Why is NEC NYP to New Haven so slow?

I've seen the Amtrak pie-in-the-sky proposal to have a HSR line from Penn Station through much of Long Island, and then crossing the sound into CT, and then up to Boston. That'll never happen, but surely the Western Hemisphere's busiest passenger rail line can do better than this? If we had a thinking government (we don't, I know), Stamford-NYC would be at 125 mph standards at least, given the slews of Amtrak and MNR trains that run express on that portion of the route.

It burns me up that the massive stimulus under Obama could have been put to good use for projects such as this, but instead it was largely frittered away.

125 MPH on the New Haven Line? Never. The density on the corridor contours to Long Island Sound, so the geometry of the route is what it is and the service layers filling up all 4 tracks are what they are. That's where the big downtown stations are, and that's where the people need to go. In the balancing act between perfect geometry, perfect capacity, and perfect demand served...this is one of the rare cases where the scale tilts so far in favor of demand served that you leave too much on the table pulling the corridor away from the shore and the downtowns trying to speed it up with straightening. And by virtue of being abutted by wall-to-wall density the destructiveness of trying to 6-track it is worst of all worlds, so Amtrak can't have a dedicated set of high-speed tracks apart from the MNRR skip-stop expresses they currently have to share the center tracks with.

The density's a feature, not a bug. Speeding up the NEC is going to mean running up the score on raw speeds in the places where the density ain't, then running on full state-of-repair infrastructure in the places where the density is so they can coast through without excessive attrition from schedule padding. But it's incorrect that there's anything not first-world about the corridor's characteristics in Fairfield & New Haven Counties. First-world HSR is going to strive to go where the people are. If the New Haven Line were managed like a mainland European trunk, the balance of speed vs. density in a constrained area would probably be much the same...because that's simply the unimprovable ideal balance. It wouldn't be a 125 MPH corridor through-and-through. That's not where we're falling short. The one key difference is that the Euros would maintain it to full state-of-repair and not have so much uncertainty padding larded into all schedules to overcompensate for dispatching across such thoroughly decayed physical plant. Full SGR would be a dramatic difference in fortunes for all schedules...but raw MAS isn't the reason why.

johnpbarlow wrote:So if a public(NYC/MTA)/private investment put up beaucoup $ to build a 10-15 mile bridge/tunnel carrying road and rail from Old Saybrook area to Greenport and erect catenary and extra track where needed on the LIRR's relatively straight Main Line west to Jamaica/NYP, a bunch of slow curves / drawbridges would be avoided (and a lot of New England to LI auto traffic would be removed from I-95 and the Throg's Neck Bridge). Plus Long Island's 7.75M people would have single seat access to New England and Philadelphia/DC. But I'm dreaming...

JB and Everyone:

The proposed NEC route across Long Island will never be built on account of extreme cost and
the potential of strong NIMBY opposition. As much of a transport improvement a bridge/tunnel
across Long Island Sound would be NIMBYs would go crazy at the thought of a megaproject of
this magnitude from the North Fork westward into Nassau County. It is hard enough to get the
sorely-needed 10 mile stretch of third LIRR Main Line track constructed between Floral Park and
Hicksville let alone the new construction and additions that would be necessary to add new NEC
routings across Nassau County and then across central Suffolk County eastward without any
possibility of opposition depending on the route chosen and inconveniences during construction...

Let's improve service on the CT Shore Line through NHV as much as we can first before we even
think of expensive new routings. This will more then likely be the easiest option for better NEC
train service for the foreseeable future...

MACTRAXX

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:125

The one key difference is that the Euros would maintain it to full state-of-repair and not have so much uncertainty padding larded into all schedules to overcompensate for dispatching across such thoroughly decayed physical plant. Full SGR would be a dramatic difference in fortunes for all schedules...but raw MAS isn't the reason why.

Yes get rid of all the slow sections to an 80 MPH standard. That would decrease New Rochelle <> New Haven to under 1:00 instead of regional times of 1:10 - 1:25 regional times. All bridges of course to have no speed restrictions and a fly over at New Rochelle onto Hell Gate line..

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:125 MPH on the New Haven Line? Never. The density on the corridor contours to Long Island Sound, so the geometry of the route is what it is and the service layers filling up all 4 tracks are what they are. That's where the big downtown stations are, and that's where the people need to go. In the balancing act between perfect geometry, perfect capacity, and perfect demand served...this is one of the rare cases where the scale tilts so far in favor of demand served that you leave too much on the table pulling the corridor away from the shore and the downtowns trying to speed it up with straightening. And by virtue of being abutted by wall-to-wall density the destructiveness of trying to 6-track it is worst of all worlds, so Amtrak can't have a dedicated set of high-speed tracks apart from the MNRR skip-stop expresses they currently have to share the center tracks with.

The density's a feature, not a bug. Speeding up the NEC is going to mean running up the score on raw speeds in the places where the density ain't, then running on full state-of-repair infrastructure in the places where the density is so they can coast through without excessive attrition from schedule padding. But it's incorrect that there's anything not first-world about the corridor's characteristics in Fairfield & New Haven Counties. First-world HSR is going to strive to go where the people are. If the New Haven Line were managed like a mainland European trunk, the balance of speed vs. density in a constrained area would probably be much the same...because that's simply the unimprovable ideal balance. It wouldn't be a 125 MPH corridor through-and-through. That's not where we're falling short. The one key difference is that the Euros would maintain it to full state-of-repair and not have so much uncertainty padding larded into all schedules to overcompensate for dispatching across such thoroughly decayed physical plant. Full SGR would be a dramatic difference in fortunes for all schedules...but raw MAS isn't the reason why.

Considering that the last time the NEC could be considered to be in 'good repair' was before WW II - there is a whole lot of deferred maintenance to be caught up since it has been treated as a red headed step child for the past 76 years.

deathtopumpkins wrote:Sorry Mr Norman, but you are incorrect on this one. The CT Turnpike tolls were most definitely removed because of "safety concerns" after that horrific crash.

Mr. Pumpkins, this linked material would suggest that the 1983 Stratford incident was A reason for repeal of tolls and removal of the collection facilities, but not the SOLE reason. I wholly agree than when a toll highway ceases to be such, safety and efficiency suggest it best to remove the facilities. GA400 in the Atlanta area comes to mind:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Turnpike" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pertinent Fair Use:

..After a 1983 truck crash that killed seven people at the Stratford toll plaza, toll opponents pressured the State of Connecticut to remove tolls from the Turnpike in 1985. Three years later, these same opponents successfully lobbied the Connecticut General Assembly to pass legislation abolishing tolls on all of Connecticut's highways (with the exception of two car ferries across the Connecticut River in Chester and Glastonbury). While the 1983 Stratford accident was cited as the main reason for abolishing tolls in Connecticut, the underlying reason was that federal legislation at that time forbade states with toll roads from using federal funds for road projects. Because the Mianus River Bridge was rebuilt with federal highway funds following its June 1983 collapse, Connecticut was required by Section 113(c) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 to remove tolls from the Turnpike once its construction bonds were paid off.

Just a "hunch", but I have to wonder if the toll gates' locations were set, uh shall we say, "politically". For example, when I lived out there, one could drive from Arch Street in Greenwich to East.Avenue in Norwalk toll free. I'm sure such was a factor in "making the natives restless", and last time I checked, we still are a one man one vote democracy.

Besides, Connecticut was "fat" ($) back in those days.

Finally, I appreciate the leeway extended by the moderators allowing this highway related discussion. Material presented here regarding I-95 certainly relates to the efficient movement of commerce through this densely populated, highly affluent, region.

The I-95 Connecticut Turnpike is so close to the NorthEast Corridor that it may be subject to similar problems with its original location and geometry, and corrections to them.
Did the Fairfield Navy have any opinions or effects on the constructions of either?

Mr. Boylan, having been a Fairfield Navy Cadet during the era the Turnpike was built, they definitely had say in the MHW clearances of the fixed bridges.

Regarding bridges, now that three-some (Connecticut , Niantic, Thames) have been replaced "in-kind", i.e
movable, I must wonder to what extent consideration was given to fixed bridges over this high-frequency, predominately passenger, line.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Boylan, having been a Fairfield Navy Cadet during the era the Turnpike was built, they definitely had say in the MHW clearances of the fixed bridges.

Regarding bridges, now that three-some (Connecticut , Niantic, Thames) have been replaced "in-kind", i.e
movable, I must wonder to what extent consideration was given to fixed bridges over this high-frequency, predominately passenger, line.

The problem with fixed bridges is how high to build them, and what would be the acceptable grade for the trains.
What's the minimum clearance required over navigable waterways in CT? The latest FEIS for the CT River replacement suggested 90 feet for sailboats. The FEIS considered grades of 1.5% and 1.9% undesirable quickly because of the approach lengths. To gain 90 feet in elevation at 1%, the approach needs to be 9,000 feet in both directions, making the bridge at least 18,000 feet long; at 2% grade the length would be half that. Freight railroads would prefer to keep grades at 1% or less, so they didn't even fight hard for the 1.5% grade option. That's why another new moveable bridge was chosen.
FEIS, where the considerations are listed and graded, can be found on the internet. Here's the FEIS for the CT River -
https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L05239" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

keep in mind if solid bridge with approaches were to be build it would cause problems and a lot of additional cost for stations like Cos cob - Riverside.
South Norwalk - East Norwalk, Westport

and it would not even consider headache of roads overhead at Cos cob.

It may be the decision of fixed bridges or movable bridges is the number of openings. Also the movable bridges listed have been raised slightly to lower number of boats that have to open for, Sailboats are the prime problems for number of openings.

Stumbled over this January 1955 New Haven freight/passenger train density map published by Trains Magazine in March of 2010.

http://trn.trains.com/~/media/import/fi ... ic-map.pdf

Estimated Monday - Friday daily train count comparisons 1955 v. today:

Freights between New Haven and Devon
January 1955: ~40 ****
April 2017: ~4?

Freights between Devon and Shell
January 1955: ~26 ****
April 2017: ~2?

Passenger trains between NH and Stamford
January 1955: ~100-120
April 2017: ~140

Passenger trains between Stamford** and Shell
January 1955: ~220***
April 2017: ~290

Total F+P Trains: Devon/Stamford-NH
January 1955: ~140-160
April 2017: ~144

Total F+P Trains: Shell-Devon/Stamford
January 1955: ~246
April 2017: ~292?

* Monday-Friday train counts from April 2017 MN New Haven line timetable
** Some trains originate at New Canaan/Bridgeport
*** 16 New Haven RR passenger trains operated Shell-Penn Station and and 26 freights operated Shell-Oak Point/Harlem River/Bay Ridge
**** Average NH freight train car count = 70 +/- cars

Net: only the Shell-Stamford/Devon segment sees a significant train count increase from 1955 to 2017 (~20%). This is my best estimate - please critique!

This map doesn't account for when these moves occur; I imagine that many of the freight movements occur at off-hours, but almost all the passenger ones occur during daytime.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I think this inquiry is on-topic here, but I must wonder when COB (I think that is correct PC-ese; the New Haven was simply numbers), or the Mianus River bridge, is on the wish list to be replaced?

Talk about "sport", that will be it. Lest we forget, the half-hour frequency Stamford Local is unaffected by Norwalk.

I wonder what kind of bridge someone has in mind. If a lift bridge as in Norwalk, I can hear the Riverside NIMBYS, either along Club Road or at the Club itself, wailing about how unsightly such would be. Maybe the existing Bascule with underside counterweights will be replaced.

Finally, and I can think of pro and con, how about a fixed bridge with 70' MHW clearance like the Morano (95) has?

Yes, I know I'm addressing CDOT owned facilities, but then, how about the 40 some Amtrak Daily movements?

Not 100% sure about the NIMBY's on this one. If replacing the bascule with a lift span were to be combined with removal/replacement of the towers carrying the high voltage lines across the river, you might get a more favorable reaction than you think. After all, a decent number of the Club Road set either commute into the city on MN or keep boats upstream of the bridge-- they know the issues with it.

the two towers currently there are not part of bridge movable span, not sure if they will be removed as part overall design.
just because they are not there in artist rendering means very little.