Railroad Forums 

  • Penn Central Metroliner & NECIP Trackwork

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1513418  by jonnhrr
 
I'm not a railroader so take this with a grain of salt, but I understand rule 251 means operating in the current direction of traffic via automatic block signal (ABS) indication, the normal current being eastbound on track 1 and westbound on 4. Operation against the current of traffic would require a form D. Whereas 261 means signaling in both directions so that trains can operate in either direction by signal indication.
 #1513453  by gokeefe
 
Clarification appreciated. So one could say that one of the more significant contributions by PC to the NEC as inherited by Amtrak was enabling more tracks to run bi-directional operations.

I had no idea at all that this wasn't the case at that time. When I imagine the NEC under the PRR and the PC I always have thought of it as this four track fully bi directional railroad between Washington and New York. That obviously wasn't the case then (or now).

Did the NECIP add other areas of Rule 261 territory?
 #1513481  by RRspatch
 
gokeefe wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 pm Clarification appreciated. So one could say that one of the more significant contributions by PC to the NEC as inherited by Amtrak was enabling more tracks to run bi-directional operations.
As I said earlier the only signal upgrade I know of the PC made was upgrading No.3 track between Landover and Bowie from rule 251 to rule 261.
gokeefe wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 pm I had no idea at all that this wasn't the case at that time. When I imagine the NEC under the PRR and the PC I always have thought of it as this four track fully bi directional railroad between Washington and New York. That obviously wasn't the case then (or now).
As a general rule PRR had rule 261 in effect as follows -
Two tracks - both tracks rule 261.
Three tracks - center track rule 261.
Four tracks - either two tracks 251 north/east and two tracks south/west or center two tracks rule 261 and outer tracks rule 251.
gokeefe wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 pm Did the NECIP add other areas of Rule 261 territory?
As part of NECIP all tracks on the Philadelphia/Mid Atlantic division from Holmes to CP Avenue (Washington) are rule 261. The New York/Metropolitan division east of Holmes was a different story. East of Holmes tracks No.1 eastbound and No.4 westbound were rule 251. While I'm not totally up to date on signalling on the Metropolitan division (it's only been 23 years since I left Amtrak) I believe there's still a lot of rule 251 territory on the outer tracks east of Holmes.

Remembering my CETC days ...
 #1513524  by MACTRAXX
 
gokeefe wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:42 pm Did PC install cement ties or were those first installed for NECIP?
GOKeefe: The NECIP introduced concrete ties to the Northeast Corridor.
The first installation between NYP and WAS was on a track segment in the vicinity of Aberdeen,MD.

RRspatch is correct - the first high level platforms at Wilmington, Baltimore and Washington were built
for the Metroliner Project. There were two island high level platforms built on the upper level at Washington
Union Station. Capital Beltway was constructed and opened originally with high level platforms.

MACTRAXX
 #1513544  by ThirdRail7
 
gokeefe wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:56 pm Interesting to remember that the tower jobs were all still in place for Amtrak's earliest years.

Did PC make any signal improvements on the NEC which had any later benefits for Amtrak?
Prior to the NECIP, PC rationalized the signal system (extending blocks and eliminating some of the automatic signals.) Some of those improvements weren't altered by the NECIP.
twropr wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:14 pm
To access Trenton, which is served only by TKs 1 and 4, trains on inner tracks 2 and 3 still make crossover moves at Ham or Fair. I believe these crossovers are now #37s with moveable point frogs that allow 80 MPH - someone please correct me if I am wrong on this.
These remain 45 mph crossovers and you can also make moves at Morris. Some of these crossovers remain 30 mph.
gokeefe wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 pm Clarification appreciated. So one could say that one of the more significant contributions by PC to the NEC as inherited by Amtrak was enabling more tracks to run bi-directional operations.

I had no idea at all that this wasn't the case at that time. When I imagine the NEC under the PRR and the PC I always have thought of it as this four track fully bi directional railroad between Washington and New York. That obviously wasn't the case then (or now).

Did the NECIP add other areas of Rule 261 territory?

In addition to what Twropr stated, the NECIP rationalized the infrastructures to change it from a mixed freight/passenger operation to more of a high speed passenger operation. This resulted in the removal of interlockings in some areas awhile adding new interlockings in other areas. When this occured Amtrak would often institute interlocking rules between interlockings in close proximity. This saved paperwork, particularly in with track car movements.
 #1513557  by gokeefe
 
That's a very interesting perspective.

Freight on the NEC both before and since Amtrak is something that's easily forgotten.

Obviously at some point in the past one can see the freight trains running through Penn Station at 2am.

Makes me wonder what the low point for passenger traffic on the NEC was (taking in to account commuter + intercity).
 #1513565  by TomNelligan
 
gokeefe wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:28 pmObviously at some point in the past one can see the freight trains running through Penn Station at 2am.
That never happened except for some special movements during World War I. Passenger train interference wouldn't have been a problem at 2 AM but there were still the tunnel's stiff grades and limited clearances. The Pennsy and New Haven had an efficient (for its time) carfloat operation between Greenville Yard in Jersey City and Bay Bridge Yard in Brooklyn that handled their interchange freight. This was the ancestor of the surviving floats run today on a much smaller scale by New York New Jersey Rail.
 #1513574  by Backshophoss
 
For the New Haven line under ConnDOT funding,PC,resignaled the entire line to New Haven,and started long overdue trackwork projects.
Some of this work allowed the Metroliners to wander east to New Haven for one or two RT's to Washington DC and let the GG-1's and E-60's
work as far as New Haven.
Not sure how much NECIP funding was used to bring the Hellgate line up to standard,or how much funding was handed to ConnDOT/PC/CR
for needed New Haven line upgrades. (The overlooked,but needed center platform at Stamford for starters)
 #1513633  by ThirdRail7
 
Backshophoss wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:24 am For the New Haven line under ConnDOT funding,PC,resignaled the entire line to New Haven,and started long overdue trackwork projects.
Some of this work allowed the Metroliners to wander east to New Haven for one or two RT's to Washington DC and let the GG-1's and E-60's
work as far as New Haven.
Not sure how much NECIP funding was used to bring the Hellgate line up to standard,or how much funding was handed to ConnDOT/PC/CR
for needed New Haven line upgrades. (The overlooked,but needed center platform at Stamford for starters)
It seems to the center platform at STM didn't occur until the early 2000s.
 #1513644  by gokeefe
 
TomNelligan wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:40 pmThat never happened except for some special movements during World War I. Passenger train interference wouldn't have been a problem at 2 AM but there were still the tunnel's stiff grades and limited clearances.
Greatly appreciate the clarification. So under PC and early Amtrak what was the primary freight routing for northbound traffic (assuming it was going to run through). Did it all go to the car float?
 #1513645  by mtuandrew
 
Mostly via Selkirk, I believe. It appears that Poughkeepsie stopped being a preferred interchange point fairly early in the PC days, even before the fire. (Why would PC short-haul itself from New Jersey?) I don’t know for certain but it seems like only Long Island-bound freight really goes by the car float.
 #1513651  by TomNelligan
 
Penn Central ended the Greenville-Bay Ridge interchange of traffic bound for the former New Haven within a few months of the 1/1/69 takeover and ended the Bay Ridge carfloat operation at that time. I stopped by Bay Ridge in July 1969 and that once-busy yard was basically abandoned. Within a short time the Maybrook gateway was also significantly downgraded as well, except for EL and "Alphabet Route" traffic via the Lehigh & Hudson River to or from the CNJ or Reading. PC's goal was to reroute ex-NH traffic via the then-modern yard at Selkirk and the B&A, and to that end by the spring of 1969 it had inaugurated Selkirk-New Haven, Selkirk-Providence, and Selkirk-South Boston (to/from the ex-NH yard, not the B&A's Beacon Park) through freights to carry traffic bound from both ex-PRR and ex-NYC territory. PC also dropped cars off the B&A at Pittsfield, Worcester and Framingham for ex-NH customers in those areas. At some point around this time PC also began running freights between Selkirk and the ex-NH Oak Point yard in the Bronx to handle traffic from the south and west headed for former NH customers in and around New York City. Those trains continue today under CSX.
 #1513655  by Backshophoss
 
PC was never fond of Maybrook as a major Interchange,the bridge fire finished off Maybrook as an interchange,that in turn
Made L&HR become part of CR years later,along with EL.
PC routed most LIRR freight via Selkirk,maybe 1/10 or less of LI bound freight floated to Bay Ridge to LIRR or SBK(NYCTA)
There were clearance problems on the Port Morris branch that made it hard to get cars larger than plate C to the Island.
There was a restriction of Plate C cars on Devon Ct to LIRR Fresh Pond via the New Haven line routing.