NEC All Station Stop Service

[east point]

I remain convinced, looking back at my CETC1 and CETC2 dispatching days, that Amtrak told MARC to continue using electrics on the Penn line. If MARC went all diesel, which I think was their original plan, Amtrak would have forced them to lengthen schedules (more trainsets/crews) or perhaps even cut service to avoid delays to Amtrak trains. Why else would MARC order new Charger diesels and then turn around and rebuild the HHP's?

The biggest bottle neck right now is between Baltimore and New Carrollton. A fourth track is needed between Winans and Carroll/Hanson with Amtrak on the two center tracks and MARC on the two outer tracks. I've heard of proposals to run ACELA's on half hour frequencies once the new train sets are all in service. Remembering my CETC1 days I can't wait to see how well this works out between Washington and Baltimore.

Your point of view is very enlightening. Have often proposed that the whole line needs 4 tracks. There have been statements that this section of track carries more passengers than even WW-2. You may not get MARC delay reports but when you do you will find most days there are 2 = 3 delays to MARC every day waiting for an Amtrak train. Most of the delays to Marc are out of WASH but a few south out of Baltimore. Marc trains already need to be longer on the Penn line due to overcrowding. But Marc has not purchased enough passenger cars. Marc often issues notices that such and such train will be short 1 or 2 cars. Also longer Penn line trains will result that those train would be over long for the other 2 routes out of WASH.

At one time thought to just add another diesel to Marc trains but that does not seem to be a great enough resolve. Even using electrics Marc locals need to have faster acceleration than Amtrak to prevent delaying a following limited stop train.

[STrRedWolf]

I still think that putting two MP36s on the front of the heavy five-car and six-car Penn Line trains, instead of one SC-44, HHP-8 or ACS-64, is highly suspect, and would love to be convinced otherwise. I also think the nine-car train will eventually begin appearing regularly on the weekend services. I for one will be very interested to see how MARC adapts its rostering as Amtrak services expand.

Putting two MP36's on a train is because the MP36's are by comparison weak in terms of power. It can pull four single-level MARC II passenger cars, but the MARC III and IV double-levels? It's gotta double up. Getting the SC-44's to replace the AEM-7's was a win-win for MARC (as they were by comparison CHEAP and POWERFUL). I wish they got more (or can I say MOAAAAAAR?).

Your point of view is very enlightening. Have often proposed that the whole line needs 4 tracks. There have been statements that this section of track carries more passengers than even WW-2. You may not get MARC delay reports but when you do you will find most days there are 2 = 3 delays to MARC every day waiting for an Amtrak train. Most of the delays to Marc are out of WASH but a few south out of Baltimore. Marc trains already need to be longer on the Penn line due to overcrowding. But Marc has not purchased enough passenger cars. Marc often issues notices that such and such train will be short 1 or 2 cars. Also longer Penn line trains will result that those train would be over long for the other 2 routes out of WASH.

At one time thought to just add another diesel to Marc trains but that does not seem to be a great enough resolve. Even using electrics Marc locals need to have faster acceleration than Amtrak to prevent delaying a following limited stop train.

There's a few things to note here. Yes, MARC will issue an email alert if one of their trains got delayed because of Amtrak not being on time and getting pushed aside. But on a normal day, you won't get that, nor an overcrowded notice. They will issue an advisory notice if a train is short for whatever reason... but if you dig through that day, it's almost always a train breaking down so bad that passengers on the broken train have to cram onto the next two trains and traffic gets routed around. (Don't get me started on delays due to "police activity.")

Besides, usually 1/2 cars short is on the Brunswick line.

[njtmnrrbuff]

On the NEC, the MARC station stops between Baltimore Penn Station and Washington, DC are a little more closer a part than the MARC stations that are north of Baltimore. When an MP36 by itself is pulling more than a four car single level set, the acceleration is just as weak as a single Genesis unit. I really hope that Maryland can get more Charger units for MARC. They would be great not just on the NEC, but all over the system. MARC's Charger units get around the system. I have seen plenty of them run on the Brunswick Line.

[RRspatch]

The only reason why MARC is rebuilding the HHP-8's is because Bombardier got the maintenance contract from MARC, thus able to get access to fix all the issues the hippos have.

I'm with you on the four tracks, but it needs to be straight-up WAS to BAL. Previous studies done by Amtrak and MARC together said so, with New Carrolton, Odenton, and BWI being stations that get express service. The first step is the 30 MPH MAS B&P Tunnels.

The reason I stopped at Carroll/Hanson is the problem as I see it of getting a 3rd and 4th track Between Carroll/Hanson and CP Avenue.

The first problem would be the CSXT (B&O) bridge at Cheverly. From what I remember from head-end rides some 25 years ago was that the opening under the bridge looked only wide enough for at most three tracks.

The next problem you run into is the swamp just south of the CSXT bridge. The tracks already flood during heavy rains and the EIS for a third or fourth track would take forever. Also part of all this mess is the Anacostia River which would require a new bridge.

Further south you have a fill through an industrial area that would have to be widened as well as quite a few under-grade bridges that would have to be dealt with.

And finally passing Ivy City you'd have to move the CSXT tracks for one or two additional NEC tracks. This would be problematical getting the relocated CSXT tracks to line up with the bridge over the Amtrak Ivy City lead tracks leading to "QN".

Having said all that I wouldn't see CP Avenue to Landover staying two tracks as a problem long as the railroad was four tracks north of New Carrollton. Southbound No.4 track would end at Carroll with MARC tracks falling in behind Amtrak. Northbound No.1 track would begin at Hanson. I've already seen pictures on Facebook showing what looks to be a No.32 turnout from No.2 track to No.1 track at Hanson.

I really need to get back east and ride Washington to Trenton (Baltimore/Philadelphia/Mid Atlantic divisions) and have a look at the line again.

Remembering my Landover tower/CETC1 days ...

[TheOneKEA]

I recall seeing some unused bridge spans in the District on the Magruder Branch, east of the divergence between it and the Capital Sub. Were they for sidings or for passing loops? Could they be reused in some way to expand track capacity outside the WTC boundary?

[RRspatch]

I recall seeing some unused bridge spans in the District on the Magruder Branch, east of the divergence between it and the Capital Sub. Were they for sidings or for passing loops? Could they be reused in some way to expand track capacity outside the WTC boundary?

What you're looking at is the old un-used spur that served the Hecht company (old long gone DC area department store) warehouse. This spur used a bridge over New York avenue just to the north of Ivy City.

While there is an un-used track way over Bladensburg Road, you're pretty much hemmed in by warehouses and other buildings south of where US50/New York avenue goes over the tracks.

[STrRedWolf]

The reason I stopped at Carroll/Hanson is the problem as I see it of getting a 3rd and 4th track Between Carroll/Hanson and CP Avenue.

The first problem would be the CSXT (B&O) bridge at Cheverly. From what I remember from head-end rides some 25 years ago was that the opening under the bridge looked only wide enough for at most three tracks.

MD 174's bridge needs to be reconstructed if we extend 4 track service WINNANS to GROVE. Nothing new there. This CSXT bridge will need the same treatment.

The next problem you run into is the swamp just south of the CSXT bridge. The tracks already flood during heavy rains and the EIS for a third or fourth track would take forever. Also part of all this mess is the Anacostia River which would require a new bridge.

Further south you have a fill through an industrial area that would have to be widened as well as quite a few under-grade bridges that would have to be dealt with.

EIS will always take an age and a half to complete. Even the 4 track project around BWI Station is still stuck in that mess.

Most of the overpasses in the area look like they need to shift and split one track around the piers. ALT-US 1 will need a new bridge as well.

And finally passing Ivy City you'd have to move the CSXT tracks for one or two additional NEC tracks. This would be problematical getting the relocated CSXT tracks to line up with the bridge over the Amtrak Ivy City lead tracks leading to "QN".

And there's the big problem -- QN Tower and F Tower. CSX owns those interlocks, and there's two tracks that curve around to connect them that CSX owns. Mucking with them is a big loss for CSX, so they really can't be touched (maybe relocated, but that's it).

Okay, crazy idea here. Tunnel from before Montana Avenue to the MARC/VRE/Amtrak yards south of Ivy City but before K Tower. Amtrak and MARC Express go through the tunnel. Local service on both Penn and Camden stay above, and optionally for fun a fly-over bridge for Camden line trains northbound from the northbound track 1.

Having said all that I wouldn't see CP Avenue to Landover staying two tracks as a problem long as the railroad was four tracks north of New Carrollton. Southbound No.4 track would end at Carroll with MARC tracks falling in behind Amtrak. Northbound No.1 track would begin at Hanson. I've already seen pictures on Facebook showing what looks to be a No.32 turnout from No.2 track to No.1 track at Hanson.

Actually, I do see a problem here keeping it two tracked -- when trains break down. Then it's effectively single-tracked and it's down to 6 trains an hour total. DC doesn't have time for that, and you might as well make New Carrolton be another Manhattan Transfer.