MARC Bayview Station

[TheOneKEA]

While Googling for upcoming MARC capital projects a while back, I stumbled across http://www.baltometro.org/downloadables ... .11.15.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, which talks about the planning budget for the station and has a low-resolution diagram of the station platforms and parking. I also found http://www.baltimoreredline.com/images/ ... 2%2017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which has similar information.

Are there any newer materials available which show the station platforms in greater detail? I'm interested to know if the platforms will be positioned so that MARC trains can use the southern pair of tracks through Bayview Yard and allow Amtrak trains to use the northern pair. It's not clear from the diagrams where exactly the platforms will be positioned.

[ThirdRail7]

While Googling for upcoming MARC capital projects a while back, I stumbled across http://www.baltometro.org/downloadables ... .11.15.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, which talks about the planning budget for the station and has a low-resolution diagram of the station platforms and parking. I also found http://www.baltimoreredline.com/images/ ... 2%2017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which has similar information.

Are there any newer materials available which show the station platforms in greater detail? I'm interested to know if the platforms will be positioned so that MARC trains can use the southern pair of tracks through Bayview Yard and allow Amtrak trains to use the northern pair. It's not clear from the diagrams where exactly the platforms will be positioned.

The Long Range NEC Track Configuration (1998-2015) called for the East Baltimore Station at Bayview to have high level platforms between 1 and A track and a high level platform serving 3 track. 2 track would not have a platform. Canton interlocking to the south would be restored as a left handed interlocking to access the station.

[TheOneKEA]

While Googling for upcoming MARC capital projects a while back, I stumbled across http://www.baltometro.org/downloadables ... .11.15.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, which talks about the planning budget for the station and has a low-resolution diagram of the station platforms and parking. I also found http://www.baltimoreredline.com/images/ ... 2%2017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which has similar information.

Are there any newer materials available which show the station platforms in greater detail? I'm interested to know if the platforms will be positioned so that MARC trains can use the southern pair of tracks through Bayview Yard and allow Amtrak trains to use the northern pair. It's not clear from the diagrams where exactly the platforms will be positioned.

The Long Range NEC Track Configuration (1998-2015) called for the East Baltimore Station at Bayview to have high level platforms between 1 and A track and a high level platform serving 3 track. 2 track would not have a platform. Canton interlocking to the south would be restored as a left handed interlocking to access the station.

That's good to know! Would there be any passive provision for a Track 4 around the back of the platform serving Track 3? If not then it sounds rather limiting for future expansion.

How much work would Canton interlocking need? Would it be a restoration of previous capability or would the entire interlocking need to be rebuilt or replaced?

[gprimr1]

More crap they are going to build only to have the B&P tunnels fall down.

I hate to say it, and it's a fine idea for a MARC station, but priorities.

[TheOneKEA]

More crap they are going to build only to have the B&P tunnels fall down.

I hate to say it, and it's a fine idea for a MARC station, but priorities.

I haven't read a lot of the public documentation on the MTA budget, but nothing I've read so far suggests that an MTA funding contribution to Amtrak's budget for replacing and refurbishing the B&P Tunnel would be at risk if this station was budgeted for final design and construction. The PDFs I linked said that the Bayview Station is expected to be open in 2018 while the B&P Tunnel website suggests that the tunnel replacement won't begin until after that year. Is it really a case of one or the other right now?

[ThirdRail7]

While Googling for upcoming MARC capital projects a while back, I stumbled across http://www.baltometro.org/downloadables ... .11.15.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, which talks about the planning budget for the station and has a low-resolution diagram of the station platforms and parking. I also found http://www.baltimoreredline.com/images/ ... 2%2017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which has similar information.

Are there any newer materials available which show the station platforms in greater detail? I'm interested to know if the platforms will be positioned so that MARC trains can use the southern pair of tracks through Bayview Yard and allow Amtrak trains to use the northern pair. It's not clear from the diagrams where exactly the platforms will be positioned.

The Long Range NEC Track Configuration (1998-2015) called for the East Baltimore Station at Bayview to have high level platforms between 1 and A track and a high level platform serving 3 track. 2 track would not have a platform. Canton interlocking to the south would be restored as a left handed interlocking to access the station.

That's good to know! Would there be any passive provision for a Track 4 around the back of the platform serving Track 3? If not then it sounds rather limiting for future expansion.

How much work would Canton interlocking need? Would it be a restoration of previous capability or would the entire interlocking need to be rebuilt or replaced?

There is no provision for a track adjacent to 3. There is a provision for a possible track adjacent to "A" to aid the freights since they would lose "A' as a viable route. As for Canton, it was completely removed when they closed the engine house at Bay and the industrial tracks were removed. Therefore, you'd have to replace the interlocking in its entirety. By the way, it is designed as a right handed interlocking, not a left handed interlocking.

More crap they are going to build only to have the B&P tunnels fall down.

I hate to say it, and it's a fine idea for a MARC station, but priorities.

I haven't read a lot of the public documentation on the MTA budget, but nothing I've read so far suggests that an MTA funding contribution to Amtrak's budget for replacing and refurbishing the B&P Tunnel would be at risk if this station was budgeted for final design and construction. The PDFs I linked said that the Bayview Station is expected to be open in 2018 while the B&P Tunnel website suggests that the tunnel replacement won't begin until after that year. Is it really a case of one or the other right now?

Even if they didn't have money for the tunnels, should everything wait for the tunnel replacements? Should all work and other upgrades just come to an end until some mythical figure appears with funding?

[gprimr1]

Even if they didn't have money for the tunnels, should everything wait for the tunnel replacements? Should all work and other upgrades just come to an end until some mythical figure appears with funding?

Yes. I bet if you take the money from all those projects, you'd have at least a decent portion of the money needed.

[ThirdRail7]

Even if they didn't have money for the tunnels, should everything wait for the tunnel replacements? Should all work and other upgrades just come to an end until some mythical figure appears with funding?

Yes. I bet if you take the money from all those projects, you'd have at least a decent portion of the money needed.

You may have a decent portion, but you wouldn't have anywhere what you'd actually need.

In the meantime, you'd have less MARC service (particularly since no one would have paid for the Martins upgrades and B-more is out of room and under siege from the neighbors), remanufactured freight diesels that are on their last leg, HAE,ODN and BWE would still have low level platforms, EGE wouldn't have been rebuilt, 1 track would still have wood ties and be restricted to 80mph between Carroll and Grove (MD chipped in), Wedge Yard wouldn't exist and 5 track in BAL wouldn't be available for MARC service.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Want to give NJT back the double deckers too?

[TheOneKEA]

Even if they didn't have money for the tunnels, should everything wait for the tunnel replacements? Should all work and other upgrades just come to an end until some mythical figure appears with funding?

Yes. I bet if you take the money from all those projects, you'd have at least a decent portion of the money needed.

You may have a decent portion, but you wouldn't have anywhere what you'd actually need.

In the meantime, you'd have less MARC service (particularly since no one would have paid for the Martins upgrades and B-more is out of room and under siege from the neighbors), remanufactured freight diesels that are on their last leg, HAE,ODN and BWE would still have low level platforms, EGE wouldn't have been rebuilt, 1 track would still have wood ties and be restricted to 80mph between Carroll and Grove (MD chipped in), Wedge Yard wouldn't exist and 5 track in BAL wouldn't be available for MARC service.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Want to give NJT back the double deckers too?

Don't forget the lack of Penn Line weekend services. That would likely be missing if the funding was reserved for the tunnel replacement.

[gprimr1]

If you don't have a tunnel you don't have any MARC service on the Penn Line, period.

[TheOneKEA]

If you don't have a tunnel you don't have any MARC service on the Penn Line, period.

Obviously. But I still don't perceive this to be an either-or situation. Amtrak (and maybe NS) is just as responsible for replacing the B&P Tunnel; doing so can and should be shared effort, financially.

I just hope that the tunnel doesn't suddenly become terminal and disrupt the MTA's entire funding schedule.