• All things Harrisburg (Keystone) Line

  • 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

  • 1205 posts
  • 1
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  by alewifebp
 
SEPTA running the entire Keystone would be a terrible idea. There's a reason it's called SEPTIC.

But you know, a Brightline style service would certainly be an interesting proposition. More luxury stations and services is intriguing to a lot of people. I know a lot of people that would take an Acela, but would never be caught dead in an Amfleet. These are people used to riding in modern airplanes with working WiFi, first class and business class services, lounges, etc. Make them want to take the train, instead of doing it just because it's somewhat convenient.
  by Suburban Station
 
does smucker ride the train?

political speculation: with biden winning, this seems like worse timing than ever since if there were ever a time Amtrak would have the resources to maintain infrastructure it will be the next four years.
  by Backshophoss
 
Good luck getting Amtrak keeping some Acela I's for H-burg service
  by Suburban Station
 
just a reminder, this is what smucker is signing the harrisburg line up for https://fusion.inquirer.com/transportat ... 00819.html
he seems to be under some spell that there's a magic pot of money that Amtrak will pay SEPTA or Pennsylvania but the reality those will become Host RR expenses which have to be 100% covered by the state.
  by urr304
 
I do not know if it was mentioned but the line from Philadelphia to Lancaster once was owned by the Commonwealth as part of the Main Line of Public Works, a 170 years ago.
  by ExCon90
 
... or that the term Main Line, denoting the suburban territory between Overbrook and Paoli, goes back to the Main Line of Public Works before it became the PRR.
  by amtrakhogger
 
They will finish converting the line to 562 and (most likely) see the closure of Thorn, Paoli , and Overbrook Towers.
  by STrRedWolf
 
amtrakhogger wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:14 am They will finish converting the line to 562 and (most likely) see the closure of Thorn, Paoli , and Overbrook Towers.
A side note (I really should pop some space for these terms)... 562 signaling? Fiber optics to relay the signals?
  by ExCon90
 
amtrakhogger wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:14 am They will finish converting the line to 562 and (most likely) see the closure of Thorn, Paoli , and Overbrook Towers.
Does that include removing Bryn Mawr interlocking in favor of crossovers east and west of Villanova (VILLA and NOVA?), or is that a separate project?
  by RRspatch
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:11 pm
amtrakhogger wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:14 am They will finish converting the line to 562 and (most likely) see the closure of Thorn, Paoli , and Overbrook Towers.
A side note (I really should pop some space for these terms)... 562 signaling? Fiber optics to relay the signals?
The official rule 562 for the NORAC book -

"NORAC Rule 562(a) Interlocking and controlled point signal indications will govern movement within interlocking limits or through controlled points only. Distant signals, where in service, will govern approach to home signals. Between fixed signals, movement will be governed by cab signals.Oct 17, 2016"

Translation - All wayside signals are removed EXCEPT Interlocking/Control Point signals and distant signals approaching interlockings. Between Interlockings/Control Points trains operate on Cab Signals only with NO wayside signals. Trains that experience Cab Signal failure must run absolute block ahead. The dispatcher lights a "C" signal for such a move once it's known the block to the next interlocking/control point is clear.

The whole purpose of this is to remove wayside (aka: "automatic") signals and cut maintenance costs.

Interestingly enough when I Googled "NORAC rule 562" I found the following thread -

viewtopic.php?t=91071
  by hxa
 
A few diagrams taken from Amtrak's BSAP request posted on https://www.regulations.gov .
Amtrak_BSAP_request_Nov2018_页面_04.jpg
Amtrak_BSAP_request_Nov2018_页面_05.jpg
Amtrak_BSAP_request_Nov2018_页面_06.jpg
Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0101-0001

What they want to do is to remove all wayside signals, replace track relays, hardwired cab signal / traffic direction circuits / poles lines (no more delays caused by trees falling on pole lines) with electronics (genrakode) and split a long block with cut-sections into smaller ones (improved capacity) while reusing existing insulation joints between interlockings.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  by STrRedWolf
 
RRspatch wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:52 am The official rule 562 for the NORAC book -

"NORAC Rule 562(a) Interlocking and controlled point signal indications will govern movement within interlocking limits or through controlled points only. Distant signals, where in service, will govern approach to home signals. Between fixed signals, movement will be governed by cab signals.Oct 17, 2016"

Translation - All wayside signals are removed EXCEPT Interlocking/Control Point signals and distant signals approaching interlockings. Between Interlockings/Control Points trains operate on Cab Signals only with NO wayside signals. Trains that experience Cab Signal failure must run absolute block ahead. The dispatcher lights a "C" signal for such a move once it's known the block to the next interlocking/control point is clear.

The whole purpose of this is to remove wayside (aka: "automatic") signals and cut maintenance costs.
hxa wrote: What they want to do is to remove all wayside signals, replace track relays, hardwired cab signal / traffic direction circuits / poles lines (no more delays caused by trees falling on pole lines) with electronics (genrakode) and split a long block with cut-sections into smaller ones (improved capacity) while reusing existing insulation joints between interlockings.
Ahhh. Okay. That does make sense... although this reminds me of one downside.

A few years ago on the NEC, the signals completely died between Baltimore and Odenton (CHARLES and GROVE, or maybe WINANS). No signal power. Trains were delayed massively as they ended up with a 15 MPH speed limit though the area, stopping at each overhead block signal to get approval. It added nearly an hour to a 30 minute ride home from work. And if I remember correctly, this is 562 territory.

So I'm generally for it given intelligent block design.
  by hxa
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:08 am A few years ago on the NEC, the signals completely died between Baltimore and Odenton (CHARLES and GROVE, or maybe WINANS). No signal power. Trains were delayed massively as they ended up with a 15 MPH speed limit though the area, stopping at each overhead block signal to get approval. It added nearly an hour to a 30 minute ride home from work. And if I remember correctly, this is 562 territory.

So I'm generally for it given intelligent block design.
The line between CHARLES and GROVE was still a 261 territory by 2016 according to the employee timetable posted on https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59999/59509/599688.pdf . The 562 territory has been slowly extending from DE/MD border to the south (BACON to Prince, OAK to BUSH to WOOD), and is highly unlikely to reach Baltimore in a year or two.
  • 1
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81