be smaller, but every minute saved makes it that much faster than driving. At 95 minutes frm harrisburg, it makes some sense to take the train. at 80 minutes it's MUCH faster than driving. same with lancaster, at 70 minutes that's great, at 55 min, why drive?
Lackawanna565 wrote:Why don't they have approach normal on the distant signals? Someone said that the signal is not popular with the railroads. He didn't give a reason why.OK, Im a tad slow on these boards lately but on the HBG and NEC( Rea to A) that have the rule 562 cab signalling, the home signals are equipped with clear to next interlocking lights or C lights as crews call them. On the NEC , there are no distant signals because all of the interlocking are extremly close. On the Harrisburg line, there are distant signals in the 562 territory but no approach normal lights. Im happy to see the upgrades to the line but I do think that closing the grade crossings are a big waste of time, money and energy. Station upgrades are a necessatity though.
How would improving a rail line be a "pork project?" Please explain.Assuming that the route would have about 50 miles of top speed running (I'm not going to actually bother to look up how much 110/125 track there will actually be) that distance is covered in 27 minutes at 110mph and 24 minutes at 125 mph. To spend millions or dollars on upgrades to shave 3 minutes off of what is basically a commuter line is a waste of money that could be better spent on increasing speeds on the plethora of 60mph lines that Amtrak currently has to deal with or even better to expand Amtrak or other rail service to where it currently doesn't exist.
So far, ridership has responded well to the improvements that have already been made so I'm not sure why that wouldn't continue. the minutes saved may now be smaller, but every minute saved makes it that much faster than driving. At 95 minutes frm harrisburg, it makes some sense to take the train. at 80 minutes it's MUCH faster than driving. same with lancaster, at 70 minutes that's great, at 55 min, why drive?It's called opportunity cost. Apply the money to where it will do the most good. Even within the state of PA you'd get more cars off the road with an R3 extension than with a 5 minute speed improvement on the Harrisburg Line.
Jersey_Mike wrote:nothing says pork, even if you think it's not the best project, it's certainly note useless. most of the money needed to get to 125 is needed to bring the line to a state of good repair anyway. It is, of course, not a commuter line, but a hybrid. there's nothing wrong with that, and Amtrak would do well to carry more commuters on the corridor. it offers a more balanced ridership profile than commuter rail and people paying higher fares to philly and ny are helping offset the cost of commuter runs from lancaster to harrisburg, lancaster to paoli, etc. on weekends, the route does fairly well moving people for leisure to and from the big cities. in the long run, this will be part of improved trips to pittsburgh whose economy is showing signs of more robust growth than it has in decades.How would improving a rail line be a "pork project?" Please explain.Assuming that the route would have about 50 miles of top speed running (I'm not going to actually bother to look up how much 110/125 track there will actually be) that distance is covered in 27 minutes at 110mph and 24 minutes at 125 mph. To spend millions or dollars on upgrades to shave 3 minutes off of what is basically a commuter line is a waste of money that could be better spent on increasing speeds on t
Jersey_Mike wrote:meh...that depends. many of the proposed improvements, especially the most expensive ones, are on shared territory and would improve both Amtrak's Keystone and SEPTA's Paoli-thorndale line, probably cutting trip time for both. I think ridership on the two totals about 7.5 million. I'd also add that getting cars off the road is but one aspect, economic impact may actually be greater from a faster line than a slower line. not that I'm against SEPTA improving the elwyn line but I think it's a false assumption that this is more productive than improving the paoli-thorndale portion of the keystone line (which has catenary dating to 1913, block towers, aging crossovers, and the slowest stretches of track on the harrisburg line.
It's called opportunity cost. Apply the money to where it will do the most good. Even within the state of PA you'd get more cars off the road with an R3 extension than with a 5 minute speed improvement on the Harrisburg Line.
Jersey_Mike wrote:The eastern end of the line will always be a ~70mph railroad due to the track geometries. It's akin to the NEC in Connecticut. Do you think trains in the stretch are stuck at such low speeds because in 2000 Amtrak didn't try hard enough to upgrade the line? No, its because curves and high speeds don't mix. 125mph service on the Harrisburg Line is a make work project at best and quite possibly just a political stunt. Justifying such projects as better than nothing only imperils future funding when all rail investment is painted as a bridge to nowhere.you're wrong. they are stuck at such low speeds because there wasn't enough money to finish the job. the railroad in philadelphia is nowhere near 70 mph, outside philadelphia some of it is already at 90 mph, though the interlockings are aging and sometimes not where either agency wants them. still, the problem is largely 30th to overbrook. there are a bunch old decaying crossovers, structurally deficient bridges, lack of signaling, and a track configuration around 52nd st that dates to the time when lowe's and shopright was a major freight yard where pennsy's reading branch and main line came together..now used for the cynwyd dinkies. reworking this area for commuters and keystone/intercity trains is not a make work job but basic infrastructure improvements that is nothing like a bridge to nowhere. it would allow speeds to be raised from as low as 15 mph to 80 mph on every train through this area (which, as noted, is quite a few). the keystone corridor upgrade was $145 million split betwee PennDOt and Amtrak, this project alone as been listed at $112 million. lastly, septa frequencies are nothing like metro-north, not that metro north territory HAS to be so problematic for shared service. it may not ever be 125, but there's no reason it has to be 70 mph. in that respect, the keystone corridor is already ahead of CT's portion of the nec. 125 mph on the keystone may be a political stunt just like 160 mph on the corridor, but the incremental cost isn't that large considering most of the projects need to be done whether top speed is 12 or 110. as noted, catenary is nearing its century mark, nearly 20 years OLDER than the catenary on the corridor. cat poles are an older design...those cat poles feed the nec cheap power that can't be had in nj or ny. regarding the curves, that can be addressed with tilting equipment. moynihan station is a complete waste of money and nothing more than a federal pork project to assuage the egos of new yorkers
mkerfe wrote:is the Keystone Line dispatched by CTEC and if so which desk? (IE. CTEC 1, CTEC 2 etc...)No. The line is under the control of the Section B and Section C Dispatchers (subject to time and territory modifications in the ETT.) They direct the following towers for routing trains (which in turn control the following interlockings):
MikeEspee wrote:Silver: Subtract Park and add it to Cork - when they picked up the old interlocking and moved it down a few miles to Atglen, Cork gained control of the interlockingThanks. Edited as noted.
